The surge

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 14 Jan 2007 11:09:24
From: Robert Chung
Subject: The surge

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png

Date: 21 Jan 2007 20:39:15
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The surge

ST wrote:
> "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> > amit.ghosh@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Donald Munro wrote:
>
> >>> I would assume Cheney is in charge of the Ministry of Truth, but who gets
> >>> the Ministry of Love ?
> >>
> >> karl rove.
> >
> > k Foley.
>
> If he was a Democrat you would all be screaming "He did nothing wrong! They
> were all over 18! It was just a conversation You are just a Homophobe!"

Defensive much?

But, he wasn't a Democrat, so that is irrelevant. However, if he was
a Democrat, I expect a DoJ investigation of him would be further
along. For the record, I think k Foley may not have done anything
criminal, but he did do several things that were wrong, like morally
wrong. (The people who may have covered for him are another story.)
If I got caught sending those IMs to over-18 students at the university
where I work, I might not get prosecuted, but I would near-certainly
get fired.

Also, did you read any of that stuff? Apart from being pathetic and
funny in an awful way, it was Super Icky. I am not a Homophobe,
but I am an Ickophobe.

Really, there are some people you don't have to bother defending.
You don't see me out there taking bullets for Ward Churchill - just
because right-wingers want to destroy him doesn't absolve him
of the duty not to be an idiot. k Foley also failed in the duty
not to be an idiot, and he was an elected public servant.

Ben

Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:04:37
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The surge

In article <1169440755.129558.60970@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:

> Really, there are some people you don't have to bother defending.
> You don't see me out there taking bullets for Ward Churchill - just
> because right-wingers want to destroy him doesn't absolve him
> of the duty not to be an idiot. k Foley also failed in the duty
> not to be an idiot, and he was an elected public servant.

As long as Stevie's playing the "if a Dem did it!!!" game, I should point out
that no Dem or liberal is saying that Foley represents the right or GOP but a lot
(majority?) of right-wingers seem to have no problem painting Churchill as a leader
and spokesman of the left. And that shit Foley was sending was very cringe-worthy.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 23 Jan 2007 04:21:31
From: ST
Subject: Re: The surge

On 1/21/07 10:04 PM, in article
YOURhoward-54DD39.22043721012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> In article <1169440755.129558.60970@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>
>> Really, there are some people you don't have to bother defending.
>> You don't see me out there taking bullets for Ward Churchill - just
>> because right-wingers want to destroy him doesn't absolve him
>> of the duty not to be an idiot. k Foley also failed in the duty
>> not to be an idiot, and he was an elected public servant.
>
> As long as Stevie's playing the "if a Dem did it!!!" game, I should point out
> that no Dem or liberal is saying that Foley represents the right or GOP but a
> lot
> (majority?) of right-wingers seem to have no problem painting Churchill as a
> leader
> and spokesman of the left. And that shit Foley was sending was very
> cringe-worthy.

Worse than Barney Frank and his gay prostitute business in his apartment??
Why............ He is still serving in Washington DC isn't he?

Date: 22 Jan 2007 22:33:05
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The surge

In article <C1DACD48.200251%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> On 1/21/07 10:04 PM, in article
> YOURhoward-54DD39.22043721012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1169440755.129558.60970@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> > "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Really, there are some people you don't have to bother defending.
> >> You don't see me out there taking bullets for Ward Churchill - just
> >> because right-wingers want to destroy him doesn't absolve him
> >> of the duty not to be an idiot. k Foley also failed in the duty
> >> not to be an idiot, and he was an elected public servant.
> >
> > As long as Stevie's playing the "if a Dem did it!!!" game, I should point
> > out that no Dem or liberal is saying that Foley represents the right or GOP but
> > a lot (majority?) of right-wingers seem to have no problem painting Churchill as
> > a leader and spokesman of the left. And that shit Foley was sending was very
> > cringe-worthy.
>
> Worse than Barney Frank and his gay prostitute business in his apartment??
> Why............ He is still serving in Washington DC isn't he?

As a matter of fact he is. That you have the facts wrong on Frank isn't
surprising, though. He wasn't running a prostitution biz - the guy he hired and
become friends with was, and was doing it when Frank wasn't home. The Ethics
Committee found no evidence that Frank was involved and he was reprimanded by the
House. It was stupid of him to get involved with a hooker, no doubt. So if you're
trying to equate this with the Foley situation you missed by a lot. The Republican
leadership of the House sure looks to have buried Foley's problem and hoped they'd
get away with it.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 21 Jan 2007 20:52:47
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The surge

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

> Also, did you read any of that stuff? Apart from being pathetic and
> funny in an awful way, it was Super Icky. I am not a Homophobe,
> but I am an Ickophobe.

http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/10/01/i-like-steamroom/

Date: 21 Jan 2007 11:51:05
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The surge

amit.ghosh@gmail.com wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote:
> > Jeff Jones wrote:
> > > Shi'ite (sorry, couldn't resist), does that mean r.b.r. is actually the
> > > Brotherhood alluded to in 1984? Given that George Bush's Ministry of
> > > Truth and Ministry of Love are working overtime in Iraq, I think r.b.r
> > > needs to stand up for the proletariat. Long live the (synchronised, of
> > > course) revolution!
> >
> > I would assume Cheney is in charge of the Ministry of Truth, but who gets
> > the Ministry of Love ?
>
> karl rove.

k Foley.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 02:25:23
From: ST
Subject: Re: The surge

On 1/21/07 11:51 AM, in article
1169409065.409404.167820@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:

> amit.ghosh@gmail.com wrote:
>> Donald Munro wrote:
>>> Jeff Jones wrote:
>>>> Shi'ite (sorry, couldn't resist), does that mean r.b.r. is actually the
>>>> Brotherhood alluded to in 1984? Given that George Bush's Ministry of
>>>> Truth and Ministry of Love are working overtime in Iraq, I think r.b.r
>>>> needs to stand up for the proletariat. Long live the (synchronised, of
>>>> course) revolution!
>>>
>>> I would assume Cheney is in charge of the Ministry of Truth, but who gets
>>> the Ministry of Love ?
>>
>> karl rove.
>
> k Foley.
>

If he was a Democrat you would all be screaming "He did nothing wrong! They
were all over 18! It was just a conversation You are just a Homophobe!"

Date: 20 Jan 2007 13:59:52
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The surge

On Jan 20, 4:27 pm, "Jeff Jones" <drjone...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > In article <Xns98BA6371ECB1DFkldel...@130.133.1.4>,
> > William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > autocoprophagiasts
>
> > Also a first use in rbr. Two in one post - our vocabularies are expanding by the
> > day. Just like some waistlines (or is that wastelines?).Shi'ite (sorry, couldn't resist), does that mean r.b.r. is actually the
> Brotherhood alluded to in 1984? Given that George Bush's Ministry of
> Truth and Ministry of Love are working overtime in Iraq, I think r.b.r
> needs to stand up for the proletariat. Long live the (synchronised, of
> course) revolution!
>
> Comrade Jeff

Chavez is already doing that. He seems to have Hitler's elected to
dictatorship for Socialism down to a science, Gotta wonder when he adds
"National" to his socialist platform overtly.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/01/18/venezuela.chavez.ap/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070119/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_chavez_2

Just call him Hugo "Joseph Adolph" Chavez.
Bill C

Date: 18 Jan 2007 06:22:32
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The surge

On Jan 17, 11:26 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> Speaking of the finger of blame:
>
> http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&article...
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

My only problem with this, and I have it with 99% of the groups he's
citing on Sudan. They have almost all screamed bloody murder on
unilateral US actions, insisted that things be handled through the UN,
and the US work with everyone else before it does anything.
Now that the US government, for whatever reasons, has left this in the
hands of the UN and world community we see the result; not a damned
thing.
Let's take a look at the "leadership' displayed by the European
nations who are constantly screaming over human rights at the US. There
is none. How many troops have those nations that don't have troops in
Afghanistan and Iraq offered? None that I can see. France and Germany,
especially under Schroeder, were the first to scream bloody murder, and
have the largest militaries in Europe. Why haven't they taken the lead
to deal with this as we have repeatedly stated we would help with
transportation and supplies whenever they chose to take action.
First the US is scum because we acted unilaterally, then we're scum
because we don't while Europe fiddles a whining tune at us.
Fuck the hypocrites, maybe they can help Chavez get his per capita
political prisoner ratio up to Castros.
Any idea why there wasn't a single word of blame in the article for
the UN or Europe? I have my ideas.
Bill C

Date: 18 Jan 2007 21:54:22
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The surge

In article <1169130152.688187.76970@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> On Jan 17, 11:26 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > Speaking of the finger of blame:
> >
> > http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12383
>
> My only problem with this, and I have it with 99% of the groups he's
> citing on Sudan. They have almost all screamed bloody murder on
> unilateral US actions, insisted that things be handled through the UN,
> and the US work with everyone else before it does anything.
> Now that the US government, for whatever reasons, has left this in the
> hands of the UN and world community we see the result; not a damned
> thing.
> Let's take a look at the "leadership' displayed by the European
> nations who are constantly screaming over human rights at the US. There
> is none. How many troops have those nations that don't have troops in
> Afghanistan and Iraq offered? None that I can see. France and Germany,
> especially under Schroeder, were the first to scream bloody murder, and
> have the largest militaries in Europe. Why haven't they taken the lead
> to deal with this as we have repeatedly stated we would help with
> transportation and supplies whenever they chose to take action.
> First the US is scum because we acted unilaterally, then we're scum
> because we don't while Europe fiddles a whining tune at us.
> Fuck the hypocrites, maybe they can help Chavez get his per capita
> political prisoner ratio up to Castros.
> Any idea why there wasn't a single word of blame in the article for
> the UN or Europe? I have my ideas.

Well, my idea about why he didn't address those things is because it was about
liberal and Democrat hawks - people who supported the war in Iraq and are usually
referred to by mainstream pundits as "sensible liberals" - blaming the prospective
loss of the war they advocated on the people who opposed the war. In other words,
people who advocated the war not wanting to take responsibility for the disaster
they helped create.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 17 Jan 2007 18:04:08
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The surge

On Jan 17, 7:37 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
Crap snipped

Nice job by the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/education/17education.html

It'a a pretty slanted story, but it shines a spotlight on the total
failure of the US information campaign.
We, as a government, in a strategic policy, should be doing everything
possible to bring these people here to the US so they can experience
the reality of a free society rather than their totally theocratically
controlled home, and see that, in comparison, Muslims here live better
than anywhere in the mid-east except possibly Kuwait.
Education, outreach, information, duh.... The biggest shackle is the
control of information and the mind, that's why totalitarian, ansd
theocratic states first control the press.
I'm babbling all most as much as Magilla and that's bad.
Bill C

Date: 17 Jan 2007 16:37:42
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The surge

On Jan 16, 6:29 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
The ending is so depressing.
>
> --
> JT
Here's another thing example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6272093.stm

Darfur aid 'on brink of collapse'

Malnutrition is on the rise again in Sudan's Darfur region
Fourteen UN aid agencies working in Sudan's troubled Darfur region have
warned that their relief operations will collapse unless security
improves.
Humanitarian workers, they said, are "holding the line" for the
survival and protection of millions in Darfur.

We just saw in Somalia what an impoverished country that's a
traditional enemy could accomplish with a little effort. Why couldn't
Nato, the UN and Albright do anything right a long time ago?
Pretty much the world sucks, but I'm more disappointed in the West
because we, at least, claim to be better. We are, but not by much.
It's all about power and money, for everyone. China is defending the
Sudanese government because of it's economic agreements. That's why
France was trying to have the UN sanctions lifted, despite Hussein's
miserable record of compliance. That's why Russia was providing
military equipoment and experts right up through the fall of Baghdad.
That's why both are supporting Iran. A Shia dominated Iraq and working
relationship with Iran will likely get them back in on the oilfield
contracts they lost with the war.
I don't think oil and profit were the key reasons Bush attacked Iraq,
but they were 2 and 2a.
Its going to be interesting to see how France reacts when their
Generals and politicians are hauled in front of the ICC for the
Rhwandan genocide. Wanna bet they, all of a sudden, sound like Bush?
The West talks Human Rights but continues to happily do business with
countries that have little to no freedom of anything, politcal
prisoners by the boatload, etc...
Cuba was kept afloat after the Soviet collapse by Canadian and
European money. This is what the paid for:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/01/09/cuba.rights.reut/index.html

HAVANA, Cuba (Reuters) -- Respect for human rights has not improved in
Cuba under interim leader Raul Castro, though the number of Cubans
jailed for political reasons has fallen to 283, the country's main
rights watchdog said Tuesday.

Cuba remains the nation in the Western Hemisphere with the most
political prisoners in proportion to its population, the Cuban
Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation said in its
year-end report.

Cindy Sheehan is there protesting the US while supporting the Cuban
government.
These people claim to care about Human Rights.
It's garbage. Everyone only cares when it's easy and fits their profit
gin and ideology; the US included.
If we really cared the UN would've had no problem getting together
500,000 troops to stabilise Somalia and Rhwanda under UN mandate while
people were brought to trial. We could still do that, and more, and
it's more desperate, in Sudan but they wont. China would veto anything
there and the UN won't act otherwise. Millions may well die while noone
does anything except make a profit on the misery.
We won't even go into UN corruption as another reason for not allowing
them to administer a country for the benefit of that country's people.
If we had decent people running things we'd put world multi-national
forces into countries where genocide is occurring, and manage them
totally for the benefit of their people and impose stability by force
while peace is worked out.
I'd have no problem with a massive, competent and committed UN force
occupying the Palestinian territories, including their land that
Jordan, Syr ia, and Israel are on now. Re-establish the 1948 borders
and agreement and stopping the attacks, but UNIFIL failed miserably and
is still failing miserably because the UN is gutless and rudderless.
It'd take a month to thumbnail all the disasters around the globe that
exist now, or are building.
The League of Nations cobbled together the modern state of Iraq out of
former Ottoman territory. When they did it, it was unstable due to the
Kurds, Sunni, and Shia. One of the first things the Iraqi governmenrt
did, after independence was massacre the Assyrian Christians. Sound
familiar?
The UN is as much a failure as the League was, it's just not dead yet,
but might as well be.
Now using civilians as human shields, and women and children as
combatants is standard procedure for a lot of the world. Attacking aid
workers is a standard tactic.
The sad part is that this is being excused and even rewarded by the
big human rights groups by their meek, at best, condemnations of these
tactics.
I still think we can change this shit, but people and governments are
going to have to be willing to fight, die, and sacrifice profit for and
power for it. Moral equivalency can't be used to accept genocide, human
trafficking, brutal abuse of women, forced child soldiers, etc...
I'm not sure that a politically correct West will do that.
Bill C

Date: 17 Jan 2007 13:56:43
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The surge

On Jan 16, 6:46 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
I've also seen it reported that a much higher percentage of seriously
wounded are
> surviving, due to better emergency medical techniques and supplies. But a lot of
> those people are always going to be in seriously bad shape. Head injuries are quite
> prevalent.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

More good news, just from today:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,122282,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl
Military Faces Mental Crisis
USA Today

Date: 17 Jan 2007 08:53:15
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The surge

On Jan 16, 7:35 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
>
> > Traditional conservatives such as Pat Buchanan and William F. Buckley concur
> > with analysis that the war was in error. Unfortunately for all involved,
> > they are correct. Here's an interesting article on NRO writer Rod Dreher's awakening (via Glenn
> Greenwald):
>
> http://tinyurl.com/tpg2c
>
> ________________________
>
> In Iraq, this Republican President for whom I voted twice has shamed our country
> with weakness and incompetence, and the consequences of his failure will be far, far
> worse than anything Carter did.
> ________________________
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Here's a good message for everyone to actually think about:
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Columnists/Gillespie_Ian/2007/01/17/3393681.html

Tell me, who is at fault?

By IAN GILLESPIE

Bill C

Date: 17 Jan 2007 20:26:05
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The surge

In article <1169052795.090551.212490@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com >,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> On Jan 16, 7:35 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Traditional conservatives such as Pat Buchanan and William F. Buckley
> > > concur with analysis that the war was in error. Unfortunately for all involved,
> > > they are correct.
> >
> > Here's an interesting article on NRO writer Rod Dreher's awakening (via Glenn
> > Greenwald):
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/tpg2c
> >
> > ________________________
> >
> > In Iraq, this Republican President for whom I voted twice has shamed our
> > country with weakness and incompetence, and the consequences of his failure
> > will be far, far worse than anything Carter did.
> > ________________________

> Here's a good message for everyone to actually think about:
> http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Columnists/Gillespie_Ian/2007/01/17/3393681.html
>
> Tell me, who is at fault?
>
> By IAN GILLESPIE

Speaking of the finger of blame:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12383

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 16 Jan 2007 13:07:52
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The surge

On Jan 16, 12:39 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com >
wrote:
>

> Takes a lot of guts to name a date, even a year's worth of dates (minus
> 15, of course) after all the failures to predict correctly down through
> the centuries. --D-y

I'll name a date, within a week of an American pullout all hell breaks
loose and what we've seen now isn't even a decent warm-up for what's
going to come.
Good read here. Got to read it all the way through, it's the whole war
in a nutshell.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901373.html
Bill C

Date: 16 Jan 2007 18:29:40
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The surge

On 16 Jan 2007 13:07:52 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:

>
>
>On Jan 16, 12:39 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com>
>wrote:
>>
>
>> Takes a lot of guts to name a date, even a year's worth of dates (minus
>> 15, of course) after all the failures to predict correctly down through
>> the centuries. --D-y
>
> I'll name a date, within a week of an American pullout all hell breaks
>loose and what we've seen now isn't even a decent warm-up for what's
>going to come.
> Good read here. Got to read it all the way through, it's the whole war
>in a nutshell.
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901373.html

The ending is so depressing.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 16 Jan 2007 09:39:10
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The surge

ST wrote:
> >> That is a big part of the problem. Not to mention they are just as happy to
> >> kill each other. Do you want that culture to dominate your great-grandkids??

Hip hop? No. I hope we go back to "music".

> >> The rules of engagement suck over there. They have to go through about a
> >> dozen factors before they can pull the trigger not to mention, most of the
> >> time, phoning home to ask mommy & daddy for permission first...

Whatever truth content your exaggerations have: one of the very best
reasons not to get into that kind of a "war". Lessons paid for in blood
and suffering, ignored.

> >> Surely was not like that in WWII. Do you remember how many civilians were
> >> killed in the Berlin et al. air raids?

Better examples: Dresden, Hiroshima. Known as "Terror Bombings".

> >> If you blowhards would make the same stink about civilian deaths in regards
> >> to other area in the world I might look at your whining as unbiased.

Are you complaining here about posters sticking to an admittedly OT
subject?

> Like many other pseudo-xist Bush bashers...

xist? Is that like Feminazi?

> Why do most semi-intelligent (at least), civilized people want to come to
> the US (if given the chance)

Could you provide some sort of citation or back-up for that wild
assertion, please?

> but it seems to be mostly those that were
> raised here that are jumping on the "America is always wrong and was
> responsible for all wrongs in the world, even before it existed" bandwagon

Another "run with it" rant. The same trick was used in the Vietnam
era-- "love it or leave it", etc.

> I am just sick of the liberal progressive bullshit.......

40 hour work week? Group health care, life insurance? Safety rules?
Prohibition of child labor? Women's sufferage? Elimination of poll
taxes, etc?

> Most liberal/progressive thinkers/voters are either in a lower
> socio-economic bracket and do not think they have the power (or brains,
> persistence) to raise above it

Spew. Or, give us a citation (different from a regurgitation, thanks).

> OR are those that think they are mentally &
> morally superior and know what is best for everyone else based on their
> emotionally thought out socialist views BUT do not think that system applies
> to any of THEIR piece of the "American Dream" pie....

MOS. "Morally superior"? You mean like the neocons who invaded a
country that didn't attack us?

> Live your life according to what you think is right but keep your fuckin
> hands on other peoples American Dream.

Didn't you just tell us to vote, above? "fuckin hands off"? What does
*that* mean, really? Is there any content there?

> If you feel guilty for others that
> have not or cannot achieve what you have give up some of yours.....

No guilt here. Recognition of institutionalized racism, etc. Door
opening, not handouts.

> Every once in a while I check things out here and I feel like I am on a
> moveon.org message board. You guys think you are the majority philosophical
> viewpoint in America?? Wrong!

Bush approval rating ~ 30%? I don't know about "philosophy" but the
subject was "the surge". The surge is not a winner.

> Fuck your polls!

FFFFFF BOMB!!!! INCOMING!!!!

> Why don't you look at the questions they ask and the choice
> of answers they offer you to pick from. Like this:
>
> Do you think President Bush is:
> A) completely wrong
> B) totally wrong
> C) A Dumbass
> D) A Religious Wacko
> E) All of the above...

Answer: D, D, D, D, D.

End Times Wacko who thinks he's gonna get max brownie points by helping
start the Battle of Armageddon.

Looks like we're close:

http://armageddononline.tripod.com/bible.htm

Takes a lot of guts to name a date, even a year's worth of dates (minus
15, of course) after all the failures to predict correctly down through
the centuries. --D-y

Date: 15 Jan 2007 21:57:35
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The surge

ST wrote:
>>
> Fuck your polls! Why don't you look at the questions they ask and the choice
> of answers they offer you to pick from. Like this:
>
> Do you think President Bush is:
> A) completely wrong
> B) totally wrong
> C) A Dumbass
> D) A Religious Wacko
> E) All of the above...

Dumbass -

A, B, and C.

And it's not about the polls - most Americans don't understand the
tribalism/parochialism/nationalism that pervades much of the world
outside the United States.

Your rant is so strawman that I snipped it.

I'll give you a short synopsis of why Bush erred. It doesn't have
anything to do with us, other than us Americans in general not
understanding that region of the world.

The point about the civilian casualties in Iraq is when Bush prevented
the Baathists from participating in the new "government" he created a
power vacuum which has been filled by tribal militias. That's where all
the casualties are coming from. We're not killing them. They're killing
each other. There is no chance of "victory" in Iraq. The Democrats are
lucky that Kerry lost the last election because he didn't have a plan
any better than Bush's. The fundamental error was in eliminating the
army and police force when we invaded in 2003. They would have
cooperated. All of the sudden, their livelihoods were taken away and
what were these trained killers going to do? Duh.

In the meantime, the Iraqi "army" that we've been training is largely a
Shiite militia. Whenever we leave, the newly empowered Shiites will
attempt to eradicate the Sunnis who used to oppress them. Iran will
support the Shiites and Saudi Arabia/Jordan/Syria will support the
Sunnis. Hopefully, the conflict will not erupt into a regional war
beyond Iraqi borders because of the economic consequences (along with
the humanitarian cost of such a major war).

Since we are dependent upon foreign sources of energy for the majority
of our energy needs, it was a bad move for the average American (not
the ones who own oil wells). That doesn't even take into account the
$$$ we've spent there, nor the soldiers' lives who were lost for
nothing.

Even Bush admitted that it was a mistake in his speech last week. The
thing he's still not understanding is that the situation is lose/lose.
There is no way to come out of it with a win and that die was cast 3.5
years ago when we didn't seek the cooperation of the Baathists. Our
military is trained to seek and destroy and they're excellent at it,
but what's needed now is a police force and our military cannot succeed
at that mission. They can't even speak the language.

That's the short version of the mistake. It is not a "liberal" attack
on W. Bush - the historians will write a similar account. Traditional
conservatives such as Pat Buchanan and William F. Buckley concur with
analysis that the war was in error. Unfortunately for all involved,
they are correct.

BTW, the way my family's assets are located, in an energy state, we
benefit from all this financially. But none of us are in favor of it.
It's bad for the country. I take no pleasure from it. We're all gonna
pay for it in the long run unless, somehow, the conflict manages to be
contained within the Sunni Triangle.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 16:35:12
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The surge

In article <1168927054.984250.31850@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

> The point about the civilian casualties in Iraq is when Bush prevented
> the Baathists from participating in the new "government" he created a
> power vacuum which has been filled by tribal militias. That's where all
> the casualties are coming from. We're not killing them. They're killing
> each other. There is no chance of "victory" in Iraq. The Democrats are
> lucky that Kerry lost the last election because he didn't have a plan
> any better than Bush's. The fundamental error was in eliminating the
> army and police force when we invaded in 2003. They would have
> cooperated. All of the sudden, their livelihoods were taken away and
> what were these trained killers going to do? Duh.

The army were all fired, but they got to keep their weapons - not the best
planning.

> In the meantime, the Iraqi "army" that we've been training is largely a
> Shiite militia. Whenever we leave, the newly empowered Shiites will
> attempt to eradicate the Sunnis who used to oppress them.

One of the main reasons for the miitias is that the government is not doing the
first job of any government: protecting the populace. So the militias will, at least
as far as their own sect or tribe are concerned. And they are obviously working on
the plan that the best way to protect their own is by trying to drive the other
groups out by killing a bunch of them.

The complete destruction of the Iraqi economy by the Coalition Provisional
Authority isn't helping matters either.

> Traditional conservatives such as Pat Buchanan and William F. Buckley concur
> with analysis that the war was in error. Unfortunately for all involved,
> they are correct.

Here's an interesting article on NRO writer Rod Dreher's awakening (via Glenn
Greenwald):

http://tinyurl.com/tpg2c

________________________

In Iraq, this Republican President for whom I voted twice has shamed our country
with weakness and incompetence, and the consequences of his failure will be far, far
worse than anything Carter did.
________________________

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 15 Jan 2007 19:22:47
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The surge

ST wrote:
>>
> You rope-a-dopes don't get it.......
> Their culture is looking at reaching goals 2+ generations into the future.
> We gotta have it NOW!!
>
> That is a big part of the problem. Not to mention they are just as happy to
> kill each other. Do you want that culture to dominate your great-grandkids??
>
> The rules of engagement suck over there. They have to go through about a
> dozen factors before they can pull the trigger not to mention, most of the
> time, phoning home to ask mommy & daddy for permission first...
>
> Surely was not like that in WWII. Do you remember how many civilians were
> killed in the Berlin et al. air raids?
>
> If you blowhards would make the same stink about civilian deaths in regards
> to other area in the world I might look at your whining as unbiased.

Dumbass -

You've got your head up your ass. You missed the entire point of the
post. I'm not whining about the civilian deaths.

Hint: it's not a conventional war.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 15 Jan 2007 20:45:14
From: ST
Subject: Re: The surge

On 1/15/07 7:22 PM, in article
1168917767.724938.206430@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
> ST wrote:
>>>
>> You rope-a-dopes don't get it.......
>> Their culture is looking at reaching goals 2+ generations into the future.
>> We gotta have it NOW!!
>>
>> That is a big part of the problem. Not to mention they are just as happy to
>> kill each other. Do you want that culture to dominate your great-grandkids??
>>
>> The rules of engagement suck over there. They have to go through about a
>> dozen factors before they can pull the trigger not to mention, most of the
>> time, phoning home to ask mommy & daddy for permission first...
>>
>> Surely was not like that in WWII. Do you remember how many civilians were
>> killed in the Berlin et al. air raids?
>>
>> If you blowhards would make the same stink about civilian deaths in regards
>> to other area in the world I might look at your whining as unbiased.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> You've got your head up your ass. You missed the entire point of the
> post. I'm not whining about the civilian deaths.
>
> Hint: it's not a conventional war.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.
>

Crap..........

Bring it Chang Bang.
I got his point. Like many other pseudo-xist Bush bashers...
Why do most semi-intelligent (at least), civilized people want to come to
the US (if given the chance) but it seems to be mostly those that were
raised here that are jumping on the "America is always wrong and was
responsible for all wrongs in the world, even before it existed" bandwagon

I am just sick of the liberal progressive bullshit.......
Most liberal/progressive thinkers/voters are either in a lower
socio-economic bracket and do not think they have the power (or brains,
persistence) to raise above it OR are those that think they are mentally &
morally superior and know what is best for everyone else based on their
emotionally thought out socialist views BUT do not think that system applies
to any of THEIR piece of the "American Dream" pie....

Live your life according to what you think is right but keep your fuckin
hands on other peoples American Dream. If you feel guilty for others that
have not or cannot achieve what you have give up some of yours.....

Every once in a while I check things out here and I feel like I am on a
moveon.org message board. You guys think you are the majority philosophical
viewpoint in America?? Wrong!

Fuck your polls! Why don't you look at the questions they ask and the choice
of answers they offer you to pick from. Like this:

Do you think President Bush is:
A) completely wrong
B) totally wrong
C) A Dumbass
D) A Religious Wacko
E) All of the above...

Date: 15 Jan 2007 17:43:49
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The surge

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

> The sad thing is that the country is such a mess we don't even
> know by how much the number is an underestimate.

The sad thing is thinking you need a statistician and numbers to know
right from wrong.

Date: 15 Jan 2007 06:24:01
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The surge

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2007 23:32:09 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
> <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
> >cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
> >a few more troops will somehow solve it.
>
> What amazes me at least as much the dopes who still support Bush's
> actions in Iraq.

Dumbass -

Less troops are killed than in US cities every day! The war is a
success!! It's a great thing that we invaded!!! It's a great use of US
lives and resources!!!!

thanks,

Masters Fattie Idiot

Date: 15 Jan 2007 17:06:36
From: ST
Subject: Re: The surge

On 1/15/07 6:24 AM, in article
1168871041.455203.161540@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2007 23:32:09 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
>> <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
>>> cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
>>> a few more troops will somehow solve it.
>>
>> What amazes me at least as much the dopes who still support Bush's
>> actions in Iraq.
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Less troops are killed than in US cities every day! The war is a
> success!! It's a great thing that we invaded!!! It's a great use of US
> lives and resources!!!!
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Masters Fattie Idiot
>
While Gorilla boy is a real asshole along the lines of.............you!
At least he is st enough not to try to argue this topic with you assbags.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 09:51:29
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The surge

ST wrote:
> While Gorilla boy is a real asshole along the lines of.............you!
> At least he is st enough not to try to argue this topic with you assbags.

So you're saying a gorilla is ster than you are ?

Date: 15 Jan 2007 09:28:07
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The surge

On 15 Jan 2007 06:24:01 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2007 23:32:09 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
>> <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
>> >cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
>> >a few more troops will somehow solve it.
>>
>> What amazes me at least as much the dopes who still support Bush's
>> actions in Iraq.
>
>
>
>
>Dumbass -
>
>
>Less troops are killed than in US cities every day! The war is a
>success!! It's a great thing that we invaded!!! It's a great use of US
>lives and resources!!!!
>
Your sarcasm gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 16 Jan 2007 09:50:56
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The surge

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>>Less troops are killed than in US cities every day! The war is a
>>success!! It's a great thing that we invaded!!! It's a great use of US
>>lives and resources!!!!

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> Your sarcasm gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

Lidocaine ?

Date: 15 Jan 2007 13:20:44
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The surge

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2007 06:24:01 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
> <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On 14 Jan 2007 23:32:09 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
>>> <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
>>>> cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
>>>> a few more troops will somehow solve it.
>>> What amazes me at least as much the dopes who still support Bush's
>>> actions in Iraq.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dumbass -
>>
>>
>> Less troops are killed than in US cities every day! The war is a
>> success!! It's a great thing that we invaded!!! It's a great use of US
>> lives and resources!!!!
>>
> Your sarcasm gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

They're gonna need all the aid and comfort they can get 'cause Georgy's
sendin over another can of good old Americun Whoop Ass(TM)!

YEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWWW!!!

Date: 15 Jan 2007 05:10:51
From: ST
Subject: Re: The surge

On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article 50vdf5F1htk40U1@mid.individual.net, "Robert
Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote:

> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
>
>

Nice boxplot you got there......
You do know what an outlier is don't you?

Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops where
you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?

More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 15:48:01
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 19, 2:35 pm, Kyle Legate <lega...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Be prepared to be pissed off and sick.
> >http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16468032.htmTo be honest, I don't give a shit. Can you talk about bike racing
> instead? There's a race going on right now in Australia where all but a
> handful of riders are fucking the dog. What's up with that?

It's fucking January!! The only thing on bicycles that means shit at
this time of year is 'Cross.
Don't want to see the discussion, don't read the thread.
I've said over and over that I see this place as a "Cycling sports
bar" where when it's slow time in the season we talk other shit. I'm
sick of the doping/power struggle BS. Time for races.
I'll happily talk Cross.
Wanna talk Red Devils football? I can't bleeping believe that they
screwed the pooch and came up with a draw against bleeping Essen who
sucks!
We've covered T-Mobile being hypocrital scum, what now?
Bill C

Date: 19 Jan 2007 10:11:57
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
>
> Actually, it's not common sense if your basis for saying so is that you
> think our soldiers aren't trained for it and are only trained for
> conventional warfare.
>
> For quite a long while (better than two decades) the emphasis in war
> planning has been specifically geared to fighting unconventional wars
> in priily urban areas. Of course, the training has been geared to
> support that planning.
>
> But, hey,... you knew that already, right?

Dumbass -

You're not addressing the reality.

1) The vast majority of the killing is Sunni vs. Shiite and doesn't
involve US personnel at all.

2) When the insurgents do go after our troops, it's with IEDs. They're
not fighting us in a way that our troops can fight back.

3) It's not really possible for our troops to win over there. The only
way to defeat the insurgency would be to infiltrate it, much like the
DEA does a drug ring and break it up from within in a policing action.
Iraqis could win that war. Jordanians could do it. Americans can't do
it. We don't speak the language or know the culture.

If you reply, please address points 1, 2 or 3 and quit strawmanning.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 10:11:43
From: gds
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
> gds wrote:
> > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm actually for the troop escalation, so that when the inevitable
> > > civil war comes, there won't be a demagogic blaming of "not enough
> > > troops" as the cause of it.
> > >
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > >
> > > K. Gringioni.
> >
> > If only the arithmetic supported even that.
> >
> > Let's see: Say 21,000 new troops
> > In Viet Nam we had 8 support for every front line infantryman. So,
> > let's say it won't be quite that rich. Let's use half that.
> > So: Say 5,250 combat infantry troops.
> > They talk about sending them into two areas: Bagdad and Anbar
> >
> > So: Say 2625 combat infantry men to each area
> >
> > Even in war combat troops are not on patrol 24/7. So let's figure a
> > normal 3 shifts to cover 24/7.
> >
> > So: We'll be adding ~900 extra combat infantry troops to the streets
> > in any one area at any one time. Given the size and populations of the
> > two areas can anyone take this seriously?
>
> First mistake, using anything about combat operations in Vietnam as a
> comparison.
>
> Secondly, patrols don't operate on an 8 hour shift. This ain't factory
> workers we're talking about.
>
> And, apparently you don't have an understanding of the details of the
> plan. They "surge" will be practically nothing but additional combat
> troops.
>
> Fred

Nonsense!
If you don't believe that there is at least a 4 to 1 support to combat
infantry ratio you haven't been around any mobilizatioons
Patrols do have shifts. If you think everyone is on the streets 24/7
you are very mistaken. IF my ratio of 3 per day is off it is only off
fractionaly.
I understand "the surge." So, the "surge" will be almost all combat
UNITS. However, even combat UNITS have lots of non boots on the ground
combat infantry personnel.

If all my calculations are wrong by even 100% that would mean less than
2000 additional troops on the street in each region at one time. This
is not overwhelming force.
My point has nothing to do with the merits of the war effort in
general. It is that what is being proposed is not proportional to the
severity of the problem to be solved. It isinteresting to see that a
whole slew of retired generals, all with combat experience, are saying
much the same thing. Of course, the active duty generals who have not
been fired or retired for having such an opinion tend to say the surge
is a great idea.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 09:42:36
From:
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

gds wrote:
> Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> >
> > I'm actually for the troop escalation, so that when the inevitable
> > civil war comes, there won't be a demagogic blaming of "not enough
> > troops" as the cause of it.
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> If only the arithmetic supported even that.
>
> Let's see: Say 21,000 new troops
> In Viet Nam we had 8 support for every front line infantryman. So,
> let's say it won't be quite that rich. Let's use half that.
> So: Say 5,250 combat infantry troops.
> They talk about sending them into two areas: Bagdad and Anbar
>
> So: Say 2625 combat infantry men to each area
>
> Even in war combat troops are not on patrol 24/7. So let's figure a
> normal 3 shifts to cover 24/7.
>
> So: We'll be adding ~900 extra combat infantry troops to the streets
> in any one area at any one time. Given the size and populations of the
> two areas can anyone take this seriously?

First mistake, using anything about combat operations in Vietnam as a
comparison.

Secondly, patrols don't operate on an 8 hour shift. This ain't factory
workers we're talking about.

And, apparently you don't have an understanding of the details of the
plan. They "surge" will be practically nothing but additional combat
troops.

Fred

Date: 19 Jan 2007 13:25:20
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 19 Jan 2007 09:42:36 -0800, fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:

>First mistake, using anything about combat operations in Vietnam as a
>comparison.
>
>Secondly, patrols don't operate on an 8 hour shift. This ain't factory
>workers we're talking about.
>
>And, apparently you don't have an understanding of the details of the
>plan. They "surge" will be practically nothing but additional combat
>troops.

I agree with the last part - the support troops won't be a major
portion of the surge, although you will have those that are listed as
combat but are more direct support.

But the 'not factory workers' cuts both ways. Yes, you have patrols
that last a while. LRPs can last days. But the military aims for more
like 4 hours in the field or on station. If they could run a perfect
schedule, you would have 4 on, 4 rest, 4 on and end of day. So in an
irregular way, they do tend toward an 8 hour day, and eight hours on
pos is normal for guardhouse or watch tower.

And for every 10 hour patrol, there will be many shorter, with troops
standing around the armory or company CP smoking cigarettes or BS'ing,
waiting to be released.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Four hours is a long time, waiting for muzzle flash with the safety
on.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 09:35:21
From: gds
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> I'm actually for the troop escalation, so that when the inevitable
> civil war comes, there won't be a demagogic blaming of "not enough
> troops" as the cause of it.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

If only the arithmetic supported even that.

Let's see: Say 21,000 new troops
In Viet Nam we had 8 support for every front line infantryman. So,
let's say it won't be quite that rich. Let's use half that.
So: Say 5,250 combat infantry troops.
They talk about sending them into two areas: Bagdad and Anbar

So: Say 2625 combat infantry men to each area

Even in war combat troops are not on patrol 24/7. So let's figure a
normal 3 shifts to cover 24/7.

So: We'll be adding ~900 extra combat infantry troops to the streets
in any one area at any one time. Given the size and populations of the
two areas can anyone take this seriously?

Date: 19 Jan 2007 08:02:28
From:
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Robert Chung wrote:
> fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > If you don't already know it, you should come to grips with the
> > reality that we are at war with Iran. We're just fighting it in Iraq.
>
> http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=14762

That's pretty funny, and unfortunately not too far from the truth.
Still doesn't change the fact that we're priily fighting against
Iranian (and to a smaller degree, Syrian) funded insurgents. Stop the
flow of money and arms into Iraq from those two countries and the
insurgents will starve to death.

Fred

Date: 19 Jan 2007 18:19:59
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Let's do a little test in this group.

Who said, several years ago, that the war in Iraq would be a bad idea
and could not go well? And who said that it would be a good idea, and
therefore has proven him or herself wrong on that at least.

Kurgan, myself and a bunch of other dumbasses are in the first group.

Fred, where would you fit in?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 19 Jan 2007 21:08:08
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:19:59 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>Who said, several years ago, that the war in Iraq would be a bad idea
>and could not go well? And who said that it would be a good idea, and
>therefore has proven him or herself wrong on that at least.

Invading Iraq was an easy decision because removing Saddam, and his
sons, from power was better than anything that could happen.
Ultimately, what has happened in Iraq since Saddam fell is basically
an Iraqi failure. They had a chance to make something for themselves
and (so far) haven't been able to take that chance. An Iraq divided
and in chaos is much less of a long term threat to the US than a
unified Iraq under Saddam and his sons. No one in the Bush
Administration will say this because it sound too cynical, but this is
what they thought before the war and they're right.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 15:52:52
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 22, 1:04 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <v038r2pu06fafb6finl1vtt88349o4r...@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:06:48 -0800, Howard Kveck
> > <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Inspectors? You want to put Hans Blix on the case?
>
> > > Sure, so they can scorn the inspections like they did in Iraq. Funny how
> > > Blix
> > >seems to have been proven to be right when he said there were no longer any
> > >useable
> > >WMD.
>
> > He never said that prior to the war.
>
> > Here is a quote from the UN report two weeks before the war started.
>
> > "In his briefing this morning, Mr. Blix added that while cooperation
> > could and was to be immediate, disarmament, and its verification,
> > could not be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced
> > by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify
> > sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons, and
> > draw conclusions. That would not take years, nor weeks, but months.
> > To address unresolved disarmament issues and to identify key remaining
> > disarmament tasks, he would submit a draft work programme to the
> > Council this month."
>
> > What's more, the US had given Saddam an ultimatum that he must
> > immediately provide complete cooperation with the inspectors and this
> > was not done.
>
> > From the same report:
>
> > "As to whether Iraq had cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and
> > actively", Mr. Blix, the Executive Chairman of the United Nations
> > Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said
> > that the Iraqi side had tried on occasion to attach conditions, but so
> > far had not persisted in those or other conditions. The initiatives
> > now taken by the Iraqi side, three to four months into resolution
> > 1441, could not be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation."
>
> > It is true that Blix was against the invasion and wanted more time to
> > complete his work. However, at no time before the war did he say that
> > Iraq had no WMDs. Blix has engaged in a bit of revisionist history
> > since Spring of 2003, perhaps to absolve himself from any possible
> > blame.
>
> > In any case, Saddam was told to cooperate fully with the inspectors
> > and he did not do that. At a certain time you have to stop playing
> > games and draw the line, which was what Bush did. I know that the Iraqis tried to throw up road blocks but the inspectors got in to
> see the sites they wanted and didn't indicate that the conditions added or attempted
> road blocks allowed them to hide anything. To me, the inspections were going well
> and should have been given more time.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Howard I'd have to back and dig stuff up, but I remember the
inspectors suggesting that the Iraqis were playing as shell game with
materials and equipment. I seem to remember several reports of
inspectors being delayed for 3 or 4 days while trucks moved in and out
of the sites before the inspectors were allowed in. Then they announced
they had found nothing.
Bill C

Date: 23 Jan 2007 15:24:33
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 22 Jan 2007 15:52:52 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:

> Howard I'd have to back and dig stuff up, but I remember the
>inspectors suggesting that the Iraqis were playing as shell game with
>materials and equipment. I seem to remember several reports of
>inspectors being delayed for 3 or 4 days while trucks moved in and out
>of the sites before the inspectors were allowed in. Then they announced
>they had found nothing.
> Bill C

In addition, the inspectors wanted to interview people connected to
the WMD programs outside of Iraq. Saddam not only refused, he also
insisted that there be an Iraqi official in the room during all
interviews.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 22:11:36
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 21:08:08 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:19:59 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>Who said, several years ago, that the war in Iraq would be a bad idea
>>and could not go well? And who said that it would be a good idea, and
>>therefore has proven him or herself wrong on that at least.
>
>Invading Iraq was an easy decision because removing Saddam, and his
>sons, from power was better than anything that could happen.

Better than anything. You're a moron.

>Ultimately, what has happened in Iraq since Saddam fell is basically
>an Iraqi failure.

And you're a disgrace.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:50:53
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <pst2r21d106qoh0rkavqf2leq3mrhqdts4@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 18:19:59 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
> >Who said, several years ago, that the war in Iraq would be a bad idea
> >and could not go well? And who said that it would be a good idea, and
> >therefore has proven him or herself wrong on that at least.
>
> Invading Iraq was an easy decision because removing Saddam, and his
> sons, from power was better than anything that could happen.
> Ultimately, what has happened in Iraq since Saddam fell is basically
> an Iraqi failure. They had a chance to make something for themselves
> and (so far) haven't been able to take that chance. An Iraq divided
> and in chaos is much less of a long term threat to the US than a
> unified Iraq under Saddam and his sons. No one in the Bush
> Administration will say this because it sound too cynical, but this is
> what they thought before the war and they're right.

This comes across rather like that scene in Pee-wee's Big Adventure when he
crashes his bike, then leaps up and says, "I meant to do that!"

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 20 Jan 2007 11:33:12
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:50:53 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>> Invading Iraq was an easy decision because removing Saddam, and his
>> sons, from power was better than anything that could happen.
>> Ultimately, what has happened in Iraq since Saddam fell is basically
>> an Iraqi failure. They had a chance to make something for themselves
>> and (so far) haven't been able to take that chance. An Iraq divided
>> and in chaos is much less of a long term threat to the US than a
>> unified Iraq under Saddam and his sons. No one in the Bush
>> Administration will say this because it sound too cynical, but this is
>> what they thought before the war and they're right.
>
> This comes across rather like that scene in Pee-wee's Big Adventure when he
>crashes his bike, then leaps up and says, "I meant to do that!"

Not really, the US would have preferred to have a unified Iraq with a
pro-Western government. That was the best outcome and it's not
happening so far. However, the fact that the Iraqis can't work out
their differences and form a nation, is their failure. However,
before the war, the possibility of Iraq falling apart was considered
and it was an acceptable outcome compared to having Saddam and his
sons still in power.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 22:17:36
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:33:12 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
> the US would have preferred to have a unified Iraq with a
>pro-Western government.
> That was the best outcome and it's not
>happening so far.

How insightful.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 20 Jan 2007 11:40:40
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <6mg4r2pukudfogbgqb5h5ifcelndurpq1u@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:50:53 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >> Invading Iraq was an easy decision because removing Saddam, and his
> >> sons, from power was better than anything that could happen.
> >> Ultimately, what has happened in Iraq since Saddam fell is basically
> >> an Iraqi failure. They had a chance to make something for themselves
> >> and (so far) haven't been able to take that chance. An Iraq divided
> >> and in chaos is much less of a long term threat to the US than a
> >> unified Iraq under Saddam and his sons. No one in the Bush
> >> Administration will say this because it sound too cynical, but this is
> >> what they thought before the war and they're right.
> >
> > This comes across rather like that scene in Pee-wee's Big Adventure when
> > he
> >crashes his bike, then leaps up and says, "I meant to do that!"
>
>
> Not really, the US would have preferred to have a unified Iraq with a
> pro-Western government. That was the best outcome and it's not
> happening so far. However, the fact that the Iraqis can't work out
> their differences and form a nation, is their failure. However,
> before the war, the possibility of Iraq falling apart was considered
> and it was an acceptable outcome compared to having Saddam and his
> sons still in power.

They may have considered, Jack. But it should have been dismissed out of hand,
due the very real possibility that what *is* happening might happen. The entire
region in chaos is in no way good for our security. The Iranians offered to help the
US with the al Qaeda problem immediately after 9-11 and were rebuffed. Now they are
in a position of much greater strength than they ever would have been.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 20 Jan 2007 22:48:28
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:40:40 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>> Not really, the US would have preferred to have a unified Iraq with a
>> pro-Western government. That was the best outcome and it's not
>> happening so far. However, the fact that the Iraqis can't work out
>> their differences and form a nation, is their failure. However,
>> before the war, the possibility of Iraq falling apart was considered
>> and it was an acceptable outcome compared to having Saddam and his
>> sons still in power.
>
> They may have considered, Jack. But it should have been dismissed out of hand,
>due the very real possibility that what *is* happening might happen.

I never saw any actual percentages quoted before the war, but I would
assume that opinions varied on this one. I can't imagine that even
the most optimistic analyst thought that the chance of a democratic
unified Iraq was any better than a 50/50 shot.

>The entire region in chaos is in no way good for our security. The Iranians offered to help the
>US with the al Qaeda problem immediately after 9-11 and were rebuffed. Now they are
>in a position of much greater strength than they ever would have been.

The Iranian strength has been increased only in a relative sense.
However, one way or the other, the US will have to deal with Iran. If
the US went after Iran first then everyone would be saying that Iraq
is now in a stronger position.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:27:51
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <61o5r2l6g2qu2teimjonj1ut4d9rq26jql@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:40:40 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >> Not really, the US would have preferred to have a unified Iraq with a
> >> pro-Western government. That was the best outcome and it's not
> >> happening so far. However, the fact that the Iraqis can't work out
> >> their differences and form a nation, is their failure. However,
> >> before the war, the possibility of Iraq falling apart was considered
> >> and it was an acceptable outcome compared to having Saddam and his
> >> sons still in power.
> >
> > They may have considered, Jack. But it should have been dismissed out of
> > hand,
> >due the very real possibility that what *is* happening might happen.
>
> I never saw any actual percentages quoted before the war, but I would
> assume that opinions varied on this one. I can't imagine that even
> the most optimistic analyst thought that the chance of a democratic
> unified Iraq was any better than a 50/50 shot.

Going by what so many of the people pushing the war (like Cheney, Perle,
Wolfowitz, etc.) said in the run-up, I think they believed that it was a sure thing
that Iraq would end up as a reasonably unified country.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:38:56
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:27:51 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> Going by what so many of the people pushing the war (like Cheney, Perle,
>Wolfowitz, etc.) said in the run-up, I think they believed that it was a sure thing
>that Iraq would end up as a reasonably unified country.

There were a lot of talking heads on TV who said that, but no one from
the Administration did.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:04:44
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <ebc8r25ar89s8a8o419s2ad1bdaqlua436@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:27:51 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > Going by what so many of the people pushing the war (like Cheney, Perle,
> >Wolfowitz, etc.) said in the run-up, I think they believed that it was a
> >sure thing
> >that Iraq would end up as a reasonably unified country.
>
> There were a lot of talking heads on TV who said that, but no one from
> the Administration did.

I think that you're playing semantics a little here. If I spent a some time, I
could find some quotes that either say it or strongly imply it. It's like they never
said Iraq was actually involved in 9-11 - check out the number of times admin.
people said "9-11" and "Iraq" in the same breath.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 20 Jan 2007 09:33:50
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

> Not really, the US would have preferred to have a unified Iraq with a
> pro-Western government. That was the best outcome and it's not
> happening so far. However, the fact that the Iraqis can't work out
> their differences and form a nation, is their failure.

It was a thoroughly predictable failure. GHW Bush knew it and acted in
accordance. The Neocons reviled him for it, set to fixing his mistake,
and here we are. All the Iraqis fault now though.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 14:50:35
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:33:50 -0800, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:

>Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>> Not really, the US would have preferred to have a unified Iraq with a
>> pro-Western government. That was the best outcome and it's not
>> happening so far. However, the fact that the Iraqis can't work out
>> their differences and form a nation, is their failure.
>
>It was a thoroughly predictable failure. GHW Bush knew it and acted in
>accordance. The Neocons reviled him for it, set to fixing his mistake,
>and here we are. All the Iraqis fault now though.

I can't disagree with this. One of the main reasons that Desert Storm
ended when it did was because of the fear that this exact thing would
happen. However, in a post 9/11 world, an Iraq divided was considered
to be an acceptable outcome.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 07:55:56
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Howard Kveck wrote:
> This comes across rather like that scene in Pee-wee's Big Adventure when he
> crashes his bike, then leaps up and says, "I meant to do that!"

Pee-wee ? I thought it was LANCE.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 16:10:36
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> Let's do a little test in this group.
>
> Who said, several years ago, that the war in Iraq would be a bad idea
> and could not go well? And who said that it would be a good idea, and
> therefore has proven him or herself wrong on that at least.
>
> Kurgan, myself and a bunch of other dumbasses are in the first group.

I'm in a third group. I thought it was a bad idea but would go well.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 08:01:30
From:
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Date: 19 Jan 2007 07:56:19
From:
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Oh, and another thing... for those who are dismissing the president's
> > plan to send more combat troops to Iraq and who say it won't work, I
> > have to ask, what experience or training in the planning for or conduct
> > of counter-terrorist or counter-insurgency warfare do you have that
> > makes you know so much????
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> It's common sense.
>
> Our military isn't trained for it. Counter-insurgency is a policing
> operation and our soldiers are trained to kill and destroy in
> conventional warfare, not try to figure out if someone who doesn't
> speak English and is from an completely foreign culture is friend or
> foe. Our guys can't even tell if they're Shiite or Sunni or Kurd or
> whatever.
>
>

Actually, it's not common sense if your basis for saying so is that you
think our soldiers aren't trained for it and are only trained for
conventional warfare.

For quite a long while (better than two decades) the emphasis in war
planning has been specifically geared to fighting unconventional wars
in priily urban areas. Of course, the training has been geared to
support that planning.

But, hey,... you knew that already, right?

Fred

Date: 19 Jan 2007 13:15:34
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 19 Jan 2007 07:56:19 -0800, fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:

>Actually, it's not common sense if your basis for saying so is that you
>think our soldiers aren't trained for it and are only trained for
>conventional warfare.
>
>For quite a long while (better than two decades) the emphasis in war
>planning has been specifically geared to fighting unconventional wars
>in priily urban areas. Of course, the training has been geared to
>support that planning.
>
>But, hey,... you knew that already, right?
>
>Fred

Actually, you know that the Quadrennial Defense Review of 2001 was
faulted for its continuing emphasis on training and planning for
interstate wars, in spite of its recognition of the high probability
of irregular/asymmetric wars (if you read it, it largely was a
projection of what happened up to the 'fall of Baghdad). The
supposition was what we needed to win was coordinate the hell out of a
high tech forward projection of U.S. forces, keep the supply lines
running and the planes flying. Unconventional warfare, need for
translators at company level, all that isn't there and wasn't in the
support documents prepared by the various Armed Forces.

It wasn't until the QDR of 2006 (due in 2005, but who's counting) that
they shifted significantly. You would also, of course, be aware that
the training for unconventional warfare in general and for Iraq in
particular has been heavily criticized for the way units have been
processed, the general lack of sufficient submersion in the process
and that's for the regular troops, Army and ines. And much of that
was revised heavily when they found out in Iraq that they really
didn't know what they were doing. Hence the major revisions in
training and manuals that started in 2003 and on.

The NG and Reserves, as is the general rule, follow slower with less.
Typical command/company officer reviews of the training have been
abysmally low - and that's before they leave the training areas.
Typical comments have been that the training is by people that don't
know the subject, with too little practical exercises and too many
pointless exercises, such as extended time on guard duty with no,
absolutely no, attempted intrusions or testing. IOW, four hours on,
fours off, training to stay awake under no exercise conditions
whatsoever. And all done with stateside equipment usually configured
completely differently than what they get in country.

But you knew all that - so why this misposting? BTW, all the above no
longer comes from those whining troops in the field, asking why they
weren't trained for the actual combat situations. These are per the
training commands, published in such antiestablishment papers as the
WSJ. Or the QDF signed by the notorious lefty, Rummy.

But, hey,...you knew that already, right?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 19 Jan 2007 07:51:43
From:
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <1169164243.644784.77450@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > If you don't already know it, you should come to grips with the reality
> > that we are at war with Iran. We're just fighting it in Iraq.
>
> Were we "at war with Iran" when we did them the grand favor of taking out their
> arch enemy, Saddam Hussein, Fred? For all your condescending and know-it-all talk,
> you have a rather poor grasp of the situation. Kind of like your male prostitute pal
> Jeff Gannon...
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
>

So it's "condescending" to point out that if, perhaps, you don't really
have any true insight to the situation you should accept that your
opinion is just that, an opinion? I never once even implied that I
know it all, or that I even know whether the surge is the right thing
to do. I still very strongly believe that most of you are spouting off
about your strongly held, and equally irrational, opinions of which you
have no real knowledge of the situation.

Fred

Date: 18 Jan 2007 19:17:14
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Oh, and another thing... for those who are dismissing the president's
> plan to send more combat troops to Iraq and who say it won't work, I
> have to ask, what experience or training in the planning for or conduct
> of counter-terrorist or counter-insurgency warfare do you have that
> makes you know so much????

Dumbass -

It's common sense.

Our military isn't trained for it. Counter-insurgency is a policing
operation and our soldiers are trained to kill and destroy in
conventional warfare, not try to figure out if someone who doesn't
speak English and is from an completely foreign culture is friend or
foe. Our guys can't even tell if they're Shiite or Sunni or Kurd or
whatever.

The "Iraqi Army" is basically a Shiite militia since Rumsfeld made the
uncomprehendable decision (the big one which has doomed the entire
adventure) to de-Baathify the new government. When we leave, they're
gonna go after the Baathist Sunnis with a vengeance and the Sunnis are
gonna fight back with a vengeance and there's nothing we can do about
it. The vast majority of the killing going on in Iraq is Sunni vs.
Shiite and doesn't involve US troops at all. Putting in extra troops
does nothing.

I'm actually for the troop escalation, so that when the inevitable
civil war comes, there won't be a demagogic blaming of "not enough
troops" as the cause of it.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 19:57:39
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1169176634.096022.310420@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com >,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

> I'm actually for the troop escalation, so that when the inevitable
> civil war comes, there won't be a demagogic blaming of "not enough
> troops" as the cause of it.

That's McCain's plan. He supports this, but he's said he wants a lot more troops
in the past. So when this fails (as it will) he'll be able to say, "It would have
been different if they'd done what I said." So to him the lives of American soldiers
are worth nothing but a political point.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 18 Jan 2007 15:50:43
From:
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Bill C wrote:
> Be prepared to be pissed off and sick.
> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16468032.htm
>
> Terror suspect was terrorized in a Navy brigBY FRED GRIMM
> fgrimm@MiamiHerald.com
>
>
> Gonna watch what I say here, but how the fuck does this happen to in
> America???? Maybe they can give the same treatment to some 12yr old
> who says Bush is a criminal too.
> I'm not crying for terrorists, but this is beyond despicable. Like
> pulling the eyes out of puppies for giggles. Padilla was a nobody with
> no connections, that's been clear all along. There was no immediate
> massive threat that he had information on to even begin to justify this
> shit.
> Time for the World Court to get off it's ass and start bringing
> charges and trying people who are ordering and controlling this shit in
> absentia. Time to start getting all of them, U.S. included starting
> with Bush, Scumsfeld, Chirac, Putin, Al-Sadr, and the whole Sudanese
> governement and their friends. They're at least doing trials in
> Rhwanda.
> Bill C

I read it, and it didn't sicken me at all. Nothing at all like pulling
the eyes from puppies. They kept him in seclusion. BFD. Maybe if
they'd let him mingle with the general population someone would've
shanked him by now and we wouldn't give half a shit.

Oh, and another thing... for those who are dismissing the president's
plan to send more combat troops to Iraq and who say it won't work, I
have to ask, what experience or training in the planning for or conduct
of counter-terrorist or counter-insurgency warfare do you have that
makes you know so much????

Oh, wait, one more thing... more troops doesn't necessarily mean more
deaths. It's not like they've killed 'em all and if we just send more
they'll kill them too.

If you don't already know it, you should come to grips with the reality
that we are at war with Iran. We're just fighting it in Iraq.

Fred

Date: 22 Jan 2007 23:01:35
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Howard Kveck wrote:
>
> McCain hasn't been the McCain that the media makes him out to be for ages.
> "Maverick John McCain blah blah blah..." He's repeatedly supported Bush policies and
> is far more socially conservative (read: does what the religious 'base' expect). The
> media love him though. I think it's because he hangs out with them when he's
> campaigning and it makes them feel like they're really part of something important.
> Once themes like McCain the Maverick get started, they're hard to stop.

Dumbass -

In some ways he is a maverick.

Campaign finance reform.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 17:02:44
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Date: 22 Jan 2007 17:00:14
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 22, 7:07 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> McCain is done. He's bought the Kool-Aid completely
>
> http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/13753/1/McCain_Hagel-1-2...
>
> Hagel is the new McCain.
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

Unfortunately Hagel's vision leaves the Iranian and Syrian backed Shia
free to exterminate the Sunni. Put's our troops on the Iranian and
Syrian borders to be attacked from across the border. Gonna greenlight
going into those Countries after them? This would take massive pressure
off Iran, due to their incredible success against "The Great Satan" and
further strengthen their drive for weapons and convince them of our
weakness. I ran across a report the other day saying that they'd
bought, from one of the former Soviet Republics, about a dozen long
range, three stage missiles, which have no provision for anything but a
nuclear warhead.
Basically Hagel seems to be taking the "as long as we get out, who
cares what the result is" approach. Israel's failure in Lebanon has
massively boosted Hizbullah and made them much more dangerous. Hagel is
proposing we do the same thing with Iraq, Iran, and Syria. I don't see
accommodation and, frankly, appeasement by turning them loose in Iraq
as a good solution either.
Bill C

Date: 22 Jan 2007 00:41:01
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Fred Fredburger wrote:

> Fred Garvin and I are pretty much opposites. For instance, he's a male
> prostitute and I'm a character from a children's cartoon show:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fredburger

Wikipedia is a source of great enlightenment. Especially about
the Cartoon Network. Did you know that the wikipedia entry for
Fred Fredburger is longer than its entry for John Cheever, and the
entry for Fred's show, "The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy,"
is slightly longer than the entry for Jackson Pollock?
Man, I really need to get cable tv again to have any hope
of keeping up.

Ben

Date: 22 Jan 2007 08:55:12
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>
>> Fred Garvin and I are pretty much opposites. For instance, he's a male
>> prostitute and I'm a character from a children's cartoon show:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fredburger
>
> Wikipedia is a source of great enlightenment. Especially about
> the Cartoon Network. Did you know that the wikipedia entry for
> Fred Fredburger is longer than its entry for John Cheever, and the
> entry for Fred's show, "The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy,"
> is slightly longer than the entry for Jackson Pollock?
> Man, I really need to get cable tv again to have any hope
> of keeping up.

I think the length of those wikipedia entries is fitting. Wikipedia
entries are democracy in action, or something, and entries on pop
culture SHOULD be longer than dry, boring, old, important stuff.
Wikipedia emphasizes subjects in the same way its readers do. Which
means lots of frivolous nonsense is overemphasized. Still comes nowhere
near a US presidential campaign in that regard.

Date: 26 Jan 2007 11:03:45
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> I think the length of those wikipedia entries is fitting. Wikipedia
> entries are democracy in action, or something, and entries on pop
> culture SHOULD be longer than dry, boring, old, important stuff.
> Wikipedia emphasizes subjects in the same way its readers do. Which
> means lots of frivolous nonsense is overemphasized. Still comes nowhere
> near a US presidential campaign in that regard.

Unless of course you get someone to edit them for you:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_wikipedia

Date: 26 Jan 2007 14:52:25
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Donald Munro wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> I think the length of those wikipedia entries is fitting. Wikipedia
>> entries are democracy in action, or something, and entries on pop
>> culture SHOULD be longer than dry, boring, old, important stuff.
>> Wikipedia emphasizes subjects in the same way its readers do. Which
>> means lots of frivolous nonsense is overemphasized. Still comes nowhere
>> near a US presidential campaign in that regard.
>
> Unless of course you get someone to edit them for you:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_wikipedia
>

Yeah, how about that? If Microsoft decided they could pay to
transparently influence it, I'd call that a big confirmation of my
"democracy in action" description. On the other hand, the fact that they
were blocked from doing so argues against it...

Date: 26 Jan 2007 17:15:27
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <CK2dnfvZ1_C3GyfYnZ2dnUVZ_rqhnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:

> Donald Munro wrote:
> > Fred Fredburger wrote:
> >> I think the length of those wikipedia entries is fitting. Wikipedia
> >> entries are democracy in action, or something, and entries on pop
> >> culture SHOULD be longer than dry, boring, old, important stuff.
> >> Wikipedia emphasizes subjects in the same way its readers do. Which
> >> means lots of frivolous nonsense is overemphasized. Still comes nowhere
> >> near a US presidential campaign in that regard.
> >
> > Unless of course you get someone to edit them for you:
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_wikipedia
> >
>
> Yeah, how about that? If Microsoft decided they could pay to
> transparently influence it, I'd call that a big confirmation of my
> "democracy in action" description. On the other hand, the fact that they
> were blocked from doing so argues against it...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2460.html

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 22 Jan 2007 17:21:28
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 08:55:12 -0800, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:

>I think the length of those wikipedia entries is fitting. Wikipedia
>entries are democracy in action, or something, and entries on pop
>culture SHOULD be longer than dry, boring, old, important stuff.

You'll be happy to learn that you can spend days on the Star Wars
related entries, including those related to the movies, the approved
books, and the unapproved sources. There is not only an alternate
reality, it is at least slightly larger than the one we inhabit. Well,
the one most of us here inhabit.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 22 Jan 2007 20:29:26
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article
<XpSdnUogsrf2cSnYnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Fred Fredburger
<FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:

> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > Fred Fredburger wrote:
> >
> >> Fred Garvin and I are pretty much opposites. For instance, he's a male
> >> prostitute and I'm a character from a children's cartoon show:
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fredburger
> >
> > Wikipedia is a source of great enlightenment. Especially about
> > the Cartoon Network. Did you know that the wikipedia entry for
> > Fred Fredburger is longer than its entry for John Cheever, and the
> > entry for Fred's show, "The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy,"
> > is slightly longer than the entry for Jackson Pollock?
> > Man, I really need to get cable tv again to have any hope
> > of keeping up.
>
> I think the length of those wikipedia entries is fitting. Wikipedia
> entries are democracy in action, or something, and entries on pop
> culture SHOULD be longer than dry, boring, old, important stuff.
> Wikipedia emphasizes subjects in the same way its readers do. Which
> means lots of frivolous nonsense is overemphasized. Still comes nowhere
> near a US presidential campaign in that regard.

Who cares which popular culture icon gains the most
column inches? What has Jackson Pollock done for us
lately? I mean since painting his last masterpiece
driving drunk into a tree at speed.

<http://www.monkeysvsrobots.com/mvsrpm/features-articles_comments.php?id=235_0_22_0_C >

Only the art dealers care if he occupies any space in
popular imagination. Does the 'pedia have pictures of
Basso's sister? No, that shit sells itself.

Here is something that occupies much more space.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_schema_of_replacement >

Does size matter? You be the judge.

--
Michael Press

Date: 22 Jan 2007 21:55:29
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:rubrum-5A4186.12292522012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article
> <XpSdnUogsrf2cSnYnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>
>> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>> > Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> >
>> >> Fred Garvin and I are pretty much opposites. For instance, he's a
>> >> male
>> >> prostitute and I'm a character from a children's cartoon show:
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fredburger
>> >
>> > Wikipedia is a source of great enlightenment. Especially about
>> > the Cartoon Network. Did you know that the wikipedia entry for
>> > Fred Fredburger is longer than its entry for John Cheever, and the
>> > entry for Fred's show, "The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy,"
>> > is slightly longer than the entry for Jackson Pollock?
>> > Man, I really need to get cable tv again to have any hope
>> > of keeping up.
>>
>> I think the length of those wikipedia entries is fitting. Wikipedia
>> entries are democracy in action, or something, and entries on pop
>> culture SHOULD be longer than dry, boring, old, important stuff.
>> Wikipedia emphasizes subjects in the same way its readers do. Which
>> means lots of frivolous nonsense is overemphasized. Still comes nowhere
>> near a US presidential campaign in that regard.
>
> Who cares which popular culture icon gains the most
> column inches? What has Jackson Pollock done for us
> lately? I mean since painting his last masterpiece
> driving drunk into a tree at speed.
>
> <http://www.monkeysvsrobots.com/mvsrpm/features-articles_comments.php?id=235_0_22_0_C>

Thank you, thank you, thank you! That's a great article. Very funny.
Because it's true!

>
> Only the art dealers care if he occupies any space in
> popular imagination.

If I owned a Jackson Pollock, I'd care a lot too. The cash value would
ensure that. I might not care for his art but I like money quite a lot. It
comes in handy sometimes.

>Does the 'pedia have pictures of
> Basso's sister? No, that shit sells itself.

And the 'pedia doesn't do that as well as millions of other places on the
web. The entry for Carmen Electra is also pretty meager. If it's girly pics
you want, wikipedia's the wrong place. Thank god other sites pick up the
slack!

>
> Here is something that occupies much more space.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_schema_of_replacement>
>
> Does size matter? You be the judge.

No place else on the web for this. I'm trying to imagine the pay site that
would push this type of content. It's in some alternate universe. Not a
pleasant one either.

Date: 23 Jan 2007 08:18:23
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article
<l7udnTNsG-LDPijYnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Fred Fredburger"
<FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.com > wrote:

> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:rubrum-5A4186.12292522012007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> >Does the 'pedia have pictures of
> > Basso's sister? No, that shit sells itself.
>
> And the 'pedia doesn't do that as well as millions of other places on the
> web. The entry for Carmen Electra is also pretty meager. If it's girly pics
> you want, wikipedia's the wrong place. Thank god other sites pick up the
> slack!

As you wish.
<http://media1.gkko.com/3760/carmenelectra82306.jpg >

> > Here is something that occupies much more space.
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_schema_of_replacement>
> >
> > Does size matter? You be the judge.
>
> No place else on the web for this. I'm trying to imagine the pay site that
> would push this type of content. It's in some alternate universe. Not a
> pleasant one either.

--
Michael Press

Date: 22 Jan 2007 22:43:31
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Michael Press wrote:
> Only the art dealers care if he occupies any space in
> popular imagination. Does the 'pedia have pictures of
> Basso's sister? No, that shit sells itself.

Perhaps Eddy Mazzoleni is a top poster.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 11:42:54
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> Wikipedia is a source of great enlightenment. Especially about
> the Cartoon Network. Did you know that the wikipedia entry for
> Fred Fredburger is longer than its entry for John Cheever, and the
> entry for Fred's show, "The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy,"
> is slightly longer than the entry for Jackson Pollock?
> Man, I really need to get cable tv again to have any hope
> of keeping up.

Keeping up with the freds is hard work these days. Particularly in rbr.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 11:57:35
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 21, 1:17 pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Have you read anything I've said for comprehension? Not sure where you
> > got most of that.Howard pointed out that you raised the "credentials" issue because you
> probably had me confused with Fred Garvin. That seems likely since the
> points you're making look awful similar to the ones I'm making.
>
> Fred Garvin and I are pretty much opposites. For instance, he's a male
> prostitute and I'm a character from a children's cartoon show:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fredburger

Just did a little looking around for infantry company commander "Fred"
Garvin didn't find anything. Found myself, my wife, friends, etc... I'm
pretty sure I even found Howard's dad and Kunich, but nothing for
Mr.Garvin.
Bill C

Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:41:01
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1169409454.955145.106220@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> On Jan 21, 1:17 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> > Bill C wrote:
> > > Have you read anything I've said for comprehension? Not sure where you
> > > got most of that.Howard pointed out that you raised the "credentials"
> > > issue because you
> > probably had me confused with Fred Garvin. That seems likely since the
> > points you're making look awful similar to the ones I'm making.
> >
> > Fred Garvin and I are pretty much opposites. For instance, he's a male
> > prostitute and I'm a character from a children's cartoon show:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fredburger
>
> Just did a little looking around for infantry company commander "Fred"
> Garvin didn't find anything. Found myself, my wife, friends, etc... I'm
> pretty sure I even found Howard's dad and Kunich, but nothing for
> Mr.Garvin.
> Bill C

"Fred Garvin" is a nym. The origins are a character that Dan Ackroyd did: Fred
Garvin, male prostitute.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 21 Jan 2007 08:40:43
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 21, 10:02 am, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:

In the above, what you think of Albright and Clark very strongly
indicates where, and what, you are on the military. I don't have a
problem with people who aren't aware of his career, and the controversy
around it supporting him because he was playing a polished game. Once
you get to know him only an idiot or ideologue who doesn't give a shit
about our military or security could support him. They're the
Democratic version of those still backing Scumsfeld/Cheney.

Interesting Arab point of view that's relevant to this discussion:

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=91205&d=21&m=1&y=2007

Sending the Middle East to Iranians
Dr. Khaled Batarfi, kbatarfi@hotmail.com

Bill C

Date: 21 Jan 2007 07:02:59
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 20, 9:04 pm, "Fred Fredburger"
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.com > wrote:
> > Are you actually stupid enough to use Clinton's grasp for "Legacy" in
> > Bosnia as support for the Democrats taking a stand?Stand? Who said they took a stand? You think being pro-war is a manly thing
> where you "take a stand"? Sometimes it's the cowardly thing, that's one
> place you're confused. There are others
>
> In terms of Clinton, though, once upon a time, one of the right wing
> complaints about him was that he had EXTENDED the conditions under which
> military force would be used. In 2000, GW Bush complained about US
> adventures in "nation building" and promised he'd do no such thing. Not that
> anyone remembers that, but it happened and it was a reasonable complaint.
>
> That Kosovo thing probably wasn't manly enough to count as a war, though.

Tell that to all the people who died there. My point was that there
was that the situation in Bosnia wasn't any worse than dozens of places
around the globe that were being ignored.
Clinton and Albright tried to sell a war there to the UN and couldn't
do it, so they rounded up a group of countries to go to war there
without UN approval. The only diffenece between Iraq and Bosnia was
that all of Nato signed on for Bosnia.
Still an "illegal" war that did significantly lower the bar for Bush's
actions.
Nice of you to point out Bush's weaseling.

>
> > What do you think of Albright and Clark?What wars did these guys prevent? Oh wait. They didn't. Rush Limbaugh sure
> hates those guys though. I'm sure there's a canned polemic about all the
> screwy things they thought and intended that's freely available. Might be
> fun: "Ewwww, dose wascally wabbits!" But I'm not going to confuse that with
> actual war prevention or peacenikism or whatever.

Albright single handedly changed the policy in Somalia, without
consulting the rest of the forces there including the French who had
the heavy armor on the ground. Again it was another stab at
grandstanding for posterity. "We'll capture somne of these warlords,
stabilise the country, and get a Nobel Peace Prize!!" Except our
friends weren't on board with it, had no idea it was coming. It left
our Rangers on the ground with no heavy support for hours while the
French, rightly were going "What the fuck??? Who agreed to, and planned
this???"
They died, and the US took a huge hit, because of Albright's sole
decision to grab for glory.

>
> > Your answers are going to be a revelation for me. You're claiming
> > massive credentials now let's see HOW you got those.
Jesus Bill, you're accusing the bad old democrats of obstructing Bush's
> foreign policy and you're calling ME stupid? You're off your meds again.
> Maybe you haven't paid attention to the vote for the war in Afghanistan or
> Iraq or the votes for the Patriot Act, etc. Lots of Democrats involved, no
> opposition by the Democratic leadership. And Hilary Clinton has been more
> belligerent about the Iranians than GW Bush. Yeah, those Democrats sure
> have shackled Bush in pursuing the war. They have a 100% success rate at
> stopping the military interventions they oppose. It's just that they don't
> happen to oppose any.
>
> Now they make a little noise about withholding funds, just to demonstrate
> they could, and you freak out. What have they actually done, Bill? Nothing.
> It's just words, not actions.
>
> Political maneuvering? In Washington DC? OH MY! It's the apocolypse!

Have you read anything I've said for comprehension? Not sure where you
got most of that.

I brought up Clark because I'm personally familiar with him, and how
he was seen by his fellow senior officers. When he was running Nato he
had offices in the same building where my wife worked, and she was at
meetings with him regularly. The man was hated with a passion by most
of his fellow officers. It was his way or the highway, and he would
make any political move to look better. The opinion was that he
would've never risen higher than Colonel if he hadn't been such a
politcal slut and used politicians to lean on the Pentagon for his
promotions.
As a commander and human being he is an arrogant, intolerant,
inflexible, vicious human being who ONLY cares about himself and what
his "handlers" want, not independent, or critical analysis.
He makes Cheney and Rove look open minded.
IMO Albright and Clark make a nice match for Cheney and Scumsfeld,
fortunately their adventures in the quest of glory killed less people.
I can't say that everything Clark did in his career was solely based on
gaining politcal power once he retireed but it sure as hell looked that
way from the inside.

JT states my feelings, and I bought it in the beginning, nicely:
I've got no serious problem with people who supported the Bush war
early. I disagreed with it and them strongly, but I can understand
reasonable people being duped by that baloney.

But buying that baloney twice -- like believing the stuff coming out
of the White House and the political leadership of the DOD -- is
terrible.

Now were screwed no matter what we do, can't leave without it
exploding, can't make any huge dent without going into and after Iran,
Syria, Saudi funding fior the Sunnis, etc...Don't have the troops
strength to do those things. Don't have the political will to launch a
ww2 type strategic bombing campaign, including leveling the cities,
power grids, transport networks, etc...in syria and Iran.
I'm still leaning towards pulling out and letting the slaughter begin.
There would be order restored fairly shortly because they don't play at
war the way we do. The Geneva Convention, and other laws of war mean
shit to them unless they are using them against us. I'm betting that
the Sadr and his Shia faction, backed by Iran would come out on top and
impose the same kind of order Hussein did.
Unfortunately our military deterrent is really gone because it's
become clear that we won't fight to win, and don't have the politcal
will to do what it would take and not sure if it would matter anyway.
Here's some interesting reading:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467762531&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Essay: This Holocaust will be different
By BENNY MORRIS

But it looks like they may be backing down:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467779491&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Jan. 21, 2007 10:12

Date: 21 Jan 2007 10:17:24
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Bill C wrote:

> Have you read anything I've said for comprehension? Not sure where you
> got most of that.

Howard pointed out that you raised the "credentials" issue because you
probably had me confused with Fred Garvin. That seems likely since the
points you're making look awful similar to the ones I'm making.

Fred Garvin and I are pretty much opposites. For instance, he's a male
prostitute and I'm a character from a children's cartoon show:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fredburger

Date: 21 Jan 2007 20:32:22
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> Fred Garvin and I are pretty much opposites. For instance, he's a male
> prostitute and I'm a character from a children's cartoon show:

A wingnutted male prostitute ?

Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:00:54
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <45b3afeb$0$9731$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Fred Fredburger wrote:
> > Fred Garvin and I are pretty much opposites. For instance, he's a male
> > prostitute and I'm a character from a children's cartoon show:
>
> A wingnutted male prostitute ?

http://c.perkel.com/images/gannonnude.jpg

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 22 Jan 2007 02:43:15
From: ST
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 1/21/07 12:00 PM, in article
YOURhoward-E98E54.12005421012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> In article <45b3afeb$0$9731$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>> Fred Garvin and I are pretty much opposites. For instance, he's a male
>>> prostitute and I'm a character from a children's cartoon show:
>>
>> A wingnutted male prostitute ?
>
> http://c.perkel.com/images/gannonnude.jpg

So........
Are you saying being Gay is bad?!?!?!?!

Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:04:47
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <C1D964C3.2001BA%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> On 1/21/07 12:00 PM, in article
> YOURhoward-E98E54.12005421012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <45b3afeb$0$9731$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> > Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Fred Fredburger wrote:
> >>> Fred Garvin and I are pretty much opposites. For instance, he's a male
> >>> prostitute and I'm a character from a children's cartoon show:
> >>
> >> A wingnutted male prostitute ?
> >
> > http://c.perkel.com/images/gannonnude.jpg
>
>
> So........
> Are you saying being Gay is bad?!?!?!?!

No, I'm suggesting that if you're a gay prostitute selling your services online,
you should think twice about also being a shill reporter lobbing pre-spun questions
at press conferences for the White House's benefit. You might find yourself under
scrutiny and your whore gig (not the "reporting" one, either) outed.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 20 Jan 2007 16:29:21
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 20, 7:17 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <1169336099.795890.297...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 6:24 pm, Fred Fredburger
> > <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> > > The last 15 years of history does not support the notion of
> > > democrats as peacemongers. Right and left wing propaganda both support the
> > > notion, but actions to support the idea are nonexistent.
>
> > Are you actually stupid enough to use Clinton's grasp for "Legacy" in
> > Bosnia as support for the Democrats taking a stand?
> > What do you think of Albright and Clark?
> > Your answers are going to be a revelation for me. You're claiming
> > massive credentials now let's see HOW you got those.
> > Bill C Wrong "Fred" - it's Garvin who's claiming the credentials. As for Bosnia, well, I
> was against it and (in particular) the bombing but I don't think of it as a Clinton
> grab for "legacy." The Bosnian operation does seem to have had a much better result
> than Iraq ever could.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
It was still the "illegal" war that lowered the bar for Bush, and you
can spin it any way you want.
Bill C

Date: 20 Jan 2007 15:34:59
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 20, 6:24 pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 5:28 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Jack Hollis wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 13:32:56 -0500, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> This shows how little you understand the difference between the two
> >>>> conflicts. The English have been in Northern Ireland for centuries.
> >>> This didn't prevent them from giving up the rest of Ireland in 1920.
> >>>> They have extensive intelligence on the IRA and other republican
> >>>> movements because they have had agents within these movements from day
> >>>> one.
> >>> Nevertheless, this did not prevent the IRA from waging a terrorist
> >>> campaign in NI and England that lasted 30 years.Dumbass -
> >> That's why we can't win in Iraq.
>
> >> There is basically no existing strategy for dealing with the
> >> insurgency. Not being able to speak the language or understand the
> >> culture means that we are incapable of infiltrating their network. Our
> >> soldiers are just sitting ducks, wondering when they're going to
> >> encounter an IED and when it happens, they don't have anyone to shoot
> >> at.
>
> >> thanks,
>
> >> K. Gringioni.
>
> > There is no Operation Phoenix, which is the first step to defeating a
> > counter insurgency, that anyone can see.:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program
> > That takes time to build, and that's time the Democrats will not give
> > us. Then when they force a pullout, like vietnam, which will be minor
> > in comparison and millions get slaughtered, ending with Iran nuking
> > Israel, they'll say, "If we'd only talked to them in the right way!",
> > it's was excellent in Czechoslovakia and Tibet, and is woking
> > incredibly well in Sudan.
> > JFK today would be a warmonger according to the Democrats!
> > Bill CThe last 15 years of history does not support the notion of democrats as
> peacemongers. Right and left wing propaganda both support the notion,
> but actions to support the idea are nonexistent.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Are you actually stupid enough to use Clinton's grasp for "Legacy" in
Bosnia as support for the Democrats taking a stand?
What do you think of Albright and Clark?
Your answers are going to be a revelation for me. You're claiming
massive credentials now let's see HOW you got those.
Bill C

Date: 20 Jan 2007 18:04:32
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

> Are you actually stupid enough to use Clinton's grasp for "Legacy" in
> Bosnia as support for the Democrats taking a stand?

Stand? Who said they took a stand? You think being pro-war is a manly thing
where you "take a stand"? Sometimes it's the cowardly thing, that's one
place you're confused. There are others

In terms of Clinton, though, once upon a time, one of the right wing
complaints about him was that he had EXTENDED the conditions under which
military force would be used. In 2000, GW Bush complained about US
adventures in "nation building" and promised he'd do no such thing. Not that
anyone remembers that, but it happened and it was a reasonable complaint.

That Kosovo thing probably wasn't manly enough to count as a war, though.

> What do you think of Albright and Clark?

What wars did these guys prevent? Oh wait. They didn't. Rush Limbaugh sure
hates those guys though. I'm sure there's a canned polemic about all the
screwy things they thought and intended that's freely available. Might be
fun: "Ewwww, dose wascally wabbits!" But I'm not going to confuse that with
actual war prevention or peacenikism or whatever.

> Your answers are going to be a revelation for me. You're claiming
> massive credentials now let's see HOW you got those.

Jesus Bill, you're accusing the bad old democrats of obstructing Bush's
foreign policy and you're calling ME stupid? You're off your meds again.
Maybe you haven't paid attention to the vote for the war in Afghanistan or
Iraq or the votes for the Patriot Act, etc. Lots of Democrats involved, no
opposition by the Democratic leadership. And Hilary Clinton has been more
belligerent about the Iranians than GW Bush. Yeah, those Democrats sure
have shackled Bush in pursuing the war. They have a 100% success rate at
stopping the military interventions they oppose. It's just that they don't
happen to oppose any.

Now they make a little noise about withholding funds, just to demonstrate
they could, and you freak out. What have they actually done, Bill? Nothing.
It's just words, not actions.

Political maneuvering? In Washington DC? OH MY! It's the apocolypse!

Date: 20 Jan 2007 16:17:37
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1169336099.795890.297000@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com >,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> On Jan 20, 6:24 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:

> > The last 15 years of history does not support the notion of
> > democrats as peacemongers. Right and left wing propaganda both support the
> > notion, but actions to support the idea are nonexistent.
>
> Are you actually stupid enough to use Clinton's grasp for "Legacy" in
> Bosnia as support for the Democrats taking a stand?
> What do you think of Albright and Clark?
> Your answers are going to be a revelation for me. You're claiming
> massive credentials now let's see HOW you got those.
> Bill C

Wrong "Fred" - it's Garvin who's claiming the credentials. As for Bosnia, well, I
was against it and (in particular) the bombing but I don't think of it as a Clinton
grab for "legacy." The Bosnian operation does seem to have had a much better result
than Iraq ever could.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 20 Jan 2007 15:04:41
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 20, 5:28 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
> > On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 13:32:56 -0500, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu>
> > wrote:
>
> > >This shows how little you understand the difference between the two
> > >conflicts. The English have been in Northern Ireland for centuries.
>
> > This didn't prevent them from giving up the rest of Ireland in 1920.
>
> > >They have extensive intelligence on the IRA and other republican
> > >movements because they have had agents within these movements from day
> > >one.
>
> > Nevertheless, this did not prevent the IRA from waging a terrorist
> > campaign in NI and England that lasted 30 years.Dumbass -
>
> That's why we can't win in Iraq.
>
> There is basically no existing strategy for dealing with the
> insurgency. Not being able to speak the language or understand the
> culture means that we are incapable of infiltrating their network. Our
> soldiers are just sitting ducks, wondering when they're going to
> encounter an IED and when it happens, they don't have anyone to shoot
> at.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

There is no Operation Phoenix, which is the first step to defeating a
counter insurgency, that anyone can see.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program
That takes time to build, and that's time the Democrats will not give
us. Then when they force a pullout, like vietnam, which will be minor
in comparison and millions get slaughtered, ending with Iran nuking
Israel, they'll say, "If we'd only talked to them in the right way!",
it's was excellent in Czechoslovakia and Tibet, and is woking
incredibly well in Sudan.
JFK today would be a warmonger according to the Democrats!
Bill C

Date: 20 Jan 2007 15:24:00
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Bill C wrote:
>
> On Jan 20, 5:28 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 13:32:56 -0500, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>> This shows how little you understand the difference between the two
>>>> conflicts. The English have been in Northern Ireland for centuries.
>>> This didn't prevent them from giving up the rest of Ireland in 1920.
>>>> They have extensive intelligence on the IRA and other republican
>>>> movements because they have had agents within these movements from day
>>>> one.
>>> Nevertheless, this did not prevent the IRA from waging a terrorist
>>> campaign in NI and England that lasted 30 years.Dumbass -
>> That's why we can't win in Iraq.
>>
>> There is basically no existing strategy for dealing with the
>> insurgency. Not being able to speak the language or understand the
>> culture means that we are incapable of infiltrating their network. Our
>> soldiers are just sitting ducks, wondering when they're going to
>> encounter an IED and when it happens, they don't have anyone to shoot
>> at.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> K. Gringioni.
>
> There is no Operation Phoenix, which is the first step to defeating a
> counter insurgency, that anyone can see.:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program
> That takes time to build, and that's time the Democrats will not give
> us. Then when they force a pullout, like vietnam, which will be minor
> in comparison and millions get slaughtered, ending with Iran nuking
> Israel, they'll say, "If we'd only talked to them in the right way!",
> it's was excellent in Czechoslovakia and Tibet, and is woking
> incredibly well in Sudan.
> JFK today would be a warmonger according to the Democrats!
> Bill C
>

The last 15 years of history does not support the notion of democrats as
peacemongers. Right and left wing propaganda both support the notion,
but actions to support the idea are nonexistent.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 14:28:52
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 13:32:56 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >This shows how little you understand the difference between the two
> >conflicts. The English have been in Northern Ireland for centuries.
>
> This didn't prevent them from giving up the rest of Ireland in 1920.
>
> >They have extensive intelligence on the IRA and other republican
> >movements because they have had agents within these movements from day
> >one.
>
> Nevertheless, this did not prevent the IRA from waging a terrorist
> campaign in NI and England that lasted 30 years.

Dumbass -

That's why we can't win in Iraq.

There is basically no existing strategy for dealing with the
insurgency. Not being able to speak the language or understand the
culture means that we are incapable of infiltrating their network. Our
soldiers are just sitting ducks, wondering when they're going to
encounter an IED and when it happens, they don't have anyone to shoot
at.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 15:07:38
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 20 Jan 2007 14:28:52 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>That's why we can't win in Iraq.
>
>There is basically no existing strategy for dealing with the
>insurgency. Not being able to speak the language or understand the
>culture means that we are incapable of infiltrating their network. Our
>soldiers are just sitting ducks, wondering when they're going to
>encounter an IED and when it happens, they don't have anyone to shoot
>at.

Ultimately, there is no strategy that can stop an insurgency like the
one in Iraq. The only strategy is to do your best to limit the amount
of damage they can do and outlast them no matter how long it takes.

The two nations that have the most experience dealing with
insurgencies are Britain and Israel. The British did their best to
limit what the IRA could do and hung in there for 30 years. Eventually
the IRA gave up.

Israel also was unable to stop Palestinian suicide bombers from
killing Israelis. Eventually they did stop them by building a fence
and totally isolating the Palestinians from Israel. This worked, but
such a tactic is impossible in Iraq.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 20:06:11
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:

> If you don't already know it, you should come to grips with the
> reality that we are at war with Iran. We're just fighting it in Iraq.

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=14762

Date: 27 Jan 2007 16:12:48
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 21, 3:04 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
>
> I doubt the PKK would have to do anything to get the Turks to come on over.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Interesting news:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/
85808B77-58B8-4C00-866C-7F38FEB253A7.htm

Turkey mulls 'invading' Iraq
By Jonathan Gorvett in Istanbul

Turkey considers the PKK a terrorist group and continues to fight it
in the southeast [EPA]

Turkey's parliament went into secret session this week to debate
sending troops to invade and occupy northern Iraq for security
purposes.

Yep!
Bill C

Date: 27 Jan 2007 22:24:33
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1169943168.462432.242110@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> On Jan 21, 3:04 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> >
> > I doubt the PKK would have to do anything to get the Turks to come on
> > over.

> Interesting news:
> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/85808B77-58B8-4C00-866C-7F38FEB253A7.htm
>
> Turkey mulls 'invading' Iraq
> By Jonathan Gorvett in Istanbul
>
> Turkey considers the PKK a terrorist group and continues to fight it
> in the southeast [EPA]
>
> Turkey's parliament went into secret session this week to debate
> sending troops to invade and occupy northern Iraq for security
> purposes.

Nice. The thing I had mentioned earlier had to do with the oil wealth
distribution if Iraq is divvied up. Kirkuk is in the Kurdish area and it has a large
percentage of Iraq's oil.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 28 Jan 2007 13:20:01
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:24:33 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>> Turkey's parliament went into secret session this week to debate
>> sending troops to invade and occupy northern Iraq for security
>> purposes.
>

This is absurd, but not unexpected considering the source. Turkey is
not going to invade the Kurdish areas of Iraq because of one important
factor - there are US troop there and the US would be really pissed if
they did.

> Nice. The thing I had mentioned earlier had to do with the oil wealth
>distribution if Iraq is divvied up. Kirkuk is in the Kurdish area and it has a large
>percentage of Iraq's oil.

It's hard to tell how much oil is in the Kurdish areas because not all
of it has been explored but estimated are around 35% to 40% of total
Iraq oil. Right now, the region is producing the most but that's due
to the stability of the region.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 15:55:43
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 22, 1:34 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <C1D95FF2.2001B6...@no.com>, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
> > Personal responsibility is a dieing virtue in our left-leaning times. So only lefties avoid personal responsibility, huh? That's choice, Stevie. Since
> we were discussing k Foley, how about the responsiibility of the Republican
> leadership who knew about what he was doing, but hid it? As just one example of many
> posiblities, of course...
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

The leadership was brutally devious on this. It reeks of the Catholic
Church and their cover-ups, the only thing they didn't do was whisk him
away to a State where he couldn't be questioned or touched like they
did with our Cardinal from Boston when they started talking about
criminal charges.
Bill C

Date: 21 Jan 2007 11:13:58
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 21, 1:38 pm, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu > wrote:
Iraq getting divided in three and the Kurds getting their own
territory
> is exactly the can of worms I was talking around. Have you even looked
> at a bleeping map and seen where the Kurds live. Have you done any
> reading at all on the history of the region? This is really
> ridiculous/scary!
>
> jyh.

How long after that before the PKK exploded another bomb in Turkey,
and Turkey sent in the troops to occupy the country? Not long I would
suspect. Months at best.
Bill C

Date: 22 Jan 2007 02:22:42
From: ST
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 1/21/07 11:13 AM, in article
1169406838.351170.5240@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Bill C"
<tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

>
>
> On Jan 21, 1:38 pm, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu> wrote:
> Iraq getting divided in three and the Kurds getting their own
> territory
>> is exactly the can of worms I was talking around. Have you even looked
>> at a bleeping map and seen where the Kurds live. Have you done any
>> reading at all on the history of the region? This is really
>> ridiculous/scary!
>>
>> jyh.
>
> How long after that before the PKK exploded another bomb in Turkey,
> and Turkey sent in the troops to occupy the country? Not long I would
> suspect. Months at best.
> Bill C
>

I guess the answer here is do NOT go around and blow your self up...
Forget this "You do not understand the culture" crap. Personal
responsibility is a dieing virtue in our left-leaning times.

If cultures (aka various ethnic peoples) are allowed to have either
religious leaders or political leaders teach generations of their people to
grow up and kill people to reach a goal 100+ years in the future they need
to be dealt with appropriately.

As I mentioned before.... Do you want your grandkids to live under by this
"win by ignoring the issue" wave of Islamic teachings?

If you are going to profess you to me that it would never happen you are an
ignorant idiot...

Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:34:20
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <C1D95FF2.2001B6%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> Personal responsibility is a dieing virtue in our left-leaning times.

So only lefties avoid personal responsibility, huh? That's choice, Stevie. Since
we were discussing k Foley, how about the responsiibility of the Republican
leadership who knew about what he was doing, but hid it? As just one example of many
posiblities, of course...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 21 Jan 2007 23:59:25
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <C1D95FF2.2001B6%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> I guess the answer here is do NOT go around and blow your self up...
> Forget this "You do not understand the culture" crap. Personal
> responsibility is a dieing virtue in our left-leaning times.
>
> If cultures (aka various ethnic peoples) are allowed to have either
> religious leaders or political leaders teach generations of their people to
> grow up and kill people to reach a goal 100+ years in the future they need
> to be dealt with appropriately.
>
> As I mentioned before.... Do you want your grandkids to

The problem is that you guys don't know if you want to play the role of
the cynical world maker, of the righteous knight, of of the innocent
victim. If you want to take the fight to militant Islam, then go for it
but don't start crying the next time something terrible happens.

jyh.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:04:12
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1169406838.351170.5240@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> On Jan 21, 1:38 pm, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu> wrote:
> Iraq getting divided in three and the Kurds getting their own
> territory
> > is exactly the can of worms I was talking around. Have you even looked
> > at a bleeping map and seen where the Kurds live. Have you done any
> > reading at all on the history of the region? This is really
> > ridiculous/scary!
> >
> > jyh.
>
> How long after that before the PKK exploded another bomb in Turkey,
> and Turkey sent in the troops to occupy the country? Not long I would
> suspect. Months at best.
> Bill C

Besides, the area where the Kurds are is where the majority of the oil resources
are. Does anyone think the rest of the country would stand for that?

I doubt the PKK would have to do anything to get the Turks to come on over.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 21 Jan 2007 19:49:27
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:04:12 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> Besides, the area where the Kurds are is where the majority of the oil resources
>are. Does anyone think the rest of the country would stand for that?

There's lots of oil in the Shia regions, but the Kurds have a plenty
of oil. It's the Sunni that are sitting on dry sand.

The Kurds have been the only ones to actually drill a new oil well
since the war.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 02:55:24
From: ST
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 1/21/07 4:49 PM, in article m928r2tkghhmvp0v03nkhi2f9luf6jpsck@4ax.com,
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:04:12 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
>> Besides, the area where the Kurds are is where the majority of the oil
>> resources
>> are. Does anyone think the rest of the country would stand for that?
>
> There's lots of oil in the Shia regions, but the Kurds have a plenty
> of oil. It's the Sunni that are sitting on dry sand.
>
> The Kurds have been the only ones to actually drill a new oil well
> since the war.

And the best part is? Their own people did not come in and blow it up
after.....

Date: 21 Jan 2007 15:28:51
From: jean-yves herv�
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <YOURhoward-B4F58D.12041221012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com >,
Howard Kveck <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> Besides, the area where the Kurds are is where the majority of the oil
> resources
> are. Does anyone think the rest of the country would stand for that?
>
> I doubt the PKK would have to do anything to get the Turks to come on
> over.

The PKK are ideologically-guided, just like Jack Hollis; they don't
necessarily think about consequences much. For an example of how such a
group can do something that works against their best interest, consider
the Tamul Tigers blowing up Rajeev Gandhi. Anyway, the PKK and their
allies would be kept out of a Kurd leadership assembled by the USA.

jyh.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 21:54:20
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <51audmF1ja49uU1@mid.individual.net >,
"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote:

> fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > If you don't already know it, you should come to grips with the
> > reality that we are at war with Iran. We're just fighting it in Iraq.
>
> http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=14762

Not a bad prediction from April '03.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 18 Jan 2007 19:52:33
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1169164243.644784.77450@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:

> If you don't already know it, you should come to grips with the reality
> that we are at war with Iran. We're just fighting it in Iraq.

Were we "at war with Iran" when we did them the grand favor of taking out their
arch enemy, Saddam Hussein, Fred? For all your condescending and know-it-all talk,
you have a rather poor grasp of the situation. Kind of like your male prostitute pal
Jeff Gannon...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 18 Jan 2007 19:02:23
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 18 Jan 2007 15:50:43 -0800, fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:

>I read it, and it didn't sicken me at all. Nothing at all like pulling
>the eyes from puppies. They kept him in seclusion. BFD.

I don't know whether to laugh or be appalled at your comment. Sort of
like Limbaugh (or was it O'Reilly) talking about Abu Gharaib as being
like fraternity pranks.

It's one thing to be alone for a long period of time.

It's quite another to be kept alone, with complete uncertainty of if
you will ever get out, or be allowed to live freely again, or perhaps
killed out of hand. It's torture.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 24 Jan 2007 07:17:47
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 23, 4:41 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Jan 23, 3:17 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:> jean-yves herve wrote:
> > > This is ridiculous. The USA walk into Iraq with zero planning on what
> > > do do once the fighting is over.Not exactly zero:
>
> >http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html--D-y Damn I must be a Commie now too, since we're thinking the same thing,
> and the ST people know you're a no good Commie!

I'm such a Commie that I think little people's lives are equal value to
the big shots. Both like, mortality considerations, and the right to
fair treatment (all the way up and down the line) and
hopes/aspirations.

> The Air Force just ripped the V-22 Osprey in testing. Unfortunately
> it's from a subscription site I don't want to lift it from, but they
> had a hard time keeping them in that air long enough to test them. Must
> need another few billion thrown at the problem.

And a few more test pilots, and human ballast.

As always, the best ballast is engineers. Engineers, and generals. I
understand there are lots of engineers, especially, and some generals,
and many CEO's, for that matter, who are enthusiastic private pilots.
Bet they'd jump for a turn at the controls of an Osprey if they could
just be given the chance.

> The body armor mess is getting ignored, and I have no idea why since
> the DOJ is really starting to ask incinvenient questions around the
> Pentagon, but here's the latest news:http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Body%20Armor%2...

> This is the stuff the Pentagon has insisted failed every test
> miserably so they had to stick with the armor they own outright and
> export all over the world.
> Dead soldiers traded for contractor dollars. That's treason.

And of course, the best body armor field testers are contractors.
Contractors with Army/ine uniforms on. --D-y

Date: 23 Jan 2007 14:41:15
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 23, 3:17 pm, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:
> jean-yves herve wrote:
> > This is ridiculous. The USA walk into Iraq with zero planning on what
> > do do once the fighting is over.Not exactly zero:
>
> http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html --D-y
Damn I must be a Commie now too, since we're thinking the same thing,
and the ST people know you're a no good Commie!
The Air Force just ripped the V-22 Osprey in testing. Unfortunately
it's from a subscription site I don't want to lift it from, but they
had a hard time keeping them in that air long enough to test them. Must
need another few billion thrown at the problem.
The body armor mess is getting ignored, and I have no idea why since
the DOJ is really starting to ask incinvenient questions around the
Pentagon, but here's the latest news:
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Body%20Armor%2edb&command=viewone&id=100

This is the stuff the Pentagon has insisted failed every test
miserably so they had to stick with the armor they own outright and
export all over the world.
Dead soldiers traded for contractor dollars. That's treason.
Bill C

Date: 05 Feb 2007 15:46:39
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 5, 8:49 am, Joe Cipale <j...@aracnet.com > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in message
> >news:1170637670.822652.109830@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>On Feb 4, 3:46 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >>>Abramoff? You mean the same guy who paid money to:
>
> >>>Patty Murray (D-Wash) - $40,980
> >>>Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) - $32,000
> >>>Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) - $31,000
> >>>Harry Reid (D-Nev) - $30,500
> >>>Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) - $28,000
> >>>Tom Daschle (D-SD) - $26,500
> >>>Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) - $18,300
> >>>Chris John (D-La) - $15,000
> >>>Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - $14,500
> >>>John Breaux (D-La) - $13,750
> >>>y L. Landrieu (D-La) - $11,500
> >>>Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) - $11,000
> >>>Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) - $10,500
> >>>Barney Frank (D-Mass) - $9,000
> >>>Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) - $9,000
> >>>Max Baucus (D-Mont) - $9,000
> >>>Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) - $8,500
> >>>Dick Durbin (D-Ill) - $8,000
> >>>Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) - $6,000
> >>>Nick Rahall (D-WVa) - $6,000
> >>>Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) - $5,000
> >>>Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - $5,000
> >>>Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) - $5,000
> >>>Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) - $5,000
> >>>Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) - $5,000
> >>>Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) - $4,523
> >>>Tim Johnson (D-SD) - $4,250
> >>>Kent Conrad (D-ND) - $4,000
> >>>ia Cantwell (D-Wash) - $3,000
> >>>Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) - $3,000
> >>>Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) - $3,000
> >>>Richard M. Romero (D-NM) - $3,000
> >>>Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) - $3,000
> >>>John B. Larson (D-Conn) - $3,000
> >>>James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) - $3,000
> >>>Brad Sherman (D-Calif) - $3,000
> >>>Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) - $2,500
> >>>Max Cleland (D-Ga) - $2,500
> >>>Gene Taylor (D-Miss) - $2,250
> >>>Doug Dodd (D-Okla) - $2,000
> >>>Jay Inslee (D-Wash) - $2,000
> >>>John D. Dingell (D-Mich) - $2,000
> >>>Joe Baca (D-Calif) - $2,000
> >>>Carl Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
> >>>C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) - $2,000
> >>>Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) - $2,000
> >>>Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) - $2,000
> >>>Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - $2,000
> >>>Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) - $2,000
> >>>Rodney Alexander (D-La) - $2,000
> >>>Sander Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
> >>>Ron Kind (D-Wis) - $2,000
> >>>Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) - $2,000
> >>>Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) - $2,000
> >>>Willie Landry Mount (D-La) - $2,000
> >>>Tom Carper (D-Del) - $2,000
> >>>Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) - $2,000
> >>>Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) - $2,000
> >>>Maxine Waters (D-Calif) - $2,000
> >>>Ned Doucet (D-La) - $2,000
> >>>John Neely Kennedy (D-La) - $2,000
> >>>Lane Evans (D-Ill) - $2,000
> >>>Norm Dicks (D-Wash) - $1,500
> >>>Rick Weiland (D-SD) - $1,000
> >>>Ron Wyden (D-Ore) - $1,000
> >>>Tim Holden (D-Pa) - $1,000
> >>>William J. Jefferson (D-La) - $1,000
> >>>Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) - $1,000
> >>>Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) - $1,000
> >>>Pete Stark (D-Calif) - $1,000
> >>>Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) - $1,000
> >>>Mike Thompson (D-Calif) - $1,000
> >>>David Phelps (D-Ill) - $1,000
> >>>Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) - $1,000
> >>>Charles S. Robb (D-Va) - $1,000
> >>>Bill Luther (D-Minn) - $1,000
> >>>Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) - $1,000
> >>>Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) - $1,000
> >>>Charles J. Melancon (D-La) - $1,000
> >>>Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) - $1,000
> >>>Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) - $1,000
> >>>Gloria Tristani (D-NM) - $1,000
> >>>Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) - $1,000
> >>>Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) - $1,000
> >>>Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) - $1,000
> >>>Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - $1,000
> >>>Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) - $500
> >>>John Kerry (D-Mass) - $500
> >>>Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) - $500
> >>>Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) - $500
>
> >>>That Jack Abramoff?
>
> >>Let's get the R- list, too, TK. With the amounts, of course. --D-y
>
> > So let me see if I understand you - there's a lower limit to your
> > determination of corruption? If they're cheaper to buy they aren't corrupt?
> > Is that what you're saying?
>
> you were asked to provide your list of R's, tommy-boy.
>
> Or is your own right-wingnut fanaticsm just as biased and skewed? Never
> mindwingnut,
> we already KNOW the answer to that. Now, back to my killfile you go.
> Listerning to you is like
> listening to you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Here's another example of a Bush agency taking care of it's people:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/05/atf.agent/index.html

Quoted:

But more than a dozen former and current ATF agents interviewed by
CNN, many of whom have their own lawsuits, claims and serious
concerns, said the ATF is failing to protect its agents.

Bill C

Date: 06 Feb 2007 03:00:32
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1170719199.041075.133360@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> But more than a dozen former and current ATF agents interviewed by
> CNN, many of whom have their own lawsuits, claims and serious
> concerns, said the ATF is failing to protect its agents.

And this was DIFFERENT under Clinton?

Date: 24 Jan 2007 11:16:02
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Bill C wrote:
> The Air Force just ripped the V-22 Osprey in testing. Unfortunately
> it's from a subscription site I don't want to lift it from, but they
> had a hard time keeping them in that air long enough to test them. Must
> need another few billion thrown at the problem.

I don't suppose the Osprey is made by people who go duck hunting with
Cheney ? Apropos of which, presumably Cheney would be able to hit a low
flying Osprey if he aims at a duck.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 19:36:37
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 5, 8:28 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> As I pointed out, an armor
> piercing round which is commonly available on the battlefield will defeat
> ANY personal armor. Do you remember them outlawing teflon coated PISTOL
> bullets in the US because they went right through police body armor?

The body armor is, in common knowledge, effective against IED's, I
think is the point you've skipped over. The article I posted showed
the Army correcting a lack of sideplates that official sources (I
believe within the Army itself) could have "saved dozens of lives".

I don't think anyone knows how much armor-piercing small-arms ammo is
on hand and/or being used, compared to "other".

You've made the assertion the soldiers won't wear the body armor
unless forced; this clashes with newspaper accounts of soldiers'
writing home "complaining" about a lack of effective body armor, and
the various civilian efforts made to supply such in response. A big
black eye for Bushco. Of course, since we were going to be welcomed
with open arms, why would our soldiers need body armor?

> This country is growing more and more polarized and people here are too
> stupid to even understand why.

Polarization is being used to further the interests of a corrupt power
structure.

> Quite frankly I am tired of pointing out that
> when 10 people take the same data analyze it and come to 9 different
> conclusions, that the two who agree aren't necessarily correct.

You stopped for awhile, we noticed. Then you went away to fester, and
returned. You seem to have come back pasty-white, ill-rested, and
cranky as ever. Well, it was a nice leave of abscess.

> Why do you allow yourself to be propagandized by people who have much to
> gain by such things?

Pot, mirror.

> The world is a large and complex place where someone like you and I who
> AREN'T privy to some millions of information gatherers, thousands of people
> writing sumies, hundreds of people digesting the conflicting reports and
> writing reports which are then passed on to the administration heads
> shouldn't be taking sides.

I want to bring our soldiers home, fast. I want the various elected
and appointed officials who pushed this mess into reality to take
full, real responsibility for it. That's the side I'm on. I've seen
plenty of information to make that choice, thank you.

> Instead it is disgusting to watch complete fools who know absolutely nothing
> about such complications speaking as if they actually had a clue what
> they're talking about.

Cue the mirror again. I mean, you just admitted (I was amazed) that
you, after all, do not have thousands of operatives feeding you
information.

Tell us about those bunker tests again. Were they of earthen
construction, as might better apply to conditions in Viet Nam, or
concrete (imported from Turkey, of course!), as could be assumed in
the current situation?

> It's plain to see how few people have ever managed
> any project at all - hell, most people still haven't figured out that Social
> Security was ALWAYS a shell game.

I've seen info that refutes that. It doesn't get much play in the
conservative, right-wing-owned media. --D-y

Date: 06 Feb 2007 06:18:09
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

<dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote in message
news:1170732997.543720.11360@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> I want to bring our soldiers home, fast. I want the various elected
> and appointed officials who pushed this mess into reality to take
> full, real responsibility for it. That's the side I'm on. I've seen
> plenty of information to make that choice, thank you.

I think that you wish to appear to be st and an authority because you
want to be important. The fact is that you know nothing of all this save for
a vague philosophy that we should be peaceful. While that philosophy is
admirable, there were some 3,000 people on 9/11 that paid the price for our
ignoring the strength of the beliefs of terrorist extremists.

>> Instead it is disgusting to watch complete fools who know absolutely
>> nothing
>> about such complications speaking as if they actually had a clue what
>> they're talking about.
>
> Cue the mirror again. I mean, you just admitted (I was amazed) that
> you, after all, do not have thousands of operatives feeding you
> information.

And yet apparently you know everything that the administration tops men know
simply by reading - what? Rolling Stone?

> Tell us about those bunker tests again. Were they of earthen
> construction, as might better apply to conditions in Viet Nam, or
> concrete (imported from Turkey, of course!), as could be assumed in
> the current situation?

They were steel reinforced concrete structures. As well as working on one of
the bombers involved in the tests I got to watch the actual footage of the
strike and penetration.

>> It's plain to see how few people have ever managed
>> any project at all - hell, most people still haven't figured out that
>> Social
>> Security was ALWAYS a shell game.
>
> I've seen info that refutes that. It doesn't get much play in the
> conservative, right-wing-owned media.

You've seen info that refutes WHAT? That SS is doomed or that few people
have been managers and understand the problems of those positions?

As for SS - EVERY analysis shows SS failing under the present system and any
reasonable increase in SS taxes. The only disagreement is how long that
failure will take. The famous argument between the Congressional Budget
Office and the President's commission said EXACTLY the same thing but showed
a decade difference in the time table. THAT was treated in the leftist major
media as a refutation.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 00:01:55
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <B4Vxh.19651$yx6.4229@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> <dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:1170732997.543720.11360@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > I want to bring our soldiers home, fast. I want the various elected
> > and appointed officials who pushed this mess into reality to take
> > full, real responsibility for it. That's the side I'm on. I've seen
> > plenty of information to make that choice, thank you.
>
> I think that you wish to appear to be st and an authority because you
> want to be important. The fact is that you know nothing of all this save for
> a vague philosophy that we should be peaceful. While that philosophy is
> admirable, there were some 3,000 people on 9/11 that paid the price for our
> ignoring the strength of the beliefs of terrorist extremists.

And none of those "terrorist extremists" were Iraqis. So how about all the people
in Iraq who paid the price (and the ones who continue to pay it every day) of the
attack on their country because George W. Bush and his admin. said Iraq was an
"imminent threat" to us?

> > Tell us about those bunker tests again. Were they of earthen
> > construction, as might better apply to conditions in Viet Nam, or
> > concrete (imported from Turkey, of course!), as could be assumed in
> > the current situation?
>
> They were steel reinforced concrete structures. As well as working on one of
> the bombers involved in the tests I got to watch the actual footage of the
> strike and penetration.

Wow! Tom is at it again. More amazing feats of being involved in a job or project
tthat *just happens* to relate to something being discussed. Funny how that always
happens. You are truly the most well-traveled and versatile human ever.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 15:39:22
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-325B79.00015506022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> And none of those "terrorist extremists" were Iraqis.

And none of those people who bombed Pearl Harbor were Germans or Italians.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 00:09:27
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <Ki1yh.19268$pQ3.18537@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-325B79.00015506022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >
> > And none of those "terrorist extremists" were Iraqis.
>
> And none of those people who bombed Pearl Harbor were Germans or Italians.

And how is Iraq in any way equivilent to Germany/Italy?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 24 Jan 2007 15:28:33
From: ST
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 1/24/07 1:16 AM, in article
45b7236b$0$21095$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Donald Munro"
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Bill C wrote:
>> The Air Force just ripped the V-22 Osprey in testing. Unfortunately
>> it's from a subscription site I don't want to lift it from, but they
>> had a hard time keeping them in that air long enough to test them. Must
>> need another few billion thrown at the problem.
>
> I don't suppose the Osprey is made by people who go duck hunting with
> Cheney ? Apropos of which, presumably Cheney would be able to hit a low
> flying Osprey if he aims at a duck.
>
>

Real nice liberals you are......
No malice from Cheney present in that accident. I guess it is time to start
"Drunk Ed Kennedy goes off the bridge" jokes again.....

Date: 24 Jan 2007 10:42:40
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:28:33 GMT, ST <no@no.com > wrote:

>On 1/24/07 1:16 AM, in article
>45b7236b$0$21095$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Donald Munro"
><fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bill C wrote:
>>> The Air Force just ripped the V-22 Osprey in testing. Unfortunately
>>> it's from a subscription site I don't want to lift it from, but they
>>> had a hard time keeping them in that air long enough to test them. Must
>>> need another few billion thrown at the problem.
>>
>> I don't suppose the Osprey is made by people who go duck hunting with
>> Cheney ? Apropos of which, presumably Cheney would be able to hit a low
>> flying Osprey if he aims at a duck.
>>
>>
>
>Real nice liberals you are......
>No malice from Cheney present in that accident. I guess it is time to start
>"Drunk Ed Kennedy goes off the bridge" jokes again.....

Cheney's been instrumental in sending thousands of Americans to their
deaths.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 24 Jan 2007 18:41:25
From: ST
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 1/24/07 7:42 AM, in article liver25uc9bssl5qkmg6ekv7cagh04klci@4ax.com,
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:28:33 GMT, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/07 1:16 AM, in article
>> 45b7236b$0$21095$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Donald Munro"
>> <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill C wrote:
>>>> The Air Force just ripped the V-22 Osprey in testing. Unfortunately
>>>> it's from a subscription site I don't want to lift it from, but they
>>>> had a hard time keeping them in that air long enough to test them. Must
>>>> need another few billion thrown at the problem.
>>>
>>> I don't suppose the Osprey is made by people who go duck hunting with
>>> Cheney ? Apropos of which, presumably Cheney would be able to hit a low
>>> flying Osprey if he aims at a duck.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Real nice liberals you are......
>> No malice from Cheney present in that accident. I guess it is time to start
>> "Drunk Ed Kennedy goes off the bridge" jokes again.....
>
> Cheney's been instrumental in sending thousands of Americans to their
> deaths.

So was FDR and LBJ but are you mentioning that???

Date: 25 Jan 2007 19:51:32
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

On Jan 25, 11:54 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:

> If this is success I'm scared to see what a miserable
> failure would look like.

http://www.mises.org/images4/fdrmyth.jpg

Date: 25 Jan 2007 19:48:16
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

Date: 25 Jan 2007 11:54:28
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

On Jan 25, 11:49 am, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
>
> The moral of the story is that venomous snakes can't handle their
> alcohol and get pissy when drunk? What are the characteristics of a
> venomous snake suffering from alcohol intoxication?

It goes on CNN and tells Wolf Blitzer that "we've had enormous
successes, and we will continue to have enormous successes"
in Iraq:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002405.php

Ben
If this is success I'm scared to see what a miserable
failure would look like.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 24 Jan 2007 17:20:47
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:41:25 GMT, ST <no@no.com > wrote:

>On 1/24/07 7:42 AM, in article liver25uc9bssl5qkmg6ekv7cagh04klci@4ax.com,
>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:28:33 GMT, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/24/07 1:16 AM, in article
>>> 45b7236b$0$21095$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Donald Munro"
>>> <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill C wrote:
>>>>> The Air Force just ripped the V-22 Osprey in testing. Unfortunately
>>>>> it's from a subscription site I don't want to lift it from, but they
>>>>> had a hard time keeping them in that air long enough to test them. Must
>>>>> need another few billion thrown at the problem.
>>>>
>>>> I don't suppose the Osprey is made by people who go duck hunting with
>>>> Cheney ? Apropos of which, presumably Cheney would be able to hit a low
>>>> flying Osprey if he aims at a duck.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Real nice liberals you are......
>>> No malice from Cheney present in that accident. I guess it is time to start
>>> "Drunk Ed Kennedy goes off the bridge" jokes again.....
>>
>> Cheney's been instrumental in sending thousands of Americans to their
>> deaths.
>
>So was FDR and LBJ but are you mentioning that???

Well, in FDRs case most everyone would agree the war was justified.

In Cheney's case the war is now shown to have no justification, and
never did.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 23 Jan 2007 12:17:41
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

jean-yves herve wrote:
> This is ridiculous. The USA walk into Iraq with zero planning on what
> do do once the fighting is over.

Not exactly zero:

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html --D-y

Date: 05 Feb 2007 14:15:40
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 4, 7:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

>
> Of course you're not. You appear to prefer ignorance to knowledge. Everyone
> in the world but you and your buddies is corrupt. You on the other hand are
> above reproach. You'd ALWAYS know before hand the right thing to do in every
> case.

Tom You won't ever find me claiming to have all the answers, that's
why I vbalue the opinions, and information, provided by those who see
things differently so much. The fastest way to become totally ignorant
is to KNOW it all and only listen to those who think like you.
I KNOW that I don't know anywhere near enough. Fortunately I happen
to love to read, learn, talk to people who DO have a clue, and due to
being broken continually, I have tons of time to do it. I always have
something to read, and I NEED to read.
Maybe someday I'll have a hint of a clue, but until then I'm gonna
enjoy working to get there.
There are a few, selected topics, like the work I do that I do have a
decent working knowledge of, but I'm also aware that there are masters
out there who would consider everything I know to be nothing more than
kindergarten level.
Someday I hope to get out of grade school.
Bill C

Date: 13 Feb 2007 13:16:25
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 10, 11:55 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Feb 10, 3:30 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
> > SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 9, 12:42 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> > >> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > >>> If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will
> > >>> see that the temperature peaked in 2004
>
> > >> Somehow I don't find it hard to believe that you would cherry pick
> > >> through a bunch of alternatives to find a "six point polynomial
> > >> average" that shows what you want.
>
> > > If you want to say his filter choice is wrong for estimating or even
> > > predicting a compression of the warming trend, then you should argue
> > > why the estimator (filter) is a poor choice.
>
> > No, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying that one can almost always find
> > some polynomial of a particular order that can produce a particular effect
> > post hoc. Why six points, and not five or seven?

I couldn't know without more information, or just testing a few -- the
choice range of filter is infinite. For my subjective taste, I would
want more points. But there is a basic tradeoff in time response,
especially if there is some hope the filter is nominally useful for
near-term prediction.

I have no clue what to do with the end points, but in the sense that
this whole concern has prediction as its goal, the points nearer the
right end have a little higher weight. (And by nearer I don't
necessarily mean only the last 5-6 years.)

> > For example, Bob Carter argued that the evidence showed global cooling from
> > 1998 to 2005 based on a 25-month smooth. That's horseshit. 25 months sounds
> > like a lot of points but there is substantial seasonality in global temps
> > (since the amounts of land mass in the northern and southern hemispheres
> > differ).

I would brush off that analysis too.

> You're doing the favor of speaking as if Kunich actually
> ran a "six point polynomial smoothing" on the data and didn't
> pull it out of his ass-hat. I don't know exactly what he
> means by that (I know what a six point moving average is,
> but would he mean fitting a polynomial to each set of
> six points? Fitting a sixth-order polynomial to the
> whole dataset? Neither of these is a particularly robust
> smoothing strategy.)

A moving average filter is a time-domain filter, and is non-recursive
(FIR). The shape of the "window" that is convolved across the data
can be described with a polynomial If it is an even function, it ends
up the same as correlation, since the convolution aspect of "flipping
it over in time" before dragging it across the data does nothing.

An "LSE fit," for example, is a polynomial. You can also call it a
filter -- that is exactly what it is doing. Done chunk-wise dragging
across the data, it is just another MAVG non-recursive filter.

The time domain filter can be transformed to the frequency domain, and
convolution in the time domain is multiplication in the frequency
domain. If it is a digital filter and there is a massive amount of
data, then some computational efficiencies could make it worth the
while. In any case, the data and filter should also be viewed in the
frequency domain, aliasing on the data notwithstanding.

For the continuous-time-amplitude ("analog") world of filters, almost
all the filters are IIR (recursive). Also, they are designed in the
frequency domain and are fundamentally represented by a transfer
function numerator and denominator, both of which are polynomials in s
(- >jw for Fourier). (O. Heaviside used p instead of s, for his
"operational calculus.") A. Zverev published a book with extensive
tables. Since catalog filters (from tables) supply most needs, not
many people know how to do the synthesis anymore. The theory is very
mathematical and quite elegant.

I pasted something in from Hamming at the bottom. His text is good.
He was a math guy, and the famous "Hamming Window" guy. He lived in
Carmel, and I think he died 6-9 years back. Personally, my favorite
is my old skool book from a DSP elective for learning basics, even
though it has not been as popular as some others. I have other texts,
including Hamming, Mitra, Lyons, Oppenhiem, etc. I do analog (real
time and physical) filters mostly -- very little digital/discrete
stuff. Dinosaur.

http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Filters-Richard-W-Hamming/dp/048665088X/
http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Processing-Addison-Wesley-Electrical-Engineering/dp/0201095181/

> The bigger problem is that we all know the climate is
> subject to short-term variability.

And to get a better handle on this freq-domain question, you need to
do a DFT, aliasing concerns aside. (FFT not really needed. The # of
points is tiny.)

> This is why one
> needs decades of evidence for warming, not just "The
> last 8 years were very hot." Equally so, if the last
> 8 years seemed to show a plateau, it is premature to
> say that global warming has stopped.

Well sure, unless plateauing ends up turning out to be true with more
data. Then the folks who used those filters can say "see, I told you
so!"

> However, that
> it requires cooking the data to see a plateau suggests
> that regardless of the temperature, someone's
> ears are burning.

You're conflating two separate things. Lindzen probably had no good
call to adjust the last two points, even if you want to describe him
as a biased person. The "cooking" was small/unimportant, for what his
conclusion was, so why do it? (Did he *actually* do it?) On the
other hand, filter choice is subjective, which means it can be argued
interminably, if that's your bag.

-----------------------------------
Hamming
Preface

...

Digital filtering includes the processes of smoothing, predicting,
differentiating, integrating, separation of signals, and removal of
noise from a signal. Thus many people who do such things are actually
using digital filters
without realizing that they are; being unacquainted with the theory,
they neither understand what they have done nor the possibilities of
what they might have done. Computer people very often find themselves
involved in filtering signals when they have had no appropriate
training at all. Their needs are especially catered to in this book.
Because the same ideas arise in many fields there are many cross
connections between the fields that can be exploited. Unfortunately
each field seems to go its own way (while reinventing the wheel) and
to develop its own jargon for exactly the same ideas that are used
elsewhere. One goal of this revision is to expose and reduce this
elaborate jargon equivalence from the various fields of application
and to provide a unified approach to the whole field. We will adopt
the simplest, most easily understood words to describe what is going
on and exhibit lists of the equivalent words from related fields. We
will also use only the simplest, most direct mathematical tools and
shun fancy mathematics whenever possible.
This book concentrates on linear signal processing; the main
exceptions are the examination of roundoff effects and a brief mention
of Kalman filters, which adapt themselves to the signal they are
receiving.
The fundamental tool of digital filtering is the frequency
approach, which is based on the use of sines and cosines rather than
on the use of polynomials (as is conventional in many fields such as
numerical analysis and much of statistics). The frequency approach,
which leads to the spectrum, has been the principal method of opening
the black boxes of nature. Examples run from the early study of the
structure of the atom (using spectral lines as the observations)
through quantum mechanics (which arose from the study of the spectrum
of black-body radiation) to the modern methods of studying a system
(for purposes of modeling and control) via the spectrum of the output
as it is related to the input.
There appears to be a deep emotional resistance to the frequency
approach. And even electrical engineers who use it daily often have
only a slight understanding of why they are using the eigenfunction
approach and the role of the eigenvalues. In numerical analysis there
is almost complete antipathy to the frequency approach, while in
statistics there is a great fondness for polynomials (without ever
examining the question of which set of functions is appropriate). This
book shows clearly why the sines and cosines are the natural, the
proper, the characteristic functions to use in many situations. It
also approaches cautiously the usual traumatic experience (for most
people) of going from the real sines and cosines to the complex
exponentials with the mysterious sqrt(-1); their greater convenience
in use eventually compensates for the initial troubles and provides
more insight.
The text includes an accurate (but not excessively rigorous)
introduction to the necessary mathematics. In each case the formal
mathematics is postponed until the need for it is clearly seen. We are
interested in presenting the ideas of the field and will generally not
give the "best" methods for designing very complex filters; in an
elementary course it is proper to give elementary, broadly applicable
design methods, and then show how these can be refined to meet a very
wide range of design criteria. Because it is an elementary text,
references to advanced papers and books are of little use to the
reader. Instead we refer to a few standard texts where more advanced
material and references can be found. The references to these books
are indicated in the text by [L,p], where L is the book label given at
the end of this book, and p is the page(s) where it can be found.
References [LEEE-l and 2] give a complete bibliography for most topics
that arise.
There is a deliberate repetition in the presentation of the
material. Experience shows that the learner often becomes so involved
in the immediate details of designing a filter that where and how the
topic fits into the whole
plan is lost. Furthermore, confusion often arises when the same ideas
and mathematical tools are used in seemingly very different
situations. It is also true that filters are designed to process data,
but experience shows that the
display of large sets of data that have been processed communicates
very little to the beginner. Thus such plots are seldom given, even
though the learner needs to be reminded that the ultimate test of a
filter is how well it
processes a signal, not how elegant the derivation is.

...

1.3 HOW SHALL WE TREAT THE SUBJECT?

Much of the theory, both as to the design and use of digital
filters, originated in the field of analog filters. If one is already
familiar with the field, then it might be reasonable to build on this
knowledge. Today, however, the average person who needs to know about
digital filters has no such background, and so it is foolish to base
the development on the analog approach. Consequently, we assume no
such familiarity and will only mention the corresponding jargon when
necessary.
The statistics field has also contributed extensively to the theory
of digital filters. In particular, the subject of time series is
closely related and has contributed its own elaborate and confusing
jargon.
Textbooks in numerical analysis have many formulas that are linear
combinations of equally spaced data, and thus such formulas are
equivalent to digital filters. Since the elements of numerical
analysis are now more
widely known than those of other fields of application, we will select
many of our examples from numerical analysis. Furthermore it is very
often needed in practice.
The fundamental approach common to all the special fields is based
on (1) the Fourier series, both discrete and continuous, and (2) the
use of the Fourier integral. They are the mathematical tools for
understanding and manipulating linear formulas, and we must take the
time to develop them, for they are rarely taught outside of electrical
engineering courses these days. However, we will avoid becoming too
involved with mathematical rigor, which all too often tends to become
rigor mortis. Nor do we develop all the mathematical theory before
showing its use; instead, we regularly give applications of the theory
just covered in order to show both its relevance and its use. In this
way, we hope that much of the mathematics will become more obvious to
the nonmathematically inclined.

Date: 13 Feb 2007 23:30:44
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
[stuff on digital filters snipped]

What do you do when the data aren't equi-spaced?

Date: 13 Feb 2007 23:04:45
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:53esgkF1rv2r6U1@mid.individual.net...
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> [stuff on digital filters snipped]
>
> What do you do when the data aren't equi-spaced?

Are you insinuating that yearly average global temperatures are not equally
spaced?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

"When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming
is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We
were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Sumy for
Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific
dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months' time. They
declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is
very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases."

"Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one
particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the
effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential
for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their
research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least
entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the
hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil
companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost
unreported."

The problem is that people like Chung support the intentional biasing of
data to fit their political agenda.

Date: 14 Feb 2007 00:34:08
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote
>>
>> What do you do when the data aren't equi-spaced?
>
> Are you insinuating that yearly average global temperatures are not
> equally spaced?

Not at all. I was simply pointing out that the Hamming stuff that Greg
cut-and-pasted had a particular point of view about the regularity of data
(and that point of view is often an engineer's).

But as long as I have your attention, what was your "six point polynomial"
and why did you choose six as opposed to any other number?

Date: 14 Feb 2007 01:41:12
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:53f07eF1sioj4U1@mid.individual.net...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>> What do you do when the data aren't equi-spaced?
>>
>> Are you insinuating that yearly average global temperatures are not
>> equally spaced?
>
> Not at all. I was simply pointing out that the Hamming stuff that Greg
> cut-and-pasted had a particular point of view about the regularity of data
> (and that point of view is often an engineer's).
>
> But as long as I have your attention, what was your "six point polynomial"
> and why did you choose six as opposed to any other number?

Could it be because I didn't have to run a Matlab simulation - only use the
largest possible filter available in Excel?

Or would that be too complicated for you guys to figure out?

Date: 13 Feb 2007 22:43:28
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Robert Chung wrote:

> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> [stuff on digital filters snipped]
>
> What do you do when the data aren't equi-spaced?

Or contain aperiodic phenomena for that matter. If you sort through what's
been published, people gave up on fourier analysis of global temperature
records long ago because of such problems. It's all wavelet transforms and
methods that makes my brain crawl out my nose to get away:

http://www.cosis.net/members/journals/df/article.php?a_id=3781

--
Bill Asher

Date: 10 Feb 2007 15:40:08
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 10, 5:33 pm, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > You're doing the favor of speaking as if Kunich actually
> > ran a "six point polynomial smoothing" on the data and didn't
> > pull it out of his ass-hat.
>
> Well, I was actually sorta hoping he had done it. I was hoping that cuz if
> he'd actually done a smooth (even a cherry-picked one) he would've realized
> that I took the data exactly as supplied instead of doctoring them as was
> his accusation just a few posts upthread. So, if he'd done a smooth but not
> admitted that he'd made a false accusation, everyone would have (yet more)
> evidence of exactly how much of a dick Tom is. As if anyone needed it.
>
> Besides, he deserves credit for using "co Polo sailed to the North Pole"
> as a reason to deny global warming. That's better than "the dope was for my
> dog."

I don't think there's a whole lot of doubt when you discuss your area
of expertise who knows what they are talking about.
Unlike Tom, I'm st enough not to say you have no clue on the
technical aspects of stats & studies, Ilan on mathematics, or Greg
on early American government and principles.
There's shit I, and everyone else will question, from every expert
but only a select few non-professionals will actually argue they are
ster and better versed than every expert.
Bill C

Date: 10 Feb 2007 11:55:52
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 10, 3:30 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > On Feb 9, 12:42 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> >>> If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will
> >>> see that the temperature peaked in 2004
>
> >> Somehow I don't find it hard to believe that you would cherry pick
> >> through a bunch of alternatives to find a "six point polynomial
> >> average" that shows what you want.
>
> > If you want to say his filter choice is wrong for estimating or even
> > predicting a compression of the warming trend, then you should argue
> > why the estimator (filter) is a poor choice.
>
> No, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying that one can almost always find
> some polynomial of a particular order that can produce a particular effect
> post hoc. Why six points, and not five or seven?
>
> For example, Bob Carter argued that the evidence showed global cooling from
> 1998 to 2005 based on a 25-month smooth. That's horseshit. 25 months sounds
> like a lot of points but there is substantial seasonality in global temps
> (since the amounts of land mass in the northern and southern hemispheres
> differ).
>

You're doing the favor of speaking as if Kunich actually
ran a "six point polynomial smoothing" on the data and didn't
pull it out of his ass-hat. I don't know exactly what he
means by that (I know what a six point moving average is,
but would he mean fitting a polynomial to each set of
six points? Fitting a sixth-order polynomial to the
whole dataset? Neither of these is a particularly robust
smoothing strategy.)

The bigger problem is that we all know the climate is
subject to short-term variability. This is why one
needs decades of evidence for warming, not just "The
last 8 years were very hot." Equally so, if the last
8 years seemed to show a plateau, it is premature to
say that global warming has stopped. However, that
it requires cooking the data to see a plateau suggests
that regardless of the temperature, someone's
ears are burning.

Ben

Date: 10 Feb 2007 23:33:02
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> You're doing the favor of speaking as if Kunich actually
> ran a "six point polynomial smoothing" on the data and didn't
> pull it out of his ass-hat.

Well, I was actually sorta hoping he had done it. I was hoping that cuz if
he'd actually done a smooth (even a cherry-picked one) he would've realized
that I took the data exactly as supplied instead of doctoring them as was
his accusation just a few posts upthread. So, if he'd done a smooth but not
admitted that he'd made a false accusation, everyone would have (yet more)
evidence of exactly how much of a dick Tom is. As if anyone needed it.

Besides, he deserves credit for using "co Polo sailed to the North Pole"
as a reason to deny global warming. That's better than "the dope was for my
dog."

Date: 10 Feb 2007 23:48:27
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:536vguF1qg69gU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> Besides, he deserves credit for using "co Polo sailed to the North
> Pole" as a reason to deny global warming. That's better than "the dope was
> for my dog."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

"This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical
and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated
the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of
physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect."

"Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real,
global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the
tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland:
now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a
Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found
none."

Though I'm quite sure that you're a lot more educated about these things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/co_Polo

"When co Polo arrived at Kublai Khan's court he became a favorite of the
Khan and was employed for 17 years and was sent on voyages"

http://www.copolovoyages.com/LibCongressPapers/GunnarThompson2.html

"co says that he traveled to the Far North by compass. He reached a place
where the Pole Star appeared to have a southerly bearing. We can tell from
this statement that he had reached Baffin Island north of Hudson Bay."

For those who don't know where Baffin Island is:
http://encarta.msn.com/map_701510430/Baffin_Island.html you will notice that
they would have had to transverse the northwest passage which has been
frozen in most of our history.

Date: 11 Feb 2007 05:25:43
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Polo to the Pole

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "co says that he traveled to the Far North by compass. He reached
> a place where the Pole Star appeared to have a southerly bearing. We
> can tell from this statement that he had reached Baffin Island north
> of Hudson Bay."

You forgot the part where it says co Polo brought noodles to Greenland
which is why the Scandinavians have a noodle-based cuisine.

Date: 11 Feb 2007 05:07:13
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

Robert Chung wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "co says that he traveled to the Far North by compass. He reached
>> a place where the Pole Star appeared to have a southerly bearing. We
>> can tell from this statement that he had reached Baffin Island north
>> of Hudson Bay."
>
> You forgot the part where it says co Polo brought noodles to
> Greenland which is why the Scandinavians have a noodle-based cuisine.

He didn't bring noodles you retard, he brought rice. Greenlanders started
cultivating rice. Then, when the Greenland climate changed from tropical
back to arctic when the MWP ended, all the Greenlanders died because their
rice paddies froze.

Anyway, sometimes the guy raving at the bus stop actually has a kernel of
truth to what he is saying. Sort of like this:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30501

Anyway, there is a lot of evidence the ancient Chinese were quite the
seafarers.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sultan/explorers.html

There are some people who seriously believe co Polo sailed on the
Chinese treasure junks down the west coast of the Americas (see below).
However, it is not credibly believed he made it through the NW passage to
Baffin Island, nor is there archeological evidence of Chinese influence in
the eastern north american arctic.

--
Bill Asher

http://www.copolovoyages.com/Articles/MPoloNewWorldMaps.html

and

http://tinyurl.com/2ez6ez

co Polo�s New World Expeditions:
The Role of Commercial Espionage in Westward Expansion and Discovery
from Labrador to Louisiana and the Pacific
by
Gunnar Thompson
(New World Discovery Institute)

As late as the Lewis & Clark expedition into the Louisiana Territory in
1804, explorers were still seeking an ephemeral �shortcut� to the Western
Sea and trade with the Orient. The quest was ignited in the mid-1400s by
the sudden popularity of co Polo�s travelogue, Description of The World.
This crazy quilt of scientific revelation and outrageous fantasy inspired
credulous explorers over a span of nearly four centuries.

The enduring impact of co Polo�s lost �Northwest Passage� or �Strait of
Anian� can be attributed to the common practice of using maps as
instruments of commercial espionage. Cartographers and explorers had more
obstacles to contend with than climatic changes and compass error when it
came to blazing pathways through the wilderness. The so-called �maps� they
copied from rivals often had deliberate inaccuracies that were intended to
mislead unwary pioneers. Thus, Portuguese charts of the 15th century
deceptively showed co Polo�s Japan and Cathay (China) a short distance
west of Europe; and Spaniards duped the English into publishing maps that
showed California as an island. Even French explorers followed the fading
chimeras of the Verazano Sea, the River Oregon, and the River of the Khan
(Canada) as they headed west.

A substantial portion of the confusion stemmed from co Polo�s secret
voyages to the West Coast of the New World. He led fairly substantial
expeditions in his capacity as a special revenue agent for Kublai Khan. The
tangible evidence we have that such voyages actually took place consists of
a number of very early maps showing the coasts of Alaska, Vancouver Island,
Puget Sound, California, and Peru. It was co�s job to determine the
points of origin and costs for such valuable Chinese imports as furs, jade,
emeralds, gold, and cochineal -- a vermilion dye used for the emperor�s
paper money.

Leo Bagrwo published a number of co Polo�s New Work maps in 1946 showing
the coast of Alaska and British Columbia. Flemish and Venetian maps of the
15th and 16th centuries indicated the West Coast locations of co�s New
World territories of �Anian,� �Quivira,� �Toloman,� and �Paru.� These names
confirm an earlier belief among Flemish cartographers that co Polo had
indeed visited New World shores. Although some scholars have disputed the
importance of Flemish maps (and Bagrow�s data), numerous Chinese artifacts
found along the West Coast, the presence of Chinese horse breeds in Ancient
America, and Native tales of visitors from the Orient provide
corroboration. Most telling is a statement by co that he had traveled to
a region of the Far North �where the Pole Star was behind him as he
proceeded in a northerly direction.� This geophysical phenomenon occurs
only in British Columbia.

Date: 11 Feb 2007 06:58:41
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

William Asher wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> "co says that he traveled to the Far North by compass. He reached
>>> a place where the Pole Star appeared to have a southerly bearing. We
>>> can tell from this statement that he had reached Baffin Island north
>>> of Hudson Bay."
>> You forgot the part where it says co Polo brought noodles to
>> Greenland which is why the Scandinavians have a noodle-based cuisine.
>
> He didn't bring noodles you retard, he brought rice. Greenlanders started
> cultivating rice. Then, when the Greenland climate changed from tropical
> back to arctic when the MWP ended, all the Greenlanders died because their
> rice paddies froze.
>
> Anyway, sometimes the guy raving at the bus stop actually has a kernel of
> truth to what he is saying. Sort of like this:
>
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30501
>
When I clicked on this link, this ad was in the sidebar:

http://store.theonion.com/product_info.php?products_id=190

Date: 11 Feb 2007 04:45:54
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:537k67F1r1dp2U1@mid.individual.net...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "co says that he traveled to the Far North by compass. He reached
>> a place where the Pole Star appeared to have a southerly bearing. We
>> can tell from this statement that he had reached Baffin Island north
>> of Hudson Bay."
>
> You forgot the part where it says co Polo brought noodles to Greenland
> which is why the Scandinavians have a noodle-based cuisine.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUlGoaAOzqA

Date: 11 Feb 2007 00:42:19
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

>
> "Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was
> real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no
> glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking
> farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice
> at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the
> Arctic in 1421 and found none."
>

But it wasn't a global shift in climate, it was regional. Get the
difference? Regional, not global. The idea there was a global warming
during this time has been shown to be false.

Here's an excerpt of the MWP from the TAR:

As with the �Little Ice Age�, the posited �Medieval Warm Period� appears to
have been less distinct, more moderate in amplitude, and somewhat different
in timing at the hemispheric scale than is typically inferred for the
conventionally-defined European epoch. The Northern Hemisphere mean
temperature estimates of Jones et al. (1998), Mann et al. (1999), and
Crowley and Lowery (2000) show temperatures from the 11th to 14th centuries
to be about 0.2�C warmer than those from the 15th to 19th centuries, but
rather below mid-20th century temperatures. The long-term hemispheric trend
is best described as a modest and irregular cooling from AD 1000 to around
1850 to 1900, followed by an abrupt 20th century warming. Regional evidence
is, however, quite variable. Crowley and Lowery (2000) show that western
Greenland exhibited anomalous warmth locally only around AD 1000 (and to a
lesser extent, around AD 1400), with quite cold conditions during the
latter part of the 11th century, while Scandinavian summer temperatures
appeared relatively warm only during the 11th and early 12th centuries.
Crowley and Lowery (2000) find no evidence for warmth in the tropics.
Regional evidence for medieval warmth elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere
is so variable that eastern, yet not western, China appears to have been
warm by 20th century standards from the 9th to 13th centuries. The 12th and
14th centuries appear to have been mainly cold in China (Wang et al.,
1998a,b; Wang and Gong, 2000). The restricted evidence from the Southern
Hemisphere, e.g., the Tasmanian tree-ring temperature reconstruction of
Cook et al. (1999), shows no evidence for a distinct Medieval Warm Period.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

If you have trouble reading this, I think there's a video of an interpetive
dance on the subject done by the k Morris troupe available on YouTube.
It involves pecker-waggling though. Morris is like that.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 10 Feb 2007 21:52:20
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:1171137352.619743.305310@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> You're doing the favor of speaking as if Kunich actually
> ran a "six point polynomial smoothing" on the data and didn't
> pull it out of his ass-hat. I don't know exactly what he
> means by that

My guess is that you don't understand just about anything about the problem
nor even why one would apply any filter at all to the data.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 13:05:14
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 8, 5:37 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 6:05 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> > > What was it Jesus said about a rich man getting into heaven, Tom?
>
> > By all means explain that. Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
> > richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.
>
> Yep that displays a great grasp of comparative spending power. Those
> moneylenders at the temple thaT Jesus condemned were obviously much
> better humans than a humble plumber, or carpenter.

If you want to jump on the "Kunich is a retard" bandwagon, it might be
a good idea to pick an instance where he is wrong. (Hey, a free
tip!) Your cue should have been that Paterson was involved.

> If it makes me scum, so be it. I'm standing with Howard, TP, Kyle,
> Greg, Curtis, etc...

Are you saying the people standing with you are "scum?"

Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:39:05
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 7, 9:56 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in messagenews:wRxyh.21913$yx6.515@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
> > Like dude - how hot was the Earth in the Hadean eon and why did it cool
> > down? I mean, if you can't answer a simple question like that exactly how
> > do you expect anyone to believe that you have any clue about the
> > temperature of Venus today?
>
> And just to add something - how hot would Earth be if we had an atmosphere
> that is something like 90 standard?
>
> Carbon Dioxide? Forgive me but you'll have to explain to me how that makes
> much difference on a planet with a 20 km thick band of clouds composed of
> sulferic acid.

I'm confident that everyone reading this can tell that
you're talking through your hat. The link I provided
explains how Venus got the way it is, or Google
"venus greenhouse effect" if you need more references.
Sulfuric acid sounds nasty, but the reason Venus's
atmosphere is nasty is because of the temperature
and pressure, which were originally caused by the
so-called greenhouse effect. The greenhouse is caused
by the transparency of greenhouse gases like CO2 at
optical wavelengths and their opacity in the infrared.
People have been thinking about this for a long time:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

I think the intellectual history of the subject is
interesting as an example of how science gets done.
(For example, the early experiments that suggested
the CO2 infrared bands were saturated, and the
later realization that you had to do the experiment
at upper-atmosphere temp and pressure.)
Right now, the controversy is no longer about
the science. It is about politics. That is all.

Ben

Date: 09 Feb 2007 09:44:47
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> On Feb 7, 9:56 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

[Tom's stuff snipped]

> I'm confident that everyone reading this can tell that
> you're talking through your hat.

"Hat?"

Date: 08 Feb 2007 18:20:18
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 8, 5:37 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:

> > Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
> > richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.
>
> Yep that displays a great grasp of comparative spending power. Those
> moneylenders at the temple thaT Jesus condemned were obviously much
> better humans than a humble plumber, or carpenter.

Whoosh...

Right on over the top.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 17:37:10
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 8, 6:05 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170971119.428851.302460@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 8, 1:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > (I asked):
> >> > Are you *afraid* of living in a cold, dark house, living on dog food,
> >> > unable to afford going to the doctor and buying the medicine you need
> >> > in America the Pensionless?
>
> > (TK replied, as usual):
> >> Would you care to compare bank accounts?
>
> > You were the one playing the victim card.
>
> Let's see, I'm asked what effect it will have on me and I state the facts.
> You believe that to be playing the "victim card". To a plumber whose entire
> life was spent trying to figure out how to show ass crack to every available
> housewife I suppose you might really think that.
>
Tom, The man of the people showing his respect for working tradesmen.
It's tough to have empoathy when your the worlds most excellent
genius.

> > What was it Jesus said about a rich man getting into heaven, Tom?
>
> By all means explain that. Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
> richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.

Yep that displays a great grasp of comparative spending power. Those
moneylenders at the temple thaT Jesus condemned were obviously much
better humans than a humble plumber, or carpenter.

>
> > When you said that energy use is directly tied to economic prosperity,
> > you got a good long head start on me in the drooling dept. Not your
> > first, of course.
>
> Oh???http://www.energy.gov/print/1799.htm"The demand for oil is
> increasing, not just in the United States and Great Britain but around the
> world, particularly in rapidly growing economies in nations like China and
> India." ~ "There, we will see a requirement for large . very large . power
> production facilities as increased population joins with a growing world
> economy to put more and more stress on energy supplies."
No shit, development, in developing countries, needs quick and easy
power, no matter how dirty. What a surprise.
>
> I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You, Asher
> and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas look
> particularly intelligent.

Yep along with JT, Howard, Henry, Me, and everyone else, were all
morons except maybe Tosi, right?
You occasionally make decent points, and are one of the few here
vocally conservative, but I've always said that it's more important to
condemn and question those who are on your side when they are out
there. In this case you've finally hit my tolerance level. I've felt
sorry for you, and held back for ages over all the STUPID shit you've
come up with, but enough is enough. We'll agree from time to time, and
I'll say so, but I'm embarrassed that you and I are on the same side
at times.
I have a lot more disagreements with Amit, but he's a hellm of a lot
more reasonable, and IMO better person than you are.
The level of paranoia, arrogance, hatred, delusionality, and
persecution complex really are sad from someone who is obviously st
and talented.
If it makes me scum, so be it. I'm standing with Howard, TP, Kyle,
Greg, Curtis, etc...
Bill C

Date: 09 Feb 2007 17:18:49
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1170985030.231551.164150@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 8, 6:05 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1170971119.428851.302460@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 8, 1:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> > (I asked):
>> >> > Are you *afraid* of living in a cold, dark house, living on dog
>> >> > food,
>> >> > unable to afford going to the doctor and buying the medicine you
>> >> > need
>> >> > in America the Pensionless?
>>
>> > (TK replied, as usual):
>> >> Would you care to compare bank accounts?
>>
>> > You were the one playing the victim card.
>>
>> Let's see, I'm asked what effect it will have on me and I state the
>> facts.
>> You believe that to be playing the "victim card". To a plumber whose
>> entire
>> life was spent trying to figure out how to show ass crack to every
>> available
>> housewife I suppose you might really think that.
>>
> Tom, The man of the people showing his respect for working tradesmen.
> It's tough to have empoathy when your the worlds most excellent
> genius.

Are you playing the victim card now?

>> > What was it Jesus said about a rich man getting into heaven, Tom?
>>
>> By all means explain that. Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
>> richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.
>
> Yep that displays a great grasp of comparative spending power. Those
> moneylenders at the temple thaT Jesus condemned were obviously much
> better humans than a humble plumber, or carpenter.

That seems to be what you're implying. In actual money and the services it
will provide you, you are thousands of times richer than those people whom
Jesus was talking about. And yet you pretend that you're some poor set upon
individual crying poor-mouth. What a coward.

>> > When you said that energy use is directly tied to economic prosperity,
>> > you got a good long head start on me in the drooling dept. Not your
>> > first, of course.
>>
>> Oh???http://www.energy.gov/print/1799.htm"The demand for oil is
>> increasing, not just in the United States and Great Britain but around
>> the
>> world, particularly in rapidly growing economies in nations like China
>> and
>> India." ~ "There, we will see a requirement for large . very large .
>> power
>> production facilities as increased population joins with a growing world
>> economy to put more and more stress on energy supplies."
> No shit, development, in developing countries, needs quick and easy
> power, no matter how dirty. What a surprise.
>>
>> I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You,
>> Asher
>> and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas look
>> particularly intelligent.
>
> Yep along with JT, Howard, Henry, Me, and everyone else, were all
> morons except maybe Tosi, right?

I see you truly believe in refuting false statements. Oh, wait, you aren't
refuting anything - you're just trying to change the subject after being so
wrong.

> You occasionally make decent points, and are one of the few here
> vocally conservative, but I've always said that it's more important to
> condemn and question those who are on your side when they are out
> there.

That's funny - I thought you've always said that you're against anyone
that's against anything that you ever thought was nice. Sort of like a
housewife without any knowledge of the world and the way it thinks who voted
for Kennedy because he was such a handsome man and never believed that rumor
that he collected more votes in Chicago than there were registered voters.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 04:03:25
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 7, 8:56 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in messagenews:wRxyh.21913$yx6.515@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
> > Like dude - how hot was the Earth in the Hadean eon and why did it cool
> > down? I mean, if you can't answer a simple question like that exactly how
> > do you expect anyone to believe that you have any clue about the
> > temperature of Venus today?
>
> And just to add something - how hot would Earth be if we had an atmosphere
> that is something like 90 standard?
>
> Carbon Dioxide? Forgive me but you'll have to explain to me how that makes
> much difference on a planet with a 20 km thick band of clouds composed of
> sulferic acid.

Retard -

CO2 absorbs infrared radiation *leaving* a planet, not the solar
radiation coming in. It's like a blanket. A large amount of CO2 is
analagous to a very thick blanket.

The extra 90 ppm of CO2 added by humans in the Earth's atmosphere is
estimated to absorb 1.5 watts of infrared radiation per square meter.

Does that fact "prove" global warming is caused by humans? No, not by
itself. But unless you understand how adding CO2 affects the system
(which you clearly don't), you shouldn't be making a case for or
against anything to do with climate change.

Your answer to all this should be "I don't know". Because you don't
know.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:15:34
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170936205.137904.219280@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> CO2 absorbs infrared radiation *leaving* a planet, not the solar
> radiation coming in. It's like a blanket. A large amount of CO2 is
> analagous to a very thick blanket.

Henry, I see your area of expertise is in planetary environmentalism.

> Your answer to all this should be "I don't know". Because you don't
> know.

And yet your answer isn't the same - I wonder why that is?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 02:28:26
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1170713740.521914.229480@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 4, 7:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course you're not. You appear to prefer ignorance to knowledge.
>> Everyone
>> in the world but you and your buddies is corrupt. You on the other hand
>> are
>> above reproach. You'd ALWAYS know before hand the right thing to do in
>> every
>> case.
>
> Tom You won't ever find me claiming to have all the answers, that's
> why I vbalue the opinions, and information, provided by those who see
> things differently so much. The fastest way to become totally ignorant
> is to KNOW it all and only listen to those who think like you.
> I KNOW that I don't know anywhere near enough. Fortunately I happen
> to love to read, learn, talk to people who DO have a clue, and due to
> being broken continually, I have tons of time to do it. I always have
> something to read, and I NEED to read.
> Maybe someday I'll have a hint of a clue, but until then I'm gonna
> enjoy working to get there.
> There are a few, selected topics, like the work I do that I do have a
> decent working knowledge of, but I'm also aware that there are masters
> out there who would consider everything I know to be nothing more than
> kindergarten level.
> Someday I hope to get out of grade school.
> Bill C

Then why do you leap to conclusions on the weight of one person's somewhat
questionable opinion? Is it your claim that Dragon Skin is superior to the
Intercept armor? And what are the tradeoffs? As I pointed out, an armor
piercing round which is commonly available on the battlefield will defeat
ANY personal armor. Do you remember them outlawing teflon coated PISTOL
bullets in the US because they went right through police body armor?

This country is growing more and more polarized and people here are too
stupid to even understand why. Quite frankly I am tired of pointing out that
when 10 people take the same data analyze it and come to 9 different
conclusions, that the two who agree aren't necessarily correct.

Why do you allow yourself to be propagandized by people who have much to
gain by such things?

Case in point - all of the headlines tell us that the latest IPCC study made
the claim that Global Warming is real and man made. Notice that none of them
actually quoted the study? In fact, when you go back you discover that most
of the headlines quote sources that have quoted OTHER sources instead of
actually having read the report themselves.

What did it say? That the average temperature change is still unknown, that
whether it's going up or down is still unknown. That man has PROBABLY
(meaning 90% probability) been the cause of increases in CO2 in the
atmosphere. But whether that has had any effect on the global average
temperature can't be told because we don't have enough long term data on
average temperatures to make any judgement.

As the man said - follow the money - why wouldn't there be a whispering
campaign against the DOD armor when so much money is at stake? Is better
armor better? Who the hell knows without long term tests? Obviously you
don't seem prepared to wait for such tests. CHANGE IT NOW BECAUSE SOMEONE
SAID IT'S BETTER.

The world is a large and complex place where someone like you and I who
AREN'T privy to some millions of information gatherers, thousands of people
writing sumies, hundreds of people digesting the conflicting reports and
writing reports which are then passed on to the administration heads
shouldn't be taking sides.

Instead it is disgusting to watch complete fools who know absolutely nothing
about such complications speaking as if they actually had a clue what
they're talking about. It's plain to see how few people have ever managed
any project at all - hell, most people still haven't figured out that Social
Security was ALWAYS a shell game.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 10:35:30
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 7, 9:55 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:05:20 +0100, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Oh, wait. You were also citing Steve Milloy. Three days after 9/11,
> >>Milloy argued that the WTC collapsed because of asbestos regulation.
>
> > That can't be real. You have to be making this up. Was it just the
> > regulations (maybe really heavy books in the wrong place) or the
> > abatement process? Or was it asbestos was the fiber holding the
> > universe together and now it is illegal...
>
> No it's true. The WTC collapsed. I remember reading about in Time or
> Newsweek a while back. But it's ok, we got the guy responsible. He's in
> prison in a cave in Pakistan.

Dumbass -

He's not in prison. He's always lived in spartan conditions, even
before 9/11. We were trying to kill him then too, because of the Cole
bombings and the Tanzania and Kenya embassy bombings.

Then there's the period of when he fought as a mujahedeen vs. the
Soviets. Dude's been living in caves for a long time.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 19:31:50
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

> On Feb 7, 9:55 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>> > On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:05:20 +0100, "Robert Chung"
>> > <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >>Oh, wait. You were also citing Steve Milloy. Three days after 9/11,
>> >>Milloy argued that the WTC collapsed because of asbestos
>> >>regulation.
>>
>> > That can't be real. You have to be making this up. Was it just the
>> > regulations (maybe really heavy books in the wrong place) or the
>> > abatement process? Or was it asbestos was the fiber holding the
>> > universe together and now it is illegal...
>>
>> No it's true. The WTC collapsed. I remember reading about in Time
>> or Newsweek a while back. But it's ok, we got the guy responsible.
>> He's in prison in a cave in Pakistan.
>
> He's not in prison. He's always lived in spartan conditions, even
> before 9/11. We were trying to kill him then too, because of the Cole
> bombings and the Tanzania and Kenya embassy bombings.
>
> Then there's the period of when he fought as a mujahedeen vs. the
> Soviets. Dude's been living in caves for a long time.

Henry:

Thanks for killing my troll.

Anyway, he is in prison. The Trilateralists captured him and are keeping
him in prison to make Bush look bad. If they released him to let Bush
capture him again, then Iraq would flourish as a republican democracy, the
Iranian people would rise up against the mullahs and give all their oil to
us in trade for newer epsiodes of Baywatch, and global warming would be
shown to be the hoax it is. So you can see why the Trilateralists want to
keep him in prison.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 07 Feb 2007 19:20:27
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170873330.022158.199570@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> He's not in prison. He's always lived in spartan conditions, even
> before 9/11. We were trying to kill him then too, because of the Cole
> bombings and the Tanzania and Kenya embassy bombings.

That must be why Sandy Burglar was stealing ultra top secret documents and
running them through the shredder "accidently".

> Then there's the period of when he fought as a mujahedeen vs. the
> Soviets. Dude's been living in caves for a long time.

Strangely enough he was fighting the Soviets from an air conditioned home
and with a chauffered limo. The guy really is spartan to the nth power.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 02:54:39
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

<snip >
> Case in point - all of the headlines tell us that the latest IPCC
> study made the claim that Global Warming is real and man made. Notice
> that none of them actually quoted the study? In fact, when you go back
> you discover that most of the headlines quote sources that have quoted
> OTHER sources instead of actually having read the report themselves.
>
> What did it say? That the average temperature change is still unknown,
> that whether it's going up or down is still unknown. That man has
> PROBABLY (meaning 90% probability) been the cause of increases in CO2
> in the atmosphere. But whether that has had any effect on the global
> average temperature can't be told because we don't have enough long
> term data on average temperatures to make any judgement.

Here is the IPCC executive sumy as a PDF.

http://tinyurl.com/26q3fs

If you read the conclusions in the IPCC report you will find that you are
incorrect in every one of your assertions above. Humans are responsible
for the increase in atmospheric CO2 (this issue is not in debate any
longer), the increase in atmospheric CO2 is nearly certainly warming the
climate (this is where the 90% figure you cite comes from (would you play
Russian roulette with a revolver with 5 out of 6 chambers loaded?)), and
there has been a measurable increase in global average temperature as shown
in Figure SPM-4 on page 18 (along with several other indicators of a warmer
climate). But don't let facts get in the way of your ranting.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 13 Feb 2007 16:28:45
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 13, 2:43 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
> > SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> > [stuff on digital filters snipped]
>
> > What do you do when the data aren't equi-spaced?

I design stuff so that it is! Then I don't have to answer such
questions. LOL

I say that jokingly because comm stuff is obviously designed that way.

So I don't know -- like I said I'm more of an analog than digital dude
anyway, but for fun I'll sail a *guess*:

Pad it -- stuff with zeros until it approaches equi-spacing.

or

the obvious (but good?) brute force, do some well-chosen
interpolation.

So anyway -- and see what you think -- since the filter is probably
transformable anyway, it has the same problem regardless of which
domain we look at it in.

Not exactly the same, but perhaps interesting to you: In my previous
job I was making a correlator to find certain bit pattern within a
larger set. The stream of data and the sampler were not syncronized,
so there was an aperiodic relationship between them. I stuffed in
pseudo random noise, um, sorta randomly so there was no bias. In
other words, I dithered it. It is a way of wiping out spurious (bias)
signals.

> Or contain aperiodic phenomena for that matter. =20

Are you confusing FS for FT? An FT has no periodicity requirement. T-
>=B1inf

For ex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet):
"The wavelet transform is often compared with the Fourier transform,
in which signals are represented as a sum of sinusoids."

It is incorrect. It should say "Fourier Series." I suppose you could
say the FT is a sum with them infinitesimally spaced (which is the
limit people use to compare FT & FS) but I just drop that perspective
altogether.

Wavelets are overrated. I was never convinced they were worth the
trouble for anything I ever worked on.

> If you sort through what's
> been published, people gave up on fourier analysis of global temperature
> records long ago because of such problems. =20

I think the end points are the stickler. My point was simply that
both domains should be looked at -- I think that would help in
choosing a filter. You think not?

> It's all wavelet transforms and
> methods that makes my brain crawl out my nose to get away:
>
> http://www.cosis.net/members/journals/df/article.php?a_id=3D3781

My job would not exist without Laplace and Fourier. Fucking french.

Date: 14 Feb 2007 06:08:28
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote in
news:1171412925.903277.315200@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:

<snip >
> I think the end points are the stickler. My point was simply that
> both domains should be looked at -- I think that would help in
> choosing a filter. You think not?

I think that if you ignore all the things that are known to correlate
with global temperature and are aperiodic in nature, such as ENSO, then
any filtering you do in order to try to find trends in the short-term
temperature record is the intellectual equivalent of a pud pulling party.
The current flattening out of global temperature, as I said before, is
probably because we've been in La Nina conditions for 2004-2005. El Nino
was officially declared a month or so ago, and global temperatures will
go up next year (or maybe this year, there's a lag between El Nino and
temperature but I can't remember if it's from the "official" start or
when then Southern Oscillation index reverses, which is a months ahead of
the official start). Or something like that anyway.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 09 Feb 2007 14:06:41
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 9, 4:05 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 5:37 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 6:05 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > > <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > What was it Jesus said about a rich man getting into heaven, Tom?
>
> > > By all means explain that. Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
> > > richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.
>
> > Yep that displays a great grasp of comparative spending power. Those
> > moneylenders at the temple thaT Jesus condemned were obviously much
> > better humans than a humble plumber, or carpenter.
>
> If you want to jump on the "Kunich is a retard" bandwagon, it might be
> a good idea to pick an instance where he is wrong. (Hey, a free
> tip!) Your cue should have been that Paterson was involved.
>
> > If it makes me scum, so be it. I'm standing with Howard, TP, Kyle,
> > Greg, Curtis, etc...
>
> Are you saying the people standing with you are "scum?"

I'm saying that I'm happy to be in the group of people TK calls scum.
Lots of really good people in there. Sometimes being declared an
"enemy" is something to be incredibly proud of.
Bill C

Date: 09 Feb 2007 22:20:07
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1171058801.087623.213630@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> I'm saying that I'm happy to be in the group of people TK calls scum.

Where was that again?

Date: 09 Feb 2007 11:32:01
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 9, 11:18 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> >> > (TK replied, as usual):
> >> >> Would you care to compare bank accounts?
>
> >> > You were the one playing the victim card.
>
> >> Let's see, I'm asked what effect it will have on me and I state the
> >> facts.
> >> You believe that to be playing the "victim card".

You posted a bunch of conjecture, not "facts".

> >> To a plumber whose
> >> entire
> >> life was spent trying to figure out how to show ass crack to every
> >> available
> >> housewife I suppose you might really think that.

Alone with housewives, pants half off. Is that what you think plumbing
is about? I bet you were one of the "conservatives" complaining
("oinking and grunting") about the terrible intrusion on your lives
when the 1.6 gal flush toilet was mandated. "Conservatives" who don't
really want to save.

> >> By all means explain that. Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
> >> richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.

You call yourself a good Catholic after a rek like that?

> > Yep that displays a great grasp of comparative spending power. Those
> > moneylenders at the temple thaT Jesus condemned were obviously much
> > better humans than a humble plumber, or carpenter.

This is why I bounced your email. Like listening to Limbaugh. Spinning
your wheels and throwing mud without moving anything. Well, that's why
I don't even bother with Limbaugh on a "knowing what the bastards are
up to" basis any more. Zzzzzzzzz!

> That seems to be what you're implying. In actual money and the services it
> will provide you, you are thousands of times richer than those people whom
> Jesus was talking about. And yet you pretend that you're some poor set upon
> individual crying poor-mouth. What a coward.

What a stinker.

> >> > When you said that energy use is directly tied to economic prosperity,
> >> > you got a good long head start on me in the drooling dept. Not your
> >> > first, of course.
>
> >> Oh???http://www.energy.gov/print/1799.htm"The demand for oil is
> >> increasing, not just in the United States and Great Britain but around
> >> the
> >> world, particularly in rapidly growing economies in nations like China
> >> and
> >> India." ~ "There, we will see a requirement for large . very large .
> >> power
> >> production facilities as increased population joins with a growing world
> >> economy to put more and more stress on energy supplies."
> > No shit, development, in developing countries, needs quick and easy
> > power, no matter how dirty. What a surprise.

Why dirty? No population control ("people as a resource" catching up
with them). I've always loved that one. "People as a resource" really
means "I'll be able to hire workers for next to nothing". Wake up.

> >> I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You,
> >> Asher
> >> and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas look
> >> particularly intelligent.

Zzzzzzzz!

> I see you truly believe in refuting false statements. Oh, wait, you aren't
> refuting anything - you're just trying to change the subject after being so
> wrong.

Cue the mirror!

> That's funny - I thought you've always said that you're against anyone
> that's against anything that you ever thought was nice. Sort of like a
> housewife without any knowledge of the world and the way it thinks who voted
> for Kennedy because he was such a handsome man and never believed that rumor
> that he collected more votes in Chicago than there were registered voters.

(trying to follow the twists and turns): Babble babble, mudslinging,
tacit "communist" reference, usual standard right wing baloney; maybe
the housewife, having finished with the plumber, was dreaming of
something more illustrious, even if she had to share with many...
Whoa! Comparing vote-getting strategies between Kennedy and Bushco,
you'd do well to start putting up some duct tape on that glass house
you're moving into, TK! --D-y

Date: 09 Feb 2007 09:46:31
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 9, 12:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1170985030.231551.164150@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 6:05 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1170971119.428851.302460@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Feb 8, 1:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> > (I asked):
> >> >> > Are you *afraid* of living in a cold, dark house, living on dog
> >> >> > food,
> >> >> > unable to afford going to the doctor and buying the medicine you
> >> >> > need
> >> >> > in America the Pensionless?
>
> >> > (TK replied, as usual):
> >> >> Would you care to compare bank accounts?
>
> >> > You were the one playing the victim card.
>
> >> Let's see, I'm asked what effect it will have on me and I state the
> >> facts.
> >> You believe that to be playing the "victim card". To a plumber whose
> >> entire
> >> life was spent trying to figure out how to show ass crack to every
> >> available
> >> housewife I suppose you might really think that.
>
> > Tom, The man of the people showing his respect for working tradesmen.
> > It's tough to have empoathy when your the worlds most excellent
> > genius.
>
> Are you playing the victim card now?

No I'm calling you a hypocrite.
>
> >> > What was it Jesus said about a rich man getting into heaven, Tom?
>
> >> By all means explain that. Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
> >> richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.
>
> > Yep that displays a great grasp of comparative spending power. Those
> > moneylenders at the temple thaT Jesus condemned were obviously much
> > better humans than a humble plumber, or carpenter.
>
> That seems to be what you're implying. In actual money and the services it
> will provide you, you are thousands of times richer than those people whom
> Jesus was talking about. And yet you pretend that you're some poor set upon
> individual crying poor-mouth. What a coward.

I have no idea WTF you are talking about, and I'm doing fine. Don't
need a shitload of money to have a good life.
Let me know what I'm cowardly about sometime, I'd like to know.

>
>
>
>
>
> >> > When you said that energy use is directly tied to economic prosperity,
> >> > you got a good long head start on me in the drooling dept. Not your
> >> > first, of course.
>
> >> Oh???http://www.energy.gov/print/1799.htm"The demand for oil is
> >> increasing, not just in the United States and Great Britain but around
> >> the
> >> world, particularly in rapidly growing economies in nations like China
> >> and
> >> India." ~ "There, we will see a requirement for large . very large .
> >> power
> >> production facilities as increased population joins with a growing world
> >> economy to put more and more stress on energy supplies."
> > No shit, development, in developing countries, needs quick and easy
> > power, no matter how dirty. What a surprise.
>
> >> I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You,
> >> Asher
> >> and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas look
> >> particularly intelligent.
>
> > Yep along with JT, Howard, Henry, Me, and everyone else, were all
> > morons except maybe Tosi, right?
>
> I see you truly believe in refuting false statements. Oh, wait, you aren't
> refuting anything - you're just trying to change the subject after being so
> wrong.
>
> > You occasionally make decent points, and are one of the few here
> > vocally conservative, but I've always said that it's more important to
> > condemn and question those who are on your side when they are out
> > there.
>
> That's funny - I thought you've always said that you're against anyone
> that's against anything that you ever thought was nice. Sort of like a
> housewife without any knowledge of the world and the way it thinks who voted
> for Kennedy because he was such a handsome man and never believed that rumor
> that he collected more votes in Chicago than there were registered voters.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Still pretty baffled, but if you mean I disagree with people who see
things differently from the way I do, you're right.
Shit I disagree with everyone, and that's a good thing because if
everyone thought exactly the same thing we'd never learn anything.
I'm a rich person because of all the people that I consider to be
friends, who have a totally different view than I do. It makes me
challenge and check my beliefs and facts, and I learn from it. Makes
me practice my beliefs in tolerance, free expression, and civility
which are good things too.
The amazing thing, Tom, Is that I'd be happy to have any of them
visit, or sit down and have some beers while we talk. I think most
would say the same of me.
That makes me a very wealthy person.
The only things that really count in the end are your friends and
family. The more real friends the better.
Bill C

Date: 09 Feb 2007 18:16:16
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1171043191.139857.126840@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 9, 12:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> Are you playing the victim card now?
>
> No I'm calling you a hypocrite.

But you're doing it through tears about how I'm looking down my nose at a
poor lowly retired plumber who is arguing physics.

>> That seems to be what you're implying. In actual money and the services
>> it
>> will provide you, you are thousands of times richer than those people
>> whom
>> Jesus was talking about. And yet you pretend that you're some poor set
>> upon
>> individual crying poor-mouth. What a coward.
>
> I have no idea WTF you are talking about, and I'm doing fine. Don't
> need a shitload of money to have a good life.
> Let me know what I'm cowardly about sometime, I'd like to know.

You are the one picking that old saw about Jesus claim that it would be
easier for a camel to walk through the eye of the needle than for a rich man
to enter the gates of heaven. And when it's pointed out to you that you are
FAR richer in real terms as a retired plumber than those rich men Jesus
talked about you want to turn to relativism instead of reality.

You're a coward pure and simple. You shoot your mouth off but are frightened
to address the actuality of your own statements.

> Shit I disagree with everyone, and that's a good thing because if
> everyone thought exactly the same thing we'd never learn anything.

I'm glad that you're admitting that you're arguing simply for the sake of
argument. End of conversation.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 08:48:04
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 9, 4:25 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Feb 9, 1:44 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
> > b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > > On Feb 7, 9:56 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > [Tom's stuff snipped]
>
> > > I'm confident that everyone reading this can tell that
> > > you're talking through your hat.
>
> > "Hat?"
>
> It's an ass-hat. That's where the word "asshat" comes from.
>
> Ben
> RBR Office of Special Etymology

Some come with special tinfoil coating too!
Bill C

Date: 09 Feb 2007 01:25:57
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 9, 1:44 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 9:56 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> [Tom's stuff snipped]
>
> > I'm confident that everyone reading this can tell that
> > you're talking through your hat.
>
> "Hat?"

It's an ass-hat. That's where the word "asshat" comes from.

Ben
RBR Office of Special Etymology

Date: 08 Feb 2007 11:46:06
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 8, 11:15 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170936205.137904.219280@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > CO2 absorbs infrared radiation *leaving* a planet, not the solar
> > radiation coming in. It's like a blanket. A large amount of CO2 is
> > analagous to a very thick blanket.
>
> Henry, I see your area of expertise is in planetary environmentalism.
>
> > Your answer to all this should be "I don't know". Because you don't
> > know.
>
> And yet your answer isn't the same - I wonder why that is?

Retard -

I don't claim to know. But I know one thing on this subject: someone
as uninformed as you surely does not know.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:53:17
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170963966.811803.147250@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 8, 11:15 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1170936205.137904.219280@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > CO2 absorbs infrared radiation *leaving* a planet, not the solar
>> > radiation coming in. It's like a blanket. A large amount of CO2 is
>> > analagous to a very thick blanket.
>>
>> Henry, I see your area of expertise is in planetary environmentalism.
>>
>> > Your answer to all this should be "I don't know". Because you don't
>> > know.
>>
>> And yet your answer isn't the same - I wonder why that is?
>
> I don't claim to know.

And yet the quote above does demonstrate your belief that you do know.

Do you understand what surface pressures between 9000 kPa and 9600 kPa and a
cloud layer 20 km thick means? Or do you really think that CO2 is the real
culprit in the Venusian heat wave?

Date: 08 Feb 2007 15:09:03
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:53:17 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com >
wrote:

>"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1170963966.811803.147250@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 8, 11:15 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1170936205.137904.219280@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > CO2 absorbs infrared radiation *leaving* a planet, not the solar
>>> > radiation coming in. It's like a blanket. A large amount of CO2 is
>>> > analagous to a very thick blanket.
>>>
>>> Henry, I see your area of expertise is in planetary environmentalism.
>>>
>>> > Your answer to all this should be "I don't know". Because you don't
>>> > know.
>>>
>>> And yet your answer isn't the same - I wonder why that is?
>>
>> I don't claim to know.
>
>And yet the quote above does demonstrate your belief that you do know.
>
>Do you understand what surface pressures between 9000 kPa and 9600 kPa and a
>cloud layer 20 km thick means? Or do you really think that CO2 is the real
>culprit in the Venusian heat wave?
>

Does Venus have butterflies? I thought we were blaming everything on
butterfly wings. Must be a different phenomena altogether.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:14:53
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

<snip >
> Does Venus have butterflies? I thought we were blaming everything on
> butterfly wings. Must be a different phenomena altogether.

That's hurricanes. Jupiter has hurricanes so it must have butterflies.
Venus doesn't have hurricanes so it has no butterflies.

Climate change is caused by CO2 that looks like mankind, so Venus has
mankind-shaped CO2.

I don't do the research, I just report the conclusions.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 15:30:30
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 8 Feb 2007 20:14:53 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>I don't do the research, I just report the conclusions.

S'OK. I wouldn't read it if you did it. Just wanted to know about the
butterflies.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 08 Feb 2007 22:45:24
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

William Asher wrote:
>>I don't do the research, I just report the conclusions.

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> S'OK. I wouldn't read it if you did it. Just wanted to know about the
> butterflies.

Must be a 60's flower child LSD kind of thing. Alas, a bit before my time.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 21:24:13
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 6 Feb 2007 02:54:39 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>If you read the conclusions in the IPCC report you will find that you are
>incorrect in every one of your assertions above. Humans are responsible
>for the increase in atmospheric CO2 (this issue is not in debate any
>longer), the increase in atmospheric CO2 is nearly certainly warming the
>climate (this is where the 90% figure you cite comes from (would you play
>Russian roulette with a revolver with 5 out of 6 chambers loaded?)), and
>there has been a measurable increase in global average temperature as shown
>in Figure SPM-4 on page 18 (along with several other indicators of a warmer
>climate). But don't let facts get in the way of your ranting.

There's no doubt that the climate is getting warmer. There's no doubt
that human activity is adding CO2 to the atmosphere. There's no doubt
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

However, there's no way to tell exactly how much the additional CO2 is
contributing to the current warming trend. This is where the
consensus ends. Almost everyone agrees that it's having some effect,
but there's no way to accurately measure how much. The climate system
is too complex to be able to do that. Previous warming trends have
started in the absence of any rise in CO2. In fact, the pattern is
for temperature to rise first followed centuries later by a rise in
CO2.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 02:37:48
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

<snip >
>
> However, there's no way to tell exactly how much the additional CO2 is
> contributing to the current warming trend. This is where the
> consensus ends. Almost everyone agrees that it's having some effect,
> but there's no way to accurately measure how much. The climate system
> is too complex to be able to do that. Previous warming trends have
> started in the absence of any rise in CO2. In fact, the pattern is
> for temperature to rise first followed centuries later by a rise in
> CO2.
>

You are manufacturing dissent where there is essentially none. Nearly all
of the people who really understand climate agree that the increase in
atmospheric CO2 from man's activities is causing the vast majority of the
observed warming over the past 30 years or so. Where there is some
disagreement is on exactly how fast and how high the Earth will warm, and
how dramatic the changes in regional climates will be as a result of this
warming. But this debate mainly ranges from highly unpleasant to
disastrous globally in terms of the consequences.

Scientifically, this is a done deal, mankind is responsible for changing
the climate, get over it. Politically it is a dead issue because the up-
front costs of doing anything meaningful are staggering. So, happily, we
can all ignore the scientific reality and continue on with business as
usual. But don't kid yourself everything is going to be fine.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 14 Feb 2007 13:35:44
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 13, 10:08 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote innews:1171412925.903277.315200@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I think the end points are the stickler. My point was simply that
> > both domains should be looked at -- I think that would help in
> > choosing a filter. You think not?
>
> I think that if you ignore all the things that are known to correlate
> with global temperature and are aperiodic in nature, such as ENSO,...

You're stuck on aperiodic. Just because something has a spectral
"energy" density at frequencies does not make it periodic. In the
strict sense, all signals are stochastic anyway (they have spectral
energy/power distributed; explore some of the papers at the NIST
Boulder site, for example, since the signals they generate are
extraordinarily "pure").

*All* filters will allow a non-zero bandwidth of frequencies through.
You couldn't see anything otherwise. No one bothers asking a question
that would take forever to answer (unless it is rhetorical, which is
to say it isn't really a question at all).

> ...then any filtering you do in order to try to
> find trends in the short-term temperature record
> is the intellectual equivalent of a pud pulling party.

I don't think I'm suggesting an emphasis of "short-term trends" to
spite any other information. I actually rejected it already.

I was steered to this:
http://www.safenow.org/

Date: 13 Feb 2007 17:00:04
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 13, 4:28 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2:43 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Robert Chung wrote:
> > > SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> > > [stuff on digital filters snipped]
>
> > > What do you do when the data aren't equi-spaced?
>
> I design stuff so that it is! Then I don't have to answer such
> questions. LOL
>
> I say that jokingly because comm stuff is obviously designed that way.
>
> So I don't know -- like I said I'm more of an analog than digital dude
> anyway, but for fun I'll sail a *guess*:
>
> Pad it -- stuff with zeros until it approaches equi-spacing.

Never mind that. Makes no sense.

> or
>
> the obvious (but good?) brute force, do some well-chosen
> interpolation.
>
> So anyway -- and see what you think -- since the filter is probably
> transformable anyway, it has the same problem regardless of which
> domain we look at it in.
>
> Not exactly the same, but perhaps interesting to you: In my previous
> job I was making a correlator to find certain bit pattern within a
> larger set. The stream of data and the sampler were not syncronized,
> so there was an aperiodic relationship between them. I stuffed in
> pseudo random noise, um, sorta randomly so there was no bias. In
> other words, I dithered it. It is a way of wiping out spurious (bias)
> signals.
>
> > Or contain aperiodic phenomena for that matter. =20
>
> Are you confusing FS for FT? An FT has no periodicity requirement. T-
>
> >=B1inf
>
> For ex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet):
> "The wavelet transform is often compared with the Fourier transform,
> in which signals are represented as a sum of sinusoids."
>
> It is incorrect. It should say "Fourier Series." I suppose you could
> say the FT is a sum with them infinitesimally spaced (which is the
> limit people use to compare FT & FS) but I just drop that perspective
> altogether.
>
> Wavelets are overrated. I was never convinced they were worth the
> trouble for anything I ever worked on.
>
> > If you sort through what's
> > been published, people gave up on fourier analysis of global temperature
> > records long ago because of such problems. =20
>
> I think the end points are the stickler. My point was simply that
> both domains should be looked at -- I think that would help in
> choosing a filter. You think not?
>
> > It's all wavelet transforms and
> > methods that makes my brain crawl out my nose to get away:
>
> >http://www.cosis.net/members/journals/df/article.php?a_id=3D3781
>
> My job would not exist without Laplace and Fourier. Fucking french.

Date: 11 Feb 2007 00:42:52
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

On Feb 10, 10:07 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> "co says that he traveled to the Far North by compass. He reached
> >> a place where the Pole Star appeared to have a southerly bearing. We
> >> can tell from this statement that he had reached Baffin Island north
> >> of Hudson Bay."
>
> > You forgot the part where it says co Polo brought noodles to
> > Greenland which is why the Scandinavians have a noodle-based cuisine.
>
> He didn't bring noodles you retard, he brought rice. Greenlanders started
> cultivating rice. Then, when the Greenland climate changed from tropical
> back to arctic when the MWP ended, all the Greenlanders died because their
> rice paddies froze.

Dumbass,

It's true that co Polo brought rice to Greenland
and they cultivated it there. This is how the Inuit
(who are obviously Asian) invented sushi, as they
already had the fish and seals. The Norse didn't die
because the rice paddies froze, they died because they
thought sushi and seaweed were icky Inuit food, and
they wouldn't switch to sushi when their hay crops
grew poorly and their cattle died so they couldn't
make teriyaki beef. This seems tragically blind,
but to anyone who's ever gone to a sushi restaurant
with unadventurous meat-eaters, it's obvious how it
could happen.

The sad thing is that if co Polo had thought to
bring edamame along with the rice, it all probably
could have been avoided as edamame are a good source
of complementary proteins to grains, important to
vegetarians and non-fish-eaters. The Norse had
to make do with beer nuts, which are a lot like edamame
(why edamame are called "Japanese beer nuts") but not
protein-rich.

I hope this clears things up.

> Anyway, sometimes the guy raving at the bus stop actually has a kernel of
> truth to what he is saying. Sort of like this:
>
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30501
>
> Anyway, there is a lot of evidence the ancient Chinese were quite the
> seafarers.
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sultan/explorers.html
>
> There are some people who seriously believe co Polo sailed on the
> Chinese treasure junks down the west coast of the Americas (see below).
> However, it is not credibly believed he made it through the NW passage to
> Baffin Island, nor is there archeological evidence of Chinese influence in
> the eastern north american arctic.
>
> --
> Bill Asher
>
> http://www.copolovoyages.com/Articles/MPoloNewWorldMaps.html
>
> and
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2ez6ez
>
> co Polo's New World Expeditions:
> The Role of Commercial Espionage in Westward Expansion and Discovery
> from Labrador to Louisiana and the Pacific
> by
> Gunnar Thompson
> (New World Discovery Institute)

I believe this guy seriously believes that Chinese
expeditions made it to North America. I don't believe
that many other people who've studied it believe that.
A lot of this seems to be traceable to some old theories
and speculative interpretation of maps that were
re-popularized by an author named Gavin Menzies,
whose book is widely available. Here's a couple of
critical responses:
<http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/15.2/finlay.html >
<http://www.froginawell.net/china/2006/01/menzies-and-the-problem-of-
the-smoking-gun-document/ >

Ben

P.S. There never was a Northwest Passage for Polo to not
sail through. AFAIK, the so-called Medieval Warm Period in
Europe/the North Atlantic was only about as warm as today
(or as the 20thC average maybe).

Date: 11 Feb 2007 19:21:10
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

> On Feb 10, 10:07 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Robert Chung wrote:
>> > Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> "co says that he traveled to the Far North by compass. He
>> >> reached a place where the Pole Star appeared to have a southerly
>> >> bearing. We can tell from this statement that he had reached
>> >> Baffin Island north of Hudson Bay."
>>
>> > You forgot the part where it says co Polo brought noodles to
>> > Greenland which is why the Scandinavians have a noodle-based
>> > cuisine.
>>
>> He didn't bring noodles you retard, he brought rice. Greenlanders
>> started cultivating rice. Then, when the Greenland climate changed
>> from tropical back to arctic when the MWP ended, all the Greenlanders
>> died because their rice paddies froze.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> It's true that co Polo brought rice to Greenland
> and they cultivated it there. This is how the Inuit
> (who are obviously Asian) invented sushi, as they
> already had the fish and seals. The Norse didn't die
> because the rice paddies froze, they died because they
> thought sushi and seaweed were icky Inuit food, and
> they wouldn't switch to sushi when their hay crops
> grew poorly and their cattle died so they couldn't
> make teriyaki beef. This seems tragically blind,
> but to anyone who's ever gone to a sushi restaurant
> with unadventurous meat-eaters, it's obvious how it
> could happen.
>
> The sad thing is that if co Polo had thought to
> bring edamame along with the rice, it all probably
> could have been avoided as edamame are a good source
> of complementary proteins to grains, important to
> vegetarians and non-fish-eaters. The Norse had
> to make do with beer nuts, which are a lot like edamame
> (why edamame are called "Japanese beer nuts") but not
> protein-rich.
>
> I hope this clears things up.
>
>> Anyway, sometimes the guy raving at the bus stop actually has a
>> kernel of truth to what he is saying. Sort of like this:
>>
>> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30501
>>
>> Anyway, there is a lot of evidence the ancient Chinese were quite the
>> seafarers.
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sultan/explorers.html
>>
>> There are some people who seriously believe co Polo sailed on the
>> Chinese treasure junks down the west coast of the Americas (see
>> below). However, it is not credibly believed he made it through the
>> NW passage to Baffin Island, nor is there archeological evidence of
>> Chinese influence in the eastern north american arctic.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Asher
>>
>> http://www.copolovoyages.com/Articles/MPoloNewWorldMaps.html
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2ez6ez
>>
>> co Polo's New World Expeditions:
>> The Role of Commercial Espionage in Westward Expansion and Discovery
>> from Labrador to Louisiana and the Pacific
>> by
>> Gunnar Thompson
>> (New World Discovery Institute)
>
> I believe this guy seriously believes that Chinese
> expeditions made it to North America. I don't believe
> that many other people who've studied it believe that.
> A lot of this seems to be traceable to some old theories
> and speculative interpretation of maps that were
> re-popularized by an author named Gavin Menzies,
> whose book is widely available. Here's a couple of
> critical responses:
> <http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/15.2/finlay.html>
> <http://www.froginawell.net/china/2006/01/menzies-and-the-problem-of-
> the-smoking-gun-document/>
>
> Ben
>
> P.S. There never was a Northwest Passage for Polo to not
> sail through. AFAIK, the so-called Medieval Warm Period in
> Europe/the North Atlantic was only about as warm as today
> (or as the 20thC average maybe).
>

I will defer to your expertise on Norse/Inuit cuisine. I've always thought
edamame were invented so that upper middle class couples could feed them to
their children instead of Cheetos.

I looked a bit for other discussions of Chinese influence on the west coast
and couldn't find anything. The Chinese treasure junks are known to have
made it to India, probably to Africa. I dunno, it seems sort of logical
they would have gone east as well as west at least once, just to see what
was there. <shrug >

I believe I have said several times in this debate that the best evidence
now suggests that the MWP was a regional, not global, warming.
Furthermore, current climate models can simulate similar regional warmings
in the N. Atlantic, although for the reasons I have already gone into, they
can't "predict" a particular regional warming coincident with the MWP.
Climate models don't work that way.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 11 Feb 2007 11:51:57
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> The Norse had to make do with beer nuts

Beer have nuts? Just one more way they differ from LANCE.

Date: 11 Feb 2007 19:50:40
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>> The Norse had to make do with beer nuts

Robert Chung wrote:
> Beer have nuts? Just one more way they differ from LANCE.

Perhaps Curtis or Ryan could advise on the best wingnut flavoured beers,
with or without a may contain nuts health warning.

Date: 11 Feb 2007 18:03:47
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:50:40 +0200, Donald Munro
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

>bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>>> The Norse had to make do with beer nuts
>
>Robert Chung wrote:
>> Beer have nuts? Just one more way they differ from LANCE.
>
>Perhaps Curtis or Ryan could advise on the best wingnut flavoured beers,
>with or without a may contain nuts health warning.

No. I remember back in the 60s they used to put Spanish peanuts in
their cans of beer in East Lansing/Lansing, MI, but I stopped that
when I went home to Texas and learned it was better to fill the can
brims (pre-aluminum) with Bourbon instead - Texas boilermaker. I
contribute my general dissolution and lack of moral character to this
discovery and shudder to think what may have happened if I stuck to
peanuts.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 11 Feb 2007 16:58:29
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

In article <hv7vs2tq0hq8anhkvqo64a5lv3d77fas5d@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:50:40 +0200, Donald Munro
> <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> >>> The Norse had to make do with beer nuts
> >
> >Robert Chung wrote:
> >> Beer have nuts? Just one more way they differ from LANCE.
> >
> >Perhaps Curtis or Ryan could advise on the best wingnut flavoured beers,
> >with or without a may contain nuts health warning.
>
> No. I remember back in the 60s they used to put Spanish peanuts in
> their cans of beer in East Lansing/Lansing, MI, but I stopped that
> when I went home to Texas and learned it was better to fill the can
> brims (pre-aluminum) with Bourbon instead - Texas boilermaker. I
> contribute my general dissolution and lack of moral character to this
> discovery and shudder to think what may have happened if I stuck to
> peanuts.

How about that deep South tradition of getting a packet of Planters peanuts and a
bottle of RC Cola (or as I heard it pronounced: R-uh-C co-Cola) and dumping the
peanuts into the bottle? (Yeah, that was a long time ago - glass bottles.)

Don't 'wanton ways' go along with general dissolution and lack of moral character?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 12 Feb 2007 08:32:16
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:58:29 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>Don't 'wanton ways' go along with general dissolution and lack of moral character?

Only if done right and with perseverance.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 09 Feb 2007 14:26:44
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 9, 5:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1171058801.087623.213630@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I'm saying that I'm happy to be in the group of people TK calls scum.
>
> Where was that again?

Follows on from this comment:

I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You,
Asher
and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas look
particularly intelligent.

Goes from there with your abuse of everyone who dares disagree with
you. At one point or another you've called everybody here nasty,
childish shit , and attempted to heap abuse on them when they didn't
agree with you.
Bill C

Date: 10 Feb 2007 00:11:28
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1171060004.343153.229520@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 9, 5:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1171058801.087623.213630@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > I'm saying that I'm happy to be in the group of people TK calls scum.
>>
>> Where was that again?
>
> Follows on from this comment:
>
> I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You,
> Asher and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas
> look particularly intelligent.
>
> Goes from there with your abuse of everyone who dares disagree with
> you. At one point or another you've called everybody here nasty,
> childish shit , and attempted to heap abuse on them when they didn't
> agree with you.
> Bill C

So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
anthropomorphic global warming.

Date: 11 Feb 2007 17:41:27
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <Q48zh.225$Jl.105@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1171060004.343153.229520@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 9, 5:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:1171058801.087623.213630@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> > I'm saying that I'm happy to be in the group of people TK calls scum.
> >>
> >> Where was that again?
> >
> > Follows on from this comment:
> >
> > I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You,
> > Asher and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas
> > look particularly intelligent.
> >
> > Goes from there with your abuse of everyone who dares disagree with
> > you. At one point or another you've called everybody here nasty,
> > childish shit , and attempted to heap abuse on them when they didn't
> > agree with you.
> > Bill C
>
> So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
> anthropomorphic global warming.

Trying to evade the point by complaining that he used a word that you didn't,
aren't you? While it's true that you didn't use the word "scum" it's plenty obvious
from the tone of the comments you make about others in here who disagree with you
that you must think they're scum (or whatever word you choose that has equivalent
meaning). It's also patently obvious that you must think that your opnions are much
more valid than anyone else in here, based on the way you mock people for being
plumbers, carpenters, machinists or what-have-you. Which is hypocritical coming from
someone who (A) likes to accuse "Liberals" of being "elitists," and (B) has bragged
about being a high school drop out. I wouldn't mock you for being a drop out, but
certainly believe the average person would think that fact might give them pause for
thought before trying to imply that others are "beneath me." And your words in here
leave no doubt that you do think that many, if not most, *are* beneath you. "Little
people," indeed.

By the way, you complained that Tom Paterson couldn't stick to the subject, but
what the hell are you doing when you throw in some demand to know if I've ridden a
bike in the last ten years, which culminates in a statement about how many miles
you've ridden this year. It's the same thing as when you post a list of all the
bikes in your garage or claim that you have more guns than anyone here or are in the
top whatever percentage of wage earners in the Bay Area or any number of other
similar things. I'm not positive what the point of that stuff is, except to assume
that you believe it lends credence to whatever authority you're trying to present
yourself as. Uh huh... Maybe that stuff worked back in elementary school; here it's
just bizarre.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 12 Feb 2007 04:26:22
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-E93CF0.17412711022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <Q48zh.225$Jl.105@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
>> anthropomorphic global warming.
>
> Trying to evade the point by complaining that he used a word that you
> didn't,
> aren't you? While it's true that you didn't use the word "scum" it's
> plenty obvious
> from the tone of the comments you make about others in here who disagree
> with you
> that you must think they're scum (or whatever word you choose that has
> equivalent
> meaning).

No Howard, I don't think that Bill is scum. He is a little man following his
leaders. On the other hand, you are scum.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 23:34:03
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <O%Rzh.654$x74.394@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-E93CF0.17412711022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <Q48zh.225$Jl.105@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >>
> >> So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
> >> anthropomorphic global warming.
> >
> > Trying to evade the point by complaining that he used a word that you
> > didn't, aren't you? While it's true that you didn't use the word "scum" it's
> > plenty obvious from the tone of the comments you make about others in here who
> > disagree with youthat you must think they're scum (or whatever word you choose
> > that has equivalent meaning).
>
> No Howard, I don't think that Bill is scum. He is a little man following his
> leaders.

If there is anyone in here who exhibits a greater amount of "following his
leaders" than you, Tom, all of our heads would explode.

> On the other hand, you are scum.

(shrug...) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbcctWbC8Q0

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 09 Feb 2007 14:00:42
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 9, 1:16 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1171043191.139857.126840@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 9, 12:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> Are you playing the victim card now?
>
> > No I'm calling you a hypocrite.
>
> But you're doing it through tears about how I'm looking down my nose at a
> poor lowly retired plumber who is arguing physics.

I think your being an asshole and hypocrite, no tears. Nothing to
merit them. He sure as hell is capable of handling a discussion with
anyone, including you.

>
> >> That seems to be what you're implying. In actual money and the services
> >> it
> >> will provide you, you are thousands of times richer than those people
> >> whom
> >> Jesus was talking about. And yet you pretend that you're some poor set
> >> upon
> >> individual crying poor-mouth. What a coward.
>
> > I have no idea WTF you are talking about, and I'm doing fine. Don't
> > need a shitload of money to have a good life.
> > Let me know what I'm cowardly about sometime, I'd like to know.
>
> You are the one picking that old saw about Jesus claim that it would be
> easier for a camel to walk through the eye of the needle than for a rich man
> to enter the gates of heaven. And when it's pointed out to you that you are
> FAR richer in real terms as a retired plumber than those rich men Jesus
> talked about you want to turn to relativism instead of reality.
>
> You're a coward pure and simple. You shoot your mouth off but are frightened
> to address the actuality of your own statements.

I feel that I defend my positions quite effectively while showing
respect and courtesy to those I'm having the discussion with 99% of
the time. That's why, between rational people, it's called reasoned
discourse.
>
> > Shit I disagree with everyone, and that's a good thing because if
> > everyone thought exactly the same thing we'd never learn anything.
>
> I'm glad that you're admitting that you're arguing simply for the sake of
> argument. End of conversation.

Nope, I discuss things to get other people's viewpoints, information
they have that I don't, to see another perspective on things, and to
learn new things. I also really enjoy good talk, and argument.
Sometimes I change my position, sometimes I don't. The great thing is
by being reasonable and fairly courteous I get to enjoy being exposed
to a great range of thought, and people.
It's too bad you can't see value in that.
You argue to win. I discuss to learn. Significant difference.
Bill C

Date: 09 Feb 2007 12:02:04
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 9, 12:16 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message

(example 1):
> But you're doing it through tears about how I'm looking down my nose at a
> poor lowly retired plumber who is arguing physics.

(example 2):
> You are the one picking that old saw about Jesus claim that it would be
> easier for a camel to walk through the eye of the needle than for a rich man
> to enter the gates of heaven. And when it's pointed out to you that you are
> FAR richer in real terms as a retired plumber than those rich men Jesus
> talked about you want to turn to relativism instead of reality.

That was me, bozo.

> You're a coward pure and simple. You shoot your mouth off (urrk, I mean, "snip")

You're so busy shooting your mouth off you can't keep attribution
straight. Not even close! You don't even remember who the people are
you're blathering against.

Not good for the credibility, TK.

> I'm glad that you're admitting that you're arguing simply for the sake of
> argument.

No no no. I don't want silence taken for assent. Not with Tom Kunich.

> End of conversation.

YOU'RE GOING AWAY AGAIN???? Are we ever luck... no, I don't believe
it. No way. He's on too much of a roll, so to speak.

Sure enough, there's another "Tom Kunich" post by date, below... I
wonder, is this one the reply to where he's finally read Baghdad Year
Zero, by Naomi Klein, in Harpers? $.50 says no. Takers? (disclaimer
on supposed bet being offered for any purposes other than a humorous
poke at Mt. Kunich) --D-y

Date: 08 Feb 2007 16:10:14
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 8, 11:53 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170963966.811803.147250@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 11:15 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1170936205.137904.219280@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > CO2 absorbs infrared radiation *leaving* a planet, not the solar
> >> > radiation coming in. It's like a blanket. A large amount of CO2 is
> >> > analagous to a very thick blanket.
>
> >> Henry, I see your area of expertise is in planetary environmentalism.
>
> >> > Your answer to all this should be "I don't know". Because you don't
> >> > know.
>
> >> And yet your answer isn't the same - I wonder why that is?
>
> > I don't claim to know.
>
> And yet the quote above does demonstrate your belief that you do know.
>
> Do you understand what surface pressures between 9000 kPa and 9600 kPa and a
> cloud layer 20 km thick means? Or do you really think that CO2 is the real
> culprit in the Venusian heat wave?

Dumbass -

The CO2 phenomena here on earth (absorbing infrared radiation) was
explained to me by a former racing friend who has a phd in physics.

His understanding of that sort of phenomena is really high. He's one
of the co-inventors of the "invisibility cloak" of electromagnetic
radiation in microwave frequencies. I'll listen to him before an
"expert" like yourself.

I remember a little over a year ago you were touting your expertness
on tectonic plate phenomena after the Indonesian tsunami. Do you
recall what you said? What a joke you are.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 01:42:46
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170979814.766111.138390@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> The CO2 phenomena here on earth (absorbing infrared radiation) was
> explained to me by a former racing friend who has a phd in physics.

Then you might very well have a good story on CO2 and its effects on the
Earth. Venus is another matter altogether that has a great deal more to do
with having an impossibly thick atmosphere and surface temperatures of some
800 degrees under a blanket of sulfuric acid clouds so thick that no heat
escapes. The pressure gradient is so steep that it is absolutely impossible
for anyone here to even suggest what is going on there.

> His understanding of that sort of phenomena is really high. He's one
> of the co-inventors of the "invisibility cloak" of electromagnetic
> radiation in microwave frequencies. I'll listen to him before an
> "expert" like yourself.

Fine, then ask him if the temperatures on Venus are caused by the high CO2
content of its atmosphere. Then come back here and make one of your expert
pronoucements.

> I remember a little over a year ago you were touting your expertness
> on tectonic plate phenomena after the Indonesian tsunami. Do you
> recall what you said? What a joke you are.

Perhaps you'd like to cite what you think I said?

Date: 09 Feb 2007 01:53:53
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

<snip >
>
> Fine, then ask him if the temperatures on Venus are caused by the high
> CO2 content of its atmosphere. Then come back here and make one of
> your expert pronoucements.
>

http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm

For the love of god shut up about Venus, the runaway greenhouse effect and
the nearly pure CO2 composition of the atmosphere are the prime cause of
the H2SO4 clouds.

http://tinyurl.com/dhxf3

--
Bill Asher

Date: 06 Feb 2007 23:04:50
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 7 Feb 2007 02:37:48 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>You are manufacturing dissent where there is essentially none. Nearly all
>of the people who really understand climate agree that the increase in
>atmospheric CO2 from man's activities is causing the vast majority of the
>observed warming over the past 30 years or so.

Not true.

There is no direct scientific evidence that can determine how much
human activity is contributing to climate change.

There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore
increasing it should lead to global warming. However, this is based
not on any direct research that has shown exactly how much warming the
additional CO2 is producing. It is based on the knowledge that CO2 is
a greenhouse gas. Accordingly CO2 is almost certainly having some
effect, but there's no way to scientifically determine how much
effect. The climate system is simply too complex to determine that.
There have been many periods of global warming in the past and all of
them started in the absence of any rise of CO2. It's impossible to
know if the current warming trend is just a natural occurrence like
has been seen in the past or if it is due to human activity.

You also have to be careful when you read news articles on this issue.
News reporters are not scientists and they don't understand science.
Science can never say anything for sure. Scientific research always
deals in probabilities. In addition, global warming has become a
political issue which further clouds up the issue.

In any case, here is an excellent article on exactly what science can
and cannot say. I'd link it but it's unavailable to non-subscribers
to the WSJ.

"There is no 'consensus' on global warming
by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric
Science at M.I.T.

WSJ Op-Ed June 26, 2006

According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for
"a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea
levels, more and stronger hurricanes and invasions of tropical
disease, among other cataclysms - unless we change the way we live
now.

Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel,
proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were
right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences
of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore
assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George
Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk.
What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there
really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and
then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it
has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first
place.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global
warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed.
Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been
lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even
Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he
made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr.
Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best
estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in
his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists
"don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one
way or the other and went on to claim - in his defense - that
scientists "don't know� They just don't know."

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet
their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not,
into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template - namely, shrill
alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly
inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these
include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs
have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far
suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average.
A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the
coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in
Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are
perhaps dire or alarming.
They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since
the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries
before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped
retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't
know why.
The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated
on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was
once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia -
mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on
multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an
important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal
time scales.

However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface
temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being
hotly argued within the profession.
Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't
attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure,
there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for
Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be
global warming because he can't think of anything else. While
arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common
in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of
weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously
ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are
always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change
as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that
fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues
over which debate is ended - at least not in terms of the actual
science.

A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the
environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the
scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring,
and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate
system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has
never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed
since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order
of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen
significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the
early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially
flat since 1998.

There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere have risen from about 280 ppmv (parts per million by
volume) in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there
has been no question whatsoever that carbon dioxide is an infrared
absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas - albeit a minor one), and its
increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all
else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led
to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the
small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide
rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no
cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort
to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional
carbon dioxide has actually been detected.
Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of
climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there
has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising
impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was
accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), the infamous "sumy for policy makers"
reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a
discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the
smoking gun for Kyoto.
The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has
become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what
mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some
deployed the lassitude argument - e.g., we can't think of an
alternative - to support human attribution. But the "sumy for
policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual
text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into
account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over
the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in
greenhouse gas concentrations."

In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief
(15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It
again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the
report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The
changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due
to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part
of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This
was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that
the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is
real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."
Well, no.

More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist
Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge
Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global
climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts
supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social
scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913
of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the
remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view.
Several actually opposed it.

Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush
administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research,
declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the
climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What
exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming
should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures,
and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979.
The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data
could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between
observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should
look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest
at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with
understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types,
environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such
claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists -
especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given
that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its
use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a
bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr.
Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific
methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was
accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps x was right. This time around we
may have farce - if we're lucky."

Date: 11 Feb 2007 16:44:27
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 11, 4:50 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

> Could I have a theological reading here? Can Godless Liberals be the
> source of the Aniti-Christ?

I think we get both. Liberals and the A-C. And both are Enders.

> So we end up with this Secular Humanist
> Anti-Christ, but he refuses to use the supernatural on general
> theological principles. Seems like a formula to get your ass kicked.
> Just wondering...

Me too. A-C is supposed to lose, eventually. The details seem to vary
according to source. --D-y

Date: 07 Feb 2007 05:59:52
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in
news:bbhis25hp4ioacldag93f81a1r4d0lsnfq@4ax.com:

> On 7 Feb 2007 02:37:48 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>You are manufacturing dissent where there is essentially none. Nearly
>>all of the people who really understand climate agree that the
>>increase in atmospheric CO2 from man's activities is causing the vast
>>majority of the observed warming over the past 30 years or so.
>
> Not true.
>
> There is no direct scientific evidence that can determine how much
> human activity is contributing to climate change.
>
> There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore
> increasing it should lead to global warming. However, this is based
> not on any direct research that has shown exactly how much warming the
> additional CO2 is producing. It is based on the knowledge that CO2 is
> a greenhouse gas. Accordingly CO2 is almost certainly having some
> effect, but there's no way to scientifically determine how much
> effect. The climate system is simply too complex to determine that.
> There have been many periods of global warming in the past and all of
> them started in the absence of any rise of CO2. It's impossible to
> know if the current warming trend is just a natural occurrence like
> has been seen in the past or if it is due to human activity.
>
> You also have to be careful when you read news articles on this issue.
> News reporters are not scientists and they don't understand science.
> Science can never say anything for sure. Scientific research always
> deals in probabilities. In addition, global warming has become a
> political issue which further clouds up the issue.
>
> In any case, here is an excellent article on exactly what science can
> and cannot say. I'd link it but it's unavailable to non-subscribers
> to the WSJ.
>
> "There is no 'consensus' on global warming
> by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric
> Science at M.I.T.
>
<snip >

Oh please don't cite a newspaper article by Lindzen as any sort of
authoritative analysis of climate change. I know I should be all
impressed that he's at MIT and everything, but scientifically he's
reduced himself to a not very amusing joke, a lot like Pete Duesberg did
with his stance on HIV and AIDS. It happens sometimes that a st guy
gets on the wrong side of a debate early on and pride won't let them back
down. Lindzen picked wrong early on and can't admit it.

I do not understand why lay people are so unwilling to accept the IPCC
assessment as authoritative science. The IPCC report simply is not
subject to debate, in my opinion. For someone to credibly argue with its
conclusions, they would have to demonstrate that they knew as much about
climate as the hundreds of scientists that contributed to that report. I
find that proposition highly doubtful in most cases. When the IPCC says
it is a concensus scientific opinion, it is. It is as simple as that.
Holding your fingers in your ears and shouting "nanny nanny boo boo I
don't believe you" doesn't change that fact. Anyway, the discussion on
page 10 of the executive sumy for the 4th assessment and figure SPM-5
directly contradict your assertion that there is no way to estimate the
contribution anthropogenic greenhouse gases have to the observed warming
trend.

I find it especially amusing when people like Lindzen claim that they
can't get their papers published because of a conspiracy against them.
In fact, they can't get their papers published because they are bad
science, or not science at all. Peer review has a very hard time
identifying fraud, especially if it is done cleverly. What peer review
is extremely good at is identifying things that are wrong. Contentious
ideas that *might* be right can get published, and most often do, at
least from my experience in geophysics. Lindzen can't get his stuff
published because his theories are wildly speculative and simply not
supported by available data. The same goes for those two wingnuts who
didn't like Mann's hockey-stick plot. Results demonstrating that there
is no anthropogenic influence on climate are unpublishable because they
are wrong scientifically, not because they challenge an "orthodoxy."

--
Bill Asher

Date: 11 Feb 2007 22:16:11
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 9, 4:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

>
> So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
> anthropomorphic global warming.- Hide quoted text -

Dumbass -

God, you're stupid.

The correct term is "anthropogenic" (caused by humans).
"anthropomorphic" means resembling humans (example: we tried to
program the robot's movements to be anthropomorphic).

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 06:35:26
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1171260971.925312.9450@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 9, 4:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
>> anthropomorphic global warming.- Hide quoted text -
>
> God, you're stupid.
>
> The correct term is "anthropogenic" (caused by humans).
> "anthropomorphic" means resembling humans (example: we tried to
> program the robot's movements to be anthropomorphic).

So you're actually anthropomorphic.

Date: 11 Feb 2007 21:11:52
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

On Feb 11, 12:21 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
> I will defer to your expertise on Norse/Inuit cuisine. I've always thought
> edamame were invented so that upper middle class couples could feed them to
> their children instead of Cheetos.

That could be, although they do have a use as a salty
appetizer in Japanese restaurants to induce you to drink
more Sapporo (why my friend called them Japanese beer nuts).

Beer nuts, of course, are the seeds from which beer trees
grow.

> I looked a bit for other discussions of Chinese influence on the west coast
> and couldn't find anything. The Chinese treasure junks are known to have
> made it to India, probably to Africa. I dunno, it seems sort of logical
> they would have gone east as well as west at least once, just to see what
> was there. <shrug>

Quite possibly they tried going east, but it's an awful
long way. I don't know how far they went in open-ocean sailing;
they could and probably did get all the way to Mozambique
without ever spending months out of sight of coast.
As somebody said, Thor Heyerdahl showed you _can_ cross
a lot of ocean in a vessel much more primitive than a junk,
but he didn't show that people _did_.

> I believe I have said several times in this debate that the best evidence
> now suggests that the MWP was a regional, not global, warming.
> Furthermore, current climate models can simulate similar regional warmings
> in the N. Atlantic, although for the reasons I have already gone into, they
> can't "predict" a particular regional warming coincident with the MWP.
> Climate models don't work that way.

Yes, I read that, that was why I referred to it as a
Europe/North Atlantic phenomenon. Kunich seems to think
it (a) would have allowed co Polo to tootle through
open water on his way to Baffin, and (b) was a temperature
excursion that makes the 20thC look like pattycake.
Neither of these makes sense.

Ben

Date: 12 Feb 2007 19:16:52
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> On Feb 11, 12:21 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I will defer to your expertise on Norse/Inuit cuisine. I've always thought
>> edamame were invented so that upper middle class couples could feed them to
>> their children instead of Cheetos.
>
> That could be, although they do have a use as a salty
> appetizer in Japanese restaurants to induce you to drink
> more Sapporo (why my friend called them Japanese beer nuts).
>
> Beer nuts, of course, are the seeds from which beer trees
> grow.

The Norse in Greenland died because they were stupid. How else would
you wind up in Greenland? Ask someone in the Air Force how you wind
up in Greenland. It was the same for the Norse.

If they were st they'd have opened up Google Earth and done a
'Fly To' to here: N44 08'11.40" E4 48'33.28" , gotten a table
next to the fountain, and ordered this:
http://www.cvccbike.com/food/andouillette-au-vin-blanc.jpg

While pondering the Theatre Antique:
http://www.cvccbike.com/food/theatre-antique.jpg

Then they wouldn't have starved. Dummies.

Bob Schwartz

Date: 12 Feb 2007 14:38:07
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:16:52 GMT, Bob Schwartz
<bob.schwartz@REMOVEsbcglobal.net > wrote:

>The Norse in Greenland died because they were stupid. How else would
>you wind up in Greenland? Ask someone in the Air Force how you wind
>up in Greenland. It was the same for the Norse.

They picked the wrong service speciality when they enlisted?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 12 Feb 2007 08:35:16
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

On 11 Feb 2007 21:11:52 -0800, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:

>Beer nuts, of course, are the seeds from which beer trees
>grow.

This is the kind of logic that caused me so much disappointment when I
finally found an alewive.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 12 Feb 2007 17:45:06
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

> On 11 Feb 2007 21:11:52 -0800, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:
>
>>Beer nuts, of course, are the seeds from which beer trees
>>grow.
>
> This is the kind of logic that caused me so much disappointment when I
> finally found an alewive.

I can only imagine what you must have felt on nailing your first cunner.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 12 Feb 2007 07:01:40
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

> On Feb 11, 12:21 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I will defer to your expertise on Norse/Inuit cuisine. I've always
>> thought edamame were invented so that upper middle class couples
>> could feed them to their children instead of Cheetos.
>
> That could be, although they do have a use as a salty
> appetizer in Japanese restaurants to induce you to drink
> more Sapporo (why my friend called them Japanese beer nuts).
>
> Beer nuts, of course, are the seeds from which beer trees
> grow.
>
> Quite possibly they tried going east, but it's an awful
> long way. I don't know how far they went in open-ocean sailing;
> they could and probably did get all the way to Mozambique
> without ever spending months out of sight of coast.
> As somebody said, Thor Heyerdahl showed you _can_ cross
> a lot of ocean in a vessel much more primitive than a junk,
> but he didn't show that people _did_.
>

I always thought beer nuts was a condition men got from drinking too much
beer.

My thought was they didn't go straight across, but went NE around the
Pacific Rim. The co Polo legend has him sailing down the Pacific Coast
from the north.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 12 Feb 2007 10:35:47
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

William Asher wrote:
> I always thought beer nuts was a condition men got from drinking too much
> beer.

LIVEDRUNKARDS beware.

Date: 12 Feb 2007 17:53:19
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

Donald Munro wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>> I always thought beer nuts was a condition men got from drinking too
>> much beer.
>
> LIVEDRUNKARDS beware.
>

You do not want to know about pork rinds.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 09 Feb 2007 17:04:51
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 9, 7:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1171060004.343153.229520@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 5:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1171058801.087623.213630@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > I'm saying that I'm happy to be in the group of people TK calls scum.
>
> >> Where was that again?
>
> > Follows on from this comment:
>
> > I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You,
> > Asher and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas
> > look particularly intelligent.
>
> > Goes from there with your abuse of everyone who dares disagree with
> > you. At one point or another you've called everybody here nasty,
> > childish shit , and attempted to heap abuse on them when they didn't
> > agree with you.
> > Bill C
>
> So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
> anthropomorphic global warming.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You are big on taking responsibility.
Do you claim your own actions here? Have you been bruatally offensive
to just about everybody? Have you claimed to be right while claiming
they are all idiots?
You treat everyone like shit, then deny it. Either you are totally
out of touch with reality, have a dictators definition of decent
treatment, or are a lying sack of shit. You tell us.

How about you step up and say "I'm Tom Kunich, and I'm an arrogant
bastard with no respect for anyone except those who agree with me! I
treat everyone like shit while lashing out in all dorections, because
only the people I agree with have any validity!" Then you could fall
down in a spasm and chew on the rug as several former, would be "
world conquerers" are reported to have done when challenged and
overwrought.
Bill C

Date: 10 Feb 2007 06:45:08
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1171069490.997622.128250@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> You are big on taking responsibility.
> Do you claim your own actions here? Have you been bruatally offensive
> to just about everybody? Have you claimed to be right while claiming
> they are all idiots?

Hmm, and all this time I figured that those who are st enough to read
would be st enough to be able to detect the facts - I'm not the one
claiming to be st. I'm not the one claiming that I can predict the
future. I'm not the one claiming that after reading a newspaper article or
two that I'm one of the world's experts. I'm not the one telling everyone
that the world is about to explode and kill them all if they aren't willing
to turn their pockets inside out.

That is the territory of you pus-filled Liberal jackasses.

> You treat everyone like shit, then deny it.

Really hurts when the mirror is held up to you eh? The light of day is known
to injure vampires. And earthworms.

Que the claims that someone else whom you've never met nor know the
slightest thing about is doping.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 16:46:01
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Date: 10 Feb 2007 01:04:29
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1171068361.217253.280170@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 9, 7:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
>> anthropomorphic global warming.
>
> Your hysterical now. I haven't said a word about what I think on the
> global warming issue. Just on your treatment of the people involved.

My mistake, I meant - just like your DOD conspiracy theories.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 16:37:00
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 8, 7:10 pm, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 11:53 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1170963966.811803.147250@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Feb 8, 11:15 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > >> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:1170936205.137904.219280@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> > CO2 absorbs infrared radiation *leaving* a planet, not the solar
> > >> > radiation coming in. It's like a blanket. A large amount of CO2 is
> > >> > analagous to a very thick blanket.
>
> > >> Henry, I see your area of expertise is in planetary environmentalism.
>
> > >> > Your answer to all this should be "I don't know". Because you don't
> > >> > know.
>
> > >> And yet your answer isn't the same - I wonder why that is?
>
> > > I don't claim to know.
>
> > And yet the quote above does demonstrate your belief that you do know.
>
> > Do you understand what surface pressures between 9000 kPa and 9600 kPa and a
> > cloud layer 20 km thick means? Or do you really think that CO2 is the real
> > culprit in the Venusian heat wave?
>
> Dumbass -
>
> The CO2 phenomena here on earth (absorbing infrared radiation) was
> explained to me by a former racing friend who has a phd in physics.
>
> His understanding of that sort of phenomena is really high. He's one
> of the co-inventors of the "invisibility cloak" of electromagnetic
> radiation in microwave frequencies. I'll listen to him before an
> "expert" like yourself.
>
> I remember a little over a year ago you were touting your expertness
> on tectonic plate phenomena after the Indonesian tsunami. Do you
> recall what you said? What a joke you are.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey what the fuck does a PHD who can actually apply what he knows to
practical applications know? Much better to pull shit out of your ass,
dismiss anyone, no matter the credentials who disagrees, and then
claim that the information supporting your argument is/has been any of
the following:
A) classified
B) suppressed by the liberal media
C) suppressed by the liberal academic world conspiracy (this is a
close relative of the Zionist media conspiracy)
D) only available to multi-disciplinary super geniuses like Wiley
Coyote
E) beyond the understanding of anyone but TRUE believers
God damn it your a Mensa member and have half the IQ of Tom, you
should be able to understand this.
Bill C

Date: 09 Feb 2007 09:09:03
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 8 Feb 2007 16:37:00 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:

>D) only available to multi-disciplinary super geniuses like Wiley
>Coyote

Wile E. Coyote. I don't know much, but I have to stand up for what I
know.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 07 Feb 2007 12:18:18
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 7 Feb 2007 05:59:52 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>I do not understand why lay people are so unwilling to accept the IPCC
>assessment as authoritative science. The IPCC report simply is not
>subject to debate, in my opinion.

Let me try to explain it this way. There are many factors that
contribute to the temperature of the earth and all of them are
constantly changing. It's impossible to isolate any one factor and
determine exactly what effect it is having. The earth's climate is
too complex and too little understood to be able to do that.

There is no way that science can determine what contribution the
increase in CO2 caused by human activity is having on the current
warming trend. It can't be done.

It is known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore it is logical
to assume that it is having some effect. That effect could be very
small or it could be large and anywhere in between. The point is that
no one knows for sure because it's beyond the ability of science to
come up with a precise answer.

So the IPCC report might be true and it might be wrong. They say that
they're 90% sure, but you have to take that with a grain of salt.

Personally, I hope it's wrong because the likelihood that CO2
production by humans is going to stop in the foreseeable future is
very low.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 17:52:10
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 7 Feb 2007 05:59:52 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>I do not understand why lay people are so unwilling to accept the IPCC
>>assessment as authoritative science. The IPCC report simply is not
>>subject to debate, in my opinion.
>
>
> Let me try to explain it this way. There are many factors that
> contribute to the temperature of the earth and all of them are
> constantly changing. It's impossible to isolate any one factor and
> determine exactly what effect it is having. The earth's climate is
> too complex and too little understood to be able to do that.
>
> There is no way that science can determine what contribution the
> increase in CO2 caused by human activity is having on the current
> warming trend. It can't be done.
>
> It is known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore it is logical
> to assume that it is having some effect. That effect could be very
> small or it could be large and anywhere in between. The point is that
> no one knows for sure because it's beyond the ability of science to
> come up with a precise answer.
>
> So the IPCC report might be true and it might be wrong. They say that
> they're 90% sure, but you have to take that with a grain of salt.
>
> Personally, I hope it's wrong because the likelihood that CO2
> production by humans is going to stop in the foreseeable future is
> very low.
>
>

Do you understand the significance of Figure SPM-2 in the executive
sumy? Can you explain to me how all these other very minor effects are
going to dominate the warming forcing produced by anthropogenic CO2?
Explain how solar irradiance for instance, which is an order of magnitude
less than CO2 in terms of effect, could be causing the observed warming.
What process not listed in the figure, if it is not CO2, is responsible?

What particular parts of the climate system are so poorly understood that
they could be generating the observed warming? You seem to have a really
good handle on the science, so what did all the experts leave out? What
parts of the TAR, or executive sumy for the 4th assessment, do you know
to be in error? Since all these IPCC people seem to think they understand
climate well enough to come to these conclusions, what in your background
makes you think you know more than they do (or who are you relying on as
your more authoritative source)?

I agree with you that it will completely suck if climate change is related
to CO2. I sure hope all those IPCC folks are complete fools who have no
idea what they are talking about.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:55:31
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>I agree with you that it will completely suck if climate change is related
>to CO2. I sure hope all those IPCC folks are complete fools who have no
>idea what they are talking about.
>
>--
>Bill Asher

Or, the other view is to ask yourself what's so bad about global
warming? I'm looking to buy some beach front property in Labrador.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 01:54:04
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

<snip >
>
> Or, the other view is to ask yourself what's so bad about global
> warming? I'm looking to buy some beach front property in Labrador.
>

You must like mosquitoes.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 22:19:30
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 9 Feb 2007 01:54:04 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Jack Hollis wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>> Or, the other view is to ask yourself what's so bad about global
>> warming? I'm looking to buy some beach front property in Labrador.
>>
>
>You must like mosquitoes.
>
>--
>Bill Asher

Bring back DDT.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 17:03:09
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

> You seem to have a really
>good handle on the science, so what did all the experts leave out?

My area of expertise is neuroscience, but I've done lots of research
and I know what can and cannot be done. There are dozens of factors
that effect the earth's climate and all of them are in constant flux.
In a system that is dynamic as that, it's impossible to isolate one
factor and determine exactly what it is contributing to the whole
system.

In research design you attempt to determine the effect that one
variable on another. In this case, the dependent variable is global
temperature and the independent variable is CO2. In order to
successfully do this, all other variables that could effect the
dependent variable have to be held constant and this is impossible in
the climate system.

The best you can do is show a correlation between CO2 and temperature.
However, correlation does not prove causality. Especially since we
also know that the sun (another independent variable) has also shown
an increase in intensity during the same period.

It is also known that previous warming trend have occurred without an
increase in CO2. In fact, the data shows that CO2 increases follow
global warming. So it's clear that warming trends can happen
independent of CO2.

All this results in the conclusion that no one know exactly how much
CO2 is contributing to global warming.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 11:25:31
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> My area of expertise is neuroscience, but I've done lots of research
> and I know what can and cannot be done.

The evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

> The best you can do is show a correlation between CO2 and temperature.
> However, correlation does not prove causality.

Correlation doesn't prove causality, but in this case (as in many others) we
have testable models that do make the effects estimable.

> It is also known that previous warming trend have occurred without an
> increase in CO2. In fact, the data shows that CO2 increases follow
> global warming. So it's clear that warming trends can happen
> independent of CO2.

Right, but that's a straw man. No one has ever said they couldn't -- but
none of the data are consistent with this amount of warming over a period of
time such as this without GHGs. You're saying that because some kids have
been known to teach themselves math, no one can estimate the effect of
education.

Date: 10 Feb 2007 23:30:53
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:5330gtF1qjtu0U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> Correlation doesn't prove causality, but in this case (as in many others)
> we have testable models that do make the effects estimable.

http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/02/he_is_the_very_.html

"While a model can hint at what interventions have the best chance of
reducing pollutant concentrations and exposures, "A lot of people think
models provide predictions," McKone says, "but they don't do this. Models
are not very useful if you don't have something with which to anchor them.
You need observations to confirm the model and move it closer to a
representation of reality."

"The Earth is steadily growing warmer. As all the ice at the two poles melts
a stupendous volume of water will be released.

Fish will swim in Buckingham Palace... New York will be ked by
the...taller skyscrapers as they jut out of the water...the climate..as when
dinosaurs roamed the earth and dense jungles...grew in...Canada.

Palms and alligators would flourish at the poles ...man's food supply will
not ...it is a question if he will survive "
....................-- The New York Times..May 15, 1932:

Date: 11 Feb 2007 00:24:40
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5330gtF1qjtu0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Correlation doesn't prove causality, but in this case (as in many
>> others) we have testable models that do make the effects estimable.
>
> http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/02/he_is_the_very_.html
>
> "While a model can hint at what interventions have the best chance of
> reducing pollutant concentrations and exposures, "A lot of people
> think models provide predictions," McKone says, "but they don't do
> this. Models are not very useful if you don't have something with
> which to anchor them. You need observations to confirm the model and
> move it closer to a representation of reality."

In that quote above, McKone is talking specifically about fate/effects/risk
modeling, not about modeling in general. He is saying chemical fate/effect
models don't make predictions about environmental risk. Here's the full
article:

http://tinyurl.com/2vuu56

What he says is true about modeling in general, but when he says models
don't make predictions he is talking specifically about toxicological
modeling. The subtleties of science aren't your strong suit are they?

But to address your implied claim that GCMs don't get compared to
measurements, here is a brief description of the type of "anchoring" that
climate models undergo:

http://www.ucar.edu/communications/CCSM/accuracy.html

and here's what the IPCC/TAR has to say

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/308.htm

If you want to really start picking at climate models, the wiki entry is
quite good actually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

I tried to find some newspaper articles on the subject for you, but
couldn't. I'm kinda limited that way anyway since I mainly read at a
Drabble level.

Why are you so scared about climate change? Like you say, you have enough
money to live the rest of your life in comfort and if it is true, you'll be
dead before the really nasty effects hit. Be like a duck, letting the rain
of the climate change proponents falling on your parade roll off your back
as you float serenely on the pond of indifference.

Quack quack.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 11 Feb 2007 01:51:39
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98D3A6FF2CBD5FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>
> What he says is true about modeling in general, but when he says models
> don't make predictions he is talking specifically about toxicological
> modeling. The subtleties of science aren't your strong suit are they?

Asher, this is my last posting to you since you're an incredible fool. The
way you test the models is to run them on known climatic changes and see if
your models follow what really happened. The modelers have done that and in
fact they DO NOT model what actually happened. As I pointed out several
times here, the models require millions of variables that are unknown so the
overwhelming majority of these variables are simple guesses.

I'd be willing to bet that you don't even understand what method was used to
derived something as abstract as "global average temperature". I've asked
you about that before and you simply ignored it. Good thing I suppose since
the calculations of that are so outstandingly vague that in fact it means
nothing at all. Or to quote yourself, " The subtleties of science aren't
your strong suit are they?"

I think you should get back to trying to convince everyone that although the
artic ice pack was gone, the Alpine glaciers were melted and the entire
southern end of greenland was arable during the Medival Warming that it was
only a local event.

"Why are you so scared about climate change?"

What leads you to believe that I have any fear of climate change? I find you
and your ideas rather funny as a matter of fact. Although I've cited Nancy
Pelosi demanding that the USA set energy reduction limits that would turn
the USA into a third world nation you've refrained from a single comment
regarding that.

When California Governor Schwartzenegger pushes through energy bills that
send still more companies fleeing excessive taxation, it is everyone that is
harmed.

Someone as stupid as yourself believes that words do not have consequences.
You think shouting fire in a crowded building is all just great fun.

But instead you are simply a dupe of a group bent on the destruction of the
USA. You and the others here fit the profile of Useful Idiots with such
precision that it is humorous.

Date: 11 Feb 2007 02:24:17
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98D3A6FF2CBD5FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> What he says is true about modeling in general, but when he says
>> models don't make predictions he is talking specifically about
>> toxicological modeling. The subtleties of science aren't your strong
>> suit are they?
>
> Asher, this is my last posting to you since you're an incredible fool.
> The way you test the models is to run them on known climatic changes
> and see if your models follow what really happened. The modelers have
> done that and in fact they DO NOT model what actually happened. As I
> pointed out several times here, the models require millions of
> variables that are unknown so the overwhelming majority of these
> variables are simple guesses.
>
> I'd be willing to bet that you don't even understand what method was
> used to derived something as abstract as "global average temperature".
> I've asked you about that before and you simply ignored it. Good thing
> I suppose since the calculations of that are so outstandingly vague
> that in fact it means nothing at all. Or to quote yourself, " The
> subtleties of science aren't your strong suit are they?"
>
> I think you should get back to trying to convince everyone that
> although the artic ice pack was gone, the Alpine glaciers were melted
> and the entire southern end of greenland was arable during the Medival
> Warming that it was only a local event.
>
> "Why are you so scared about climate change?"
>
> What leads you to believe that I have any fear of climate change? I
> find you and your ideas rather funny as a matter of fact. Although
> I've cited Nancy Pelosi demanding that the USA set energy reduction
> limits that would turn the USA into a third world nation you've
> refrained from a single comment regarding that.
>
> When California Governor Schwartzenegger pushes through energy bills
> that send still more companies fleeing excessive taxation, it is
> everyone that is harmed.
>
> Someone as stupid as yourself believes that words do not have
> consequences. You think shouting fire in a crowded building is all
> just great fun.
>
> But instead you are simply a dupe of a group bent on the destruction
> of the USA. You and the others here fit the profile of Useful Idiots
> with such precision that it is humorous.

You're too embarrassed to ask for the interpretive dance explanation aren't
you? Ok, here it is, you don't have to tell anyone you didn't understand
the written stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVDOpbJF8IU

Semper utilis!

--
Bill Asher

Date: 11 Feb 2007 04:56:44
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98D3BB473A17BFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>
> You're too embarrassed to ask for the interpretive dance explanation
> aren't
> you? Ok, here it is, you don't have to tell anyone you didn't understand
> the written stuff.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GlmdhoERVgo

"Global warming is wreaking havoc on glaciers and the weather."

Date: 11 Feb 2007 05:00:24
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:gmxzh.687$Jl.208@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98D3BB473A17BFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> You're too embarrassed to ask for the interpretive dance explanation
>> aren't
>> you? Ok, here it is, you don't have to tell anyone you didn't understand
>> the written stuff.
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=GlmdhoERVgo
>
> "Global warming is wreaking havoc on glaciers and the weather."

You really have to listen to this whole thing to see what this nut is
talking about makes the idea of Big Brother seem mild.

Date: 11 Feb 2007 05:26:58
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:gmxzh.687$Jl.208@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98D3BB473A17BFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>>
>>> You're too embarrassed to ask for the interpretive dance explanation
>>> aren't
>>> you? Ok, here it is, you don't have to tell anyone you didn't
>>> understand the written stuff.
>>
>> http://youtube.com/watch?v=GlmdhoERVgo
>>
>> "Global warming is wreaking havoc on glaciers and the weather."
>
> You really have to listen to this whole thing to see what this nut is
> talking about makes the idea of Big Brother seem mild.

Man, the first 30 seconds of that put me to sleep. What exactly did that
guy say that set you off? At some point did he rip his clothes off and
start foaming at the mouth, screaming "capitalist pigs must die!"? Was he
saying everyone would have to wear an ankle monitor to make sure they
weren't producing too much CO2?

If that guy got you going, I can't wait to hear your reaction to Stevie
Wonder:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DCBI2AHaFfg

(Be sure to have clean underwear ready, Stevie W. will scare you shitless!)

Here is a clear calm voice in the wilderness for you:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3P0cAiJU0vs&mode=related&search=

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 23:25:29
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:6e6ns2d0vhhpis6hrdu7ps70p6rj2c9c0p@4ax.com...
> On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> You seem to have a really
>>good handle on the science, so what did all the experts leave out?
>
> My area of expertise is neuroscience, but I've done lots of research
> and I know what can and cannot be done. There are dozens of factors
> that effect the earth's climate and all of them are in constant flux.
> In a system that is dynamic as that, it's impossible to isolate one
> factor and determine exactly what it is contributing to the whole
> system.
>
> In research design you attempt to determine the effect that one
> variable on another. In this case, the dependent variable is global
> temperature and the independent variable is CO2. In order to
> successfully do this, all other variables that could effect the
> dependent variable have to be held constant and this is impossible in
> the climate system.
>
> The best you can do is show a correlation between CO2 and temperature.
> However, correlation does not prove causality. Especially since we
> also know that the sun (another independent variable) has also shown
> an increase in intensity during the same period.
>
> It is also known that previous warming trend have occurred without an
> increase in CO2. In fact, the data shows that CO2 increases follow
> global warming. So it's clear that warming trends can happen
> independent of CO2.
>
> All this results in the conclusion that no one know exactly how much
> CO2 is contributing to global warming.

Hear, hear! Very nice summation of real science Jack. But I hope you're not
pinning your sites on the mob agreeing with you.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 22:37:15
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> You seem to have a really
>>good handle on the science, so what did all the experts leave out?
>
> My area of expertise is neuroscience, but I've done lots of research
> and I know what can and cannot be done. There are dozens of factors
> that effect the earth's climate and all of them are in constant flux.
> In a system that is dynamic as that, it's impossible to isolate one
> factor and determine exactly what it is contributing to the whole
> system.
>
> In research design you attempt to determine the effect that one
> variable on another. In this case, the dependent variable is global
> temperature and the independent variable is CO2. In order to
> successfully do this, all other variables that could effect the
> dependent variable have to be held constant and this is impossible in
> the climate system.
>
> The best you can do is show a correlation between CO2 and temperature.
> However, correlation does not prove causality. Especially since we
> also know that the sun (another independent variable) has also shown
> an increase in intensity during the same period.
>
> It is also known that previous warming trend have occurred without an
> increase in CO2. In fact, the data shows that CO2 increases follow
> global warming. So it's clear that warming trends can happen
> independent of CO2.
>
> All this results in the conclusion that no one know exactly how much
> CO2 is contributing to global warming.
>

While is it strictly true that correlation does not imply causality, tight
correlation coupled with a model based on proven physics explaining that
a correlation should exist strongly suggests causality. You cannot ignore
the second half of that simply because it doesn't suit you. If we only
knew CO2 were increasing and temperature were increasing but didn't
understand anything else about radiative transfer, aerosol effects, or
solar forcing, you would be correct. But climate scientists are not
operating in that knowledge vacuum, they know not only what the
correlations are, but why these things are correlated. So at best your
claim is intellectual obfuscation, at worst it is self-delusion.

Nearly all of the climate dynamicists on the planet agree that CO2 is
responsible for the warming. You've provided nothing in the way of
credible scientific evidence to dispute them. They have intimate knowledge
of how climate works along with the same general sense of statistics and
scientific method which you have. If I am faced with choosing to believe a
group of experts who nearly all say something that makes sense in terms of
what are known and correct physics, or believing someone who admits to a
lay knowledge of the same subject and says they are wrong but cannot
explain how or why they are wrong, I gotta go with the experts.

The idea that humans are directly responsible for changing the climate
shouldn't be so hard to swallow. Nothing will be done about it, nothing
will stop it, and while denying it doesn't hurt anything since the
situation is essentially hopeless anyway, it is intellectually silly.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 21:42:58
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 8 Feb 2007 22:37:15 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>The idea that humans are directly responsible for changing the climate
>shouldn't be so hard to swallow. Nothing will be done about it, nothing
>will stop it, and while denying it doesn't hurt anything since the
>situation is essentially hopeless anyway, it is intellectually silly.

I agree that nothing significant will be done about it. However, my
skepticism about the CO2 theory of global warming stands on sound
scientific ground. I can't say with any certainty that they're wrong,
but I also can't say with any certainty that they're right. All I can
say is that it's logical to assume that the increase in CO2 caused by
humans is having some effect on global warming. The amount of the
effect is unknown.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 21:36:56
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 8 Feb 2007 22:37:15 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Nearly all of the climate dynamicists on the planet agree that CO2 is
>responsible for the warming. You've provided nothing in the way of
>credible scientific evidence to dispute them.

In fact, they've provided no evidence to support that CO2 is a major
contributor to global warming because science is unable to do that.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 17:59:58
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:2gnns29ssulvsc1tlud366uvdj6j9uamlh@4ax.com...
> On 8 Feb 2007 22:37:15 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Nearly all of the climate dynamicists on the planet agree that CO2 is
>>responsible for the warming. You've provided nothing in the way of
>>credible scientific evidence to dispute them.
>
> In fact, they've provided no evidence to support that CO2 is a major
> contributor to global warming because science is unable to do that.

Just because CO2 is only 2% of the greenhouse effect doesn't mean that it
isn't the most important.......

Date: 08 Feb 2007 21:35:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 8 Feb 2007 22:37:15 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>While is it strictly true that correlation does not imply causality, tight
>correlation coupled with a model based on proven physics explaining that
>a correlation should exist strongly suggests causality.

However, that really doesn't exist. If you look at the graphs that
have been presented you see that from about 1940 to 1965 the global
temperature actually went down during a period when the CO2 levels
continued to rise. If CO2 has such a strong effect then this should
not have happened. Clearly there are other factors at work.

See the global chart.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/lindzen.html

Of course, there also is the fact that previous warming periods have
occurred without any rise in CO2. The data shows that CO2 begins to
rise well after the warming period begins. This lag also indicates
that CO2 is not necessary for the climate to get warmer. Some
researchers see the CO2 rise as a result of global warming rather than
a cause. However, it's logical to assume that the CO2 then
contributes to the warming trend. If global warming had always
followed a rise in CO2 in the past, then the causal link would be much
easier to prove.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 11:30:39
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:
> However, that really doesn't exist. If you look at the graphs that
> have been presented you see that from about 1940 to 1965 the global
> temperature actually went down during a period when the CO2 levels
> continued to rise. If CO2 has such a strong effect then this should
> not have happened.

You're being disingenuous. No one who's serious about this stuff thinks that
CO2 has an immediate effect. That's why even if CO2 emissions were cut today
we wouldn't see a drop in temperature. There's a delay, and if you truly
don't know that then you're not competent to be discussing this.

> The data shows that CO2 begins to
> rise well after the warming period begins. This lag also indicates
> that CO2 is not necessary for the climate to get warmer.

Oh wait, so you *are* aware of lags. That means you're not ill-informed,
just disingenuous.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 03:53:29
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 8 Feb 2007 22:37:15 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>While is it strictly true that correlation does not imply causality,
>>tight correlation coupled with a model based on proven physics
>>explaining that a correlation should exist strongly suggests
>>causality.
>
>
> However, that really doesn't exist. If you look at the graphs that
> have been presented you see that from about 1940 to 1965 the global
> temperature actually went down during a period when the CO2 levels
> continued to rise. If CO2 has such a strong effect then this should
> not have happened. Clearly there are other factors at work.
>
> See the global chart.
>
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/lindzen.html
>
>
> Of course, there also is the fact that previous warming periods have
> occurred without any rise in CO2. The data shows that CO2 begins to
> rise well after the warming period begins. This lag also indicates
> that CO2 is not necessary for the climate to get warmer. Some
> researchers see the CO2 rise as a result of global warming rather than
> a cause. However, it's logical to assume that the CO2 then
> contributes to the warming trend. If global warming had always
> followed a rise in CO2 in the past, then the causal link would be much
> easier to prove.

I was hoping you would bring that up. That cooling is due to sulfate
aerosol. It was a known effect in the 70's and was a hotly debated topic
at the time. Atmospheric scientists argued whether ultimately the aerosol
would win out and the Earth would cool or the CO2 would win out and the
Earth would warm. Then, the U.S. cleaned up its coal-fired plants, sulfate
aerosol and the cooling that went along with it decreased, and the CO2
warming took over. Sulfate aerosol is a known effect and included in the
IPCCs assessment.

Put kindly, you have a layman's understanding of the system and it is full
of these sorts of misconceptions or half-truths that you have been fed by
people like Ball and Seitz and Lindzen who feed them to you precisely
because they are easy to use to confuse people. But if you delve into the
literature you'll find that these things are not issues. The Mideival Warm
Period Kunich keeps going on about has been shown to be artifact, and that
there was no global warming in that time period. That doesn't stop people
from wheeling it out when it's convenient, but it's a false argument, just
like all the ones you've raised. Lindzen, for example, is ster than me,
may be ster than you even, so it is easy to get taken in by him. But I
do not believe he is ster than everyone on the IPCC and his recent
research results prove that. His iris theory has been through several
incarnations, for example, as people point out ways it violates what is
known about cloud dynamics.

You're not saying anything that the IPCC hasn't considered. For example,
while the glacial cycles do correlate with solar effects, there are several
significant events that correspond to large and sudden, in a geologic
sense, increases in RITS. Those are more significant paleoclimate events
in terms of what is happening today. Anyway, if the Earth were following
past history and being driven by solar fluctuations, it should be cooling,
statistically speaking, not warming. But using paleoclimate as an example
of what is going on today is a bad analogy and one that is discussed
heavily in the TAR. Furthermore, the paleo climate record is not nearly as
damning towards a link between CO2 and climate as you make it out to be, or
maybe as Idso makes it out to be.

The various indirect cloud effects and the link between cosmic rays and
clouds (which is by no means certain) have been considered by the IPCC,
it's why the error bar is so large on the aerosol indirect effect forcing.
(As a side note, you can't have a magnetically charged particles, you mean
the sun produces electrically charged particles that interact with the
Earth's magnetic field.)

You are right they have no way of knowing for certain, but they know enough
to be 90% certain that the warming over the last 30 years is mostly due to
CO2. I don't mean this in an insulting way, but do you really think you
have a better handle on climate science than the IPCC or that you are
coming up with things they completely missed? It takes courage sometimes
to buck the amassed wisdom of an entire community and people sometimes
think there is great honor in being the lone wolf howling at what they
perceive is correct. In this case however, it might take even more courage
to admit that the amassed wisdom of the community is the correct take.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 09 Feb 2007 11:24:01
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 9 Feb 2007 03:53:29 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>You are right they have no way of knowing for certain, but they know enough
>to be 90% certain that the warming over the last 30 years is mostly due to
>CO2.

Impossible.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 11:23:30
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 9 Feb 2007 03:53:29 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Put kindly, you have a layman's understanding of the system and it is full
>of these sorts of misconceptions or half-truths that you have been fed by
>people like Ball and Seitz and Lindzen who feed them to you precisely
>because they are easy to use to confuse people.

I'm afraid it's you who have been confused into thinking that science
can do what it can't.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 16:42:54
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Do you understand the significance of Figure SPM-2 in the executive
>sumy? Can you explain to me how all these other very minor effects are
>going to dominate the warming forcing produced by anthropogenic CO2?
>Explain how solar irradiance for instance, which is an order of magnitude
>less than CO2 in terms of effect, could be causing the observed warming.
>What process not listed in the figure, if it is not CO2, is responsible?

I don't deny that CO2 has the effect of increasing the greenhouse
effect, or that human activity has increased atmospheric CO2.

However, we also know that the sun's activity has increased at the
same time.

Here's an article from the Telegraph.

"The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame

The Telegraph, UK
By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
Last Updated: 11:15pm BST 17/07/2004

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter
because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the
past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing
radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate
changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for
Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research,
said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and
may now be affecting global temperatures.
advertisement

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few
hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently -
in the last 100 to 150 years."

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse
gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the
Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater
impact."

There have been many warming periods in the past during times when
there was no CO2 increases, so obviously the climate can warm up
without any increase in CO2.

Personally, it seems logical to assume that because CO2 is a
greenhouse gas that increased levels of CO2 will result in a
temperature rise. I have no problem with that. However, there is no
way to determine exactly how much of the current warming trend is due
to CO2. It could be responsible for most of it or it could be
responsible for a small amount. The point is that there is no way to
tell. As Dr. Solanki says it's impossible to say which had the
greater impact.

In addition, I will say that there could be other factors in addition
to CO2 and the Sun's activity at work. The earth could be getting
more cosmic radiation from outer space for all we know, or ocean
currents and continental drift could be the culprit, or any
combination of all of the above. The climate system is too complex to
be able to isolate any single factor and say with certainty exactly
what contribution it is making to climate change.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 22:24:12
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Do you understand the significance of Figure SPM-2 in the executive
>>sumy? Can you explain to me how all these other very minor effects
>>are going to dominate the warming forcing produced by anthropogenic
>>CO2? Explain how solar irradiance for instance, which is an order of
>>magnitude less than CO2 in terms of effect, could be causing the
>>observed warming. What process not listed in the figure, if it is not
>>CO2, is responsible?
>
>
> I don't deny that CO2 has the effect of increasing the greenhouse
> effect, or that human activity has increased atmospheric CO2.
>
> However, we also know that the sun's activity has increased at the
> same time.
>
> Here's an article from the Telegraph.
>
> "The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
>
> The Telegraph, UK
> By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
> Last Updated: 11:15pm BST 17/07/2004
>
> Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter
> because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the
> past 1,000 years, according to new research.
>
> A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing
> radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate
> changes.
>
> Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for
> Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research,
> said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and
> may now be affecting global temperatures.
> advertisement
>
> "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few
> hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently -
> in the last 100 to 150 years."
>
> Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse
> gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the
> Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater
> impact."
>
>
> There have been many warming periods in the past during times when
> there was no CO2 increases, so obviously the climate can warm up
> without any increase in CO2.
>
> Personally, it seems logical to assume that because CO2 is a
> greenhouse gas that increased levels of CO2 will result in a
> temperature rise. I have no problem with that. However, there is no
> way to determine exactly how much of the current warming trend is due
> to CO2. It could be responsible for most of it or it could be
> responsible for a small amount. The point is that there is no way to
> tell. As Dr. Solanki says it's impossible to say which had the
> greater impact.
>
> In addition, I will say that there could be other factors in addition
> to CO2 and the Sun's activity at work. The earth could be getting
> more cosmic radiation from outer space for all we know, or ocean
> currents and continental drift could be the culprit, or any
> combination of all of the above. The climate system is too complex to
> be able to isolate any single factor and say with certainty exactly
> what contribution it is making to climate change.
>

The total greenhouse forcing of the sun is an order of magnitude less than
additional greenhous forcing of CO2. So you're saying the large increase
in temperature is being driven by something only as tenth as big as the
greenhouse gas forcing? The effect of cosmic rays on clouds is already
lumped into the IPCC uncertainty for indirect aerosol effects, and it is
minor compared to the already huge effect of anthropogenic sulfur. The
continents are drifting at most of centimeters per year, there have been no
measurable changes in major ocean currents over the last half century.

All of your hypothesized reasons why we shouldn't be concerned about global
warming, or more accurately, why we shouldn't regulate carbon in order to
address the issue do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. All of the more
reasonable greenhouse skeptics no longer argue the underlying science. It
is now either an economic issue or the makes the case that yes we are
responsible but the changes won't be severe and might even be beneficial.
My opinion is that the economic arguments have some traction because there
is no cheap way to reduce carbon emissions and the consequences of climate
change might not be so awful as to make industrial civilizations fail.

I notice you left off the second half of the Solanki quote, which you can
find on Wikipedia:

"Just how large this role [of solar variation] is, must still be
investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of
the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth�s
temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect
caused by carbon dioxide."

So it appears that even Solanki is fairly well down with the program.

Stick to economics, the science is no longer debatable. Whether you will
ever admit it or not, the IPCC has already thought of everything you can
imagine that is remotely credible and found data to support the theory that
increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are responsible for the
observed increase in global temperature and general warming of the global
climate system.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 21:17:57
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 8 Feb 2007 22:24:12 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>All of your hypothesized reasons why we shouldn't be concerned about global
>warming, or more accurately, why we shouldn't regulate carbon in order to
>address the issue do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

No, I'm saying that no one knows for sure exactly how much CO2 is
contributing to global warming. I'm also saying that it is logical to
assume that CO2 has some effect.

The earth's climate has always been changing. In that respect it's
neither good or bad, it's simply a fact. I have serious doubt if
humans can do anything to stop global warming or stop an ice age
either. The earth's temperature has been a lot hotter in the past
than it is today and it's been a lot colder as well. These
temperature extremes are certainly inconvenient for humans, but so are
a lot of other natural phenomena. I'm confident that the human race
will survive both global hot periods and ice ages which are a natural
part of the earth's climate. Personally, I wish the politicians would
spend more time worrying about us being hit by a large asteroid or
comet. That's something that could end all human life on this planet
in a very short time.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:58:14
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 8 Feb 2007 22:24:12 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>The total greenhouse forcing of the sun is an order of magnitude less than
>additional greenhous forcing of CO2.

The sun's activity cycle and climate change is very complex and no one
can claim to fully understand it. However, previous warming periods
seem to be related to the sun's activity and not CO2.

In any case, the sun's effects include temperature, cosmic rays, UV
rays and magnetically charged particles that interact with the earth's
magnetic field and ozone layer. Cosmic radiation is also known to
effect the amount of clouds on earth.

The IPCC has absolutely no way of knowing exactly how much the sun's
variability is contributing to global warming any more than they know
how much CO 2 is contributing to global warming.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 19:22:53
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98D064752C6D0FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>
> Do you understand the significance of Figure SPM-2 in the executive
> sumy? Can you explain to me how all these other very minor effects are
> going to dominate the warming forcing produced by anthropogenic CO2?

You mean how anthropomorphic CO2 is warming s, the moons of Jupiter and
Saturn and Uranus as well. Powerful stuff that.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 19:34:31
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98D064752C6D0FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> Do you understand the significance of Figure SPM-2 in the executive
>> sumy? Can you explain to me how all these other very minor
>> effects are going to dominate the warming forcing produced by
>> anthropogenic CO2?
>
> You mean how anthropomorphic CO2 is warming s, the moons of Jupiter
> and Saturn and Uranus as well. Powerful stuff that.
>
>

You left out Venus. No wait, that supports the CO2-warming hypothesis.
Good idea, ignore Venus, she, like all women, is a bitch.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 07 Feb 2007 21:32:03
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98D075CF62737FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98D064752C6D0FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>>
>>> Do you understand the significance of Figure SPM-2 in the executive
>>> sumy? Can you explain to me how all these other very minor
>>> effects are going to dominate the warming forcing produced by
>>> anthropogenic CO2?
>>
>> You mean how anthropomorphic CO2 is warming s, the moons of Jupiter
>> and Saturn and Uranus as well. Powerful stuff that.
>
> You left out Venus. No wait, that supports the CO2-warming hypothesis.
> Good idea, ignore Venus, she, like all women, is a bitch.

Well with citations like that who can argue with you. Strangely enough,
idiots that know a tiny bit are even stupider than idiots that know nothing.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 23:23:28
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98D075CF62737FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns98D064752C6D0FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>>>
>>>> Do you understand the significance of Figure SPM-2 in the executive
>>>> sumy? Can you explain to me how all these other very minor
>>>> effects are going to dominate the warming forcing produced by
>>>> anthropogenic CO2?
>>>
>>> You mean how anthropomorphic CO2 is warming s, the moons of
>>> Jupiter and Saturn and Uranus as well. Powerful stuff that.
>>
>> You left out Venus. No wait, that supports the CO2-warming
>> hypothesis. Good idea, ignore Venus, she, like all women, is a bitch.
>
> Well with citations like that who can argue with you. Strangely
> enough, idiots that know a tiny bit are even stupider than idiots that
> know nothing.
>
>

Now now. I thought you meant CO2 that looked like man was warming s
etc., which it clearly isn't since they've shown the CO2 on s and the
outer planets doesn't look anything like people. Ben can back me up on
this, he's a real scientist and I just play one on tv. Even here on Earth,
it is not the CO2 that looks like humans that is the problem, since there
is so little of it as a fraction of the total. It is the part that doesn't
look like humans doing the damage, which is why I snarkily mentioned Venus.
At this point, I want to recall the classic song "Venus" by The Shocking
Blue, who presciently sang"

Her weapons were her crystal eyes
Making every man mad
Black as the dark night she was
Got what no-one else had
Whaaaaaa

http://tinyurl.com/2rcuna

I hope this clears this up for you.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 01:57:18
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98D09CA05E6A8FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98D075CF62737FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>
>>>> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns98D064752C6D0FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you understand the significance of Figure SPM-2 in the executive
>>>>> sumy? Can you explain to me how all these other very minor
>>>>> effects are going to dominate the warming forcing produced by
>>>>> anthropogenic CO2?
>>>>
>>>> You mean how anthropomorphic CO2 is warming s, the moons of
>>>> Jupiter and Saturn and Uranus as well. Powerful stuff that.
>>>
>>> You left out Venus. No wait, that supports the CO2-warming
>>> hypothesis. Good idea, ignore Venus, she, like all women, is a bitch.
>>
>> Well with citations like that who can argue with you. Strangely
>> enough, idiots that know a tiny bit are even stupider than idiots that
>> know nothing.
>>
>>
>
> Now now. I thought you meant CO2 that looked like man was warming s
> etc., which it clearly isn't since they've shown the CO2 on s and the
> outer planets doesn't look anything like people. Ben can back me up on
> this, he's a real scientist and I just play one on tv. Even here on
> Earth,
> it is not the CO2 that looks like humans that is the problem, since there
> is so little of it as a fraction of the total. It is the part that
> doesn't
> look like humans doing the damage, which is why I snarkily mentioned
> Venus.
> At this point, I want to recall the classic song "Venus" by The Shocking
> Blue, who presciently sang"

I'm waiting for your citations that Venus is hot because of the CO2 in the
atmosphere and not because it's 30% closer to the sun or any of that
geometric kind of stuff that apparently you don't know about.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 22:36:40
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

William Asher wrote:
> You left out Venus. No wait, that supports the CO2-warming hypothesis.
> Good idea, ignore Venus, she, like all women, is a bitch.

Maybe, but she's a hot bitch.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 23:35:02
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Donald Munro wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>> You left out Venus. No wait, that supports the CO2-warming
>> hypothesis. Good idea, ignore Venus, she, like all women, is a
>> bitch.
>
> Maybe, but she's a hot bitch.

She's got an acid air about her.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 07 Feb 2007 15:57:14
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

William Asher wrote:
> Oh please don't cite a newspaper article by Lindzen as any sort of
> authoritative analysis of climate change. I know I should be all
> impressed that he's at MIT and everything, but scientifically he's
> reduced himself to a not very amusing joke

Here's something that *is* kind of amusing, if you have the right kind of
amusement threshold. Lindzen has been claiming that global warming stopped
in 1998. You can see a presentation he made in May 2006 right here
(http://www.timbro.se/viewNotis.aspx?id=595 , click on "Richard Lindzen's
presentation", and go to slide #29). Alternatively, you can see his graph
from that page here:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/lindzen.html

His graph shows that global temperature was constant after 1998; you can see
it in his top panel as well as in the little inset on the lower right.

That claim was pretty surprising but Lindzen included the source so one can
download the data and double-check the graph. That's the lower panel. Notice
anything different between the rightmost three bars of Lindzen's graph and
the one below?

Date: 07 Feb 2007 15:30:20
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:52u7mcF1pp1uaU1@mid.individual.net...
> William Asher wrote:
>> Oh please don't cite a newspaper article by Lindzen as any sort of
>> authoritative analysis of climate change. I know I should be all
>> impressed that he's at MIT and everything, but scientifically he's
>> reduced himself to a not very amusing joke
>
> Here's something that *is* kind of amusing, if you have the right kind of
> amusement threshold. Lindzen has been claiming that global warming stopped
> in 1998. You can see a presentation he made in May 2006 right here
> (http://www.timbro.se/viewNotis.aspx?id=595 , click on "Richard Lindzen's
> presentation", and go to slide #29). Alternatively, you can see his graph
> from that page here:
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/lindzen.html
>
> His graph shows that global temperature was constant after 1998; you can
> see it in his top panel as well as in the little inset on the lower right.
>
> That claim was pretty surprising but Lindzen included the source so one
> can download the data and double-check the graph. That's the lower panel.
> Notice anything different between the rightmost three bars of Lindzen's
> graph and the one below?

And the other side is scientific?

http://www.junkscience.com/

"The media seem to be operating under the misapprehension this is equivalent
to the release of IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis -- this is regrettably neither true nor even close to
the truth.
Bizarrely, the actual report will be retained for another three months to
facilitate editing -- to suit the sumy! IPCC procedures state that:
Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after
acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to
ensure consistency with the Sumy for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter
(Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, p4/15) -- this is surely
unacceptable and would not be tolerated in virtually any other field
(witness the media frenzy because language was allegedly altered in some US
climate reports)."

Date: 12 Feb 2007 16:50:20
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Polo to the Pole

On Feb 12, 12:16 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net >
wrote:
>
> The Norse in Greenland died because they were stupid. How else would
> you wind up in Greenland? Ask someone in the Air Force how you wind
> up in Greenland. It was the same for the Norse.

The Norse dented the CO's car while parking it for him
outside the officers' club?

Actually, come to think of it, this is more or less
why Erik the Red had to take it on the lam from Iceland
and colonize Greenland (well, he killed some people
instead of denting the CO's car, but that was pretty
much the Norse equivalent).

> If they were st they'd have opened up Google Earth and done a
> 'Fly To' to here: N44 08'11.40" E4 48'33.28" , gotten a table
> next to the fountain, and ordered this:
> http://www.cvccbike.com/food/andouillette-au-vin-blanc.jpg
>
> While pondering the Theatre Antique:
> http://www.cvccbike.com/food/theatre-antique.jpg
>
> Then they wouldn't have starved. Dummies.

The st Norse were busy pillaging Pays d'Andouillette
while the dumb Norse were settling Greenland, so in that
sense you are right. The dumb Norse tried to settle
Newfoundland (Vinland), which had wine just like Pays
d'Andouillette, so they weren't _that_ dumb, but
unfortunately they were driven away by violent
encounters with Native American Newfies.

Those Newfies appear to have been better at scaring off
Vikings (not a peaceful bunch themselves) than were
the French, which perhaps explains the bad reputation
of the French army but not why Canadians are so
passive-aggressively polite these days.

Ben
RBR History Department

Date: 07 Feb 2007 16:47:56
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote
>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/lindzen.html
>>
>> His graph shows that global temperature was constant after 1998; you
>> can see it in his top panel as well as in the little inset on the
>> lower right. That claim was pretty surprising but Lindzen included the
>> source so
>> one can download the data and double-check the graph. That's the
>> lower panel. Notice anything different between the rightmost three
>> bars of Lindzen's graph and the one below?
>
> And the other side is scientific?

Dude, Lindzen flat-out doctored the data. Download the data yourself and try
to reproduce his graph.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 15:57:03
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 9, 12:45 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 9 Feb 2007 17:01:18 GMT, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> >> Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
> >> are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have heard
> >> the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.
>
> >http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_AuthorList_2005-11-03.pdf
>
> >So if you're wrong about the authors ....
>
> >--
> >Bill Asher
>
> That appears to be the case. However, there aren't 1,500 names there
> either.

This is pointless and meaningless. Modern science is
collaborative and frequently requires large groups of
people to do any ambitious project. Most people
who contribute to a high profile international sumy
like an IPCC report have been the lead author or group
leader on some paper or many papers relevant to the
subject. Each of those papers had some mix of co-authors:
professors, research scientists, postdocs, grad students,
technicians (I don't imagine any grad students are priy
authors on the IPCC report, though many of them surely
contributed to the research). So it reflects the work of
hundreds or a few thousands of people.

It's rare that you get such a huge collaborative sumy
of the state of the field in any science. The reason
it is happening here is that it is a global phenomenon,
people think it is important, and to attempt to pre-empt
the criticism that it's "just one view." The problem
is that in an argument between scientists and wingnuts,
the wingnuts always come off looking more certain.
That's because scientists (whatever their flaws) have a
professional obligation to admit incomplete knowledge,
while wingnuts have a professional obligation to be
rock solid as supported by their complete lack of
knowledge.

But the good thing is that if we hadn't had this
conversation, I would never have learned that co
Polo sailed through the Northwest Passage with the
Chinese and that Venus is hot because of opaque
clouds of sulfuric acid that block the sunlight.

Ben

Date: 10 Feb 2007 03:12:34
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> But the good thing is that if we hadn't had this
> conversation, I would never have learned that co
> Polo sailed through the Northwest Passage with the
> Chinese

You know, when I was a kid I was always being told that Italian pasta was a
derivative of the noodles co Polo brought back with him from his trip to
China. The thing that I always wondered was whether they were still hot.

Date: 10 Feb 2007 00:14:21
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

<snip >
>
> This is pointless and meaningless. Modern science is
> collaborative and frequently requires large groups of
> people to do any ambitious project. Most people
> who contribute to a high profile international sumy
> like an IPCC report have been the lead author or group
> leader on some paper or many papers relevant to the
> subject. Each of those papers had some mix of co-authors:
> professors, research scientists, postdocs, grad students,
> technicians (I don't imagine any grad students are priy
> authors on the IPCC report, though many of them surely
> contributed to the research). So it reflects the work of
> hundreds or a few thousands of people.

But the IPCC is not a research project. They only collect what is known,
figure out the unknowns, come up with an estimate of the state of
knowledge, and then release a consensus opinion on that estimate. In that
sense, the number of people involved is somewhat important because it cuts
to the issue Jack has problems with, that the report is biased somehow, or
that it doesn't reflect a true scientific consensus opinion since it's only
a few people contributing and dissenting voices were excluded, or that a
consensus opinion can never be reached because nobody knows anything.
Tom's problems are probably related to all the shrapnel that got lodged in
his head during grenade practice when he was a boy at Camp Kill-a-Kill-a.
The point is that the IPCC report represents a consensus scientific opinion
of a number of scientists, the more the better for what I am claiming the
report represents, the fewer it is, the worse for me. That is why this
line of debate is relevant. Plus, you may yet get another interesting
factoid or two out of Tom.

In my defense, I think there is plenty of evidence that a higher number, at
least 1,000, is a reasonable estimate of the number of people who had a
hand in the report, either as a lead author for a section, a contributing
author for a section, or as a reviewer. The number of scientists involved
in collecting the data and running the models that went into the synthesis
is probably in the low tens of thousands range, but that is a complete WAG.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 07 Feb 2007 19:37:00
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:52ualgF1qkufiU1@mid.individual.net...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote
>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/lindzen.html
>>>
>>> His graph shows that global temperature was constant after 1998; you
>>> can see it in his top panel as well as in the little inset on the
>>> lower right. That claim was pretty surprising but Lindzen included the
>>> source so
>>> one can download the data and double-check the graph. That's the
>>> lower panel. Notice anything different between the rightmost three
>>> bars of Lindzen's graph and the one below?
>>
>> And the other side is scientific?
>
> Dude, Lindzen flat-out doctored the data. Download the data yourself and
> try to reproduce his graph.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

You're contesting this?

Date: 07 Feb 2007 22:21:51
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

>> Dude, Lindzen flat-out doctored the data. Download the data yourself
>> and try to reproduce his graph.
>
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
>
> You're contesting this?

Heck no. That proves that Lindzen doctored the data.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 23:08:29
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:52uu7hF1ovlk9U1@mid.individual.net...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>>> Dude, Lindzen flat-out doctored the data. Download the data yourself
>>> and try to reproduce his graph.
>>
>> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
>>
>> You're contesting this?
>
> Heck no. That proves that Lindzen doctored the data.

Strange because it also demonstrates that you did as well.

By the way - http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/deFreitas.pdf

"The study of climate change is a relatively new science. It is both complex
and inter-disciplinary and its methods are still crude. Most important, its
analyses suffer from a paucity of long-running observational data. Despite
this, the work published by the IPCC has never displayed signs of the
contention and debate on which the advancement of scientific understanding
necessarily depends. Scientists are a well-educated, diverse and
ill-disciplined assortment of freethinkers. And yet, consensus has been
paramount in the workings of the IPCC. One wonders where the dissidents are
among the IPCC scientists, especially those who contribute to the SPMs."

Date: 09 Feb 2007 09:34:46
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

>>> You're contesting this?
>>
>> Heck no. That proves that Lindzen doctored the data.
>
> Strange because it also demonstrates that you did as well.

Take your best shot, big guy:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavenh2v.dat

Date: 07 Feb 2007 23:47:46
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

<snip >
> By the way - http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/deFreitas.pdf
>
> "The study of climate change is a relatively new science. It is both
> complex and inter-disciplinary and its methods are still crude. Most
> important, its analyses suffer from a paucity of long-running
> observational data. Despite this, the work published by the IPCC has
> never displayed signs of the contention and debate on which the
> advancement of scientific understanding necessarily depends.
> Scientists are a well-educated, diverse and ill-disciplined assortment
> of freethinkers. And yet, consensus has been paramount in the workings
> of the IPCC. One wonders where the dissidents are among the IPCC
> scientists, especially those who contribute to the SPMs."

Tom:

The purpose of the IPCC is precisely that, to define what is the scientific
concensus opinion concerning climate change. There are "climate
dissenters" on the IPCC, but even they will sign off on the concensus
opinion. That is why it is such a powerful body in that regard. The
contentious stuff regarding climate is fought out in peer-review, where it
should be and why you never see it. The FoS guys know this full well, so
it's a bogus criticism of the IPCC.

If you want to see scientific disputation, find the online journal
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussion. It's free (I think),
published by the EGU, and anyone can weigh in with their opinions on papers
they feel are erroneous. Here's the link:

http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/acp/acp.html

Journals like ACP/ACPD are where things are fought out. In contrast, IPCC
is where people mostly agree on how to state things so that nearly everyone
can agree.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:10:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 7 Feb 2007 23:47:46 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>The purpose of the IPCC is precisely that, to define what is the scientific
>concensus opinion concerning climate change.

But there is no consensus. How can there be a consensus on something
that they cannot measure?

Date: 09 Feb 2007 01:55:37
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 7 Feb 2007 23:47:46 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The purpose of the IPCC is precisely that, to define what is the
>>scientific concensus opinion concerning climate change.
>
> But there is no consensus. How can there be a consensus on something
> that they cannot measure?

Scientists can and have measured changes in the global climate or global
properties related to climate (e.g., sea level) over the last several
decades. The consensus opinion the IPCC was mandated to form was whether
these changes in climate, which have been documented in the peer-reviewed
literature independently of the IPCC, were due to changes in the radiative
balance of the atmosphere due to anthropogenic CO2.

Changes in things like sea ice cover, global mean temperature, and mean
rainfall can be measured. The task of the IPCC is to sift through what is
known in terms of the observations, what is known about the physics and
chemistry relating to those observations, and what the results of models
say about how all the physics and chemistry combine to produce different
effects, and come to a consensus conclusion as to which processes could
possibly be responsible for those observations. The result of the
deliberation of these 1500 or so people who understand the modeling,
measurements, and theory is that it is likely to very highly likely that
the anthropogenic CO2 increase is responsible for the observed changes.

The only place there is no consensus is in the minds of people who don't
understand the process. Why do you not believe the IPCC's conclusions? On
this issue, they know more than you do and they know more than any of the
"experts" saying they've gotten it wrong.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 22:31:17
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 9 Feb 2007 01:55:37 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>The result of the
>deliberation of these 1500 or so people who understand the modeling,
>measurements, and theory is that it is likely to very highly likely that
>the anthropogenic CO2 increase is responsible for the observed changes.

The IPCC Working Group 1 that produced the report consisted of 51
individuals.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 03:52:29
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 9 Feb 2007 01:55:37 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The result of the
>>deliberation of these 1500 or so people who understand the modeling,
>>measurements, and theory is that it is likely to very highly likely that
>>the anthropogenic CO2 increase is responsible for the observed changes.
>
> The IPCC Working Group 1 that produced the report consisted of 51
> individuals.
>

Working groups are often smaller than the body writing the report and
synthesizing the data. There were approximately 200 authors involved in
writing the report for WG1. Probably 5 times that many contributed
material but didn't help writing the report. Even if the 200 number is
more accurate than the 1500, which I read somewhere, it's still a high
number of very st people.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 09 Feb 2007 11:12:31
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 9 Feb 2007 03:52:29 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>> On 9 Feb 2007 01:55:37 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The result of the
>>>deliberation of these 1500 or so people who understand the modeling,
>>>measurements, and theory is that it is likely to very highly likely that
>>>the anthropogenic CO2 increase is responsible for the observed changes.
>>
>> The IPCC Working Group 1 that produced the report consisted of 51
>> individuals.
>>
>
>Working groups are often smaller than the body writing the report and
>synthesizing the data. There were approximately 200 authors involved in
>writing the report for WG1. Probably 5 times that many contributed
>material but didn't help writing the report. Even if the 200 number is
>more accurate than the 1500, which I read somewhere, it's still a high
>number of very st people.
>
>--
>Bill Asher

Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have heard
the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.

In any case, I could get 51 scientists to come to the exact opposite
conclusions as the IPCC group and say they were 90% sure. Of course,
they would be as full of shit as the IPCC Working Group that issued
this report.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 17:24:41
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:257ps2tti0gcd4iejg8g0takfacafnke69@4ax.com...
>
> Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
> are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have heard
> the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.

That's the politicians who include the authors of ALL of the study papers
that IPCC used in concocting their fiction.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 17:01:18
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

>
> Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
> are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have heard
> the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.
>

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_AuthorList_2005-11-03.pdf

So if you're wrong about the authors ....

--
Bill Asher

Date: 09 Feb 2007 14:45:43
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 9 Feb 2007 17:01:18 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>>
>> Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
>> are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have heard
>> the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.
>>
>
>http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_AuthorList_2005-11-03.pdf
>
>So if you're wrong about the authors ....
>
>--
>Bill Asher

That appears to be the case. However, there aren't 1,500 names there
either.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 21:57:23
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:lmjps29hme8qp0mppsuccnioso5017uovj@4ax.com...
> On 9 Feb 2007 17:01:18 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Jack Hollis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
>>> are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have heard
>>> the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.
>>>
>>
>>http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_AuthorList_2005-11-03.pdf
>>
>>So if you're wrong about the authors ....
>>
>>--
>>Bill Asher
>
> That appears to be the case. However, there aren't 1,500 names there
> either.

You mean that 71 isn't the same as 1,500?

Date: 09 Feb 2007 22:16:56
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:lmjps29hme8qp0mppsuccnioso5017uovj@4ax.com...
>> On 9 Feb 2007 17:01:18 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Jack Hollis wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
>>>> are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have heard
>>>> the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.
>>>>
>>>
>>>http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_AuthorList_2005-11-03.pdf
>>>
>>>So if you're wrong about the authors ....
>>>
>>>--
>>>Bill Asher
>>
>> That appears to be the case. However, there aren't 1,500 names there
>> either.
>
> You mean that 71 isn't the same as 1,500?
>

Listen you two chuckleheads, the 1500 isn't pulled out of someone's ass. I
can't find the breakdown for the 4th report, but for the 3rd IPCC report
that came out in 2001, the breakdown for the scientific assessment was:

123 lead authors
516 contributing authors
21 review editors
300 expert reviewers
4 calling birds
3 french toast
2 Canadians
1 and a partridge in a pair tree

This information is from:

http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/ipcc.html

If you leave off the final 4 members, who didn't really add anything to the
group except a humorous sign-off, that totals nearly 1,000 people. As I
said before, it is likely the composition of the group that worked on the
4th assessement is easly larger by another 500 people, especially
considering the group of lead authors increased from 123 to nearly 200. If
you are not going to at least try to understand what I am saying, don't
pretend it is me who is the one making things up.

This isn't skullduggery. The IPCC review is an open process. If you got
yourself a Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences or physics or chemistry and did
some research and got it published it is highly likely you could be part of
the 1500 people. It's getting to be that being part of the IPCC is sort of
like the being part of the group of men that have felt up Paris Hilton at
bars. As a relative fraction of the overall population not many men have
done that, but of the men who go to bars with Paris Hilton almost all have
felt her up. It's sort of like eating the free peanuts, except most people
don't wash their hands after taking a handful of nuts.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 10 Feb 2007 00:27:03
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

William Asher wrote:
> except most people don't wash their
> hands after taking a handful of nuts.

LANCE hasn't had to do that for years.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 23:59:19
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Robert Chung wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>> except most people don't wash their
>> hands after taking a handful of nuts.
>
> LANCE hasn't had to do that for years.

If LANCE were French, you wouldn't make fun of him. Of course, if he were
French, cancer would have killed him, except everyone knows the French have
no balls to begin with so maybe he would have been just fine, except he
would never have won the TdF. And frankly, if Hinault had won 5 tours with
two balls instead of none, think how many he would have won had he gotten
cancer and had one removed if he had had two to being with. He would
probably be in double digits by now, especially given the French genetic
disposition to suck at math (Poincare, Cauchy, Descartes, Pascal, Fermat,
Legendre, Poincare, Galois et al. aside) and pathologically exaggerate.
I'm confused now, am I insulting Lance or you at this point?

--
Bill Asher

Date: 09 Feb 2007 22:28:48
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98D29157D914CFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> You mean that 71 isn't the same as 1,500?
>
> Listen you two chuckleheads, the 1500 isn't pulled out of someone's ass.
> I

You mean that you believe that the LIST YOU CITED was incorrect? That there
were FAR more authors to that report than are cited by you?

> can't find the breakdown for the 4th report, but for the 3rd IPCC report
> that came out in 2001, the breakdown for the scientific assessment was:
>
> 123 lead authors
> 516 contributing authors
> 21 review editors
> 300 expert reviewers
> 4 calling birds
> 3 french toast
> 2 Canadians
> 1 and a partridge in a pair tree
>
> This information is from:
>
> http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/ipcc.html

So you think that 960 is the same as 1,500? No wonder you're so gung ho
about the great results these scientific studies are producing. Oh. wait. It
ISN'T a scientific study - it's a review of available papers. And - oh
wait - ONLY those papers that were written by people being funded by - you
got it - the group proclaiming man-made global warming.

Those papers written by those awful corrupt ANTI-global warming groups who
obviously are corrupt because they couldn't get funded by anyone but the
energy companies - well, they're opinions weren't worth printing.

Lies, damned lies and Liberalism declaring a world emergency.

Today Nancy Pelosi demanded a law that will cut EMISSIONS OF CO2 TO HALF OF
TODAY'S AMOUNT BY 2050.

Essentially if that were to occur that would make the USA a second or even
third world nation by 2050. On the plus side, people would be leaving the
USA for one of the bastions of capitalism - China, India and Russia.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 22:36:36
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

>
> You mean that you believe that the LIST YOU CITED was incorrect? That
> there were FAR more authors to that report than are cited by you?
>

If we could bottle your anger, there would be no energy shortage.

http://tinyurl.com/23hnbg

--
Bill Asher

Date: 10 Feb 2007 11:55:55
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

William Asher wrote:
> If we could bottle your anger, there would be no energy shortage.

But Pound would ban it. Bottled anger must surely be against sporting
ethics.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 18:23:52
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98D25BD48CD7DFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>>
>> Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
>> are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have heard
>> the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.
>>
>
> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_AuthorList_2005-11-03.pdf
>
> So if you're wrong about the authors ....

Anyone else notice that this are NOT the list of people who have written the
Executive Sumy?

More importantly I hope everyone is aware that the actual report itself has
been held up because they are CHANGING the actual report to match the
EXECUTIVE SUMY!!!!

Now forgive me, but shouldn't the sumy reflect the report and not the
report reflect the sumy?

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/Doc_3rev.pdf

"Coordinating Lead Authors have identified some changes to the underlying
report that will ensure consistency with the language used in the approved
Sumy for Policymakers, or provide additional clarification as agreed at
the Working Group Session."

Date: 09 Feb 2007 18:48:44
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98D25BD48CD7DFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Not from what I can see. Where's the list of the 200 people? There
>>> are only 51 people cited as contributing to the report. I have
>>> heard the 1,500 number quoted but that's absolute nonsense.
>>>
>>
>> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_AuthorList_2005-11-03.pdf
>>
>> So if you're wrong about the authors ....
>
> Anyone else notice that this are NOT the list of people who have
> written the Executive Sumy?
>
> More importantly I hope everyone is aware that the actual report
> itself has been held up because they are CHANGING the actual report to
> match the EXECUTIVE SUMY!!!!
>
> Now forgive me, but shouldn't the sumy reflect the report and not
> the report reflect the sumy?
>
> http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/Doc_3rev.pdf
>
> "Coordinating Lead Authors have identified some changes to the
> underlying report that will ensure consistency with the language used
> in the approved Sumy for Policymakers, or provide additional
> clarification as agreed at the Working Group Session."

You're forgiven since I don't think you understand how something like this
works. Here's a rough idea of what probably went on related to writing
the report and sumy: the nearly 200 authors write a draft of the
report, the working group meets on the draft, they make comments, the
authors make changes, the community at large suggest changes, the working
group goes over it again, suggest more changes, give it to the authors,
more revisions, finally they have the final draft, ready for the external
reviewers, the reviewers go over it, the working group meets, discusses the
reviewers comments, and kicks the final draft back to the authors with the
changes agreed on by the working group based on the reviewers comments, the
authors start revising their parts of the report to conform to the reviews
or arguing with the working group and lead authors that the changes are not
scientifically sound, there might be another meeting of the working group
if enough authors have problems with enough pieces to warrant it, but if
things are going smoothly, while the authors are working on the revision,
the working group starts writing the executive sumy because at this
point they know that from here on out the major points of the report are
fixed and their "final draft" of the full report is pretty close to what
will be ultimately produced. However, the working group knows that at some
point they have to go back and make sure the report and sumy use
precisely the same language because everyone will nitpick this to death if
there are inconsistencies. This might be one rational explain for a delay
between the appearance of the full report and the draft of the sumy. Of
course, they didn't realize you were clever enough to see through their
smokescreen and they will come for you. Your Jedi mind control tricks,
ninja fighting skills, and heavy weaponry won't save you when they descend
on you using irony, sarcasm, pedantry, and sesquipedalianism.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 09 Feb 2007 21:06:42
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

William Asher wrote:

> sesquipedalianism

A pedaling technique for 6 legged aliens or synchronised pedaling for a
team of six in a TTT ?

Date: 09 Feb 2007 19:46:24
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Donald Munro wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>
>> sesquipedalianism
>
> A pedaling technique for 6 legged aliens or synchronised pedaling for a
> team of six in a TTT ?

It's how a LIVEDRUNK-tm adherent will ask the cute chick at the end of the
bar to go home with him at closing time. It's more often than not followed
by the LIVEDRUNK-tm adherent falling backwards off the bar stool into the
beer puddled on the floor and mumbling "fuck" over and over. Chicks dig
that.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 09 Feb 2007 16:24:14
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 9 Feb 2007 19:46:24 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Donald Munro wrote:
>
>> William Asher wrote:
>>
>>> sesquipedalianism
>>
>> A pedaling technique for 6 legged aliens or synchronised pedaling for a
>> team of six in a TTT ?
>
>It's how a LIVEDRUNK-tm adherent will ask the cute chick at the end of the
>bar to go home with him at closing time. It's more often than not followed
>by the LIVEDRUNK-tm adherent falling backwards off the bar stool into the
>beer puddled on the floor and mumbling "fuck" over and over. Chicks dig
>that.

Kind of a low bar for sesquipedalianism (yeah, I looked it up first).

There may be a pun there, but I'll leave it lie.

And, BTW, you're wrong. I've tried it and it doesn't work. Lie there
long enough and you can get a lot of free beer, though.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 09 Feb 2007 22:21:43
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

>
> Kind of a low bar for sesquipedalianism (yeah, I looked it up first).
>
> There may be a pun there, but I'll leave it lie.
>
> And, BTW, you're wrong. I've tried it and it doesn't work. Lie there
> long enough and you can get a lot of free beer, though.

How easy it is to squash another man's dreams. Next you're going to call
me a dumbass for arguing with people on the internet. Damn this is a tough
crowd.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 10 Feb 2007 11:57:31
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

William Asher wrote:

> Next you're going to call me a dumbass for arguing with people on the internet.

Well at least they don't do dope checks at the special olympics.
.

Date: 10 Feb 2007 22:02:26
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article
<45cd94b6$0$12618$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>
> > Next you're going to call me a dumbass for arguing with people on the internet.
>
> Well at least they don't do dope checks at the special olympics.
> .

The result of such tests is a foregone conclusion.

--
Michael Press

Date: 09 Feb 2007 04:07:23
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

William Asher wrote:

> Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>> On 9 Feb 2007 01:55:37 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The result of the
>>>deliberation of these 1500 or so people who understand the modeling,
>>>measurements, and theory is that it is likely to very highly likely
>>>that the anthropogenic CO2 increase is responsible for the observed
>>>changes.
>>
>> The IPCC Working Group 1 that produced the report consisted of 51
>> individuals.
>>
>
> Working groups are often smaller than the body writing the report and
> synthesizing the data. There were approximately 200 authors involved
> in writing the report for WG1. Probably 5 times that many contributed
> material but didn't help writing the report. Even if the 200 number
> is more accurate than the 1500, which I read somewhere, it's still a
> high number of very st people.
>

Last post on this topic from me, here is the breakdown of the TAR Group 1
composition:

123 lead authors, 516 contributing authors, 21 review editors, and 300
expert reviewers

http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis107/ipcc.html

for a total of around 1,000. It seems reasonable to me there might be 500
more for the 4th assessment.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 09 Feb 2007 11:31:29
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 9 Feb 2007 04:07:23 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Last post on this topic from me, here is the breakdown of the TAR Group 1
>composition:

Yes this is getting tedious. I doubt that either one of use will
change our opinions. In any case, we do agree that nothing much will
be done about reducing CO2 emissions. So hopefully the CO2 factor is
a small one.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 22:24:57
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 9 Feb 2007 01:55:37 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>The consensus opinion the IPCC was mandated to form was whether
>these changes in climate, which have been documented in the peer-reviewed
>literature independently of the IPCC, were due to changes in the radiative
>balance of the atmosphere due to anthropogenic CO2.

That was the consensus of the people who were on the panel and even
they say they're only 90% sure, which is up from 66% from the last
time. If I was on the panel, I would have pushed for 95% certainty.
One has to wonder how they reached that 90% figure. Perhaps the took
a poll and averaged it. Again, how can there be consensus on
something that cannot be accurately measured?

Date: 09 Feb 2007 07:59:30
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:24:57 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>That was the consensus of the people who were on the panel and even
>they say they're only 90% sure, which is up from 66% from the last
>time. If I was on the panel, I would have pushed for 95% certainty.
>One has to wonder how they reached that 90% figure. Perhaps the took
>a poll and averaged it. Again, how can there be consensus on
>something that cannot be accurately measured?

Do you use the same standards of proof for things you agree with?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 07 Feb 2007 16:58:50
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Robert Chung wrote:

> Dude, Lindzen flat-out doctored the data. Download the data yourself
> and try to reproduce his graph.

BTW, you also cited Tim Ball. He, too, has been caught doctoring
information. These are your experts?

Date: 07 Feb 2007 17:31:57
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <52ub9sF1putp4U1@mid.individual.net >,
"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote:

> Robert Chung wrote:
>
> > Dude, Lindzen flat-out doctored the data. Download the data yourself
> > and try to reproduce his graph.
>
> BTW, you also cited Tim Ball. He, too, has been caught doctoring
> information. These are your experts?

They were having a cup of coffee with John Lott (but not in Seattle).

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 07 Feb 2007 19:48:43
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:52ub9sF1putp4U1@mid.individual.net...
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> Dude, Lindzen flat-out doctored the data. Download the data yourself
>> and try to reproduce his graph.
>
> BTW, you also cited Tim Ball. He, too, has been caught doctoring
> information. These are your experts?

Hopefully sometime soon someone will try to professionally assassinate your
career as well so that you can see what sort of defense you can assemble.

Imagine Ball be excoriated for accepting funding for his research from
ENERGY COMPANIES, that might have something to gain by knowing that Global
Warming isn't cut and dried as it is in your tiny world?

After all, China and India who have absolutely nothing to lose in the
question of the Kyoto Protocol seem to be quite happy to support the
findings of things like the IPCC. Bad science seems to make especially good
business even among scientists huh?

Date: 08 Feb 2007 11:06:44
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:52ub9sF1putp4U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Robert Chung wrote:
>>
>>> Dude, Lindzen flat-out doctored the data. Download the data yourself
>>> and try to reproduce his graph.
>>
>> BTW, you also cited Tim Ball. He, too, has been caught doctoring
>> information. These are your experts?
>
> Hopefully sometime soon someone will try to professionally
> assassinate your career as well so that you can see what sort of
> defense you can assemble.

Tim Ball has been professionally assassinating his own career. He doesn't
appear to need anyone else's help. The funny part is the shifting claims he
makes about his own credentials.

> Imagine Ball be excoriated for accepting funding for his research from
> ENERGY COMPANIES, that might have something to gain by knowing that
> Global Warming isn't cut and dried as it is in your tiny world?

What?! Tim Ball has been accepting funds for his research from ENERGY
COMPANIES?! Do tell. Because in May of last year Ball claimed "to my
knowledge I've never received a nickel from the oil and gas companies."

Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:13:37
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:530b1mF1qg6eiU1@mid.individual.net...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> Hopefully sometime soon someone will try to professionally
>> assassinate your career as well so that you can see what sort of
>> defense you can assemble.
>
> Tim Ball has been professionally assassinating his own career. He doesn't
> appear to need anyone else's help. The funny part is the shifting claims
> he makes about his own credentials.

Until such times as you're willing to post your own career I suggest that
you stop talking about other's qualifications or lack thereof.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 11:19:53
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 16:58:50 +0100, "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid >
wrote:

>Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> Dude, Lindzen flat-out doctored the data. Download the data yourself
>> and try to reproduce his graph.
>
>BTW, you also cited Tim Ball. He, too, has been caught doctoring
>information. These are your experts?
>

Would YOU trust an expert that didn't have the basic skills to doctor
data and create their own data points? Sometimes you just don't have
the time to create an entire study.

In cycling, we call it panache...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 07 Feb 2007 17:05:20
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Robert Chung wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>
>> Dude, Lindzen flat-out doctored the data. Download the data yourself
>> and try to reproduce his graph.
>
> BTW, you also cited Tim Ball. He, too, has been caught doctoring
> information. These are your experts?

Oh, wait. You were also citing Steve Milloy. Three days after 9/11, Milloy
argued that the WTC collapsed because of asbestos regulation.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 19:32:25
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:52ubm2F1pl3bfU1@mid.individual.net...
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> Robert Chung wrote:
>>
>>> Dude, Lindzen flat-out doctored the data. Download the data yourself
>>> and try to reproduce his graph.
>>
>> BTW, you also cited Tim Ball. He, too, has been caught doctoring
>> information. These are your experts?
>
> Oh, wait. You were also citing Steve Milloy. Three days after 9/11, Milloy
> argued that the WTC collapsed because of asbestos regulation.

Do you suppose that misrepresenting what was said puts you in a good light?
Or are you just stupid and don't understand what the issues were?

Date: 08 Feb 2007 11:00:00
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

>> Oh, wait. You were also citing Steve Milloy. Three days after 9/11,
>> Milloy argued that the WTC collapsed because of asbestos regulation.
>
> Do you suppose that misrepresenting what was said puts you in a good
> light? Or are you just stupid and don't understand what the issues
> were?

Three days after 9/11 Milloy wasn't blaming Al Qaida; three days after 9/11
Milloy was blaming other Americans for regulating asbestos. This was long
before all the evidence was in, and despite his admission in his article
that other fire retardant materials that met applicable standards had been
used. How appropriate that he calls his own site "junk science."

Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:12:00
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:530al3F1qb5alU1@mid.individual.net...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>>> Oh, wait. You were also citing Steve Milloy. Three days after 9/11,
>>> Milloy argued that the WTC collapsed because of asbestos regulation.
>>
>> Do you suppose that misrepresenting what was said puts you in a good
>> light? Or are you just stupid and don't understand what the issues
>> were?
>
> Three days after 9/11 Milloy wasn't blaming Al Qaida; three days after
> 9/11 Milloy was blaming other Americans for regulating asbestos. This was
> long before all the evidence was in, and despite his admission in his
> article that other fire retardant materials that met applicable standards
> had been used. How appropriate that he calls his own site "junk science."

I suggest that you don't understand the issues he was talking about. Asbetos
has been turned into the Evil Empire. The facts are that asbetos is a term
for ANY fibrous rock bases materials and that only a very small subset of
asbetos has fibers of the size that lead to mesothelioma.

Since asbestos was characterized as the instant death the panic driven
regulations forbade its use in new buildings. Previous to these changes in
regulations it was standard procedures to spray on a coating of asbestos to
protect the metal framing of skyscrapers from strength losses in a fire.

If asbestos had been used there is every reason to believe that there would
have been as much as an hour more to evaculate the people in those
buildings. Some estimates say that perhaps 2/3rds of the victims could have
been out of those buildings in that time.

But some really bright individual like you who has a tight grasp on what
precisely happened would know a great deal more about the subject that
people who have studied it in detail.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 11:22:09
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:05:20 +0100, "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid >
wrote:

>Oh, wait. You were also citing Steve Milloy. Three days after 9/11, Milloy
>argued that the WTC collapsed because of asbestos regulation.

That can't be real. You have to be making this up. Was it just the
regulations (maybe really heavy books in the wrong place) or the
abatement process? Or was it asbestos was the fiber holding the
universe together and now it is illegal...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 07 Feb 2007 17:55:03
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:05:20 +0100, "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>Oh, wait. You were also citing Steve Milloy. Three days after 9/11,
>>Milloy argued that the WTC collapsed because of asbestos regulation.
>
> That can't be real. You have to be making this up. Was it just the
> regulations (maybe really heavy books in the wrong place) or the
> abatement process? Or was it asbestos was the fiber holding the
> universe together and now it is illegal...

No it's true. The WTC collapsed. I remember reading about in Time or
Newsweek a while back. But it's ok, we got the guy responsible. He's in
prison in a cave in Pakistan.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 07 Feb 2007 13:12:27
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 7 Feb 2007 17:55:03 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:05:20 +0100, "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Oh, wait. You were also citing Steve Milloy. Three days after 9/11,
>>>Milloy argued that the WTC collapsed because of asbestos regulation.
>>
>> That can't be real. You have to be making this up. Was it just the
>> regulations (maybe really heavy books in the wrong place) or the
>> abatement process? Or was it asbestos was the fiber holding the
>> universe together and now it is illegal...
>
>No it's true. The WTC collapsed. I remember reading about in Time or
>Newsweek a while back. But it's ok, we got the guy responsible. He's in
>prison in a cave in Pakistan.

S'OK then, no problem.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 07 Feb 2007 18:32:04
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Curtis L. Russell wrote:

> On 7 Feb 2007 17:55:03 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:05:20 +0100, "Robert Chung"
>>> <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Oh, wait. You were also citing Steve Milloy. Three days after 9/11,
>>>>Milloy argued that the WTC collapsed because of asbestos regulation.
>>>
>>> That can't be real. You have to be making this up. Was it just the
>>> regulations (maybe really heavy books in the wrong place) or the
>>> abatement process? Or was it asbestos was the fiber holding the
>>> universe together and now it is illegal...
>>
>>No it's true. The WTC collapsed. I remember reading about in Time or
>>Newsweek a while back. But it's ok, we got the guy responsible. He's
>>in prison in a cave in Pakistan.
>
> S'OK then, no problem.
>

And they say people can't contradict each other here without it leading to
bitterness and acrimony.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 07 Feb 2007 17:30:25
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:05:20 +0100, "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Oh, wait. You were also citing Steve Milloy. Three days after 9/11,
>> Milloy argued that the WTC collapsed because of asbestos regulation.
>
> That can't be real. You have to be making this up. Was it just the
> regulations (maybe really heavy books in the wrong place) or the
> abatement process? Or was it asbestos was the fiber holding the
> universe together and now it is illegal...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34342,00.html

Date: 07 Feb 2007 17:27:50
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Robert Chung wrote:

> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:05:20 +0100, "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, wait. You were also citing Steve Milloy. Three days after 9/11,
>>> Milloy argued that the WTC collapsed because of asbestos regulation.
>>
>> That can't be real. You have to be making this up. Was it just the
>> regulations (maybe really heavy books in the wrong place) or the
>> abatement process? Or was it asbestos was the fiber holding the
>> universe together and now it is illegal...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34342,00.html
>
>
>

Have I ever told you that I love how you hate America?

Time for a manly hug.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 07 Feb 2007 18:57:54
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

William Asher wrote:

> Have I ever told you that I love how you hate America?
>
> Time for a manly hug.

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2007_02_04_archive.html#3257128471743622732

Date: 07 Feb 2007 17:31:53
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <52ui95F1q6bs7U1@mid.individual.net >,
"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>
> > Have I ever told you that I love how you hate America?
> >
> > Time for a manly hug.
>
> http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2007_02_04_archive.html#3257128471743622732

How appropriate that Reihl is dressed like a clown in that picture.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 07 Feb 2007 18:30:59
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Robert Chung wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>
>> Have I ever told you that I love how you hate America?
>>
>> Time for a manly hug.
>
> http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2007_02_04_archive.html#3257128471743622
> 732
>
>

I filling out the paperwork for a Gates Foundation grant right now. Or
would you rather be George Soros's love slave?

--
Bill Asher

Date: 07 Feb 2007 14:54:34
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98CFDFD765588FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>
> I do not understand why lay people are so unwilling to accept the IPCC
> assessment as authoritative science. The IPCC report simply is not
> subject to debate, in my opinion.

Ahh, the old "I right and you're wrong so shut up" strategy. Nice one.

> The same goes for those two wingnuts who didn't like Mann's
> hockey-stick plot.

And yet I published the graph of the average global temperatures since
satellite monitoring was available and SURPRISE! no hockey-stick.

Strange how "bad science" has come to mean - "doesn't subscribe to large
government grants for real scientists". Which seems to have become the real
agenda of science these days. Even the AAAS journal Science has become
little more than the drum beat for ever larger government grants or they
will politicize all science.

Funny how all this global warming because so important after Congress
defunded the Super Conducting Super Collider.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 11:37:22
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:
> And yet I published the graph of the average global temperatures since
> satellite monitoring was available and SURPRISE! no hockey-stick.

Ooops. Sorry. I didn't understand your usage of the word "published."
Usually I call what you did "linking."

Anyway, you should check again. Milloy is citing obsolete stuff. Spencer and
Christy were forced to admit about a year ago that their analysis of the
satellite data was in error. Their corrected satellite data now agrees with
all the other surface and satellite analyses: there has been global warming
since 1979.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:03:35
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:530cr4F1pk9haU1@mid.individual.net...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> And yet I published the graph of the average global temperatures since
>> satellite monitoring was available and SURPRISE! no hockey-stick.
>
> Ooops. Sorry. I didn't understand your usage of the word "published."
> Usually I call what you did "linking."
>
> Anyway, you should check again. Milloy is citing obsolete stuff. Spencer
> and Christy were forced to admit about a year ago that their analysis of
> the satellite data was in error. Their corrected satellite data now agrees
> with all the other surface and satellite analyses: there has been global
> warming since 1979.

Usually I call what you did as "not linking".

Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:36:16
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
<snip >
>> Anyway, you should check again. Milloy is citing obsolete stuff.
>> Spencer and Christy were forced to admit about a year ago that their
>> analysis of the satellite data was in error. Their corrected
>> satellite data now agrees with all the other surface and satellite
>> analyses: there has been global warming since 1979.
>
> Usually I call what you did as "not linking".

Christy is on the IPCC, by the way. He's signed off on the temperature
plot in the executive sumy. Spencer might be as well, I didn't check.
But I know Christy is.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:47:38
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98D1761AE8921FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
> <snip>
>>> Anyway, you should check again. Milloy is citing obsolete stuff.
>>> Spencer and Christy were forced to admit about a year ago that their
>>> analysis of the satellite data was in error. Their corrected
>>> satellite data now agrees with all the other surface and satellite
>>> analyses: there has been global warming since 1979.
>>
>> Usually I call what you did as "not linking".
>
> Christy is on the IPCC, by the way. He's signed off on the temperature
> plot in the executive sumy. Spencer might be as well, I didn't check.
> But I know Christy is.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm

"The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related
data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer
reviewed and published scientific/technical literature."

If you don't understand what this means I don't suppose I could hammer it
into your head.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:08:21
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

>
> http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm
>
> "The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate
> related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment
> mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical
> literature."
>
> If you don't understand what this means I don't suppose I could hammer
> it into your head.

I am almost certain I explained this tidbit about the IPCC yesterday. But
even given that, I don't see your point relative to Christy so maybe you
had better hammer it into my head. Everyone so loves reading the trenchent
verbiage from you, far be it from me to pretend I understand what you are
talking about just to save another response and terminate this personal
hell I have built for myself.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 07 Feb 2007 17:32:00
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <KKlyh.25398$X72.4314@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98CFDFD765588FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> >
> > I do not understand why lay people are so unwilling to accept the IPCC
> > assessment as authoritative science. The IPCC report simply is not
> > subject to debate, in my opinion.
>
> Ahh, the old "I right and you're wrong so shut up" strategy. Nice one.

You would think that's what he was saying, as you just perfectly described *your*
style of carrying on a discussion.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 07 Feb 2007 17:40:11
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98CFDFD765588FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> I do not understand why lay people are so unwilling to accept the
>> IPCC assessment as authoritative science. The IPCC report simply is
>> not subject to debate, in my opinion.
>
> Ahh, the old "I right and you're wrong so shut up" strategy. Nice one.
>
>> The same goes for those two wingnuts who didn't like Mann's
>> hockey-stick plot.
>
> And yet I published the graph of the average global temperatures since
> satellite monitoring was available and SURPRISE! no hockey-stick.
>
> Strange how "bad science" has come to mean - "doesn't subscribe to
> large government grants for real scientists". Which seems to have
> become the real agenda of science these days. Even the AAAS journal
> Science has become little more than the drum beat for ever larger
> government grants or they will politicize all science.
>
> Funny how all this global warming because so important after Congress
> defunded the Super Conducting Super Collider.

Tom:

If you knew what you were talking about in any of this it would be worth
pursuing, but you don't. Anyone who doesn't recognize what the IPCC
represents simply doesn't understand modern science, and how research on
something as interdisciplinary as climate change advances and is conducted,
well enough to have an intelligent opinion on the subject of climate
change.

That the planet is warming is not in dispute. That CO2 in the atmosphere
is increasing due to mankind is not in dispute. That this extra CO2
produced is responsible for the observed increase in temperature is
*nearly* not in dispute. The people who claim this is so are not the
"flat-Earthers." You are the flat-Earther. It is that simple.

But like I said, whether you believe it or not, why do you care? It won't
effect you, you'll retire comfortably, be happy, and ignore any bad things
that happen. Nobody is going to shove any draconian carbon taxes or
greenhouse gas regulations down your throat, they would pry your cold dead
fingers off the trigger of your assault rifle before they regulate carbon.
The game is over and industry has already won, now be a good sport and
admit the scientists who understand this have thing nailed.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 11 Feb 2007 17:50:23
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 11, 5:41 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> more valid than anyone else in here, based on the way you mock people for being
> plumbers, carpenters, machinists or what-have-you.

Dumbass -

The Retard mocks people for being machinists?

That's kinda funny to me - some of the most intelligent discourse I've
seen on usenet is on the cnc newsgroup. Besides having to being
technically literate, a lotta those guys have to think about
globalization and all that it entails on a daily basis. Naturally,
there are a few idiotic ideologues of all stripes in there, just like
there are here, but . . .

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 17:32:01
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 9, 8:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1171068361.217253.280170@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 9, 7:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
> >> anthropomorphic global warming.
>
> > Your hysterical now. I haven't said a word about what I think on the
> > global warming issue. Just on your treatment of the people involved.
>
> My mistake, I meant - just like your DOD conspiracy theories.

Yep, me, the GAO, SFTT, the VFW, the American Legion, people in
congress the VA, etc... have all raised lots of these points, but
were all obviously communist infiltrated lunatics out to destroy YOUR
America.
I admit it. I tend to agree with people like SFTT, the veterans
groups, people still on active duty I talk with, etc...
You are so paranoid you can't seperate legitimate concerns for the
troops on the ground from people like Cindy Sheehan.
Amerika Uber Alles. Chavez is hyping "The Fatherland" like a ghost of
the past. Maybe you can do it here.
Never question the leadership, unless they are from another
viewpoint, then they are criminal scum.
You really need your own little compound in Idaho.
Bill C

Date: 10 Feb 2007 13:23:40
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Bill C wrote:
> On Feb 9, 8:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>>"Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>
>>news:1171068361.217253.280170@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>>On Feb 9, 7:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>>>So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
>>>>anthropomorphic global warming.
>>
>>>Your hysterical now. I haven't said a word about what I think on the
>>>global warming issue. Just on your treatment of the people involved.
>>
>>My mistake, I meant - just like your DOD conspiracy theories.
>
>
> Yep, me, the GAO, SFTT, the VFW, the American Legion, people in
> congress the VA, etc... have all raised lots of these points, but
> were all obviously communist infiltrated lunatics out to destroy YOUR
> America.
> I admit it. I tend to agree with people like SFTT, the veterans
> groups, people still on active duty I talk with, etc...
> You are so paranoid you can't seperate legitimate concerns for the
> troops on the ground from people like Cindy Sheehan.
> Amerika Uber Alles. Chavez is hyping "The Fatherland" like a ghost of
> the past. Maybe you can do it here.
> Never question the leadership, unless they are from another
> viewpoint, then they are criminal scum.
> You really need your own little compound in Idaho.
> Bill C
>

Bill,

Lets get one thing straight: eunuch is not just paranoid, but a
knuckle-dragging, right-wing Christo-Fascist who cant see the
intellectual forest for the trees, no matter how many of them have been
chopped down for him to see.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 17:50:12
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <Xns98D0626CDA7B3FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >,
William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:

> That the planet is warming is not in dispute. That CO2 in the atmosphere
> is increasing due to mankind is not in dispute. That this extra CO2
> produced is responsible for the observed increase in temperature is
> *nearly* not in dispute. The people who claim this is so are not the
> "flat-Earthers." You are the flat-Earther. It is that simple.

It's funny that he brought up "flat earth" as a means to discredit the IPCC - if
he'd been around at the right time, Tom would be the first guy lumbering down the
street with a pitchfork and flaming torch toward Galileo's house, bellowing
something about "BLASPHEMER!!!! HERETIC!!!!"

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 07 Feb 2007 19:16:06
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98D0626CDA7B3FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>
> If you knew what you were talking about in any of this it would be worth
> pursuing, but you don't. Anyone who doesn't recognize what the IPCC
> represents simply doesn't understand modern science, and how research on
> something as interdisciplinary as climate change advances and is
> conducted,
> well enough to have an intelligent opinion on the subject of climate
> change.

Perhaps YOU can tell me all about the IPCC report since it won't be out for
another three months while they modify it to match the executive sumy
claims.

> That the planet is warming is not in dispute. That CO2 in the atmosphere
> is increasing due to mankind is not in dispute. That this extra CO2
> produced is responsible for the observed increase in temperature is
> *nearly* not in dispute. The people who claim this is so are not the
> "flat-Earthers." You are the flat-Earther. It is that simple.

Let's take your ideas in order - because you claim that these things are
"not in dispute" does not make it so. The mental disease of taking 25 years
of incomplete data and jamming it into a framework and claiming that somehow
you can tell the difference between natural cyclic variations and man-made
changes that are three orders of magnitude below natural variations is
mentally disturbed.

Depending on computer models that DO NOT predict past historic cycles makes
for extremely bad science when predicting future trends. You can pretend
anything you like but you are going to look exceptionally silly in a couple
of years and I will be here to bring it up.

> But like I said, whether you believe it or not, why do you care? It won't
> effect you, you'll retire comfortably, be happy, and ignore any bad things
> that happen. Nobody is going to shove any draconian carbon taxes or
> greenhouse gas regulations down your throat, they would pry your cold dead
> fingers off the trigger of your assault rifle before they regulate carbon.
> The game is over and industry has already won, now be a good sport and
> admit the scientists who understand this have thing nailed.

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3361

"California lawmakers joined environmental groups last week in celebrating
the passage of a landk global warming bill designed to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. The legislation caps California's emissions at 1990 levels by
2020 (representing an estimated 25 percent overall reduction from current
levels); establishes a mandatory emissions reduction reporting program to
the state's Air Resource Board; and establishes a "cap and trade" program
allowing businesses to buy and sell emissions rights."

Gee, can you be retroactively full of shit?

Date: 07 Feb 2007 19:31:42
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98D0626CDA7B3FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> If you knew what you were talking about in any of this it would be
>> worth pursuing, but you don't. Anyone who doesn't recognize what the
>> IPCC represents simply doesn't understand modern science, and how
>> research on something as interdisciplinary as climate change advances
>> and is conducted,
>> well enough to have an intelligent opinion on the subject of climate
>> change.
>
> Perhaps YOU can tell me all about the IPCC report since it won't be
> out for another three months while they modify it to match the
> executive sumy claims.
>
>> That the planet is warming is not in dispute. That CO2 in the
>> atmosphere is increasing due to mankind is not in dispute. That this
>> extra CO2 produced is responsible for the observed increase in
>> temperature is *nearly* not in dispute. The people who claim this is
>> so are not the "flat-Earthers." You are the flat-Earther. It is
>> that simple.
>
> Let's take your ideas in order - because you claim that these things
> are "not in dispute" does not make it so. The mental disease of taking
> 25 years of incomplete data and jamming it into a framework and
> claiming that somehow you can tell the difference between natural
> cyclic variations and man-made changes that are three orders of
> magnitude below natural variations is mentally disturbed.
>
> Depending on computer models that DO NOT predict past historic cycles
> makes for extremely bad science when predicting future trends. You can
> pretend anything you like but you are going to look exceptionally
> silly in a couple of years and I will be here to bring it up.
>
>> But like I said, whether you believe it or not, why do you care? It
>> won't effect you, you'll retire comfortably, be happy, and ignore any
>> bad things that happen. Nobody is going to shove any draconian
>> carbon taxes or greenhouse gas regulations down your throat, they
>> would pry your cold dead fingers off the trigger of your assault
>> rifle before they regulate carbon. The game is over and industry has
>> already won, now be a good sport and admit the scientists who
>> understand this have thing nailed.
>
> http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3361
>
> "California lawmakers joined environmental groups last week in
> celebrating the passage of a landk global warming bill designed to
> reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation caps California's
> emissions at 1990 levels by 2020 (representing an estimated 25 percent
> overall reduction from current levels); establishes a mandatory
> emissions reduction reporting program to the state's Air Resource
> Board; and establishes a "cap and trade" program allowing businesses
> to buy and sell emissions rights."
>
> Gee, can you be retroactively full of shit?
>

I'm not claiming they are not in dispute, the IPCC is stating they are not
in dispute. Go back and compare the executive sumy from the TAR with
the full report. There is no difference in conclusions. We've beaten to
death modeling stochastic systems here before, in short failure to
precisely model specific events in the past means nothing about the ability
of these models to predict future climatic trends. It's a subtle point but
nonetheless true. Climate dynamics is well understood. Get over it.

How do the new California regulations impact and degrade your lifestyle?
Aside from the ginal increase in your already astronomically high blood
pressure, what specific harm has come to you because of them? Do you think
the governator is going to rip the V-8 out of your car and leave you with a
moped?

In a couple of years, I'm betting you won't even remember this promise of
yours, but there's little doubt in my mind you're going to have nothing to
make me feel silly over. Anyway, if you want to piss on my grave, you'll
have to get in line. I've already got all the cryo-immortality people
hacked at me (long story, never mind) so there will be a bit of a back up
graveside once I croak. Remember to stay hydrated, it's likely to be
toasty by then.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 10 Feb 2007 14:28:42
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 10, 8:23 am, Joe Cipale <j...@aracnet.com > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 8:04 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >>"Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1171068361.217253.280170@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>On Feb 9, 7:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >>>>So you actually made up that wording. Sort of like your arguments for
> >>>>anthropomorphic global warming.
>
> >>>Your hysterical now. I haven't said a word about what I think on the
> >>>global warming issue. Just on your treatment of the people involved.
>
> >>My mistake, I meant - just like your DOD conspiracy theories.
>
> > Yep, me, the GAO, SFTT, the VFW, the American Legion, people in
> > congress the VA, etc... have all raised lots of these points, but
> > were all obviously communist infiltrated lunatics out to destroy YOUR
> > America.
> > I admit it. I tend to agree with people like SFTT, the veterans
> > groups, people still on active duty I talk with, etc...
> > You are so paranoid you can't seperate legitimate concerns for the
> > troops on the ground from people like Cindy Sheehan.
> > Amerika Uber Alles. Chavez is hyping "The Fatherland" like a ghost of
> > the past. Maybe you can do it here.
> > Never question the leadership, unless they are from another
> > viewpoint, then they are criminal scum.
> > You really need your own little compound in Idaho.
> > Bill C
>
> Bill,
>
> Lets get one thing straight: eunuch is not just paranoid, but a
> knuckle-dragging, right-wing Christo-Fascist who cant see the
> intellectual forest for the trees, no matter how many of them have been
> chopped down for him to see.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I defer
Bill C

Date: 07 Feb 2007 21:25:21
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98D0755583106FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98D0626CDA7B3FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>>
>>> If you knew what you were talking about in any of this it would be
>>> worth pursuing, but you don't. Anyone who doesn't recognize what the
>>> IPCC represents simply doesn't understand modern science, and how
>>> research on something as interdisciplinary as climate change advances
>>> and is conducted,
>>> well enough to have an intelligent opinion on the subject of climate
>>> change.
>>
>> Perhaps YOU can tell me all about the IPCC report since it won't be
>> out for another three months while they modify it to match the
>> executive sumy claims.
>>
>>> That the planet is warming is not in dispute. That CO2 in the
>>> atmosphere is increasing due to mankind is not in dispute. That this
>>> extra CO2 produced is responsible for the observed increase in
>>> temperature is *nearly* not in dispute. The people who claim this is
>>> so are not the "flat-Earthers." You are the flat-Earther. It is
>>> that simple.
>>
>> Let's take your ideas in order - because you claim that these things
>> are "not in dispute" does not make it so. The mental disease of taking
>> 25 years of incomplete data and jamming it into a framework and
>> claiming that somehow you can tell the difference between natural
>> cyclic variations and man-made changes that are three orders of
>> magnitude below natural variations is mentally disturbed.
>>
>> Depending on computer models that DO NOT predict past historic cycles
>> makes for extremely bad science when predicting future trends. You can
>> pretend anything you like but you are going to look exceptionally
>> silly in a couple of years and I will be here to bring it up.
>>
>>> But like I said, whether you believe it or not, why do you care? It
>>> won't effect you, you'll retire comfortably, be happy, and ignore any
>>> bad things that happen. Nobody is going to shove any draconian
>>> carbon taxes or greenhouse gas regulations down your throat, they
>>> would pry your cold dead fingers off the trigger of your assault
>>> rifle before they regulate carbon. The game is over and industry has
>>> already won, now be a good sport and admit the scientists who
>>> understand this have thing nailed.
>>
>> http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3361
>>
>> "California lawmakers joined environmental groups last week in
>> celebrating the passage of a landk global warming bill designed to
>> reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation caps California's
>> emissions at 1990 levels by 2020 (representing an estimated 25 percent
>> overall reduction from current levels); establishes a mandatory
>> emissions reduction reporting program to the state's Air Resource
>> Board; and establishes a "cap and trade" program allowing businesses
>> to buy and sell emissions rights."
>>
>> Gee, can you be retroactively full of shit?
>>
>
> I'm not claiming they are not in dispute, the IPCC is stating they are not
> in dispute.

So then when YOU say that they aren't in dispute you don't REALLY mean they
aren't in dispute, you mean that someone else means they aren't in dispute.
Gotcha. You're just posting here in order to demonstrate solidarity with the
group.

> How do the new California regulations impact and degrade your lifestyle?

1) They will increase the prices of everything in one of the most expensive
states to live in. GDP correlates directly with energy consumption. Reduce
energy consumption and you WILL reduce GDP. The laws of supply and demand
operate whether you personally believe in them or not.

2) They will further drive businesses out of this state and reduce the
number of real jobs available. Reducing emissions is only possible by
reducing the amount of energy used. Limiting transportation and power in any
manner will cause real businesses (not "service" industries which are only
profitable as long as there are real businesses to supply real products.)

3) They may very well make heating and cooling my own home impossible. For
the unenlightened, the population is growing and "efficiency" increases in
energy use is lagging WAY behind population growth. Since the legislated
target is 25% less energy than is PRESENTLY being used, even a student in
the Oakland Public School system would be able to detect a problem.

> Aside from the ginal increase in your already astronomically high blood
> pressure, what specific harm has come to you because of them? Do you
> think
> the governator is going to rip the V-8 out of your car and leave you with
> a
> moped?

> In a couple of years, I'm betting you won't even remember this promise of
> yours, but there's little doubt in my mind you're going to have nothing to
> make me feel silly over.

Obviously you don't understand what "elasticity" means in economic terms and
how close to the elastic limits this country presently is. But nevertheless
I will add that you seem to know a great deal about my physiology that my
doctor doesn't. He tells me that I can expect to live a minimum of another
30 years. You on the other hand will probably be avoiding these groups where
you've spent so much energy telling everyone that the end of times is
coming.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 23:12:08
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

<Fisked, because it just seemed right >
>
> So then when YOU say that they aren't in dispute you don't REALLY mean
> they aren't in dispute, you mean that someone else means they aren't
> in dispute. Gotcha. You're just posting here in order to demonstrate
> solidarity with the group.

Do you understand what you mean here? Just to be clear, I recognize the
authority of the IPCC to speak on what is and is not definitively known
regarding climate and climate change. If you want to dispute their
conclusions, you had better bring some heavy credentials or have some drag
to back it up.

> 1) They will increase the prices of everything in one of the most
> expensive states to live in. GDP correlates directly with energy
> consumption. Reduce energy consumption and you WILL reduce GDP. The
> laws of supply and demand operate whether you personally believe in
> them or not.

If people need less energy and there is no net decrease in generating
capacity, shouldn't the price go down because less demand for the same
supply? Or are you speculating this increase will happen. What does the
California State chief economist and budget guy predict will be the impact?

>
> 2) They will further drive businesses out of this state and reduce the
> number of real jobs available. Reducing emissions is only possible by
> reducing the amount of energy used. Limiting transportation and power
> in any manner will cause real businesses (not "service" industries
> which are only profitable as long as there are real businesses to
> supply real products.)

Again, do you have any reference for studies showing this will happen or
are you speculating again? Where has this sort of thing been done before
and what were the effects?

> 3) They may very well make heating and cooling my own home impossible.
> For the unenlightened, the population is growing and "efficiency"
> increases in energy use is lagging WAY behind population growth. Since
> the legislated target is 25% less energy than is PRESENTLY being used,
> even a student in the Oakland Public School system would be able to
> detect a problem.

Impossible is a pretty strong term. I think you're being a bit
melodramatic. As an example, you might be able to conserve 25% just by
buying hemorrhoid creme in bulk and making fewer trips to the drug store.
I know this seems like a completely unacceptable change in lifestyle, but
even Eric Forbin, in "The Forbin Project" did actually come to accept his
life being controlled by Colossus, at least until Colossus sent his wife
off to be serially raped (and *love* it, eventually) by some Serbian
sheepherder with a huge schlong and had Colossus taken over by the two
tians, Phobos and Deimos. So take out the domination by a
supercomputer, the wife getting shtupped by a sheepherd and loving it, and
you might find ways to adapt as well. I'm not saying you'll knuckle under,
it's just that turning down the thermostat in the winter might not be so
bad.

> Obviously you don't understand what "elasticity" means in economic
> terms and how close to the elastic limits this country presently is.
> But nevertheless I will add that you seem to know a great deal about
> my physiology that my doctor doesn't. He tells me that I can expect to
> live a minimum of another 30 years. You on the other hand will
> probably be avoiding these groups where you've spent so much energy
> telling everyone that the end of times is coming.

Whoa sport. I never said the end of times are a'comin'. I might start
avoiding these groups, but I have a long way to go before I even begin to
approach the level of true idiocy that gets posted here (which is not to
say I can't do it, just it's not likely to happen on this topic). It
sounds like you think it wouldn't take very much to bring about economic
catastrophe and climatic-driven energy regulations may drive the system
into terminal recession or depression, I get the two confused (but happily,
around here I know at least five people will jump in and correct me (is
this a great system or what?)). So why are you so sanguine about the
possible deleterious effects of climate change on the economy? A hurricane
wiped New Orleans off the map, effectively. The hotels are back, but
pretty much everything else is 1/3 to 1/2 its pre-Katrina level. They are
drinking recycled sewage water in Western Australia because of the
prolonged drought. How much climate change do you think it would take to
have the same economic effect as a 25% reduction in energy consumption?

--
Bill Asher

Date: 07 Feb 2007 22:39:10
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

William Asher wrote:
> Remember to stay hydrated, it's likely to be toasty by then.

At least there's a future for LIVEDRUNK.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 16:19:44
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> And yet I published the graph of the average global temperatures since
> satellite monitoring was available

Where did you publish this graph?

Date: 07 Feb 2007 04:02:55
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98CFBD935A22FFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>> However, there's no way to tell exactly how much the additional CO2 is
>> contributing to the current warming trend. This is where the
>> consensus ends. Almost everyone agrees that it's having some effect,
>> but there's no way to accurately measure how much. The climate system
>> is too complex to be able to do that. Previous warming trends have
>> started in the absence of any rise in CO2. In fact, the pattern is
>> for temperature to rise first followed centuries later by a rise in
>> CO2.
>>
>
> You are manufacturing dissent where there is essentially none. Nearly all
> of the people who really understand climate agree that the increase in
> atmospheric CO2 from man's activities is causing the vast majority of the
> observed warming over the past 30 years or so. Where there is some
> disagreement is on exactly how fast and how high the Earth will warm, and
> how dramatic the changes in regional climates will be as a result of this
> warming. But this debate mainly ranges from highly unpleasant to
> disastrous globally in terms of the consequences.
>
> Scientifically, this is a done deal, mankind is responsible for changing
> the climate, get over it. Politically it is a dead issue because the up-
> front costs of doing anything meaningful are staggering. So, happily, we
> can all ignore the scientific reality and continue on with business as
> usual. But don't kid yourself everything is going to be fine.

And you're manufacturing agreement where there is none. As Pournelle pointed
out - when the definition of "good scientist" is "agrees with me" then
you'll find all "good scientists" concurring on anything bizarre.

http://www.junkscience.com/Hurricanes/

This chart shows the ONLY accurate world wide temperature charts IN THE
WORLD. These were compile specifically by satellite and don't have the
offsets from ground stations. None of the historic temperature records are
reliable because of the environmental temperature changes occur as the
measuring stations which used to be out in the countryside are now mostly
inside of city limits. Asphalt and concrete greatly change the local
temperatures as you might note that before the San Francisco Bay Area was
one large city complex, the area used to be famous for pea soup fogs. Now
ground fog is quite unusual.

The interesting thing about this chart is as follows - if you average the
temperature readings you get a slight rise. But if you remove the ENSO event
(El Nino Southern Oscillation) you get a drop in average temperatures.

But all of this is a preposterous idea to begin with. HOW do you measure
"average global temperature"? Do you measure it over the land? If that's the
case there have been huge oscillations and you can tell nothing from the
noise. If you include the ocean, how precisely to you measure cyclic
variations in everything from planton bloom to upwellings caused by volcanic
activity.

Here's the real kicker - from about 600 until 1400 or so there was an
extremely warm earth period - MUCH warmer than today. Enough warmer that
co Polo was on a Chinese "Voyage of Discovery" and noted in his diaries
that at one point the North Star was almost directly opposite the magnetic
pole. There's only ONE place he could have been and that was north of the
magnetic pole in what is now the Northwest Passage. He recorded no ice
whatsoever whereas throughout American history this has been frozen over
accessible only to ice breakers.

Furthermore, Vikings were living on the southern end of Greenland and
farming it. They even traveled to Nova Scotia and named it Vinland. No vines
grow there now, it's too cold.

Then we entered what is commonly known as the Little Ice Age. The Thames
froze over every year for a century and a half. Ice re-appeared over the
north pole and we never knew any different.

The data AT THE ACCURACY we presently have would have to be at least a
couple of centuries worth before we could begin to see any real trends in
the data.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

"Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of
Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history
of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while
creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific
justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7
billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on
propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the
same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution
targets."

Note this man's credentials - I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology
and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the
reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human
history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D,
(Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a
climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg."

Here's the real kicker - EVEN if there was man-made global warming what
could be done about it? Almost nothing at all. The USA provides about half
of ALL of the surplus food on this planet. Cutting production by applying
"carbon taxes" would essentially force farmers to stop farming. After all
this would actually HELP farmers since eliminating surplus food would drive
prices and consequently profits up.

End result? Massive world-wide starvation. Let me tell you this - perhaps
you don't believe that Liberals want that to happen but you'd be absolutely
wrong. The word from the Liberal think-tanks is that WHEN THE OIL RUNS OUT
we will be in the same position but with a larger world population so we
might as well start "culling" excess population now. I hope you do realize
that this is a form of racism that is staggering to any Jeffersonian
liberal.

Again the upper class white intellectuals are suggesting that they know what
mankind should do.

What about cutting the CO2 output of the USA other ways? Uhem, there ain't
no other way but to cut out electricity or transportation and that would
spell the end of the way of life you presently enjoy.

And to what end? After all - America will be reducing CO2 production
naturally since we are one of the few countries on earth presently
developing real alternate power sources and increasing efficiencies in power
generation and transmission. Whereas within 15 years China will surpass the
USA in CO2 generation and they're burning much more polluting coal and using
inefficient and much cheaper generating plants.

The numbers are available all over the place but just to keep you from
having to look it up - 75% of the growth in CO2 and other greenhouse gases
in the next century will come from China and India and they are not
signatories AND they have been written out as having to join in the
forseeable future.

Here's the bottom line - we have NO idea if the CO2 in the atmosphere is
causing warming. Some models show it causing cooling. If it WERE causing
warming the amount is not substantial and the changes to the earths
environment over the next century are minimal. The UN suggests a maximum sea
level rise of 17 cm I believe. Do you think that 9 inches of sea level
change in a hundred years will be difficult for the human race to adapt? And
let's remember that's a worst case scenario.

To tell you the truth, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm about to retire
and I have enough savings to live my life out comfortably if not carelessly.
You and your Liberal buddies are turning this country into a totalitarian
state in which the government has control and responsibility for everything.
I only hope your children appreciate the Big Brother you've all invented.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 11:31:07
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:
> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
>
> Note this man's credentials - I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in
> Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology,
> especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of
> climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen,
> even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of
> London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of
> Winnipeg."

That's Tim Ball. He tried to sue for defamation a guy who pointed out that
he wasn't the first Canadian PhD in Climatology, he doesn't have an
extensive background in climatology, he doesn't have a Doctor of Science,
and that he wasn't a climatology professor. That's your expert.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 18:47:56
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:530cfcF1qbdh0U1@mid.individual.net...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
>>
>> Note this man's credentials - I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in
>> Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology,
>> especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of
>> climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen,
>> even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of
>> London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of
>> Winnipeg."
>
> That's Tim Ball. He tried to sue for defamation a guy who pointed out that
> he wasn't the first Canadian PhD in Climatology, he doesn't have an
> extensive background in climatology, he doesn't have a Doctor of Science,
> and that he wasn't a climatology professor. That's your expert.

http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-the-first-canadian-phd-in-climatology

"A search of the global database Worldcat shows two scientific books to Dr.
Ball's credit. The first, from 1972, suggests direct expertise: Climate
Change in Central Canada, but the subheading gives it a bit of context: A
Preliminary Analysis of Weather Information from the Hudson's Bay Company
Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850. As Worldcat lists
just one copy of this "book" worldwide, and as that copy rests in the
University of London, where Ball's PhD was granted, this is likely his
thesis."

I wonder what sort of scrutiny your credentials would stand up to?

"A second publication, The Significance of Grain-size and Heavy Minerals
Volume Percentage as Indicators of Environmental Character, Grand Beach,
Manitoba -- A Case Study, is likely a Masters thesis."

"In the 34 years since he completed his thesis, a library search shows that
Dr. Ball has contributed to two other books, a text, The Fundamentals of
Physical Geography and what appears to be a more populist non-fiction:
Eighteenth-century naturalists of Hudson Bay."

"Historical Evidence and Climatic Implications of a Shift in the Boreal
Forest Tundra Transition in Central Canada -- 1986 Instrumental Temperature
Records at 2 Sites in Central Canada, 1768 TO 1910 -- 1984"

So it would appear that you're uninformed and a rather critical person
without much care of other's reputation as long as your can get in your
agenda.

Would you care to give us your Precis?

Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:25:03
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

>
> http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-the-first-canadian-phd-in-climatolog
> y
<snip >

Tom:

Ball's thesis dealt with historical analysis of climate, which is not the
same thing as analysis of dynamic climate change. Ball has published
nothing in the peer-reviewed literature on climate dynamics. People like
Ball, if they want to be taken seriously, need to start doing real research
on climate dynamics and publishing things in mainstream peer-reviewed
journals like Tellus and Journal of Geophysical Research and Global
Biogeochemical Cycles and Journal of Climate and Atmospheric Chemistry and
Physics. Giving talks to local chamber of commerces and not at the
American Geophysical Union convention does not make you a credible
scientist. If they believe the idea that mankind is affecting climate is
wrong, they need to develop testable hypotheses as to where the current
understanding of the physics and chemistry of climate is wrong and do the
measurements or run the models to provide evidence in support of their
hypothesis. Then they can publish those results and gain some credibility.
That is the way science works, and whether you want to believe it or not,
good research will get published, even if it demonstrates there could be no
impact of humans on climate. Journals like Nature *love* contentiousness
because they have advertisers and contentiousness means attention and
attention means eyeballs and eyeballs mean money and money means hookers
and hookers mean blowjobs and everybody likes blowjobs, especially the
French. If Ball had anything to contribute to the science, IPCC would
listen to him. The fact he, and people like him, don't do science is an
extremely important indictment of their reputations and credibility. And
you cannot claim they don't do science because nobody will fund them, they
could, and do, get money from the oil companies who would be only too glad
for someone to show where the underlying physicochemistry of climate change
does not support the idea that mankind is warming the planet through
radiatively important trace gases. (Free beer if you read this far.)

All people like Ball, and the contrarians here as well, provide is a
continual stream of "isn't right," "isn't right," "isn't right." But when
asked what specific parts aren't right, you get vague answers like "the
system isn't well understood." So then, when you press for what specific
parts of the system aren't well understood, there is utter silence. The
physics and chemistry of climate are known, at least in terms of the major
forcing functions (with the exception of the various indirect aerosol
effect on cloud albedo, but this is a very intense area of research and the
error bars on this will come down in the next few years). If there are
huge gaps in the knowledge base, tell me what you think they are. Then
tell people like Ball and if he is any kind of scientist he can go out and
do the research that will prove that there is no problem. The fact the
denialists and you do not do that suggests you don't understand how tight
the science is, or maybe a better way to put that is that you are unwilling
to accept that the science is dead-bang right.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 22:12:20
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

William Asher wrote:
> People like Ball, if they want to be taken seriously, need to start
> doing real research on climate dynamics and publishing things in
> mainstream peer-reviewed journals like Tellus and Journal of Geophysical
> Research and Global Biogeochemical Cycles and Journal of Climate and
> Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Giving talks to local chamber of
> commerces and not at the American Geophysical Union convention does not
> make you a credible scientist. If they believe the idea that mankind is
> affecting climate is wrong, they need to develop testable hypotheses as
> to where the current understanding of the physics and chemistry of
> climate is wrong and do the measurements or run the models to provide
> evidence in support of their hypothesis. Then they can publish those
> results and gain some credibility.

Dumbass,
You're arguing with somebody who thing intelligent design is science. You
don't need no stinking testable hypotheses in the red state educational
systems.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 22:55:54
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:45cb8300$0$28777$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> You're arguing with somebody who thing intelligent design is science. You
> don't need no stinking testable hypotheses in the red state educational
> systems.

Munro, you are indeed the same sort of moron I remember. Perhaps you'd like
to cite ONE TIME I ever claimed I believed in "intelligent design". It
really burns your ass that I'm willing to allow someone else to have
whatever belief they want doesn't it?

Date: 09 Feb 2007 12:18:54
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Munro, you are indeed the same sort of moron I remember. Perhaps you'd like
> to cite ONE TIME I ever claimed I believed in "intelligent design".

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/8ac9debb30a5de16

> It really burns your ass that I'm willing to allow someone else to have
> whatever belief they want doesn't it?

I really couldn't care less what people choose to believe (unless of
course they use their belief as a basis to blow me up), but it does 'burn
my ass' that morons are prepared to want to teach hogwash as science in
schools. But since I'm not from the US I suppose I don't really care if
you want mullahs like Pat Robertson to mess up your educational
system. I guess the high point of American civilization was in 1969.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 16:55:04
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:45cc4c07$0$28773$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Munro, you are indeed the same sort of moron I remember. Perhaps you'd
>> like
>> to cite ONE TIME I ever claimed I believed in "intelligent design".
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/8ac9debb30a5de16
>
>> It really burns your ass that I'm willing to allow someone else to have
>> whatever belief they want doesn't it?
>
> I really couldn't care less what people choose to believe (unless of
> course they use their belief as a basis to blow me up), but it does 'burn
> my ass' that morons are prepared to want to teach hogwash as science in
> schools. But since I'm not from the US I suppose I don't really care if
> you want mullahs like Pat Robertson to mess up your educational
> system. I guess the high point of American civilization was in 1969.

Thanks for demonstrating that you're a liar and that I have been consistent
throughout these arguments over the years.

But on second thought - maybe you're just a fool who is incapable of
understanding what is written.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:12:15
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Donald Munro wrote:

> Dumbass,
> You're arguing with somebody who thing intelligent design is science. You
> don't need no stinking testable hypotheses in the red state educational
> systems.

I trolling for babes and frankly, it's not working as well as I thought it
would. Do you think it would help if I posted my body composition? Would
getting called WNL Bill hurt or help my chances?

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 22:32:30
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Donald Munro wrote:
>> You're arguing with somebody who thing intelligent design is science. You
>> don't need no stinking testable hypotheses in the red state educational
>> systems.

William Asher wrote:
> I trolling for babes and frankly, it's not working as well as I thought it
> would. Do you think it would help if I posted my body composition? Would
> getting called WNL Bill hurt or help my chances?

There is a testable hypothesis that trolling the helmets and guns people
works best on rbr/rbt.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:29:21
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98D174342F4B9FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>
> Ball's thesis dealt with historical analysis of climate, which is not the
> same thing as analysis of dynamic climate change.

Here's another person that should post their own qualifications if they're
questioning someone else's.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:43:02
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98D174342F4B9FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>
>> Ball's thesis dealt with historical analysis of climate, which is not
>> the same thing as analysis of dynamic climate change.
>
> Here's another person that should post their own qualifications if
> they're questioning someone else's.

It doesn't take any special qualifications to point out mendacity, nor does
it take any special training to understand how modern science works.
Besides, I think playing "my resume is bigger than your resume" on the
internet is lame.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:45:34
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98D17740A26E0FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> "William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns98D174342F4B9FkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
>>>
>>> Ball's thesis dealt with historical analysis of climate, which is not
>>> the same thing as analysis of dynamic climate change.
>>
>> Here's another person that should post their own qualifications if
>> they're questioning someone else's.
>
> It doesn't take any special qualifications to point out mendacity, nor
> does
> it take any special training to understand how modern science works.
> Besides, I think playing "my resume is bigger than your resume" on the
> internet is lame.

And yet you seem to believe that your resume is much better than Dr. Ball's.
Hmm why am I not surprised that instead of addressing his scientific claims
you and your cohorts attack the man? Could it be simply because you don't
have any idea what you're talking about?

Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:03:27
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> And yet you seem to believe that your resume is much better than Dr.
> Ball's. Hmm why am I not surprised that instead of addressing his
> scientific claims you and your cohorts attack the man? Could it be
> simply because you don't have any idea what you're talking about?

Ball lies on his resume, whereas mine at least is accurate. Anyway, at
this level you want to compare curriculum vitae, which will list
publications, and not resumes, which generally don't.

Ball doesn't make any scientific claims. Neither do you, for that matter.

Flat out, two questions:

1. What part of the physics of climate do you think is wrong?

2. What major part of the system is missing?

My opinion is that 1. nothing, 2. none. You and Ball feel differently.
What are your answers to 1. and 2.?

I'm going to predict you'll respond the the first paragraph but ignore
answering the questions.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 22:30:28
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98D17AB70FD4BFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> And yet you seem to believe that your resume is much better than Dr.
>> Ball's. Hmm why am I not surprised that instead of addressing his
>> scientific claims you and your cohorts attack the man? Could it be
>> simply because you don't have any idea what you're talking about?
>
> Ball lies on his resume, whereas mine at least is accurate.

Why do I doubt that? Oh, that's right - you don't actually post YOUR
qualifications do you?

> Ball doesn't make any scientific claims. Neither do you, for that matter.

Wait a minute - let me get this straight - it isn't up to those making
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS to prove them, but for other's to disprove them? Thanks
for that very interesting insight into your education. I think we can safely
discount anything you have to say from this moment on.

> Flat out, two questions:
>
> 1. What part of the physics of climate do you think is wrong?

We don't have a climate record with anything LIKE enough data to suggest
that there IS any global warming let alone comment on the sources of that
warming. What's more, there isn't even a "concensus" on how you measure
global average temperature. I'd be willing to bet that you couldn't even
tell me how it is presently measured and how many different methods there
are, not to mention try to describe why one method should be somehow better
than another.

> 2. What major part of the system is missing?

What the hell are you talking about? If you can't even write in plain
English there's no point in carrying this on any longer.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 16:46:36
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> Wait a minute - let me get this straight - it isn't up to those making
> EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS to prove them, but for other's to disprove them?

Tom, one of the things that's extraordinary about you is that you think
co Polo sailed to the North Pole. One of the other things is that it
probably took you until this sentence to realize that when I wrote
"extraordinary" in the previous sentence what I really meant was "fucking
nuts."

Date: 08 Feb 2007 22:39:29
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

<snip >

The plate in your head has come loose. Again.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 21:03:17
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:
> And yet you seem to believe that your resume is much better than Dr.
> Ball's.

No, no. My resume isn't better than Ball's, but there's a reason for that: I
don't put made-up stuff on mine.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:22:10
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:530cfcF1qbdh0U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
>>>
>>> Note this man's credentials - I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in
>>> Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology,
>>> especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of
>>> climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen,
>>> even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University
>>> of London, England and was a climatology professor at the
>>> University of Winnipeg."
>>
>> That's Tim Ball. He tried to sue for defamation a guy who pointed
>> out that he wasn't the first Canadian PhD in Climatology, he doesn't
>> have an extensive background in climatology, he doesn't have a
>> Doctor of Science, and that he wasn't a climatology professor.
>> That's your expert.
>
> http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-the-first-canadian-phd-in-climatology

Thanks for pointing to that page. Here's some other stuff about Ball at that
same site:
http://www.desmogblog.com/tiim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-update
http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents

The latter documents show that there have been Canadian PhDs in climatology
since at least 1950. Ball received his PhD in 1983 which, last time I
looked, was after 1950. Also, Ball claimed in 2003 that he'd been a
professor of climatology for 28 years, while in 2006 he claimed that he'd
been a professor of climatology for 32 years. That's pretty cool, since he
admits he retired from the University of Winnipeg in 1996. So in three years
he picked up an additional 4 years of professorship even after he retired.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:28:34
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:531bj4F1qefl8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> The latter documents show that there have been Canadian PhDs in
> climatology since at least 1950. Ball received his PhD in 1983 which, last
> time I looked, was after 1950. Also, Ball claimed in 2003 that he'd been a
> professor of climatology for 28 years, while in 2006 he claimed that he'd
> been a professor of climatology for 32 years. That's pretty cool, since he
> admits he retired from the University of Winnipeg in 1996. So in three
> years he picked up an additional 4 years of professorship even after he
> retired.

Now perhaps you'd like to point out the scientific basis of your personal
attacks on him?

What's becoming plain is that you have no actual knowledge of most of the
stuff you post about. What's more it's becoming clear that you really have
no real opinions on anything of any importance.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 21:00:44
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> Now perhaps you'd like to point out the scientific basis of your
> personal attacks on him?

Hmmm. How about this for a scientific basis: "1983 is after 1950."

Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:09:52
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Robert Chung wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> Now perhaps you'd like to point out the scientific basis of your
>> personal attacks on him?
>
> Hmmm. How about this for a scientific basis: "1983 is after 1950."

You lying shitweasel, it is not. Why do you hate America?

--
Bill Asher

Date: 07 Feb 2007 06:14:39
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in
news:Pbcyh.19482$pQ3.15822@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:

<snip >

Aside from the bit about co Polo sailing through the arctic with the
Chinese, it makes perfect sense. Well, some of it, Ball is a whore, but
we can let that go because it's not relevant to the main point. I agree
wholeheartedly with you that nothing can be done to ameliorate climate
change. I am not asking you to give up any part of your lifestyle. Any
chance we had of fixing this went past maybe 30 years ago. I recall you
don't have kids, so you can blissfully enjoy your retirement, drive a
big-ass car, and believe whatever you want. Sort of like a mobile clam,
except you'll eat better. My point is mainly aesthetic, the science
supporting global climate change is so compelling that it should not be
denied, especially by fat goobers like Jerry Pournelle. Let's not
rationalize away the party. I mean, who wants to be humping away at
something while at the same time convincing themself that nothing is
happening.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 06 Feb 2007 09:39:14
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

William Asher wrote:
> But don't let facts get in the way of your ranting.

Dumbass,
You're arguing with someone who "believes" in intelligent design.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 17:54:14
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Donald Munro wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>> But don't let facts get in the way of your ranting.
>
> Dumbass,
> You're arguing with someone who "believes" in intelligent design.
>

Like *you* never picked on the crippled kid in grade school.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 12:59:55
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

William Asher wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote:
>
>> William Asher wrote:
>>> But don't let facts get in the way of your ranting.
>> Dumbass,
>> You're arguing with someone who "believes" in intelligent design.
>>
>
> Like *you* never picked on the crippled kid in grade school.
>

The crippled kid in MY grade school was one stupid, nasty, annoying,
arrogant little S.O.B. And he smelled funny too. Everyone just wanted
him to go away.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 13:15:59
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> William Asher wrote:
>
>> Donald Munro wrote:
>>
>>> William Asher wrote:
>>>
>>>> But don't let facts get in the way of your ranting.
>>>
>>> Dumbass,
>>> You're arguing with someone who "believes" in intelligent design.
>>>
>>
>> Like *you* never picked on the crippled kid in grade school.
>>
>
> The crippled kid in MY grade school was one stupid, nasty, annoying,
> arrogant little S.O.B. And he smelled funny too. Everyone just wanted
> him to go away.

Oh... so you picked on kunich when he was younger too? :^)

Date: 05 Feb 2007 21:00:13
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <Xns98CEC0708406AFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >,
William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Case in point - all of the headlines tell us that the latest IPCC
> > study made the claim that Global Warming is real and man made. Notice
> > that none of them actually quoted the study? In fact, when you go back
> > you discover that most of the headlines quote sources that have quoted
> > OTHER sources instead of actually having read the report themselves.
> >
> > What did it say? That the average temperature change is still unknown,
> > that whether it's going up or down is still unknown. That man has
> > PROBABLY (meaning 90% probability) been the cause of increases in CO2
> > in the atmosphere. But whether that has had any effect on the global
> > average temperature can't be told because we don't have enough long
> > term data on average temperatures to make any judgement.
>
> Here is the IPCC executive sumy as a PDF.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/26q3fs
>
> If you read the conclusions in the IPCC report you will find that you are
> incorrect in every one of your assertions above. Humans are responsible
> for the increase in atmospheric CO2 (this issue is not in debate any
> longer), the increase in atmospheric CO2 is nearly certainly warming the
> climate (this is where the 90% figure you cite comes from (would you play
> Russian roulette with a revolver with 5 out of 6 chambers loaded?)), and
> there has been a measurable increase in global average temperature as shown
> in Figure SPM-4 on page 18 (along with several other indicators of a warmer
> climate). But don't let facts get in the way of your ranting.

Exactly. As I pointed out earlier, it is the *concensus* view of people working
on climatology that atmospheric CO2 is the problem. Not 50% plus one guy, but
something in the area of well over 90%.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 06:08:46
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-8A81C2.21001305022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> Exactly. As I pointed out earlier, it is the *concensus* view of people
> working
> on climatology that atmospheric CO2 is the problem. Not 50% plus one guy,
> but
> something in the area of well over 90%.

So considering that the consensus was at one time that the world was flat
you would have agreed whole heartedly?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

"No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we
don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is
why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever
cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President
of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that
something is wrong?"

"A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is
only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that
CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise.
It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before,
the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before
testing had started, and effectively became a law."

Date: 06 Feb 2007 17:41:59
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-8A81C2.21001305022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>>
>> Exactly. As I pointed out earlier, it is the *concensus* view of
>> people
>> working
>> on climatology that atmospheric CO2 is the problem. Not 50% plus one
>> guy, but
>> something in the area of well over 90%.
>
> So considering that the consensus was at one time that the world was
> flat you would have agreed whole heartedly?
>
> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
>
> "No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but
> if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a
> society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that
> we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri
> A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this
> statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is
> wrong?"
>
> "A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory
> which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global
> Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it
> increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans
> were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably
> rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and
> effectively became a law."

Nobody who understood geometry ever really believed the Earth was flat.
The idea of a spherical Earth was known in ancient Greece, but then they
were all a bunch of deviant homos so you can ignore them.

Anyway, specifically, what parts of the "theory of Global Warming" do you
think are wrong? The fact that CO2 in the gas-phase absorbs infrared
radiation? The theory of radiative transfer in the atmosphere? The
increase of CO2 in the atmosphere? There must be some key process or
processes you think science has completely messed up, so what is it or are
they? Be sure not to violate any of the laws of physics in coming up with
your answer. Also, since you are saying the fundamental theory is wrong,
you are forbidden from bringing in wildly speculative ideas from people
like Lindzen involving atmospheric irises, unknown negative forcing
functions that neatly balance positive forcing functions etc. You have 60
minutes.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 06 Feb 2007 00:01:51
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <OXUxh.19201$pQ3.13742@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-8A81C2.21001305022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >
> > Exactly. As I pointed out earlier, it is the *concensus* view of people
> > working
> > on climatology that atmospheric CO2 is the problem. Not 50% plus one guy,
> > but
> > something in the area of well over 90%.
>
> So considering that the consensus was at one time that the world was flat
> you would have agreed whole heartedly?
>
> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
>
> "No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we
> don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is
> why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever
> cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President
> of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that
> something is wrong?"
>
> "A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is
> only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that
> CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise.
> It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before,
> the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before
> testing had started, and effectively became a law."

Ah, so you ***are*** saying that all those climatologists are stupid.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 03:00:02
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

William Asher wrote:

> Here is the IPCC executive sumy as a PDF.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/26q3fs
>

Disclaimer: this is a draft. The offical report and sumy have not yet
been released by the IPCC. Still, there are expected to be minimal changes
in the scientific content and conclusions of the report and sumy
before it is finalized.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 06 Feb 2007 03:24:51
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns98CEC159CF0CBFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> William Asher wrote:
>
>> Here is the IPCC executive sumy as a PDF.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/26q3fs
>>
>
> Disclaimer: this is a draft. The offical report and sumy have not yet
> been released by the IPCC. Still, there are expected to be minimal
> changes
> in the scientific content and conclusions of the report and sumy
> before it is finalized.

You do know what a sumy is don't you?

Do you recall that "sumy" I posted a long time ago that claimed that
bicycle helmets didn't have any effect on performance output. And then when
I quoted the actual tests which showed that at low air speeds there was a
15% drop in performance in athletes?

Sumies can SAY anything. They may even not be written by those who
actually did the research.

The models for long term climate prediction require something like 6 million
variables and most of these are not only not known, but are unknowable - for
instance - how much methane is released from oceans and how is it released?

So what they do is ASSUME values for most of the unknowns. If you assume one
set of values you get a warming trend, if you assume others you get a
cooling trend. NOT ONE of the models can explain the temperature variations
we know occurred in the last 2000 years. The warming trend which ran from
about 600 to about 1300 nor the Little Ice Age that followed. So what are
the global warming industry saying about these large variations? - They
never happened! Well, I know I'm certainly going to pay a lot of attention
to them.

Think about this - no one knew about the hole in the ozone layer until they
put a satellite into orbit that could measure it. Then NOT ONLY was there a
DANGEROUS OZONE HOLE but it was CAUSED BY MAN.

Now 30 years later with CFC's banned the hole is still there. Moreover - it
waxes and wanes cyclically. Could it JUST be possible that it was ALWAYS
there and that this is nothing but a natural event that has more to do with
the magnetic field of the earth than with atmospheric trace constituents?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle

He served in the US Army during the Korean War. After Korea, he obtained
advanced degrees in psychology, statistics, engineering, and political
science, including two PhDs.

Pournelle was an intellectual protege of Russell Kirk (Kenneth Cole,
Pournelle's mentor at the University of Washington, was co-founder with Kirk
of Modern Age) and Stefan T. Possony with whom Pournelle wrote numerous
publications including The Strategy of Technology, onetime textbook at the
United States Military Academy (West Point) and the United States Air Force
Academy (Colorado Springs). His work in the aerospace industry includes
editing Project 75, a 1964 study of 1975 defense requirements. He worked in
operations research at Boeing, The Aerospace Corporation, and North American
Rockwell Space Division, and was founding President of the Pepperdine
Research Institute.
That's his credits - now what does he have to say?

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail451.html#global3

"first, the definition of being one of the world's best climate scientists
is that one accepts the "consensus" on global warming. That is also the
criterion for getting grants. If you want grants to study alternative
hypotheses, you have few sources of funding -- and God help you if you allow
an oil company to fund your research. You certainly cannot be one of the
World's Best if you do that."

"We don't have enough actual climate data. We don't even have a good
agreement as to what combination of the measures we do have constitutes "the
temperature of the Earth." We don't see a rise in the previously agreed
averages, but we do note that there is a rise in temperatures at night, so
that becomes part of the new temperature measure."

"And despite the fact that some of the world's best climate scientists have
said we have to get people to forget the Medieval Warm period because it
will just confuse them -- ie our 1000 best can't figure out why there was a
Medieval Warm so they want to pretend there wasn't one -- we did have a
Medieval Warm period, it was not caused by CO2 from industries, and maybe,
just maybe, what caused that may be important to our understanding of just
what's going on."

Date: 22 Jan 2007 22:59:43
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

jean-yves herve wrote:
>
> The stuff below is just an incoherent (and unrelated yo the topic at
> hand) rant

<snip >

Dumbass -

He's incoherent most of the time when it comes to any sort of political
issue.

A significant minority of us Americans are that way. You really
shouldn't be surprised.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 15:44:41
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 22, 12:10 am, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu > wrote:

What the hell does anything I wrote
> have anything to do with PCism? OK, since you don't seem overly bright,
> I will keep it simple for you: The US military is a fine tool in the
> hands of the US Govt. Like any other fine tool, it works better when
> used properly, on an appropriate task. A scalpel and an axe are also
> fine tools, but if you try to use an axe for surgery, or a scalpel to
> fall la tree, you are misusing a fine tool with failure as a likely
> outcome. When you send the US military in Iraq with "secure a peaceful
> transition to a stable democracy" as an objective, you are also misusing
> a fine tool. What this has to do with left, right, and political
> correctness is beyond me.
>
> jyh.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Nice bit of analysis.
Bill C

Date: 18 Jan 2007 13:35:05
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Be prepared to be pissed off and sick.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16468032.htm

Terror suspect was terrorized in a Navy brigBY FRED GRIMM
fgrimm@MiamiHerald.com

Gonna watch what I say here, but how the fuck does this happen to in
America???? Maybe they can give the same treatment to some 12yr old
who says Bush is a criminal too.
I'm not crying for terrorists, but this is beyond despicable. Like
pulling the eyes out of puppies for giggles. Padilla was a nobody with
no connections, that's been clear all along. There was no immediate
massive threat that he had information on to even begin to justify this
shit.
Time for the World Court to get off it's ass and start bringing
charges and trying people who are ordering and controlling this shit in
absentia. Time to start getting all of them, U.S. included starting
with Bush, Scumsfeld, Chirac, Putin, Al-Sadr, and the whole Sudanese
governement and their friends. They're at least doing trials in
Rhwanda.
Bill C

Date: 20 Jan 2007 14:23:25
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2007 23:42:11 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
> <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Attempting to get rid of the Iranian nukes via force would
> >require an occupation.
>
> Why?

Dumbass -

For the same reason we can't kill Osama bin Laden. Iran has dispersed
its nuke development facilities widely. We don't really know for sure
where everything is.

We could kill Osama bin Laden and we could wipe out the Iranian nuke
technology from the air if we had the intelligence. But we don't. It's
this country's big, big weakness in the region. You can have all the
firepower in the world but it doesn't do a bit of good if you don't
know where to apply it.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:16:28
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 20 Jan 2007 14:23:25 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>For the same reason we can't kill Osama bin Laden. Iran has dispersed
>its nuke development facilities widely. We don't really know for sure
>where everything is.

It's unlikely that the US could destroy Iran's nuclear program
entirely, but it could set it back many years. Iran has been playing
the old shell game by dispersing things around and putting things
underground. However, one of the dangers of playing the shell game
against a nation like the US is that the US has the capabilities to
bomb every shell.

In any case, ultimately the US doesn't have to actually destroy Iran's
nuclear program. The US only has to put on enough pressure on Iran
to convince the them to allow inspectors in and stop their enrichment
activities.

Ultimately, a nation as powerful as the US could make it impossible
for Iran to function as a modern nation in a matter of days. They
would have a hard time making transistor radios never talk about
nuclear weapons.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 10:20:32
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

> In any case, ultimately the US doesn't have to actually destroy Iran's
> nuclear program. The US only has to put on enough pressure on Iran
> to convince the them to allow inspectors in and stop their enrichment
> activities.

Inspectors? You want to put Hans Blix on the case?

Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:06:48
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <IK2dnVl-POt2My7YnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@comcast.com >,
Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:

> Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> > In any case, ultimately the US doesn't have to actually destroy Iran's
> > nuclear program. The US only has to put on enough pressure on Iran
> > to convince the them to allow inspectors in and stop their enrichment
> > activities.
>
> Inspectors? You want to put Hans Blix on the case?

Sure, so they can scorn the inspections like they did in Iraq. Funny how Blix
seems to have been proven to be right when he said there were no longer any useable
WMD.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 21 Jan 2007 20:10:41
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:06:48 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>> Inspectors? You want to put Hans Blix on the case?
>
> Sure, so they can scorn the inspections like they did in Iraq. Funny how Blix
>seems to have been proven to be right when he said there were no longer any useable
>WMD.

He never said that prior to the war.

Here is a quote from the UN report two weeks before the war started.

"In his briefing this morning, Mr. Blix added that while cooperation
could and was to be immediate, disarmament, and its verification,
could not be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced
by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify
sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons, and
draw conclusions. That would not take years, nor weeks, but months.
To address unresolved disarmament issues and to identify key remaining
disarmament tasks, he would submit a draft work programme to the
Council this month."

What's more, the US had given Saddam an ultimatum that he must
immediately provide complete cooperation with the inspectors and this
was not done.

From the same report:

"As to whether Iraq had cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and
actively", Mr. Blix, the Executive Chairman of the United Nations
Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said
that the Iraqi side had tried on occasion to attach conditions, but so
far had not persisted in those or other conditions. The initiatives
now taken by the Iraqi side, three to four months into resolution
1441, could not be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation."

It is true that Blix was against the invasion and wanted more time to
complete his work. However, at no time before the war did he say that
Iraq had no WMDs. Blix has engaged in a bit of revisionist history
since Spring of 2003, perhaps to absolve himself from any possible
blame.

In any case, Saddam was told to cooperate fully with the inspectors
and he did not do that. At a certain time you have to stop playing
games and draw the line, which was what Bush did.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:04:48
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <v038r2pu06fafb6finl1vtt88349o4rtib@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:06:48 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >> Inspectors? You want to put Hans Blix on the case?
> >
> > Sure, so they can scorn the inspections like they did in Iraq. Funny how
> > Blix
> >seems to have been proven to be right when he said there were no longer any
> >useable
> >WMD.
>
> He never said that prior to the war.
>
> Here is a quote from the UN report two weeks before the war started.
>
> "In his briefing this morning, Mr. Blix added that while cooperation
> could and was to be immediate, disarmament, and its verification,
> could not be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced
> by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify
> sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons, and
> draw conclusions. That would not take years, nor weeks, but months.
> To address unresolved disarmament issues and to identify key remaining
> disarmament tasks, he would submit a draft work programme to the
> Council this month."
>
> What's more, the US had given Saddam an ultimatum that he must
> immediately provide complete cooperation with the inspectors and this
> was not done.
>
> From the same report:
>
> "As to whether Iraq had cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and
> actively", Mr. Blix, the Executive Chairman of the United Nations
> Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said
> that the Iraqi side had tried on occasion to attach conditions, but so
> far had not persisted in those or other conditions. The initiatives
> now taken by the Iraqi side, three to four months into resolution
> 1441, could not be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation."
>
>
> It is true that Blix was against the invasion and wanted more time to
> complete his work. However, at no time before the war did he say that
> Iraq had no WMDs. Blix has engaged in a bit of revisionist history
> since Spring of 2003, perhaps to absolve himself from any possible
> blame.
>
> In any case, Saddam was told to cooperate fully with the inspectors
> and he did not do that. At a certain time you have to stop playing
> games and draw the line, which was what Bush did.

I know that the Iraqis tried to throw up road blocks but the inspectors got in to
see the sites they wanted and didn't indicate that the conditions added or attempted
road blocks allowed them to hide anything. To me, the inspections were going well
and should have been given more time.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 23 Jan 2007 15:18:30
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:04:48 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>> In any case, Saddam was told to cooperate fully with the inspectors
>> and he did not do that. At a certain time you have to stop playing
>> games and draw the line, which was what Bush did.
>
> I know that the Iraqis tried to throw up road blocks but the inspectors got in to
>see the sites they wanted and didn't indicate that the conditions added or attempted
>road blocks allowed them to hide anything. To me, the inspections were going well
>and should have been given more time.

That's what Hans Blix thought, but ultimately it wasn't his call. The
US issued an ultimatum that nothing short of 100% cooperation was
acceptable. Saddam certainly was being more cooperative with the
inspectors right before the war, but he was still playing his games.
At some point you have to decide when enough is enough. Obviously,
Bush reached that point.

Date: 23 Jan 2007 18:11:25
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 15:18:30 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:04:48 -0800, Howard Kveck
><YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
>>> In any case, Saddam was told to cooperate fully with the inspectors
>>> and he did not do that. At a certain time you have to stop playing
>>> games and draw the line, which was what Bush did.
>>
>> I know that the Iraqis tried to throw up road blocks but the inspectors got in to
>>see the sites they wanted and didn't indicate that the conditions added or attempted
>>road blocks allowed them to hide anything. To me, the inspections were going well
>>and should have been given more time.
>
>
>That's what Hans Blix thought, but ultimately it wasn't his call. The
>US issued an ultimatum that nothing short of 100% cooperation was
>acceptable. Saddam certainly was being more cooperative with the
>inspectors right before the war, but he was still playing his games.
>At some point you have to decide when enough is enough. Obviously,
>Bush reached that point.

So Bush can just issue ultimatums to people he doesn't like and they
comply or get taken out? Is that how it works?

And he can do that with little evidence other than noncompliance? And
with no planning on what to do after eliminating the so-called threat?

That's justification for an invasion? And justification for making
the US less safe? Wow.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 23 Jan 2007 21:11:16
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:11:25 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>So Bush can just issue ultimatums to people he doesn't like and they
>comply or get taken out? Is that how it works?

That pretty much sums it up.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 15:01:32
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 10:20:32 -0800, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:

>Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>> In any case, ultimately the US doesn't have to actually destroy Iran's
>> nuclear program. The US only has to put on enough pressure on Iran
>> to convince the them to allow inspectors in and stop their enrichment
>> activities.
>
>Inspectors? You want to put Hans Blix on the case?

Hans Blix did some good work in Iraq, but he weaseled out in the end.
I'd want inspectors with a bit more teeth than Hans has and Id' want
them from the IAEC with a number of Americans on the team rather than
the UN. The UN is useless.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 16:04:50
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:01:32 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>Hans Blix did some good work in Iraq, but he weaseled out in the end.
>I'd want inspectors with a bit more teeth than Hans has and Id' want
>them from the IAEC with a number of Americans on the team rather than
>the UN.

And if not, invade.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 20 Jan 2007 14:20:24
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2007 09:13:17 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
> <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Should've figured out a way to bring him back into the fold.
>
> Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm pretty much put an end to
> that. In reality, Saddam was never in the fold. He was willing to
> take aid from the US during the war with Iran, but he was never an
> ally of the US and vice versa. The only reason that the US gave him
> aid was to prevent Iran from winning the war. Conversely, the US
> didn't want Iraq to win either.

Dumbass -

That is correct and it illustrates his usefulness as a counterweight to
Iran.

Now that does not exist which is why Kuwait/Jordan/Saudi Arabia are
very worried. It's a split right down the Sunni/Shiite divide.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:35:05
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Bill C wrote:
> Be prepared to be pissed off and sick.
> http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16468032.htm
>
To be honest, I don't give a shit. Can you talk about bike racing
instead? There's a race going on right now in Australia where all but a
handful of riders are fucking the dog. What's up with that?

Date: 18 Jan 2007 18:20:22
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 18 Jan 2007 13:35:05 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:

> Be prepared to be pissed off and sick.

I'm neither.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 15:46:17
From: chester
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2007 13:35:05 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Be prepared to be pissed off and sick.
>
>
> I'm neither.

you're the sick fcks that are turning this country into a cesspool

Date: 18 Jan 2007 19:52:29
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <n000r21qpridj1hqftvmhokas0ddekvmei@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On 18 Jan 2007 13:35:05 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Be prepared to be pissed off and sick.
>
> I'm neither.

It doesn't bother you that a US citizen is arrested and held without charge or
representation for ages? That the President claims he's the one who decides that
this citizen can be held in this manner? Strange, I thought this scenario sounded a
lot like the way the government always told us that totalitarian regimes like the
Soviets woked. Sorry, but if you (and Fred Garvin) really believe this is acceptable
behavior then *you* are un-American.

The fact that the charges against Padilla have trickled down to something so
nebulous as "conspiracy" from the grandiose claims of "dirty bomb killer!" tells me
that the feds had next to nothing on the guy.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 19 Jan 2007 13:28:07
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:52:29 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>It doesn't bother you that a US citizen is arrested and held without charge or
>representation for ages?

This is simply not true.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 17:48:36
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <8d32r2pvmv2i6gapuc34avjafif3cpjosr@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:52:29 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >It doesn't bother you that a US citizen is arrested and held without charge
> >or representation for ages?
>
> This is simply not true.

I'm not sure what it is about that statement you're object to, Jack. Here's a
short list of the major events where Padilla is concerned.

- He was arrested on 8 May, 2002.

- He was listed as an "enemy combatant" and transferred to the DoD on 9 June, 2002.

- His first meeting with lawyers was on 3 ch, 2004.

- His first indictment comes on 22 November, 2005.

It took 22 months for him to get a meeting with representation and three and a
half years for the government to actually bring charges against him. That sems like
a pretty damn long time to me. Particularly since he was held in solitary in far
less than optimal conditions, not to mention the way he has been treated in that
time. In that time, his access to representation has been sketchy, at best.

The right to a speedy trial and representation, as well as good ol' habeus
corpus, are pretty much the cornerstone of the American way. We managed to get
through the Cold War, where the *actual* threat against our country and people was
far beyond what we face now, without having to resort to the sort of behavior that
is associated with totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union. Or Saddam Hussein,
for that matter.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 19 Jan 2007 14:37:33
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:52:29 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
>> It doesn't bother you that a US citizen is arrested and held without charge or
>> representation for ages?
>
> This is simply not true.

You don't explain what you're disagreeing with. I assume it's the "for
ages" part? Change it to "for 3 years". Does it bother you then?

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:59:05
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:37:33 -0800, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:

>>> It doesn't bother you that a US citizen is arrested and held without charge or
>>> representation for ages?
>>
>> This is simply not true.
>
>You don't explain what you're disagreeing with. I assume it's the "for
>ages" part? Change it to "for 3 years". Does it bother you then?

Padilla was classified as an enemy combatant one month after he was
arrested. Like any US citizen, he had the right to appeal that
classification, which he did. Due to his lawyers mistakes, the
process took longer that it had to, but in the end, it didn't matter.
His classification as an enemy combatant was held to be legal.

The government then decided to charge him with a crime and release him
to authorities in Florida. Since then, he's had all the due process
afforded to any criminal suspect.

At no time were his rights violated. There are thousands and
thousands of criminal prisoners being held in isolation in the US.
Some of them are held this way because they are dangerous to other
prisoners and some of them are in danger from other prisoners. I take
it Padilla is in the latter class.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 09:55:11
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Shorter Jack Hollis: "The Constitution doesn't say every citizen is granted
or assured the right of habeas."

Oh, wait: that was our Attorney General.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 07:29:45
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

> At no time were [Padilla's] rights violated.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/wingnut.jpg

Date: 18 Jan 2007 06:27:21
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The surge who we're fighting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6273629.stm

Sheikh Feiz Mohammed, who has spent the past year living in Lebanon,
talks on the controversial videotapes of his desire for children be
offered "as soldiers defending Islam".

"Teach them this," he says, "that there is nothing more beloved to me
than wanting to die as a Muhajid.

"Put in their soft, tender heart the zeal of jihad and the love of
tyrdom."

He also ridicules Jewish people as pigs and makes snorting noises,
saying they will go to hell.

Wonder how many of those were the "civilians" killed in Lebanon? His
teachings of children, women, and everyone else to fight and become
tyrs isn't rare. I still can't get any of the news agencies, the
BBC, or Guardian to tell me how they define civilian though they have
sent some interesting replies in the past.
The next time you see a report of "civilians" killed, think for a
while before reacting.
Bill C

Date: 20 Jan 2007 11:18:51
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

jean-yves herve wrote:

> language. Their understanding of local ethnic, tribal, and religious
> conflicts is lousy at best.

Dumbass -

Our understanding of that by our civilian leadership is nonexistent.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 10:03:49
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:57:59 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > To Bush, anything that smacks of leaving is considered "losing." So as long as
> >we're still there, it's "winning."
>
> One of the problems is that Americans (and other Westerners) don't
> understand asymmetrical warfare. The purpose of engaging a superior
> power in a limited, but sustained, conflict is to wear them down until
> they quit. Obviously, the Iraqi insurgents cannot win a military
> victory, but they can win a political victory if the US withdraws.
> This is their aim and they are being successful.
>
> You have to ask yourself, if the insurgents can sustain the fight, why
> can't the US.

Dumbass -

Because we should've never gone there in the first place.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 04:49:44
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The surge

On Jan 18, 2:06 am, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Bush had no plan other than "Get Saddam" and wasn't st enough to
> > pull right back out and drop it in the UN's lap.Dumbass -
>
> The UN would not have cooperated nor would they have been capable of
> filling the power vacuum even if they were willing.
>
> Bush could have actually succeeded if he would've sought the
> cooperation of Baathist army units and put his own Baathist guy in
> power.
>
> The Baathists used to be our allies until Saddam got the dumb idea to
> invade Kuwait.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.

Yeah that might've worked but I think the Shia would've still revolted
and we aren't allowed to use Saddam's tactics to terrify them into
behaving, so even with the Baathists mostly intact, but operating under
Western restrictions I think we have the same mess, and maybe more. At
least right now we can't, reasonably, be accused of backing the
Militias and death squads. If we'd kept the Baathists then we'd be in
the position of publicly supporting one sides killers. Not that we
haven't done it before, but I just can't see that working.
Dumd idea? He may have had it, it's been standard policy in Iraq for
the whole century Kuwaitbelongs to Iraq, but he got the green light
from April Glaspie. The transcripts make that incredibly clear. Whether
she meant the things she said that way is another thing, but if she
didn't it was gross incompetence that started a brutal and bloody
disaster.
Bill C

Date: 20 Jan 2007 20:10:31
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Robert Chung wrote:
> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> >
> > You can also see this principle in action in bike racing.
>
> If you're going to talk about this kind of stuff in rbr, could you please
> add OT to the subject line?

Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

Date: 20 Jan 2007 09:13:17
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:
>
> Not really, the US would have preferred to have a unified Iraq with a
> pro-Western government.

Dumbass -

We did have that, pre-1991. Saddam was our ally. He was even our ally
when he put down the Kurds w/ gas in 1988, for which he was recently
executed.

Should've figured out a way to bring him back into the fold. The Arab
view is that Saddam overreacted to Kuwaiti provocation. They were
applying pressure, attempting to get him to pay back debt incurred
during the Iran/Iraq War. He wasn't cooperating fully, so they began
slant drilling across the border into one of the main Iraqi oil fields.
Saddam overreacted by invading.

Saddam was more useful to us as a counterweight to the Iranian
fundamentalist government. We should have figured out a way to bring
him back in the fold and he should have figured out a way to get back
into the fold. Remember, he never attacked us.

That's what was really stupid about the WMD thing. In 1991, he actually
had WMD and he didn't use them when we evicted him from Kuwait.

Now we've got the worst of all possible worlds. Fundamentalist Iran
getting nukes and rather than a counterweight to them in Iraq, we have
a Shiite government ready to be a brother in arms to the fundamentalist
Iranian government.

Nice job W.!

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 14:47:36
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 20 Jan 2007 09:13:17 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Now we've got the worst of all possible worlds. Fundamentalist Iran
>getting nukes and rather than a counterweight to them in Iraq, we have
>a Shiite government ready to be a brother in arms to the fundamentalist
>Iranian government.

Iran's nuclear program would exist with or without the Iraqi war. In
addition, a majority of the Iraqi Shia are not aligned with Iran. The
Iranian influence is strongest with Al-Sadr's followers, who are now
being arrested. The Shia that follow Al-Sistani are secularists and
they, with the Kurds, make up the majority of Iraq's security forces.
If there is going to be a civil war, the US has to do as much as
possible to insure that the moderate Shia and the Kurds end up in
control.

Date: 28 Jan 2007 10:58:17
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 28, 10:20 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:24:33 -0800, Howard Kveck
>
> <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> >> Turkey's parliament went into secret session this week to debate
> >> sending troops to invade and occupy northern Iraq for security
> >> purposes.This is absurd, but not unexpected considering the source. Turkey is
> not going to invade the Kurdish areas of Iraq because of one important
> factor - there are US troop there and the US would be really pissed if
> they did.

Dumbass -

Ya, and what would we do about it? Nothing.

The Kurds are using the area just over the border as a staging area
for attacks. If the Turks attack those bases, it's almost a certainty
that the US troops are gonna stay out of it cause Turkey is a much
more important ally than the Kurds.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 28 Jan 2007 23:18:58
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1170010697.142501.87970@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

> On Jan 28, 10:20 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 22:24:33 -0800, Howard Kveck
> >
> > <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > >> Turkey's parliament went into secret session this week to debate
> > >> sending troops to invade and occupy northern Iraq for security
> > >> purposes.
> > This is absurd, but not unexpected considering the source.
> > Turkey is not going to invade the Kurdish areas of Iraq because of one
> > important factor - there are US troop there and the US would be really
> > pissed if they did.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> Ya, and what would we do about it? Nothing.
>
> The Kurds are using the area just over the border as a staging area
> for attacks. If the Turks attack those bases, it's almost a certainty
> that the US troops are gonna stay out of it cause Turkey is a much
> more important ally than the Kurds.

That's all true, but with Bush and co. in charge, you never know what might
happen. They may decide that the appearance of the great Iraqi adventure going
"right" might be more worthwhile than dealing with an ally. Of course, the bases we
have in Turkey may prove to be enough of a motivator to have the admin. basically do
nothing, as you say.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 20 Jan 2007 15:04:44
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <21s4r2t0g1298bl6bqnqnekppu4512embq@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> If there is going to be a civil war, the US has to do as much as
> possible to insure that the moderate Shia and the Kurds end up in
> control.

In a civil war the moderates of all sides are the first ones to be wiped
out. You won't have many moderate Shia to work with. Now, as to
putting the Kurds into a position of control, do you thing that maybe
the USA should abstain from messing with that can of worms?

jyh.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:03:13
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:04:44 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu >
wrote:

>> If there is going to be a civil war, the US has to do as much as
>> possible to insure that the moderate Shia and the Kurds end up in
>> control.
>
>In a civil war the moderates of all sides are the first ones to be wiped
>out. You won't have many moderate Shia to work with.

When I said moderate, I was referring to the various factions within
the Shia community in Iraq. The al Sistani group, which is the
majority, believe in a secular government where clerics are not
members of the government. Then there's the al Sadr group who are
very similar to the Iranians in that they see the clerics as the ones
who run the government.

>Now, as to
>putting the Kurds into a position of control, do you thing that maybe
>the USA should abstain from messing with that can of worms?

The Kurds are doing very well so far. Their territory is relatively
peaceful and they would be quite happy to see Iraq divided into three
with them in control of their area and resources. The Kurds even have
a budding tourist industry.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 13:38:55
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <fs67r21apci1ru3a4p4n5vtlrd3d8748id@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:04:44 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Now, as to
> >putting the Kurds into a position of control, do you thing that maybe
> >the USA should abstain from messing with that can of worms?
>
> The Kurds are doing very well so far. Their territory is relatively
> peaceful and they would be quite happy to see Iraq divided into three
> with them in control of their area and resources. The Kurds even have
> a budding tourist industry.

Iraq getting divided in three and the Kurds getting their own territory
is exactly the can of worms I was talking around. Have you even looked
at a bleeping map and seen where the Kurds live. Have you done any
reading at all on the history of the region? This is really
ridiculous/scary!

jyh.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 02:10:41
From: ST
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 1/21/07 10:38 AM, in article
jyh-9F304E.13385521012007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com, "jean-yves herve"
<jyh@cs.uri.edu > wrote:

> In article <fs67r21apci1ru3a4p4n5vtlrd3d8748id@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:04:44 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Now, as to
>>> putting the Kurds into a position of control, do you thing that maybe
>>> the USA should abstain from messing with that can of worms?
>>
>> The Kurds are doing very well so far. Their territory is relatively
>> peaceful and they would be quite happy to see Iraq divided into three
>> with them in control of their area and resources. The Kurds even have
>> a budding tourist industry.
>
> Iraq getting divided in three and the Kurds getting their own territory
> is exactly the can of worms I was talking around. Have you even looked
> at a bleeping map and seen where the Kurds live. Have you done any
> reading at all on the history of the region? This is really
> ridiculous/scary!
>
> jyh.

Why?

Date: 21 Jan 2007 15:10:29
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:38:55 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu >
wrote:

>Iraq getting divided in three and the Kurds getting their own territory
>is exactly the can of worms I was talking around. Have you even looked
>at a bleeping map and seen where the Kurds live. Have you done any
>reading at all on the history of the region? This is really
>ridiculous/scary!

Why? In practice, the Kurds already have an autonomous state. The
Turks and Iranians wouldn't be very happy to see an independent
Kurdish state, but that's their problem.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 02:47:24
From: ST
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 1/21/07 12:10 PM, in article i1i7r2d5q61cjfejfuc17pmp91m45gblv5@4ax.com,
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:38:55 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Iraq getting divided in three and the Kurds getting their own territory
>> is exactly the can of worms I was talking around. Have you even looked
>> at a bleeping map and seen where the Kurds live. Have you done any
>> reading at all on the history of the region? This is really
>> ridiculous/scary!
>
> Why? In practice, the Kurds already have an autonomous state. The
> Turks and Iranians wouldn't be very happy to see an independent
> Kurdish state, but that's their problem.

Correct!
Why does the left push for every other ethnic group to have their autonomous
government and borders but when it does not suit their agenda it is a bad
idea??

Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:35:31
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <C1D965BC.2001BC%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> On 1/21/07 12:10 PM, in article i1i7r2d5q61cjfejfuc17pmp91m45gblv5@4ax.com,
> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:38:55 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Iraq getting divided in three and the Kurds getting their own territory
> >> is exactly the can of worms I was talking around. Have you even looked
> >> at a bleeping map and seen where the Kurds live. Have you done any
> >> reading at all on the history of the region? This is really
> >> ridiculous/scary!
> >
> > Why? In practice, the Kurds already have an autonomous state. The
> > Turks and Iranians wouldn't be very happy to see an independent
> > Kurdish state, but that's their problem.
>
>
> Correct!
> Why does the left push for every other ethnic group to have their autonomous
> government and borders but when it does not suit their agenda it is a bad
> idea??

"Our agenda?" The rest of the people in the region hate the Kurds an ddon't want
them to have an autonomous region and government, partly because there are Kurds in
all the countries around there: Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey. All those countries
fear that their Kurds will want to split off with the land they're on to join ther
rest. Increased regional instability and/or war is why it'd be a bad idea, Stevie.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 21 Jan 2007 23:52:22
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <C1D965BC.2001BC%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> On 1/21/07 12:10 PM, in article i1i7r2d5q61cjfejfuc17pmp91m45gblv5@4ax.com,
> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:38:55 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Iraq getting divided in three and the Kurds getting their own territory
> >> is exactly the can of worms I was talking around. Have you even looked
> >> at a bleeping map and seen where the Kurds live. Have you done any
> >> reading at all on the history of the region? This is really
> >> ridiculous/scary!
> >
> > Why? In practice, the Kurds already have an autonomous state. The
> > Turks and Iranians wouldn't be very happy to see an independent
> > Kurdish state, but that's their problem.
>
>
> Correct!
> Why does the left push for every other ethnic group to have their autonomous
> government and borders but when it does not suit their agenda it is a bad
> idea??

Who except morons like you is talking about left and right? This has
nothing to do with left & right but with the real world. Wouldn't it
be nice if the Kurds could have their own independent country? Yes it
would! Wouldn't it be nice if the Israeli and Arabs would just kiss up
and be friends? Yes it would! And wouldn't all parties involved be
better off if things were happening that way? Of course they would be a
lot better off! However in the real world, you can't make things happen
just because you wish they would or even because they are the most
desirable outcome for all involved. If you don't understand the history
and dynamics of the problem, then you are bound to fail, which is
exactly what the Bushies are doing in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

jyh.

Date: 23 Jan 2007 04:00:26
From: ST
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 1/21/07 8:52 PM, in article
jyh-E82003.23522221012007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com, "jean-yves herve"
<jyh@cs.uri.edu > wrote:

> In article <C1D965BC.2001BC%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/07 12:10 PM, in article i1i7r2d5q61cjfejfuc17pmp91m45gblv5@4ax.com,
>> "Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:38:55 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Iraq getting divided in three and the Kurds getting their own territory
>>>> is exactly the can of worms I was talking around. Have you even looked
>>>> at a bleeping map and seen where the Kurds live. Have you done any
>>>> reading at all on the history of the region? This is really
>>>> ridiculous/scary!
>>>
>>> Why? In practice, the Kurds already have an autonomous state. The
>>> Turks and Iranians wouldn't be very happy to see an independent
>>> Kurdish state, but that's their problem.
>>
>>
>> Correct!
>> Why does the left push for every other ethnic group to have their autonomous
>> government and borders but when it does not suit their agenda it is a bad
>> idea??
>
> Who except morons like you is talking about left and right? This has
> nothing to do with left & right but with the real world. Wouldn't it
> be nice if the Kurds could have their own independent country? Yes it
> would! Wouldn't it be nice if the Israeli and Arabs would just kiss up
> and be friends? Yes it would! And wouldn't all parties involved be
> better off if things were happening that way? Of course they would be a
> lot better off! However in the real world, you can't make things happen
> just because you wish they would or even because they are the most
> desirable outcome for all involved. If you don't understand the history
> and dynamics of the problem, then you are bound to fail, which is
> exactly what the Bushies are doing in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
>
> jyh.

But the Palestinians deserve their own country post haste right??

Date: 23 Jan 2007 00:26:02
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <C1DAC857.20024E%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> On 1/21/07 8:52 PM, in article
> jyh-E82003.23522221012007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com, "jean-yves herve"
> <jyh@cs.uri.edu> wrote:
>
> > Who except morons like you is talking about left and right? This has
> > nothing to do with left & right but with the real world. Wouldn't it
> > be nice if the Kurds could have their own independent country? Yes it
> > would! Wouldn't it be nice if the Israeli and Arabs would just kiss up
> > and be friends? Yes it would! And wouldn't all parties involved be
> > better off if things were happening that way? Of course they would be a
> > lot better off! However in the real world, you can't make things happen
> > just because you wish they would or even because they are the most
> > desirable outcome for all involved. If you don't understand the history
> > and dynamics of the problem, then you are bound to fail, which is
> > exactly what the Bushies are doing in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
> >
> > jyh.
>
> But the Palestinians deserve their own country post haste right??

I am not sure how things are unfolding in that alternate world you
inhabit, but in *this* universe, there already exists an autonomous
state for Palestinians. Whether or not it was a great idea to let be
created or push for it, whether or not it was created the right way,
this does not matter anymore. The state exists. It's is the present
situation the US Govt has to deal with when it interacts with Israeli
and Palestinians. In the case of the Kurds, anybody with a modicum of
understanding of local history knows that *creating* a new Kurdish state
has the potential for a serious conflict in an already dangerous region.
This is not to say that nothing should be done, but that should take a
lot more thinking and preparation than "the Kurds are cool and deserve
their own state, so here it is!"

jyh.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 15:37:01
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <i1i7r2d5q61cjfejfuc17pmp91m45gblv5@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 13:38:55 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Iraq getting divided in three and the Kurds getting their own territory
> >is exactly the can of worms I was talking around. Have you even looked
> >at a bleeping map and seen where the Kurds live. Have you done any
> >reading at all on the history of the region? This is really
> >ridiculous/scary!
>
> Why? In practice, the Kurds already have an autonomous state. The
> Turks and Iranians wouldn't be very happy to see an independent
> Kurdish state, but that's their problem.

No, it would not be only *their* problem, because you would have a NATO
country invading a USA puppet state, fighting over a resource-rich
region, and the risk of a former Soviet republic getting involved as
well. Even by the "consequences be damned" standards of the neo-cons
and other wingnuts, this is pure craziness.

You can't just shake geopolitics on the simple basis of a series a
"wouldn't it be cool if..." objectives. The USA overthrew the Taliban
to teach them that actions have consequences. It would be great if the
people in power in Washington understood the lesson as well.

jyh.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:47:32
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:37:01 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu >
wrote:

>No, it would not be only *their* problem, because you would have a NATO
>country invading a USA puppet state, fighting over a resource-rich
>region, and the risk of a former Soviet republic getting involved as
>well. Even by the "consequences be damned" standards of the neo-cons
>and other wingnuts, this is pure craziness.

As long as there's a US military presence in the Kurdish areas of
Iraq, Turkey can't invade. On the other hand, the Kurdish Iraqi
leaders have to keep their people under control and not provoke the
Turks.

Now, if the Kurdish people in Iran and Syria should decide that they
would like to join with the Iraqi Kurds, that's a different story.

Basically the Kurds have been an autonomous region for the last few
years and there hasn't been any problem yet.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 14:39:47
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 20 Jan 2007 09:13:17 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Should've figured out a way to bring him back into the fold.

Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm pretty much put an end to
that. In reality, Saddam was never in the fold. He was willing to
take aid from the US during the war with Iran, but he was never an
ally of the US and vice versa. The only reason that the US gave him
aid was to prevent Iran from winning the war. Conversely, the US
didn't want Iraq to win either.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 14:54:33
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <ppr4r21ef4ueimub1rtbkbcf2pgevi4471@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On 20 Jan 2007 09:13:17 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
> <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Should've figured out a way to bring him back into the fold.
>
> Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm pretty much put an end to
> that. In reality, Saddam was never in the fold. He was willing to
> take aid from the US during the war with Iran, but he was never an
> ally of the US and vice versa. The only reason that the US gave him
> aid was to prevent Iran from winning the war. Conversely, the US
> didn't want Iraq to win either.

Unlike your great friends the Saudis, Saddam was seen as mostly a
pro-western influence trying to limit wild oil prize increases. Until
he suddenly became the ultimate bogeyman with that Kuwait affair, that
is.

jyh.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 11:57:26
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:54:33 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu >
wrote:

>Unlike your great friends the Saudis, Saddam was seen as mostly a
>pro-western influence trying to limit wild oil prize increases. Until
>he suddenly became the ultimate bogeyman with that Kuwait affair, that
>is.

Saddam was always considered to be mentally unstable by Western
Intelligence agencies. He had delusions that he would unite the Arabs
and return them to their days of grandeur and, of course, defeat the
Israelis and retake the "Holy Lands." He fancied himself to be the
modern Saladin.

In that respect, he wasn't too much different from Osama, except
Osama's grandiose delusions are to unite the Islamic people rather
that the Arabs.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:25:06
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <n567r2tcecv9nr6npekb9351icqkpo32fl@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 14:54:33 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Unlike your great friends the Saudis, Saddam was seen as mostly a
> >pro-western influence trying to limit wild oil prize increases. Until
> >he suddenly became the ultimate bogeyman with that Kuwait affair, that
> >is.
>
> Saddam was always considered to be mentally unstable by Western
> Intelligence agencies. He had delusions that he would unite the Arabs
> and return them to their days of grandeur and, of course, defeat the
> Israelis and retake the "Holy Lands." He fancied himself to be the
> modern Saladin.
>
> In that respect, he wasn't too much different from Osama, except
> Osama's grandiose delusions are to unite the Islamic people rather
> that the Arabs.

Well, if the US intel people thought he was so suspect, why'd they enable him to
be in the position to do (or think he could do) anything like that? Our first
exposure to him was when the CIA hired him in '59 to assassinate General Qassim,
who'd taken over Iraq in a coup. They thought Qassim leaned to far toward socialism
so the CIA hired Saddam to kill him. That failed and he had to escape to Egypt where
we (again) supported him until he could get back to Iraq a few years later.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:34:23
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:25:06 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> Well, if the US intel people thought he was so suspect, why'd they enable him to
>be in the position to do (or think he could do) anything like that? Our first
>exposure to him was when the CIA hired him in '59 to assassinate General Qassim,
>who'd taken over Iraq in a coup. They thought Qassim leaned to far toward socialism
>so the CIA hired Saddam to kill him. That failed and he had to escape to Egypt where
>we (again) supported him until he could get back to Iraq a few years later.

I don't think they specifically hired Saddam to kill him, but Saddam
was a member of the group that tried to kill him in 1959 and the group
(Baath Party) that eventually did kill him in 1963.

Qassim moved Iraq from the US to the Soviet sphere and during the Cold
War, things like that got you killed, especially in the Middle East No
one thought much about Saddam one way or the other back then.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:04:46
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <erb8r2humvilhtgds1nn3hke6kha95ueva@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:25:06 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, if the US intel people thought he was so suspect, why'd they enable
> > him to
> >be in the position to do (or think he could do) anything like that? Our
> >first
> >exposure to him was when the CIA hired him in '59 to assassinate General
> >Qassim,
> >who'd taken over Iraq in a coup. They thought Qassim leaned to far toward
> >socialism
> >so the CIA hired Saddam to kill him. That failed and he had to escape to
> >Egypt where
> >we (again) supported him until he could get back to Iraq a few years later.
>
>
> I don't think they specifically hired Saddam to kill him, but Saddam
> was a member of the group that tried to kill him in 1959 and the group
> (Baath Party) that eventually did kill him in 1963.

He was, according to the various sources I've seen on this, the leader of the
Iraqis doing the job. Oh yeah, they got the wrong bullets for the guns they had and
Saddam actually shot himself in the leg by accident.

> No one thought much about Saddam one way or the other back then.

The CIA knew who he was and thought he could do the job they wanted done. And they
did help him get to Egypt and supported him there. I've seen speculation (take that
for what it's worth) that they provided some assistance to the people that helped
Saddam escape from prison, where he ended up once he returned to Iraq.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 23 Jan 2007 15:13:55
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:04:46 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>> I don't think they specifically hired Saddam to kill him, but Saddam
>> was a member of the group that tried to kill him in 1959 and the group
>> (Baath Party) that eventually did kill him in 1963.
>
> He was, according to the various sources I've seen on this, the leader of the
>Iraqis doing the job. Oh yeah, they got the wrong bullets for the guns they had and
>Saddam actually shot himself in the leg by accident.
>
>> No one thought much about Saddam one way or the other back then.
>
> The CIA knew who he was and thought he could do the job they wanted done. And they
>did help him get to Egypt and supported him there. I've seen speculation (take that
>for what it's worth) that they provided some assistance to the people that helped
>Saddam escape from prison, where he ended up once he returned to Iraq.

I wont dispute your facts, but even so, there's no reason that the US
has to support Saddam in 1991 because they supported him in 1963.
Things change and who was once your friend can become your enemy.

The US supported the Soviet Union during WW2 and everyone knew that
they would become an enemy after the war. You do what you think is
best at the time.

The US supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets and
many of them now make up the Taliban and some are in Al Qaeda. Much
of their effectiveness as an insurgent group comes from CIA training.
Even so, I still think that supporting the Mujahideen was the right
thing to do at that time and the same for US support of Saddam in the
past.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:06:04
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:57:26 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>[Saddam Hussein] had delusions that he would unite the Arabs
>and return them to their days of grandeur and, of course, defeat the
>Israelis and retake the "Holy Lands." He fancied himself to be the
>modern Saladin.

So what? Unless he had the means to do so it doens't matter much.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 21 Jan 2007 14:56:22
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:06:04 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>>[Saddam Hussein] had delusions that he would unite the Arabs
>>and return them to their days of grandeur and, of course, defeat the
>>Israelis and retake the "Holy Lands." He fancied himself to be the
>>modern Saladin.
>
>So what? Unless he had the means to do so it doens't matter much.
>--
>JT

First, JT, I appreciate a response without a personal attack.

Someone suggested that a better option to the war in Iraq was trying
to bring Saddam into the fold. The question you have to ask is can
you trust a madman. Everyone felt that Saddam was beyond
rehabilitation after Desert Storm.

Even in the Spring of 2003, when threatened with a US invasion, he
continued to resist fully cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors.
I have no idea what he was thinking but he should have known that the
US wasn't bluffing. Not only that, he should have known the US was
more than happy to get a chance to get rid of him.

Saddam was considered to be a long range threat to the US. It was
unlikely that the sanctions would have lasted much longer and once
they were lifted, Saddam would have been back in the nuclear weapons
development game.

Imagine the Middle East with both the Iranians and Iraqis moving
towards becoming nuclear powers. As bad as things are in Iraq, having
Saddam still in control is worse.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 02:41:48
From: ST
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 1/21/07 11:56 AM, in article mbg7r2h02bengkuhfhvr2eeesari5fsv34@4ax.com,
"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:06:04 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>> [Saddam Hussein] had delusions that he would unite the Arabs
>>> and return them to their days of grandeur and, of course, defeat the
>>> Israelis and retake the "Holy Lands." He fancied himself to be the
>>> modern Saladin.
>>
>> So what? Unless he had the means to do so it doens't matter much.
>> --
>> JT
>
>
> First, JT, I appreciate a response without a personal attack.
>
> Someone suggested that a better option to the war in Iraq was trying
> to bring Saddam into the fold.

These suggestions, mentioned here, are just great! Lefty's bitch & moan that
"BUT! We gave Saddam his toys!" It is America's fault! (Like always..) Then
they also mention "But! You need to talk to them! You need to make them our
friends!"

Which is it? There are many times you need to take a side (Stalin in WWII)
It is the lesser of 2 evils. It is simple to understand the point although
the situations are much more complex.

Although they are quick to say "The culture and thinking is different over
there!" they also think that they can their logic and rationale will
convince this culture to change.......

When will mere men realize that when your "Higher Power" says to do
something, the logic of a man will not change their opinion.

What do Chavez, Castro, Kim J Mentally Ill & Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have in
common?

They are all pushing various shades of Socialism. Yes, even the Baathists
were Arab Socialists. Is that what you want? I am not talking about some
damn national health care crap! I mean real Socialism. Kiss your
interpretation on the American Dream goodbye. Chavez is already talking
about Nationalizing most utilities and other businesses.

Screw this arguing about this now. Lets talk in about 20 years and we can
discuss "old times". Assuming we have access to the Internet.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 16:04:24
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 14:56:22 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:06:04 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
><usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>>[Saddam Hussein] had delusions that he would unite the Arabs
>>>and return them to their days of grandeur and, of course, defeat the
>>>Israelis and retake the "Holy Lands." He fancied himself to be the
>>>modern Saladin.
>>
>>So what? Unless he had the means to do so it doens't matter much.
>>--
>>JT
>
>
>First, JT, I appreciate a response without a personal attack.
>
>Someone suggested that a better option to the war in Iraq was trying
>to bring Saddam into the fold. The question you have to ask is can
>you trust a madman.

I can walk down the street and find guys I can't trust, including some
madmen. So what?

[snips]
> Saddam was considered to be a long range threat to the US.
So what? So does that mean whoever you or some dope in the White
House think is a long-range threat, we can invade. And destablize a
country? Oh yeah, the dope in the White House didn't sell the war as
a "long-range" threat but rather as an immenient threat.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:37:11
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <mbg7r2h02bengkuhfhvr2eeesari5fsv34@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> Imagine the Middle East with both the Iranians and Iraqis moving
> towards becoming nuclear powers. As bad as things are in Iraq, having
> Saddam still in control is worse.

A quick quote for a response:
________________________________
That the President is being less than forthcoming on an issue of national security
is hardly anything new. What worries me is setting out a doctrine that pre-emptive
strikes are not only justified by an actual gathering threat but by hypothetical
futuristic scenarios which have no bearing in the present reality. You cant invade a
country without a nuclear program to stop them from maybe one day changing their
mind about it any more than you can shoot an unarmed man because he might one day
buy a gun. Didnt Bush ever read that Bible he likes to invoke so much? Remember
Exodus, where mean old Pharoah starts killing all Hebrew newborn males to decimate
the population? To quote:

Look, the Israelite people are much too numerous for us. Let us deal shrewdly with
them, so that they may not increase; otherwise in the event of war, they may join
our enemies in fighting against us and rise from the ground. (Exodus 1:8)

By Bush's new logic, Pharoah would have been completely justified in his genocide -
yeah the Hebrews weren't rising up but imagine a world in which they did. In fact,
by this logic a nation can justify invading ANY country at ANY time and even commit
widespread atrocities against civilians. Saddam could have invaded Kuwait because
they might one day get nuclear weapons. Russia could have invaded Afghanistan
because they might one day get nuclear weapons. Hell, Hitler could have invaded
Poland because pigs might fly and Polish scientists invent some kind of super duper
laser beam that makes them an armed superpower. Or he could have just killed all the
Jews using the same rationale for pre-emptive action that Pharoah (and our
President) endorsed.
________________________________
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011938.php

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 23 Jan 2007 15:02:31
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:37:11 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>Look, the Israelite people are much too numerous for us. Let us deal shrewdly with
>them, so that they may not increase; otherwise in the event of war, they may join
>our enemies in fighting against us and rise from the ground. (Exodus 1:8)
>
>By Bush's new logic, Pharoah would have been completely justified in his genocide -
>yeah the Hebrews weren't rising up but imagine a world in which they did.

Look how it turned out for Pharaoh for only doing a half-assed job.
Plague after plague, natural disaster after natural disaster and
pestilence after pestilence. He eventually had to let the Jews go,
which created a serious shortage of cheap labor ;)

All kidding aside, your point is well-taken. Pre-emptive war as a
foreign policy raises some real questions. However, there are many
cases in history where early and decisive action could have either
prevented, or mitigated, serious consequences.

Date: 23 Jan 2007 17:44:34
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <lqpcr29n9ukhk9otenf1b0etjfc40p2ug4@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:37:11 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >Look, the Israelite people are much too numerous for us. Let us deal
> >shrewdly with
> >them, so that they may not increase; otherwise in the event of war, they may
> >join
> >our enemies in fighting against us and rise from the ground. (Exodus 1:8)
> >
> >By Bush's new logic, Pharoah would have been completely justified in his
> >genocide -
> >yeah the Hebrews weren't rising up but imagine a world in which they did.
>
>
> Look how it turned out for Pharaoh for only doing a half-assed job.
> Plague after plague, natural disaster after natural disaster and
> pestilence after pestilence. He eventually had to let the Jews go,
> which created a serious shortage of cheap labor ;)

Well, they were just there to get free health care anyway. That, and the buffet.

> All kidding aside, your point is well-taken. Pre-emptive war as a
> foreign policy raises some real questions. However, there are many
> cases in history where early and decisive action could have either
> prevented, or mitigated, serious consequences.

I agree to a certain extent, but strongly feel this was not one of those times.
We should have finished the job that was already started (namely ObL).

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 23 Jan 2007 21:13:55
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:44:34 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>> Look how it turned out for Pharaoh for only doing a half-assed job.
>> Plague after plague, natural disaster after natural disaster and
>> pestilence after pestilence. He eventually had to let the Jews go,
>> which created a serious shortage of cheap labor ;)
>
> Well, they were just there to get free health care anyway. That, and the buffet.

I thought we were talking about Egypt, not Florida.

Date: 23 Jan 2007 19:51:27
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <76gdr2tggvl1gn3bjc3lchp03f63ohtah8@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:44:34 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >> Look how it turned out for Pharaoh for only doing a half-assed job.
> >> Plague after plague, natural disaster after natural disaster and
> >> pestilence after pestilence. He eventually had to let the Jews go,
> >> which created a serious shortage of cheap labor ;)
> >
> > Well, they were just there to get free health care anyway. That, and the
> > buffet.
>
> I thought we were talking about Egypt, not Florida.

A retirement community in Florida decides they need an amusement park for their
residents. Popular senior rides at the park include:

~It's A Small-Portions-Because-I-Don't-Eat-So-Much-Anymore World

~Pirates of the Florida Gambling Cruise

~The Continually Blinking Left Turn Signal Autopia

~Indiana Jones and The Steamtable of Doom

~Big Thunder High Fiber Railroad

~The Haunted Mansion Where Uncle Saul, God Rest His Soul, Lives

~Incontinence Splash Mountain

~Mr. Toad's I Thought I Was Hitting The Brake Wild Ride

~The Mad Teacup Party Where We Talk About Our Granchildren

and

~The Audio-Animatronic Matlock.

(Hat tip to Tbogg for that)

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 23 Jan 2007 20:21:15
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:37:11 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
>>Look, the Israelite people are much too numerous for us. Let us deal
>>shrewdly with them, so that they may not increase; otherwise in the
>>event of war, they may join our enemies in fighting against us and
>>rise from the ground. (Exodus 1:8)
>>
>>By Bush's new logic, Pharoah would have been completely justified in
>>his genocide - yeah the Hebrews weren't rising up but imagine a world
>>in which they did.
>
>
> Look how it turned out for Pharaoh for only doing a half-assed job.
> Plague after plague, natural disaster after natural disaster and
> pestilence after pestilence. He eventually had to let the Jews go,
> which created a serious shortage of cheap labor ;)
>
> All kidding aside, your point is well-taken. Pre-emptive war as a
> foreign policy raises some real questions. However, there are many
> cases in history where early and decisive action could have either
> prevented, or mitigated, serious consequences.
>

What would have been a likely consequence had Chamberlain squashed Hitler
early on? What would have happened to Europe with a Stalin-led USSR not
decimated by a German invasion and no American atom bomb? We would have
fought WW2 anyway, just with a different alignment of countries and maybe
even more serious consequences with the U.S. 6th Army decimated at
Stalingrad.

If we had waited to attack Iraq, we could have "turned" Saddam and used him
against the Iranians. Of course, now we have to wave our fists in impotent
fury against Iran lest them make mincemeat of the troops in Iraq.

Rushing off to war is stupid because nobody in their right mind starts a
knife fight.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 20 Jan 2007 09:06:34
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
> We should have done this to Iraq and to Iran, but instead the
> Iranians are doing it to us.

Dumbass -

Iran is doing it to us all right. They fed us bogus information via
Chalabi (which Cheney ate up with a spoon) and managed to achieve the
unbelievable result of getting one enemy, the United States, to take
out their biggest enemy, Saddam Hussein.

Not only Saddam Hussein, but his entire Sunni Baathist government. To
top it off, the United States Army is training a Shiite militia as the
"Iraqi Army".

The Iranians spent one million lives in the Iran/Iraq War and 15 years
later they've achieved their aim without lifting a finger.
Machiavelli/Sun Tzu/Hart/Clausewitz would be very impressed with their
accomplishment.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 03:52:54
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
> > On 19 Jan 2007 19:09:18 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"> > <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >It was much more useful to have Saddam's Baathists in power acting as a
> > >counterweight to the Shiites. That counterweight is now gone and
> > >Jordan/Syria/Saudi Arabia fear that the Shiites could take over the
> > >region. The whole thing could devolve into a regionwide sectarian war
> > >with Jordan/Syria/SaudiArabia/Kuwait and the Sunnis on one side and the
> > >Shiite Iraqis and the Iranians on the other.
> >
> > Highly unlikely. Unless they give up their nuclear weapons program,
> > Iran's number is up next.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> Please inform yourself.
>
> Iran can't be "next" at this moment in time because US forces are
> stretched too thin with commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and South
> Korea. Iran's not a cupcake. It's one of the reasons the retired 5 star
> generals like Zinni and Schwarzkopf have publicly blasted the Bush
> Admin. over the unsuccessful adventure in Iraq. The military's lost
> much of its flexibility with so many resources tied up there.
>
> Don't forget the goal of military force is to ultimately bring
> stability. Attempting to get rid of the Iranian nukes via force would
> require an occupation.
>
> Finally, there's no way they could get public support for it right now.

Dumbass,

I hope they (our fearless leaders) realize that, but I'm not sure of
it.

I once knew a Russian emigre chess teacher who would say
in this Russian accent, "The threat is stronger than the execution."
What he meant by that was that if you were threatening a move
(like taking a pawn or occupying a powerful square) you could
get your opponent so tied up in knots playing reactively and
defending against your threat, that he would ultimately wind up
in a weak or even losing position, more so than if you'd just
taken the pawn outright.

We should have done this to Iraq and to Iran, but instead the
Iranians are doing it to us. The threat of exercising military
power in the Gulf was a stronger check on Iran than our
actual exercising of that power, and now when we threaten
them it looks hollow (and strengthens reactionary elements
inside Iran).

You can also see this principle in action in bike racing.
The strongest guy in a group can force the others' tactics
to react to the threat of an attack, before the attack actually
comes.

I fear that they will somehow provoke the Iranians into a
hostile open action (as opposed to underground stuff like
supporting insurgents), such as shooting a missile at one
of our ships in the Gulf. Then there's a substantial chance
for a lot of mutual senseless violence, even though we can't
possibly hope to stage a successful ground invasion of Iran.
It's a dangerous game of chicken.

Ben

Date: 20 Jan 2007 22:16:37
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 20 Jan 2007 03:52:54 -0800, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:

>I once knew a Russian emigre chess teacher who would say
>in this Russian accent, "The threat is stronger than the execution."
>What he meant by that was that if you were threatening a move
>(like taking a pawn or occupying a powerful square) you could
>get your opponent so tied up in knots playing reactively and
>defending against your threat, that he would ultimately wind up
>in a weak or even losing position, more so than if you'd just
>taken the pawn outright.
>

Reminds me of "We must remember that we have more power than our
enemies to worsen our fate" -- Ted Galen Carpenter

>We should have done this to Iraq and to Iran, but instead the
>Iranians are doing it to us. The threat of exercising military
>power in the Gulf was a stronger check on Iran than our
>actual exercising of that power, and now when we threaten
>them it looks hollow (and strengthens reactionary elements
>inside Iran).
>
>You can also see this principle in action in bike racing.
>The strongest guy in a group can force the others' tactics
>to react to the threat of an attack, before the attack actually
>comes.

WTF? You bring this back to racing????

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 20 Jan 2007 11:40:42
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1169293974.598925.158410@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:

> I fear that they will somehow provoke the Iranians into a
> hostile open action (as opposed to underground stuff like
> supporting insurgents), such as shooting a missile at one
> of our ships in the Gulf.

Gulf of Tonkin, anyone? They are looking for the casus belli as hard as they can
and the spin is already going out.

http://www.gene-callahan.org/blog/2007/01/those-evil-iranians.html

Consider that the new head of CentCom is a Naval air guy and the extra carriers
in the area, as well as the Patriot missile systems.

http://zenhuber.blogspot.com/2007/01/george-w-bush-decider-divider.html

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 20 Jan 2007 23:01:36
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:40:42 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>Consider that the new head of CentCom is a Naval air guy and the extra carriers
>in the area, as well as the Patriot missile systems.

There's no doubt that the US has sent another carrier group to the
Persian Gulf. However, I have not seen any credible source for the
Patriot missile claim. Jane's is one of the best sources for
information on this and they haven't reported this as yet.

The US did have Patriots in Iraq for Iraq2 and they did a lot better
than they did in 1991. However, they were not 100% successful. Latest
reports are that they can now intercept cruise type missile as well
and ballistic missiles.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:16:36
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <lmo5r21cm3tfok1u7ebupnquahq5hd01rd@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:40:42 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >Consider that the new head of CentCom is a Naval air guy and the extra
> >carriers
> >in the area, as well as the Patriot missile systems.
>
> There's no doubt that the US has sent another carrier group to the
> Persian Gulf. However, I have not seen any credible source for the
> Patriot missile claim. Jane's is one of the best sources for
> information on this and they haven't reported this as yet.

I'd seen it reported last week but don't recall where, sorry. The first thing I
could round up today is this (although it's also on AP):
_____________________
This week, the administration sent another aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf the
second to deploy in the region. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the buildup was
intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America
vulnerable. The U.S. is also deploying anti-missile Patriot missiles in the region.
_____________________

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iran&printer=1

The AP link: http://tinyurl.com/3a849e

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:36:31
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 12:16:36 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>This week, the administration sent another aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf the
>second to deploy in the region. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the buildup was
>intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America
>vulnerable. The U.S. is also deploying anti-missile Patriot missiles in the region.

Always be prepared.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 09:30:10
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

> I fear that they will somehow provoke the Iranians into a
> hostile open action (as opposed to underground stuff like
> supporting insurgents), such as shooting a missile at one
> of our ships in the Gulf.

Not really necessary. The Persian Gulf isn't THAT much different than
the Tonkin Gulf.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 07:26:17
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
> You can also see this principle in action in bike racing.

If you're going to talk about this kind of stuff in rbr, could you please
add OT to the subject line?

Date: 19 Jan 2007 23:42:11
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2007 19:09:18 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
> <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Iraq wasn't a threat. Saddam was our ally pre-1991.
> >
>
> So was the Soviet Union during the Second World War.
>
> >It was much more useful to have Saddam's Baathists in power acting as a
> >counterweight to the Shiites. That counterweight is now gone and
> >Jordan/Syria/Saudi Arabia fear that the Shiites could take over the
> >region. The whole thing could devolve into a regionwide sectarian war
> >with Jordan/Syria/SaudiArabia/Kuwait and the Sunnis on one side and the
> >Shiite Iraqis and the Iranians on the other.
>
> Highly unlikely. Unless they give up their nuclear weapons program,
> Iran's number is up next.

Dumbass -

Please inform yourself.

Iran can't be "next" at this moment in time because US forces are
stretched too thin with commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and South
Korea. Iran's not a cupcake. It's one of the reasons the retired 5 star
generals like Zinni and Schwarzkopf have publicly blasted the Bush
Admin. over the unsuccessful adventure in Iraq. The military's lost
much of its flexibility with so many resources tied up there.

Don't forget the goal of military force is to ultimately bring
stability. Attempting to get rid of the Iranian nukes via force would
require an occupation.

Finally, there's no way they could get public support for it right now.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 14:32:36
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 19 Jan 2007 23:42:11 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Attempting to get rid of the Iranian nukes via force would
>require an occupation.

Why?

Date: 20 Jan 2007 14:31:54
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 19 Jan 2007 23:42:11 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Iran can't be "next" at this moment in time because US forces are
>stretched too thin with commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and South
>Korea.

No one is considering an invasion of Iran. The US could do what is
necessary without any troops on the ground. The mission would be to
do as much damage to Iran's nuclear program as possible. There could
be some special forces used to do damage assessment, but this would be
almost exclusively an air campaign and the US, with two carrier groups
in the Persian Gulf could do it right now without any problem.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 16:18:02
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:
> could do it right now without any problem.

Funny, that's what the neo-cons said about Iraq.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 14:37:00
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:18:02 +0200, Donald Munro
<fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Jack Hollis wrote:
>> could do it right now without any problem.
>
>Funny, that's what the neo-cons said about Iraq.

The major goal of regime change was achieved with no problem. In
fact, it was even easier than anyone thought.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 06:19:45
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:
>>> could do it right now without any problem.

Donald Munro wrote:
>>Funny, that's what the neo-cons said about Iraq.

Jack Hollis wrote:
> The major goal of regime change was achieved with no problem. In
> fact, it was even easier than anyone thought.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/11sep06.png

Date: 18 Jan 2007 19:52:31
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The surge

In article <1169124584.390327.6620@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> On Jan 18, 2:06 am, "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Bill C wrote:
> > > Bush had no plan other than "Get Saddam" and wasn't st enough to
> > > pull right back out and drop it in the UN's lap.Dumbass -
> >
> > The UN would not have cooperated nor would they have been capable of
> > filling the power vacuum even if they were willing.
> >
> > Bush could have actually succeeded if he would've sought the
> > cooperation of Baathist army units and put his own Baathist guy in
> > power.
> >
> > The Baathists used to be our allies until Saddam got the dumb idea to
> > invade Kuwait.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> Yeah that might've worked but I think the Shia would've still revolted
> and we aren't allowed to use Saddam's tactics to terrify them into
> behaving, so even with the Baathists mostly intact, but operating under
> Western restrictions I think we have the same mess, and maybe more. At
> least right now we can't, reasonably, be accused of backing the
> Militias and death squads. If we'd kept the Baathists then we'd be in
> the position of publicly supporting one sides killers. Not that we
> haven't done it before, but I just can't see that working.
> Dumd idea? He may have had it, it's been standard policy in Iraq for
> the whole century Kuwaitbelongs to Iraq, but he got the green light
> from April Glaspie. The transcripts make that incredibly clear. Whether
> she meant the things she said that way is another thing, but if she
> didn't it was gross incompetence that started a brutal and bloody
> disaster.
> Bill C

Regarding the Sunni public's support of the insurgency, this article had a couple
of interesting points.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/
_____________________
The insurgents, he said, "are mostly in the Sunni areas where the population
there, almost 200,000, is sympathetic to them." He said most Iraqi people do not
actively support the insurgents or provide them with material or logistical help,
but at the same time they wont turn them in. One military source involved in the
Pentagon debate agrees that this is the crux of the problem, and he suggests that
new offensive operations are needed that would create a fear of aiding the
insurgency. "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to
the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to
change that equation."
_____________________

Perhaps one of the ways the equation is being changed is by simply turning a
blind eye to a great deal of the stuff the Shiite militias are doing - as long as
they aren't doing it to our people. This does seem rather similar to what happened
in El Salvador with the right wing death squads going out and "teaching the locals a
lesson" for allowing the "enemy" to operate in their area.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 17 Jan 2007 23:06:57
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The surge

Bill C wrote:

> Bush had no plan other than "Get Saddam" and wasn't st enough to
> pull right back out and drop it in the UN's lap.

Dumbass -

The UN would not have cooperated nor would they have been capable of
filling the power vacuum even if they were willing.

Bush could have actually succeeded if he would've sought the
cooperation of Baathist army units and put his own Baathist guy in
power.

The Baathists used to be our allies until Saddam got the dumb idea to
invade Kuwait.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 19:29:10
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The surge

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote:
> > SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> > >> You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
> > >> FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.
> >
> > Robert Chung wrote:
> > > Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?
> >
> > So Osama is FDR reincarnated. Instant karma is gonna get you.
>
> Please don't confuse Osama with Obama.
>
> http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3969

>From above:

<World Bank economists Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer find that "trust
and norms of civic cooperation are stronger in countries with formal
institutions that effectively protect property and contract rights." >

Contract rights-- would that be where workers' contracts involving
pensions are protected and enforced, if necessary, not taken away?

What has the well-compensated brass of GM been doing with all that
money they knew they were going to need to meet their end of the
bargain ("contract") when this generation of workers retire? --D-y

Date: 17 Jan 2007 17:18:28
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The surge

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
> > SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> > > You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
> > > FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.
> >
> > Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?
>
> LOL. I was leaving that for Krugman and path dependence. Oh wait, FDR
> wasn't a republican, but a democrat. Nevermind.

No need to nevermind, it's very simple:
FDR was a Democrat.
The Democrats were responsible, through sins of
omission or commission, for 9/11.
Therefore FDR was responsible for 9/11.

Professor of Blog Logic,
Benjamin Franklin

Date: 17 Jan 2007 20:16:09
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The surge

In article <1169083108.496351.212150@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:

> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> > Robert Chung wrote:
> > > SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> > > > You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
> > > > FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.
> > >
> > > Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?
> >
> > LOL. I was leaving that for Krugman and path dependence. Oh wait, FDR
> > wasn't a republican, but a democrat. Nevermind.
>
> No need to nevermind, it's very simple:
> FDR was a Democrat.
> The Democrats were responsible, through sins of
> omission or commission, for 9/11.
> Therefore FDR was responsible for 9/11.
>
> Professor of Blog Logic,
> Benjamin Franklin

Well, Dinesh D'Souza says that liberals are responsible for 9-11 in his new book.
But he's just echoing Kunich there. See:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/ccf15121e26b48d9?hl
________________________
"Greg, I finally came to the conclusion yesterday that what these people are
doing is trying to pretend that THEY have no responsibility for the
terrorism in the world. The same people who proclaim loudly that queers
should have the right to "ry" other queers (being a homosexual is a death
penalty in Islam), that women should have the right to wear anything that
they like, that pay big bucks for satellite TV to watch "Friends"
demonstrating every possible insult to the conservative Muslim populations
of the world in their own languages and who think that "Guess" jeans (ain't
they French?) that show a young girls ass-crack aren't the real cause of
terrorism and instead blame it on pumping oil out of the ground which has
brought about more social advancement in the Arab world than all past
history."
________________________

Amusingly, Steven Colbert got D'Souza to admit that he agrees with what bin Laden
said about Western culture. Oops.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 17 Jan 2007 16:34:09
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The surge

Donald Munro wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> >> You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
> >> FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.
>
> Robert Chung wrote:
> > Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?
>
> So Osama is FDR reincarnated. Instant karma is gonna get you.

Please don't confuse Osama with Obama.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3969

Date: 17 Jan 2007 16:32:17
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The surge

Robert Chung wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> > You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
> > FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.
>
> Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?

LOL. I was leaving that for Krugman and path dependence. Oh wait, FDR
wasn't a republican, but a democrat. Nevermind.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 13:33:02
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The surge

On Jan 17, 3:37 pm, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
> > FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?

Gotta agree with Curtis that FDR was horrible, but Bush is right there
with him. FDR at least, where he didn't have a plan used overwhelming
force to exterminate the problem. FDR would've allowed the current
version of Curtis Lemay or Arthur Harris surrounded Faluja and carpet
bombed it, napalm included, with everyone in it. Insurgents gone,
next...
Bush had no plan other than "Get Saddam" and wasn't st enough to
pull right back out and drop it in the UN's lap. Didn't have anywhere
the number of troops needed to occupy and pacify the country, as has
been pointed out, turned most all the military loose with weapons
rather than inter them until the end of hostilities under Red Cross
supervision.
The list is endless where FDR KNEW what had to happen, and got people
to make it happen, and Bush has failed miserably extending the war and
getting more people killed in the long run, especially real civilians.
Total clusterfuck from cooked intelligence to sell the war to today.
Bill C

Date: 19 Jan 2007 19:09:18
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

>
> Invading Iraq was an easy decision because removing Saddam, and his
> sons, from power was better than anything that could happen.
> Ultimately, what has happened in Iraq since Saddam fell is basically
> an Iraqi failure. They had a chance to make something for themselves
> and (so far) haven't been able to take that chance. An Iraq divided
> and in chaos is much less of a long term threat to the US than a
> unified Iraq under Saddam and his sons.

Dumbass -

Iraq wasn't a threat. Saddam was our ally pre-1991.

It was much more useful to have Saddam's Baathists in power acting as a
counterweight to the Shiites. That counterweight is now gone and
Jordan/Syria/Saudi Arabia fear that the Shiites could take over the
region. The whole thing could devolve into a regionwide sectarian war
with Jordan/Syria/SaudiArabia/Kuwait and the Sunnis on one side and the
Shiite Iraqis and the Iranians on the other.

That would not be good for anyone. Oil prices through the roof.

The chaos isn't good for us. In peace, the Middle Eastern nations
would've slowly moved closer to the West in their cultural evolution.
In war, they move further away.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 22:44:14
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 19 Jan 2007 19:09:18 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Iraq wasn't a threat. Saddam was our ally pre-1991.
>

So was the Soviet Union during the Second World War.

>It was much more useful to have Saddam's Baathists in power acting as a
>counterweight to the Shiites. That counterweight is now gone and
>Jordan/Syria/Saudi Arabia fear that the Shiites could take over the
>region. The whole thing could devolve into a regionwide sectarian war
>with Jordan/Syria/SaudiArabia/Kuwait and the Sunnis on one side and the
>Shiite Iraqis and the Iranians on the other.

Highly unlikely. Unless they give up their nuclear weapons program,
Iran's number is up next. They will be in no shape to attack anyone.
If they do give up their nuclear weapons program, and the US doesn't
attack them, do you think the US will sit idle while Iran attacks
Jordan, Kuwait, or SA?

Date: 17 Jan 2007 08:32:58
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The surge

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

> FDR wasn't an ideologue on foreign policy. He analyzed the situation
> and made the correct decisions.

You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.

http://www.mises.org/story/2360
http://www.mises.org/books/aswegoching.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/Roosevelt-Myth-John-T-Flynn/dp/0930073274/
http://www.lfb.com/index.php?deptid=&parentid=&stocknumber=AH9049&page=1&itemsperpage=24

Date: 17 Jan 2007 12:37:56
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The surge

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
> FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.

Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?

Date: 19 Jan 2007 19:10:47
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> Let's do a little test in this group.
>
> Who said, several years ago, that the war in Iraq would be a bad idea
> and could not go well? And who said that it would be a good idea, and
> therefore has proven him or herself wrong on that at least.
>
> Kurgan, myself and a bunch of other dumbasses are in the first group.

Dumbass -

There weren't very many of us. I'm glad you remember. I tried googling
it up, but they seem to have not archived those threads.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:57:58
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1169262646.936104.160320@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > Let's do a little test in this group.
> >
> > Who said, several years ago, that the war in Iraq would be a bad idea
> > and could not go well? And who said that it would be a good idea, and
> > therefore has proven him or herself wrong on that at least.
> >
> > Kurgan, myself and a bunch of other dumbasses are in the first group.
>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> There weren't very many of us. I'm glad you remember. I tried googling
> it up, but they seem to have not archived those threads.

I'm sure they're there but it'd be tough to know what term to search on to get
the early hits. I seem to recall that that stuff came up in threads about other
things. I was definitely in the 'bad idea that'll come to a bad end' contingent from
the get-go.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 22 Jan 2007 17:07:22
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:57:58 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> I'm sure they're there but it'd be tough to know what term to search on to get
>the early hits. I seem to recall that that stuff came up in threads about other
>things. I was definitely in the 'bad idea that'll come to a bad end' contingent from
>the get-go.

I'm a neutral. I thought that there was enough legal basis to invade,
but thought it was a bad idea regardless of the result. If all this
blew over tomorrow, I don't see any politician that accepts that a
leadership role on the part of the U.S. means risk and exposure, and
that our best purpose is to do the right thing, even in the face of
death and loss. The worst outcome from our side is what has happened
over here, stateside. Freedom was what we once fought for; now we are
expected to surrender freedom in order to fight.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 23 Jan 2007 18:03:07
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <j3dar212l4c5ag618veug6v78ev77m6uji@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:57:58 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm sure they're there but it'd be tough to know what term to search on
> > to get the early hits. I seem to recall that that stuff came up in threads about
> > other things. I was definitely in the 'bad idea that'll come to a bad end'
> > contingent from the get-go.
>
> I'm a neutral. I thought that there was enough legal basis to invade,
> but thought it was a bad idea regardless of the result. If all this
> blew over tomorrow, I don't see any politician that accepts that a
> leadership role on the part of the U.S. means risk and exposure, and
> that our best purpose is to do the right thing, even in the face of
> death and loss. The worst outcome from our side is what has happened
> over here, stateside. Freedom was what we once fought for; now we are
> expected to surrender freedom in order to fight.

I believe that Cheney and people around him saw 9-11 as a golden opportunity. He
is one of a group of people who are believers in a strong executive branch. Cheney's
been working that angle since he was in Congress and in the Nixon era (he was the
person who wrote an opinion that the Boland Amendment did not apply to the
"president or his immediate staff" about Reagan and his support for rightist forces
in Central America) - he considers it not a power grab but a "restoration" of
executive powers. Obviously, 9-11 had a very visceral effect on Americans. We all
saw the footage over and again. They exploited that to get away with doing things
that they never could have under normal circumstances. As I've said, we got through
the Cold War without these kinds of underhanded tricks to allow the government to be
able to more easily keep an eye on us.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/11/26/hail_to_the_chief/

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 19 Jan 2007 19:05:03
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Robert Chung wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > Let's do a little test in this group.
> >
> > Who said, several years ago, that the war in Iraq would be a bad idea
> > and could not go well? And who said that it would be a good idea, and
> > therefore has proven him or herself wrong on that at least.
> >
> > Kurgan, myself and a bunch of other dumbasses are in the first group.
>
> I'm in a third group. I thought it was a bad idea but would go well.

Dumbass -

They could've made it work if they just got rid of Saddam and a few
other guys and kept the Baathists in place.

The Iranians surely never could've dreamed that their misinformation
campaign via Ahmed Chalabi would work this well. Now the Sunni
Baathists are done and the Iranians have fellow Shiites poised to take
over the country.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 22:12:20
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 19 Jan 2007 19:05:03 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
>Robert Chung wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> > Let's do a little test in this group.
>> >
>> > Who said, several years ago, that the war in Iraq would be a bad idea
>> > and could not go well? And who said that it would be a good idea, and
>> > therefore has proven him or herself wrong on that at least.
>> >
>> > Kurgan, myself and a bunch of other dumbasses are in the first group.
>>
>> I'm in a third group. I thought it was a bad idea but would go well.

>They could've made it work if they just got rid of Saddam and a few
>other guys and kept the Baathists in place.

Maybe.

>The Iranians surely never could've dreamed that their misinformation
>campaign via Ahmed Chalabi would work this well. Now the Sunni
>Baathists are done and the Iranians have fellow Shiites poised to take
>over the country.

Yeah, that really went well.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:58:01
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1169262303.564946.188680@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

> Robert Chung wrote:
> > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > > Let's do a little test in this group.
> > >
> > > Who said, several years ago, that the war in Iraq would be a bad idea
> > > and could not go well? And who said that it would be a good idea, and
> > > therefore has proven him or herself wrong on that at least.
> > >
> > > Kurgan, myself and a bunch of other dumbasses are in the first group.
> >
> > I'm in a third group. I thought it was a bad idea but would go well.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> They could've made it work if they just got rid of Saddam and a few
> other guys and kept the Baathists in place.

That seems like a big 'maybe' to me. I tend to think that the animosity the
Shiites had for the way things had been (and in particular the brutal way that
Saddam put down the uprising that started after his defeat in GW1) would make them
slowly get going in the same direction they're going now. I believe the end result
would be the same.

> The Iranians surely never could've dreamed that their misinformation
> campaign via Ahmed Chalabi would work this well.

Exactly.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 19 Jan 2007 15:56:18
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 19, 6:19 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> Let's do a little test in this group.
>
> Who said, several years ago, that the war in Iraq would be a bad idea
> and could not go well? And who said that it would be a good idea, and
> therefore has proven him or herself wrong on that at least.
>
> Kurgan, myself and a bunch of other dumbasses are in the first group.
>
> Fred, where would you fit in?
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************
Not me. I NEVER thought that they could be this incompetent, corrupt,
and criminal. I bought the Kool-Aid, but to weasel a lot, Bush's
assault on the intelligence communtiy is unprecedented in US history.
That's why I'm not slamming the "liberal hawks" on this.
Clinton got killed for claiming sex isn't sex, but Bush threw away
massive amounts of intelligence to claim "Iraq is a major, immediate
threat".
IMO it's like a woman lying about her age compared to Hitler claiming
Poland attacked them.
Bill C

Date: 20 Jan 2007 22:10:11
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 19 Jan 2007 15:56:18 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:

>
>
>On Jan 19, 6:19 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
>wrote:
>> Let's do a little test in this group.
>>
>> Who said, several years ago, that the war in Iraq would be a bad idea
>> and could not go well? And who said that it would be a good idea, and
>> therefore has proven him or herself wrong on that at least.
>>
>> Kurgan, myself and a bunch of other dumbasses are in the first group.
>>
>> Fred, where would you fit in?

> Not me. I NEVER thought that they could be this incompetent, corrupt,
>and criminal. I bought the Kool-Aid, but to weasel a lot, Bush's
>assault on the intelligence communtiy is unprecedented in US history.

I've got no serious problem with people who supported the Bush war
early. I disagreed with it and them strongly, but I can understand
reasonable people being duped by that baloney.

But buying that baloney twice -- like believing the stuff coming out
of the White House and the political leadership of the DOD -- is
terrible.

>That's why I'm not slamming the "liberal hawks" on this.
> Clinton got killed for claiming sex isn't sex, but Bush threw away
>massive amounts of intelligence to claim "Iraq is a major, immediate
>threat".
> IMO it's like a woman lying about her age compared to Hitler claiming
>Poland attacked them.

Well said.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 18 Jan 2007 21:52:36
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> That it is a big deal. It's really bad if it's true. I don't want my
> government doing that. It's illegal and immol.

You sound surprised.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 21:30:53
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The surge

Robert Chung wrote:

> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>> You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
>> FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.
>
> Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?
>
>

He didn't want to sound like a nutbar.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 17 Jan 2007 23:04:39
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The surge

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>> You've been kneeling and praying to the Black Hills Gods for too long.
>> FDR was a dipshit who did nearly nothing right.

Robert Chung wrote:
> Why're you leaving out his responsibility for 9/11?

So Osama is FDR reincarnated. Instant karma is gonna get you.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 23:10:41
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The surge

ST wrote:
>
> We were ideologues in WWI & WWII shithead....
> Over there they are major flaming ideologues. Where is the same bashing??

Dumbass -

FDR wasn't an ideologue on foreign policy. He analyzed the situation
and made the correct decisions.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 19 Jan 2007 19:59:53
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I didn't say dick about you not having a right to your opinions. I DID
> say you probably don't know what you're talking about, which leads to
> the conclusion that you've probably made a knee jerk reaction not
> guided by reason. An opinion of that nature carries little, no, make
> that no weight.
>
> You can proclaim any/all opinions you want about what you think
> should/should not be done, but don't try to pass your opinions off as
> facts.

Oh come off it. You were trying to get people you don't
agree with to stop talking. Practically everything said in RBR
is an opinion, not a fact anyway; if you're worried about
naive readers being misled by us passing opinions off as
facts, you hve a lot of posts to follow up to. Or you could
just fight the opinions you don't like by posting some better,
more persuasive opinions.

I'm not sure I've actually claimed to post any facts about the
surge or counter-insurgency warfare. My hopes that
something constructive can be done have been rather dimmed
by the opinions I've read (not here, but in the papers) given
by a variety of people who _are_ counter-insurgency experts.
Fred Kagan, the guy who's been going around DC selling
the surge, is not originally known as a counter-insurgency
expert. What worries me is the possibility that this maneuver
is a desperation measure whose main effect will be to punt
the problem to the next president.

Ben

Date: 23 Jan 2007 19:49:40
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 23, 8:56 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:

> Taking that back even further, after a few disastrous losses during
> the Civil War, the North would have cut and run and the US would be
> two nations.

I'd slice my baloney a lot thinner than that, but 2 is better than 1.
You act as if a split would have been bad.

Can we get back onto peanut butter?

Date: 24 Jan 2007 16:49:12
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 23 Jan 2007 19:49:40 -0800, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com >
wrote:

>On Jan 23, 8:56 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Taking that back even further, after a few disastrous losses during
>> the Civil War, the North would have cut and run and the US would be
>> two nations.
>
>I'd slice my baloney a lot thinner than that, but 2 is better than 1.
>You act as if a split would have been bad.

Although the Civil War may have been an illegal act of aggression by
the North, I'm happy that the Union was preserved.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 03:55:49
From: Steven Bornfeld
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> On Jan 23, 8:56 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Taking that back even further, after a few disastrous losses during
>> the Civil War, the North would have cut and run and the US would be
>> two nations.
>
> I'd slice my baloney a lot thinner than that, but 2 is better than 1.
> You act as if a split would have been bad.

I'm still waiting for Staten Island to secede.

Steve

>
> Can we get back onto peanut butter?
>

Date: 23 Jan 2007 19:53:06
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1169610580.916819.55350@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote:

> On Jan 23, 8:56 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Taking that back even further, after a few disastrous losses during
> > the Civil War, the North would have cut and run and the US would be
> > two nations.
>
> I'd slice my baloney a lot thinner than that, but 2 is better than 1.
> You act as if a split would have been bad.
>
> Can we get back onto peanut butter?

There's a place in the South Bay that has honey-roasted peanuts available for
their fresh peanut butter machine. Oh my...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 23 Jan 2007 01:51:11
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>
> > Here is something that occupies much more space.
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_schema_of_replacement>
> >
> > Does size matter? You be the judge.
>
> No place else on the web for this. I'm trying to imagine the pay site that
> would push this type of content. It's in some alternate universe. Not a
> pleasant one either.

http://www.ams.org/journals/jams/

Something I have learned is that if you say "People will never
pay for X," no matter what X is, you are probably wrong.

Ben
Unless it's bike racers, because bike racers never want to
pay for anything.

Date: 23 Jan 2007 17:44:51
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1169545871.428163.259260@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:

> Something I have learned is that if you say "People will never
> pay for X," no matter what X is, you are probably wrong.
>
> Ben
> Unless it's bike racers, because bike racers never want to
> pay for anything.

Musicians are not too good at wanting to pay either.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 22 Jan 2007 15:49:47
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 22, 1:04 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <C1D964C3.2001BA...@no.com>, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
> > On 1/21/07 12:00 PM, in article
> > YOURhoward-E98E54.12005421012...@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
> > <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <45b3afeb$0$9731$ec3e2...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> > > Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Fred Fredburger wrote:
> > >>> Fred Garvin and I are pretty much opposites. For instance, he's a male
> > >>> prostitute and I'm a character from a children's cartoon show:
>
> > >> A wingnutted male prostitute ?
>
> > >http://c.perkel.com/images/gannonnude.jpg
>
> > So........
> > Are you saying being Gay is bad?!?!?!?! No, I'm suggesting that if you're a gay prostitute selling your services online,
> you should think twice about also being a shill reporter lobbing pre-spun questions
> at press conferences for the White House's benefit. You might find yourself under
> scrutiny and your whore gig (not the "reporting" one, either) outed.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Never hurt Barney Frank one bit. Different standards. The vast
majority expect Democrats to act in alternative ways so when they get
caught everyone just shrugs it off. They have been st enough not to
put themselves on pedestals, unlike the Republicans.
Bill C
Bill C

Date: 21 Jan 2007 13:02:13
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 21, 3:50 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
Gonna be some serious explaining from Hillary, Soros, and MoveOn.org
for their support for the America's Hitler!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070121/ts_nm/chavez_venezuela_us_dc

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday called
the U.S. secretary of state "my little girl" and told Washington to "go
to hell" after it questioned his plan to seek special powers to
legislate by decree.

The historical paralells in the way he's grabbing power are amazing,
and he's had the full support of some of the most powerful people in
the Democrat's sphere.
Nice job there in supporting the "hate America" dictator. He won't cut
off our oil and send it to China until after the election though.
Bill C

Date: 19 Jan 2007 20:57:59
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1169265593.318280.282090@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:

> Fred Kagan, the guy who's been going around DC selling
> the surge, is not originally known as a counter-insurgency
> expert.

I'll post this link again:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011921.php

"He has a Ph.D in history, with a focus on the 19th century Russian military. His
major scholarly book is on Napoleon from 1801-5."

> What worries me is the possibility that this maneuver
> is a desperation measure whose main effect will be to punt
> the problem to the next president.

To Bush, anything that smacks of leaving is considered "losing." So as long as
we're still there, it's "winning." Of course the surge is about postponing the
problem for someone else to seriously figure out.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 24 Jan 2007 10:51:57
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 24, 12:55 pm, Donald Munro <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Like Bob Dornan and his B-1 drive. "Well just because the fuel tanks
> > rupture when the wings are swept that doesn't mean they aren't great
> > aircraft!",I hadn't heard about that; must have been before satellite tv exported US
> scandals to the rest of us. Oddly, there doesn't seem to be much on the B1
> on google either, just references to 'B1 Dornan' in other contexts.
>
> OB Cheney and Rove, it seems some of the ducks may come home to roost:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16778317/site/newsweek/?nav=slate

Not sure how much wide play it got and I don't see much on the fuel
tanks now either. I was providing communications support for the 509th
Bomb Wing and it was rumored they were going to transition into the
B-1s. They had pilots involved in the testing program, but eventually
moved and switched to the B-2s. Lot's of "interesting" things came
through on it. It missed almost all of the original benchks, but
after lowering the standards, and later massive re-engineering and
re-fits it's basically useable, but it's also why we are still flying
and updating 50 year old B-52s to continue to do the job.
Haven't talked to any bomber pilots in ages, just transport, and A-10
guys here.
Bill C

Date: 24 Jan 2007 09:40:06
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 24, 7:53 am, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:

> One, I wouldn't hunt with Cheney because he appears to be an unsafe
> idiot when he's out there that's got nothihng to do with politics.

And I was thinking "we" were safer when Cheney was hunting than when he
was doing politics.

Sometimes it is merely about picking the lesser evil. You know, like
voting, which reminds me...

"Which asshole will hurt me least?" -- Ben Franklin, 1759

Date: 20 Jan 2007 11:45:35
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:57:59 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> To Bush, anything that smacks of leaving is considered "losing." So as long as
>we're still there, it's "winning."

One of the problems is that Americans (and other Westerners) don't
understand asymmetrical warfare. The purpose of engaging a superior
power in a limited, but sustained, conflict is to wear them down until
they quit. Obviously, the Iraqi insurgents cannot win a military
victory, but they can win a political victory if the US withdraws.
This is their aim and they are being successful.

You have to ask yourself, if the insurgents can sustain the fight, why
can't the US.

What is needed is perseverance like the British showed against the
IRA. The IRA were impossible to stop and they sustained a low level
conflict in Northern Ireland and England for 30 years. Not once did
the British ever consider abandoning Northern Ireland despite the
terrible cost. The issue or Northern Ireland was never even
considered for political debate. Eventually, it was the IRA who gave
up. That's how you win asymmetrical warfare.

No surrender.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 22:56:30
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

ST wrote:
> >
> > You're an idiot to suggest Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.
> I did not say that did I? Saddam was an enabler who was in a position to be
> pounced on with his multiple UN violations. While you Socialists may
> disagree right now just look me up in 10 years with the same arguments. When
> it comes down to it that is the kool-aid line isn't it? Did you see your
> Sugar Daddy Soros is backing Obama??
>
> >
> > You're an idiot to suggest no other country in the world has had
> > signficant terrorist attacks.
>
> Who??? Are you gonna say it depends on what your definition of is is?
> 3000+ dead and the financial damage too? Not to mention the physical damage?
> 1 event? Not over 10+ years.......

Dumbass -

The terrorists included 15 Saudis, 1 from the United Arab Emirates, and
4 Egyptians.

No Iraqis.

The Afghani war was necessary, the Iraqi war was not. Saddam Hussein
was a typical Middle Eastern despot, but he wasn't a terrorist.
Otherwise, he would've used his poison gas in the 1991 war. Osama bin
Laden would have. Saddam Hussein elected not to.

As for 9/11, most of the damage was psychological. We lose 40,000
people a year to auto accidents. 20,000 of those are from drunk
drivers. Then there's the 300,000 deaths/year which are attributed to
obesity related diseases and 400,000/year from smoking related disease.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 23 Jan 2007 15:28:58
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> ST wrote:
>>> You're an idiot to suggest Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.
>> I did not say that did I? Saddam was an enabler who was in a position to be
>> pounced on with his multiple UN violations. While you Socialists may
>> disagree right now just look me up in 10 years with the same arguments. When
>> it comes down to it that is the kool-aid line isn't it? Did you see your
>> Sugar Daddy Soros is backing Obama??
>>
>>> You're an idiot to suggest no other country in the world has had
>>> signficant terrorist attacks.
>> Who??? Are you gonna say it depends on what your definition of is is?
>> 3000+ dead and the financial damage too? Not to mention the physical damage?
>> 1 event? Not over 10+ years.......
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> The terrorists included 15 Saudis, 1 from the United Arab Emirates, and
> 4 Egyptians.
>
> No Iraqis.
>
> The Afghani war was necessary, the Iraqi war was not. Saddam Hussein
> was a typical Middle Eastern despot, but he wasn't a terrorist.
> Otherwise, he would've used his poison gas in the 1991 war. Osama bin
> Laden would have. Saddam Hussein elected not to.
>
> As for 9/11, most of the damage was psychological. We lose 40,000
> people a year to auto accidents. 20,000 of those are from drunk
> drivers. Then there's the 300,000 deaths/year which are attributed to
> obesity related diseases and 400,000/year from smoking related disease.

10000 to Katrina.

Isn't is amazing that you have to keep pointing out that Saddam Hussein
wasn't behind 9/11? The point never gets through.

In truth, I think the American public was angry and willing to
mindlessly lash out. When someone claims 9/11 as a cause of the Iraq
war, they're really just saying they think we were justified in lashing
out violently because we were pissed off and scared. After that it's
all just rationalization and denial.

Date: 23 Jan 2007 17:42:53
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <Eq-dnaR4Lf-mByvYnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:

> Isn't is amazing that you have to keep pointing out that Saddam Hussein
> wasn't behind 9/11? The point never gets through.
>
> In truth, I think the American public was angry and willing to
> mindlessly lash out. When someone claims 9/11 as a cause of the Iraq
> war, they're really just saying they think we were justified in lashing
> out violently because we were pissed off and scared. After that it's
> all just rationalization and denial.

A quote from Jonah (The Doughy Pantload) Goldberg:

"So how does all this, or the humble attempt at a history lesson of my last
column, justify tearing down the Baghdad regime? Well, I've long been an admirer of,
if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the "Ledeen Doctrine." I'm not sure
my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may
have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the
Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: "Every ten years or so, the United
States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the
wall, just to show the world we mean business." That's at least how I remember
Michael phrasing it at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute about a decade
ago (Ledeen is one of the most entertaining public speakers I've ever heard, by the
way)."

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 20 Jan 2007 13:32:56
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <u8h4r21dtg9qbdlteqp9tnc6cca0pqrrna@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> What is needed is perseverance like the British showed against the
> IRA. The IRA were impossible to stop and they sustained a low level
> conflict in Northern Ireland and England for 30 years. Not once did
> the British ever consider abandoning Northern Ireland despite the
> terrible cost. The issue or Northern Ireland was never even
> considered for political debate. Eventually, it was the IRA who gave
> up. That's how you win asymmetrical warfare.

This shows how little you understand the difference between the two
conflicts. The English have been in Northern Ireland for centuries.
They have extensive intelligence on the IRA and other republican
movements because they have had agents within these movements from day
one. The USA have been in Iraq for 3-4 years, only have military
personnel there, plus a few contractors and other mercenaries. They are
just beginning to have a few folks there who actually speak the
language. Their understanding of local ethnic, tribal, and religious
conflicts is lousy at best. If the USA were to stick in Iraq for
another 20 years, working at infiltrating the various insurgent
movements, then the kind of thing that you propose might have the
glimmer of a chance. But in a year or 2, no way!

jyh.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 12:33:41
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 24, 1:51 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
It missed almost all of the original benchks, but
> after lowering the standards, and later massive re-engineering and
> re-fits it's basically useable, but it's also why we are still flying
> and updating 50 year old B-52s to continue to do the job.
> Haven't talked to any bomber pilots in ages, just transport, and A-10
> guys here.
> Bill C

Some background:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-1.htm
Here'a a little on it's history:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/011212-attack02.htm

It's actually doing better than I thought it was, looks like they are
getting an OK handle on it by their standards:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b-1b.htm

The Air Force projects that the entire B-1B fleet will reach a
75-percent mission capable rate by 2000 by virtue of numerous on-going
and future reliability, maintainability, and management initiatives.
However, as of mid-October 1999 the Air Force wide mission capable rate
of the B-1 had fallen to 51.1 percent -- mainly because of maintenance
problems and a shortage of parts. Over the previous 12 months, the
Kansas Guard had maintained a mission capable rate of 71.1 percent for
the 10 usable aircraft assigned to it. Overall, the B-1B had mission
capable rates of 51 percent to 62 percent in FY'00 and FY'01, below the
goal of 75-percent.

Sounds like the guys in Kansas had a batch of "Hangar Queens" available
to make the rate. I'd guess that the 50 % is pretty standard when they
are actually being flown regularly, and I'd bet it nosedived after
being used in combat for lack of spares, but that'd be classified. They
are being pretty coy about just what the B-1 actually did and stuck to
figures for the "Bomber force", leads me to think that ather than the
first few days, and some show video, the b-52s carried the workload.
Bill C

Date: 20 Jan 2007 14:59:24
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 13:32:56 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu >
wrote:

>This shows how little you understand the difference between the two
>conflicts. The English have been in Northern Ireland for centuries.

This didn't prevent them from giving up the rest of Ireland in 1920.

>They have extensive intelligence on the IRA and other republican
>movements because they have had agents within these movements from day
>one.

Nevertheless, this did not prevent the IRA from waging a terrorist
campaign in NI and England that lasted 30 years.

>The USA have been in Iraq for 3-4 years, only have military
>personnel there, plus a few contractors and other mercenaries. They are
>just beginning to have a few folks there who actually speak the
>language. Their understanding of local ethnic, tribal, and religious
>conflicts is lousy at best. If the USA were to stick in Iraq for
>another 20 years, working at infiltrating the various insurgent
>movements, then the kind of thing that you propose might have the
>glimmer of a chance. But in a year or 2, no way!

Exactly. The problem is that Americans live in the microwave, Fed Ex
world and expect things to happen fast. In addition, the political
situation in the US is such that one side is willing to use the war as
a political issue to gain power. The US is a house divided against
itself and the enemy knows this.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 13:23:01
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

> Exactly. The problem is that Americans live in the microwave, Fed Ex
> world and expect things to happen fast.

This is true across any political, ethnic or cultural divide you can name.

> In addition, the political
> situation in the US is such that one side is willing to use the war as
> a political issue to gain power.

Really? And the other side does what?

Near as I can tell, the war and 9/11 have been used by used by ALL
politicians in any way that will benefit them. And I don't mind that.
Acting in your own self interest is the American way.

Date: 20 Jan 2007 15:08:44
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <jls4r2tlb436dmen4rcib92bused8kbi17@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> Exactly. The problem is that Americans live in the microwave, Fed Ex
> world and expect things to happen fast. In addition, the political
> situation in the US is such that one side is willing to use the war as
> a political issue to gain power. The US is a house divided against
> itself and the enemy knows this.

Well, if the folks in power were as st as they pretend to be they
would have known that as well. It's pretty stupid to get involved into
a fight that you don't need to get into when all you have for you is the
hope of a lucky punch because you can't last more than 2-3 rounds.

jyh.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:06:51
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:08:44 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu >
wrote:

>Well, if the folks in power were as st as they pretend to be they
>would have known that as well. It's pretty stupid to get involved into
>a fight that you don't need to get into when all you have for you is the
>hope of a lucky punch because you can't last more than 2-3 rounds.

A better analogy would be that the people in the US think they're in a
100 yard sprint when in fact they're in a athon race.

Basically, the US won the war because the major goal was to remove
Saddam and his sons from power. However, the US is not doing that
well in the nation building phase after the war.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 14:48:42
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 3, 7:42 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> [rant snipped]
>
> http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/kool_aid.jpg

This is all very shocking! Who would have ever thought "we" would not
get a good bang for our buck, or even an honest assessment of the
bucks, from the guvmint, of all things?! Who has ever heard of such
cost overruns???!!!! Who has ever heard of such dishonesty???!!!!
{laughs}

Because humans have a bad nature, "we" need to control that bad nature
by concentrating it via a monopoly of force: guvmint. That makes
perfect sense, if one is a glue sniffer.

http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3237

Date: 04 Feb 2007 08:44:57
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 3, 10:10 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1170547351.535845.220270@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 6:34 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:YOURhoward-4F3333.22194202022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> >> > In article <n_Mwh.18306$yx6.5...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> >> The real corruption in this country is you and people like you.
>
> >> >> When soldiers are on the battlefield it is normal for officers to want
> >> >> something immediately without delays and that means that everything
> >> >> cost
> >> >> twice as much. But of course when you are a cowardly backstabbing SOB
> >> >> incapable of doing anything yourself save criticizing those who do
> >> >> things
> >> >> perhaps it's only normal to not understand even the very basics of
> >> >> supply
> >> >> and demand.
>
> >> > Yeah, those dirty bastards in the GAO who made that report don't know
> >> > a
> >> > damn
> >> > thing about supply and demand.
>
> >> The GAO has a DIFFERENT set of rules and priorities than officers in the
> >> field. I'm sure that you aren't aware of that since you obviously spend
> >> most
> >> of your life in a drunken slumber or some such.
>
> >> The real problem is that when these priorities contradict each other you
> >> Liberal SOB's want it both ways. You want to scream that the
> >> administration
> >> isn't doing things FAST ENOUGH. Note the screaming headlines about how
> >> IMPROVED BODY ARMOR WOULD SAVE THE TROOPS (of course the "improved" body
> >> armor was 10 lbs heavier and once it got there no one would use it) or
> >> that
> >> IT'S BUSH'S FAULT BECAUSE THE HUMVEES DON'T HAVE THE NEW IMPROVED ARMOR"
> >> (again the added weight was a handicap but then that's no skin off of
> >> your
> >> nose is it?).
>
> >> And when the administration OK's fast-as-possible contracts you want to
> >> scream "CORRUPTION" without knowing one thing about it.
>
> >> You never managed to graduate to "man" and by now it's pretty plain you
> >> never will.
>
> > Do your homework. Dragon skin is lighter, more flexible, cooler, and
> > stops penetration better. That's what the Department of Justice says
> > about it.
>
> You are really a piece of work aren't you? "Army officials told The
> Associated Press on Thursday the order was prompted by concerns that
> soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial
> armor from private companies - including the popular Dragon Skin gear made
> by California-based Pinnacle Armor."
>
> The military issue is Interceptor Body Armor and contains solid ceramic
> plates all around it. These things are hot and heavy and clumsy and make it
> difficult for soldiers to move around in a combat situation. Many soldiers
> in the field do not wear armor if they're given the option because they feel
> that dodging a bullet is better than hoping body armor will stop a round.
>
> Now would you explain to me why you decided to ignore the point of the
> message and try to impugn one of the points instead? Do you suppose that
> makes your mewling less cowardly?
>
> I suppose now you'll tell us that Man Made Global Warming is like a SURE
> THING. Just ask Al Gore!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Tom I've beat this to death here citing sources such as SFTT, Janes,
Military.com, etc...The Pentagon is being investigated on this by the
GAO, Congress, and the DOJ. For fraud, perjury, etc...
I'm not even going to bother arguing with you. You sem to have not
only drank the Kool-Aid that the Pentagon is perfect and Bush is
totally right on everything, but are cooking up more for others.
In case you missed it even Bush said it's not unpatriotic to question
what's going on.:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250157,00.html
Quoted:

Seeking to earn his bipartisan stripes, he also said that opposing him
on the war - as many in the room do - does not mean "you don't share
the same sense of patriotism I do."

"You know, I welcome debate in a time of war and I hope you know
that," the president said. "These are tough times, but there's no
doubt in my mind that you want to secure this homeland as much as I
do."

Now if only you could be as open to discussion as Bush and Cheney.
Bill C

Date: 04 Feb 2007 14:22:39
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Bill C wrote:

> Now if only you could be as open to discussion as Bush and Cheney.
> Bill C

Hmmm ... looks like you're gonna need some heavy equipment to get that
tongue out of your cheek.

Date: 04 Feb 2007 08:13:04
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 3, 9:10 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

(If I get the attribution right, Kunich said, earlier):
> >> >> The real corruption in this country is you and people like you.

Klassic Kunich name calling with a mighty broad brush. I think we
could look at some recent trials and sentencing to find "real
corruption" in official circles. Cunningham, Abramoff.

>From Wiki:

<Abramoff was a top lobbyist for the Preston Gates & Ellis and
Greenberg Traurig firms (see Team Abramoff) and a director of the
National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank,
and Toward Tradition, a religious right organization, during his
criminal enterprise. He was College Republican National Committee
National Chairman from 1981 to 1985. He was a founding member of the
International Freedom Foundation, an "anti-communist think tank" which
operated from 1986 to 1993. >

Also, same source:
<His prison sentence was the minimum permitted under a plea bargain
with federal prosecutors, in part because of his purported cooperation
in the federal investigation and also because over 100 influential
political allies-some very recognizable names in American public policy
-wrote the sentencing judge on Abramoff's behalf, urging leniency. In
October 2006, over six months after his sentencing, he was ordered by
a federal judge to report to federal prison by November 15, 2006. >

That list of "influential political allies" would be fertile ground
for investigation into corruption, I'm guessing.

Corruption, TK? Here ya go:

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html

> >> >> When soldiers are on the battlefield it is normal for officers to want
> >> >> something immediately without delays and that means that everything
> >> >> cost
> >> >> twice as much. But of course when you are a cowardly backstabbing SOB
> >> >> incapable of doing anything yourself save criticizing those who do
> >> >> things
> >> >> perhaps it's only normal to not understand even the very basics of
> >> >> supply
> >> >> and demand.

Cowardly? Tell us about your military career again, TK. Fueling planes
in Guam? Mighty big talk from someone who avoided dangerous duty
himself.

You've got a fair amount of company, most of whom have far grander
verandas to speak from than this poor little old newsgroup:

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks

(More Klassic TK):
> >> The GAO has a DIFFERENT set of rules and priorities than officers in the
> >> field. I'm sure that you aren't aware of that since you obviously spend
> >> most
> >> of your life in a drunken slumber or some such.

The body armor issued to troops, and some worse than others, was
deemed inadequate by the Army itself. See news artlcle linked to,
below.

> >> The real problem is that when these priorities contradict each other you
> >> Liberal SOB's want it both ways. You want to scream that the
> >> administration
> >> isn't doing things FAST ENOUGH. Note the screaming headlines about how
> >> IMPROVED BODY ARMOR WOULD SAVE THE TROOPS (of course the "improved" body
> >> armor was 10 lbs heavier and once it got there no one would use it) or
> >> that
> >> IT'S BUSH'S FAULT BECAUSE THE HUMVEES DON'T HAVE THE NEW IMPROVED ARMOR"
> >> (again the added weight was a handicap but then that's no skin off of
> >> your
> >> nose is it?).

Well, there we have a "conservative" SOB wanting it "both ways". Blame
the "liberals" for complaining about a real problem, blame them again
for complaining about the high cost of fixing the problem (see
"corruption", above; where are the billions and billions going when
the troops don't have the best body armor available?), blame the
"liberal press" for its "screaming headlines" when the press was,
basically, reporting another screw-up by the jokers at Bushco, and
then, the topper(s), a wild-ass claim that the body armor and vehicle
armor are liabilities in the field, so the soldiers won't wear the
better body armor (or presumably use the Humvee armor) in the first
place. And then, the "skin off your nose" comment-- "liberals don't
care about the soldiers", when in fact, the uproar is about providing
better personal protection (incl. vehicle armor) in service of the
safety of the soldiers in the field.

This administration is taking so many hits in so many ways, all of
them deserved, that I can understand your frantic "kill them all"
attempt to defend those you so foolishly love. But you're tripping all
over your... self here.

> >> You never managed to graduate to "man" and by now it's pretty plain you
> >> never will.

Did you graduate in jail after slapping your girlfriend? Or some
other, later time? Tell us about it.

> You are really a piece of work aren't you? "Army officials told The
> Associated Press on Thursday the order was prompted by concerns that
> soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial
> armor from private companies - including the popular Dragon Skin gear made
> by California-based Pinnacle Armor."
>
> The military issue is Interceptor Body Armor and contains solid ceramic
> plates all around it. These things are hot and heavy and clumsy and make it
> difficult for soldiers to move around in a combat situation. Many soldiers
> in the field do not wear armor if they're given the option because they feel
> that dodging a bullet is better than hoping body armor will stop a round.
>
> Now would you explain to me why you decided to ignore the point of the
> message and try to impugn one of the points instead? Do you suppose that
> makes your mewling less cowardly?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12088141/

That story is a year old. Soldiers, especially reservists, were not
being issued the best body armor available by the Army. So families,
others were buying body armor. It was yet another scandal involving
the Bush Administration's running of the "war" they stupidly started.
At the time of the above story, the Army had only recently started
adding side plates to their issue body armor, after their own study
showed that "dozens" of soldiers' lives could have been saved by
wearing said side armor. The Pinnacle-mfg'd Dragon Skins, as of ch
of last year, had apparently been tested in some fashion, and was said
to be lacking in protection from some kinds of small-arms fire similar
or same as what troops in Iraq were/are being subjected to. Pinnacle
had not yet, as of ch of last year, supplied the Army with the 30
sets the Army had requested for (apparently) a more formal round of
testing.

To restate, the "side plates" would seem to be a fairly recent
addition to Army-issue body armor, and that only for those lucky
enough to be issued "current, best" stuff.

Where did you go to fester, TK? Someplace dark, moist, and warm? --D-y

Date: 06 Feb 2007 20:45:42
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 6, 8:25 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:04:49 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
>
>
>
>
>
> <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:56:31 -0500, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:01:08 -0800, Howard Kveck
> >><YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >>>The point of Tommy's post was to imply that the Democrats got donations from
> >>>Abramoff. They didn't get them from him or from people who were clients of him at
> >>>his direction. Abramoff is a 100% Republican problem. His donations and the ones he
> >>>directed were always to Republicans.
>
> >>Absolutely not. The Democrats got over 3/4 of a million dollars from
> >>Abramoff and his clients from 1999 to 2004. Abramoff directed every
> >>penny of it.
>
> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/12/GR200...
>
> >Your statement that Abramoff directed the contributions to Democrats
> >is a baloney.
>
> >And you're a tool. But you know that.
>
> If you want to deny the truth, go ahead, but Abramoff gave and
> directed millions of dollars to Democrats and Democratic
> organizations.
>
> Here's a quote directly from the Washington Post article I linked
> documenting where all the money went.
>
> "The Justice Department is investigating the dealings of former
> lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who collected tens of millions of dollars in
> fees from casino-rich Indian tribes and directed the tribes to make
> contributions to dozens of lawmakers and political groups. The chart
> below reflect 1999-2004 contributions by Abramoff, his tribal clients
> and the lobbyists that make up team Abramoff."
>
> Did you miss this part of the article?
>
> About 35% of the money directed by Abramoff went to Democrats.
>
> Here's another Washington Post article documenting Abramoff's
> connections to Democrats. I'll include a link if you want to read the
> entire article.
>
> "Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations
> Abramoff Issue's Fallout May Extend Beyond the GOP
>
> By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek Willis
> Washington Post Staff Writers
> Friday, June 3, 2005; A01
>
> Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million
> in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and
> devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers
> to act on their clients' behalf.
>
> But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of
> two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included
> many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff
> directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican
> legislators.

<snip >

Dumbass -

One of the things that distinguished Abramoff was that he sometimes
stiffed his donors (like the Indian tribes).

I'd be pretty surprised if he stiffed anyone from the Republican power
base, but if he did, please post the link. I'd like to see it.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 20:41:35
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 6, 9:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> Here's the real kicker - from about 600 until 1400 or so there was an
> extremely warm earth period - MUCH warmer than today. Enough warmer that
> co Polo was on a Chinese "Voyage of Discovery" and noted in his diaries
> that at one point the North Star was almost directly opposite the magnetic
> pole. There's only ONE place he could have been and that was north of the
> magnetic pole in what is now the Northwest Passage. He recorded no ice
> whatsoever whereas throughout American history this has been frozen over
> accessible only to ice breakers.

Wow, Kunich, even for you that's batshit crazy. co Polo
was sailing with the Chinese though the Northwest Passage?

> To tell you the truth, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm about to retire
> and I have enough savings to live my life out comfortably if not carelessly.
> You and your Liberal buddies are turning this country into a totalitarian
> state in which the government has control and responsibility for everything.
> I only hope your children appreciate the Big Brother you've all invented.

Dumbass, most of the people raising an alarm about global
warming aren't going to live long enough to see the extreme
effects either. None of the authors of the IPCC report will
be around in 2100. They're oppressing you out of genuine
disinterested worry, not selfish liberal plotting.

Carbon taxes, FWIW, are not a totalitarian scheme (except to
Greg White because he doesn't believe in taxes). They are
a ket incentive. If you replace N dollars in random income
and consumption taxes with N dollars in carbon taxes, you
don't increase the totalitarian tax burden, you just make it
favor an environmentally desirable outcome. This is why even
hardcore free-ket economists think this would be a good
idea, if it could be sold politically.

Of course, the real question we need to answer before signing
onto carbon taxes is what it would do to the price of high-end
Fat Master bicycles.

Ben

Date: 07 Feb 2007 10:54:33
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> Of course, the real question we need to answer before signing
> onto carbon taxes is what it would do to the price of high-end
> Fat Master bicycles.

Don't worry, we'll all get old fashioned steel Bianchi's instead.

Date: 04 Feb 2007 21:46:47
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Abramoff? You mean the same guy who paid money to:

Patty Murray (D-Wash) - $40,980
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) - $32,000
Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) - $31,000
Harry Reid (D-Nev) - $30,500
Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) - $28,000
Tom Daschle (D-SD) - $26,500
Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) - $18,300
Chris John (D-La) - $15,000
Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - $14,500
John Breaux (D-La) - $13,750
y L. Landrieu (D-La) - $11,500
Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) - $11,000
Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) - $10,500
Barney Frank (D-Mass) - $9,000
Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) - $9,000
Max Baucus (D-Mont) - $9,000
Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) - $8,500
Dick Durbin (D-Ill) - $8,000
Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) - $6,000
Nick Rahall (D-WVa) - $6,000
Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) - $5,000
Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - $5,000
Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) - $5,000
Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) - $5,000
Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) - $5,000
Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) - $4,523
Tim Johnson (D-SD) - $4,250
Kent Conrad (D-ND) - $4,000
ia Cantwell (D-Wash) - $3,000
Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) - $3,000
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) - $3,000
Richard M. Romero (D-NM) - $3,000
Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) - $3,000
John B. Larson (D-Conn) - $3,000
James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) - $3,000
Brad Sherman (D-Calif) - $3,000
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) - $2,500
Max Cleland (D-Ga) - $2,500
Gene Taylor (D-Miss) - $2,250
Doug Dodd (D-Okla) - $2,000
Jay Inslee (D-Wash) - $2,000
John D. Dingell (D-Mich) - $2,000
Joe Baca (D-Calif) - $2,000
Carl Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) - $2,000
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) - $2,000
Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) - $2,000
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - $2,000
Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) - $2,000
Rodney Alexander (D-La) - $2,000
Sander Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
Ron Kind (D-Wis) - $2,000
Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) - $2,000
Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) - $2,000
Willie Landry Mount (D-La) - $2,000
Tom Carper (D-Del) - $2,000
Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) - $2,000
Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) - $2,000
Maxine Waters (D-Calif) - $2,000
Ned Doucet (D-La) - $2,000
John Neely Kennedy (D-La) - $2,000
Lane Evans (D-Ill) - $2,000
Norm Dicks (D-Wash) - $1,500
Rick Weiland (D-SD) - $1,000
Ron Wyden (D-Ore) - $1,000
Tim Holden (D-Pa) - $1,000
William J. Jefferson (D-La) - $1,000
Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) - $1,000
Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) - $1,000
Pete Stark (D-Calif) - $1,000
Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) - $1,000
Mike Thompson (D-Calif) - $1,000
David Phelps (D-Ill) - $1,000
Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) - $1,000
Charles S. Robb (D-Va) - $1,000
Bill Luther (D-Minn) - $1,000
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) - $1,000
Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) - $1,000
Charles J. Melancon (D-La) - $1,000
Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) - $1,000
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) - $1,000
Gloria Tristani (D-NM) - $1,000
Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) - $1,000
Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) - $1,000
Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) - $1,000
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - $1,000
Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) - $500
John Kerry (D-Mass) - $500
Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) - $500
Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) - $500

That Jack Abramoff?

Date: 04 Feb 2007 21:12:27
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <bvsxh.24403$X72.1966@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> Abramoff? You mean the same guy who paid money to:

(enormous snip of nonrelated propaganda)

> That Jack Abramoff?

What you fail to comprehend is that those donations weren't from Abramoff. The
tribes that he was working with were (prior to working with him) spending lobbying
money with both Republicans and Democrats. After he was hired the donations to Dems
were greatly reduced (or dropped). To try to claim that any donations that those
tribes made to Dems after they'd hired Abramoff is ridiculous on the face of it.
Abramoff was a hardcore REPUBLICAN from his days in college. If you weren't such an
ideologue you'd be able to understand that quite easily.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 03 Feb 2007 16:02:31
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 3, 6:34 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>
> news:YOURhoward-4F3333.22194202022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> > In article <n_Mwh.18306$yx6.5...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> The real corruption in this country is you and people like you.
>
> >> When soldiers are on the battlefield it is normal for officers to want
> >> something immediately without delays and that means that everything cost
> >> twice as much. But of course when you are a cowardly backstabbing SOB
> >> incapable of doing anything yourself save criticizing those who do things
> >> perhaps it's only normal to not understand even the very basics of supply
> >> and demand.
>
> > Yeah, those dirty bastards in the GAO who made that report don't know a
> > damn
> > thing about supply and demand.
>
> The GAO has a DIFFERENT set of rules and priorities than officers in the
> field. I'm sure that you aren't aware of that since you obviously spend most
> of your life in a drunken slumber or some such.
>
> The real problem is that when these priorities contradict each other you
> Liberal SOB's want it both ways. You want to scream that the administration
> isn't doing things FAST ENOUGH. Note the screaming headlines about how
> IMPROVED BODY ARMOR WOULD SAVE THE TROOPS (of course the "improved" body
> armor was 10 lbs heavier and once it got there no one would use it) or that
> IT'S BUSH'S FAULT BECAUSE THE HUMVEES DON'T HAVE THE NEW IMPROVED ARMOR"
> (again the added weight was a handicap but then that's no skin off of your
> nose is it?).
>
> And when the administration OK's fast-as-possible contracts you want to
> scream "CORRUPTION" without knowing one thing about it.
>
> You never managed to graduate to "man" and by now it's pretty plain you
> never will.

Do your homework. Dragon skin is lighter, more flexible, cooler, and
stops penetration better. That's what the Department of Justice says
about it.
Bill C

Date: 04 Feb 2007 03:10:06
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1170547351.535845.220270@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 3, 6:34 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:YOURhoward-4F3333.22194202022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>>
>> > In article <n_Mwh.18306$yx6.5...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> >> The real corruption in this country is you and people like you.
>>
>> >> When soldiers are on the battlefield it is normal for officers to want
>> >> something immediately without delays and that means that everything
>> >> cost
>> >> twice as much. But of course when you are a cowardly backstabbing SOB
>> >> incapable of doing anything yourself save criticizing those who do
>> >> things
>> >> perhaps it's only normal to not understand even the very basics of
>> >> supply
>> >> and demand.
>>
>> > Yeah, those dirty bastards in the GAO who made that report don't know
>> > a
>> > damn
>> > thing about supply and demand.
>>
>> The GAO has a DIFFERENT set of rules and priorities than officers in the
>> field. I'm sure that you aren't aware of that since you obviously spend
>> most
>> of your life in a drunken slumber or some such.
>>
>> The real problem is that when these priorities contradict each other you
>> Liberal SOB's want it both ways. You want to scream that the
>> administration
>> isn't doing things FAST ENOUGH. Note the screaming headlines about how
>> IMPROVED BODY ARMOR WOULD SAVE THE TROOPS (of course the "improved" body
>> armor was 10 lbs heavier and once it got there no one would use it) or
>> that
>> IT'S BUSH'S FAULT BECAUSE THE HUMVEES DON'T HAVE THE NEW IMPROVED ARMOR"
>> (again the added weight was a handicap but then that's no skin off of
>> your
>> nose is it?).
>>
>> And when the administration OK's fast-as-possible contracts you want to
>> scream "CORRUPTION" without knowing one thing about it.
>>
>> You never managed to graduate to "man" and by now it's pretty plain you
>> never will.
>
> Do your homework. Dragon skin is lighter, more flexible, cooler, and
> stops penetration better. That's what the Department of Justice says
> about it.

You are really a piece of work aren't you? "Army officials told The
Associated Press on Thursday the order was prompted by concerns that
soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial
armor from private companies - including the popular Dragon Skin gear made
by California-based Pinnacle Armor."

The military issue is Interceptor Body Armor and contains solid ceramic
plates all around it. These things are hot and heavy and clumsy and make it
difficult for soldiers to move around in a combat situation. Many soldiers
in the field do not wear armor if they're given the option because they feel
that dodging a bullet is better than hoping body armor will stop a round.

Now would you explain to me why you decided to ignore the point of the
message and try to impugn one of the points instead? Do you suppose that
makes your mewling less cowardly?

I suppose now you'll tell us that Man Made Global Warming is like a SURE
THING. Just ask Al Gore!

Date: 06 Feb 2007 20:50:49
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 6, 7:56 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:01:08 -0800, Howard Kveck
>
> <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> >The point of Tommy's post was to imply that the Democrats got donations from
> >Abramoff. They didn't get them from him or from people who were clients of him at
> >his direction. Abramoff is a 100% Republican problem. His donations and the ones he
> >directed were always to Republicans.
>
> Absolutely not. The Democrats got over 3/4 of a million dollars from
> Abramoff and his clients from 1999 to 2004. Abramoff directed every
> penny of it.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/12/GR200...

That graphic shows how much Abramoff and his clients gave,
and it shows what fraction of the money went to Ds and Rs,
but it doesn't show individually how Abramoff's money or the
tribes' money was split among D and R. Nor does it show any
sign that Abramoff directed all of the tribes' money. I suspect
it is quite likely that the tribes donated money to both D and R
independent of Abramoff's direction as well as to people he
specifically directed. I also suspect that there are email
trails documenting many of the donations he directed.

There's a lot of corruption in the Fedgov at the sort of
wink-and-nod level on both sides. However, Abramoff was
especially blatant, and Abramoff was very much identified
as part of the Republican machinery. That doesn't excuse
Democrats, but it is a hard fact to get away from for the
congressional Republicans.

Ben

Date: 06 Feb 2007 15:48:03
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 6, 6:45 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 10:50 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:1170772393.328051.311800@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Basically what we had even 10 years ago wasn't even close to adequate
> > > for any modern design bunker. Now we can get to most. This just means
> > > they dig deeper and pour more concrete. It's not like Iran is short on
> > > money or German, French, or Russian engineers to help design and build
> > > better bunkers.
>
> > Consider this Bill - in 1967 when I got out of the Air Force I went to work
> > at a local laboratory working with high energy nuclear research. One of the
> > other projects there was a high speed gun. At that time the Russians had
> > just claimed a world record for the fastest projectile ever shot out of a
> > gun. Ours was secret so it was never touted to the press but the projectile
> > came out of the barrel at 30milespersecond. Got that? We could shoot a
> > projectile faster than escape velocity FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM. We were two
> > orders of magnitude faster than the Russians.
>
> > If you believe that the capability of the American weapons is something you
> > can read on the Internet you're really fooling yourself.
>
> http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_RailGuns,,00....
>
> An EM projector (i.e. rail gun) uses electrical energy to accelerate
> projectiles to extreme velocities. How fast? Tests conducted at the
> University of Canberra were able to accelerate a 16-gram projectile
> down a 5 meter barrel at 250,000 gravities, for a muzzle velocity of
> 5,900 meters per second. Loosely translated, that's an acceleration
> from 0 to 13,000 miles per hour in the span of 0.2 seconds, not bad
> even for Superman. This also translates to an enormous amount of
> kinetic energy, at a fraction of the mass needed for a normal bullet
>
> Although the principles behind rail gun technology have been well
> documented and understood for nearly 50 years now, challenges remain
> in building a reliable, effective, and efficient EM gun. When an
> electrical current is passed through non-super conductive material, a
> fraction of that current is converted to heat by the impedance of the
> conductive material. Given the huge amounts of energy involved (even
> when energized for only milliseconds), the heat generated by a rail
> gun would be enough to melt the gun's rails, if used often enough. If
> EM guns are going to serve as practical battlefield weapons, a means
> of cooling them (cryogenically or otherwise) or of improving the super-
> conductivity of the rails must be found.
>
> Let's see 30 miles per second is 30 X 60seconds x 60 minutes =
> 108,000mph or more than 8 times what these labs are currently
> struggling with.
> Why are we funding this and working on it if you had the answers in
> the 1970s? Just a smoke screen?
> Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Forgot this paragraph:

The challenges facing the development of rail guns as a practical,
widespread weapon are hefty, but as better super conductive materials
are researched, they come closer and closer to becoming a reality. And
with the speeds that EM power can provide, you can try running, but
you sure can't hide.

Obviously it's all a cover-up!
Bill C

Date: 06 Feb 2007 14:33:48
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 6, 2:58 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Here's the score asshole (snip)

CUE THE MIRROR (excuse me), and up yours, dildo.

>- I'm sick and tired of morons such as yourself
> portraying yourself as experts on everything

Cue the mirror...

> because you read a newspaper
> article. You small narrowminded freaks actually believe that knowledge is
> all acting like you know everything about anything.

Again. Turn the lights up, maybe that will help.

> Well, I've had more than a little experience at a very wide range of things
> and I don't pretend for one second that I can outguess the President and his
> staff,

You don't have to pretend, and it's not guessing, either.

> nor pretend that because it was warm for a couple of summers that the
> end of the world is coming.

No one said the end of the world is coming. Well, except maybe the End
Times whackos. You know, the power behind our Mideast foreign policy,
vital so the abomination can stand in the rebuilt temple, and so
forth.

> I'll leave that to you ex-spurts.

There (level of scientific expertise) I'll agree. Have you noticed the
great advance in predicting the end of the Earth/second coming-- just
leaving out the "date" part? It really helps the swirl, when you don't
have to be specific on the exact day/hour. Hal Lindsey has been
profiting greatly, not just lately, but for what, 40 years now? Kind
of agrees with the "no man knows" stuff in the xtian bible, too.
Smooth! --D-y

Date: 27 Jan 2007 14:48:30
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 27, 5:34=C2=A0pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:

Raging commie site:http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?
> section=3D104&article=3D41292&archive=3Dtrue
> =C2=A0Bill C
Link doesn't work and it's a DOD site which we pay for already so=20
here's the article:
GAO report says contractors in Iraq lack military oversight

By Joseph Giordono, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Friday, December 22, 2006

The Pentagon faces continuing problems =C2=A1X including problems=20
identified in a similar 2003 report =C2=A1X overseeing and managing the=20
thousands of civilian contractors supporting the wars in Iraq and=20
Afghanistan, a new report from the Government Accountability Office=20
has found.

The GAO report, dated Dec. 18, faulted the military for:

=C6=92=C3=9EHaving =C2=A1=C2=A7limited visibility=C2=A1=C2=A8 over contract=
or operations because=20
there is no central agency or office tracking contractor numbers.=20
=C2=A1=C2=A7For example,=C2=A1=C2=A8 the report reads, =C2=A1=C2=A7when Mul=
ti-National Force-Iraq=20
began to develop a base consolidation plan, officials were unable to=20
determine how many contractors were deployed to bases in Iraq.=C2=A1=C2=A8

=C6=92=C3=9ELack of contract oversight, preventing the Pentagon from gettin=
g=20
=C2=A1=C2=A7assurance that contractors are meeting contract requirements=20
efficiently and effectively at each location where work is being=20
performed.=C2=A1=C2=A8

=C6=92=C3=9ELack of training for servicemembers on how to work with, and ta=
ke=20
advantage of, services contractors can provide. =C2=A1=C2=A7The lack of tra=
ining=20
hinders the ability of military commanders to adequately plan for the=20
use of contractor support and inhibits the ability of contract=20
oversight personnel to manage and oversee contracts.=C2=A1=C2=A8

The report comes a few weeks after a military =C2=A1=C2=A7census=C2=A1=C2=
=A8 in Iraq put=20
the number of private government contractors now in Iraq at 100,000=20
people. That figure includes Americans, Iraqis and so-called =C2=A1=C2=A7th=
ird=20
country nationals=C2=A1=C2=A8 who work as anything from security personnel =
and=20
dining hall staffers to interpreters for American military forces.=20
Some 600 contractors have been killed in Iraq.

According to the GAO, an estimated 9,200 contractors supported the=20
1991 Gulf War.

In the new report, GAO researchers were told by military field=20
commanders that the problems include delays in getting spare parts and=20
maintenance to soldiers in the field. Many of the high-tech tools used=20
on the battlefield are serviced by civilian technicians.

The problems also include millions of dollars in waste.

For example, the report found, the Army estimates that up to $43=20
million each year is lost due to contractors eating free meals while=20
also receiving a per diem for food.

The security situation compounds the problem. A contracting official=20
responsible for overseeing 27 camps in Iraq was unable to visit all of=20
the camps during his six months in Iraq. =C2=A1=C2=A7As a result,=C2=A1=C2=
=A8 the report=20
reads, =C2=A1=C2=A7he could not effectively monitor the contractors=C2=A1=
=C2=A6=20
performance at those sites.=C2=A1=C2=A8

Combat commanders also complained of having to use soldiers as escorts=20
for a larger number of contractors than expected.

As a result, the report found, commanders were =C2=A1=C2=A7surprised by the=20
substantial portion of their personnel they were required to allocate=20
as escorts; personnel they had expected to be available to perform=20
other functions.=C2=A1=C2=A8

The GAO conducted a similar study in 2003 =C2=A1X focusing on the Balkans=20
=C2=A1X after which the agency made similar recommendations for the=20
Pentagon to improve the situation. But, according to the new report,=20
the problems remain because the Pentagon =C2=A1=C2=A7has not allocated the=20
organizational resources and accountability to focus on issues=20
regarding contractor support to deployed forces.=C2=A1=C2=A8

The full report can be found at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d07145.pdf.
Bill C

Date: 27 Jan 2007 14:34:28
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 24, 10:42 am, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:

Cheney's been instrumental in sending thousands of Americans to their
> deaths.
>
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Wanna bet how far this goes?:
http://tinyurl.com/2kzlh2
Army probes war contractor fraud
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - From high-dollar fraud to conspiracy to bribery and bid
rigging, Army investigators have opened up to 50 criminal probes
involving battlefield contractors in the war in Iraq and the
U.S. fight against terrorism, The Associated Press has learned.
Senior contracting officials, government employees, residents of
other countries and, in some cases, U.S. military personnel have been
implicated in millions of dollars of fraud allegations.

Looks like Tricky Dick 2 has some more covering up to do. Frankly the
CID has no shot at anyone other than low level types and companies,
and those without serious senior level protection.
The GAO already found that we were getting screwed big time by the
big name, connected contractors ansd Rumsfeld and Bush ordered them
payed anyway.

Lots of stuff here with links:
http://www.followthemoneyproject.org/id1.html
Solid Government stuff here:
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=926
Raging commie site:
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?
section=104&article=41292&archive=true
Bill C

Date: 06 Feb 2007 02:10:50
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 5, 8:24 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> So what they do is ASSUME values for most of the unknowns. If you assume one
> set of values you get a warming trend, if you assume others you get a
> cooling trend. NOT ONE of the models can explain the temperature variations
> we know occurred in the last 2000 years. The warming trend which ran from
> about 600 to about 1300 nor the Little Ice Age that followed. So what are
> the global warming industry saying about these large variations? - They
> never happened! Well, I know I'm certainly going to pay a lot of attention
> to them.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle
>
> He served in the US Army during the Korean War. After Korea, he obtained
> advanced degrees in psychology, statistics, engineering, and political
> science, including two PhDs.
>
> Pournelle was an intellectual protege of Russell Kirk (Kenneth Cole,
> Pournelle's mentor at the University of Washington, was co-founder with Kirk
> of Modern Age) and Stefan T. Possony with whom Pournelle wrote numerous
> publications including The Strategy of Technology, onetime textbook at the
> United States Military Academy (West Point) and the United States Air Force
> Academy (Colorado Springs). His work in the aerospace industry includes
> editing Project 75, a 1964 study of 1975 defense requirements. He worked in
> operations research at Boeing, The Aerospace Corporation, and North American
> Rockwell Space Division, and was founding President of the Pepperdine
> Research Institute.
> That's his credits - now what does he have to say?
>
> http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail451.html#global3
>
> "first, the definition of being one of the world's best climate scientists
> is that one accepts the "consensus" on global warming. That is also the
> criterion for getting grants. If you want grants to study alternative
> hypotheses, you have few sources of funding -- and God help you if you allow
> an oil company to fund your research. You certainly cannot be one of the
> World's Best if you do that."
>
> "We don't have enough actual climate data. We don't even have a good
> agreement as to what combination of the measures we do have constitutes "the
> temperature of the Earth." We don't see a rise in the previously agreed
> averages, but we do note that there is a rise in temperatures at night, so
> that becomes part of the new temperature measure."
>
> "And despite the fact that some of the world's best climate scientists have
> said we have to get people to forget the Medieval Warm period because it
> will just confuse them -- ie our 1000 best can't figure out why there was a
> Medieval Warm so they want to pretend there wasn't one -- we did have a
> Medieval Warm period, it was not caused by CO2 from industries, and maybe,
> just maybe, what caused that may be important to our understanding of just
> what's going on."

Chumpchange,

In 1988, which was a pretty hot summer, when people
were talking about global warming (frequently called
"greenhouse effect" at the time), skepticism and worrying
about not-enough-data was a legitimate, conservative
(as in not jumping to conclusions) scientific position.

It's 2007, eighteen and a half years and thousands of pieces
of evidence later. Guys like Pournelle and parrots like you
are still saying exactly the same things you were in 1988,
without being moved an inch no matter what evidence comes
up. This isn't science. This is the definition of being at best
a crackpot and at worst an ideologue.

To paraphrase Dick Cheney, we have had enormous successes
in the War on Climate and we will continue to have enormous
successes.

If you still don't believe, put your money where your mouth is,
on a 40-year timescale. Buy a trust fund for your kids or stepkids
and invest it all in Alpine ski resorts and southeastern US
beachfront property, and build a fucking trophy house in the
Sacramento River delta.

The average field biologist or western water district manager wishes
climate change wasn't real. Nobody wants to see the subjects
of their study die off or their reservoirs dry up. Quite a few
scientists who've thought about it wish it would go away. You
may think you're contributing to a body of knowledge that will
outlive you, but the prospect of far-reaching change that could
cause migration and social dislocations large enough to reorder
society calls the whole project of preserving our culture
and knowledge into question. If much of Bangladesh floods
where do you think the Bangladeshis are going to go?

Wishing on a star or a sunspot isn't going to make it go away.

Ben

Date: 06 Feb 2007 17:53:21
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

<snip >
>
> It's 2007, eighteen and a half years and thousands of pieces
> of evidence later. Guys like Pournelle and parrots like you
> are still saying exactly the same things you were in 1988,
> without being moved an inch no matter what evidence comes
> up. This isn't science. This is the definition of being at best
> a crackpot and at worst an ideologue.

Anyone quoting Pournelle as an authority on any subject other than dating
your own hand is dellusional. He's the Pete Duesberg of climate change.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 02 Feb 2007 20:16:19
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

The real corruption in this country is you and people like you.

When soldiers are on the battlefield it is normal for officers to want
something immediately without delays and that means that everything cost
twice as much. But of course when you are a cowardly backstabbing SOB
incapable of doing anything yourself save criticizing those who do things
perhaps it's only normal to not understand even the very basics of supply
and demand.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 15:12:04
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 5, 10:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in message

> > I've seen info that refutes that. It doesn't get much play in the
> > conservative, right-wing-owned media.

It is a conspiracy!

> As for SS - EVERY analysis shows SS failing under the present system and any
> reasonable increase in SS taxes.

I'm not sure what "doomed" means, as the guvmint via SS doesn't
technically owe anyone a penny. If you mean "doomed" in the sense
that future payouts probably won't purchase in real goods what someone
believes it should, then maybe/probably (but that is vague). Those
beliefs are those of kool-aid addicts anyway.

http://www.mises.org/asc/essays/attarian.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0765801272/

SS should simply be abolished -- not "saved" or "privatized."

"The only difference between guvmint and mobsters is that guvmint has
better PR." -- Ben Franklin, 1759

Date: 06 Feb 2007 06:33:13
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 6, 3:01 am, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>
> > They were steel reinforced concrete structures. As well as working on one of
> > the bombers involved in the tests I got to watch the actual footage of the
> > strike and penetration.
>
> Wow! Tom is at it again. More amazing feats of being involved in a job or project
> tthat *just happens* to relate to something being discussed. Funny how that always
> happens. You are truly the most well-traveled and versatile human ever.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/earthpenetrating-weapons.html
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-56/iss-11/p32.html
Some Quotes:

The US Department of Defense (DOD) has tens of thousands of
conventional earth-penetrating weapons capable of destroying hardened
targets like an underground bunker buried within 10 meters of the
surface. As figure 1 illustrates, a typical 2.4-m laser-guided missile
penetrates just a few meters into reinforced concrete and can create
an explosion that leaves a 5-m-wide crater of material.

Taking into account realistic materials strengths, 10-20 m is a rough
ceiling on how deeply into dry rock a warhead can penetrate and still
maintain its integrity.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/gbu-28.htm
The Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) bomb is designed to penetrate
hardened targets before exploding, capable of penetrating 100 feet of
earth or 20 feet of concrete.

Here's the latest bomb being worked on:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/dshtw.htm

Penetration 60 meters [200 feet] through 5,000 psi reinforced
concrete
40 meters [125 feet] through moderately hard rock
8 meters [25 feet] through 10,000 psi reinforced concrete

Basically what we had even 10 years ago wasn't even close to adequate
for any modern design bunker. Now we can get to most. This just means
they dig deeper and pour more concrete. It's not like Iran is short on
money or German, French, or Russian engineers to help design and build
better bunkers.
Bill C

Date: 06 Feb 2007 20:46:19
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1170772393.328051.311800@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com >,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> Basically what we had even 10 years ago wasn't even close to adequate
> for any modern design bunker. Now we can get to most. This just means
> they dig deeper and pour more concrete. It's not like Iran is short on
> money or German, French, or Russian engineers to help design and build
> better bunkers.

That last point is pretty much the one I've been making. The Iranians have a fair
idea what can be done, so they're getting all the help they can to get the sites in
the most protected positions. And there's no way for the US to know where all those
sites are. We seriously lack intel sources in Iran.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 22:15:08
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 6 Feb 2007 06:33:13 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:

>Basically what we had even 10 years ago wasn't even close to adequate
>for any modern design bunker. Now we can get to most. This just means
>they dig deeper and pour more concrete. It's not like Iran is short on
>money or German, French, or Russian engineers to help design and build
>better bunkers.
> Bill C

Not only that, the underground facilities are built with modular units
on rails. Tunnels go out in every direction from the hub and the
entire operation can be dispersed in a matter of hours. Obviously
this disrupts the operation, but the equipment survives even if the
hub is destroyed.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 15:50:41
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1170772393.328051.311800@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
> Basically what we had even 10 years ago wasn't even close to adequate
> for any modern design bunker. Now we can get to most. This just means
> they dig deeper and pour more concrete. It's not like Iran is short on
> money or German, French, or Russian engineers to help design and build
> better bunkers.

Consider this Bill - in 1967 when I got out of the Air Force I went to work
at a local laboratory working with high energy nuclear research. One of the
other projects there was a high speed gun. At that time the Russians had
just claimed a world record for the fastest projectile ever shot out of a
gun. Ours was secret so it was never touted to the press but the projectile
came out of the barrel at 30 miles per second. Got that? We could shoot a
projectile faster than escape velocity FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM. We were two
orders of magnitude faster than the Russians.

If you believe that the capability of the American weapons is something you
can read on the Internet you're really fooling yourself.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 06:19:48
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 6, 12:18 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> I think that you wish to appear to be st and an authority because you
> want to be important.

(Cue the mirror) Actually, it has more to do with your tailpipe, TK.

> The fact is that you know nothing of all this save for
> a vague philosophy that we should be peaceful.

That is not my "philosophy" at all.

> While that philosophy is
> admirable, there were some 3,000 people on 9/11 that paid the price for our
> ignoring the strength of the beliefs of terrorist extremists.

They paid the price for BAD LEADERSHIP. Very expensive bad leadership,
for instance the Gordon Bethunes who never put locking doors on their
airlines' cockpits, in spite of this being common in other parts of
the world, and then come crying to the public for a whopping
government handout, which was then, at least in large part, spent on
fleets of smaller jets to be used as rentals (hassle-free flying for
the elites), while firing "little people", whose jobs were then put on
others' shoulders, while flying became a real mess for the "little
guy" paying customer.

Then we attacked a country that had nothing, or at best almost
nothing, to do with the attack. Iraq is now a training center for
terrorists. No way we were going to attack Saudi Arabia, not so long
as the POTUS is walking around the White House grounds holding hands
with a bearded man in a dress. Or Pakistan, or Egypt. But, that attack
on Iraq was a setup job; the neocons were looking for an excuse to set
up their whacko "free ket" (ha ha) showplace. Did you ever read the
Harpers "Baghdad Year Zero" piece by Naomi Klein?

(He said):
> >> Instead it is disgusting to watch complete fools who know absolutely
> >> nothing
> >> about such complications speaking as if they actually had a clue what
> >> they're talking about.

(I replied):
> > Cue the mirror again. I mean, you just admitted (I was amazed) that
> > you, after all, do not have thousands of operatives feeding you
> > information.

(He, um, rebutted):
> And yet apparently you know everything that the administration tops men know
> simply by reading - what? Rolling Stone?

Tom, not only do I not read the Rolling Stone, I didn't even go see
the Rolling Stones when they played in Austin, about a mile and a half
from my home.

(I asked):
> > Tell us about those bunker tests again.

(TK replied):
> They were steel reinforced concrete structures. As well as working on one of
> the bombers involved in the tests I got to watch the actual footage of the
> strike and penetration.

Ah... so this happened in Guam when your "working on" consisted of
sticking the fuel hose in the hole and taking it back out again when
someone told you to? And then they showed you a movie. And it was safe
to go to the movies, because you were half an ocean away from the
fighting in 'Nam, even though you could have volunteered to go where
you could take an active role (AKA "get shot at" or be a terrorist
target) in the war. --D-y

Date: 06 Feb 2007 16:05:47
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

<dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote in message
news:1170771588.215450.206560@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ah... so this happened in Guam when your "working on" consisted of
> sticking the fuel hose in the hole and taking it back out again when
> someone told you to?

Tell you what - since you don't have any faith in my intellectual capacity I
suggest that you NEVER go into a ICU or CCU. Most of the instruments that
are used in there from heart monitors to respiratory gas analyzers were
partially designed by me or at least the original versions were. When
they're testing those urine samples the instuments might very well have been
designed or programmed by me. And about half of the clinical diagnostics
liquid handling equipment use the pump I designed. Why if you go down to the
commercial docks many places in the world you'd have a chance of going
through security gates that use the hardware and software I developed. Had
enough? Radio read utility meters. I designed and instrumented a wind tunnel
for flow rate calibrations. How about a light radar that turns a light ring
on around the door lock on your house as you approach the door in the dark?
I worked on StCards a little. A large scale antiaircraft system.
Robotics. A training system that was effectively the first video game used
for training forward artillary observers? How about the largest time sharing
computer in the world to that time capable of sharing 1000 users at once?

And you know what? I also designed and maintain racing motorcycles and even
worked on the Husquvarna of Torsten Hallman who was the world champion and
had Dick Mann and Dallas Baker on our shop flattrackers. And one time at
Ascot Park our rider broke a priy chain coming out of the last corner,
coasted across the line and STILL set a course record that lasted for 12
years.

Pumping gas? If I were pumping gas I'd have taken pride in it and been proud
to do it.

Date: 03 Feb 2007 07:42:15
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:
[rant snipped]

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm

Date: 02 Feb 2007 22:19:42
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <n_Mwh.18306$yx6.5405@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> The real corruption in this country is you and people like you.
>
> When soldiers are on the battlefield it is normal for officers to want
> something immediately without delays and that means that everything cost
> twice as much. But of course when you are a cowardly backstabbing SOB
> incapable of doing anything yourself save criticizing those who do things
> perhaps it's only normal to not understand even the very basics of supply
> and demand.

Yeah, those dirty bastards in the GAO who made that report don't know a damn
thing about supply and demand. I hate them. They should be fired and then publicly
humiliated. Maybe even sent to a camp where they can learn about the error of their
ways. They're enemies of the state, no doubt. It's a good thing you're here to let
them know how stupid they are. After all, you know everything about everything, and
always have. Just like when you showed those dirty Liberal bastard climatologists
where they had screwed up in stupidly claiming that people had anything to do with
this so-called "global warming" bullshit. The fact that this so-called "global
warming" is the concensus view among the people studying it just shows you how the
devious Liberals control the agenda.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 20:16:43
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

<snip the ultra kool-aid stuff >

> ... but the prospect of far-reaching change that
> could cause migration and social dislocations large
> enough to reorder society calls the whole project
> of preserving our culture and knowledge into question.

Maybe. Are you scared? I'm not.

> If much of Bangladesh floods where do you
> think the Bangladeshis are going to go?

The typical solution to such a highly technical problem is to seek
higher ground.

> Wishing on a star or a sunspot isn't going to make it go away.

Even if global warming were real, the typical kool-aid energy
"solutions" that don't include breeder reactors have no chance
politically or practically. Most of the retardo leftist schemes will
end up killing many more people through poverty and war than simply
doing nothing, even if global warming turns out to be true. For all
the arguments that have convinced you of global warming, you don't
have a god damn clue on the energy problem. Even if global warming is
real, you can't solve it by "wishing on shooting stars" when it comes
to energy. If you believe in global warming, you _must_ solve the
energy problem, or be prepared to kill a lot of people.

http://technology.open.ac.uk/eeru/staff/horace/kbpotl.htm (The problem
is even worse than described there -- the author's analysis has some
problems and errors, but it is at least a start for people like you to
start thinking in _world_ aggregate terms, since that is the problem
you believe must be dealt with. That is, unless you're stupid, you'll
know you have to deal with it. This "problem" is as old as Jevon's
Coal Question (1865), but you babes haven't been born yet.)

Even if global warming were real, the best plan is to get politics and
guvmint out of the way. That is, eliminate all political borders and
all guvmint property and /allow people to migrate/.

Even if global warming were real, the best plan is for guvmint to _do
nothing_ (meaning get out of the way).

I mean, what do you really have against a nice warm little cozy
planet? Why do you hate planet earth?

I just think you're trying to save some klassic bike race in holland
that would get flooded out. Who cares? It is only entertainment.

The global warming crowd are freaks, retards, and misfits. All of 90%
of them. {laughs}

"Democrats only hate the wars they don't start." -- Ben Franklin, 1759

Date: 03 Feb 2007 23:34:19
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-4F3333.22194202022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <n_Mwh.18306$yx6.5405@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> The real corruption in this country is you and people like you.
>>
>> When soldiers are on the battlefield it is normal for officers to want
>> something immediately without delays and that means that everything cost
>> twice as much. But of course when you are a cowardly backstabbing SOB
>> incapable of doing anything yourself save criticizing those who do things
>> perhaps it's only normal to not understand even the very basics of supply
>> and demand.
>
> Yeah, those dirty bastards in the GAO who made that report don't know a
> damn
> thing about supply and demand.

The GAO has a DIFFERENT set of rules and priorities than officers in the
field. I'm sure that you aren't aware of that since you obviously spend most
of your life in a drunken slumber or some such.

The real problem is that when these priorities contradict each other you
Liberal SOB's want it both ways. You want to scream that the administration
isn't doing things FAST ENOUGH. Note the screaming headlines about how
IMPROVED BODY ARMOR WOULD SAVE THE TROOPS (of course the "improved" body
armor was 10 lbs heavier and once it got there no one would use it) or that
IT'S BUSH'S FAULT BECAUSE THE HUMVEES DON'T HAVE THE NEW IMPROVED ARMOR"
(again the added weight was a handicap but then that's no skin off of your
nose is it?).

And when the administration OK's fast-as-possible contracts you want to
scream "CORRUPTION" without knowing one thing about it.

You never managed to graduate to "man" and by now it's pretty plain you
never will.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 15:45:52
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 6, 10:50 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1170772393.328051.311800@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Basically what we had even 10 years ago wasn't even close to adequate
> > for any modern design bunker. Now we can get to most. This just means
> > they dig deeper and pour more concrete. It's not like Iran is short on
> > money or German, French, or Russian engineers to help design and build
> > better bunkers.
>
> Consider this Bill - in 1967 when I got out of the Air Force I went to work
> at a local laboratory working with high energy nuclear research. One of the
> other projects there was a high speed gun. At that time the Russians had
> just claimed a world record for the fastest projectile ever shot out of a
> gun. Ours was secret so it was never touted to the press but the projectile
> came out of the barrel at 30milespersecond. Got that? We could shoot a
> projectile faster than escape velocity FROM THE SOLAR SYSTEM. We were two
> orders of magnitude faster than the Russians.
>
> If you believe that the capability of the American weapons is something you
> can read on the Internet you're really fooling yourself.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_RailGuns,,00.html

An EM projector (i.e. rail gun) uses electrical energy to accelerate
projectiles to extreme velocities. How fast? Tests conducted at the
University of Canberra were able to accelerate a 16-gram projectile
down a 5 meter barrel at 250,000 gravities, for a muzzle velocity of
5,900 meters per second. Loosely translated, that's an acceleration
from 0 to 13,000 miles per hour in the span of 0.2 seconds, not bad
even for Superman. This also translates to an enormous amount of
kinetic energy, at a fraction of the mass needed for a normal bullet

Although the principles behind rail gun technology have been well
documented and understood for nearly 50 years now, challenges remain
in building a reliable, effective, and efficient EM gun. When an
electrical current is passed through non-super conductive material, a
fraction of that current is converted to heat by the impedance of the
conductive material. Given the huge amounts of energy involved (even
when energized for only milliseconds), the heat generated by a rail
gun would be enough to melt the gun's rails, if used often enough. If
EM guns are going to serve as practical battlefield weapons, a means
of cooling them (cryogenically or otherwise) or of improving the super-
conductivity of the rails must be found.

Let's see 30 miles per second is 30 X 60seconds x 60 minutes =
108,000mph or more than 8 times what these labs are currently
struggling with.
Why are we funding this and working on it if you had the answers in
the 1970s? Just a smoke screen?
Bill C

Date: 06 Feb 2007 09:12:48
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 6, 10:05 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote in message

> > Ah... so this happened in Guam when your "working on" consisted of
> > sticking the fuel hose in the hole and taking it back out again when
> > someone told you to?
>
> Tell you what - since you don't have any faith in my intellectual capacity (snip)

That comes from reading your posts here in this ng.

Further indication that "engineering" and "intellectual capacity" are
two different things.

> I suggest that you NEVER go into a ICU or CCU.

Now there's a good idea. I'll do my best!

> Most of the instruments that
> are used in there from heart monitors to respiratory gas analyzers were
> partially designed by me or at least the original versions were.

CIte the equipment and manufacturer. I'll ask for the truth and get
back to you, here.

> When
> they're testing those urine samples the instuments might very well have been
> designed or programmed by me. And about half of the clinical diagnostics
> liquid handling equipment use the pump I designed. Why if you go down to the
> commercial docks many places in the world you'd have a chance of going
> through security gates that use the hardware and software I developed. Had
> enough? Radio read utility meters. I designed and instrumented a wind tunnel
> for flow rate calibrations. How about a light radar that turns a light ring
> on around the door lock on your house as you approach the door in the dark?
> I worked on StCards a little. A large scale antiaircraft system.
> Robotics. A training system that was effectively the first video game used
> for training forward artillary observers? How about the largest time sharing
> computer in the world to that time capable of sharing 1000 users at once?

And this has to do exactly what with being stationed in Guam while the
fighting was in Viet Nam? And Laos, and Cambodia, too, of course.

> And you know what? I also designed and maintain racing motorcycles (snip)

Which motorcycle did you design? "Maintain" = twisting wrenches.

> and even
> worked on the Husquvarna of Torsten Hallman who was the world champion and
> had Dick Mann and Dallas Baker on our shop flattrackers. And one time at
> Ascot Park our rider broke a priy chain coming out of the last corner,
> coasted across the line and STILL set a course record that lasted for 12
> years.

You know, TK, one of my very few God-like personal characteristics is
that I'm not a respecter of persons.

> Pumping gas? If I were pumping gas I'd have taken pride in it and been proud
> to do it.

Bullshit. Every time you get a chance, or think of it, anyway, you use
your supposed "professional work experience" to try to pound on other
posters, just as above. "Wal t greeter" is one of your favorite
taunts, as I remember.

To explain further: I'm a retired journeyman plumber, and you can go
fuck yourself.

(Now threaten to go call the internet cops on me, like you threatened
to call the Austin police years ago when we were "discussing"
homosexuality, you ninny).

Sincerely, D-y

PS
You still owe me a reply on the Republican side of your "Abramoff"
list, and on the Baghdad Year Zero article I've linked to many times
here. If you keep on ignoring that Klein article from Harpers,
everyone who reads this ng will think you are in concurrence! (just a
little taunt, there, TK) Remember, lots of people have already called
her a "hippy" (along with her parents) and "liberal", so try some
other tack when you attack her: specific refutation of facts
presented, for instance. TIA. --D

Date: 06 Feb 2007 20:58:58
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

<dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote in message
news:1170781968.580481.197130@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bullshit. Every time you get a chance, or think of it, anyway, you use
> your supposed "professional work experience" to try to pound on other
> posters, just as above. "Wal t greeter" is one of your favorite
> taunts, as I remember.
>
> To explain further: I'm a retired journeyman plumber, and you can go
> fuck yourself.

Here's the score asshole - I'm sick and tired of morons such as yourself
portraying yourself as experts on everything because you read a newspaper
article. You small narrowminded freaks actually believe that knowledge is
all acting like you know everything about anything.

Well, I've had more than a little experience at a very wide range of things
and I don't pretend for one second that I can outguess the President and his
staff, nor pretend that because it was warm for a couple of summers that the
end of the world is coming.

I'll leave that to you ex-spurts.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 19:48:05
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 5, 4:27 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> Anyone who thinks that there's any difference between the Democrats
> and Republicans in terms of corruption is living in a fantasy world.

OK, fantasize me a "Democrat" DeLay. --D-y

Date: 04 Feb 2007 21:12:25
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <%Z8xh.23022$X72.18697@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-4F3333.22194202022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <n_Mwh.18306$yx6.5405@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> >> The real corruption in this country is you and people like you.
> >>
> >> When soldiers are on the battlefield it is normal for officers to want
> >> something immediately without delays and that means that everything cost
> >> twice as much. But of course when you are a cowardly backstabbing SOB
> >> incapable of doing anything yourself save criticizing those who do things
> >> perhaps it's only normal to not understand even the very basics of supply
> >> and demand.
> >
> > Yeah, those dirty bastards in the GAO who made that report don't know a
> > damn
> > thing about supply and demand.
>
> The GAO has a DIFFERENT set of rules and priorities than officers in the
> field. I'm sure that you aren't aware of that since you obviously spend most
> of your life in a drunken slumber or some such.
>
> The real problem is that when these priorities contradict each other you
> Liberal SOB's want it both ways. You want to scream that the administration
> isn't doing things FAST ENOUGH. Note the screaming headlines about how
> IMPROVED BODY ARMOR WOULD SAVE THE TROOPS (of course the "improved" body
> armor was 10 lbs heavier and once it got there no one would use it) or that
> IT'S BUSH'S FAULT BECAUSE THE HUMVEES DON'T HAVE THE NEW IMPROVED ARMOR"
> (again the added weight was a handicap but then that's no skin off of your
> nose is it?).

Fortunately you continue to prove that you know nothing about body armor or how
the contracting process works.

> And when the administration OK's fast-as-possible contracts you want to
> scream "CORRUPTION" without knowing one thing about it.

Funny that the GAO seem to think it's corrupt. Not just me. So do aan awful lot
of the troops and their superiors in the field.

> You never managed to graduate to "man" and by now it's pretty plain you
> never will.

This from the boy screaming at the top of his lungs and calling names like a
third grader who just got a snuggy and is sitting under the swingset crying.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 24 Jan 2007 12:19:04
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 24, 10:41 am, ST <n...@no.com > wrote:
> On 1/24/07 7:42 AM, in article liver25uc9bssl5qkmg6ekv7cagh04k...@4ax.com,
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:28:33 GMT, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 1/24/07 1:16 AM, in article
> >> 45b7236b$0$21095$ec3e2...@news.usenetmonster.com, "Donald Munro"
> >> <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Bill C wrote:
> >>>> The Air Force just ripped the V-22 Osprey in testing. Unfortunately
> >>>> it's from a subscription site I don't want to lift it from, but they
> >>>> had a hard time keeping them in that air long enough to test them. Must
> >>>> need another few billion thrown at the problem.
>
> >>> I don't suppose the Osprey is made by people who go duck hunting with
> >>> Cheney ? Apropos of which, presumably Cheney would be able to hit a low
> >>> flying Osprey if he aims at a duck.
>
> >> Real nice liberals you are......
> >> No malice from Cheney present in that accident. I guess it is time to start
> >> "Drunk Ed Kennedy goes off the bridge" jokes again.....
>
> > Cheney's been instrumental in sending thousands of Americans to their
> > deaths.So was FDR and LBJ but are you mentioning that???

Dumbass -

The debate over the war is not a conservative/liberal/partisan one.
This war does not involve FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter
or even Reagan.

Bush Sr. and Clinton, yes. Those 2 guys handled the Saddam Hussein
issue correctly. W. Bush has made a mistake after mistake and it
doesn't have anything to do with him being a Republican.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 17:21:59
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 24 Jan 2007 12:19:04 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Jan 24, 10:41 am, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>> On 1/24/07 7:42 AM, in article liver25uc9bssl5qkmg6ekv7cagh04k...@4ax.com,
>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetrem...@jt10000.com> wrote:

>> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 15:28:33 GMT, ST <n...@no.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> On 1/24/07 1:16 AM, in article
>> >> 45b7236b$0$21095$ec3e2...@news.usenetmonster.com, "Donald Munro"
>> >> <fat-dumb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Bill C wrote:
>> >>>> The Air Force just ripped the V-22 Osprey in testing. Unfortunately
>> >>>> it's from a subscription site I don't want to lift it from, but they
>> >>>> had a hard time keeping them in that air long enough to test them. Must
>> >>>> need another few billion thrown at the problem.
>>
>> >>> I don't suppose the Osprey is made by people who go duck hunting with
>> >>> Cheney ? Apropos of which, presumably Cheney would be able to hit a low
>> >>> flying Osprey if he aims at a duck.
>>
>> >> Real nice liberals you are......
>> >> No malice from Cheney present in that accident. I guess it is time to start
>> >> "Drunk Ed Kennedy goes off the bridge" jokes again.....
>>
>> > Cheney's been instrumental in sending thousands of Americans to their
>> > deaths.So was FDR and LBJ but are you mentioning that???
>Dumbass -
>
>The debate over the war is not a conservative/liberal/partisan one.
>This war does not involve FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter
>or even Reagan.
>
>Bush Sr. and Clinton, yes. Those 2 guys handled the Saddam Hussein
>issue correctly. W. Bush has made a mistake after mistake and it
>doesn't have anything to do with him being a Republican.

Has Cheney *ever* said or predicted anything correctly about Iraq?
No.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 24 Jan 2007 18:01:57
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002405.php
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 21 Jan 2007 13:35:09
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1777r2t18a1ggsahfscsc92040ub4g5ces@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:08:44 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Well, if the folks in power were as st as they pretend to be they
> >would have known that as well. It's pretty stupid to get involved into
> >a fight that you don't need to get into when all you have for you is the
> >hope of a lucky punch because you can't last more than 2-3 rounds.
>
>
> A better analogy would be that the people in the US think they're in a
> 100 yard sprint when in fact they're in a athon race.
>
> Basically, the US won the war because the major goal was to remove
> Saddam and his sons from power. However, the US is not doing that
> well in the nation building phase after the war.

No, the USA did not win the war. It won the conventional fighting,
which is just one facet of the war, along with the diplomatic,
political, economic, and nowadays PR facets. This is not a new concept:
Clausewitz wrote brilliantly on that 200 years ago, and Sun Tzu 2000
years ago.

When you are the USA taking on a country like Iraq after months of
preparation, you know that you are going to beat the crap out of their
army in a matter of weeks. So it is criminally stupid not to have a
plan ready for after the conflict. Just an example: When Saddam was
finally captured, it was 1 to 2 weeks before the USA finally decided
whether he would be treated as a PoW. They had a full year to think
about what to do with him after the battle and they still took a
decision on the spur of the moment. That is criminal incompetence!

jyh.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 02:09:22
From: ST
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 1/21/07 10:35 AM, in article
jyh-288DF4.13350921012007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com, "jean-yves herve"
<jyh@cs.uri.edu > wrote:

> In article <1777r2t18a1ggsahfscsc92040ub4g5ces@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:08:44 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, if the folks in power were as st as they pretend to be they
>>> would have known that as well. It's pretty stupid to get involved into
>>> a fight that you don't need to get into when all you have for you is the
>>> hope of a lucky punch because you can't last more than 2-3 rounds.
>>
>>
>> A better analogy would be that the people in the US think they're in a
>> 100 yard sprint when in fact they're in a athon race.
>>
>> Basically, the US won the war because the major goal was to remove
>> Saddam and his sons from power. However, the US is not doing that
>> well in the nation building phase after the war.
>
> No, the USA did not win the war. It won the conventional fighting,
> which is just one facet of the war, along with the diplomatic,
> political, economic, and nowadays PR facets. This is not a new concept:
> Clausewitz wrote brilliantly on that 200 years ago, and Sun Tzu 2000
> years ago.
>
> When you are the USA taking on a country like Iraq after months of
> preparation, you know that you are going to beat the crap out of their
> army in a matter of weeks. So it is criminally stupid not to have a
> plan ready for after the conflict. Just an example: When Saddam was
> finally captured, it was 1 to 2 weeks before the USA finally decided
> whether he would be treated as a PoW. They had a full year to think
> about what to do with him after the battle and they still took a
> decision on the spur of the moment. That is criminal incompetence!
>
> jyh.

What does most of this shit you are saying boil down to? PCism.......
If the US (read: US military forces in the conflict) was subject to the
political correctness and massive power struggle finger pointing of a party
trying to win a presidency in WWII we would have "Re-Deployed" in 1943!!

Date: 05 Feb 2007 07:42:17
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Amazing Thing

On Feb 5, 2:39 am, Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid >
wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2007 13:59:19 -0800, Bill C wrote:
>
> > Where you been NEWB? What ever happened to lurking until you have a
> > clue?
>
> What bullshit is that? If you post off-topic, at least be gracious
> enough to accept the deserved critique. A wandering thread is one
> thing but just bluntly starting a political discussion, and with a
> non-descriptive title, is really bad form.
>
> --
> E. Dronkert

There's almost always one OT thread, and rather than spread it
everywhere it's better IMO to label it as such, and let everyone know
who doesn't wanrt to see the OT shit not to read it.
How tough is that. Everyone here's pretty good about it too compared
to the other unmoderated groups I read where you get OT shit through
just about every thread.
It's better to vontrol what can't be prevented, and the OT shit makes
for decent talk when we aren't arguing with assholes who think noone
who rides Cross is any good, drugs, cycling politics, and anything
else but what's really happening on the road. Which right now is
nothing much other than some of the spring Classics riders starting to
get ready.
So what kind of drugs is Boonen taking to allow him to win in the
spring, summer, and fall they way they used to in the great old days?
Pot Belg? Just ampehtamines, maybe some heroin? How are the tests
missing this? How can anyone stay peaked for 9 months a year?
Like I said nothing much to talk about yet.
Bill C

Date: 04 Feb 2007 17:07:50
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 4, 3:46 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Abramoff? You mean the same guy who paid money to:
>
> Patty Murray (D-Wash) - $40,980
> Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) - $32,000
> Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) - $31,000
> Harry Reid (D-Nev) - $30,500
> Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) - $28,000
> Tom Daschle (D-SD) - $26,500
> Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) - $18,300
> Chris John (D-La) - $15,000
> Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - $14,500
> John Breaux (D-La) - $13,750
> y L. Landrieu (D-La) - $11,500
> Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) - $11,000
> Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) - $10,500
> Barney Frank (D-Mass) - $9,000
> Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) - $9,000
> Max Baucus (D-Mont) - $9,000
> Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) - $8,500
> Dick Durbin (D-Ill) - $8,000
> Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) - $6,000
> Nick Rahall (D-WVa) - $6,000
> Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) - $5,000
> Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - $5,000
> Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) - $5,000
> Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) - $5,000
> Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) - $5,000
> Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) - $4,523
> Tim Johnson (D-SD) - $4,250
> Kent Conrad (D-ND) - $4,000
> ia Cantwell (D-Wash) - $3,000
> Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) - $3,000
> Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) - $3,000
> Richard M. Romero (D-NM) - $3,000
> Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) - $3,000
> John B. Larson (D-Conn) - $3,000
> James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) - $3,000
> Brad Sherman (D-Calif) - $3,000
> Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) - $2,500
> Max Cleland (D-Ga) - $2,500
> Gene Taylor (D-Miss) - $2,250
> Doug Dodd (D-Okla) - $2,000
> Jay Inslee (D-Wash) - $2,000
> John D. Dingell (D-Mich) - $2,000
> Joe Baca (D-Calif) - $2,000
> Carl Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
> C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) - $2,000
> Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) - $2,000
> Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) - $2,000
> Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - $2,000
> Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) - $2,000
> Rodney Alexander (D-La) - $2,000
> Sander Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
> Ron Kind (D-Wis) - $2,000
> Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) - $2,000
> Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) - $2,000
> Willie Landry Mount (D-La) - $2,000
> Tom Carper (D-Del) - $2,000
> Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) - $2,000
> Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) - $2,000
> Maxine Waters (D-Calif) - $2,000
> Ned Doucet (D-La) - $2,000
> John Neely Kennedy (D-La) - $2,000
> Lane Evans (D-Ill) - $2,000
> Norm Dicks (D-Wash) - $1,500
> Rick Weiland (D-SD) - $1,000
> Ron Wyden (D-Ore) - $1,000
> Tim Holden (D-Pa) - $1,000
> William J. Jefferson (D-La) - $1,000
> Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) - $1,000
> Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) - $1,000
> Pete Stark (D-Calif) - $1,000
> Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) - $1,000
> Mike Thompson (D-Calif) - $1,000
> David Phelps (D-Ill) - $1,000
> Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) - $1,000
> Charles S. Robb (D-Va) - $1,000
> Bill Luther (D-Minn) - $1,000
> Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) - $1,000
> Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) - $1,000
> Charles J. Melancon (D-La) - $1,000
> Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) - $1,000
> Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) - $1,000
> Gloria Tristani (D-NM) - $1,000
> Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) - $1,000
> Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) - $1,000
> Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) - $1,000
> Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - $1,000
> Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) - $500
> John Kerry (D-Mass) - $500
> Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) - $500
> Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) - $500
>
> That Jack Abramoff?

Let's get the R- list, too, TK. With the amounts, of course. --D-y

Date: 05 Feb 2007 21:46:37
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

<dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote in message
news:1170637670.822652.109830@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 4, 3:46 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> Abramoff? You mean the same guy who paid money to:
>>
>> Patty Murray (D-Wash) - $40,980
>> Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) - $32,000
>> Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) - $31,000
>> Harry Reid (D-Nev) - $30,500
>> Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) - $28,000
>> Tom Daschle (D-SD) - $26,500
>> Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) - $18,300
>> Chris John (D-La) - $15,000
>> Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - $14,500
>> John Breaux (D-La) - $13,750
>> y L. Landrieu (D-La) - $11,500
>> Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) - $11,000
>> Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) - $10,500
>> Barney Frank (D-Mass) - $9,000
>> Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) - $9,000
>> Max Baucus (D-Mont) - $9,000
>> Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) - $8,500
>> Dick Durbin (D-Ill) - $8,000
>> Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) - $6,000
>> Nick Rahall (D-WVa) - $6,000
>> Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) - $5,000
>> Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - $5,000
>> Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) - $5,000
>> Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) - $5,000
>> Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) - $5,000
>> Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) - $4,523
>> Tim Johnson (D-SD) - $4,250
>> Kent Conrad (D-ND) - $4,000
>> ia Cantwell (D-Wash) - $3,000
>> Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) - $3,000
>> Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) - $3,000
>> Richard M. Romero (D-NM) - $3,000
>> Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) - $3,000
>> John B. Larson (D-Conn) - $3,000
>> James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) - $3,000
>> Brad Sherman (D-Calif) - $3,000
>> Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) - $2,500
>> Max Cleland (D-Ga) - $2,500
>> Gene Taylor (D-Miss) - $2,250
>> Doug Dodd (D-Okla) - $2,000
>> Jay Inslee (D-Wash) - $2,000
>> John D. Dingell (D-Mich) - $2,000
>> Joe Baca (D-Calif) - $2,000
>> Carl Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
>> C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) - $2,000
>> Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) - $2,000
>> Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) - $2,000
>> Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - $2,000
>> Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) - $2,000
>> Rodney Alexander (D-La) - $2,000
>> Sander Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
>> Ron Kind (D-Wis) - $2,000
>> Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) - $2,000
>> Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) - $2,000
>> Willie Landry Mount (D-La) - $2,000
>> Tom Carper (D-Del) - $2,000
>> Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) - $2,000
>> Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) - $2,000
>> Maxine Waters (D-Calif) - $2,000
>> Ned Doucet (D-La) - $2,000
>> John Neely Kennedy (D-La) - $2,000
>> Lane Evans (D-Ill) - $2,000
>> Norm Dicks (D-Wash) - $1,500
>> Rick Weiland (D-SD) - $1,000
>> Ron Wyden (D-Ore) - $1,000
>> Tim Holden (D-Pa) - $1,000
>> William J. Jefferson (D-La) - $1,000
>> Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) - $1,000
>> Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) - $1,000
>> Pete Stark (D-Calif) - $1,000
>> Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) - $1,000
>> Mike Thompson (D-Calif) - $1,000
>> David Phelps (D-Ill) - $1,000
>> Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) - $1,000
>> Charles S. Robb (D-Va) - $1,000
>> Bill Luther (D-Minn) - $1,000
>> Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) - $1,000
>> Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) - $1,000
>> Charles J. Melancon (D-La) - $1,000
>> Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) - $1,000
>> Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) - $1,000
>> Gloria Tristani (D-NM) - $1,000
>> Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) - $1,000
>> Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) - $1,000
>> Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) - $1,000
>> Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - $1,000
>> Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) - $500
>> John Kerry (D-Mass) - $500
>> Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) - $500
>> Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) - $500
>>
>> That Jack Abramoff?
>
> Let's get the R- list, too, TK. With the amounts, of course. --D-y

So let me see if I understand you - there's a lower limit to your
determination of corruption? If they're cheaper to buy they aren't corrupt?
Is that what you're saying?

Date: 05 Feb 2007 13:49:20
From: Joe Cipale
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:
> <dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:1170637670.822652.109830@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>On Feb 4, 3:46 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>>Abramoff? You mean the same guy who paid money to:
>>>
>>>Patty Murray (D-Wash) - $40,980
>>>Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) - $32,000
>>>Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) - $31,000
>>>Harry Reid (D-Nev) - $30,500
>>>Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) - $28,000
>>>Tom Daschle (D-SD) - $26,500
>>>Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) - $18,300
>>>Chris John (D-La) - $15,000
>>>Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - $14,500
>>>John Breaux (D-La) - $13,750
>>>y L. Landrieu (D-La) - $11,500
>>>Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) - $11,000
>>>Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) - $10,500
>>>Barney Frank (D-Mass) - $9,000
>>>Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) - $9,000
>>>Max Baucus (D-Mont) - $9,000
>>>Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) - $8,500
>>>Dick Durbin (D-Ill) - $8,000
>>>Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) - $6,000
>>>Nick Rahall (D-WVa) - $6,000
>>>Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) - $5,000
>>>Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - $5,000
>>>Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) - $5,000
>>>Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) - $5,000
>>>Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) - $5,000
>>>Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) - $4,523
>>>Tim Johnson (D-SD) - $4,250
>>>Kent Conrad (D-ND) - $4,000
>>>ia Cantwell (D-Wash) - $3,000
>>>Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) - $3,000
>>>Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) - $3,000
>>>Richard M. Romero (D-NM) - $3,000
>>>Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) - $3,000
>>>John B. Larson (D-Conn) - $3,000
>>>James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) - $3,000
>>>Brad Sherman (D-Calif) - $3,000
>>>Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) - $2,500
>>>Max Cleland (D-Ga) - $2,500
>>>Gene Taylor (D-Miss) - $2,250
>>>Doug Dodd (D-Okla) - $2,000
>>>Jay Inslee (D-Wash) - $2,000
>>>John D. Dingell (D-Mich) - $2,000
>>>Joe Baca (D-Calif) - $2,000
>>>Carl Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
>>>C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) - $2,000
>>>Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) - $2,000
>>>Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) - $2,000
>>>Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - $2,000
>>>Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) - $2,000
>>>Rodney Alexander (D-La) - $2,000
>>>Sander Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
>>>Ron Kind (D-Wis) - $2,000
>>>Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) - $2,000
>>>Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) - $2,000
>>>Willie Landry Mount (D-La) - $2,000
>>>Tom Carper (D-Del) - $2,000
>>>Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) - $2,000
>>>Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) - $2,000
>>>Maxine Waters (D-Calif) - $2,000
>>>Ned Doucet (D-La) - $2,000
>>>John Neely Kennedy (D-La) - $2,000
>>>Lane Evans (D-Ill) - $2,000
>>>Norm Dicks (D-Wash) - $1,500
>>>Rick Weiland (D-SD) - $1,000
>>>Ron Wyden (D-Ore) - $1,000
>>>Tim Holden (D-Pa) - $1,000
>>>William J. Jefferson (D-La) - $1,000
>>>Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) - $1,000
>>>Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) - $1,000
>>>Pete Stark (D-Calif) - $1,000
>>>Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) - $1,000
>>>Mike Thompson (D-Calif) - $1,000
>>>David Phelps (D-Ill) - $1,000
>>>Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) - $1,000
>>>Charles S. Robb (D-Va) - $1,000
>>>Bill Luther (D-Minn) - $1,000
>>>Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) - $1,000
>>>Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) - $1,000
>>>Charles J. Melancon (D-La) - $1,000
>>>Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) - $1,000
>>>Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) - $1,000
>>>Gloria Tristani (D-NM) - $1,000
>>>Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) - $1,000
>>>Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) - $1,000
>>>Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) - $1,000
>>>Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - $1,000
>>>Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) - $500
>>>John Kerry (D-Mass) - $500
>>>Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) - $500
>>>Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) - $500
>>>
>>>That Jack Abramoff?
>>
>>Let's get the R- list, too, TK. With the amounts, of course. --D-y
>
>
> So let me see if I understand you - there's a lower limit to your
> determination of corruption? If they're cheaper to buy they aren't corrupt?
> Is that what you're saying?
>
>
you were asked to provide your list of R's, tommy-boy.

Or is your own right-wingnut fanaticsm just as biased and skewed? Never
mindwingnut,
we already KNOW the answer to that. Now, back to my killfile you go.
Listerning to you is like
listening to you.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 02:41:29
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Joe Cipale" <joec@aracnet.com > wrote in message
news:eq88va02hee@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> <dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:1170637670.822652.109830@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>On Feb 4, 3:46 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Abramoff? You mean the same guy who paid money to:
>>>>
>>>>Patty Murray (D-Wash) - $40,980
>>>>Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) - $32,000
>>>>Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) - $31,000
>>>>Harry Reid (D-Nev) - $30,500
>>>>Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) - $28,000
>>>>Tom Daschle (D-SD) - $26,500
>>>>Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) - $18,300
>>>>Chris John (D-La) - $15,000
>>>>Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - $14,500
>>>>John Breaux (D-La) - $13,750
>>>>y L. Landrieu (D-La) - $11,500
>>>>Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) - $11,000
>>>>Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) - $10,500
>>>>Barney Frank (D-Mass) - $9,000
>>>>Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) - $9,000
>>>>Max Baucus (D-Mont) - $9,000
>>>>Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) - $8,500
>>>>Dick Durbin (D-Ill) - $8,000
>>>>Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) - $6,000
>>>>Nick Rahall (D-WVa) - $6,000
>>>>Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) - $5,000
>>>>Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - $5,000
>>>>Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) - $5,000
>>>>Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) - $5,000
>>>>Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) - $5,000
>>>>Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) - $4,523
>>>>Tim Johnson (D-SD) - $4,250
>>>>Kent Conrad (D-ND) - $4,000
>>>>ia Cantwell (D-Wash) - $3,000
>>>>Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) - $3,000
>>>>Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) - $3,000
>>>>Richard M. Romero (D-NM) - $3,000
>>>>Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) - $3,000
>>>>John B. Larson (D-Conn) - $3,000
>>>>James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) - $3,000
>>>>Brad Sherman (D-Calif) - $3,000
>>>>Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) - $2,500
>>>>Max Cleland (D-Ga) - $2,500
>>>>Gene Taylor (D-Miss) - $2,250
>>>>Doug Dodd (D-Okla) - $2,000
>>>>Jay Inslee (D-Wash) - $2,000
>>>>John D. Dingell (D-Mich) - $2,000
>>>>Joe Baca (D-Calif) - $2,000
>>>>Carl Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
>>>>C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) - $2,000
>>>>Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) - $2,000
>>>>Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) - $2,000
>>>>Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - $2,000
>>>>Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) - $2,000
>>>>Rodney Alexander (D-La) - $2,000
>>>>Sander Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
>>>>Ron Kind (D-Wis) - $2,000
>>>>Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) - $2,000
>>>>Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) - $2,000
>>>>Willie Landry Mount (D-La) - $2,000
>>>>Tom Carper (D-Del) - $2,000
>>>>Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) - $2,000
>>>>Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) - $2,000
>>>>Maxine Waters (D-Calif) - $2,000
>>>>Ned Doucet (D-La) - $2,000
>>>>John Neely Kennedy (D-La) - $2,000
>>>>Lane Evans (D-Ill) - $2,000
>>>>Norm Dicks (D-Wash) - $1,500
>>>>Rick Weiland (D-SD) - $1,000
>>>>Ron Wyden (D-Ore) - $1,000
>>>>Tim Holden (D-Pa) - $1,000
>>>>William J. Jefferson (D-La) - $1,000
>>>>Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) - $1,000
>>>>Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) - $1,000
>>>>Pete Stark (D-Calif) - $1,000
>>>>Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) - $1,000
>>>>Mike Thompson (D-Calif) - $1,000
>>>>David Phelps (D-Ill) - $1,000
>>>>Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) - $1,000
>>>>Charles S. Robb (D-Va) - $1,000
>>>>Bill Luther (D-Minn) - $1,000
>>>>Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) - $1,000
>>>>Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) - $1,000
>>>>Charles J. Melancon (D-La) - $1,000
>>>>Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) - $1,000
>>>>Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) - $1,000
>>>>Gloria Tristani (D-NM) - $1,000
>>>>Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) - $1,000
>>>>Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) - $1,000
>>>>Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) - $1,000
>>>>Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - $1,000
>>>>Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) - $500
>>>>John Kerry (D-Mass) - $500
>>>>Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) - $500
>>>>Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) - $500
>>>>
>>>>That Jack Abramoff?
>>>
>>>Let's get the R- list, too, TK. With the amounts, of course. --D-y
>>
>>
>> So let me see if I understand you - there's a lower limit to your
>> determination of corruption? If they're cheaper to buy they aren't
>> corrupt? Is that what you're saying?
>>
>>
> you were asked to provide your list of R's, tommy-boy.
>
> Or is your own right-wingnut fanaticsm just as biased and skewed? Never
> mindwingnut,

Of course the implication was that this administration was corrupt and the
Democrats were as clean as the driven snow. But somehow I'M the one that
should be unbiased while you and your pals are as biased as you want to be.

Why don't you ask Harry Reid and Diane Feinstein exactly how the Wintu tribe
managed to bypass the Bureau of Indian Affairs and be voted in CONGRESS as
an official tribe. Was it JUST a coincidence that Harry Reid's Nevada
Gambling concerns then put up a casino for them and run it while Feinstein's
son just happened to be hired as their staff legal consultant?

Date: 05 Feb 2007 18:25:50
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote
> So let me see if I understand you - there's a lower limit to your
> determination of corruption? If they're cheaper to buy they aren't corrupt?
> Is that what you're saying?

Accepting money from Indian tribes, or even from lobbyists is
inherently corrupt.
Accepting money in a quid pro quo against the public interest is
corrupt. There is no evidence the people you listed did that.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 06 Feb 2007 02:49:28
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote in message
news:f3ffs2hvtjdd36p99jmfr8u8emfdof65h6@4ax.com...
>
> Tom Kunich wrote
>> So let me see if I understand you - there's a lower limit to your
>> determination of corruption? If they're cheaper to buy they aren't
>> corrupt?
>> Is that what you're saying?
>
> Accepting money from Indian tribes, or even from lobbyists is
> inherently corrupt.
> Accepting money in a quid pro quo against the public interest is
> corrupt. There is no evidence the people you listed did that.

And the fact is that in the VAST majority of cases you have precisely the
same case with the Republicans on the list.

But if you are going to claim that anyone that took money from Abramoff, his
clients or their agents is corrupt then you have to include all of the
leading Democrats as well.

Remember that Harry Reid represents the Nevada gambling interests as surely
as if he were in their right pocket. And if you look at Indian casino
gambling in most cases you see that they or their New Jersey counterparts
own and run the casinos and pay "rent" to the tribes involved. This business
is so huge that they have bought off virtually EVERY public official that
has the slightest say in matters pertaining to gambling.

My position is that if people are that stupid they ought to be taken
advantage of. But is the cost to society greater than the lessons learned
over time? That I can't say.

What I do know is that reasonable politicians cannot be elected any longer.
Both sides are the same thing as you can see that Clinton and Bush no matter
HOW different their personalities have done precisely the same thing in
office. The boarders are wide open, businesses are allowed to outsource
everything out of this country, human lives become unimportant and everyone
here argues about things that they know absolutely nothing about other than
an editorial from an English major in Hip magazine.

Date: 04 Feb 2007 21:55:47
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 4 Feb 2007 17:07:50 -0800, "dustoyevsky@mac.com"
<dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote:

>On Feb 4, 3:46 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> Abramoff? You mean the same guy who paid money to:
>>
>> Patty Murray (D-Wash) - $40,980
>> Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) - $32,000
>> Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) - $31,000
>> Harry Reid (D-Nev) - $30,500
>> Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) - $28,000
>> Tom Daschle (D-SD) - $26,500
>> Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) - $18,300
>> Chris John (D-La) - $15,000
>> Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - $14,500
>> John Breaux (D-La) - $13,750
>> y L. Landrieu (D-La) - $11,500
>> Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) - $11,000
>> Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) - $10,500
>> Barney Frank (D-Mass) - $9,000
>> Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) - $9,000
>> Max Baucus (D-Mont) - $9,000
>> Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) - $8,500
>> Dick Durbin (D-Ill) - $8,000
>> Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) - $6,000
>> Nick Rahall (D-WVa) - $6,000
>> Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) - $5,000
>> Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - $5,000
>> Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) - $5,000
>> Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) - $5,000
>> Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) - $5,000
>> Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) - $4,523
>> Tim Johnson (D-SD) - $4,250
>> Kent Conrad (D-ND) - $4,000
>> ia Cantwell (D-Wash) - $3,000
>> Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) - $3,000
>> Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) - $3,000
>> Richard M. Romero (D-NM) - $3,000
>> Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) - $3,000
>> John B. Larson (D-Conn) - $3,000
>> James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) - $3,000
>> Brad Sherman (D-Calif) - $3,000
>> Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) - $2,500
>> Max Cleland (D-Ga) - $2,500
>> Gene Taylor (D-Miss) - $2,250
>> Doug Dodd (D-Okla) - $2,000
>> Jay Inslee (D-Wash) - $2,000
>> John D. Dingell (D-Mich) - $2,000
>> Joe Baca (D-Calif) - $2,000
>> Carl Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
>> C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) - $2,000
>> Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) - $2,000
>> Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) - $2,000
>> Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - $2,000
>> Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) - $2,000
>> Rodney Alexander (D-La) - $2,000
>> Sander Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
>> Ron Kind (D-Wis) - $2,000
>> Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) - $2,000
>> Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) - $2,000
>> Willie Landry Mount (D-La) - $2,000
>> Tom Carper (D-Del) - $2,000
>> Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) - $2,000
>> Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) - $2,000
>> Maxine Waters (D-Calif) - $2,000
>> Ned Doucet (D-La) - $2,000
>> John Neely Kennedy (D-La) - $2,000
>> Lane Evans (D-Ill) - $2,000
>> Norm Dicks (D-Wash) - $1,500
>> Rick Weiland (D-SD) - $1,000
>> Ron Wyden (D-Ore) - $1,000
>> Tim Holden (D-Pa) - $1,000
>> William J. Jefferson (D-La) - $1,000
>> Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) - $1,000
>> Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) - $1,000
>> Pete Stark (D-Calif) - $1,000
>> Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) - $1,000
>> Mike Thompson (D-Calif) - $1,000
>> David Phelps (D-Ill) - $1,000
>> Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) - $1,000
>> Charles S. Robb (D-Va) - $1,000
>> Bill Luther (D-Minn) - $1,000
>> Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) - $1,000
>> Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) - $1,000
>> Charles J. Melancon (D-La) - $1,000
>> Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) - $1,000
>> Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) - $1,000
>> Gloria Tristani (D-NM) - $1,000
>> Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) - $1,000
>> Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) - $1,000
>> Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) - $1,000
>> Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - $1,000
>> Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) - $500
>> John Kerry (D-Mass) - $500
>> Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) - $500
>> Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) - $500
>>
>> That Jack Abramoff?
>
>Let's get the R- list, too, TK. With the amounts, of course. --D-y

And ideally what people on each side provided him with in return for
the money.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 04 Feb 2007 21:16:21
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <347ds25etrq2ench144rsgajcohrhkoa9q@4ax.com >,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

> On 4 Feb 2007 17:07:50 -0800, "dustoyevsky@mac.com"
> <dustoyevsky@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 4, 3:46 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> Abramoff? You mean the same guy who paid money to:

(snip)

> >> That Jack Abramoff?
> >
> >Let's get the R- list, too, TK. With the amounts, of course. --D-y
>
> And ideally what people on each side provided him with in return for
> the money.

Those donations were not from Abramoff.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 05 Feb 2007 17:27:40
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 21:16:21 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>> >> That Jack Abramoff?
>> >
>> >Let's get the R- list, too, TK. With the amounts, of course. --D-y
>>
>> And ideally what people on each side provided him with in return for
>> the money.
>
> Those donations were not from Abramoff.
>
>--

Abramoff, and his clients, donated about $5.3 million to politicians
from 1999 to 2004. Sixty-five percent went to Republicans and 35%
went to Democrats.

If he was still in business today, the figures would be reversed
because the Democrats now control Congress. Obviously, the party in
control has more influence in getting legislation passed. The party in
control gets the lion's share of the money.

Anyone who thinks that there's any difference between the Democrats
and Republicans in terms of corruption is living in a fantasy world.
The whole system is corrupt.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 10:39:54
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

> Abramoff, and his clients, donated about $5.3 million to politicians
> from 1999 to 2004. Sixty-five percent went to Republicans and 35%
> went to Democrats.
>
> If he was still in business today, the figures would be reversed
> because the Democrats now control Congress. Obviously, the party in
> control has more influence in getting legislation passed. The party in
> control gets the lion's share of the money.

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/misc/abramoff.png

Date: 06 Feb 2007 21:02:27
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:52r0n9F1p97bpU1@mid.individual.net...
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>
>> Abramoff, and his clients, donated about $5.3 million to politicians
>> from 1999 to 2004. Sixty-five percent went to Republicans and 35%
>> went to Democrats.
>>
>> If he was still in business today, the figures would be reversed
>> because the Democrats now control Congress. Obviously, the party in
>> control has more influence in getting legislation passed. The party in
>> control gets the lion's share of the money.
>
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/misc/abramoff.png

Did you notice that graph didn't include the dates nor mention that party in
power during those times? I wonder why you would try to use that for an
argument against Jack's common sense claim?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 22:30:14
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:52r0n9F1p97bpU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>
>>> Abramoff, and his clients, donated about $5.3 million to politicians
>>> from 1999 to 2004. Sixty-five percent went to Republicans and 35%
>>> went to Democrats.
>>>
>>> If he was still in business today, the figures would be reversed
>>> because the Democrats now control Congress. Obviously, the party in
>>> control has more influence in getting legislation passed. The party
>>> in control gets the lion's share of the money.
>>
>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/misc/abramoff.png
>
> Did you notice that graph didn't include the dates nor mention that
> party in power during those times? I wonder why you would try to use
> that for an argument against Jack's common sense claim?

The totals were collected from FEC filings for the years 1999 through 2004.
You can figure out yourself which party was in power during those years.
Since those are totals for Indian tribes, missing from that graphic are the
amounts Abramoff and his spouse personally contributed: $250,578 during
1999-2004 -- all to Republicans.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 21:01:08
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <obbfs2hspugotlsi44iio11so242asn175@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 21:16:21 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> That Jack Abramoff?
> >> >
> >> >Let's get the R- list, too, TK. With the amounts, of course. --D-y
> >>
> >> And ideally what people on each side provided him with in return for
> >> the money.
> >
> > Those donations were not from Abramoff.
> >
> >--
>
> Abramoff, and his clients, donated about $5.3 million to politicians
> from 1999 to 2004. Sixty-five percent went to Republicans and 35%
> went to Democrats.

The clients he had were donating to both before they hired him. After they hired
him, donations to Dems dropped or evaporated. He was working right alongside Grover
Norquist and their M.O. was to starve the Democrats of money. His clients that
continued to donate to the Dems (at the lower rates) did so against his advice
because they knew that the Abramoff/Norquist dream of lifelong Republican rule was
*not* going to happen. It was in their interests to continue to donate to the Dems.

> If he was still in business today, the figures would be reversed
> because the Democrats now control Congress. Obviously, the party in
> control has more influence in getting legislation passed. The party in
> control gets the lion's share of the money.

Indeed, but not from Abramoff.

> Anyone who thinks that there's any difference between the Democrats
> and Republicans in terms of corruption is living in a fantasy world.
> The whole system is corrupt.

The point of Tommy's post was to imply that the Democrats got donations from
Abramoff. They didn't get them from him or from people who were clients of him at
his direction. Abramoff is a 100% Republican problem. His donations and the ones he
directed were always to Republicans.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 21:56:31
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:01:08 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>The point of Tommy's post was to imply that the Democrats got donations from
>Abramoff. They didn't get them from him or from people who were clients of him at
>his direction. Abramoff is a 100% Republican problem. His donations and the ones he
>directed were always to Republicans.
>

Absolutely not. The Democrats got over 3/4 of a million dollars from
Abramoff and his clients from 1999 to 2004. Abramoff directed every
penny of it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/12/GR2005121200286.html

Date: 06 Feb 2007 20:46:12
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <9mfis21fn9kjir8gru2f1746b6js5gvr16@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:01:08 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >The point of Tommy's post was to imply that the Democrats got donations from
> >Abramoff. They didn't get them from him or from people who were clients of
> >him at
> >his direction. Abramoff is a 100% Republican problem. His donations and the
> >ones he
> >directed were always to Republicans.
> >
>
> Absolutely not. The Democrats got over 3/4 of a million dollars from
> Abramoff and his clients from 1999 to 2004. Abramoff directed every
> penny of it.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/12/GR200512120028
> 6.html

That chart is a little misleading, in that it seems to indicate that once a tribe
hired Abramoff, he directed *all* of their donations. That isn't the case, as
reported by the tribal people in charge of the donations. That's precisely because
they knew to (as you said it (rather nicely, too)) "grease a few" Dems.

____________________
...in the thousands of pages of Abramoff's emails, billing records and other
documents released over the past two years, there's little evidence that the
Republican lobbyist or his team worked very hard to persuade Democratic lawmakers to
support their clients, legally or illegally.

Curious to learn more, we called a number of Abramoff's former colleagues from his
heyday at the Greenberg Traurig lobby firm to see how the story struck them.

"Jack has not met eight Democrats in Washington," one lobbyist told us.
____________________
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001997.php

See also: Dems Don't Know Jack
____________________
?Overall, the tribes gave a total of $1,663,400 to Democratic and Republican
candidates and party committees during the periods when Abramoff did not represent
them. Of that total, 53 percent was donated to Democratic candidates and party
committees, and 47 percent was donated to their Republican counterparts.

?During the periods that Abramoff represented the tribes -- which spanned a
considerably shorter timeframe than the "non-represented phase" -- the tribes
collectively donated a total of $2,866,858 -- an increase of 72 percent when
compared with the periods in which he did not represent them. Of that total, only 30
percent went to Democrats and 70 percent went to Republicans (see chart).

?In the periods when they were not represented by Abramoff, six of the eight tribes
gave more to Democrats than to Republicans, although in several cases the difference
was small.

?In the periods when Mr. Abramoff was their lobbyist, six of the tribes gave more --
and in each case significantly more -- to Republicans than to Democrats.
____________________
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10924

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 07 Feb 2007 11:53:12
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:46:12 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>___________________
> ...in the thousands of pages of Abramoff's emails, billing records and other
>documents released over the past two years, there's little evidence that the
>Republican lobbyist or his team worked very hard to persuade Democratic lawmakers to
>support their clients, legally or illegally.

TPM Muckraker and Prospect.org?

Please Howard come up with some reputable sources rather than extreme
left-wing blogs. Why would you even read that stuff? I posted stuff
from the Washington Post. They do tend to be left of center. but for
the most part accurate.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 17:31:56
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <ni0ks2hppu3b9j25rmg96grki0v3j0a2as@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:46:12 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >___________________
> > ...in the thousands of pages of Abramoff's emails, billing records and
> > other
> >documents released over the past two years, there's little evidence that the
> >Republican lobbyist or his team worked very hard to persuade Democratic
> >lawmakers to
> >support their clients, legally or illegally.
>
> TPM Muckraker and Prospect.org?
>
> Please Howard come up with some reputable sources rather than extreme
> left-wing blogs. Why would you even read that stuff? I posted stuff
> from the Washington Post. They do tend to be left of center. but for
> the most part accurate.

Prospect certainly leans left, but I don't think of TPM as a particularly lefty
source. They'll dish on anyone. Dems and Reps get it equally there and even more so
on the Muckraker section. Anyway, Jack, can you seriously dispute what the Prospect
study turned up or their methodology? As for the WaPo, I would say that on the issue
of Abramoff they missed the boat by trying to make Abramoff an equal opportunity
offender when they had no evidence that he is such a creature.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:22:21
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:31:56 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>Anyway, Jack, can you seriously dispute what the Prospect
>study turned up or their methodology?

What can you dispute with the Washington Post story. Here's another
more detailed story of Harry Reid's dealings with Abramoff from the
AP. I see no difference between Democrats and republicans in terms of
corruption. They're all corrupt. If you want to live in a fantasy
land and think that the Democrats are not corrupt, then go ahead.

"Reid Aided Abramoff Clients, Records Show

By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wrote at least
four letters helpful to Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff,
and the senator's staff regularly had contact with the disgraced
lobbyist's team about legislation affecting other clients.

The activities _ detailed in billing records and correspondence
obtained by The Associated Press _ are far more extensive than
previously disclosed. They occurred over three years as Reid collected
nearly $68,000 in donations from Abramoff's firm, lobbying partners
and clients.

Reid's office acknowledged Thursday having "routine contacts" with
Abramoff's lobbying partners and intervening on some government
matters _ such as blocking some tribal casinos _ in ways Abramoff's
clients might have deemed helpful. But it said none of his actions
were affected by donations or done for Abramoff.

"All the actions that Senator Reid took were consistent with his long-
held beliefs, such as not letting tribal casinos expand beyond
reservations, and were taken to defend the interests of Nevada
constituents," spokesman Jim Manley said.

Reid, D-Nev., has led the Democratic Party's attacks portraying
Abramoff's lobbying and fundraising as a Republican scandal.

But Abramoff's records show his lobbying partners billed for nearly
two dozen phone contacts or meetings with Reid's office in 2001 alone.

Most were to discuss Democratic legislation that would have applied
the U.S. minimum wage to the Northern iana Islands, a U.S.
territory and Abramoff client, but would have given the islands a
temporary break on the wage rate, the billing records show.

Reid also intervened on government matters at least five times in ways
helpful to Abramoff's tribal clients, once opposing legislation on the
Senate floor and four times sending letters pressing the Bush
administration on tribal issues. Reid collected donations around the
time of each action.

Ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance of a
conflict of interest in collecting contributions around the times they
take official acts benefiting donors.

Abramoff's firm also hired one of Reid's top legislative aides as a
lobbyist. The aide later helped throw a fundraiser for Reid at
Abramoff's firm that raised donations from several of his lobbying
partners.

And Reid's longtime chief of staff accepted a free trip to Malaysia
arranged by a consulting firm connected to Abramoff that recently has
gained attention in the influence-peddling investigation that has
gripped the Capitol.

Abramoff has pleaded guilty in a fraud and bribery case and is now
helping prosecutors investigate the conduct of lawmakers,
congressional aides and administration officials his team used to
lobby.

Abramoff spokesman Andrew Blum declined to comment on the Reid
contacts.

Reid has assailed Republicans' ties to Abramoff while refusing to
return any of his own donations. He argues there's no need to return
the money.

"Senator Reid never met Jack Abramoff and never has taken
contributions from him, and efforts to drag him into this are going to
fail," Manley said. "Abramoff is a convicted felon and no one has
suggested the other partners we might have dealt with have done
anything impermissible."

While Abramoff never directly donated to Reid, the lobbyist did
instruct one tribe, the Coushattas, to send $5,000 to Reid's tax-
exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund, in 2002.
About the same time, Reid sent a letter to the Interior Department
helpful to the tribe, records show.

Abramoff sent a list to the tribe entitled "Coushatta Requests"
recommending donations to campaigns or groups for 50 lawmakers he
claimed were helpful to the tribe. Alongside Reid's name, Abramoff
wrote, "5,000 (Searchlight Leadership Fund) Senate Majority Whip."

Following a pattern seen with Abramoff and Republicans, Abramoff's
Democratic team members often delivered donations to Reid close to key
events.

Reid himself, along his Senate counsel Jim Ryan, met with Abramoff
deputy Ronald Platt on June 5, 2001, "to discuss timing on minimum
wage bill" that affected the ianas, according to a bill that
Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff's firm, sent the ianas.

Three weeks before the meeting, Greenberg Traurig's political action
committee donated $1,000 to Reid's Senate re-election committee. Three
weeks after the meeting, Platt himself donated $1,000 to Reid.

Manley said Reid's official calendar doesn't list a meeting on June 5,
with Platt, but he also said he couldn't say for sure the contact
didn't occur. Manley confirmed Platt had regular contacts with Reid's
office, calling them part of the "routine checking in" by lobbyists
who work Capitol Hill.

As for the timing of donations, Manley said, "There is no connection.
This is just a typical part of lawful fundraising."

The ianas, U.S. territorial islands in the Pacific Ocean, were one
of Abramoff's highest-paying clients and were trying to keep their
textile industry exempt from most U.S. laws on immigration, labor and
pay, including the minimum wage. Many Democrats have long accused the
islands of running garment sweatshops.

The islands in 2001 had their own minimum wage of $3.05 an hour, and
were exempt from the U.S. minimum of $5.15.

Republicans were intent on protecting the ianas' exemption.
Democrats, led by Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Rep. George
Miller of California, wanted the ianas to be covered by the U.S.
minimum and crafted a compromise.

In February 2001, Kennedy introduced a bill that would have raised the
U.S. hourly minimum to $6.65 and would have covered the ianas. The
legislation, which eventually failed, would have given the islands an
initial break by setting its minimum at just $3.55 _ nearly $3 lower
than any other territory or state _ and then gradually increasing it.

Within a month, Platt began billing for routine contacts and meetings
with Reid's staff, starting with a ch 26, 2001, contact with Reid
chief of staff Susan McCue to "discuss timing and status of minimum
wage legislation," the billing records say.

In all, Platt and a fellow lobbyist reported 21 contacts in 2001 with
Reid's office, mostly with McCue and Ryan.

One of the ianas contacts, listed for May 30, 2001, was with Edward
Ayoob, Reid's legislative counsel. Within a year, Ayoob had left
Reid's office to work for Abramoff's firm, registering specifically to
lobby for the islands as well as several tribes. Manley confirmed
Ayoob had subsequent lobbying contacts with Reid's office.

Manley cast doubt on some of the contacts recorded in the billing
records, saying McCue was out of Washington for a couple of the dates.
But he acknowledged the contacts could have occurred by cell phone.

In January 2002, McCue took a free trip, valued at $7,000, to Malaysia
with several other congressional aides. The trip, cleared by Senate
ethics officials, was underwritten by the U.S. Malaysia Exchange
Association, a group trying to foster better relations between the
United States and Malaysia.

The trips were part of a broader lobbying strategy by Malaysia, which
consulted with Abramoff and paid $300,000 to a company connected to
him, according to documents released by Senate investigators. The
arrangements included a trip by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay
and his wife to Malaysia in October 2001.

While Abramoff worked behind the scenes, the Alexander Strategy Group
run by two former DeLay aides, Ed Buckham and Tony Rudy, publicly
registered to lobby for the U.S. Malaysia Exchange Association.

Rudy, who was cited in Abramoff's court case, had worked temporarily
for Abramoff before joining Buckham at Alexander Strategy, and the
three men were friendly. In January 2002, Alexander Strategy arranged
two congressional trips to Malaysia underwritten by the association.

One trip took a delegation of Republican congressmen. A Democratic
consultant hired by Alexander Strategy, former Clinton White House
aide Joel Johnson, invited McCue and went on the second trip with
congressional staffers.

Johnson said he invited McCue on behalf of Alexander Strategy and went
on the trip with her but said he knew of no connections to Abramoff.
"My interest was in getting Democrats to travel to the country and to
learn more about Malaysia," Johnson said.

Reid intervened on other matters.

On ch 5, 2002, he sent a letter to the Interior Department pressing
the agency to reject a proposed casino by the Jena band of Choctaw
Indians in Louisiana. Fellow Nevada Sen. John Ensign, a Republican,
also signed.

The Jena's proposed casino would have rivaled one already in operation
in Louisiana run by the Coushattas, and Abramoff was lobbying to block
the Jena. The day after Reid's letter, the Coushattas wrote a $5,000
check to Reid's Searchlight group at Abramoff's suggestion.

Reid and Ensign recently wrote the Senate Ethics Committee to say
their letter had nothing to do with Abramoff or the donation and
instead reflected their interest in protecting Las Vegas' gambling
establishments.

"As senators for the state with the largest nontribal gaming industry
in the nation, we have long opposed the growth of off-reservation
tribal gaming throughout the United States," Ensign and Reid wrote.
Reid authored the law legalizing casinos on reservations, and has long
argued it does not allow tribal gambling off reservations.

On Nov. 8, 2002, the Nevada Democrat signed a letter with California
Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein urging Interior Secretary Gale Norton
to reject a proposal by the Cuyapaipe Band of Mission Indians to
convert land for a health clinic into a casino in southern California.

The casino would have competed with the Palm Springs gambling
establishment run by the Agua Caliente, one of Abramoff's tribes.

Two weeks later, Reid went to the Senate floor to oppose fellow
Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow's effort to win congressional approval
for a Michigan casino for the Bay Mills Indians, which would have
rivaled one already operating by the Saginaw Chippewa represented by
Abramoff.

"The legislation is fundamentally flawed," Reid argued, successfully
leading the opposition to Stabenow's proposal.

The next month, Reid joined six other Democratic senators in asking
President Bush in mid-December 2002 to spend an additional $30 million
for Indian school construction. Several Abramoff tribes, including the
Saginaw and the Mississippi Choctaw, were seeking federal money for
school building.

Six weeks after that letter, three Abramoff partners _ including Platt
and Ayoob _ donated a total of $4,000 to Reid's Senate re-election
campaign. Later in 2003, the Agua Caliente contributed $13,500 to
Reid's political groups while the Saginaw chipped in $9,000.

Reid sent a fourth letter on April 30, 2003, joining Ensign a second
time to urge Interior to reject the Jena casino.

Two months later, Abramoff's firm threw a fundraiser for Reid at its
Washington office that netted the Nevada senator several more
donations from Greenberg Traurig lobbyists and their spouses. Ayoob
was instrumental in staging the event, Reid's office said.

___

Associated Press Writer Erica Werner in Washington contributed to this
story."

What more do you want?

Date: 09 Feb 2007 08:07:31
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article
<vhins298jurd1ejqtibvdh9qkd502826ia@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> Two weeks later, Reid went to the Senate floor to oppose fellow
> Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow's effort to win congressional approval
> for a Michigan casino for the Bay Mills Indians, which would have
> rivaled one already operating by the Saginaw Chippewa represented by
> Abramoff.
>
> "The legislation is fundamentally flawed," Reid argued, successfully
> leading the opposition to Stabenow's proposal.
>
> The next month, Reid joined six other Democratic senators in asking
> President Bush in mid-December 2002 to spend an additional $30 million
> for Indian school construction. Several Abramoff tribes, including the
> Saginaw and the Mississippi Choctaw, were seeking federal money for
> school building.
>
> Six weeks after that letter, three Abramoff partners _ including Platt
> and Ayoob _ donated a total of $4,000 to Reid's Senate re-election
> campaign. Later in 2003, the Agua Caliente contributed $13,500 to
> Reid's political groups while the Saginaw chipped in $9,000.

Yes, the Anteup Caliente and the Saginaw Chipperins.
Noble tribes.

Thanks for the good read. While we turn over these
bones, the party goes on. Who is in who's pocket now?
Answer: everybody.

--
Michael Press

Date: 09 Feb 2007 18:08:04
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message
news:rubrum-1EB39C.00073109022007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
> In article
> <vhins298jurd1ejqtibvdh9qkd502826ia@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Two weeks later, Reid went to the Senate floor to oppose fellow
>> Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow's effort to win congressional approval
>> for a Michigan casino for the Bay Mills Indians, which would have
>> rivaled one already operating by the Saginaw Chippewa represented by
>> Abramoff.
>>
>> "The legislation is fundamentally flawed," Reid argued, successfully
>> leading the opposition to Stabenow's proposal.
>>
>> The next month, Reid joined six other Democratic senators in asking
>> President Bush in mid-December 2002 to spend an additional $30 million
>> for Indian school construction. Several Abramoff tribes, including the
>> Saginaw and the Mississippi Choctaw, were seeking federal money for
>> school building.
>>
>> Six weeks after that letter, three Abramoff partners _ including Platt
>> and Ayoob _ donated a total of $4,000 to Reid's Senate re-election
>> campaign. Later in 2003, the Agua Caliente contributed $13,500 to
>> Reid's political groups while the Saginaw chipped in $9,000.
>
> Yes, the Anteup Caliente and the Saginaw Chipperins.
> Noble tribes.
>
> Thanks for the good read. While we turn over these
> bones, the party goes on. Who is in who's pocket now?
> Answer: everybody.

That's correct Michael. The question is - why doesn't anyone want to clean
it up? The answer is - because they prefer political power to clean
government.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:23:51
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <vhins298jurd1ejqtibvdh9qkd502826ia@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:31:56 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >Anyway, Jack, can you seriously dispute what the Prospect
> >study turned up or their methodology?
>
> What can you dispute with the Washington Post story.

The page you linked does not show that Abramoff "directed" the contributions to
Dems. It does show that the tribal contributions went up in total, but doesn't offer
any proof that Abramoff directed his tribal clients to donate any money to the Dems.

> Here's another more detailed story of Harry Reid's dealings with Abramoff from
> the AP. I see no difference between Democrats and republicans in terms of
> corruption. They're all corrupt. If you want to live in a fantasy
> land and think that the Democrats are not corrupt, then go ahead.

Jack, you're misreading what I'm saying. I don't make any claims that the
Democrats aren't getting campaign contributions from individuals and organizations
who are seeking to influence them. I know they are. I'm saying that Abramoff
wouldn't direct his clients to give money to Democrats. It goes against his
interests to do that.

As for this story, Solomon's reporting on Reid has been found wanting in many
ways. He leaves out key details that spin his story into something it actually
isn't. In this story, one important part is the ianas angle. Reid supported
Kennedy's bill to raise the minimum wage in the ianas. Ron Platt (the lobbyist
associated with this) says that Reid didn't do anything to affect the bill that was
in line with what they were trying to achieve, and he wouldn't have even asked him
to do anything like that as he already knew Reid's position on the issue. The
contacts were about determining stautus of the bill.

As for the gambling stuff, even if Greenberg Traurig lobbyists gave Reid's
campaign money, he supported the legislation that they were trying to defeat right
from the get-go. In other words, if they were paying Reid for some service, he
didn't deliver and had never intended to, as he was the co-sponsor of the bill they
were trying to defeat. He is a Senator from a state with huge gambling interests
and it seems pretty logical that he would do what he felt he ought to do to maintain
his state's dominance in the gambling world - that's an economic thing.

> "Reid Aided Abramoff Clients, Records Show
>
>
> By JOHN SOLOMON and SHARON THEIMER
> Associated Press Writers

(snip)

(Jack Hollis asks)

> What more do you want?

John Solomon to not leave out what seems to be the most important part of the
narrative, especially when he's hunting Democrats? He had three stories very similar
to this one in 2006, all involving Reid (this one, one centered around some seats at
a boxing match and another involving the sale of some property the Reid had owned).
He also recently had a story that made the front of the WaPo on John Edwards selling
a house - the WaPo ombudsman took that one apart herself and several WaPO staffers
cast doubt on it (and in particular why it was a front pager).

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 09 Feb 2007 18:06:28
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-D665E0.20235108022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <vhins298jurd1ejqtibvdh9qkd502826ia@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:31:56 -0800, Howard Kveck
>> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Anyway, Jack, can you seriously dispute what the Prospect
>> >study turned up or their methodology?
>>
>> What can you dispute with the Washington Post story.
>
> The page you linked does not show that Abramoff "directed" the
> contributions to
> Dems. It does show that the tribal contributions went up in total, but
> doesn't offer
> any proof that Abramoff directed his tribal clients to donate any money to
> the Dems.

Completely true if you're a blind idiot.

>> Here's another more detailed story of Harry Reid's dealings with
>> Abramoff from
>> the AP. I see no difference between Democrats and republicans in terms of
>> corruption. They're all corrupt. If you want to live in a fantasy
>> land and think that the Democrats are not corrupt, then go ahead.
>
> Jack, you're misreading what I'm saying. I don't make any claims that
> the
> Democrats aren't getting campaign contributions from individuals and
> organizations
> who are seeking to influence them. I know they are. I'm saying that
> Abramoff
> wouldn't direct his clients to give money to Democrats. It goes against
> his
> interests to do that.

I see, besides being a blind idiot, you're also stupid. All the tribes got
together and said, "Since we're paying Abramoff so much money let's throw a
lot more around to whomever we might like to." And DAMN, the only people
they could think of were Democrats.

Date: 11 Feb 2007 17:08:48
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <EK2zh.22531$w91.7505@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-D665E0.20235108022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <vhins298jurd1ejqtibvdh9qkd502826ia@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:

> >> Here's another more detailed story of Harry Reid's dealings with
> >> Abramoff from the AP. I see no difference between Democrats and republicans
> >> in terms of corruption. They're all corrupt. If you want to live in a fantasy
> >> land and think that the Democrats are not corrupt, then go ahead.
> >
> > Jack, you're misreading what I'm saying. I don't make any claims that
> > the Democrats aren't getting campaign contributions from individuals and
> > organizations who are seeking to influence them. I know they are. I'm saying that
> > Abramoff wouldn't direct his clients to give money to Democrats. It goes against
> > his interests to do that.
>
> I see, besides being a blind idiot, you're also stupid. All the tribes got
> together and said, "Since we're paying Abramoff so much money let's throw a
> lot more around to whomever we might like to." And DAMN, the only people
> they could think of were Democrats.

Since the tribes had relationships with various Dems before Abramoff was hired,
it seem slogical that they would continue those relationships, don't you think. I
guess what you're trying to say is that the tribes were just too damn stupid to know
to do that on their own, right Tom? After all, they're just dumb redskins.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 09 Feb 2007 11:48:06
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:23:51 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>Jack, you're misreading what I'm saying. I don't make any claims that the
>Democrats aren't getting campaign contributions from individuals and organizations
>who are seeking to influence them. I know they are. I'm saying that Abramoff
>wouldn't direct his clients to give money to Democrats. It goes against his
>interests to do that.

Then why does he have lobbyists who are Democrats who work with
Democratic politicians. If you're going to ignore documented contacts
between Reid and Abramoff's associates, then you are living in a
fabntasy world and you obviously don't understand how lobbyists work.
Most lobbyists give money to both parties.

In any case, just in case you missed it, this shows that Abramoff
directly sent a list of what contributions to make to the tribes that
included Reid and other Democrats.

It also doccuments frequent meeting between Reid and Ronald Platt,
Abraoff's deputy. There are billing and telephone records to varify
the contacts.

"Abramoff sent a list to the tribe entitled "Coushatta Requests"
recommending donations to campaigns or groups for 50 lawmakers he
claimed were helpful to the tribe. Alongside Reid's name, Abramoff
wrote, "5,000 (Searchlight Leadership Fund) Senate Majority Whip."

Following a pattern seen with Abramoff and Republicans, Abramoff's
Democratic team members often delivered donations to Reid close to key
events.

Reid himself, along his Senate counsel Jim Ryan, met with Abramoff
deputy Ronald Platt on June 5, 2001, "to discuss timing on minimum
wage bill" that affected the ianas, according to a bill that
Greenberg Traurig, Abramoff's firm, sent the ianas.

Three weeks before the meeting, Greenberg Traurig's political action
committee donated $1,000 to Reid's Senate re-election committee. Three
weeks after the meeting, Platt himself donated $1,000 to Reid.

Manley said Reid's official calendar doesn't list a meeting on June 5,
with Platt, but he also said he couldn't say for sure the contact
didn't occur. Manley confirmed Platt had regular contacts with Reid's
office, calling them part of the "routine checking in" by lobbyists
who work Capitol Hill."

"Within a month, Platt began billing for routine contacts and meetings
with Reid's staff, starting with a ch 26, 2001, contact with Reid
chief of staff Susan McCue to "discuss timing and status of minimum
wage legislation," the billing records say.

In all, Platt and a fellow lobbyist reported 21 contacts in 2001 with
Reid's office, mostly with McCue and Ryan."

Enough said. Abramoff directed millions to the Democrats and there's
no doubt about it.

Date: 11 Feb 2007 17:08:47
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <4g8ps2dbslq2qgv5bcch3a10b97jipu9th@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:23:51 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >Jack, you're misreading what I'm saying. I don't make any claims that the
> >Democrats aren't getting campaign contributions from individuals and
> >organizations who are seeking to influence them. I know they are. I'm
> >saying that Abramoff wouldn't direct his clients to give money to Democrats.
> >It goes against his interests to do that.
>
> Then why does he have lobbyists who are Democrats who work with
> Democratic politicians. If you're going to ignore documented contacts
> between Reid and Abramoff's associates, then you are living in a
> fabntasy world and you obviously don't understand how lobbyists work.
> Most lobbyists give money to both parties.

Indeed, "most" lobbyists do, but Abramoff wasn't like most lobbyists. Here,
by the way, are a couple of pages of his donations:

http://tinyurl.com/ddvaw and http://tinyurl.com/7o3q7

You'd be pretty hard pressed to find a donation to anyone with a (D).

(snip)

> Three weeks before the meeting, Greenberg Traurig's political action
> committee donated $1,000 to Reid's Senate re-election committee. Three
> weeks after the meeting, Platt himself donated $1,000 to Reid.

Ah, I see what I should have mentioned: What went on when Abramoff was at
Greenberg Traurig wasn't the same as what he did when he was on his own. I apologize
for not being specific about that, Jack. His serious troubles began once he was out
on his own. As for the stuff about the ianas, again, they knew his position and
it was clear that any contacts were unlikely to change that postion. If both G-T's
PAC and Platt donated, they gave a quid - what was the pro quo? Reid voted against
their interests.

> Enough said. Abramoff directed millions to the Democrats and there's
> no doubt about it.

Millions? Perhaps if you include what happened while he was employed by Greenberg
Traurig, Donations by the tribes he hired to Dems were a continuation of existing
relationships and the tribes (not being stupid enough to buy into the idea that the
GOP would always control Congress) knew to spread their money about.

As long as I'm at it, I will correct myself. I stated earlier that the money
going to Dems from the tribes decreased; that implies that the dollar amounts went
down, when in fact, it was just the percentage that they recieved that decreased.
The total dollar amount donated to both Reps and Dems went up, but the donations
reversed a many-year trend of being predominently Dem to GOP centric. Of the top ten
tribal donors, the ones that had hired Abramoff were the only ones to give more to
the GOP than the Dems.

On the topic of the idea that the GOP would always control Congress, one of the
things that is related to is the 'K Street Project' by DeLay, Santorum, Norquist et
al. That involved telling companies that did lobbying to only hire Republicans and
to focus their efforts and money on Republican members of Congress and candidates.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 07 Feb 2007 18:20:22
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 11:53:12 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:46:12 -0800, Howard Kveck
><YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
>>___________________
>> ...in the thousands of pages of Abramoff's emails, billing records and other
>>documents released over the past two years, there's little evidence that the
>>Republican lobbyist or his team worked very hard to persuade Democratic lawmakers to
>>support their clients, legally or illegally.
>
>TPM Muckraker and Prospect.org?
>
>Please Howard come up with some reputable sources rather than extreme
>left-wing blogs.

Both of those are quite left - and proudly so. Though at the moment
they are far closer to the American mainstream on political corruption
and Iraq than you are in.

In any case, what makes TPM Muckraker so powerful is that it points to
original document. The commentary may be left, but the facts it finds
are facts and generally irrefutable.

But hey, blame the messenger and ignore the facts -- that's your way.

> Why would you even read that stuff? I posted stuff
>from the Washington Post. They do tend to be left of center.

Washington Post is left of center? You're a nut.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 06 Feb 2007 22:04:49
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:56:31 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:01:08 -0800, Howard Kveck
><YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
>>The point of Tommy's post was to imply that the Democrats got donations from
>>Abramoff. They didn't get them from him or from people who were clients of him at
>>his direction. Abramoff is a 100% Republican problem. His donations and the ones he
>>directed were always to Republicans.
>>
>
>Absolutely not. The Democrats got over 3/4 of a million dollars from
>Abramoff and his clients from 1999 to 2004. Abramoff directed every
>penny of it.
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/12/GR2005121200286.html

Your statement that Abramoff directed the contributions to Democrats
is a baloney.

And you're a tool. But you know that.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 06 Feb 2007 23:25:03
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 22:04:49 -0500, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 21:56:31 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:01:08 -0800, Howard Kveck
>><YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The point of Tommy's post was to imply that the Democrats got donations from
>>>Abramoff. They didn't get them from him or from people who were clients of him at
>>>his direction. Abramoff is a 100% Republican problem. His donations and the ones he
>>>directed were always to Republicans.
>>>
>>
>>Absolutely not. The Democrats got over 3/4 of a million dollars from
>>Abramoff and his clients from 1999 to 2004. Abramoff directed every
>>penny of it.
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/12/GR2005121200286.html
>
>Your statement that Abramoff directed the contributions to Democrats
>is a baloney.
>
>And you're a tool. But you know that.

If you want to deny the truth, go ahead, but Abramoff gave and
directed millions of dollars to Democrats and Democratic
organizations.

Here's a quote directly from the Washington Post article I linked
documenting where all the money went.

"The Justice Department is investigating the dealings of former
lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who collected tens of millions of dollars in
fees from casino-rich Indian tribes and directed the tribes to make
contributions to dozens of lawmakers and political groups. The chart
below reflect 1999-2004 contributions by Abramoff, his tribal clients
and the lobbyists that make up team Abramoff."

Did you miss this part of the article?

About 35% of the money directed by Abramoff went to Democrats.

Here's another Washington Post article documenting Abramoff's
connections to Democrats. I'll include a link if you want to read the
entire article.

"Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations
Abramoff Issue's Fallout May Extend Beyond the GOP

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek Willis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 3, 2005; A01

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an associate famously collected $82 million
in lobbying and public relations fees from six Indian tribes and
devoted a lot of their time to trying to persuade Republican lawmakers
to act on their clients' behalf.

But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of
two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included
many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff
directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican
legislators.

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful
Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid
(Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt
(Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in
charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both
chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle
as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last
November."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060202158_pf.html

Date: 06 Feb 2007 21:51:28
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:01:08 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>> If he was still in business today, the figures would be reversed
>> because the Democrats now control Congress. Obviously, the party in
>> control has more influence in getting legislation passed. The party in
>> control gets the lion's share of the money.
>
> Indeed, but not from Abramoff.

Obviously, it helps to have a lobbyist that's in with the party in
power. Special interests are now seeking out people who can get to
the Democratic politicians who are in the right committee spot and
these lobbyists are more likely to be Democrats. Nevertheless, they
will still have to grease a few Republicans while they're at it.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 21:47:11
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:01:08 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>
> The clients he had were donating to both before they hired him. After they hired
>him, donations to Dems dropped or evaporated.

From 1999 to 2002, Abramoff, and his clients, contributions to
Democrats went from $78,000 to $590,000. In 2003 the percent going to
Democrats went up considerable when they got almost 45% of the money.
That year, the Republicans got around half as much as they got the
previous year and the Democrats dropped about 10%.

I'm afraid that the numbers don't support the contention that after
Abramoff was hired, he cut off the Democrats. In fact, in the last two
years of Abramoff's tenure the Democrats got a bigger percentage than
in any of the 4 previous years. Most successful lobbyists spread the
money around to both sides of the aisle.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/12/GR2005121200286.html

Date: 06 Feb 2007 06:19:36
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-C771B9.21010805022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> The point of Tommy's post was to imply that the Democrats got donations
> from
> Abramoff. They didn't get them from him or from people who were clients
> of him at
> his direction. Abramoff is a 100% Republican problem. His donations and
> the ones he
> directed were always to Republicans.

With all those citations who could argue with you?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 00:01:57
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <Y5Vxh.19652$yx6.16950@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-C771B9.21010805022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >
> > The point of Tommy's post was to imply that the Democrats got donations
> > from Abramoff. They didn't get them from him or from people who were clients
> > of him at his direction. Abramoff is a 100% Republican problem. His donations
> > and the ones he directed were always to Republicans.
>
> With all those citations who could argue with you?

It's been a matter of public record, Tom. Go look it up. But here's a start:

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff.asp

http://tpmmuckraker.com/abramoff.php

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 21:04:30
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-555B20.00015706022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <Y5Vxh.19652$yx6.16950@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>> news:YOURhoward-C771B9.21010805022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> >
>> > The point of Tommy's post was to imply that the Democrats got
>> > donations
>> > from Abramoff. They didn't get them from him or from people who were
>> > clients
>> > of him at his direction. Abramoff is a 100% Republican problem. His
>> > donations
>> > and the ones he directed were always to Republicans.
>>
>> With all those citations who could argue with you?
>
> It's been a matter of public record, Tom. Go look it up. But here's a
> start:
>
> http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff.asp
>
> http://tpmmuckraker.com/abramoff.php

You really are a moron aren't you? Abramoff TOLD his "clients" to pay money
to the Democrats on his list since he didn't want his name connected to the
"donations" since it could harm his relationship with the Republicans.

But of course that's probably far to complex for you to understand. And of
course Chung's chart demonstrates that was exactly what happened but you'll
conveniently let that pass.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 20:46:16
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <y36yh.25106$X72.9956@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-555B20.00015706022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <Y5Vxh.19652$yx6.16950@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> >> news:YOURhoward-C771B9.21010805022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> >> >
> >> > The point of Tommy's post was to imply that the Democrats got
> >> > donations
> >> > from Abramoff. They didn't get them from him or from people who were
> >> > clients
> >> > of him at his direction. Abramoff is a 100% Republican problem. His
> >> > donations
> >> > and the ones he directed were always to Republicans.
> >>
> >> With all those citations who could argue with you?
> >
> > It's been a matter of public record, Tom. Go look it up. But here's a
> > start:
> >
> > http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff.asp
> >
> > http://tpmmuckraker.com/abramoff.php
>
> You really are a moron aren't you? Abramoff TOLD his "clients" to pay money
> to the Democrats on his list since he didn't want his name connected to the
> "donations" since it could harm his relationship with the Republicans.
>
> But of course that's probably far to complex for you to understand. And of
> course Chung's chart demonstrates that was exactly what happened but you'll
> conveniently let that pass.

Wrong, Tom. Abramoff was a Republican ****ALL**** the way. He wasn't trying to
hide (or hide behind) any of those donations in any way. As I said, he was a
hardcore Republican from his days in college. Went to work with Grover Norquist and
good ol' upstanding citizen Ralph Reed. Their scheme was to *defund* the Democrats,
not encourage people to donate to them, because they believed that the Republicans
could attain power and keep it forever. Funny, you bought into that too. So how'd
that '06 election work out for you, T? Your predictions were... not so good.

Apparently it's too complex for you to comprehend that a guy like Abramoff is a
one track kind of guy.

Ney. Cunningham. Safavian. DeLay. Abramoff. Burns. The list can go on and on...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 02:35:15
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote in message
news:obbfs2hspugotlsi44iio11so242asn175@4ax.com...
>
> Abramoff, and his clients, donated about $5.3 million to politicians
> from 1999 to 2004. Sixty-five percent went to Republicans and 35%
> went to Democrats.
>
> If he was still in business today, the figures would be reversed
> because the Democrats now control Congress. Obviously, the party in
> control has more influence in getting legislation passed. The party in
> control gets the lion's share of the money.
>
> Anyone who thinks that there's any difference between the Democrats
> and Republicans in terms of corruption is living in a fantasy world.
> The whole system is corrupt.

Hear, hear! Of course you'll catch hell here for being reasonable.

Date: 04 Feb 2007 13:59:19
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Amazing Thing

On Feb 4, 4:41 pm, <r...@net.nz > wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Feb 4, 11:13 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe the most heartening and amazing, to me, thing that has come out
> >of the Iraq disaster is that other than the hardcore, "We hate the
> >military!", nutcases has been the support for the people trying to do
> >the job while being screwed over by their own leadership. This time
> >the hostility, for the most part, has landed where it should've, with
> >the civilian politicians calling the shots and their stooges.
> > My hat's off to the huge numbers of folks on the left who've re-
> >evaluated things based on fact and have realised that it's NOT the
> >tool, it's the hand guiding it. They've done a shitload more than
> >ideologues like TK and the Bush bunch to take care of our people on
> >the ground.
> > Just wish the idiots on the far right could exercise that level of
> >thought and help fix the Pentagon.
> > Bill C
>
> And this has exactly what to do with cycling??
> It is the friggin nutters like you that take the inegrity out of NG's like this one.
> Troll
> Ro- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Where you been NEWB? What ever happened to lurking until you have a
clue?
Bill C

Date: 05 Feb 2007 08:39:11
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: Amazing Thing

On 4 Feb 2007 13:59:19 -0800, Bill C wrote:
> Where you been NEWB? What ever happened to lurking until you have a
> clue?

What bullshit is that? If you post off-topic, at least be gracious
enough to accept the deserved critique. A wandering thread is one
thing but just bluntly starting a political discussion, and with a
non-descriptive title, is really bad form.

--
E. Dronkert

Date: 05 Feb 2007 06:53:26
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Amazing Thing

In article
<1170626359.917163.91570@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> On Feb 4, 4:41 pm, <r...@net.nz> wrote:
> > "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >On Feb 4, 11:13 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe the most heartening and amazing, to me, thing that has come out
> > >of the Iraq disaster is that other than the hardcore, "We hate the
> > >military!", nutcases has been the support for the people trying to do
> > >the job while being screwed over by their own leadership. This time
> > >the hostility, for the most part, has landed where it should've, with
> > >the civilian politicians calling the shots and their stooges.
> > > My hat's off to the huge numbers of folks on the left who've re-
> > >evaluated things based on fact and have realised that it's NOT the
> > >tool, it's the hand guiding it. They've done a shitload more than
> > >ideologues like TK and the Bush bunch to take care of our people on
> > >the ground.
> > > Just wish the idiots on the far right could exercise that level of
> > >thought and help fix the Pentagon.
> > > Bill C
> >
> > And this has exactly what to do with cycling??
> > It is the friggin nutters like you that take the inegrity out of NG's like this one.
> > Troll
> > Ro- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Where you been NEWB? What ever happened to lurking until you have a
> clue?

Yep, I remember the good old days when people would
read for weeks before advancing an opinion. Well
mannered, too. Yep. Those days are gone. Sad.

--
Michael Press

Date: 04 Feb 2007 12:27:16
From: Bill C
Subject: Amazing Thing

On Feb 4, 11:13 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:

Maybe the most heartening and amazing, to me, thing that has come out
of the Iraq disaster is that other than the hardcore, "We hate the
military!", nutcases has been the support for the people trying to do
the job while being screwed over by their own leadership. This time
the hostility, for the most part, has landed where it should've, with
the civilian politicians calling the shots and their stooges.
My hat's off to the huge numbers of folks on the left who've re-
evaluated things based on fact and have realised that it's NOT the
tool, it's the hand guiding it. They've done a shitload more than
ideologues like TK and the Bush bunch to take care of our people on
the ground.
Just wish the idiots on the far right could exercise that level of
thought and help fix the Pentagon.
Bill C

Date: 05 Feb 2007 10:41:37
From:
Subject: Re: Amazing Thing

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
>On Feb 4, 11:13 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe the most heartening and amazing, to me, thing that has come out
>of the Iraq disaster is that other than the hardcore, "We hate the
>military!", nutcases has been the support for the people trying to do
>the job while being screwed over by their own leadership. This time
>the hostility, for the most part, has landed where it should've, with
>the civilian politicians calling the shots and their stooges.
> My hat's off to the huge numbers of folks on the left who've re-
>evaluated things based on fact and have realised that it's NOT the
>tool, it's the hand guiding it. They've done a shitload more than
>ideologues like TK and the Bush bunch to take care of our people on
>the ground.
> Just wish the idiots on the far right could exercise that level of
>thought and help fix the Pentagon.
> Bill C
>
And this has exactly what to do with cycling??
It is the friggin nutters like you that take the inegrity out of NG's like this one.
Troll
Ro

Date: 05 Feb 2007 10:05:46
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Amazing Thing

ro wrote:
> And this has exactly what to do with cycling??
> It is the friggin nutters like you that take the inegrity out of NG's like this one.
> Troll

Dumbass,
We buy out Inegrity(tm) in Mexico. Its not as good as Panache though.

Date: 04 Feb 2007 09:44:12
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 4, 12:37 pm, "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
>
There's a problem with the link so just go to the Homepage:

http://sftt.org/
Bill C

Date: 04 Feb 2007 09:37:36
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 4, 11:13 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com > wrote:

>
> To restate, the "side plates" would seem to be a fairly recent
> addition to Army-issue body armor, and that only for those lucky
> enough to be issued "current, best" stuff.
>
> Where did you go to fester, TK? Someplace dark, moist, and warm? --D-y

It goes a lot deeper than that.
DOD owns the rights to the Interceptor stuff and licenses/sells it
all over the world. DOD has tested and failed Dragon Skin. This after
they tried to buy the rights to it and were turned down. Several
scientists at Darpa testified to Congress that Dragon Skin would never
pass a DOD test, or be purchased until they sold the rights to DOD.
That got the investigations really rolling.
The first step was a small scale test by the FBI, which was a
complete success. Then DOJ stged a full standard testing in which
Dragon Skin exceeded everything else currently in production. Now DOJ
is planning further testing to even higher standards.:

http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted
2007.db&command=viewone&id=6

Government Accountability Office (GAO) Investigating Why America's
Grunts Continue To Bleed & Die In Second-Rate Body Armor

By Roger Charles

As you read this Update, please keep in mind SFTT's Final Objective:
the "best-available" body armor for all of America's Frontline Troops.

Unfortunately no source, whether it's the GAO, a Congressional
investigation, the DOJ, or the FBI is good enough to change Tom's
mind.
This is nothing really new. Those who are connected get no-bid/rigged
contracts despite their miserable failures to deliver the goods,
services, and products. That's why Walt Krulak, when he was Commandant
of the ine Corp, went totally outside the system to get his troops
the best stuff he could, and saved money on top of it. He was blasted
for doing it by the scumbags at the Penatagon ansd is still hated by
the armchair lizards Tom seems to believe are paragons of virtue.
After he left, they made sure to sign off on a Commandant who
wouldn't rock the boat.
Bill C

Date: 09 Feb 2007 05:59:52
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 9, 2:34 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> You're contesting this?
>
> >> Heck no. That proves that Lindzen doctored the data.
>
> > Strange because it also demonstrates that you did as well.
>
> Take your best shot, big guy:http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavenh2v.dat

How about a space shot?

http://www.darksky.org/images/satelite/usa_lights_small.gif

I can't help but wonder how much of this is front porch lights
uselessly left on all night, as seems to be some kind of a religious
belief with my other half <g >. --D-y

Date: 08 Feb 2007 15:50:58
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 8, 3:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will see
> that the temperature peaked in 2004 though that was a low temperature year
> and has already started back down.

The bars should be raw.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 11:23:27
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:
>> If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will see
>> that the temperature peaked in 2004 though that was a low temperature year
>> and has already started back down.

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> The bars should be raw.

That's where they sell Russian Vodka.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 15:49:56
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 8, 2:19 pm, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > And there you are posting.....
>
> You read all the way to the bottom of those comments? Yow. You're never
> going to get those minutes back.

I didn't read them. I was scanning for particulars, not even looking
for you. I'm a troller and a scroller.

If you were to ask me what the contents were, I wouldn't be able to
say, except for you and Eric Swanson.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 13:29:22
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 7, 5:49 pm, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> Dude, Lindzen's presentation was made on 6 May 2006 (as I noted way above)
> so when you got a data set with a 2006 average temp you should've known you
> were looking at the wrong data.

Sheesh -- with such sloppiness, one would think I didn't even care.

> and the file is http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavenh2v.dat

Okay -- now I get what you get.

> If you plot those data, you'll see that's what Lindzen plotted *up to the
> last three data points*.

As you know, the math software to read in data is very mechanical.
One has to work to get it to muck up basic data read-in and
processing. I can't off-hand imagine why the last three out of a
column (while the rest, at a glance, look to be correct) would be
flattened for any "typical" coding mistakes.

So it is weird. If he really did doctor it, then that is really
stupid of him. I think he could still claim what he claimed without
any corruption of the raw data. That is, he could have put the raw
data through the appropriate filter and got an answer that generally
supported his claim, with perhaps a minor adjustment of language. (He
would only need to say it was filtered.) One could argue about the
particular filter choice, but that is something else. After all, the
time period of his claim is short. (I think the time interval of the
claim is insufficient anyway, so I ignore him on his basic point
regardless of raw data integrity.)

I sent him an email asking for an explanation. I'm a dreamer.

> BTW, if it was up to me, I would've plotted the global temps, not the NH
> temps.

> I had to dig up the NH temps to try to match Lindzen's graph.

I spent time digging too. If you'd just linked the data file in the
first place, I could have spent less time.

So this is all rather obscure, and pretty well buried as anything very
significant. How did you happen upon this particular detail? Here?:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/richard_lindzen_claims_global.php

And there you are posting.....

Date: 08 Feb 2007 23:11:18
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote in message
news:1170970162.370406.47320@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 7, 5:49 pm, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
> As you know, the math software to read in data is very mechanical.
> One has to work to get it to muck up basic data read-in and
> processing. I can't off-hand imagine why the last three out of a
> column (while the rest, at a glance, look to be correct) would be
> flattened for any "typical" coding mistakes.

If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will see
that the temperature peaked in 2004 though that was a low temperature year
and has already started back down. Of course since we don't have sufficient
data none of that means a whole lot other than there appears to be a cyclic
variation. Gee, WHO would have guessed that the weather occurs in patterns
with short, medium, long and super long cycles!

Date: 09 Feb 2007 09:42:16
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com> wrote in message
> news:1170970162.370406.47320@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 7, 5:49 pm, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> As you know, the math software to read in data is very mechanical.
>> One has to work to get it to muck up basic data read-in and
>> processing. I can't off-hand imagine why the last three out of a
>> column (while the rest, at a glance, look to be correct) would be
>> flattened for any "typical" coding mistakes.
>
> If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will
> see that the temperature peaked in 2004

Somehow I don't find it hard to believe that you would cherry pick through a
bunch of alternatives to find a "six point polynomial average" that shows
what you want. However, that isn't what Lindzen did. Notice that in his
graph the raw temps were flat from 2003 onward.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 10:45:41
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

I wrote:
> However, that isn't what Lindzen
> did. Notice that in his graph the raw temps were flat from 2003
> onward.

Oops. I meant, "the raw temperature anomalies."

Date: 08 Feb 2007 23:25:15
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

>
> If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will
> see that the temperature peaked in 2004 though that was a low
> temperature year and has already started back down. Of course since we
> don't have sufficient data none of that means a whole lot other than
> there appears to be a cyclic variation. Gee, WHO would have guessed
> that the weather occurs in patterns with short, medium, long and super
> long cycles!

Pssst Tom, check the Southern Oscillation Index for the past few years and
its correlation to global temperature. Note that the past few years we've
been under conditions that correlate with lower global temperatures (La
Nina). This year, we're entering El Nino conditions and temperatures will
be higher globally, if not this year then the next since there is a 6-9
month lag in the SOI and global temperature. You heard it here first.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soihtm1.shtml

--
Bill Asher

Date: 08 Feb 2007 23:19:59
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> And there you are posting.....

You read all the way to the bottom of those comments? Yow. You're never
going to get those minutes back.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 03:05:00
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Robert Chung wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
>> And there you are posting.....
>
> You read all the way to the bottom of those comments? Yow. You're never
> going to get those minutes back.

Much like arguing with Kunich.

Bob 'Stopped Getting Into It With Kunich Years Ago' Schwartz

Date: 08 Feb 2007 07:39:05
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 7, 3:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

(In response to the question: How do the new California regulations
impact and degrade your lifestyle?)

> 1) They will increase the prices of everything in one of the most expensive
> states to live in.

> 2) They will further drive businesses out of this state and reduce the
> number of real jobs available.
>
> 3) They may very well make heating and cooling my own home impossible.

Well well well. Playing the victim card!

Are you *afraid* of living in a cold, dark house, living on dog food,
unable to afford going to the doctor and buying the medicine you need
in America the Pensionless?

Stop that disgusting whining, and find a better job, or maybe a second
and third job (an increasingly popular dodge in post-Reagan/Bush
America), or MOVE TO SOMEPLACE YOU CAN PAY FOR.
Please spare us the spew about your family's ancestral home, etc. etc.
"Get over it"! (Remember "get over it"?)

> Obviously you don't understand what "elasticity" means in economic terms and
> how close to the elastic limits this country presently is.

With People as a Resource, and No Child Left Behind (not to mention a
perpetual state of "war") there are no limits. Once the liberals are
removed, overnight nuke plants will spring up in clouds, like
mushrooms, and energy will be so cheap they'll just give it away
(remember "energy so cheap they'll just give it away"?).

> But nevertheless
> I will add that you seem to know a great deal about my physiology that my
> doctor doesn't. He tells me that I can expect to live a minimum of another
> 30 years.

I can only imagine the improvement in your posts 30 years hence. Like
fine wine...

> You on the other hand will probably be avoiding these groups where
> you've spent so much energy telling everyone that the end of times is
> coming.

I didn't see a shred of "end times" in the global warming material
here or elsewhere. This is your usual deliberate and/or crazed
misreading, misquoting, putting words in people's mouths, and so
forth.

End Times? The folks talking about end times are the tax-free
dispensationalist premillennialist evangelical xtian zionist media
moguls who (among other, less visible influencers) are the power
behind the throne IRT American foreign policy, especially as it is
concerned with Israel (so alleged holy prophecy can be realized; i.e.,
the Abomination speaking in the rebuilt Temple, and the Rapture when
all the good people get to cop out, etc. etc.).

The "global warming scientists" are concerned with *continuing* life
on Earth, Tom. As long as possible with maximum quality of life,
including personal safety, for as many as possible.

You're welcome. Now go check on your Purina stock and see how it's
doing. --D-y

Date: 08 Feb 2007 19:02:28
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

<dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote in message
news:1170949145.313010.131570@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 7, 3:25 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> (In response to the question: How do the new California regulations
> impact and degrade your lifestyle?)
>
>> 1) They will increase the prices of everything in one of the most
>> expensive
>> states to live in.
>
>> 2) They will further drive businesses out of this state and reduce the
>> number of real jobs available.
>>
>> 3) They may very well make heating and cooling my own home impossible.
>
> Well well well. Playing the victim card!
>
> Are you *afraid* of living in a cold, dark house, living on dog food,
> unable to afford going to the doctor and buying the medicine you need
> in America the Pensionless?

Would you care to compare bank accounts?

>> Obviously you don't understand what "elasticity" means in economic terms
>> and
>> how close to the elastic limits this country presently is.
>
> With People as a Resource, and No Child Left Behind (not to mention a
> perpetual state of "war") there are no limits. Once the liberals are
> removed, overnight nuke plants will spring up in clouds, like
> mushrooms, and energy will be so cheap they'll just give it away
> (remember "energy so cheap they'll just give it away"?).

Have you considered talking to a psychiatrist about your inability to focus
on the subject?

>> But nevertheless
>> I will add that you seem to know a great deal about my physiology that my
>> doctor doesn't. He tells me that I can expect to live a minimum of
>> another
>> 30 years.
>
> I can only imagine the improvement in your posts 30 years hence. Like
> fine wine...

And there you'll be pushing a walker around still pretending that you
actually know what you're drooling about.

>> You on the other hand will probably be avoiding these groups where
>> you've spent so much energy telling everyone that the end of times is
>> coming.
>
> I didn't see a shred of "end times" in the global warming material
> here or elsewhere.

That's why you're babbling on and on - you haven't actually read any of the
stuff you're commenting on. You're only posting because you don't have
anything better to do.

> The "global warming scientists" are concerned with *continuing* life
> on Earth, Tom. As long as possible with maximum quality of life,
> including personal safety, for as many as possible.

So if life DOESN'T continue on earth that isn't the End Times philosophy?
You're quite a clever person for someone incapable of thought.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 16:26:34
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 7, 3:12 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:

> If people need less energy and there is no net decrease in generating
> capacity, shouldn't the price go down because less demand for the same
> supply? Or are you speculating this increase will happen. What does the
> California State chief economist and budget guy predict will be the impact?

Irrelevent. Global warming isn't a California problem. It is sort of
built into the word "global." This is another example of why I
support the dictionary tax.

Start thinking about some of the concerns brought up in this paper:
http://technology.open.ac.uk/eeru/staff/horace/kbpotl.htm

Wherever the "national" is mentioned, replace it with "global," and
think about what that means and how it would change the analysis. (It
makes the "problem" much deeper and even more intractable.)

Date: 08 Feb 2007 00:46:41
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> On Feb 7, 3:12 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> If people need less energy and there is no net decrease in generating
>> capacity, shouldn't the price go down because less demand for the
>> same supply? Or are you speculating this increase will happen. What
>> does the California State chief economist and budget guy predict will
>> be the impact?
>
>
> Irrelevent. Global warming isn't a California problem. It is sort of
> built into the word "global." This is another example of why I
> support the dictionary tax.
>
> Start thinking about some of the concerns brought up in this paper:
> http://technology.open.ac.uk/eeru/staff/horace/kbpotl.htm
>
> Wherever the "national" is mentioned, replace it with "global," and
> think about what that means and how it would change the analysis. (It
> makes the "problem" much deeper and even more intractable.)
>
>

I don't see your point. Tom was saying his energy bill would go up. The
paper you link to indicates the opposite is true, energy will become
cheaper if efficiency increases and his bill will go down provided he
doesn't use the decreased cost to do something like air condition his
carport. That paper argues that the total energy use goes up as efficieny
rises so in a global sense it is counterproductive to reduce efficiency if
one wants to minimize carbon output. I don't find that shocking.

I've never said I thought there was a solution to climate change, I've said
the opposite, there is no solution. There will be no effective remediation
of greenhouse gases. However, knowing that does not permit me to deny the
fundamental correctness of the science. Climate is changing, we are
responsible for it, and nothing will ever be done about it. Don't assume
just because I believe climate change is true that I think draconian carbon
regulations are a good thing or practical. Once you reach a certain level
of apathy you can realize that at best believing in climate change is a
good way to tweak the scientific illiterati on the internet.

--
Bill Asher

p.s. it's 'irrelevant.'

Date: 07 Feb 2007 16:03:33
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 7, 3:34 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > That struck me as almost hysterical as well...
>
> You're right. Any chick would kill for a guy that iconoclastic and studly.
> Fuck being a cowboy, living your platonic concept of life is what will get
> you laid.

It is times such as these where I would support a tax for
dictionaries. See how flexible and open-minded I am?

Date: 08 Feb 2007 00:05:37
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> On Feb 7, 3:34 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > That struck me as almost hysterical as well...
>>
>> You're right. Any chick would kill for a guy that iconoclastic and
>> studly. Fuck being a cowboy, living your platonic concept of life is
>> what will get you laid.
>
> It is times such as these where I would support a tax for
> dictionaries. See how flexible and open-minded I am?
>
>

Which word don't you know? I can rewrite it using a synonym if you want.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 07 Feb 2007 14:22:43
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 7, 7:47 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote
> >>http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/lindzen.html
>
> >> His graph shows that global temperature was constant after 1998; you
> >> can see it in his top panel as well as in the little inset on the
> >> lower right. That claim was pretty surprising but Lindzen included the
> >> source so
> >> one can download the data and double-check the graph. That's the
> >> lower panel. Notice anything different between the rightmost three
> >> bars of Lindzen's graph and the one below?
>
> > And the other side is scientific?
>
> Dude, Lindzen flat-out doctored the data. Download the data yourself and try
> to reproduce his graph.

I'm not sure if it is the right-wing or left-wing controlled media
that swallowed my previous post, but nontheless I'll try again.

Both Lindzen and you "doctored" the data. I got the data, and it
isn't quite like your's or Lindzen's. Nor is any of our's like the
one here: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif.

So everyone is doctoring the data. But since I don't have a
doctorate, mine is most likely of the highest fidelity.

1960 -0.014
1961 0.049
1962 0.073
1963 0.101
1964 -0.300
1965 -0.266
1966 -0.105
1967 -0.111
1968 -0.197
1969 -0.232
1970 -0.100
1971 -0.184
1972 -0.366
1973 0.149
1974 -0.261
1975 0.001
1976 -0.380
1977 0.117
1978 -0.045
1979 0.055
1980 0.087
1981 0.421
1982 -0.025
1983 0.338
1984 -0.073
1985 -0.114
1986 0.111
1987 0.256
1988 0.393
1989 0.310
1990 0.592
1991 0.418
1992 0.085
1993 0.174
1994 0.434
1995 0.665
1996 0.182
1997 0.551
1998 0.953
1999 0.717
2000 0.600
2001 0.794
2002 0.867
2003 0.807
2004 0.825
2005 0.898
2006 0.898

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem3nh.txt

Date: 08 Feb 2007 02:49:41
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

>> Dude, Lindzen flat-out doctored the data. Download the data yourself
>> and try to reproduce his graph.
>
> I'm not sure if it is the right-wing or left-wing controlled media
> that swallowed my previous post, but nontheless I'll try again.
>
> Both Lindzen and you "doctored" the data. I got the data, and it
> isn't quite like your's or Lindzen's. [...]
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem3nh.txt

Dude, Lindzen's presentation was made on 6 May 2006 (as I noted way above)
so when you got a data set with a 2006 average temp you should've known you
were looking at the wrong data. If you check the datestamp on my graph
you'll see it was 19 May 2006. The "3" series data (as in crutem3) were
started in 2006, but were unavailable in May of that year. If you had been
putting together a plot back then, you would've been using the "2" series
data. Also, both Lindzen and I were looking at the variance-adjusted series.

So, you should've been looking for something that was described as "average
northern hemisphere temperature series 2 variance-adjusted" That's on this
page: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/tem2/
and the file is
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavenh2v.dat

If you plot those data, you'll see that's what Lindzen plotted *up to the
last three data points*.

BTW, if it was up to me, I would've plotted the global temps, not the NH
temps. I had to dig up the NH temps to try to match Lindzen's graph.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 14:22:14
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Date: 07 Feb 2007 13:04:16
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 7, 12:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote in message
>
> > Dude, Lindzen flat-out doctored the data. Download the data yourself and
> > try to reproduce his graph.
>
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
>
> You're contesting this?

Well, that graph convinces me global warming is real.
Thanks, Tom!

Ben

Date: 07 Feb 2007 11:31:56
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 7, 9:40 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:

> ... industry has already won, ...

LOL

Date: 07 Feb 2007 21:29:29
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote in message
news:1170876716.224368.267730@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 7, 9:40 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> ... industry has already won, ...
>
> LOL

That struck me as almost hysterical as well. Industry has won - the fact
that you're driving your 4 year old car down the 8 lane freeway at 15 mph
above the speed limit, to get back from your job servicing Wifi connected
laptops to your air conditioned, centrally heated, automatic garage door
equiped 6 room 1,800 square foot bungalo is another sign of how dreadful
"industry" is.

"Give a Liberal a thought and he will repeat it mindlessly for the rest of
the day. Teach a Liberal to think for himself and he'll vote Republican
forever."

Date: 07 Feb 2007 23:34:06
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:

> That struck me as almost hysterical as well. Industry has won - the
> fact that you're driving your 4 year old car down the 8 lane freeway
> at 15 mph above the speed limit, to get back from your job servicing
> Wifi connected laptops to your air conditioned, centrally heated,
> automatic garage door equiped 6 room 1,800 square foot bungalo is
> another sign of how dreadful "industry" is.

You're right. Any chick would kill for a guy that iconoclastic and studly.
Fuck being a cowboy, living your platonic concept of life is what will get
you laid.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 04 Feb 2007 21:41:18
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1170610656.274677.113430@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com >,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> On Feb 4, 11:13 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > To restate, the "side plates" would seem to be a fairly recent
> > addition to Army-issue body armor, and that only for those lucky
> > enough to be issued "current, best" stuff.
> >
> > Where did you go to fester, TK? Someplace dark, moist, and warm? --D-y
>
> It goes a lot deeper than that.
> DOD owns the rights to the Interceptor stuff and licenses/sells it
> all over the world. DOD has tested and failed Dragon Skin. This after
> they tried to buy the rights to it and were turned down. Several
> scientists at Darpa testified to Congress that Dragon Skin would never
> pass a DOD test, or be purchased until they sold the rights to DOD.

Huh, one supplier gets aced out because they won't play with the DOD. I never saw
that one coming...

> Unfortunately no source, whether it's the GAO, a Congressional
> investigation, the DOJ, or the FBI is good enough to change Tom's
> mind.

Well, he'd think it was different if Clinton was still president.

> This is nothing really new. Those who are connected get no-bid/rigged
> contracts despite their miserable failures to deliver the goods,
> services, and products.

Along the same lines:

http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/02/the_trouble_with_contracting/

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 04 Feb 2007 22:05:05
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1170610656.274677.113430@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 4, 11:13 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> To restate, the "side plates" would seem to be a fairly recent
>> addition to Army-issue body armor, and that only for those lucky
>> enough to be issued "current, best" stuff.
>
> It goes a lot deeper than that.
> DOD owns the rights to the Interceptor stuff and licenses/sells it
> all over the world. DOD has tested and failed Dragon Skin.

Bill, what's with the conspiracy theories? DOD "owns" the armor? By all
means explain how the DOD is getting rich off of selling body armor. And
while you're at it perhaps you can cite federal regulations allowing the DOD
to earn any money at all.

All of that Dragon Skin is nice but what do you think of it if it costs 2
times as much , works less than 5% better than the DOD standard, weighs a
pound more and will be defeated by a standard AK-47 7.62 mm armor piercing
round?

Here's the problem with armor - if you use heavier armor, the enemy simply
uses more powerful bullets or bombs. This isn't a guess - it is battlefield
experience. Look at the size of the bombs going off in Bagdad now that we're
teaching them that bigger is always better.

Date: 23 Jan 2007 11:56:52
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:09:22 GMT, ST <no@no.com > wrote:

>f the US (read: US military forces in the conflict) was subject to the
>political correctness and massive power struggle finger pointing of a party
>trying to win a presidency in WWII we would have "Re-Deployed" in 1943!!

Taking that back even further, after a few disastrous losses during
the Civil War, the North would have cut and run and the US would be
two nations.

Date: 23 Jan 2007 12:43:57
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 11:56:52 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>Taking that back even further, after a few disastrous losses during
>the Civil War, the North would have cut and run and the US would be
>two nations.

Perhaps - after the North discovered there were no slaves in the
South. And they would have started WWII by starting a war with some
country other than Japan after Pearl Harbor.

For the most part the U.S. was right in WWII. For the most part the
North was right in the Civil War. For the most part the U.S. is wrong
in Iraq.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 22 Jan 2007 00:10:16
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <C1D95CD2.2001B3%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> On 1/21/07 10:35 AM, in article
> jyh-288DF4.13350921012007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com, "jean-yves herve"
> <jyh@cs.uri.edu> wrote:
>
> > No, the USA did not win the war. It won the conventional fighting,
> > which is just one facet of the war, along with the diplomatic,
> > political, economic, and nowadays PR facets. This is not a new concept:
> > Clausewitz wrote brilliantly on that 200 years ago, and Sun Tzu 2000
> > years ago.
> >
> > When you are the USA taking on a country like Iraq after months of
> > preparation, you know that you are going to beat the crap out of their
> > army in a matter of weeks. So it is criminally stupid not to have a
> > plan ready for after the conflict. Just an example: When Saddam was
> > finally captured, it was 1 to 2 weeks before the USA finally decided
> > whether he would be treated as a PoW. They had a full year to think
> > about what to do with him after the battle and they still took a
> > decision on the spur of the moment. That is criminal incompetence!
> >
> > jyh.
>
> What does most of this shit you are saying boil down to? PCism.......
> If the US (read: US military forces in the conflict) was subject to the
> political correctness and massive power struggle finger pointing of a party
> trying to win a presidency in WWII we would have "Re-Deployed" in 1943!!

What are you talking about PCism? What the hell does anything I wrote
have anything to do with PCism? OK, since you don't seem overly bright,
I will keep it simple for you: The US military is a fine tool in the
hands of the US Govt. Like any other fine tool, it works better when
used properly, on an appropriate task. A scalpel and an axe are also
fine tools, but if you try to use an axe for surgery, or a scalpel to
fall la tree, you are misusing a fine tool with failure as a likely
outcome. When you send the US military in Iraq with "secure a peaceful
transition to a stable democracy" as an objective, you are also misusing
a fine tool. What this has to do with left, right, and political
correctness is beyond me.

jyh.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 22:43:37
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

On Jan 24, 9:15 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
>
> > That actually would have been advantageous to everyone but Iran. If
> > they both had the bomb, like Pakistan and India do, the Mutually
> > Assured Destruction reduces the chance of a conventional conflict to
> > almost nil.
>
> That's true. Something to think about regarding nukes in the Middle East: I've
> wondered if MAD would apply with Israel involved. It's been an open secret that
> Israel has 'em (and Olmert let on a few weeks ago). Based on things I've read (like
> that Jerusalem Post article by Benny Morris a few days ago *), I wonder if Israel,
> fearing a potential attack, would think that it could pull the trigger first on Iran
> (who are the most likely enemy of Israel to get nukes)

<snip >

Dumbass -

If they did that it would be extremely, extremely stupid.

Nukes are 1940's technology. It cannot be contained forever.

If Israel did a first strike on Iran, she would be dooming herself in
the long run. One of the Muslim nations would get the bomb sooner or
later, and "boom!"

It wouldn't have to have a signature, as in a missile. Shipping
container, commercial airplane - a terrorist nuke could be delivered in
any number of ways and Israel is such a small country that a fallout
from a large nuke could doom the entire country, sorta like the No
Man's Land around Chernobyl.

That's one of the really stupid things that the Bush Admin. under
Rumsfeld was in danger of doing. They were making noises back in 2004
about not forgoing the use of tactical nukes. Stupid! If tactical nukes
were in play, that would completely negate our superiority in
conventional force. Those idiots were like dudes who had too much
alcohol and too much testosterone and just wanted to prove how tough
they were, throwing out their chests. Morons.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 23:24:56
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

In article <1169707417.892440.153520@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

> On Jan 24, 9:15 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> >
> > > That actually would have been advantageous to everyone but Iran. If
> > > they both had the bomb, like Pakistan and India do, the Mutually
> > > Assured Destruction reduces the chance of a conventional conflict to
> > > almost nil.
> >
> > That's true. Something to think about regarding nukes in the Middle East:
> > I've wondered if MAD would apply with Israel involved. It's been an open
> > secret that Israel has 'em (and Olmert let on a few weeks ago). Based on
> > things I've read (like that Jerusalem Post article by Benny Morris a few
> > days ago *), I wonder if Israel, fearing a potential attack, would think
> > that it could pull the trigger first on Iran (who are the most likely
> > enemy of Israel to get nukes)
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> If they did that it would be extremely, extremely stupid.
>
> Nukes are 1940's technology. It cannot be contained forever.
>
> If Israel did a first strike on Iran, she would be dooming herself in
> the long run. One of the Muslim nations would get the bomb sooner or
> later, and "boom!"
>
> It wouldn't have to have a signature, as in a missile. Shipping
> container, commercial airplane - a terrorist nuke could be delivered in
> any number of ways and Israel is such a small country that a fallout
> from a large nuke could doom the entire country, sorta like the No
> Man's Land around Chernobyl.

That's one of the things I'd wondered about: would they be so short-sighted as to
imagine that only the country they attacked would consider retaliation and that it
might come in non-conventional means.

> That's one of the really stupid things that the Bush Admin. under
> Rumsfeld was in danger of doing. They were making noises back in 2004
> about not forgoing the use of tactical nukes. Stupid! If tactical nukes
> were in play, that would completely negate our superiority in
> conventional force.

That came up again last year when they started talking about Iran's nuclear
programs. The idea was floated about using low-level warheads on the Iranian nuclear
sites and denying it, saying that any radiation in the area was due to leaks from
the site itself.

> Those idiots were like dudes who had too much alcohol and too much
> testosterone and just wanted to prove how tough they were, throwing out their
> chests. Morons.

Sounds familiar: "The typical victim is a 17-to 27-year-old male. Most of the
bites are on the upper extremities, resulting from a deliberate attempt to handle or
disturb the snake. Studies have shown that alcohol intoxication is a factor in many
venomous snakebites."

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 26 Jan 2007 20:15:48
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:24:56 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>> That's one of the really stupid things that the Bush Admin. under
>> Rumsfeld was in danger of doing. They were making noises back in 2004
>> about not forgoing the use of tactical nukes. Stupid! If tactical nukes
>> were in play, that would completely negate our superiority in
>> conventional force.
>
> That came up again last year when they started talking about Iran's nuclear
>programs. The idea was floated about using low-level warheads on the Iranian nuclear
>sites and denying it, saying that any radiation in the area was due to leaks from
>the site itself.

This myth lives on and it can be traced back to Seymour Hirsch's
totally discredited article. He claimed that the US was planning to
use nuclear bunker buster bombs to get at Iran's underground nuclear
facilities. In fact, not only is the US not considering using these
weapons, these weapons don't even exist.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 16:07:48
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

On Feb 6, 3:00 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
>
> Howard, there are no nuclear bunker buster bombs.

That's what the nuclear bunker buster bombs want
you to think.

Ben
p.s. Also, just because there are no nuclear bunker buster
bombs doesn't falsify that some political appointee at the NSC
has suggested dropping them on Iran. I could easily believe
both those premises.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 15:32:51
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

On Feb 6, 5:00 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:02:02 -0800, Howard Kveck
>
> <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> >> > Oh, King Kunich says, "Silence, knave!!!" Whatever. What you seem to
> >> > ignore is that conventional bombs *will not* damage the facilities that are
> >> > as far underground as these are alleged to be. Plain and simple.
>
> >> Then I'm sure that you have a citation to that effect.
>
> > Read the Hersh article for starters. Then go fucking google it. It's out there,
> >Tom. And by the way, if you could use your much vaunted "reading skills"
> >(snicker...) you would note that I said "alleged to be."
>
> Howard, there are no nuclear bunker buster bombs.

The question is did they cancel it, or take it black?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2002/020300-bunker-buster.pdf

Geoffrey Forden is a Senior Research Fellow
at MIT's Security Studies Program and formerly the
principal analyst for strategic weapon systems at the
U.S. Congressional Budget Office

Other things to worry about:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/1997_h/has274010_1.htm

NUCLEAR TERRORISM AND COUNTERMEASURES
House of Representatives,
Committee on National Security,
Military Research and Development Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, October 1, 1997.

Lebed told us while still operating in his capacity as Secretary
of the Russian Security Council, he had conducted a study of the
Russian military accounting for its nuclear weapons, specifically
suitcase-sized nuclear devices, and had found that the military had
lost track of approximately 84 suitcase-sized nuclear bombs, any one
of which could kill up to 100,000 people with a capacity of 1 kiloton.
Bill C

Date: 06 Feb 2007 23:30:17
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

On 6 Feb 2007 15:32:51 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:

>> Howard, there are no nuclear bunker buster bombs.
>
> The question is did they cancel it, or take it black?

We'll never know.

Date: 27 Jan 2007 22:24:32
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

In article <lo9lr2ddlsmki5vfrns9fdldbefj9pst7r@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:24:56 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> >> That's one of the really stupid things that the Bush Admin. under
> >> Rumsfeld was in danger of doing. They were making noises back in 2004
> >> about not forgoing the use of tactical nukes. Stupid! If tactical nukes
> >> were in play, that would completely negate our superiority in
> >> conventional force.
> >
> > That came up again last year when they started talking about Iran's
> > nuclear programs. The idea was floated about using low-level warheads
> > on the Iranian nuclear sites and denying it, saying that any radiation
> > in the area was due to leaks from the site itself.
>
> This myth lives on and it can be traced back to Seymour Hirsch's
> totally discredited article. He claimed that the US was planning to
> use nuclear bunker buster bombs to get at Iran's underground nuclear
> facilities. In fact, not only is the US not considering using these
> weapons, these weapons don't even exist.

Myth? I don't know about that. Hersh's article hasn't been discredited by anyone
that I trust. Mnay times people claim to have discredit articles by him but he
slowly comes to be proven correct (see abu Ghraib). They do have bombs that they
think will do the job and are working towards more blast less fallout.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 02 Feb 2007 20:12:37
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-3DC7E5.22243227012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> Myth? I don't know about that. Hersh's article hasn't been discredited
> by anyone
> that I trust.

Let's see, on the list of people you trust:

Jane Fonda
Nancy Pelosi
Hillary Clinton
Howard Dean
Al Gore

I can see why you wouldn't trust someone that actually knows about weapons.
For instance, why would you use a nuc when conventional bombs are perfectly
suitable? Oh, that's right, in the Kveck universe everything is magic and
nothing really works the way it does in the real universe.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 04:21:30
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

On Feb 6, 11:45 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:54:14 -0500, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >> Howard, there are no nuclear bunker buster bombs.
>
> >I for one never underestimate the US military's capability to blow up
> >stuff, but regardless of whether the toys are nuclear or not, they are
> >only going to do their job if used at the right locations. Now, based
> >on what we have seen in Iraq, how much stock do you put in the quality
> >of USA's intelligence about the location of Iran's critical facilities?
>
> I wouldn't venture a guess on how good US intelligence is inside Iran
> or how good the high tech surveillance is. I doubt that the US could
> eliminate all of Iran's nuclear program, but it certainly could do a
> lot of damage. Iran has been playing a shell game with their nuclear
> facilites. The trouble for them is that this invites the US to strike
> at all the shells.
>
> In reality, the US doesn't have to eliminate all of Iran's nuclear
> facilities. It only has to convince the Iranians to agree to stop
> their nuclear program and agree to stringent inspections. An air
> campaign which gradually increased the type of targets could
> eventually convince the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions.
>
> Ultimately, a nation as powerful as the US could make it impossible
> for Iran to function as a modern nation in a matter of days. At that
> point, Iran would have trouble making transistor radios, never mind
> nuclear weapons.

Agreed. This is the point I keep making. The US hasn't even begun to
really use it's military power yet due to "political" concerns. If
Iran keeps pushing somebody might actually decide to fight this like
ww2 and use our capabilities.
Bill C

Date: 02 Feb 2007 22:19:40
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

In article <VWMwh.18305$yx6.8813@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-3DC7E5.22243227012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > Myth? I don't know about that. Hersh's article hasn't been discredited
> > by anyone that I trust.
>
> Let's see, on the list of people you trust:
>
> Jane Fonda
> Nancy Pelosi
> Hillary Clinton
> Howard Dean
> Al Gore
>
> I can see why you wouldn't trust someone that actually knows about weapons.

So who that actually knows about weapons discredited Sy Hersh's article?

> For instance, why would you use a nuc when conventional bombs are perfectly
> suitable?

We're not talking about bombing things sitting on the surface, Tom. Conventional
bombs won't have much effect on the facilities that are in bunkers far below the
surface. That's why they were on about using "nucs" instead.

> Oh, that's right, in the Kveck universe everything is magic and
> nothing really works the way it does in the real universe.

Right, Tommy. Speaking of magic universes, in *your* universe, George W. Bush is
a great president and the war in Iraq is a great success.

So how about we make a list of the people that you trust, Tom?

George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Condi Rice
Bill Kristol
Charles Krauthammer

Were any of them right about a single thing when it came to the war in Iraq?

30% job approval rating for your boy W...

Did you forget your meds tonight?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 03 Feb 2007 23:27:17
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-2D9242.22194002022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <VWMwh.18305$yx6.8813@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> For instance, why would you use a nuc when conventional bombs are
>> perfectly
>> suitable?
>
> We're not talking about bombing things sitting on the surface, Tom.
> Conventional
> bombs won't have much effect on the facilities that are in bunkers far
> below the
> surface. That's why they were on about using "nucs" instead.

Let me repeat myself - why would you use a nuc when conventional bombs are
perfectly suitable? If you don't know what weapons are available to the
military I suggest you could just remain silent. When I left the military in
1967 we could pierce underground bunkers and I saw it first hand since I was
part of a testing team.

>> Oh, that's right, in the Kveck universe everything is magic and
>> nothing really works the way it does in the real universe.
>
> Right, Tommy. Speaking of magic universes, in *your* universe, George W.
> Bush is
> a great president and the war in Iraq is a great success.

I realize that you believe that walking away and watching the murder of a
couple of million people would fit your chanracter to a tee, but not even
Hillary would dare to do that now that we watched 4 million people murdered
in Southeast Asia because of such Liberal tactics. Funny thing - I've never
seen a single Liberal take the blame for that one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp

"As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I
produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost
word for word and planted it in leftist movements throughout Europe. KGB
chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation. He often
bragged about having damaged the U.S. foreign-policy consensus, poisoned
domestic debate in the U.S., and built a credibility gap between America and
European public opinion through our disinformation operations. Vietnam was,
he once told me, "our most significant success.""
Gee, if Liberalism is lucky enough maybe they can be responsible for another
four or five million deaths and then they can say it was REALLY someone
else's fault.

Date: 04 Feb 2007 21:12:22
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

In article <pT8xh.22997$X72.21798@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-2D9242.22194002022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <VWMwh.18305$yx6.8813@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >>
> >> For instance, why would you use a nuc when conventional bombs are
> >> perfectly
> >> suitable?
> >
> > We're not talking about bombing things sitting on the surface, Tom.
> > Conventional bombs won't have much effect on the facilities that are in bunkers
> > far below the surface. That's why they were on about using "nucs" instead.
>
> Let me repeat myself - why would you use a nuc when conventional bombs are
> perfectly suitable? If you don't know what weapons are available to the
> military I suggest you could just remain silent.

Oh, King Kunich says, "Silence, knave!!!" Whatever. What you seem to ignore is
that conventional bombs *will not* damage the facilities that are as far underground
as these are alleged to be. Plain and simple.

> When I left the military in 1967 we could pierce underground bunkers and I saw it
> first hand since I was part of a testing team.

Well, gollllly, Tom. What a surprise, once again you just *happen* to have been
involved in something related to what we're discussing. So it just *happens* to
appear to make you into an expert. It's so strange how often this happens. You must
be the most Zelig-like person in the world.

> >> Oh, that's right, in the Kveck universe everything is magic and
> >> nothing really works the way it does in the real universe.
> >
> > Right, Tommy. Speaking of magic universes, in *your* universe, George W.
> > Bush is a great president and the war in Iraq is a great success.
>
> I realize that you believe that walking away and watching the murder of a
> couple of million people would fit your chanracter to a tee, but not even
> Hillary would dare to do that now that we watched 4 million people murdered
> in Southeast Asia because of such Liberal tactics. Funny thing - I've never
> seen a single Liberal take the blame for that one.

"Liberal tactics?" Are you kidding me again? The likelyhood of what happened in
Vietnam happening with or without our intervention is pretty high. The likelyhood of
what happened in Cambodia happening without the secret US bombing campaign is far
less. Do you think Nixon's bombing of Cambodia was a "Liberal tactic?"

> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp
>
> "As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I
> produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost
> word for word and planted it in leftist movements throughout Europe. KGB
> chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation. He often
> bragged about having damaged the U.S. foreign-policy consensus, poisoned
> domestic debate in the U.S., and built a credibility gap between America and
> European public opinion through our disinformation operations. Vietnam was,
> he once told me, "our most significant success.""
> Gee, if Liberalism is lucky enough maybe they can be responsible for another
> four or five million deaths and then they can say it was REALLY someone
> else's fault.

You actually believe all that bullshit out of NRO? Well, I'm not surprised that
you do. There's no proof of it actually happening that way, of course, but don't let
that stop you, Tommy. As for being responsible for "another four or five million
deaths," what do you think is going to happen when Bsuh and Cheney's failed policies
continue to play out in the Middleeast? What do you think is going to happen when
they find some excuse to start a war with with Iran?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 05 Feb 2007 21:42:58
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-C47CBB.21122204022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <pT8xh.22997$X72.21798@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>> news:YOURhoward-2D9242.22194002022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> > In article <VWMwh.18305$yx6.8813@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> For instance, why would you use a nuc when conventional bombs are
>> >> perfectly
>> >> suitable?
>> >
>> > We're not talking about bombing things sitting on the surface, Tom.
>> > Conventional bombs won't have much effect on the facilities that are in
>> > bunkers
>> > far below the surface. That's why they were on about using "nucs"
>> > instead.
>>
>> Let me repeat myself - why would you use a nuc when conventional bombs
>> are
>> perfectly suitable? If you don't know what weapons are available to the
>> military I suggest you could just remain silent.
>
> Oh, King Kunich says, "Silence, knave!!!" Whatever. What you seem to
> ignore is
> that conventional bombs *will not* damage the facilities that are as far
> underground
> as these are alleged to be. Plain and simple.

Then I'm sure that you have a citation to that effect. Or is it just your
imagination running amuck yet again? Somehow I have my doubts that you're
privy to top secret military information on either the positions and
effectiveness of Iranian bunkers or the military responses capable of
attacking those sites. But plainly you are privy to left wing propaganda if
not a prime source of it.

>> http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp
>>
>> "As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania,
>> I
>> produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost
>> word for word and planted it in leftist movements throughout Europe. KGB
>> chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation. He often
>> bragged about having damaged the U.S. foreign-policy consensus, poisoned
>> domestic debate in the U.S., and built a credibility gap between America
>> and
>> European public opinion through our disinformation operations. Vietnam
>> was,
>> he once told me, "our most significant success.""
>> Gee, if Liberalism is lucky enough maybe they can be responsible for
>> another
>> four or five million deaths and then they can say it was REALLY someone
>> else's fault.
>
> You actually believe all that bullshit out of NRO? Well, I'm not
> surprised that
> you do. There's no proof of it actually happening that way, of course, but
> don't let
> that stop you, Tommy. As for being responsible for "another four or five
> million
> deaths," what do you think is going to happen when Bsuh and Cheney's
> failed policies
> continue to play out in the Middleeast? What do you think is going to
> happen when
> they find some excuse to start a war with with Iran?

Thanks for the demonstration of yours. Those who were there and absolutely
participated in it are somehow ignorant but you, with all of your great
sources and citations are overwhelmingly capable of spotting what and where
the BS is.

If there's one outstanding trait of modern Liberalism it's that nothing
trumps a Liberal's opinion. No amount of fact, no historic precidence, no
amount of intellectual research on the subject - nothing. And speaking of
"nothing" - how are you and have you ridden a bike in the last 10 years?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 00:02:02
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

In article <CxNxh.19047$pQ3.11288@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-C47CBB.21122204022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> > Oh, King Kunich says, "Silence, knave!!!" Whatever. What you seem to
> > ignore is that conventional bombs *will not* damage the facilities that are
> > as far underground as these are alleged to be. Plain and simple.
>
> Then I'm sure that you have a citation to that effect.

Read the Hersh article for starters. Then go fucking google it. It's out there,
Tom. And by the way, if you could use your much vaunted "reading skills"
(snicker...) you would note that I said "alleged to be."

> Or is it just your imagination running amuck yet again? Somehow I have my
> doubts that you're privy to top secret military information on either the
> positions and effectiveness of Iranian bunkers or the military responses
> capable of attacking those sites.

I don't claim to be privy to that info, although you seem to like to imply that
you know exactly what they have and how easy it would be to blow one open.

> Thanks for the demonstration of yours. Those who were there and absolutely
> participated in it are somehow ignorant but you, with all of your great
> sources and citations are overwhelmingly capable of spotting what and where
> the BS is.
>
> If there's one outstanding trait of modern Liberalism it's that nothing
> trumps a Liberal's opinion. No amount of fact, no historic precidence, no
> amount of intellectual research on the subject - nothing.

That's an amazingly accurate description of you - well, except for the part you
forgot. You know, the bombastic know-it-all blowhard part. Anyway, it's nice that
you like to believe that crap from NRo, as it does rather nicely fit into your
childlike paranoic fantasy world. And that means it must be true.

> And speaking of "nothing" - how are you and have you ridden a bike in the last
> 10 years?

Actually, yes, thank you. It was a lovely weekend out. Too bad you were cooped up
inside stewing about all the times you've been wronged and the Liberal plot to
subject you to a "Final Solution."

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 17:00:03
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:02:02 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>> > Oh, King Kunich says, "Silence, knave!!!" Whatever. What you seem to
>> > ignore is that conventional bombs *will not* damage the facilities that are
>> > as far underground as these are alleged to be. Plain and simple.
>>
>> Then I'm sure that you have a citation to that effect.
>
> Read the Hersh article for starters. Then go fucking google it. It's out there,
>Tom. And by the way, if you could use your much vaunted "reading skills"
>(snicker...) you would note that I said "alleged to be."

Howard, there are no nuclear bunker buster bombs.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 20:46:28
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

In article <2vths2dqet86nk43r24um61ecbcj53mceq@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:02:02 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:

> > Read the Hersh article for starters. Then go fucking google it. It's out
> > there, Tom. And by the way, if you could use your much vaunted "reading skills"
> >(snicker...) you would note that I said "alleged to be."
>
> Howard, there are no nuclear bunker buster bombs.

I've read about them in the past but here's the quote from Hersh's article, Jack.
I think that if he can cite a name (or designation) for it, it probably does exist.
Oh, and it also gives some idea of how deep the Iranian facilities are thought to be.
____________________________________

One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the
Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon,
such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran's main
centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which
is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to
hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried
approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges
could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year.
(Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment
program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current
activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would
be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the
American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five
feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers with nuclear
weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American intelligence community watched
as the Soviet government began digging a huge underground complex outside Moscow.
Analysts concluded that the underground facility was designed for "continuity of
government"--for the political and military leadership to survive a nuclear war.
(There are similar facilities, in Virginia and Pennsylvania, for the American
leadership.) The Soviet facility still exists, and much of what the U.S. knows about
it remains classified. "The 'tell' "--the giveaway--"was the ventilator shafts, some
of which were disguised," the former senior intelligence official told me. At the
time, he said, it was determined that "only nukes" could destroy the bunker. He
added that some American intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped the
Iranians design their underground facility. "We see a similarity of design,"
specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said.
____________________________________

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 18:54:14
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

In article <2vths2dqet86nk43r24um61ecbcj53mceq@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> Howard, there are no nuclear bunker buster bombs.

I for one never underestimate the US military's capability to blow up
stuff, but regardless of whether the toys are nuclear or not, they are
only going to do their job if used at the right locations. Now, based
on what we have seen in Iraq, how much stock do you put in the quality
of USA's intelligence about the location of Iran's critical facilities?

jyh.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 20:46:21
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

In article <jyh-EDF9A3.18541406022007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com >,
jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu > wrote:

> In article <2vths2dqet86nk43r24um61ecbcj53mceq@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Howard, there are no nuclear bunker buster bombs.
>
> I for one never underestimate the US military's capability to blow up
> stuff, but regardless of whether the toys are nuclear or not, they are
> only going to do their job if used at the right locations. Now, based
> on what we have seen in Iraq, how much stock do you put in the quality
> of USA's intelligence about the location of Iran's critical facilities?
>
> jyh.

Well, we probably wouldn't be getting info on that from Ahmed Chalabi...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 23:45:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:54:14 -0500, jean-yves herve <jyh@cs.uri.edu >
wrote:

>> Howard, there are no nuclear bunker buster bombs.
>
>I for one never underestimate the US military's capability to blow up
>stuff, but regardless of whether the toys are nuclear or not, they are
>only going to do their job if used at the right locations. Now, based
>on what we have seen in Iraq, how much stock do you put in the quality
>of USA's intelligence about the location of Iran's critical facilities?

I wouldn't venture a guess on how good US intelligence is inside Iran
or how good the high tech surveillance is. I doubt that the US could
eliminate all of Iran's nuclear program, but it certainly could do a
lot of damage. Iran has been playing a shell game with their nuclear
facilites. The trouble for them is that this invites the US to strike
at all the shells.

In reality, the US doesn't have to eliminate all of Iran's nuclear
facilities. It only has to convince the Iranians to agree to stop
their nuclear program and agree to stringent inspections. An air
campaign which gradually increased the type of targets could
eventually convince the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions.

Ultimately, a nation as powerful as the US could make it impossible
for Iran to function as a modern nation in a matter of days. At that
point, Iran would have trouble making transistor radios, never mind
nuclear weapons.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 03:17:13
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

"jean-yves herve" <jyh@cs.uri.edu > wrote in message
news:jyh-EDF9A3.18541406022007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <2vths2dqet86nk43r24um61ecbcj53mceq@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Howard, there are no nuclear bunker buster bombs.
>
> I for one never underestimate the US military's capability to blow up
> stuff, but regardless of whether the toys are nuclear or not, they are
> only going to do their job if used at the right locations. Now, based
> on what we have seen in Iraq, how much stock do you put in the quality
> of USA's intelligence about the location of Iran's critical facilities?

The Democrat controlld Congress in the Reagan years cut off all of the
funding AND passed laws that made it impossible to have on-the-ground
intelligence operations. This forced the CIA and NSA to use satellite and
communications surveilance. This is a poor substitute and as we've seen,
especially when the enemy realizes that and simply passes you bad data. Not
only that but they also set up people whom they knew to be unreliable and
fed them all sorts of false information and then allowed them to escape to
the US and use that false information to gain immunity and entry in the USA.
They even set up Saddam's sons-in-law and then murdered them to make it
seem even more realistic. It was a work of spy-art.

Most of the underground bunkers and WMD sites that we were sure of from the
comings and goings of delivery trucks and monitored communications were in
fact nothing but counter intelligence operations from the start.

It has been so embarassing to the intel groups that they can't say in public
how duped they were. And while everyone is screaming about "Bush lied" the
fact is that he said absolutely nothing that wasn't said by Clintons and all
of the Democrat leadership starting in 1998.

And instead of FIXING the intelligence problem so that this doesn't happen
again in the future, the crazies are in charge of the Congress again and
they're going for political power.

So now it doesn't much matter who will be in the White House because they
will have poor intelligence on every front and be unable to make any moves
with confidence.

And the useful fools on the left here will remain complete oblivious of what
really happened.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 23:49:26
From: jean-yves herv�
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

In article <Zwbyh.19919$yx6.5670@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "jean-yves herve" <jyh@cs.uri.edu> wrote in message
> news:jyh-EDF9A3.18541406022007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
> > In article <2vths2dqet86nk43r24um61ecbcj53mceq@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Howard, there are no nuclear bunker buster bombs.
> >
> > I for one never underestimate the US military's capability to blow up
> > stuff, but regardless of whether the toys are nuclear or not, they are
> > only going to do their job if used at the right locations. Now, based
> > on what we have seen in Iraq, how much stock do you put in the quality
> > of USA's intelligence about the location of Iran's critical facilities?
>
> The Democrat controlld Congress in the Reagan years cut off all of the
> funding AND passed laws that made it impossible to have on-the-ground
> intelligence operations.

Somehow I should have guessed that the Democrats were responsible for
that too :-)

> And the useful fools on the left here will remain complete oblivious of what
> really happened.

Glad you were here to set the record straight.

Unfortunately, this does nothing to help with the fact that, even if you
have the best pea-shooter in the known universe, if you don't know where
to point your fucking pea-shooter, it won't make any difference if
you're shooting green peas, yellow peas, or wasabi peas.

jyh.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 14:20:49
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

"jean-yves herv�" <jyh@cs.uri.edu > wrote in message
news:jyh-C2ABA3.23492606022007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <Zwbyh.19919$yx6.5670@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "jean-yves herve" <jyh@cs.uri.edu> wrote in message
>> news:jyh-EDF9A3.18541406022007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
>> > In article <2vths2dqet86nk43r24um61ecbcj53mceq@4ax.com>,
>> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Howard, there are no nuclear bunker buster bombs.
>> >
>> > I for one never underestimate the US military's capability to blow up
>> > stuff, but regardless of whether the toys are nuclear or not, they are
>> > only going to do their job if used at the right locations. Now, based
>> > on what we have seen in Iraq, how much stock do you put in the quality
>> > of USA's intelligence about the location of Iran's critical facilities?
>>
>> The Democrat controlld Congress in the Reagan years cut off all of the
>> funding AND passed laws that made it impossible to have on-the-ground
>> intelligence operations.
>
> Somehow I should have guessed that the Democrats were responsible for
> that too :-)

Perhaps you should have known about the complaints about the problem in the
past? http://www.cicentre.com/Documents/DOC_Fairchild_Testimony.htm

>> And the useful fools on the left here will remain complete oblivious of
>> what
>> really happened.
>
> Glad you were here to set the record straight.
>
> Unfortunately, this does nothing to help with the fact that, even if you
> have the best pea-shooter in the known universe, if you don't know where
> to point your fucking pea-shooter, it won't make any difference if
> you're shooting green peas, yellow peas, or wasabi peas.

Hmm, thought that was what I was saying.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 15:35:11
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-A0A45C.00020206022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <CxNxh.19047$pQ3.11288@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>> news:YOURhoward-C47CBB.21122204022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
>> > Oh, King Kunich says, "Silence, knave!!!" Whatever. What you seem to
>> > ignore is that conventional bombs *will not* damage the facilities that
>> > are
>> > as far underground as these are alleged to be. Plain and simple.
>>
>> Then I'm sure that you have a citation to that effect.
>
> Read the Hersh article for starters. Then go fucking google it. It's out
> there,
> Tom. And by the way, if you could use your much vaunted "reading skills"
> (snicker...) you would note that I said "alleged to be."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886029431&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

""We will get them all in the end," Capt. A, one of the pilots who bombed
Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's underground bunker Sunday night,
declared on Monday, minutes before boarding an F-16I fighter jet on his way
to another sortie over Lebanon."

http://www.rense.com/general57/bunker.htm

"Israel Seeks 500 US
Bunker Buster Bombs"

>> Or is it just your imagination running amuck yet again? Somehow I have my
>> doubts that you're privy to top secret military information on either the
>> positions and effectiveness of Iranian bunkers or the military responses
>> capable of attacking those sites.
>
> I don't claim to be privy to that info, although you seem to like to
> imply that
> you know exactly what they have and how easy it would be to blow one open.

What I like to imply is that you have a big mouth and love to think that
you're really knowledgable. But then you continue to stick your foot into
it.

>> And speaking of "nothing" - how are you and have you ridden a bike in the
>> last
>> 10 years?
>
> Actually, yes, thank you. It was a lovely weekend out. Too bad you were
> cooped up
> inside stewing about all the times you've been wronged and the Liberal
> plot to
> subject you to a "Final Solution."

I have 950 miles so far this year. I'd have more but I've been spending all
this time coop up stewing and all. How about you?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 20:46:49
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

In article <Pe1yh.19267$pQ3.1461@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-A0A45C.00020206022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...

> > Read the Hersh article for starters. Then go fucking google it. It's out
> > there, Tom. And by the way, if you could use your much vaunted "reading skills"
> > (snicker...) you would note that I said "alleged to be."
>
> http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886029431&pagename=JPost%2FJPAr
> ticle%2FShowFull
>
> ""We will get them all in the end," Capt. A, one of the pilots who bombed
> Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's underground bunker Sunday night,
> declared on Monday, minutes before boarding an F-16I fighter jet on his way
> to another sortie over Lebanon."
>
> http://www.rense.com/general57/bunker.htm
>
> "Israel Seeks 500 US
> Bunker Buster Bombs"

"In June, the Pentagon said it was considering the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109
warheads, which can penetrate five metres (15 feet) of fortifications..."

Do you really think the Iranians have only put 5 meters of reinforcement on these
facilities? That's real good, Tom. Neither cited article indicates anything about
how deep the Iranian facilities are. Grasping at straws again.

> >> And speaking of "nothing" - how are you and have you ridden a bike in the
> >> last 10 years?
> >
> > Actually, yes, thank you. It was a lovely weekend out. Too bad you were
> > cooped up inside stewing about all the times you've been wronged and the Liberal
> > plot to subject you to a "Final Solution."
>
> I have 950 miles so far this year. I'd have more but I've been spending all
> this time coop up stewing and all. How about you?

Oh, between jobs again?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 07 Feb 2007 14:06:42
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-959FE4.20464906022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <Pe1yh.19267$pQ3.1461@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>
> Do you really think the Iranians have only put 5 meters of reinforcement
> on these
> facilities? That's real good, Tom. Neither cited article indicates
> anything about
> how deep the Iranian facilities are. Grasping at straws again.

Unlike yourself I am not privy to the fortifications that the Iranians are
using.

And by the way, you still don't understand a thing about what you're writing
but I notice you aren't slowing up at all.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 17:40:11
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

In article <S1lyh.20039$yx6.2954@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> news:YOURhoward-959FE4.20464906022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> > In article <Pe1yh.19267$pQ3.1461@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >
> > Do you really think the Iranians have only put 5 meters of reinforcement
> > on these facilities? That's real good, Tom. Neither cited article indicates
> > anything about how deep the Iranian facilities are. Grasping at straws again.
>
> Unlike yourself I am not privy to the fortifications that the Iranians are
> using.

Over the last few years (ten or more, I'd say) of following the events in Iran,
I've read a lot of info that indicates that they are burrowing rather deeply
underground. Furthermore, I've seen and read a fair amount of info that suggests
that our conventional weapons wouldn't be able to penetrate to those depths. You
emphatically claim that we can and set about berating me for stating an opinion
based on what I've learned, yet you just said that you aren't privy to info on the
fortifications that the Iranians are using. The sources you cited that I responded
to *did not* indicate how deep the Iranians are going, so why'd you cite them?

> And by the way, you still don't understand a thing about what you're writing
> but I notice you aren't slowing up at all.

Speak of the devil, Mr. Climate.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 08 Feb 2007 01:45:37
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

"Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote in message
news:YOURhoward-8B86A3.17401107022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <S1lyh.20039$yx6.2954@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>> news:YOURhoward-959FE4.20464906022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>> > In article <Pe1yh.19267$pQ3.1461@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> >
>> > Do you really think the Iranians have only put 5 meters of
>> > reinforcement
>> > on these facilities? That's real good, Tom. Neither cited article
>> > indicates
>> > anything about how deep the Iranian facilities are. Grasping at straws
>> > again.
>>
>> Unlike yourself I am not privy to the fortifications that the Iranians
>> are
>> using.
>
> Over the last few years (ten or more, I'd say) of following the events
> in Iran,
> I've read a lot of info that indicates that they are burrowing rather
> deeply
> underground.

And how deeply is deeply Mr. Wizard?

Date: 25 Jan 2007 13:49:11
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:24:56 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

>Sounds familiar: "The typical victim is a 17-to 27-year-old male. Most of the
>bites are on the upper extremities, resulting from a deliberate attempt to handle or
>disturb the snake. Studies have shown that alcohol intoxication is a factor in many
>venomous snakebites."

The moral of the story is that venomous snakes can't handle their
alcohol and get pissy when drunk? What are the characteristics of a
venomous snake suffering from alcohol intoxication?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 25 Jan 2007 17:07:59
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

Howard Kveck wrote:

<snip >
> Sounds familiar: "The typical victim is a 17-to 27-year-old male.
> Most of the bites are on the upper extremities, resulting from a
> deliberate attempt to handle or disturb the snake. Studies have shown
> that alcohol intoxication is a factor in many venomous snakebites."
>

http://tinyurl.com/h78xq

--
Bill Asher

Date: 25 Jan 2007 07:20:29
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

I'm easily duped -- a single speech can impress me a lot. This one is
pretty good:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Chuck_Hagel012407.mov
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 24 Jan 2007 19:12:54
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

On Jan 24, 6:07 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> > Bill C Funny that he criticizes Blitzer (who was doing his job for a change) for
> allegedly using hypotheticals: "Wolf, you can come up with all kinds of what-ifs;
> you've got to be deal with the reality on the ground." They've been doing a lot of
> 'what-ifs' themselves regarding Iraq (and Iran). Here's Bush on 60 Minutes (14
> January, '07): "Envision a world in which Saddam Hussein was rushing for a nuclear
> weapon to compete against Iran."

Dumbass -

That actually would have been advantageous to everyone but Iran. If
they both had the bomb, like Pakistan and India do, the Mutually
Assured Destruction reduces the chance of a conventional conflict to
almost nil.

Saddam's usefulness as a counterweight to a potential Shiite hegemony
in the region was why he was our ally pre-1991.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 21:15:24
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

In article <1169694774.304222.202400@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

> On Jan 24, 6:07 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > Funny that he criticizes Blitzer (who was doing his job for a
> > change) for allegedly using hypotheticals: "Wolf, you can come up
> > with all kinds of what-ifs; you've got to be deal with the reality
> > on the ground." They've been doing a lot of 'what-ifs' themselves
> > regarding Iraq (and Iran). Here's Bush on 60 Minutes (14 January,
> > '07): "Envision a world in which Saddam Hussein was rushing for a
> > nuclear weapon to compete against Iran."
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> That actually would have been advantageous to everyone but Iran. If
> they both had the bomb, like Pakistan and India do, the Mutually
> Assured Destruction reduces the chance of a conventional conflict to
> almost nil.

That's true. Something to think about regarding nukes in the Middle East: I've
wondered if MAD would apply with Israel involved. It's been an open secret that
Israel has 'em (and Olmert let on a few weeks ago). Based on things I've read (like
that Jerusalem Post article by Benny Morris a few days ago *), I wonder if Israel,
fearing a potential attack, would think that it could pull the trigger first on Iran
(who are the most likely enemy of Israel to get nukes) because they figure they have
better delivery systems and don't really think the Iranians could manage a hit (due
to either better Israeli defense or just Iranian tech that wasn't up to par). I
think there are people there (and here too) who believe that - whether that group
includes people who have their fingers near the button or not is unknowable.

> Saddam's usefulness as a counterweight to a potential Shiite hegemony
> in the region was why he was our ally pre-1991.

I agree that Saddam was a counterweight but I'm not entirely sure that a true
Shiite hegemony could have been achieved even with him gone. Strictly by numbers,
Sunnis do outnumber Shiites in the Middle East, but based on military and strategic
factors, the Shiites could have pulled it off.

* http://tinyurl.com/2waqfr

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 24 Jan 2007 16:52:04
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

On Jan 24, 5:21 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
Has Cheney *ever* said or predicted anything correctly about Iraq?
> No.
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/cheney/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Quoted:

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, conducted a day after Bush
delivered his State of the Union address, Cheney was asked to respond
to some Republicans in Congress who "are now seriously questioning your
credibility, because of the blunders and the failures."

To that, Cheney answered, "Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the
premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash."

It's amazing that he hasn't been blasted by a lightning bolt yet.
He probably isn't lieing. It's a prolonged war that's eating up
equipment, supplies, and "expert services". They are having to rebuild
the same oil fields and equipment.
His friends got a shitload of these contracts at huge profits, lots of
them on no bid contracts that were steered to them.
Nobody he gives a shit about is being killed or maimed, they couldn't
get through the gate of his country club so who gives a flying fuck
about them.
Pass the bonus checks and "consultant" contracts!
Bill C

Date: 24 Jan 2007 18:07:55
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

In article <1169686323.947209.64950@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:

> On Jan 24, 5:21 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> wrote:
> Has Cheney *ever* said or predicted anything correctly about Iraq?
> > No.
> > --
> > JT
> > ****************************
> > Remove "remove" to reply
> > Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> > ****************************- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/cheney/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
>
> Quoted:
>
> In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, conducted a day after Bush
> delivered his State of the Union address, Cheney was asked to respond
> to some Republicans in Congress who "are now seriously questioning your
> credibility, because of the blunders and the failures."
>
> To that, Cheney answered, "Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the
> premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash."
>
> It's amazing that he hasn't been blasted by a lightning bolt yet.
> He probably isn't lieing. It's a prolonged war that's eating up
> equipment, supplies, and "expert services". They are having to rebuild
> the same oil fields and equipment.
> His friends got a shitload of these contracts at huge profits, lots of
> them on no bid contracts that were steered to them.
> Nobody he gives a shit about is being killed or maimed, they couldn't
> get through the gate of his country club so who gives a flying fuck
> about them.
> Pass the bonus checks and "consultant" contracts!
> Bill C

Funny that he criticizes Blitzer (who was doing his job for a change) for
allegedly using hypotheticals: "Wolf, you can come up with all kinds of what-ifs;
you've got to be deal with the reality on the ground." They've been doing a lot of
'what-ifs' themselves regarding Iraq (and Iran). Here's Bush on 60 Minutes (14
January, '07): "Envision a world in which Saddam Hussein was rushing for a nuclear
weapon to compete against Iran." But that's different.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 06 Feb 2007 10:52:35
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

On Feb 6, 10:35 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
>
> news:YOURhoward-A0A45C.00020206022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <CxNxh.19047$pQ3.11...@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> "Howard Kveck" <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote in message
> >>news:YOURhoward-C47CBB.21122204022007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
>
> >> > Oh, King Kunich says, "Silence, knave!!!" Whatever. What you seem to
> >> > ignore is that conventional bombs *will not* damage the facilities that
> >> > are
> >> > as far underground as these are alleged to be. Plain and simple.
>
> >> Then I'm sure that you have a citation to that effect.
>
> > Read the Hersh article for starters. Then go fucking google it. It's out
> > there,
> > Tom. And by the way, if you could use your much vaunted "reading skills"
> > (snicker...) you would note that I said "alleged to be."
>
> http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150886029431&pagename=JPo...
>
> ""We will get them all in the end," Capt. A, one of the pilots who bombed
> Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's underground bunker Sunday night,
> declared on Monday, minutes before boarding an F-16I fighter jet on his way
> to another sortie over Lebanon."
>

Unfortunately they got NONE of them and failed miserably in Lebanon,
but that was as much due to the wide support for Hizbullah from the
Human Rights folks and news outlets, as it was Israeli failures.
They have, and are are going to put the bunkers under civilian
buildings like hospitals, school, and apartment buildings. They win
because the world doesn't condemn that, the human rights folks don't
consider it to be illegal, but if they are bombed then all hell breaks
loose against us or the Israelis for "murdering" civilians.
Bill C

Date: 06 Feb 2007 20:49:30
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1170787955.885937.42850@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Unfortunately they got NONE of them

Hmm, do you guys EVER remember the point of the conversation? Tomorrow are
you going to be agreeing with the Kveck moron that they can only reach
underground bunkers with a tactical nuclear weapon?

Date: 24 Jan 2007 20:11:05
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Cheney unfrigginbelievable!

On 24 Jan 2007 16:52:04 -0800, "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:

>
>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/24/cheney/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
>
>Quoted:
>
>In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, conducted a day after Bush
>delivered his State of the Union address, Cheney was asked to respond
>to some Republicans in Congress who "are now seriously questioning your
>credibility, because of the blunders and the failures."
>
>To that, Cheney answered, "Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the
>premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash."
>
> It's amazing that he hasn't been blasted by a lightning bolt yet.
> He probably isn't lieing. It's a prolonged war that's eating up
>equipment, supplies, and "expert services". They are having to rebuild
>the same oil fields and equipment.
> His friends got a shitload of these contracts at huge profits, lots of
>them on no bid contracts that were steered to them.
> Nobody he gives a shit about is being killed or maimed, they couldn't
>get through the gate of his country club so who gives a flying fuck
>about them.
> Pass the bonus checks and "consultant" contracts!

Yeah, it's horrendous.

The following is a cheap shot, but sort of interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d3A-hEjRZM
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 23 Jan 2007 04:15:43
From: ST
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 1/21/07 9:10 PM, in article
jyh-E433CD.00101622012007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com, "jean-yves herve"
<jyh@cs.uri.edu > wrote:

> In article <C1D95CD2.2001B3%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/07 10:35 AM, in article
>> jyh-288DF4.13350921012007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com, "jean-yves herve"
>> <jyh@cs.uri.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> No, the USA did not win the war. It won the conventional fighting,
>>> which is just one facet of the war, along with the diplomatic,
>>> political, economic, and nowadays PR facets. This is not a new concept:
>>> Clausewitz wrote brilliantly on that 200 years ago, and Sun Tzu 2000
>>> years ago.
>>>
>>> When you are the USA taking on a country like Iraq after months of
>>> preparation, you know that you are going to beat the crap out of their
>>> army in a matter of weeks. So it is criminally stupid not to have a
>>> plan ready for after the conflict. Just an example: When Saddam was
>>> finally captured, it was 1 to 2 weeks before the USA finally decided
>>> whether he would be treated as a PoW. They had a full year to think
>>> about what to do with him after the battle and they still took a
>>> decision on the spur of the moment. That is criminal incompetence!
>>>
>>> jyh.
>>
>> What does most of this shit you are saying boil down to? PCism.......
>> If the US (read: US military forces in the conflict) was subject to the
>> political correctness and massive power struggle finger pointing of a party
>> trying to win a presidency in WWII we would have "Re-Deployed" in 1943!!
>
> What are you talking about PCism? What the hell does anything I wrote
> have anything to do with PCism? OK, since you don't seem overly bright,
> I will keep it simple for you: The US military is a fine tool in the
> hands of the US Govt. Like any other fine tool, it works better when
> used properly, on an appropriate task. A scalpel and an axe are also
> fine tools, but if you try to use an axe for surgery, or a scalpel to
> fall la tree, you are misusing a fine tool with failure as a likely
> outcome. When you send the US military in Iraq with "secure a peaceful
> transition to a stable democracy" as an objective, you are also misusing
> a fine tool. What this has to do with left, right, and political
> correctness is beyond me.
>
> jyh.

Think about it dumbshit...........
There was so much political correctness going on over how to house Saddam,
how to try him to protect HIS civil rights, how he SHOULD have been handled,
how he SHOULD have been executed. 11 steps to follow before pulling a
trigger in Iraq, if you do not and slip on one you will be court shaled.

That is just a small part..........
Nobody is putting much emphasis on the responsibility of the Iraq people, as
in the 1% that are causing the problems. Many are not even Iraq citizens,
but then you knew that.......

An SDSU professor got into a bunch of problems for using his university
email account when sending to and discussing information about the Minute
Men.....

I guess if you are on the "right" side it is OK for others like you right??

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061013/news_7m13sdsu.html

Date: 06 Feb 2007 15:27:49
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 4, 9:12 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <bvsxh.24403$X72.1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> > That Jack Abramoff?
> If you weren't such an
> ideologue you'd be able to understand that quite easily.

I put all of you in the same category: statist drones. Sub-cat Brand
X or Brand Y, there is very little net difference.

Date: 04 Feb 2007 15:25:24
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 4, 5:05 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1170610656.274677.113430@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 4, 11:13 am, "dustoyev...@mac.com" <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >> To restate, the "side plates" would seem to be a fairly recent
> >> addition to Army-issue body armor, and that only for those lucky
> >> enough to be issued "current, best" stuff.
>
> > It goes a lot deeper than that.
> > DOD owns the rights to the Interceptor stuff and licenses/sells it
> > all over the world. DOD has tested and failed Dragon Skin.
>
> Bill, what's with the conspiracy theories? DOD "owns" the armor? By all
> means explain how the DOD is getting rich off of selling body armor. And
> while you're at it perhaps you can cite federal regulations allowing the DOD
> to earn any money at all.
>

Yep it was devoloped at Darpa, here in Natick, Ma. as an evolutionary
development from the 1970s body armor. The Government has licensed it
out in it's current version since 1998.

> All of that Dragon Skin is nice but what do you think of it if it costs 2
> times as much , works less than 5% better than the DOD standard, weighs a
> pound more and will be defeated by a standard AK-47 7.62 mm armor piercing
> round?
Where are you getting those figures from? Not the Department of
Justice, the FBI, or GAO that's for sure.

>
> Here's the problem with armor - if you use heavier armor, the enemy simply
> uses more powerful bullets or bombs. This isn't a guess - it is battlefield
> experience. Look at the size of the bombs going off in Bagdad now that we're
> teaching them that bigger is always better.

Yep, that's a good reason to get rid of the armor all together, right?
It would cost dogshit to outfit every US troop with the best
available personal combat gear compared to a single B-1, or the V-22
program. Instead our soldiers get screwed over by political BS and you
cheer it on.
I'm not wasting any more time with you on this.
Bill C

Date: 09 Feb 2007 19:55:08
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 9, 7:31 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:

> How did you know he used variance adjusted data? I didn't see that in
> the .pdf doc. It just says it is data from the Hadley Center.

Never mind that. As I can tell now, it looks like the Hadley Centre is
the only v-adj data.

Date: 10 Feb 2007 11:11:24
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Feb 9, 7:31 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
>> How did you know he used variance adjusted data? I didn't see that
>> in the .pdf doc. It just says it is data from the Hadley Center.
>
> Never mind that. As I can tell now, it looks like the Hadley Centre is
> the only v-adj data.

Exactly.

Of course, the other alternative which does not involve doctoring is that he
mis-quoted his source and didn't use the data set he pointed to. That may
sound like the sin is only sloppiness, but the problem is that the Hadley
Centre data are the ones that are most commonly cited so if you're using
something different, particularly a private data set, you ought to have
remembered it. It's sort of like saying you're using US Census Bureau data
and instead it turns out you were using some private survey -- it's possible
to make that kind of mistake but you really shouldn't confuse one for the
other.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 19:31:55
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 9, 12:42 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid > wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:

> > If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will
> > see that the temperature peaked in 2004
>
> Somehow I don't find it hard to believe that you would cherry pick through a
> bunch of alternatives to find a "six point polynomial average" that shows
> what you want.

If you want to say his filter choice is wrong for estimating or even
predicting a compression of the warming trend, then you should argue
why the estimator (filter) is a poor choice.

I have mine. For me, I think the time scale of such a filter is too
short to give me condidence, and I would not make the flattened
conclusion at this time. However, since there is a basic tradeoff
between time and frequency, the filter that would satisfy my
confidence would also be incapable of spotting an actual compression
in as short of time as one more opened up (it could also pass through
"misleading" noise). Life is about tradeoffs. I don't know what your
reason is. Why?

I might run some FFT's to see if the "energy" can be spotted very
well. That might give some clues as to where the corner frequency
would be well placed, among other things.

> However, that isn't what Lindzen did. Notice that in his
> graph the raw temps were flat from 2003 onward.

I'm not ready to accuse him of intentionally corrupting data -- it is
a more serious accusation than calling someone kooky, stupid, both,
etc. I did get an email back from him. He said he didn't know why
off-hand (the response was very prompt). He did write "Incidentally,
the differences between the compilations from the USCDC, GISS and the
UKMO-CRU are about as large even though they essentially use the same
data -- though with somewhat different quality control." I have a
couple more questions for him. Hopefully he'll oblige.

How did you know he used variance adjusted data? I didn't see that in
the .pdf doc. It just says it is data from the Hadley Center. Did
you ever ask him? Your posts to that blog are more than a 1/2 year
old -- plenty of time to get an answer.

Also, you never answered why/how you happened upon this particular
discrepancy. How did you? I think it is very obscure.

He could make that particular claim without doctoring -- all he'd have
to do is defend the subjective choice of filter. It wouldn't seem like
a very st thing to do: to doctor data when you don't need to.

Date: 10 Feb 2007 11:30:30
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Feb 9, 12:42 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>>> If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will
>>> see that the temperature peaked in 2004
>>
>> Somehow I don't find it hard to believe that you would cherry pick
>> through a bunch of alternatives to find a "six point polynomial
>> average" that shows what you want.
>
> If you want to say his filter choice is wrong for estimating or even
> predicting a compression of the warming trend, then you should argue
> why the estimator (filter) is a poor choice.

No, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying that one can almost always find
some polynomial of a particular order that can produce a particular effect
post hoc. Why six points, and not five or seven?

For example, Bob Carter argued that the evidence showed global cooling from
1998 to 2005 based on a 25-month smooth. That's horseshit. 25 months sounds
like a lot of points but there is substantial seasonality in global temps
(since the amounts of land mass in the northern and southern hemispheres
differ).

> Also, you never answered why/how you happened upon this particular
> discrepancy. How did you? I think it is very obscure.

Sigh. It is obscure. But at the time I was teaching a class that included a
little piece on nonparametric smoothers and I needed some data to illustrate
the ideas and methods.

Date: 10 Feb 2007 06:58:08
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote in message
news:1171078315.301239.184990@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 9, 12:42 am, "Robert Chung" <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> > If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will
>> > see that the temperature peaked in 2004
>>
>> Somehow I don't find it hard to believe that you would cherry pick
>> through a
>> bunch of alternatives to find a "six point polynomial average" that shows
>> what you want.
>
> If you want to say his filter choice is wrong for estimating or even
> predicting a compression of the warming trend, then you should argue
> why the estimator (filter) is a poor choice.

What is interesting is that if you look closely at the data and try several
different filters what becomes apparent is that there is obviously a cyclic
activity there and there is probably less than 1/2 of a cycle or so. Imagine
someone trying to make any estimates based on that limited a data set!
However, if you look at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ you can
see that they appear to be using the same filter only with a different null
point.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:11:39
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 8, 4:50 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 3:11 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > If you simply run a six point polynomial averaging on those you will see
> > that the temperature peaked in 2004 though that was a low temperature year
> > and has already started back down.
>
> The bars should be raw.

Raw bars are good, although too much shellfish and
you get mercury on the brain and wind up mad as a
hatter and start arguing with Tom Kunich and writing
run-on sentences on Usenet.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 18:07:08
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

> > On Feb 7, 3:12 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't see your point.

Maybe look at the base again: "If people need less energy..." Nowhere
is that said. It is the opposite. Also, purge "need" from the
language. Just say "use." They'll *use* more.

> Tom was saying his energy bill would go up.

It will (for tax "solutions"). So will everyone else's energy bill in
CA. (It'll go up if he get's richer too, since he'll be spending
more. So leftist solutions basically say to stall wealth increase, or
even to reverse it. That is some bad ju-ju. I have no idea what
right-wingers say.)

> The paper you link to
> indicates the opposite is true,...

It doesn't say that. Read it again. For example: "The end result is
a new balance between supply and demand at a /higher level/ of supply
and consumption than if there had been no efficiency response." [my
emphasis]

> ...energy will become cheaper...

Well, energy might be cheaper, for whatever reason, but generator
efficiency isn't the _particular_ topic. Regardless, it wouldn't
change matters. People would just use more, ceteris paribus.

> ... if efficiency increases...

What efficiency for the individual? A new and more efficient vehicle
doesn't just show up in his driveway magically. Nor does new and more
effficent house, central air,... nor... _anything_. Someone has to
pay for that stuff.

> and his bill will go down provided he doesn't use the
> decreased cost to do something like air condition his
> carport.

But that is at the very heart of the issue. More will be used with
improved efficiency (ceteris paribus), because some will go into
capital/productivity improvements. It won't necessarily mean more
energy in CA, but it won't help the global picture at all.

If I save a dollar on my energy bill due to added efficiency, I just
spend it on something else, or effectively invest it (even demand
deposits get lent out).

What does it mean to spend it? Well, say I buy a new ceramic coffee
mug. Mass is neither created or destroyed, although the title (owner)
can change. For the global aggregate, all that happened was a
reformation and transportation of the mass that is the coffee mug.
The operation is 100% energy -- the property title change is
irreleveeeaaant (sp?) to the aggregate. Not one joule of energy is
saved in the aggregate, ceteris paribus. (All activity is energy
driven, by definition. Energy is a special sort of good that way.)

If it is invested instead of me spending, the same problem occurs.
Someone starts a business, and they turn on the lights. Not one joule
is saved.

Say instead the dollar is taxed away. The new guvmint administrator
drives to work and turns on the lights. Not one joule is saved.

Say the dollar is taxed away, and given to some new firm doing
research on "alternative energy" generators. Those folks drive to
work and turn on the lights. Not one joule is saved.

To the extent the taxing tactic retards efficiency improvements and
economic growth (and it will), then that will "help." But the irony
is that the advocates of these tactics say exactly the opposite.

Transient downward shocks can certainly happen, especially the more
local they are. Those shocks could be induced by guvmint policy. But
most folks care about the trend of the time dependent rate more than
the integral, since the rate determines the integral. Also, a
downward trend makes the people exposed to it poorer, as we've already
essentially said.

> That paper argues that the total energy use goes up as efficieny
> rises so in a global sense it is counterproductive to reduce efficiency if
> one wants to minimize carbon output. I don't find that shocking.

Well, that makes you almost as special as me.

Carbon output can be reduced by using other types of energy
generators. But... so-called "renewables" can't compete on price, and
worse they just can't generate enough. Tax dollars won't fix that --
improvements will be fractional at best, for a small fraction of the
demanded power. They also have their own environmental issues. Nukes
could probably make a big dent in the "carbon problem," since they
produce zero emission of that type. They are price competitive, and
can produce huge amounts of power, but people fear the waste products
(a political problem at a minimum).

In general, popular talk about "global energy conservation" and
"global warming" -- when it comes to energy -- is very bad in
quality.

From: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

"The main problem with this argument is that climatologists don't want
anymore money. They want you to fix the problem by funding
alternative energy research which is a completely different field of
work involving completely different people."

This wrong view is enormously popular, and is the poorly formed
siamese twin to both "global energy conservation" and "global warming"
talk. I wish it were true. But it is badly off the k.

I have nothing against local energy conservation. I love it. I do it
myself as much as I can afford to do. But I do it because I think it
makes me better off. I don't do it because I'm sure it makes less
pollution, or ends up using less energy. I wish it did, because then
I could feel morally superior for driving my 1.0L Geo Metro, with
compact flourescents in the hatch, ready for screw-ins out at the
ranch.

> I've never said I thought there was a solution to climate change, I've said
> the opposite, there is no solution.
> There will be no effective remediation
> of greenhouse gases. However, knowing that does not permit me to deny the
> fundamental correctness of the science. Climate is changing, we are
> responsible for it, and nothing will ever be done about it. Don't assume
> just because I believe climate change is true that I think draconian carbon
> regulations are a good thing or practical. Once you reach a certain level
> of apathy you can realize that at best believing in climate change is a
> good way to tweak the scientific illiterati on the internet.

I know your stance. You've said it many times.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 17:12:23
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwhite@ti.com > wrote in message
news:1170986828.121620.38190@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Feb 7, 3:12 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't see your point.
>
> Maybe look at the base again: "If people need less energy..." Nowhere
> is that said. It is the opposite. Also, purge "need" from the
> language. Just say "use." They'll *use* more.
>
>> Tom was saying his energy bill would go up.
>
> It will (for tax "solutions"). So will everyone else's energy bill in
> CA. (It'll go up if he get's richer too, since he'll be spending
> more. So leftist solutions basically say to stall wealth increase, or
> even to reverse it. That is some bad ju-ju. I have no idea what
> right-wingers say.)
>
>> The paper you link to
>> indicates the opposite is true,...
>
> It doesn't say that. Read it again. For example: "The end result is
> a new balance between supply and demand at a /higher level/ of supply
> and consumption than if there had been no efficiency response." [my
> emphasis]

And totally aside from the issues of More Efficient Energy Production
Leading To Cheaper Power which leads to higher energy use in total - there's
the problem with global population increase which is much faster than any
efficiency increases. No matter what else happens energy use goes up and the
CO2 output increases more rapidly BECAUSE the population growth and hence
energy consumption is occuring not here in the USA so much as in China,
India and Africa where they cannot afford clean energy sources. Over the
next century the vast majority of energy use will occur in the third world
countries. In 8 more years it's predicted that China will exceed the CO2
output of the USA and it will be generated by high sulfer coal fired power
plants.

Asher will spend his time telling us that the USA should solve the problems
of the world and that it is all our fault that we wish to live comfortably.

Al Lunatic Gore was just on TV this morning with another lunatic offering
$25 million for "ideas to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere."

Now intelligent beings might see a problem here. Let's say that we followed
one line that was suggested - that we genetically engineer an ocean plankton
to use more CO2 - what's to stop it from removing too much? Would we then be
trying to find some way to introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere?

Maybe I can get some of that fortune by suggesting we solve the problem by
putting the world back in order. North Africa used to be a large forest that
was hued down to build the tremendous war fleets of the Mediterranean and
later the world's oceans. Why not install desalinization plants to supply
the water to replant the forest to change the weather patterns in North
Africa to return the semi-tropical conditions that used to be there before
it changed from deforestation?

Date: 08 Feb 2007 13:45:19
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 8, 1:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
(I asked):
> > Are you *afraid* of living in a cold, dark house, living on dog food,
> > unable to afford going to the doctor and buying the medicine you need
> > in America the Pensionless?

(TK replied, as usual):
> Would you care to compare bank accounts?

You were the one playing the victim card.

What was it Jesus said about a rich man getting into heaven, Tom?

(Exchange):
> >> Obviously you don't understand what "elasticity" means in economic terms
> >> and
> >> how close to the elastic limits this country presently is.
>
> > With People as a Resource, and No Child Left Behind (not to mention a
> > perpetual state of "war") there are no limits. Once the liberals are
> > removed, overnight nuke plants will spring up in clouds, like
> > mushrooms, and energy will be so cheap they'll just give it away
> > (remember "energy so cheap they'll just give it away"?).

(Sidestepping retort):
> Have you considered talking to a psychiatrist about your inability to focus
> on the subject?

A sarcastic, and obvious, reference to the policies of those you so
foolishly love, Tom.
> And there you'll be pushing a walker around still pretending that you
> actually know what you're drooling about.

When you said that energy use is directly tied to economic prosperity,
you got a good long head start on me in the drooling dept. Not your
first, of course.

> That's why you're babbling on and on - you haven't actually read any of the
> stuff you're commenting on. You're only posting because you don't have
> anything better to do.

I'm cleaning house at home, too.

> So if life DOESN'T continue on earth that isn't the End Times philosophy?

You know what I was referring to and again, confronting you with, in a
sarcastic manner. Is Janet Partial (intentional misspelling) still on
the air?

Tell you what, post a link to where a climatologist says "all life
will end", especially in the time frame forecast by.

> You're quite a clever person for someone incapable of thought.

If you ever admitted a point, you'd be taking a great stride. I will,
however take the intended insult as a sign that at least a couple of
the darts hit target. --D-y

Date: 08 Feb 2007 23:05:15
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

<dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote in message
news:1170971119.428851.302460@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 8, 1:02 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> (I asked):
>> > Are you *afraid* of living in a cold, dark house, living on dog food,
>> > unable to afford going to the doctor and buying the medicine you need
>> > in America the Pensionless?
>
> (TK replied, as usual):
>> Would you care to compare bank accounts?
>
> You were the one playing the victim card.

Let's see, I'm asked what effect it will have on me and I state the facts.
You believe that to be playing the "victim card". To a plumber whose entire
life was spent trying to figure out how to show ass crack to every available
housewife I suppose you might really think that.

> What was it Jesus said about a rich man getting into heaven, Tom?

By all means explain that. Then explain how you aren't a thousand times
richer than the "rich men" of Jesus time.

> When you said that energy use is directly tied to economic prosperity,
> you got a good long head start on me in the drooling dept. Not your
> first, of course.

Oh??? http://www.energy.gov/print/1799.htm "The demand for oil is
increasing, not just in the United States and Great Britain but around the
world, particularly in rapidly growing economies in nations like China and
India." ~ "There, we will see a requirement for large . very large . power
production facilities as increased population joins with a growing world
economy to put more and more stress on energy supplies."

I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You, Asher
and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas look
particularly intelligent.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 13:14:32
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Tom Kunich wrote:
> I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You, Asher
> and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas look
> particularly intelligent.

Well my BMI is 21.3 which probably makes me fairly little by rbr fatty
master standards, but I expect I could improve if I had intelligent
banana meals:
http://yummybanana.webgoonies.com/reviews/

Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:21:06
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <L0Oyh.20006$pQ3.16051@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> I don't think we need continue any conversation with you as well. You, Asher
> and Munro are little people that have a knack for making bananas look
> particularly intelligent.

Oh, "little people," huh? Tom Kunich, always magnanimous in defeat. Are you
channeling Leona Helmsley, Tom?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 07 Feb 2007 19:15:02
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 7, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "William Asher" <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> know nothing.
>
> > Now now. I thought you meant CO2 that looked like man was warming s
> > etc., which it clearly isn't since they've shown the CO2 on s and the
> > outer planets doesn't look anything like people. Ben can back me up on
> > this, he's a real scientist and I just play one on tv. Even here on
> > Earth,
> > it is not the CO2 that looks like humans that is the problem, since there
> > is so little of it as a fraction of the total. It is the part that
> > doesn't
> > look like humans doing the damage, which is why I snarkily mentioned
> > Venus.
> > At this point, I want to recall the classic song "Venus" by The Shocking
> > Blue, who presciently sang"
>
> I'm waiting for your citations that Venus is hot because of the CO2 in the
> atmosphere and not because it's 30% closer to the sun or any of that
> geometric kind of stuff that apparently you don't know about.

Dumbass,

This is planetary science 101, what gets taught in intro
astronomy courses. Venus is at 0.72 AU and gets about
twice as much solar energy per area, but that doesn't
explain most of its much hotter surface temperature
(~735 K vs ~295 K on earth). The temperature is governed
not only by the solar energy incident on the planet, but the
planet's ability to re-radiate energy into space. Hotter
bodies radiate more if all else is equal, so Venus would
be quite less than twice as hot as Earth. Except the poor
thing can't radiate well due to being covered in a thick layer
of Houston smog. This is the greenhouse effect.
Venus is twice as hot as it would be if it had no atmosphere:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm

There are plenty of other citations. This is not some
freaking political football. I bet even Jerry Fucking Pournelle
thinks Venus is hot because of CO2; and if not, he probably
thinks the spiders in his brain are giving him orders from
alien satellites, too.

Ben

Date: 08 Feb 2007 10:36:36
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:

> There are plenty of other citations. This is not some
> freaking political football. I bet even Jerry Fucking Pournelle
> thinks Venus is hot because of CO2; and if not, he probably
> thinks the spiders in his brain are giving him orders from
> alien satellites, too.

Funny, I've been getting subliminal messages from MI5 on BBC World.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 04:41:00
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:1170904502.169824.245070@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 7, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "William Asher" <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> know nothing.
>>
>> > Now now. I thought you meant CO2 that looked like man was warming s
>> > etc., which it clearly isn't since they've shown the CO2 on s and
>> > the
>> > outer planets doesn't look anything like people. Ben can back me up on
>> > this, he's a real scientist and I just play one on tv. Even here on
>> > Earth,
>> > it is not the CO2 that looks like humans that is the problem, since
>> > there
>> > is so little of it as a fraction of the total. It is the part that
>> > doesn't
>> > look like humans doing the damage, which is why I snarkily mentioned
>> > Venus.
>> > At this point, I want to recall the classic song "Venus" by The
>> > Shocking
>> > Blue, who presciently sang"
>>
>> I'm waiting for your citations that Venus is hot because of the CO2 in
>> the
>> atmosphere and not because it's 30% closer to the sun or any of that
>> geometric kind of stuff that apparently you don't know about.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> This is planetary science 101, what gets taught in intro
> astronomy courses. Venus is at 0.72 AU and gets about
> twice as much solar energy per area, but that doesn't
> explain most of its much hotter surface temperature
> (~735 K vs ~295 K on earth). The temperature is governed
> not only by the solar energy incident on the planet, but the
> planet's ability to re-radiate energy into space. Hotter
> bodies radiate more if all else is equal, so Venus would
> be quite less than twice as hot as Earth. Except the poor
> thing can't radiate well due to being covered in a thick layer
> of Houston smog. This is the greenhouse effect.
> Venus is twice as hot as it would be if it had no atmosphere:
> http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm
>
> There are plenty of other citations. This is not some
> freaking political football. I bet even Jerry Fucking Pournelle
> thinks Venus is hot because of CO2; and if not, he probably
> thinks the spiders in his brain are giving him orders from
> alien satellites, too.

Like dude - how hot was the Earth in the Hadean eon and why did it cool
down? I mean, if you can't answer a simple question like that exactly how do
you expect anyone to believe that you have any clue about the temperature of
Venus today?

Date: 08 Feb 2007 04:56:38
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:wRxyh.21913$yx6.515@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Like dude - how hot was the Earth in the Hadean eon and why did it cool
> down? I mean, if you can't answer a simple question like that exactly how
> do you expect anyone to believe that you have any clue about the
> temperature of Venus today?

And just to add something - how hot would Earth be if we had an atmosphere
that is something like 90 standard?

Carbon Dioxide? Forgive me but you'll have to explain to me how that makes
much difference on a planet with a 20 km thick band of clouds composed of
sulferic acid.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 16:12:20
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 7, 4:05 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 3:34 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> > That struck me as almost hysterical as well...
>
> >> You're right. Any chick would kill for a guy that iconoclastic and
> >> studly. Fuck being a cowboy, living your platonic concept of life is
> >> what will get you laid.
>
> > It is times such as these where I would support a tax for
> > dictionaries. See how flexible and open-minded I am?
>
> Which word don't you know? I can rewrite it using a synonym if you want.

That would be funny. Rewrite it.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 00:27:41
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> On Feb 7, 4:05 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>>
>> > On Feb 7, 3:34 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> > That struck me as almost hysterical as well...
>>
>> >> You're right. Any chick would kill for a guy that iconoclastic
>> >> and studly. Fuck being a cowboy, living your platonic concept of
>> >> life is what will get you laid.
>>
>> > It is times such as these where I would support a tax for
>> > dictionaries. See how flexible and open-minded I am?
>>
>> Which word don't you know? I can rewrite it using a synonym if you
>> want.
>
> That would be funny. Rewrite it.
>
>

Dog, word. Any chick wouldwaste fo' some dude dat fine an fly. Slap mah
fro! Bein' some paleface cowboy da shitz, livin' yo' thug life be whut
gots'ta get ya' sum milkshake.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 07 Feb 2007 12:57:26
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 7, 9:52 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:

> I sure hope all those IPCC folks are complete fools who have no
> idea what they are talking about.

There may be grains of truth to what they say. But most likely their
models and ideas will be far off the k. It is likely to be
malthusian & Limits to Growth style of BS.

Anyway, even if true, global warming is so far down on the problem
priority list, not one red cent should be taxed to study it.

Don't waste your time on it.

Date: 07 Feb 2007 12:47:55
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 7, 9:18 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:

> There are many factors that contribute to the
> temperature of the earth and all of them are
> constantly changing.

Global warming is caused by hot air on the usenet. And still I am
unafraid.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 00:25:58
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1170631524.629656.78390@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 4, 5:05 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> All of that Dragon Skin is nice but what do you think of it if it costs 2
>> times as much , works less than 5% better than the DOD standard, weighs a
>> pound more and will be defeated by a standard AK-47 7.62 mm armor
>> piercing
>> round?
>
> Where are you getting those figures from? Not the Department of
> Justice, the FBI, or GAO that's for sure.

The fact that you can shoot right through any present day body armor with
armor piercing rounds? Geez, give me a break.WHY do you suppose in that
Dragon Skin demonstration they specified "standard ball rounds"?

>> Here's the problem with armor - if you use heavier armor, the enemy
>> simply
>> uses more powerful bullets or bombs. This isn't a guess - it is
>> battlefield
>> experience. Look at the size of the bombs going off in Bagdad now that
>> we're
>> teaching them that bigger is always better.
>
> Yep, that's a good reason to get rid of the armor all together, right?

It means that screaming about "better" armor only means that 2 months later
you have precisely the same problem. You can argue 4 times a year that the
"army could do better" and every time you'd be right and every time you'd
have the same problem all over again.

The original body armor wasn't designed to stop bullets, it was designed to
try to protect the wearer from shrapnel. Now you're weighing a running man
down will all sorts of stuff as if we hadn't three wars experiece to teach
us that the soldiers prefer NOT to wear this stuff in combat because it is
usually more hindrance than help.

> I'm not wasting any more time with you on this.

Of course you're not. You appear to prefer ignorance to knowledge. Everyone
in the world but you and your buddies is corrupt. You on the other hand are
above reproach. You'd ALWAYS know before hand the right thing to do in every
case.

Date: 10 Feb 2007 21:21:49
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 10, 7:51 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> Asher, this is my last posting to you since you're an incredible fool.

Are you going away again? Or, at least, what can I do to add to the
"last post" list?

> When California Governor Schwartzenegger pushes through energy bills that
> send still more companies fleeing excessive taxation, it is everyone that is
> harmed.

You mean they're going to start making companies pay taxes? And how
about the sports stadiums, TK? Are the billionaires like McCombs
actually going to have to be real entrepreneurs, like the little
people who try to make a go of restaurants and lawnmowing businesses
and such, and risk his *own* money, pay for everything at ket
value, and try to make a profit in the *real world*????

> Someone as stupid as yourself believes that words do not have consequences.
> You think shouting fire in a crowded building is all just great fun.

Cue the mirror.

> But instead you are simply a dupe of a group bent on the destruction of the
> USA. You and the others here fit the profile of Useful Idiots with such
> precision that it is humorous.

Is it... the LIBERALS who are the group bent on the destruction of the
USA, TK? Hal Lindsey thinks so, too. (Wiki):
<Lindsey also promotes theories regarding either the USSR or the
European Union being the home of the Antichrist and describes liberals
as an "enemy that hides in the shadows, doesn't play by any of the
rules, and is determined to use any means to bring about our literal
annihilation."

I wondered at that one, since if we're in the Last Days, are we even
going to be around long enough for the LIBERALS (Big L) to destroy us
first?

Phew, global warming, that's small stuff in comparison. --D-y

Date: 11 Feb 2007 17:50:38
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 10 Feb 2007 21:21:49 -0800, "dustoyevsky@mac.com"
<dustoyevsky@mac.com > wrote:

><Lindsey also promotes theories regarding either the USSR or the
>European Union being the home of the Antichrist and describes liberals
>as an "enemy that hides in the shadows, doesn't play by any of the
>rules, and is determined to use any means to bring about our literal
>annihilation."
>
>I wondered at that one, since if we're in the Last Days, are we even
>going to be around long enough for the LIBERALS (Big L) to destroy us
>first?

Could I have a theological reading here? Can Godless Liberals be the
source of the Aniti-Christ? So we end up with this Secular Humanist
Anti-Christ, but he refuses to use the supernatural on general
theological principles. Seems like a formula to get your ass kicked.
Just wondering...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 10 Feb 2007 17:58:55
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 10, 8:51 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Someone as stupid as yourself believes that words do not have consequences.
> You think shouting fire in a crowded building is all just great fun.
>
So you realize that the hatred filled shit that you continually spout
should rationally lead to violence and harrassment.
Tom you're no different than the Mullahs, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc...
who wanted things their own way, and only their own way, and used hate
speech to create the society to give it to them.
Bill C
The contrast between Greg's America and yours is incredible, and Greg
knows his shit.
Bill C

Date: 10 Feb 2007 17:19:34
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 10, 8:14 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Feb 10, 7:44 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Bill C wrote:
>
> >> > That's a damned Heathen philosophy. Pharking Bhuddist. God will get
> >> > you for that!
>
> >> I paraphrased that from the tv show "Longstreet" with James
> >> Franciscus.
>
> >> --
> >> Bill Asher
>
> > Wow, that's a flashback.
> > Who Loves Ya Baby!
>
> It was probably Bruce Lee, not Franciscus, who uttered that line.
>
> --
> Bill Asher

Now if we only had a "Bronson Rock"
Bill C

Date: 10 Feb 2007 16:50:22
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 10, 7:44 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
>
> > That's a damned Heathen philosophy. Pharking Bhuddist. God will get
> > you for that!
>
> I paraphrased that from the tv show "Longstreet" with James Franciscus.
>
> --
> Bill Asher

Wow, that's a flashback.
Who Loves Ya Baby!
Bill C

Date: 11 Feb 2007 01:14:08
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Bill C wrote:

> On Feb 10, 7:44 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bill C wrote:
>>
>> > That's a damned Heathen philosophy. Pharking Bhuddist. God will get
>> > you for that!
>>
>> I paraphrased that from the tv show "Longstreet" with James
>> Franciscus.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Asher
>
> Wow, that's a flashback.
> Who Loves Ya Baby!

It was probably Bruce Lee, not Franciscus, who uttered that line.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 10 Feb 2007 16:41:58
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 10, 7:24 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:

Be like a duck, letting the rain
> of the climate change proponents falling on your parade roll off your back
> as you float serenely on the pond of indifference.
>
> Quack quack.
>
> --
> Bill Asher

That's a damned Heathen philosophy. Pharking Bhuddist. God will get
you for that!
Bill C

Date: 11 Feb 2007 00:44:02
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Bill C wrote:

>
> That's a damned Heathen philosophy. Pharking Bhuddist. God will get
> you for that!

I paraphrased that from the tv show "Longstreet" with James Franciscus.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 09 Feb 2007 09:59:44
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 8, 8:24 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Feb 8, 7:43 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 5:27 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> > wrote:
>
> > > When the hurricanes start hitting Labrador it might not
> > > look as attractive.
>
> > Mr. Tax Religion,
>
> That's not fair. I never advocated taxing religion.
> I'd settle for fees and burdensome regulation.

Those are taxes. So is inflating the currency. That's why tax is
your religion. Nothing anywhere should escape taxation. You'd tax
squirrels if you could, even Howard.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:24:47
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 8, 7:43 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:
> On Feb 8, 5:27 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
> > When the hurricanes start hitting Labrador it might not
> > look as attractive.
>
> Mr. Tax Religion,

That's not fair. I never advocated taxing religion.
I'd settle for fees and burdensome regulation.

> You're going down and there's nothing you can do about. Not a
> trillion tax dollars will save your sorry ass. See you in hell. In
> the mean time, enjoy the Tour de Greenland.
>
> have a nice day,
> SLAVE

You don't know the half of it. Where I live now, it's
up to ~100 degrees all summer long. If I can survive
a few years of this, I'll be conditioned to move back
anywhere normal and sit on the porch happily sipping
gin and tonics while listening to the rest of you moan
about the heat.

Or, I won't be able to take it and I'll have to crash on
your couch for the entire month of July.

Ben

Date: 08 Feb 2007 20:35:55
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <1170995087.651329.66270@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:

> On Feb 8, 7:43 pm, "SLAVE of THE STATE" <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 5:27 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > When the hurricanes start hitting Labrador it might not
> > > look as attractive.
> >
> > Mr. Tax Religion,
>
> That's not fair. I never advocated taxing religion.
> I'd settle for fees and burdensome regulation.
>
> > You're going down and there's nothing you can do about. Not a
> > trillion tax dollars will save your sorry ass. See you in hell. In
> > the mean time, enjoy the Tour de Greenland.
> >
> > have a nice day,
> > SLAVE
>
> You don't know the half of it. Where I live now, it's
> up to ~100 degrees all summer long. If I can survive
> a few years of this, I'll be conditioned to move back
> anywhere normal and sit on the porch happily sipping
> gin and tonics while listening to the rest of you moan
> about the heat.
>
> Or, I won't be able to take it and I'll have to crash on
> your couch for the entire month of July.

You think he has room for you (or a couch, for that matter) in his Unibomber-like
hut?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 08 Feb 2007 18:43:04
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 8, 5:27 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> On Feb 8, 5:55 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:

> > Or, the other view is to ask yourself what's so bad about global
> > warming? I'm looking to buy some beach front property in Labrador.
>
> When the hurricanes start hitting Labrador it might not
> look as attractive.

Mr. Tax Religion,

You're going down and there's nothing you can do about. Not a
trillion tax dollars will save your sorry ass. See you in hell. In
the mean time, enjoy the Tour de Greenland.

have a nice day,
SLAVE

Date: 09 Feb 2007 12:34:29
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> You're going down and there's nothing you can do about. Not a
> trillion tax dollars will save your sorry ass. See you in hell. In
> the mean time, enjoy the Tour de Greenland.

At least they do have a few cols in Greenland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountains_in_Greenland

Can you imagine Liggett's pronunciation of Qingassat Qaqqaat.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 17:27:01
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 8, 5:55 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I agree with you that it will completely suck if climate change is related
> >to CO2. I sure hope all those IPCC folks are complete fools who have no
> >idea what they are talking about.
>
> >--
> >Bill Asher
>
> Or, the other view is to ask yourself what's so bad about global
> warming? I'm looking to buy some beach front property in Labrador.

When the hurricanes start hitting Labrador it might not
look as attractive.

We can't sit back and let the hurricanes attack us in our
homeland. We have to take the fight to the hurricanes.
Many hurricanes' last stops before striking us are
Caribbean locales and island nations - Bermuda, the
Bahamas, Cancun, and of course Cuba, those ratfink
weather subversives. We must invade those countries
and root out the hurricanes from their spider holes.

We shall fight the hurricanes on the beaches, we shall
fight them on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the
fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we
shall never surrender. Because if we even think about
it, the hurricanes win. So don't think.

Ben

Date: 09 Feb 2007 17:02:13
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> Many hurricanes' last stops before striking us are
> Caribbean locales and island nations - Bermuda, the
> Bahamas, Cancun, and of course Cuba,

I always knew it. Hurricanes are all Castro's fault.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 09:13:53
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 8 Feb 2007 17:27:01 -0800, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:

>When the hurricanes start hitting Labrador it might not
>look as attractive.
>
>We can't sit back and let the hurricanes attack us in our
>homeland. We have to take the fight to the hurricanes.
>Many hurricanes' last stops before striking us are
>Caribbean locales and island nations - Bermuda, the
>Bahamas, Cancun, and of course Cuba, those ratfink
>weather subversives. We must invade those countries
>and root out the hurricanes from their spider holes.
>
>We shall fight the hurricanes on the beaches, we shall
>fight them on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the
>fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we
>shall never surrender. Because if we even think about
>it, the hurricanes win. So don't think.

Is this where we kill the butterflies?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 08 Feb 2007 15:36:39
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Feb 8, 5:03 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> There are dozens of factors
> that effect the earth's climate and all of them are in constant flux.
> In a system that is dynamic as that, it's impossible to isolate one
> factor and determine exactly what it is contributing to the whole
> system.

dumbass,

that is what people try to do with models. by reconstructing past
climates you can not only validate a model for testing future
scenarios, but you can also try to isolate the different factors by
testing different scenarios. granted models aren't perfect, but even
in medical trials you can't claim 100% confidence in your results.

as an aside the CO2 record correlates well with the temperature
record, at least over the last few glacial cycles, but there are
certain events (typically fast and "dynamical") which did result in
dramatic temperature shifts without a CO2 change.

an important part of the story is that the system is not linear.
during glacial times the insolation (amount of solar energy hitting
the surface of the earth) was about the same, but the pattern was
slightly different, and the state it was acting on was different, so
the climate was completely different.

even a seemingly subtle detail about how clouds form can be the
difference between a positive and negative feedback (the basis for
lindzen's adaptive iris theory).

i think the debate has become political, derailing the relevant
issues.

even those that don't believe that CO2 emissions are heating the
troposphere, like lindzen and spencer agree that the temperature is
increasing. with or without human intervention, the climate is
changing ad as bill says, it's unlikely there's going to be anything
significant humans can or will do about it.

there has to be more awareness about how exactly the climate is
changing and plans about how to deal with it. studying a 1-dimensional
dataset isn't going to prepare you for that. consider someting like
this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Predictions_Map_2.jpg

a temp. increase at the poles, if it causes a glacier to melt is going
to have a disproportionate effect.

so it is conceivable that solar variability could have more dramatic
effect than a CO2 forcing, even if that that radiative forcing is
smaller. CO2 is well mixed, whereas the sun doesn't shine evenly over
the globe.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 21:59:28
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 8 Feb 2007 15:36:39 -0800, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com"
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:

>as an aside the CO2 record correlates well with the temperature
>record, at least over the last few glacial cycles, but there are
>certain events (typically fast and "dynamical") which did result in
>dramatic temperature shifts without a CO2 change.

Actually, the opposite is true. The data shows that CO2 increases
only occur after global warming has occurred. It's hard to say that
CO2 caused global warming in the past when the increase in CO2
happened after the warming period was already centuries old.

Thus the CO2 seems to have an amplifying effect (of undetermined
amount) rather than a causal effect. The strongest correlations occur
for CO2 and temperature with a lag of 1900 years.

"In investigating this question, Siegenthaler et al. say they obtained
the best correlation between CO2 and temperature "for a lag of CO2 of
1900 years." Specifically, over the course of glacial terminations V
to VII, they indicate that "the highest correlation of CO2 and
deuterium, with use of a 20-ky window for each termination, yields a
lag of CO2 to deuterium of 800, 1600, and 2800 years, respectively."
In addition, they note that "this value is consistent with estimates
based on data from the past four glacial cycles," citing in this
regard the work of Fischer et al. (1999), Monnin et al. (2001) and
Caillon et al. (2003). Clearly, therefore, it is temperature that is
the robust leader in this tightly-coupled relationship, while CO2 is
but the humble follower, providing only a fraction (which could well
be miniscule) - of the total glacial-to-interglacial temperature
change.

This observation does little to inspire confidence in climate-alarmist
claims that the CO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels will lead
to catastrophic temperature increases, which predicted warmings, in
some of their scenarios, rival those experienced in
glacial-to-interglacial transitions. Nevertheless, Siegenthaler et
al. stubbornly state that the new findings "do not cast doubt ... on
the importance of CO2 as a key amplification factor [our italics] of
the large observed temperature variations of glacial cycles."

In vivid contrast to this unsupported contention, it is our opinion
that when temperature leads CO2 by thousands of years, during both
glacial terminations and inceptions (Genthon et al., 1987; Fischer et
al., 1999; Petit et al., 1999; Clark and Mix, 2000; Indermuhle et al.,
2000; Monnin et al., 2001; Mudelsee, 2001; Caillon et al., 2003),
there is plenty of reason to believe that CO2 plays but a minor role
in enhancing temperature changes that are clearly induced by something
else, which latter italicized point is an undisputed fact that is
clearly born out by the new ice core data."

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V8/N48/EDIT.jsp

Date: 09 Feb 2007 03:53:18
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 8 Feb 2007 15:36:39 -0800, "amit.ghosh@gmail.com"
> <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>as an aside the CO2 record correlates well with the temperature
>>record, at least over the last few glacial cycles, but there are
>>certain events (typically fast and "dynamical") which did result in
>>dramatic temperature shifts without a CO2 change.
>
>
> Actually, the opposite is true. The data shows that CO2 increases
> only occur after global warming has occurred. It's hard to say that
> CO2 caused global warming in the past when the increase in CO2
> happened after the warming period was already centuries old.
>
> Thus the CO2 seems to have an amplifying effect (of undetermined
> amount) rather than a causal effect. The strongest correlations occur
> for CO2 and temperature with a lag of 1900 years.
>
This is a perfect example of what I am talking about where you get sucked
in by the contrarians, who sound convincing to you because they are telling
you what you want to hear and it goes with your desire to be
individualistic.

Here's just a very small sampling of the peer-reviewed skinny on paleo CO2
and climate:

Nature. 2001 Aug 2;412(6846):523-7.

Covariation of carbon dioxide and temperature from the Vostok ice core
after deuterium-excess correction.

Cuffey KM, Vimeux F.

Department of Geography, and Department of Earth and Planetary Science,
507 McCone Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-4740,
USA. kcuffey@socrates.berkeley.edu

Ice-core measurements of carbon dioxide and the deuterium
palaeothermometer reveal significant covariation of temperature and
atmospheric CO2 concentrations throughout the climate cycles of the past
ice ages. This covariation provides compelling evidence that CO2 is an
important forcing factor for climate. But this interpretation is challenged
by some substantial mismatches of the CO2 and deuterium records, especially
during the onset of the last glaciation, about 120 kyr ago. Here we
incorporate measurements of deuterium excess from Vostok in the temperature
reconstruction and show that much of the mismatch is an artefact caused by
variations of climate in the water vapour source regions. Using a model
that corrects for this effect, we derive a new estimate for the covariation
of CO2 and temperature, of r2 = 0.89 for the past 150 kyr and r2 = 0.84 for
the period 350-150 kyr ago. Given the complexity of the biogeochemical
systems involved, this close relationship strongly supports the importance
of carbon dioxide as a forcing factor of climate. Our results also suggest
that the mechanisms responsible for the drawdown of CO2 may be more
responsive to temperature than previously thought.

And this one put a big nail in the coffin of the idea that CO2 and paleo
climate weren't tightly coupled ....

CO2 as a priy driver of Phanerozoic climate

Geological Society of America, Volume 14, Issue 3 (ch 2004), pp 4-10

Dana L. Royer1, Robert A. Berner2, Isabel P. Monta�ez3, Neil J. Tabor4,
David J. Beerling5

1. Department of Geosciences and Institutes of the Environment,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA, E-
mail: droyer@psu.edu, 2. Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale
University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA, 3. Department of Geology,
University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA, 4. Department of
Geological Sciences, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275,
USA, 5. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield,
Sheffield S10 2TN, UK

Recent studies have purported to show a closer correspondence between
reconstructed Phanerozoic records of cosmic ray flux and temperature than
between CO2 and temperature. The role of the greenhouse gas CO2 in
controlling global temperatures has therefore been questioned. Here we
review the geologic records of CO2 and glaciations and find that CO2 was
low (<500 ppm) during periods of long-lived and widespread continental
glaciations and high ( >1000 ppm) during other, warmer periods. The CO2
record is likely robust because independent proxy records are highly
correlated with CO2 predictions from geochemical models. The Phanerozoic
sea surface temperature record as inferred from shallow ine carbonate
delta18O values has been used to quantitatively test the importance of
potential climate forcings, but it fails several first-order tests relative
to more well-established paleoclimatic indicators: both the early Paleozoic
and Mesozoic are calculated to have been too cold for too long. We explore
the possible influence of seawater pH on the delta18O record and find that
a pH-corrected record matches the glacial record much better. Periodic
fluctuations in the cosmic ray flux may be of some climatic significance,
but are likely of second-order importance on a multimillion-year timescale.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 11:21:43
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 9 Feb 2007 03:53:18 GMT, William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

>This is a perfect example of what I am talking about where you get sucked
>in by the contrarians, who sound convincing to you because they are telling
>you what you want to hear and it goes with your desire to be
>individualistic.
>
>Here's just a very small sampling of the peer-reviewed skinny on paleo CO2
>and climate:
>
> Nature. 2001 Aug 2;412(6846):523-7.
>
> Covariation of carbon dioxide and temperature from the Vostok ice core
>after deuterium-excess correction.
>
> Cuffey KM, Vimeux F.
>
> Department of Geography, and Department of Earth and Planetary Science,
>507 McCone Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-4740,
>USA. kcuffey@socrates.berkeley.edu
>
> Ice-core measurements of carbon dioxide and the deuterium
>palaeothermometer reveal significant covariation of temperature and
>atmospheric CO2 concentrations throughout the climate cycles of the past
>ice ages. This covariation provides compelling evidence that CO2 is an
>important forcing factor for climate. But this interpretation is challenged
>by some substantial mismatches of the CO2 and deuterium records, especially
>during the onset of the last glaciation, about 120 kyr ago. Here we
>incorporate measurements of deuterium excess from Vostok in the temperature
>reconstruction and show that much of the mismatch is an artefact caused by
>variations of climate in the water vapour source regions. Using a model
>that corrects for this effect, we derive a new estimate for the covariation
>of CO2 and temperature, of r2 = 0.89 for the past 150 kyr and r2 = 0.84 for
>the period 350-150 kyr ago. Given the complexity of the biogeochemical
>systems involved, this close relationship strongly supports the importance
>of carbon dioxide as a forcing factor of climate. Our results also suggest
>that the mechanisms responsible for the drawdown of CO2 may be more
>responsive to temperature than previously thought.
>
>
>And this one put a big nail in the coffin of the idea that CO2 and paleo
>climate weren't tightly coupled ....
>
>
>CO2 as a priy driver of Phanerozoic climate
>
>Geological Society of America, Volume 14, Issue 3 (ch 2004), pp 4-10
>
>Dana L. Royer1, Robert A. Berner2, Isabel P. Monta�ez3, Neil J. Tabor4,
>David J. Beerling5
>
>1. Department of Geosciences and Institutes of the Environment,
>Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA, E-
>mail: droyer@psu.edu, 2. Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale
>University, New Haven, Connecticut 06520, USA, 3. Department of Geology,
>University of California, Davis, California 95616, USA, 4. Department of
>Geological Sciences, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275,
>USA, 5. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield,
>Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
>
>Recent studies have purported to show a closer correspondence between
>reconstructed Phanerozoic records of cosmic ray flux and temperature than
>between CO2 and temperature. The role of the greenhouse gas CO2 in
>controlling global temperatures has therefore been questioned. Here we
>review the geologic records of CO2 and glaciations and find that CO2 was
>low (<500 ppm) during periods of long-lived and widespread continental
>glaciations and high (>1000 ppm) during other, warmer periods. The CO2
>record is likely robust because independent proxy records are highly
>correlated with CO2 predictions from geochemical models. The Phanerozoic
>sea surface temperature record as inferred from shallow ine carbonate
>delta18O values has been used to quantitatively test the importance of
>potential climate forcings, but it fails several first-order tests relative
>to more well-established paleoclimatic indicators: both the early Paleozoic
>and Mesozoic are calculated to have been too cold for too long. We explore
>the possible influence of seawater pH on the delta18O record and find that
>a pH-corrected record matches the glacial record much better. Periodic
>fluctuations in the cosmic ray flux may be of some climatic significance,
>but are likely of second-order importance on a multimillion-year timescale.

First, all of this is correlation data and thus can not be used as
proof of causality. It also does not explain the fact that
temperature rises before CO2.

Date: 09 Feb 2007 00:46:51
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

amit.ghosh@gmail.com wrote:

<snip >
>
> so it is conceivable that solar variability could have more dramatic
> effect than a CO2 forcing, even if that that radiative forcing is
> smaller. CO2 is well mixed, whereas the sun doesn't shine evenly over
> the globe.
>

That is not the same thing as saying that changes in solar forcing are
responsible for the majority of the observed increase in temperature over
the last several decades. The paleoclimate record shows that things other
than CO2 are important, but the changes in climate now being observed are
being forced by anthropogenic CO2. This is the position of the IPCC and of
all the people here, you could convincingly argue the IPCC might have
missed something, is that what you're saying? The IPCC is incorrect in
asserting that it is very highly likely that the observed changes are due
to anthropogenic CO2? That sounds more contentious than it was meant to
be, it's not a challenge, just a question.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 09 Feb 2007 00:07:55
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170977799.336482.234170@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 8, 5:03 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 7 Feb 2007 17:52:10 GMT, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> There are dozens of factors
>> that effect the earth's climate and all of them are in constant flux.
>> In a system that is dynamic as that, it's impossible to isolate one
>> factor and determine exactly what it is contributing to the whole
>> system.
>
> that is what people try to do with models. by reconstructing past
> climates you can not only validate a model for testing future
> scenarios, but you can also try to isolate the different factors by
> testing different scenarios. granted models aren't perfect, but even
> in medical trials you can't claim 100% confidence in your results.

The problem is that none of the models show either the Medival Warming or
the Little Ice Age and so they're telling us that it doesn't matter.

> as an aside the CO2 record correlates well with the temperature
> record, at least over the last few glacial cycles, but there are
> certain events (typically fast and "dynamical") which did result in
> dramatic temperature shifts without a CO2 change.

As Jack pointed out, correlation doesn't mean causality. And the record
definitely DOES show that the rises in CO2 occurred after the warming
started.

There are HUGE sources of CO2 outside of man. I started wondering if there
was a database that indicated the level of volcanic activity in the world. I
looked around and could find nothing. Emails to the Geologic Survey, several
universities and to a few volcanologists have so far had absolutely no
responses.

Without a piece of information so important as the rates of CO2 generation
by volcanic activities talking about man-made CO2 is more than a little
rediculous.

> even those that don't believe that CO2 emissions are heating the
> troposphere, like lindzen and spencer agree that the temperature is
> increasing. with or without human intervention, the climate is
> changing ad as bill says, it's unlikely there's going to be anything
> significant humans can or will do about it.

I see that as an incorrect interpretation of the data. Saying that the
climate is changing is like saying that they sun rose. The climate ALWAYS
changes. And it changes between two extremes which we don't have a good
handle on yet. If there's one thing that has typified the climate is that
1/3rd or more of the last billion years has been in the middle of ice ages.

In the last two million years there have been some 60 advances and
recessions of glaciation THAT WE KNOW OF.

Why would it be surprising to anyone that the climate is not just cyclical
but always changing between extremes?

Date: 09 Feb 2007 07:36:02
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article
<vXOyh.22218$yx6.14633@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net
>,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> I see that as an incorrect interpretation of the data. Saying that the
> climate is changing is like saying that they sun rose. The climate ALWAYS
> changes. And it changes between two extremes which we don't have a good
> handle on yet. If there's one thing that has typified the climate is that
> 1/3rd or more of the last billion years has been in the middle of ice ages.
>
> In the last two million years there have been some 60 advances and
> recessions of glaciation THAT WE KNOW OF.
>
> Why would it be surprising to anyone that the climate is not just cyclical
> but always changing between extremes?

Two attractive regimes with strong positive feed back
forced by variations in solar output.

--
Michael Press

Date: 04 Feb 2007 21:12:29
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <qQuxh.24438$X72.7206@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:

> "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1170631524.629656.78390@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...

> > I'm not wasting any more time with you on this.
>
> Of course you're not. You appear to prefer ignorance to knowledge. Everyone
> in the world but you and your buddies is corrupt. You on the other hand are
> above reproach. You'd ALWAYS know before hand the right thing to do in every
> case.

It's absolutely hilarious to read you making claims like that about someone else.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 23 Jan 2007 00:52:23
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <C1DACBEE.200250%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> Think about it dumbshit...........
> There was so much political correctness going on over how to house Saddam,
> how to try him to protect HIS civil rights, how he SHOULD have been handled,
> how he SHOULD have been executed. 11 steps to follow before pulling a
> trigger in Iraq, if you do not and slip on one you will be court shaled.

This does not change the fact that the Bushies had a full year to think
about what to do with Saddam and his cronies when they catch them. And
they still managed to improvise something in a few days . This is
incompetence. They spent more time making that fucking deck of cards
than planning the after-Saddam.

As to the proper way to deal with Saddam, they just had to treat him as
a war prisoner until he got indicted for war crimes or crimes against
humankind, the way it was done with the nazis at Nuremberg. What's so
tough about that.

And yes, we expect higher standards from the USA when it comes to
treating prisoners than from Saddam's Iraq, Iran, or Morocco and Egypt
for that matter.

> That is just a small part..........
> Nobody is putting much emphasis on the responsibility of the Iraq people, as
> in the 1% that are causing the problems. Many are not even Iraq citizens,
> but then you knew that.......

This is ridiculous. The USA walk into Iraq with zero planning on what
do do once the fighting is over. Then things turn ugly and you are
surprised and shocked and hurt that people in the region who don't like
the USA jump on the opportunity to get involved and make things even
worse. You are quite something!

The stuff below is just an incoherent (and unrelated yo the topic at
hand) rant on them nasty lefties. I had understood from your previous
ramblings that you don't like them. Am I supposed to care?

jyh.

> An SDSU professor got into a bunch of problems for using his university
> email account when sending to and discussing information about the Minute
> Men.....
>
> I guess if you are on the "right" side it is OK for others like you right??
>
> http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061013/news_7m13sdsu.html

Date: 21 Jan 2007 21:44:24
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:09:22 GMT, ST <no@no.com > wrote:

>What does most of this shit you are saying boil down to? PCism.......
>If the US (read: US military forces in the conflict) was subject to the
>political correctness and massive power struggle finger pointing of a party
>trying to win a presidency in WWII we would have "Re-Deployed" in 1943!!

You're an idiot.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 22 Jan 2007 03:01:36
From: ST
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 1/21/07 6:44 PM, in article g798r2dlr1efspmntnqui7qlvm4b3umrpf@4ax.com,
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:09:22 GMT, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>
>> What does most of this shit you are saying boil down to? PCism.......
>> If the US (read: US military forces in the conflict) was subject to the
>> political correctness and massive power struggle finger pointing of a party
>> trying to win a presidency in WWII we would have "Re-Deployed" in 1943!!
>
> You're an idiot.

Bullcrap JT....
The resilience & determination back then was much different than today. Have
any of you EVER talked to anyone that is old enough to know??

Date: 22 Jan 2007 16:49:14
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:01:36 GMT, ST <no@no.com > wrote:

>Bullcrap JT....
>The resilience & determination back then was much different than today. Have
>any of you EVER talked to anyone that is old enough to know??

Yes, my father. What does that have to do with your opinions?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:17:38
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:01:36 GMT, ST <no@no.com > wrote:

>On 1/21/07 6:44 PM, in article g798r2dlr1efspmntnqui7qlvm4b3umrpf@4ax.com,
>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:09:22 GMT, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What does most of this shit you are saying boil down to? PCism.......
>>> If the US (read: US military forces in the conflict) was subject to the
>>> political correctness and massive power struggle finger pointing of a party
>>> trying to win a presidency in WWII we would have "Re-Deployed" in 1943!!
>>
>> You're an idiot.
>
>
>Bullcrap JT....
>The resilience & determination back then was much different than today. Have
>any of you EVER talked to anyone that is old enough to know??

You're an idiot by trying to equate WWII to a completely optional war.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 22 Jan 2007 03:36:20
From: ST
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 1/21/07 7:17 PM, in article j5b8r2t8358polkvo9bj49ob16rthq7vah@4ax.com,
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:01:36 GMT, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/07 6:44 PM, in article g798r2dlr1efspmntnqui7qlvm4b3umrpf@4ax.com,
>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:09:22 GMT, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What does most of this shit you are saying boil down to? PCism.......
>>>> If the US (read: US military forces in the conflict) was subject to the
>>>> political correctness and massive power struggle finger pointing of a party
>>>> trying to win a presidency in WWII we would have "Re-Deployed" in 1943!!
>>>
>>> You're an idiot.
>>
>>
>> Bullcrap JT....
>> The resilience & determination back then was much different than today. Have
>> any of you EVER talked to anyone that is old enough to know??
>
> You're an idiot by trying to equate WWII to a completely optional war.
>

Then most of you are being idiots trying to equate Vietnam to today.........
Optional? No other country in the world has had a blow like 9-11. You
brainiacs have got to stop trying to project you liberal logic to these
other cultures that you also say we have to understand that they think
different than us.......

Is this when I say DUH!!

Date: 22 Jan 2007 06:30:48
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:36:20 GMT, ST <no@no.com > wrote:

>On 1/21/07 7:17 PM, in article j5b8r2t8358polkvo9bj49ob16rthq7vah@4ax.com,
>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:01:36 GMT, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/21/07 6:44 PM, in article g798r2dlr1efspmntnqui7qlvm4b3umrpf@4ax.com,
>>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:09:22 GMT, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What does most of this shit you are saying boil down to? PCism.......
>>>>> If the US (read: US military forces in the conflict) was subject to the
>>>>> political correctness and massive power struggle finger pointing of a party
>>>>> trying to win a presidency in WWII we would have "Re-Deployed" in 1943!!
>>>>
>>>> You're an idiot.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bullcrap JT....
>>> The resilience & determination back then was much different than today. Have
>>> any of you EVER talked to anyone that is old enough to know??
>>
>> You're an idiot by trying to equate WWII to a completely optional war.
>
>Then most of you are being idiots trying to equate Vietnam to today.........
>Optional? No other country in the world has had a blow like 9-11.

You're an idiot to suggest Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.

You're an idiot to suggest no other country in the world has had
signficant terrorist attacks.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 23 Jan 2007 04:31:38
From: ST
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 1/22/07 3:30 AM, in article k189r2dm5h2cn14e5u02go67n0dnn0pf5n@4ax.com,
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:36:20 GMT, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/21/07 7:17 PM, in article j5b8r2t8358polkvo9bj49ob16rthq7vah@4ax.com,
>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:01:36 GMT, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/21/07 6:44 PM, in article g798r2dlr1efspmntnqui7qlvm4b3umrpf@4ax.com,
>>>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:09:22 GMT, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What does most of this shit you are saying boil down to? PCism.......
>>>>>> If the US (read: US military forces in the conflict) was subject to the
>>>>>> political correctness and massive power struggle finger pointing of a
>>>>>> party
>>>>>> trying to win a presidency in WWII we would have "Re-Deployed" in 1943!!
>>>>>
>>>>> You're an idiot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bullcrap JT....
>>>> The resilience & determination back then was much different than today.
>>>> Have
>>>> any of you EVER talked to anyone that is old enough to know??
>>>
>>> You're an idiot by trying to equate WWII to a completely optional war.
>>
>> Then most of you are being idiots trying to equate Vietnam to today.........
>> Optional? No other country in the world has had a blow like 9-11.
>
> You're an idiot to suggest Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.
I did not say that did I? Saddam was an enabler who was in a position to be
pounced on with his multiple UN violations. While you Socialists may
disagree right now just look me up in 10 years with the same arguments. When
it comes down to it that is the kool-aid line isn't it? Did you see your
Sugar Daddy Soros is backing Obama??

>
> You're an idiot to suggest no other country in the world has had
> signficant terrorist attacks.

Who??? Are you gonna say it depends on what your definition of is is?
3000+ dead and the financial damage too? Not to mention the physical damage?
1 event? Not over 10+ years.......

I am tired and have more important things to do than come on here once a day
and be expected to read 100 messages to argue with you assclowns......

Date: 23 Jan 2007 06:12:24
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 04:31:38 GMT, ST <no@no.com > wrote:

>On 1/22/07 3:30 AM, in article k189r2dm5h2cn14e5u02go67n0dnn0pf5n@4ax.com,
>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:

>> You're an idiot to suggest Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.
>I did not say that did I? Saddam was an enabler who was in a position to be
>pounced on with his multiple UN violations. While you Socialists may
>disagree right now just look me up in 10 years with the same arguments. When
>it comes down to it that is the kool-aid line isn't it? Did you see your
>Sugar Daddy Soros is backing Obama??

Oh I get it, you're doing a parody of a wingnut. Pretty funny.

If Soros is in favor of something, then it must be wrong by
definition. Funny.

>> You're an idiot to suggest no other country in the world has had
>> signficant terrorist attacks.
>
>Who??? Are you gonna say it depends on what your definition of is is?
>3000+ dead and the financial damage too? Not to mention the physical damage?
>1 event? Not over 10+ years.......

OK, so we can set the rules. 3000 in one event means we get to
retaliate randomly against another nation?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 23 Jan 2007 15:22:44
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 04:31:38 GMT, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/22/07 3:30 AM, in article k189r2dm5h2cn14e5u02go67n0dnn0pf5n@4ax.com,
>> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>> You're an idiot to suggest Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.
>> I did not say that did I? Saddam was an enabler who was in a position to be
>> pounced on with his multiple UN violations. While you Socialists may
>> disagree right now just look me up in 10 years with the same arguments. When
>> it comes down to it that is the kool-aid line isn't it? Did you see your
>> Sugar Daddy Soros is backing Obama??
>
> Oh I get it, you're doing a parody of a wingnut. Pretty funny.
>
> If Soros is in favor of something, then it must be wrong by
> definition. Funny.
>
>>> You're an idiot to suggest no other country in the world has had
>>> signficant terrorist attacks.
>> Who??? Are you gonna say it depends on what your definition of is is?
>> 3000+ dead and the financial damage too? Not to mention the physical damage?
>> 1 event? Not over 10+ years.......
>
> OK, so we can set the rules. 3000 in one event means we get to
> retaliate randomly against another nation?

I was disappointed by our failure to invade Canada after Hurricane Katrina.

Date: 24 Jan 2007 12:02:14
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> I was disappointed by our failure to invade Canada after Hurricane Katrina.

Would you really want a bunch of LIVEDRUNK insurgents on a drunken jihad
with an explosive iceberg on your doorstep ?

http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/ma06/indepth/resources.asp

Date: 24 Jan 2007 07:39:18
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Donald Munro wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> I was disappointed by our failure to invade Canada after Hurricane Katrina.
>
> Would you really want a bunch of LIVEDRUNK insurgents on a drunken jihad
> with an explosive iceberg on your doorstep ?
>
> http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/ma06/indepth/resources.asp

Well, if they're good-natured drunken jihadists....

Date: 22 Jan 2007 22:56:31
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <C1DACFA7.200254%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> I am tired and have more important things to do than come on here once a day
> and be expected to read 100 messages to argue with you assclowns......

But you're doing so well! Just a little more and we'll all be convinced...

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 23 Jan 2007 15:29:33
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <C1DACFA7.200254%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>> I am tired and have more important things to do than come on here once a day
>> and be expected to read 100 messages to argue with you assclowns......
>
> But you're doing so well! Just a little more and we'll all be convinced...
>

Convinced of something, that's for sure.

Date: 21 Jan 2007 22:04:45
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <C1D97133.2001D1%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> On 1/21/07 7:17 PM, in article j5b8r2t8358polkvo9bj49ob16rthq7vah@4ax.com,
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 03:01:36 GMT, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> > You're an idiot by trying to equate WWII to a completely optional war.
> >
>
>
> Then most of you are being idiots trying to equate Vietnam to today.........
> Optional? No other country in the world has had a blow like 9-11. You
> brainiacs have got to stop trying to project you liberal logic to these
> other cultures that you also say we have to understand that they think
> different than us.......

No other country has ever had a big terrorist attack? Wow! Seriously, what does
the 9-11 attack have to do with Iraq?

> Is this when I say DUH!!

No, I suspect you say that quite frequently.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 18 Jan 2007 18:00:35
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 18, 7:02 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com >
wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2007 15:50:43 -0800, fred.gar...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >I read it, and it didn't sicken me at all. Nothing at all like pulling
> >the eyes from puppies. They kept him in seclusion. BFD.I don't know whether to laugh or be appalled at your comment. Sort of
> like Limbaugh (or was it O'Reilly) talking about Abu Gharaib as being
> like fraternity pranks.
>
> It's one thing to be alone for a long period of time.
>
> It's quite another to be kept alone, with complete uncertainty of if
> you will ever get out, or be allowed to live freely again, or perhaps
> killed out of hand. It's torture.
> --
> JT
> ****************************
> Remove "remove" to reply
> Visithttp://www.jt10000.com
> ****************************

Hey JT I expected some of those reponses, but it wasn't just
isolation. It was years of sensory deprivation which is nasty shit.:
http://www.nacd.org/more_information/journal/article23.html
Selected bits:
<Snip >
But what happens to the brain's efficiency when the brain is deprived
of proper stimulation? Sensory deprivation studies show us that sudden
and nearly complete deprivation of stimulation through the five senses
can lead to dramatic changes in the brain's efficiency with a partial
loss of memory, a lowering of the I.Q., personality changes including
withdrawal, hallucinations, and in some people even an abnormal
electroencephalogram, a picture not unlike what is seen in the mentally
ill patient who becomes withdrawn and hallucinates.

<snip >

Let's look at some chronic or longer lasting forms of sensory
deprivation. Sadly, this country's recent history provides a number of
examples of just such deprivation with its sometimes tragic results.
Captured U.S. soldiers fighting in Korea were subjected to a prolonged
period of isolation by their captors. During such isolation they were
forced to listen to propaganda. Their brains, dulled by prolonged
isolation, were vulnerable to the propaganda to the degree that when a
truce was declared and prisoners exchanged, many U.S. soldiers refused
to return home. Later after being taken out of isolation and permitted
the normal stimulating effects of an active environment, their brains'
efficiency improved to the point that most of them wanted to, and
finally did, return home.

The Pueblo incident and the sad effects of isolation on Captain Bucher
and his crew should have taught us that none of us would be immune to
the adverse effects on the brain of other forms of sensory deprivation.
<more there and other places >

I guess it's OK that we are now acting just like the N. Koreans, that
makes me proud. Maybe we can set up some re-education camps here in the
US too and make people disappear.
Yep, I'm busting with pride.
One of the fun techniques we used to use was to take a prisoner who we
knew things about, such as a village leader in Vietnam whom we
suspected of being VC, or a collaborator, isolate and stress him. Then
let information get to him that we'd captured his family. We would hold
their families without abusing them, but the key was to have them,
gather basic info on them, and from them. Then you get someone with a
voice that's close to the wife or daughter's. You tie the prisoner into
a chair in a small room and gag them with another adjacent room that
allows the sound to come through, but not completely clearly. You tell
the prisoner that since he hasn't talked your friends are going to have
some fun with his wife. You stage a rape scene in the other room, loud,
but not too nasty and make him hear it.
When it's over you tell him that if he doesn't talk by tomorrow he
gets to hear her raped to death, then his daughters are next.
The reality is that there's never a k on him. His family was never
harmed, but most likely he's been mentally destroyed. The key is to
never ask leading or specific questions, and to guarantee that you will
verify any information before releasing their families, or else.
Somehow we claimed that since they weren't physically abused this
wasn't torture. To be fair the Brits were the masters of psychological
manipulation and torture. The French were really good at it, but became
masters after enlisting a shitload of former Nazis into the Legion
after WW2.
Everybody does this shit unfortunately. There's tons of other goodies
out there on unconventional warfare, psyops, interrogation, chemical
interrogation, etc...
Maybe a couple times in a million is it actually justified. Padilla
was wrung out and exposed as nothing but delusional in days, anything
after that was torture for the joy of it.
The nice thing about isolation and depravation, from the "we can
rationalize anything" people inflicting it is that you aren't getting
covered in blood, breaking bones, or actively physically abusing them,
you're just leaving them alone and feeding them, and giving medical
care. What's wrong with that? Maybe even throw in some music and
"correct thinking" for them to listen to.

Bill C

Date: 18 Jan 2007 16:56:25
From:
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On 18 Jan 2007 15:50:43 -0800, fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > >I read it, and it didn't sicken me at all. Nothing at all like pulling
> > >the eyes from puppies. They kept him in seclusion. BFD.
> >
> > I don't know whether to laugh or be appalled at your comment. Sort of
> > like Limbaugh (or was it O'Reilly) talking about Abu Gharaib as being
> > like fraternity pranks.
> >
> > It's one thing to be alone for a long period of time.
> >
> > It's quite another to be kept alone, with complete uncertainty of if
> > you will ever get out, or be allowed to live freely again, or perhaps
> > killed out of hand. It's torture.
>
> Be fair, JT. "Fred" already pointed out that none of us
> have the right to give opinions on the surge because we're
> not counter-insurgency experts, just dipshits who read the
> newspaper. In keeping with this, perhaps Fred's opinions on
> the effects of indefinite seclusion _are_ the opinions of an
> expert. I think it's quite possible he was locked in the closet
> under the stairs for years at a time. I don't know about the
> bright lights and LSD though, unless he had a hippie mom.
>
> As for Padilla, it's pretty clear that the government messed
> with him for whatever its reasons were, and now would almost
> rather that he go away than have to try him on whatever minuscule
> charges are left and risk that the trial will publicize their treatment
> of him. IOW, even the government thinks it tortured him. They're
> only continuing with the trial as part of defending their claims
> to be able to detain people without review.
> http://www.slate.com/id/2157493/
> http://www.slate.com/id/2156397/ (point #3 is on Padilla)
>
> Ben

I didn't say dick about you not having a right to your opinions. I DID
say you probably don't know what you're talking about, which leads to
the conclusion that you've probably made a knee jerk reaction not
guided by reason. An opinion of that nature carries little, no, make
that no weight.

You can proclaim any/all opinions you want about what you think
should/should not be done, but don't try to pass your opinions off as
facts.

Fred

Date: 24 Jan 2007 07:53:29
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 24, 10:28 am, ST <n...@no.com > wrote:

Apropos of which, presumably Cheney would be able to hit a low
> > flying Osprey if he aims at a duck.Real nice liberals you are......
> No malice from Cheney present in that accident. I guess it is time to start
> "Drunk Ed Kennedy goes off the bridge" jokes again.....

One, I wouldn't hunt with Cheney because he appears to be an unsafe
idiot when he's out there that's got nothihng to do with politics.
Two, Please explain how pointing out that our military is being handed
garbage that's second rate at best, has a miserable
in-service/functionality percentage, and the Pentagon and Congress go
after anyone who questions them, is a "Liberal" value?
That damned well should be an "Everyone" value, and IMO it's pretty
damned patriotic to fight to expose the corruption that's getting our
kids killed.
You, as a supporter of the military should be raising hell on this,
but maybe you're a supporter like Hannity is. His position is that
whatever the Pentagon leadership and it's contractors , not the troops
or anyone else, claim is what's best and the truth. This despite that
independent studies, the DOJ, sections of the military, etc...keep
pointing out this shit.
Like Bob Dornan and his B-1 drive. "Well just because the fuel tanks
rupture when the wings are swept that doesn't mean they aren't great
aircraft!", "Oh they failed to meet every design benchk, we'll just
rewrite the benchks, gotta keep people employed."
and on it goes.
We are talking trillions here for shit that works 30% of the time. I
watched a squadron of Apache choppers that were supposed to go to
Bosnia rot on the Ramstein pad because they couldn't get them up to 50%
to deploy.
My nephew's a chopper pilot. He has a lower opinion of almost all the
newer shit than I do. He's now flying ROVs because at least when they
fall out of the air for no good reason he's not in them.
The have been brutally short on spare parts, new old design airframes,
maintenance facilities, etc for decades due to the "We aren't spending
anything on those because we're bringing new stuff on line."
One perfect example is the A-10, the AF had killed it and was phasing
it out totally because they wanted Gee Whiz until the real world forced
them to chande their mind, but they ended up cannibalizing planes to
patch the rest. That's actually pretty typical too and accounts for
some of the percentage.
What part of insisting that our troops should have good, safe, tested,
reliable equipment that meets the basic design criteria is not a
Conservative value?
Bill C

Date: 24 Jan 2007 19:55:46
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Bill C wrote:
> Like Bob Dornan and his B-1 drive. "Well just because the fuel tanks
> rupture when the wings are swept that doesn't mean they aren't great
> aircraft!",

I hadn't heard about that; must have been before satellite tv exported US
scandals to the rest of us. Oddly, there doesn't seem to be much on the B1
on google either, just references to 'B1 Dornan' in other contexts.

OB Cheney and Rove, it seems some of the ducks may come home to roost:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16778317/site/newsweek/?nav=slate

Date: 18 Jan 2007 18:23:54
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>> On 18 Jan 2007 15:50:43 -0800, fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> I read it, and it didn't sicken me at all. Nothing at all like pulling
>>>> the eyes from puppies. They kept him in seclusion. BFD.
>>> I don't know whether to laugh or be appalled at your comment. Sort of
>>> like Limbaugh (or was it O'Reilly) talking about Abu Gharaib as being
>>> like fraternity pranks.
>>>
>>> It's one thing to be alone for a long period of time.
>>>
>>> It's quite another to be kept alone, with complete uncertainty of if
>>> you will ever get out, or be allowed to live freely again, or perhaps
>>> killed out of hand. It's torture.
>> Be fair, JT. "Fred" already pointed out that none of us
>> have the right to give opinions on the surge because we're
>> not counter-insurgency experts, just dipshits who read the
>> newspaper. In keeping with this, perhaps Fred's opinions on
>> the effects of indefinite seclusion _are_ the opinions of an
>> expert. I think it's quite possible he was locked in the closet
>> under the stairs for years at a time. I don't know about the
>> bright lights and LSD though, unless he had a hippie mom.
>>
>> As for Padilla, it's pretty clear that the government messed
>> with him for whatever its reasons were, and now would almost
>> rather that he go away than have to try him on whatever minuscule
>> charges are left and risk that the trial will publicize their treatment
>> of him. IOW, even the government thinks it tortured him. They're
>> only continuing with the trial as part of defending their claims
>> to be able to detain people without review.
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2157493/
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2156397/ (point #3 is on Padilla)
>>
>> Ben
>
> I didn't say dick about you not having a right to your opinions. I DID
> say you probably don't know what you're talking about, which leads to
> the conclusion that you've probably made a knee jerk reaction not
> guided by reason. An opinion of that nature carries little, no, make
> that no weight.
>
> You can proclaim any/all opinions you want about what you think
> should/should not be done, but don't try to pass your opinions off as
> facts.
>
> Fred
>

Anyone named "Fred" is, by definition, a clueless buffoon.

My credentials for making such a statement are unimpeachable.

Date: 18 Jan 2007 20:04:48
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 18 Jan 2007 16:56:25 -0800, fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> > On 18 Jan 2007 15:50:43 -0800, fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >
>> > >I read it, and it didn't sicken me at all. Nothing at all like pulling
>> > >the eyes from puppies. They kept him in seclusion. BFD.
>> >
>> > I don't know whether to laugh or be appalled at your comment. Sort of
>> > like Limbaugh (or was it O'Reilly) talking about Abu Gharaib as being
>> > like fraternity pranks.
>> >
>> > It's one thing to be alone for a long period of time.
>> >
>> > It's quite another to be kept alone, with complete uncertainty of if
>> > you will ever get out, or be allowed to live freely again, or perhaps
>> > killed out of hand. It's torture.
>>
>> Be fair, JT. "Fred" already pointed out that none of us
>> have the right to give opinions on the surge because we're
>> not counter-insurgency experts, just dipshits who read the
>> newspaper. In keeping with this, perhaps Fred's opinions on
>> the effects of indefinite seclusion _are_ the opinions of an
>> expert. I think it's quite possible he was locked in the closet
>> under the stairs for years at a time. I don't know about the
>> bright lights and LSD though, unless he had a hippie mom.
>>
>> As for Padilla, it's pretty clear that the government messed
>> with him for whatever its reasons were, and now would almost
>> rather that he go away than have to try him on whatever minuscule
>> charges are left and risk that the trial will publicize their treatment
>> of him. IOW, even the government thinks it tortured him. They're
>> only continuing with the trial as part of defending their claims
>> to be able to detain people without review.
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2157493/
>> http://www.slate.com/id/2156397/ (point #3 is on Padilla)
>>
>> Ben
>
>I didn't say dick about you not having a right to your opinions. I DID
>say you probably don't know what you're talking about, which leads to
>the conclusion that you've probably made a knee jerk reaction not
>guided by reason. An opinion of that nature carries little, no, make
>that no weight.
>
>You can proclaim any/all opinions you want about what you think
>should/should not be done, but don't try to pass your opinions off as
>facts.

You don't think prolonged isolation, combined with threats of death,
loud music and beatings constitute torture?

It's a fact -- if combined those things are torture.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 18 Jan 2007 16:43:45
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2007 15:50:43 -0800, fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >I read it, and it didn't sicken me at all. Nothing at all like pulling
> >the eyes from puppies. They kept him in seclusion. BFD.
>
> I don't know whether to laugh or be appalled at your comment. Sort of
> like Limbaugh (or was it O'Reilly) talking about Abu Gharaib as being
> like fraternity pranks.
>
> It's one thing to be alone for a long period of time.
>
> It's quite another to be kept alone, with complete uncertainty of if
> you will ever get out, or be allowed to live freely again, or perhaps
> killed out of hand. It's torture.

Be fair, JT. "Fred" already pointed out that none of us
have the right to give opinions on the surge because we're
not counter-insurgency experts, just dipshits who read the
newspaper. In keeping with this, perhaps Fred's opinions on
the effects of indefinite seclusion _are_ the opinions of an
expert. I think it's quite possible he was locked in the closet
under the stairs for years at a time. I don't know about the
bright lights and LSD though, unless he had a hippie mom.

As for Padilla, it's pretty clear that the government messed
with him for whatever its reasons were, and now would almost
rather that he go away than have to try him on whatever minuscule
charges are left and risk that the trial will publicize their treatment
of him. IOW, even the government thinks it tortured him. They're
only continuing with the trial as part of defending their claims
to be able to detain people without review.
http://www.slate.com/id/2157493/
http://www.slate.com/id/2156397/ (point #3 is on Padilla)

Ben

Date: 21 Jan 2007 12:50:15
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Jan 21, 3:41 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <1169409454.955145.106...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Bill C" <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 1:17 pm, Fred Fredburger
> > <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> > > Bill C wrote:
> > > > Have you read anything I've said for comprehension? Not sure where you
> > > > got most of that.Howard pointed out that you raised the "credentials"
> > > > issue because you
> > > probably had me confused with Fred Garvin. That seems likely since the
> > > points you're making look awful similar to the ones I'm making.
>
> > > Fred Garvin and I are pretty much opposites. For instance, he's a male
> > > prostitute and I'm a character from a children's cartoon show:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Fredburger
>
> > Just did a little looking around for infantry company commander "Fred"
> > Garvin didn't find anything. Found myself, my wife, friends, etc... I'm
> > pretty sure I even found Howard's dad and Kunich, but nothing for
> > Mr.Garvin.
> > Bill C "Fred Garvin" is a nym. The origins are a character that Dan Ackroyd did: Fred
> Garvin, male prostitute.
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Never take a tenant with a monkey.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Vaqguely remember that, and it's highly appropriate.
Bill C

Date: 18 Jan 2007 19:48:51
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 18 Jan 2007 16:43:45 -0800, "bjw@mambo.ucolick.org"
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:

> "Fred" already pointed out that none of us
>have the right to give opinions on the surge because we're
>not counter-insurgency experts, just dipshits who read the
>newspaper.

That might be true, but I thought the real reason is that giving
opinions embolden the enemy.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 18 Jan 2007 16:56:39
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> That might be true, but I thought the real reason is that giving
> opinions embolden the enemy.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011994.php

Date: 18 Jan 2007 20:02:27
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:56:39 -0800, "Robert Chung"
<me@address.invalid > wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>> That might be true, but I thought the real reason is that giving
>> opinions embolden the enemy.
>
>http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011994.php
>
LOL
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 18 Jan 2007 16:13:30
From:
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

Date: 18 Jan 2007 19:36:07
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 18 Jan 2007 16:13:30 -0800, fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:

>
>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On 18 Jan 2007 15:50:43 -0800, fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >I read it, and it didn't sicken me at all. Nothing at all like pulling
>> >the eyes from puppies. They kept him in seclusion. BFD.
>>
>> I don't know whether to laugh or be appalled at your comment. Sort of
>> like Limbaugh (or was it O'Reilly) talking about Abu Gharaib as being
>> like fraternity pranks.
>>
>> It's one thing to be alone for a long period of time.
>>
>> It's quite another to be kept alone, with complete uncertainty of if
>> you will ever get out, or be allowed to live freely again, or perhaps
>> killed out of hand. It's torture.
>
>What's your point?
That it is a big deal. It's really bad if it's true. I don't want my
government doing that. It's illegal and immol.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 17 Jan 2007 12:09:10
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: The surge

On 16 Jan 2007 23:10:41 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
>FDR wasn't an ideologue on foreign policy. He analyzed the situation
>and made the correct decisions.

Tell that to the East Europeans when he sold them down the river.

Date: 17 Jan 2007 23:03:09
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The surge

Jack Hollis wrote:
> You've got to be kidding. Bush's policies in the Middle East have
> been so successful that that alone will insure his place as one of the
> US's great Presidents.

and

> Bush's polls are not very important in the Congressional elections.

> So it comes down to can the Dems hold all 9 of their empty seats
> and pick up 16 of the the 28 Republican seats. It's a tall order.

> Picking up 6 seats in the Senate is not going to happen.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 13:35:38
From: Andre
Subject: Re: The surge

ST wrote:
> On 1/15/07 3:54 PM, in article
> 1168905278.425063.217740@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
> <kgringioni@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Andre wrote:
> >
> >>> Dumbass -
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No it isn't.
> >>>
> >>> It doesn't matter anyways because the "victory" (or failure) will be
> >>> measured by what replaces Saddam Hussein's government and the true
> >>> measure of how that is how many Iraqis are dying. The Lancet study put
> >>> the figure at anywhere from 350,000 to 950,000. The vast majority of it
> >>> is sectarian violence and with that sort of bloodshed going on between
> >>> the tribes, it's pretty much guaranteed that the government will not
> >>> succeed.
> >>>
> >>> The Civil War, it's inevitable. The reason there are so many willing
> >>> suicide bombers is their culture dictates that slain relatives must be
> >>> avenged. So the suicide bomber kills more which engenders more
> >>> avengers. We can't stop it. Neither can they.
> >>>
> >>> Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
> >>> cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
> >>> a few more troops will somehow solve it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>>
> >>> K. Gringioni.
> >>
> >> Bush doesn't want to solve it. Just wants to make sure he retains all
> >> the stolen oil. The death count does not matter one bit to him. To him
> >> the Iraqi civilians and the invading American soldiers are not people
> >> just numbers.
> >
> >
> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> >
> > If only that were true.
> >
> > One of the problems with this administration is that they're ideologues
> > (ignoring data that doesn't fit their preconceived notions) and
> > actually believe they're doing the right thing.
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > K. Gringioni.
> >
>
> We were ideologues in WWI & WWII shithead....
> Over there they are major flaming ideologues. Where is the same bashing??

http://news.neilrogers.com/news/articles/2007011617.html

Date: 15 Jan 2007 16:42:00
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: The surge

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> One of the problems with this administration is that they're ideologues
> (ignoring data that doesn't fit their preconceived notions) and
> actually believe they're doing the right thing.

Kurganbutt: That's two, two problems with this administration.

You're welcome <g >. --D-y

Date: 15 Jan 2007 15:54:38
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: The surge

Andre wrote:

> > Dumbass -
> >
> >
> > No it isn't.
> >
> > It doesn't matter anyways because the "victory" (or failure) will be
> > measured by what replaces Saddam Hussein's government and the true
> > measure of how that is how many Iraqis are dying. The Lancet study put
> > the figure at anywhere from 350,000 to 950,000. The vast majority of it
> > is sectarian violence and with that sort of bloodshed going on between
> > the tribes, it's pretty much guaranteed that the government will not
> > succeed.
> >
> > The Civil War, it's inevitable. The reason there are so many willing
> > suicide bombers is their culture dictates that slain relatives must be
> > avenged. So the suicide bomber kills more which engenders more
> > avengers. We can't stop it. Neither can they.
> >
> > Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
> > cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
> > a few more troops will somehow solve it.
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> Bush doesn't want to solve it. Just wants to make sure he retains all
> the stolen oil. The death count does not matter one bit to him. To him
> the Iraqi civilians and the invading American soldiers are not people
> just numbers.

Dumbass -

If only that were true.

One of the problems with this administration is that they're ideologues
(ignoring data that doesn't fit their preconceived notions) and
actually believe they're doing the right thing.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Date: 15 Jan 2007 17:11:17
From: ST
Subject: Re: The surge

On 1/15/07 3:54 PM, in article
1168905278.425063.217740@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
> Andre wrote:
>
>>> Dumbass -
>>>
>>>
>>> No it isn't.
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter anyways because the "victory" (or failure) will be
>>> measured by what replaces Saddam Hussein's government and the true
>>> measure of how that is how many Iraqis are dying. The Lancet study put
>>> the figure at anywhere from 350,000 to 950,000. The vast majority of it
>>> is sectarian violence and with that sort of bloodshed going on between
>>> the tribes, it's pretty much guaranteed that the government will not
>>> succeed.
>>>
>>> The Civil War, it's inevitable. The reason there are so many willing
>>> suicide bombers is their culture dictates that slain relatives must be
>>> avenged. So the suicide bomber kills more which engenders more
>>> avengers. We can't stop it. Neither can they.
>>>
>>> Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
>>> cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
>>> a few more troops will somehow solve it.
>>>
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>>
>>> K. Gringioni.
>>
>> Bush doesn't want to solve it. Just wants to make sure he retains all
>> the stolen oil. The death count does not matter one bit to him. To him
>> the Iraqi civilians and the invading American soldiers are not people
>> just numbers.
>
>
>
> Dumbass -
>
>
> If only that were true.
>
> One of the problems with this administration is that they're ideologues
> (ignoring data that doesn't fit their preconceived notions) and
> actually believe they're doing the right thing.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.
>

We were ideologues in WWI & WWII shithead....
Over there they are major flaming ideologues. Where is the same bashing??

Date: 22 Jan 2007 12:15:20
From: gds
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
> I've travelled the world as an infantry company commander and Ops
> officer at brigade and division level, as well as written manuals for
> division level mobilizations/deployments. I've forgotten more about
> infantry operations and mobilizations than you could possibly know.
>
> Fred

That's wonderfull! Did you write the manual now being used so
effectively?

"My war" was Viet Nam and it offered ample proof that the military
"experts" were wrong on almost every count. You caution about using
lessons from that experience. I'd caution about ignoring them.

In any case it is clear that the military leaders who oppose this move
are many and that if they were in very high positions they lost them.
History will be arriving shortly and then we'll all see the result.
That is if the coming failure in Iraq doesn't have our CIC push us
into Iran and start a much bigger problem.

Date: 22 Jan 2007 18:42:12
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

On 22 Jan 2007 12:15:20 -0800, "gds" <gary_jill@msn.com > wrote:

>
>fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I've travelled the world as an infantry company commander and Ops
>> officer at brigade and division level, as well as written manuals for
>> division level mobilizations/deployments. I've forgotten more about
>> infantry operations and mobilizations than you could possibly know.
>>
>> Fred
>
>That's wonderfull! Did you write the manual now being used so
>effectively?
>
>"My war" was Viet Nam and it offered ample proof that the military
>"experts" were wrong on almost every count. You caution about using
>lessons from that experience. I'd caution about ignoring them.
>
>In any case it is clear that the military leaders who oppose this move
>are many and that if they were in very high positions they lost them.
>History will be arriving shortly and then we'll all see the result.

LOL. For sure the dopes who still support this war will keep saying
"Wait a little longer and you'll see we were right." Didn't you here
the president point out that we're still talking about George
Washington, so we've got to wait a good long while to judge him?

And if that doesn't work, the dopes can claim that criticism of the
war undercut what would hve been successful otherwise. It's Clinton
and the left's fault!

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 22 Jan 2007 22:43:53
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <eriar2tb88bqi69jpg2st21lgatfpid586@4ax.com >,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

> On 22 Jan 2007 12:15:20 -0800, "gds" <gary_jill@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> I've travelled the world as an infantry company commander and Ops
> >> officer at brigade and division level, as well as written manuals for
> >> division level mobilizations/deployments. I've forgotten more about
> >> infantry operations and mobilizations than you could possibly know.
> >>
> >> Fred
> >
> >That's wonderfull! Did you write the manual now being used so
> >effectively?
> >
> >"My war" was Viet Nam and it offered ample proof that the military
> >"experts" were wrong on almost every count. You caution about using
> >lessons from that experience. I'd caution about ignoring them.
> >
> >In any case it is clear that the military leaders who oppose this move
> >are many and that if they were in very high positions they lost them.
> >History will be arriving shortly and then we'll all see the result.
>
> LOL. For sure the dopes who still support this war will keep saying
> "Wait a little longer and you'll see we were right."

They always say, "These next six months (or four, or ten, or...) are crucial."
And when whatever time frame they've used is over and things are worse (again) they
say it again.

> It's Clinton and the left's fault!

It always is.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 22 Jan 2007 19:07:05
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

McCain is done. He's bought the Kool-Aid completely

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/13753/1/McCain_Hagel-1-2.wmv

Hagel is the new McCain.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 22 Jan 2007 22:49:09
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

In article <eckar2hjcsjj74ckuoigbjhnqklg12ku90@4ax.com >,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

> McCain is done. He's bought the Kool-Aid completely
>
> http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/13753/1/McCain_Hagel-1-2.wmv
>
> Hagel is the new McCain.

McCain hasn't been the McCain that the media makes him out to be for ages.
"Maverick John McCain blah blah blah..." He's repeatedly supported Bush policies and
is far more socially conservative (read: does what the religious 'base' expect). The
media love him though. I think it's because he hangs out with them when he's
campaigning and it makes them feel like they're really part of something important.
Once themes like McCain the Maverick get started, they're hard to stop.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 21 Jan 2007 00:23:49
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The Surge Hanoi Hilton US style

fred.garvin@yahoo.com wrote:

> > If all my calculations are wrong by even 100% that would mean less than
> > 2000 additional troops on the street in each region at one time. This
> > is not overwhelming force.
> > My point has nothing to do with the merits of the war effort in
> > general. It is that what is being proposed is not proportional to the
> > severity of the problem to be solved. It isinteresting to see that a
> > whole slew of retired generals, all with combat experience, are saying
> > much the same thing. Of course, the active duty generals who have not
> > been fired or retired for having such an opinion tend to say the surge
> > is a great idea.
>
> I've travelled the world as an infantry company commander and Ops
> officer at brigade and division level, as well as written manuals for
> division level mobilizations/deployments. I've forgotten more about
> infantry operations and mobilizations than you could possibly know.

That's good. You're in an excellent position to help persuade
me/us/anybody that this is going to work. Seriously. I'm not an
expert, I know a little history, and I don't actually hate America
(even though I am wearing a beret, eating pain de campagne,
and twirling my moustaches as I write this). So I want it to work,
but I'm worried it won't. Persuade me.

Thanks,
Ben

Date: 14 Jan 2007 22:58:57
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: The surge

"ST" <no@no.com > wrote in message news:C1D04CDA.1FEA85%no@no.com...
> On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article 50vdf5F1htk40U1@mid.individual.net,
> "Robert
> Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
>>
>>
>
> Nice boxplot you got there......
> You do know what an outlier is don't you?

That's like asking if the Pope is a Catholic.

>
> Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops
> where
> you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a
> max?
>
> More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.
>

Phil H

Date: 14 Jan 2007 22:16:02
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The surge

In article <C1D04CDA.1FEA85%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article 50vdf5F1htk40U1@mid.individual.net, "Robert
> Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>
> > http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
> >
> >
>
> Nice boxplot you got there......
> You do know what an outlier is don't you?
>
> Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops where
> you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?
>
> More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.

No, there are not more deaths than that in many major cities in the US. Secondly,
even if there were more deaths than that in a major US city, the population of that
city is far greater than the total number of US troops in Iraq. Therefore, the
deaths per capita of people in this ficitious US city would pale in comparison to
the rate of death among the soldiers in Iraq.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 16 Jan 2007 13:34:23
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The surge

On Jan 16, 4:15 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Not sure what the ratio is but everything I've seen says that they are
> > saving a much higher percentage of seriously wounded. Most of whom
> > would've died even a decade ago. That's going to give you a much
> > higher ratio of seriously wounded to KIA. I've seen guesses between
> > 20,000 to 35,000 from sources close to the military, though even they
> > admit they aren't sure of the numbers.US non-mortal casualties here:
>
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
>
> Nobody knows how many of the Wounded-Medical Air Transport Required are
> "Johnny Got His Gun"-badly wounded.
>
> And this is kind of a nice graph on the U.S. death rate as well:
>
> http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm
>
> --
> Bill Asher

Might be my paranoia, but I'd bet the figures are higher and a lot of
the special ops / covert types arent in there, and neither are the
other "Government Employees" and "Civilian Contractors".
I figure anything coming out of the Pentagon is a lie in some fashion,
it's cultural there I think.
Bill C

Date: 15 Jan 2007 16:48:52
From: ST
Subject: Re: The surge

On 1/14/07 10:16 PM, in article
YOURhoward-950363.22160214012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> In article <C1D04CDA.1FEA85%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article 50vdf5F1htk40U1@mid.individual.net, "Robert
>> Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nice boxplot you got there......
>> You do know what an outlier is don't you?
>>
>> Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops where
>> you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?
>>
>> More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.
>
> No, there are not more deaths than that in many major cities in the US.
> Secondly,
> even if there were more deaths than that in a major US city, the population of
> that
> city is far greater than the total number of US troops in Iraq. Therefore, the
> deaths per capita of people in this ficitious US city would pale in comparison
> to
> the rate of death among the soldiers in Iraq.

You logic is stupid.......
Over there is a war, here it is not.
There are many cities were there are more than 5 deaths per day.

Date: 15 Jan 2007 20:01:21
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The surge

In article <C1D160F4.1FEADF%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> On 1/14/07 10:16 PM, in article
> YOURhoward-950363.22160214012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <C1D04CDA.1FEA85%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article 50vdf5F1htk40U1@mid.individual.net,
> >> "Robert
> >> Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Nice boxplot you got there......
> >> You do know what an outlier is don't you?
> >>
> >> Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops
> >> where
> >> you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?
> >>
> >> More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.
> >
> > No, there are not more deaths than that in many major cities in the US.
> > Secondly,
> > even if there were more deaths than that in a major US city, the population
> > of
> > that
> > city is far greater than the total number of US troops in Iraq. Therefore,
> > the
> > deaths per capita of people in this ficitious US city would pale in
> > comparison
> > to
> > the rate of death among the soldiers in Iraq.
>
> You logic is stupid.......
> Over there is a war, here it is not.
> There are many cities were there are more than 5 deaths per day.

Then it should be quite simple for you to name a few. It'll be even more relevant
if these cities have a population of about 150,000.

By the way, Steve, I know this stuff gets you really worked up, but try taking
the time to proofread your posts before you hit send. As it is, you're giving aid
and comfort to Carl.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 15 Jan 2007 20:51:54
From: ST
Subject: Re: The surge

On 1/15/07 8:01 PM, in article
YOURhoward-F255AE.20012115012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:

> In article <C1D160F4.1FEADF%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/07 10:16 PM, in article
>> YOURhoward-950363.22160214012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
>> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <C1D04CDA.1FEA85%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article 50vdf5F1htk40U1@mid.individual.net,
>>>> "Robert
>>>> Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nice boxplot you got there......
>>>> You do know what an outlier is don't you?
>>>>
>>>> Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops
>>>> where
>>>> you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?
>>>>
>>>> More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.
>>>
>>> No, there are not more deaths than that in many major cities in the US.
>>> Secondly,
>>> even if there were more deaths than that in a major US city, the population
>>> of
>>> that
>>> city is far greater than the total number of US troops in Iraq. Therefore,
>>> the
>>> deaths per capita of people in this ficitious US city would pale in
>>> comparison
>>> to
>>> the rate of death among the soldiers in Iraq.
>>
>> You logic is stupid.......
>> Over there is a war, here it is not.
>> There are many cities were there are more than 5 deaths per day.
>
> Then it should be quite simple for you to name a few. It'll be even more
> relevant
> if these cities have a population of about 150,000.
>
> By the way, Steve, I know this stuff gets you really worked up, but try
> taking
> the time to proofread your posts before you hit send. As it is, you're giving
> aid
> and comfort to Carl.

Here ya go Professor Ass Bag........

http://newsbusters.org/node/9932
http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ViolDeathGraph1206.jpeg

Date: 17 Jan 2007 10:04:20
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: The surge

ST wrote:

> http://newsbusters.org/node/9932
> http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ViolDeathGraph1206.jpeg
>
>

Interesting links. However, estimates for deaths in Iraq have always
been wildly inconsistent. Here's an estimate that's double that used on
these pages:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything here, just noting that the
truth is hard to get at. Churchill once said that during wartime the
truth was such a precious commodity that it had to be accompanied by a
bodyguard of lies. Or something like that.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 16:10:21
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The surge

In article <C1D199EA.1FEB24%no@no.com >, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> On 1/15/07 8:01 PM, in article
> YOURhoward-F255AE.20012115012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <C1D160F4.1FEADF%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:

> >> There are many cities were there are more than 5 deaths per day.
> >
> > Then it should be quite simple for you to name a few. It'll be even more
> > relevant if these cities have a population of about 150,000.

> Here ya go Professor Ass Bag........
>
>
> http://newsbusters.org/node/9932
> http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ViolDeathGraph1206.jpeg

I guess you didn't get the point. Robert's chart is about the deaths of US
troops. That's the point I'm making: there is a population of about 132,000 US
troops (not the 150,000 I mentioned, sorry for the error) and there are times when 5
of them have died in a day. Are there any cities in the US with a population of
about 132,000 that has a death rate that high? Of course not. Secondly, the charts
provided by your source are highly questionable, at best. The morgue in Baghdad
reported 16,000 bodies were brought in during '06. But that is likely very much a
short count, as many people found the body of a family member and took care of it on
their own because going to the morgue proved to be a danger: the militias hung out
by it and killed people who came to deliver or pick up bodies.

Anyway, the UN now says the totals reported have all been way too low. They said
today that more than 34,000 Iraqis had been killed in 2006.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0116/iraq.html?rss

As far as it being, as you seem to be implying, "not that bad," I believe that if
there were a city in the US that had a death rate as high as it is in Iraq, you'd be
complaining about how bad it was and blamng it on "liberals coddling criminals."

You mentioned to JT that if he didn't like things, then he should vote. Well, I
suspect he did. So did a lot of people. And on November 7, 2006, the people spoke.
While Iraq was but one part of the reason for it, the people seemed to repudiate the
Bush policy rather hard. Check the polls, Steve. They show a 70% disapproval rate on
Bush's Iraq policy. They also show he has a job approval rating in the very low 30%
area - and it's been there for many months. Lots of presidents get into those
numbers for short periods, but never for extended stays. The guy is unpopular for a
reason, Steve.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 16 Jan 2007 17:02:20
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The surge

Howard Kveck wrote:
> I guess you didn't get the point. Robert's chart is about the
> deaths of US troops.

You know, I'm actually kinda surprised that no one saw what I saw. I thought
the point of the graph was seasonality in US deaths. Since neither our
government nor the Iraqi government appear to be interested in knowing the
toll of the war, one of the few ways to assess the toll is by the deaths of
coalition forces. The President is sending in more troops and I wonder
whether the administration will point to any reduction in American deaths as
a justification for the escalation.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 13:05:31
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The surge

ST wrote:

> http://newsbusters.org/node/9932

That site sez that a total of 16,273 Iraqis died of violence in 2006, for a
violent death rate of 56 per 100,000. Meanwhile, we averaged around 140,000
US forces in Iraq during 2006 with a total of just under 900 deaths, for a
violent death rate of around 600 per 100,000. Yow. The Iraqis are kicking
our butts. And you want to send more Americans over there? FatBoy, why do
you hate America so?

Date: 16 Jan 2007 07:29:15
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The surge

ST <no@no.com > wrote in news:C1D199EA.1FEB24%no@no.com:

<snip >
>
> http://newsbusters.org/node/9932
> http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ViolDeathGraph1206.jpeg

That's a little misleading. If you look at one year at random and look
at a lot of U.S. cities, instead of using the outlier years for cities in
the midst of drug wars or riots, the average murder rate is fairly low.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html

If you consider most of the Iraqi deaths are in and around Baghdad and
don't spread them over the entire population (i.e., Basra and most of the
south is relatively peaceful, as is Kurdistan), then the murder rate
there is on order of 200 per 100,000 or so (using the 16,000 dead figure
from the Iraqi government and assuming maybe 75% of them are from Baghdad
(pop. est. 6,000,000)), nearly an order of magnitude larger than the
average for U.S. cities.

But the real reason that chart is misleading is it doesn't take into
account the non-fatal casualties, which are underreported since there
aren't medical facilities to treat the wounded. I would think a
reasonable estimate might be 6 to 7 times as many seriously wounded as
killed, taking the coalition force numbers as an example, bringing the
total casualty rate among Baghdad residents up to over 1,000 per 100,000,
or around 1%. That is extraordinary for a "peacetime" population and
demonstrates why reconstruction is virtually at a standstill there. If
the true casualty numbers are higher than the government reports, as some
have suggested, it is simply staggering.

Clearly not all of Iraq is as violent as Baghdad, but Baghdad remains a
completely volatile place to live. The war there is a disaster and will
remain a disaster for generations. Cherry-picking murder rates simply
can't gild a turd that big. It isn't anti-American to point this out,
it's simple arithmetic.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 16 Jan 2007 12:09:47
From: Robert Chung
Subject: Re: The surge

William Asher wrote:
> I would think a reasonable estimate might be 6 to 7 times
> as many seriously wounded as killed

That turns out to be a reasonable estimate for US forces in Iraq: the ratio
of dead to (seriously) wounded is about 0.13. During Vietnam, the ratio for
US troops was 0.24.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 21:04:43
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The surge

Robert Chung wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>> I would think a reasonable estimate might be 6 to 7 times
>> as many seriously wounded as killed
>
> That turns out to be a reasonable estimate for US forces in Iraq: the
> ratio of dead to (seriously) wounded is about 0.13. During Vietnam,
> the ratio for US troops was 0.24.
>
>

I don't know if they had a service over there for this guy:

http://tinyurl.com/yymkqe

By the time he died, he had retreated around the globe 73 times. That's
gotta be some sort of a record, even for a Frenchman.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 16 Jan 2007 15:04:42
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The surge

William Asher wrote:
> Cherry-picking murder rates simply can't gild a turd that big.

Anyone cherry picking a turd deserves what he finds.

Date: 16 Jan 2007 17:45:07
From: William Asher
Subject: Re: The surge

Donald Munro wrote:

> William Asher wrote:
>> Cherry-picking murder rates simply can't gild a turd that big.
>
> Anyone cherry picking a turd deserves what he finds.
>

You get the sense the people doing the kinds of analyses that got me
started are coprophilliacs, or maybe autocoprophagiasts. It would explain
a lot about Wolfowitz.

--
Bill Asher

Date: 16 Jan 2007 15:46:29
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The surge

In article <Xns98BA6371ECB1DFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4 >,
William Asher <gcnp58@yahoo.com > wrote:

> autocoprophagiasts

Also a first use in rbr. Two in one post - our vocabularies are expanding by the
day. Just like some waistlines (or is that wastelines?).

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Date: 16 Jan 2007 21:08:58
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The surge

William Asher wrote:
>>> Cherry-picking murder rates simply can't gild a turd that big.

Donald Munro wrote:
>> Anyone cherry picking a turd deserves what he finds.

William Asher wrote:
> You get the sense the people doing the kinds of analyses that got me
> started are coprophilliacs, or maybe autocoprophagiasts. It would explain
> a lot about Wolfowitz.

First use of coprophiliac on rbr; even master fatties prefer talking shit
to eating it.

Date: 15 Jan 2007 20:14:50
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The surge

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:48:52 -0800, ST <no@no.com > wrote:

>On 1/14/07 10:16 PM, in article
>YOURhoward-950363.22160214012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
><YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <C1D04CDA.1FEA85%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article 50vdf5F1htk40U1@mid.individual.net, "Robert
>>> Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nice boxplot you got there......
>>> You do know what an outlier is don't you?
>>>
>>> Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops where
>>> you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?
>>>
>>> More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.
>>
>> No, there are not more deaths than that in many major cities in the US.
>> Secondly,
>> even if there were more deaths than that in a major US city, the population of
>> that
>> city is far greater than the total number of US troops in Iraq. Therefore, the
>> deaths per capita of people in this ficitious US city would pale in comparison
>> to
>> the rate of death among the soldiers in Iraq.
>
>You logic is stupid.......
>Over there is a war, here it is not.
Umm, that's the point.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 15 Jan 2007 17:15:42
From: ST
Subject: Re: The surge

On 1/15/07 5:14 PM, in article rn9oq21elkiluh6kjgfdcfejih1l2de112@4ax.com,
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:48:52 -0800, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/07 10:16 PM, in article
>> YOURhoward-950363.22160214012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
>> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <C1D04CDA.1FEA85%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article 50vdf5F1htk40U1@mid.individual.net, "Robert
>>>> Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nice boxplot you got there......
>>>> You do know what an outlier is don't you?
>>>>
>>>> Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops
>>>> where
>>>> you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?
>>>>
>>>> More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.
>>>
>>> No, there are not more deaths than that in many major cities in the US.
>>> Secondly,
>>> even if there were more deaths than that in a major US city, the population
>>> of
>>> that
>>> city is far greater than the total number of US troops in Iraq. Therefore,
>>> the
>>> deaths per capita of people in this ficitious US city would pale in
>>> comparison
>>> to
>>> the rate of death among the soldiers in Iraq.
>>
>> You logic is stupid.......
>> Over there is a war, here it is not.
> Umm, that's the point.

Everyone knows that..........
What the hell was the point of that stupid post above?

Would you rather it be here?

Date: 15 Jan 2007 21:03:41
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: The surge

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:15:42 -0800, ST <no@no.com > wrote:

>On 1/15/07 5:14 PM, in article rn9oq21elkiluh6kjgfdcfejih1l2de112@4ax.com,
>"John Forrest Tomlinson" <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:48:52 -0800, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/14/07 10:16 PM, in article
>>> YOURhoward-950363.22160214012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Howard Kveck"
>>> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <C1D04CDA.1FEA85%no@no.com>, ST <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article 50vdf5F1htk40U1@mid.individual.net, "Robert
>>>>> Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nice boxplot you got there......
>>>>> You do know what an outlier is don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops
>>>>> where
>>>>> you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?
>>>>>
>>>>> More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.
>>>>
>>>> No, there are not more deaths than that in many major cities in the US.
>>>> Secondly,
>>>> even if there were more deaths than that in a major US city, the population
>>>> of
>>>> that
>>>> city is far greater than the total number of US troops in Iraq. Therefore,
>>>> the
>>>> deaths per capita of people in this ficitious US city would pale in
>>>> comparison
>>>> to
>>>> the rate of death among the soldiers in Iraq.
>>>
>>> You logic is stupid.......
>>> Over there is a war, here it is not.
>> Umm, that's the point.
>
>Everyone knows that..........
>What the hell was the point of that stupid post above?

GWB started a war for no point, and people are dying because of it.
Pretty simple.

Oh yeah, one other point -- some dopes think that was a good idea.

>Would you rather it be here?
I'd rather it be neither.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 14 Jan 2007 20:36:40
From: Scotty
Subject: Re: The surge

Can you please explain the chart for me ? I am interested in these figures.
Especially for the months that the US had about the same troop strength as
the surge will provide. Thanks.

"Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid > wrote in message
news:50vdf5F1htk40U1@mid.individual.net...
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
>
>

Date: 14 Jan 2007 18:22:05
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: The surge

"Scotty" <Cillyman@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:jP2dnchXvfIsRzfYnZ2dnUVZ_sCinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Can you please explain the chart for me ? I am interested in these
> figures. Especially for the months that the US had about the same
> troop strength as the surge will provide. Thanks.
>

It's a box and whisker histogram. The heavy horizontal line on each box
is the median value. The box contains the middle two quartiles (ends of
box represent the 1st and 3rd quartile values) and the whiskers the
0-25% and 75 -100% values.

Phil H

>
> "Robert Chung" <me@address.invalid> wrote in message
> news:50vdf5F1htk40U1@mid.individual.net...
>> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
>>
>>
>
>