i love post stalking people!

3/19/2008 12:33:57 AM

Quote :

"troll the white guy, troll the american, troll troll troll"

funny...i seem to be quite ignored by these hooligans...my being a white american guy and all

[Edited on March 19, 2008 at 1:26 AM. Reason : ...]

3/19/2008 1:25:13 AM

Housing Boom in Baghdad

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5041443

6/12/2008 5:17:24 AM

so thats where our subprime market went

6/12/2008 11:03:07 AM

^ No mortgages. All housing there is paid for in cash.

6/12/2008 1:36:30 PM

i know i was kidding.

i cant imagine anyone who'd finance a house in baghdad

6/12/2008 4:16:35 PM

I mean, there are a ton of articles I dont post about Iraq because its the same thing over and over.

75 insurgents captured or killed here, 19 AQI captured or killed there.

Reconciliation everywhere. Im sorry, I called it. I am the fucking man.

http://www.longwarjournal.org

http://www.iraqupdates.com/index.php

Best 2 sites I have found. Fucking amazing.

And its all because its what the Iraqi people want. No more, no less.

[Edited on June 12, 2008 at 4:21 PM. Reason : das]

6/12/2008 4:20:49 PM

Quote :

"BOOMS OVER BAGHDAD"

6/12/2008 4:47:02 PM

Pentagon: Violence down in Iraq since 'surge'

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- All major indicators of violence in Iraq have dropped by between 40 and 80 percent since February 2007, when President Bush committed an additional 30,000 troops to the war there, the Pentagon reported Monday."

Quote :

"But civilian deaths have dropped from a peak of nearly 4,000 a month from December 2006 to January 2007 to about 500 a month as of May, and U.S. troop deaths have dropped from 126 in May 2007 to an all-time low of 19 in May 2008."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/23/iraq.security/

And, yes, before someone rushes in here to point it out, two U.S. government employees and two U.S. soldiers were killed in a bombing at a council meeting in the Baghdad on Tuesday. This incident doesn't diminish the progress that has been made, though.

And it doesn't change this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tw8ES7E2-D4

6/24/2008 8:20:30 AM

Quote :

"So the Democrats concede that a victory in Iraq would hurt them? Why don't they just change their name to "Al Queda USA"?"

lolz

6/24/2008 9:08:24 AM

Quote :

"Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black."

Black is McCain's chief adviser

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazines/fortune/Evolution_McCain_Whitford.fortune/

[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 9:17 AM. Reason : ,]

6/24/2008 9:16:17 AM

How quickly they forget. . .

Clinton: Terrorist attack would help GOP

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- She says she is the Democrat best equipped to fight terrorists, but White House hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton told New Hampshire voters Thursday that another attack on the United States would likely help Republican candidates at the polls. 'It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, "What if? What if?"' Clinton, a New York Democrat, told a house party in Concord, according to the New York Post and The Associated Press and confirmed by her campaign. 'But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again. . . ."

http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide-2839226-b-21-washington_things_to_do-i;_ylt=AsBP7fVOgKu4x1xMmdn5RZM7P2oL

What Clinton and Black said shouldn't have been said--but it's still true. Why did you put this in the Iraq surge thread, Boone-Tard?

6/24/2008 9:44:29 AM

so the 'surge' has had the short term effect of reducing violence in the areas where the additional troops were deployed.

yeah, that's great and all, but NO ONE -- not even the most strident critics of the Bush Administration -- doubted for a moment that a reduction in violence would be the immediate short-term result of a 'surge' in troop force.

the question is, what will the Iraqis do once we reduce our troops back to pre-surge levels ... or lower

will the country become once again enmeshed in violence? can they yet stand on their own and take care of themselves? do they have any capability of self-government? will the 3 major groups EVER work together, or are they going to balkanize into separate factions and start another campaign of bloody sectarian warfare?

unfortunately, there's really no indication whatsoever that the leaders of Iraq's government has any capabililty to successfully run their own country and maintain any semblance of security without substantial support from the US.

if you're happy with 150,000 troops in Iraq for 20 years, then why don't you just go ahead and say so.




[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 12:13 PM. Reason : ]

6/24/2008 12:12:53 PM

^ You are wrong--again. Despite your claim that there is "no indication whatsoever that the leaders of Iraq's government has any capabililty to successfully run their own country and maintain any semblance of security," the Iraqi government is doing just that.

From the link I posted above:

Quote :

"In ongoing operations in the northern city of Mosul to drive out al Qaeda, Iraqi forces are showing clear signs of independent operational capability with little to no U.S. help, U.S. military officials said. The report suggested those successes are bolstering the ranks: More than 27,000 Iraqis have joined the country's security forces since the last Pentagon report, in March, bringing the total number of Iraqi soldiers and police to about 560,000. Since the March report, the Iraqi government focused on resolving conflicts from Basra and Sadr City that dominated the political and security landscape over the past three months, the report said. The report also said increasing oil export revenues are putting more money into the country for development, reconciliation programs and security."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/23/iraq.security/

The old talking points just aren't jibing with the facts anymore, schmoe.

[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2008 12:25:09 PM

ok, so surge works, Baghdad is growing up to be a real lovely place to live and raise a family, it will probably be the next New York City, etc etc.

so can we leave yet?

Seems like before, we had to stay because thing were going to horribly that we had to fix it before we left. Now things are going peachy, so it seems like we might as well hang around.
so, when is victory?

6/24/2008 12:39:12 PM

^ Probably never in the minds of you and your ilk. I mean, the Surrendercrats declared the war in Iraq lost already, right?

We should stay there as long as it takes to achieve a stable Iraq--things continue to look promising. Obama has even talked about the progress in Iraq.

What's the rush? Are you calling for us to rush out of South Korea and Germany and so on?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Tw8ES7E2-D4

6/24/2008 12:46:50 PM

the danger (however much lower than it was a year ago) and ongoing cost of being in Iraq are nothing like a few bases set up in peaceful democracies like Germany and South Korea

6/24/2008 1:35:53 PM

Yeah, and those countries are about fifty and sixty years out. Did you think that response through? No?

6/24/2008 1:42:26 PM

give me a break. You're doing a disservice to everyone who proudly fought and died in WWII to compare that war to the 5 year debacle that has been "Operation Iraqi Freedom"

6/24/2008 2:02:46 PM

^ I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm simply saying that the Iraqi government is already doing much better in a very difficult environment--imagine how well things could be going decades down the road if the progress continues.

6/24/2008 2:13:30 PM

Quote :

"hooksaw : What's the rush? Are you calling for us to rush out of South Korea and Germany and so on? "

okayyyyy.... Iraq is now comparable to modernized post-WWII West Germany as counterweight against the Warsaw Pact. Or the fully functional democracy of South Korea as Cold War counterweight against the colonization policies of the Soviet Union.

could you possibly be any more ignorant of history? or do you just willfully ignore it to further your partisan cause du jour?







[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 2:38 PM. Reason : ]

6/24/2008 2:35:32 PM

^ Have you heard of the Middle East? Have you heard of our enemies there? Have you heard that we've been working to help stabilize that region for decades?

You are the ignorant one, schmoe. You've been ate up with it worse than usual lately.

6/24/2008 2:41:27 PM

oh, yes, I'm familiar with the Middle East. But are you?

because this debacle in Iraq, has certainly improved our standing in that region, our perception, and our real capacity to meet clear and present threats to our national interest. oh boy, has it ever. Now just in case you cant understand sarcasm, let me add something you can understand :

Iran has now become more powerful than ever as they expand into the power vacuum created by our shortsighted plan to rebuild the nation of Iraq in our image. yeah, we've really impressed the power players in the Middle East alright. they're just all damn sure amazed by our ability to get bogged down in a quagmire. Never mind that we can't even keep Afghanistan under control, much less even find the guys responsible for attacking our country in the first place.

Look: the whole fucking problem, as widely agreed by political and military scholars of all persuasions, has been that we screwed up in Iraq and the Middle East, exactly because we applied policies and strategies that were designed to contain the Soviet Union's influence in the Cold War.

the fact that you are STILL trying to equate Iraq to West Germany or South Korea shows just how intellectually bankrupt your position is.







[Edited on June 24, 2008 at 2:54 PM. Reason : ]

6/24/2008 2:45:48 PM

yeah, generally democracy (that isn't a big scam) and economic growth come after a country has become educated, developed health care, etc.

Aaaaand I'm done here.

6/24/2008 2:54:59 PM

Yes, on July 4 I celebrate that our founding fathers provided the healthcare and education resources that formed the great foundation of this democratic republic.

6/24/2008 9:17:52 PM

Quote :

"Is the surge working?"

Undoubtedly and unequivocally, yes. Good job to the military for fighting the good fight, good job to the administration for staying the course, and good job to the liberals who control Congress for not cutting and running.

7/3/2008 2:37:47 PM

Quote :

"Yes, on July 4 I celebrate that our founding fathers provided the healthcare and education resources that formed the great foundation of this democratic republic."

* The 'founding fathers' were not poor, they were very well off
* They were very much educated, judging by the language of the constitution, probably annoyingly so
* The colonies at that point and time were stable

While the life expectancy, mortality rates, and education of the rest of the population was less than the founding fathers themselves, it was high enough that they had the sense to listen to leaders who were based in reason.

Maybe you could try to make some argument that the pre-independence colonies were a hotbed of sectarian violence. They did like to burn those witches.

7/3/2008 3:44:04 PM

Quote :

"Undoubtedly and unequivocally, yes. Good job to the military for fighting the good fight, good job to the administration for staying the course, and good job to the liberals who control Congress for not cutting and running not having enough support to cut and run."

Don't give them credit for a damn thing. All you hear is Harry Reid saying "The War is Lost" and John Murtha Benedict crying about the torturous, murderous Americans. Then you get Pelosi trying to start shit with the Turks by passing the Armenian Genocide resolution FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF UNDERMINING OUR EFFORTS IN IRAQ.

They have actively worked AGAINST this country in Iraq and deserve nothing but shame.

[Edited on July 3, 2008 at 3:49 PM. Reason : .]

7/3/2008 3:48:17 PM

^I absolutely agree.

The thing is...most of america feels that Iraq is still a lost cause because the mainstream media outlets are not reporting it.

I had a conversation with a friend the other day and he thought McCain actually said he "wanted" to stay in Iraq for 100 years....McCain never, ever said that.

It is absolutely amazing how uneducated the general public is regarding this issue....and the press is absolutely silent.....after reading editorial after editorial for the past 3 years of how it was a lost cause and we should give up, it appears they are too full of themselves to actually REPORT THE NEWS!

7/3/2008 4:17:18 PM

Military progress is definitely being made. However, is the political progress that the surge was supposed to help being made?

7/3/2008 4:19:39 PM

He might not have said he "wanted" to stay in iraq for 100 years, but he did say he would be fine with it

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/04/mccain-100-years/

Quote :

" Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain) McCAIN: Make it a hundred. Q: Is that … (cut off) McCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans … Q: [tries to say something] McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day."

7/3/2008 4:19:59 PM

^Exactly.....no one in their right mind "wants" us to stay in Iraq. If the need is there, the need is there...if it isnt, lets get out and move on. Thats bascially what hes saying.

7/3/2008 4:30:32 PM

Quote :

"oh, yes, I'm familiar with the Middle East. But are you? because this debacle in Iraq, has certainly improved our standing in that region, our perception, and our real capacity to meet clear and present threats to our national interest. oh boy, has it ever. Now just in case you cant understand sarcasm, let me add something you can understand : Iran has now become more powerful than ever as they expand into the power vacuum created by our shortsighted plan to rebuild the nation of Iraq in our image. yeah, we've really impressed the power players in the Middle East alright. they're just all damn sure amazed by our ability to get bogged down in a quagmire. Never mind that we can't even keep Afghanistan under control, much less even find the guys responsible for attacking our country in the first place. Look: the whole fucking problem, as widely agreed by political and military scholars of all persuasions, has been that we screwed up in Iraq and the Middle East, exactly because we applied policies and strategies that were designed to contain the Soviet Union's influence in the Cold War. the fact that you are STILL trying to equate Iraq to West Germany or South Korea shows just how intellectually bankrupt your position is. "

I agree with all of this, but it's not the topic at hand. The question isn't whether we should have gone to Iraq in the first place, it's whether we should stay there now or get out as soon as possible.

Surely you can see the advantage of a military base in the region, provided that our troops are not in harms way. Hooksaw was obviously referring to the stable post-war military bases in South Korea and W. Germany which have served as strategic outposts for our armed forces. Your indignation about his comparison is unwarranted.

[Edited on July 3, 2008 at 4:38 PM. Reason : 1]

7/3/2008 4:33:29 PM

Umm, you being pretty particular about the semantics and I don't think you can fault your friend as being uneducated on this point.

If McCain believes that AQI will be there for 100 years, then I obviously think he does "want" us to be there.

Quote :

"after reading editorial after editorial for the past 3 years of how it was a lost cause and we should give up, it appears they are too full of themselves to actually REPORT THE NEWS!"

I do think the media has dropped the ball a little, but they are also for profit organizations. I don't think they'd sell many papers if they did stories about "X hospital is this far along in consutruction" or "Y neighborhood now has power for 4hrs per day, up from 3 two weeks ago".

And Skank has a pretty good point, the surge is meant to stabilize the place so that they can get their house in order. I guess they are doing that since the news isn't reporting negatively about it. But I think everyone wonders, just how strong of a presence and how long will we have to stay there to see Iraq able to keep AQI out themselves, and keep their own security. The scary thing is, if the past is any lesson, we're going to need a VERY substantial presence there for many more years before the place is stable enough that we can draw down to some minute force.


^ What do you think Prawn, I value your comments in this section. How long do you think before Iraq is truly in charge of their own destiny and we can draw our forces down significantly?

[Edited on July 3, 2008 at 4:39 PM. Reason : a]

7/3/2008 4:36:39 PM

It will never be minute. We have 45,000 troops in Germany, 47,000 in Japan, and 30,000 in South Korea. Once a lasting peace is established I'd be surprised if we ever have less then 50,000 or so in Iraq, especially with the volatility in the region.

Those numbers are off the top of my head and I'll take responsibility if they aren't correct.

7/3/2008 4:40:52 PM

Right on for SK, Maybe 10,000 short for Japan, but I don't know if that has anything to do with the realignment.

General idea - unchanged. We've got a LOT out there.

7/3/2008 4:45:55 PM

Any idea on how much we spend in Germany? I guess it isn't the actual number I care about so much, it's the sheer amount of money we are wasting on TNT that we drop on brown people and petrol to move them around, etc.

7/3/2008 4:51:56 PM

^^^^Consistent with our energy security policies of the last 30 years, I have to imagine that we will establish a fairly large base in order to protect the Strait of Hormuz and aid in our other interests in the region. As to whether we will be able to draw down our forces soon without an escalation in violence, I really don't know. I wish I had a better idea of the actual conditions out there, but there are just a lot of conflicting reports from various news sources.

I haven't made up my mind as to whether the costs and negative ramifications of our presence in the region outweigh the benefits. But it's quite obvious that our military objectives have shifted from cold war era proxy battles to energy security as our primary goal. The threat of terrorism and opportunity for "nation-building" in Iraq was a key selling point for neocons and red-blooded, patriotic Americans, but I have to surmise that energy security was paramount in the ultimate decision to invade.



[Edited on July 3, 2008 at 5:05 PM. Reason : 1]

7/3/2008 4:55:15 PM

Quote :

"Military progress is definitely being made. However, is the political progress that the surge was supposed to help being made?"

Yes, hidden away on page 43 of the papers:

Quote :

"New Iraq report: 15 of 18 benchmarks satisfactory By ANNE FLAHERTY – 2 days ago WASHINGTON (AP) — No matter who is elected president in November, his foreign policy team will have to deal with one of the most frustrating realities in Iraq: the slow pace with which the government in Baghdad operates. Iraq's political and military success is considered vital to U.S. interests, whether troops stay or go. And while the Iraqi government has made measurable progress in recent months, the pace at which it's done so has been achingly slow. The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" — almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks — enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues — are unsatisfactory. In the past 12 months, since the White House released its first formal assessment of Iraq's military and political progress, Baghdad politicians have reached several new agreements seen as critical to easing sectarian tensions. They have passed, for example, legislation that grants amnesty for some prisoners and allows former members of Saddam Hussein's political party to recover lost jobs or pensions. They also determined that provincial elections would be held by Oct. 1. But for every small step forward, Iraq has several more giant steps to take before victory can be declared on any one issue. Amnesty requests are backlogged, and in question is whether the new law will speed the release of those in U.S. custody. It also remains unclear just how many former Baath members will be able to return to their jobs. And while Oct. 1 had been identified as an election day, Baghdad hasn't been able to agree on the rules, possibly delaying the event by several weeks. Likewise, militias and sectarian interests among Iraq's leaders still play a central role in the conflict. And U.S. military officials say they are unsure violence levels will stay down as troop levels return to 142,000 after a major buildup last year. In the May progress report, one benchmark was deemed to have brought mixed results. The Iraqi army has made satisfactory progress on the goal of fairly enforcing the law, while the nation's police force remains plagued by sectarianism, according to the administration assessment. Overall, militia control has declined and Baghdad's security forces have "demonstrated its willingness and effectiveness to use these authorities to pursue extremists in all provinces, regardless of population or extremist demographics," as illustrated by recent operations, the White House concludes. Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C., who requested the administration's updated assessment, scoffed at the May report, which he says uses the false standard of determining whether progress on a goal is "satisfactory" versus whether the benchmark has been met. He estimates that only a few of the 18 benchmarks have been fully achieved. Democrats also say more solid progress could have been made had the administration starting pulling troops out sooner. "We've tried repeatedly to get the administration to shift responsibility to the Iraqi leaders for their own future, since there is broad consensus that there is no military solution and only a political settlement among the Iraqis can end the conflict," said Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "The administration, however, has repeatedly missed opportunities to shift this burden to the Iraqis and appears willing to do so again," Levin said. But whether the next president will be much more successful in forcing the Iraqi government to reach a lasting political settlement remains to be seen. Whether the new administration starts pulling troops out of Iraq right away, as Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama has promised, or refuses to set a timetable, per Republican John McCain's suggestion, most agree that a functional democracy in Iraq could still be years away because of the complexities of the issues involved and the deeply rooted distrust among the nation's sectarian groups. "Iraq has the potential to develop into a stable, secure multiethnic, multi-sectarian democracy under the rule of law," Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq said in April when he last testified before Congress. "Whether it realizes that potential is ultimately up to the Iraqi people." "

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j2KfQBk9ZhPhOJZ7biQo-IkmdJoAD91L960O0

7/3/2008 6:41:01 PM

Barack Obama purges Web site critique of surge in Iraq

Quote :

"WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop 'surge' in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a 'problem' that had barely reduced violence. 'The surge is not working,' Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province. The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004. Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an 'improved security situation' paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007. It praises G.I.s' 'hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.' Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is 'not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.' GOP rival John McCain zinged Obama as a flip-flopper. 'The major point here is that Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that he was wrong,' said McCain, adding that Obama 'refuses to acknowledge that it [the surge] is succeeding.'"

http://tinyurl.com/59otvg

Is this any big surprise from Obama, the old-time typical politician?

7/17/2008 7:50:31 AM

Quote :

"Q: Military progress is definitely being made. However, is the political progress that the surge was supposed to help being made? Oeuvre : Yes, hidden away on page 43 of the papers: "Iraq has the potential to develop into a stable, secure multiethnic, multi-sectarian democracy under the rule of law," Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq said in April when he last testified before Congress. "Whether it realizes that potential is ultimately up to the Iraqi people."

hi Oeuvre. did you stop to consider why it was "hidden away" on page 43? No?

Well, I see you still have difficulty understanding the concept of "potential."

perhaps i can recommend a good dictionary for you?





[Edited on July 17, 2008 at 12:59 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2008 12:57:32 PM

Quote :

"Interesting reading and info The source for the data is a report prepared for Congress, link at the bottom. Please take time to read the email and the source document. Military Losses, 1980 thru 2007 Whatever your politics, however you lean, and however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes. Military losses, 1980 through 2007. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006 - by any cause. 1980 .......... 2,392 ( Carter Year ) 1981 ........... 2,380 ( Reagan Year) 1984 .......... 1,999 ( Reagan Year) 1988 .......... 1,819 ( Reagan Year) 1989 .......... 1,636 ( George H W Year ) 1990 .......... 1,508 ( George H W Year ) 1991 ........... 1,787 ( George H W Year ) 1992 .......... 1,293 ( George H W Year ) 1993 . ......... 1,213 ( Clinton Year) 1994 .......... 1,075 ( Clinton Year) 1995 .......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year) 1996 .......... 2,318 ( Clinton Year) 1997 .......... ;817 ( Clinton Year) 1998 .......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year) 1999 ........... 1,984 ( Clinton Year) 2000 ...........1,983 ( Clinton Year) 2001 ............ 890 ( George W Year ) 2002 .......... 1,007 ( George W Year ) 2003 .......... 1,410 ( George W Year ) 2004 ........... 1,887 ( George W Year ) 2005 ............ 919 ( George W Year ) 2006............ 920 ( George W Year ) 2007............. 899 ( George W Year ) Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,107 deaths George W years (2001-2007): 7,932 deaths http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf"

yes

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 9:07 AM. Reason : y]

7/18/2008 9:07:19 AM

Did you include the cause of death in those? No, because that would ruin your skewing of the facts.

Between 1980 and 1999, hostile deaths and terrorist attacks is 583.

Between 2000 and 2006 - 2675.

7/18/2008 9:46:58 AM

So I looked all through that pdf, and I can't find anything remotely resembling those numbers?

Are they made-up?

7/18/2008 9:53:01 AM

I couldn't see his numbers either. Mine were taken from the graph that cuts up military deaths by cause (I used calculator and added).

7/18/2008 9:54:49 AM

Yeah, I'm looking at CRS-8, too.

Arab13-- when you need to falsify sources in order to make your point, you should reevaluate your views.

7/18/2008 10:04:15 AM

christalmighty, Arab13 if you're going to try to lie using falsified data, you should not put the raw source for people check your facts.

Calendar   Total    Accident  Hostile  Suicide  Homicide
Year       Deaths   &Illness  Action            

1980       2,392       1,787      174       11       419
1981       2,380       1,765      145        0       457
1982       2,319       1,749      108        0       446
1983       2,465       1,832       37      263       115
1984       1,999       1,667       17        6        84
1985       2,252       1,751      111       22       363
1986       1,984       1,583        2       27       103
1987       1,983       1,555       62        2       104
1988       1,819       1,365       90       26       321
1989       1,636       1,294       23       37        58
1990       1,507       1,112       74       43       277
1991       1,787       1,239      147       33       112
1992       1,293         914      109       17       252
1993       1,213         868       86        9       221
1994       1,075         776       83        0       206
1995       1,040         788       67        4       174
1996         974         700       15       19        52
1997         817         592       42        0       170
1998         827         455       40        3       168
1999         796         449       37       15       150
2000         758         549       34       20       138
2001         891         621       58      141        49
2002         999         736       44      162        53
2003       1,228         810      367      186        42
2004       1,874         877      746      201        45
2005       1,942         933      765      175        52
2006       1,858         777      779      192        42

7/18/2008 11:15:50 AM

hey, i was up till 4am, didn't have my coffee yet, and didn't dig through the CR here at work... sorry.

SkankinMonky - i thought it said for any reason

Quote :

"by any cause."

shows what happens when you copy shit off a spam email without really reading it much

(hey, im acknowledging im in the wrong here about that stuff)

[Edited on July 18, 2008 at 11:44 AM. Reason : s]

7/18/2008 11:40:29 AM

So that's making its rounds through the internet? I wonder what motivates people to write this stuff.

(all my acquaintances know not to send me political spam-- they get a 5-page retort in a reply-all )

7/18/2008 11:48:14 AM

i'm too lazy for that...

7/18/2008 11:51:23 AM