Daniel Eran Dilger
Random header image... Refresh for more!

What You Expected, What You Got

What You Expected:

Whopper

What You Got…


Ultdblwhop

What you Expected:

Starwars

What you Got:

Jarjar

What you Expected:

Apple

What you Got:

Windows


What you Expected:

Algore

What you Got:

Bush

The next: What You Expected, What You Got.

What do you think? I really like to hear from readers. Comment in the Forum or email me with your ideas.

Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast! Submit to Reddit or Slashdot, or consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!

Technorati Tags: , , ,

  • UrbanBard

    MisterGibson said”
    “Why are the Urban-Bards of this world so damned scared of every bogeyman, trial-balloon, shadowplay, rumor, feint and fart these Bausch clowns throw into the media-mix? ”

    If you are too stupid to understand a threat, there is nothing I can say but that Hitler was a clown and a buffoon to Chamberlain. Both Hitler and Saddam Hussein were bullies and tyrants.

    Didn’t you learn in grade school that the only way to keep a little bully from becoming a big bully is to slap him down? Did you automatically hand over your lunch money? Did you become a toady to teenaged thugs? It figures– no guts.

    “The implied slight that limited-vision sorts like this guy often miss is that our troops can’t BOTH be the very best in the world, YET not good enough to protect our diplomats – that’s for no-bid mercenary armies started by those Friend$-Of-George.”

    Spoken like someone who never came within a mile of being in the military. You know nothing about how to deal with nasty people. You know, the people who want to kill you?

    You’d be the first one crying “Why didn’t they protect us?” if terrorists blew up your neighborhood. The usual answer is that someone like you prevented that. If you tie the hands of our soldiers in prosecuting this war, then the terrorists will think us easy prey. Why don’t you Lefties paint a target on your back rather that cowering in among the women and children?

    “‘UrbanBard’ is just another adrenaline junkie looking for a fix.”

    Nope. I don’t like war. Been there, done that– Vietnam. But, if someone is trying to kill us, I don’t run away from it.

    “All this is interesting only because Gore entering the race now would flummox Clintons’ {Mrs} corporate-centrist game plan to harvest our wide-spread social discontent for her monied backers: she’s a well-positioned sphincter to contain the ever-growing poor bubbling into a froth for change.”

    Gore is not entering the race. We Republicans would love to oppose Gore or Hillary. Talk about your easy takedowns. Please, please send us another Kerry.

    “I am comforted by the fact the religious zealots are unhappy with Republicans and expect my lack of enthusiasm for the Bolshevik {as our stale UrbanBard appears ready to call them} Left is easily offset this election cycle. ”

    Don’t worry your head about internal Republican politics. We’ll come together as soon as we have a front runner. Either Fred Thompson or Rudy Gulliani would do. Neither is perfect, but they aren’t leftist or cowards.

    “Meanwhile, the Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves & deserve the political exile approaching like a black-hole event horizon… witness the as-we-speak drowning puppy-love of Law&Order farce Fred “Fog-Horn Leg-Horn” Thompson proving the paucity of so-called Conservative offerings and hear their dismay at the field.”

    You haven’t a clue. Please stay that way.

    “FYI – I am an army brat familiar with our defense system from many angles. I was a defense contractor when 9-11 occurred and clearly recall walking a particular grassy parade ground with a certain young Major tickled pink he was ordered to rejoin his artillery squad & insisting that we were going to war with Iraq ASAP… this was about the end of November 2001 – a mere 1 1/2 month after September 11th and this administration was well underway to X-fer from Afghanistan to Iraq. ”

    Some people are far sighted like your Major. He knew that Saddam was a regional threat and a foreign policy embarrassment. Of course, things were delayed for a couple of years by Blair demanding UN consent.

    Some army brats, like yourself, are in reaction against the military. Like I said. YOU saw all this from the outside. You also grew up when the military was utterly sabotaged by the Democrats.

    “Politically, SuperBushMan needs a Lex ‘Osama’ Luther to rally the weak-minded, but Truth is kryptonite and everyone can see his fragile brittle psyche for the shallow vessel it is.”

    It figures that you would think in cartoon imagery.

    “No man is an island, nor economy – we are all in this together and sorting out how we sort the collective pie _IS_ politics whether you recognize it or not.”

    Of course, and as President Andrew Jackson said, “to the victor goes the spoils.” I’m simply glad that the majority of the electorate has rejected what the Democrat have to offer.

  • humann

    Hi urbanbard. I’d love to see your poetry. I know, I know, so many people fall into that trap that says that all good artists are necessarily lefties. All that ‘entartete kunst’ stuff that’s been hanging around since well, Jeez, Ted Nugent I think, came along and blew it all up. And Dana Rohrabacher too, don’t forget.

    Anyway I made you something because I totally agree with you and I REALLY hate how every dime I spend on Apple products goes straight into some goddam leftie pinko’s campaign coffers. Hate it hate it hate it. Actually my mac usage is kinda a dirty little secret. I don’t like people to know so I keep my 8-core at home in the closet but walk around with a fast new Lenovo in public.

    Speaking of the closet, here’s what I made you: http://tinyurl.com/3yk3uo

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said:
    “Saddam was given chance after chance to avoid war and he chose to be defiant until the end. HE chose this war.”
    Oh please – I am really sorry for you if you actually believe this stuff.”

    It’s clear you do not understand the concept of accountability.

    Let me make this simple. If you refuse to make your car payments, the bank will warn you a couple of times and then reprocess the car. If you violate your parole and are caught, then you go back to prison. Who’s fault is that? Your own for not fulfilling your agreements.

    Saddam signed UN Resolution 687 to keep his regime from being toppled in 1991. He paid lip service to his promises, but as soon as the coalition forces were removed from the Mideast he violated his treaties.

    The UN responded with more UN resolutions, while Saddam laughed. In 1995, the UN Inspectors found hundreds of thousands of tons of WMD which were in violation of those UN Resolutions.

    Saddam had broken UN Resolution 687, so the Cease Fire was over. The Gulf war could start again at any time. But, there was no political will do do anything about it.

    When Saddam threw out the UN Inspectors out of Iraq in 1998, President Clinton went to Congress to make it a US national policy to overturn Saddam’s regime. But, there was no political will to do anything about that until 9/11.

    The Bush administration warned the Iraqi government to obey its 16 UN resolutions. Saddam refused. Then, Bush went to Congress and got the Iraqi war powers act approved. A military buildup started on the Kuwaiti border. Then, Bush went to the UN and got UN Resolution 1441 approved which gave Saddam one last chance to comply.

    Hans Blix reported to the General Assembly that Saddam’s regime was in violation of all the UN resolutions. Two days before the incursion started, Bush offered to halt the invasion if Saddam and his sons left the country.

    Saddam was given warning after warning, but he played brinkmanship. He chose to believe that he could game the UN and that Bush was not serious. Saddam was wrong. He was playing a game of chicken with the US. He lost. Who could be blamed, but him?

    ““We had plenty of plans. European Politicians screwed up our plans. The French Government forced Turkey to disallow a Northern Front”
    Oh yes it’s the French’s fault that we botched an occupation they opposed – totally their fault.”

    Not totally– partially. It just shows the people who are anti American. You included.

    ““Every war is chaos; there is always disarray. Plans have to thrown away because the enemy intervenes. This was the fastest and most efficient war in human history. Conquering a country the size of Iraq in just three weeks put military historians in awe.”
    You know better than to make this argument. Sorry for you you are not big enough to take responsibility for the mistakes of your side. IT WAS NOT THE INVASION THEY F”D UP – IT WAS THE OCCUPATION. Occupations are not chaos – they are supposed to be orderly and safe for civilians. .”

    Who says that? No one. This is a Leftist delusion. The Japanese occupation, because the Emperor surrendered, is the only one in the history books without an insurrection afterwards. You are an ignoramus.

    ““Did you expect that it would be peaceful after Saddam’s regime fell? Why?”
    Who said I did? It was Wolfowitz who said that, not me.”

    Got a quote and a citation for that? Don’t use the line that the Iraqi people would would welcome us. They did, but they were scared. There was Fedayeen in their midst who killed anyone who showed any joy in the liberation.

    The Iraq people are not the people who fought us in the Insurrection. That was Ba’athist dead enders and al Qaeda fighters from all over the world. We have killed or captured well over 80 thousand of them since the incursion ended. Two thirds of those came from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Palestine, Iran and as far away as Europe. We have been fighting the Global War on Terror by being in Iraq. DFo you want to fight in the US?

    ““The Left has lied a lot in this war.” <<< ??? Sorry where is the lie?”

    The NY Times routinely lies about the war. It exaggerates the impact of the casualties in Iraq. It uses propaganda endlessly. And you lap it up.

    ““You can also be listening to the lies that your side tells you. ” << where are the lies?”

    There are too many lies to list here. And you would dispute that they are lies, because they are the Policy of the Democratic party.

    ““This is about the Bush administration deciding that the best way to solve the terror problem, long term, was to divide the Mid East by attacking Iraq.”
    This was never part of the case to anyone.”

    You just weren’t listening. I heard it. But, of course, I don’t read the Mainstream Media’s spin on events. I go to the source. I listen or read President Bush’s speeches. It was all in there. The Media protected you from what they think isn’t news.

    ““Oh? A year and more of preparations is a rush?”
    Clearly it was a rush since we were not ready when we invaded. ”

    Whipping Saddam’s ass in three weeks wasn’t prepared? Get real.

    “And there was no reason to invade when we did.”

    We disagree. There was no reason NOT to invade. All discussions were over; Saddam was never going to comply with the UN resolutions.

    Don’t you understand that we had made a threat? If you don’t follow through with your threats, you are toast. You are a lilly livered coward. America could never be able to hold up its head.

    “We had inspectors in the country who had to leave.”

    Why were they there? They should have been pulled out as soon as Hans Blix reported to the UN that Saddam was not cooperating with UN Resolution 1441.

    “There was no immediate cause to invade.”

    There never would be an immediate cause for the invasion for you.

    Of Course, there was a immediate cause, the weather was turning against us. You don’t invade a desert region during the summer. If we didn’t act immediately, our Generals would demand that we put off the incursion until Fall. We should have invaded the previous January.

    ““We disagree. But then, you Democrats have no plan for attacking the terrorist problem, other than to duck under the covers and pretend that there is no necessity for war.”
    Finishing the job in Afghanistan and killing OBL was a plan everyone supported.”

    Sorry, that is not enough. That is asking to lose the war. It does nothing about any long term plans. You wants us to to be “cut to ribbons in detail.” You know nothing about war or foreign policy.

    ““The Left has been rather busy trying to find reasons against the war and those pitiful examples above are the best they have.”
    I assume you are not referring to me here.”

    Of course not. You don’t have any national prominence. None of these ideas are your own: you just slavishly follow your masters. You are merely a peon, a hod carrier, a “useful idiot” in the leftist scheme of things.

    ““The Left has been rather busy trying to find reasons against the war and those pitiful examples above are the best they have. Most of those are lies piled high on lies or they are an “Oh-so-civilized” attempt to hinder our effectiveness. But, this is too far afield of the original discussion for me to want to talk about. I’ll just use General Sherman’s remark “War is hell.” And Clauswitz, “No plan survives contact with the enemy.”
    None of those quotes has anything to do with the treatment prisoners after conflict.”

    That is a leftist canard. We obeyed the only Geneva Conventions that the US ever ratified. In fact, we did better than that since the 1949 Geneva Conventions says that “Unlawful combatants” may be shot at any time. No other Geneva Convention, or the UN treaties which the Senate never ratified, are law.

    “They are talking about actions taken in the field of battle, in the fog of war – not in post hostility occupation. No one should be torturing prisoners or humiliating them.”

    You Leftists define torture in odd ways. I use the definition in the 1949 Geneva Convention. Not that our foes ever obeyed the Geneva Conventions, so we don’t have to either.

    ““You are misinformed. Most of the antiquities were either packed away from harm by the good museum officials, or they were sold in Europe by the bad ones. Very little was lost and almost all of that was returned to Iraq. The Mid East is totally corrupt and you expected that US forces, in the midst of the shooting (<<you mean looting), would prevent that? Jesus, you are unreal.”
    No you are wrong. The head of the Iraqi museum sought US protection for the antiquities and did not get it. ”

    As I said you are misinformed. The Mainstream Media isn’t telling you the truth.

    ““The left have been harping on lies that are not lies. They are mistake, different opinions, false allegations and lies themselves. The Left is living in its own dream world where there is no threat to the US.”
    Kind of a lot of mistakes. ”

    That is the nature of war. Mistakes happen. A training accident before the Normandy Invasion killed over 700 of our soldiers and sailors. Was there a Congressional hearing? No.

    “Bush made a statement during his State of the Union address that we knew was false and had to be retracted. ”

    Yes, Honest people admit when they are in error. They make amends. And your problem with that is?

    “Who said there is no threat to the US?”

    You imply it constantly by not taking the issues seriously. You obsess about side issues. You are too unreal.

  • UrbanBard

    MisterGibson said:

    “First of all, beyond the critiques I’ve leveled I do appreciate the service you’ve given in that other nasty civil war we got involved in, Vietnam. ”

    I have no interest in rehashing the Vietnam war with you. The Leftist Propaganda machine gets it consistently wrong. I suggest that you read the book by Nguyen Giap, the North Vietnamese commander. He said that he lost the Tet Offensive. He had to wait for the “New Left” Democrats in the US congress to cut military aid to Vietnam in 1973. That is what cost us Vietnam.

    “OK. That said, I would have thought history taught you the folly of US involvement in such ‘actions’ as warning to our invasion and occupation of another country and the civil war that results. ”

    Let’s see. You are opposed to the US “winning” any wars? Did I get that right? Are you a pacifist?

    “My own father went over during the Tet ”

    I value his service to his country.

    “Riddle me this: why do we keep releasing these prisoners w/o charge, but still held for _years_ w/no trial…”

    I disapprove of that. They should be shot as unlawful combatants. Anyone captured holding arms on a battle field may be. It doesn’t matter what the age of the combatants is.

    “I suggest everyone google, “Camp Iguana” to see the absurdity of painting everyone there with a black terrorist brush. ”

    Are you suggesting that NONE of them are terrorist? Get real.

    “Face the ugly truth: Goldwater wouldn’t recognize your beloved Republican party mouthing platitudes about Freedom and Liberty while conducting themselves as they do.”

    Of course, you can read Goldwater’s mind? LOL All you Leftists are mind readers.

    “If you actually addressed the issues I bring up I might pay more attention to you. ”

    You bring up nothing but the tried-and-true Leftist talking points. Those have been disproved years ago. Didn’t you get the memo?

    “As it is your content to ignore my points in a defensive stance of tired old name-calling archetypes – hence my ref to Bolsheviks. ”

    Socialism is real. It is not “tired old name-calling.” It defines the beliefs of people today. I can give you the various definitions. I can name the people who believe in them.

    “Doesn’t it burn to know Rush got out of serving next to you”

    No. He didn’t serve. He was never anti-American.

    ” How does Cheney’s numerous deferments sit with you in this light?”

    I don’t care.

    ” I find it hard to believe you couldn’t find _some_ kind of task among the myriad contractor positions over there…”

    It’s too late; The war is over. The troops will be coming home soon.

    And you know nothing about the health problems I have which preclude that.

    This is the “Chickenhawk Argument.” It’s a stupid ploy. The person who stays home to work to pay for the war serves too. It’s not as though we don’t have enough young men volunteering to fight. The country doesn’t need me there. The country is better off if I stay where I am.

    I am not suggesting that you go either. We need no cowards on the front lines.

  • roz

    If your case is so valid, why resort to personal attacks? Thats no way for a grown man to conduct himself.

  • roz

    This arguement would have more validity if the US had legitimate authority to invade but both Bliz and Annan say that the US war in Iraq is illegal and goes against the UN charter. Seems like an odd way to defend the honor of the UN, to break its charter.

    “Whipping Saddam’s ass in three weeks wasn’t prepared? Get real.”

    Again, my criticism was not on the invasion which went well but the occupation which we were not prepared for. Why is it so hard to admit that we did not have enough troops and a good enough plan when the people who were on the ground there working on the occupation say exactly that?

    Wolfowitz planned to force not me and clearly there were not enough units there, I am not sure what you point is? I say we did not have enough, it was chaos. You say occupation is not easy and an insurgency is predictable. That seems to make my point.

    If given the fact that one should, as you say, expect and insurgency, then might be better to maintain the country’s existing army as much as possible rather than disband it. This was the US Army’s own plan for an occupation of Iraq which was not followed. And put controls on the military stock-piles of the former regime – that seems pretty obvious to me.

    Once we take someone as a prisoner we should treat them humanely and they should be given due process. We don’t need the Geneva convention to tell us that, its merely a standard.

    I really don’t see how focusing our effort on getting OBL is getting bogged down in detail. Seems like a pretty important thing that you’d want to do. I can’t for the life of me understand why you’d want to keep minimizing the fact that we have not done that unless deep down your recognize that the war in Iraq has distracted us from that mission which to any reasonable person would be of the highest importance.

    There is a big difference between a mistake on a battle field or in preparation for battle and misunderstanding to the point of misrepresenting nearly all of the critical intelligence used as a basis to go to war.

    I am not obsessed with side issues. I just can’t accept your presenting lies as the truth. Have the dignity not to ignore or distort the facts is all I ask.

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said:
    “If your case is so valid, why resort to personal attacks? Thats no way for a grown man to conduct himself.”

    What personal attacks? I’ve just been telling it like it is.

    Do I think you are dishonest? I wondered about that, but No. I think you are brainwashed. You believe in a malignant fantasy; future events will prove you wrong.

    You probably think that the war in Iraq is lost as Senator Harry Reid alleges. Wrong. Dead Wrong. The fruits of our labors in Iraq are starting to bloom. For Instance? The grave diggers in Iraq are complaining about NOT ENOUGH BUSINESS. Believing the Mainstream Media causes you to miss most of the stories.

    But soon, even Leftist unbelievers will not be able to avoid the truth. I believe that Iraq will “off the table” in the 2008 election. There are very few stories from Iraq now. There is too little bad news there.

    I am quite tired of people impugning my character. I am not a Bush Sycophant– a fanboy. There are issues that I have with Bush’s decisions. I will be happy to detail those. I simply do not think that the Democrats have any answers. You Democrats are not living in reality.

    I have been rather harsh with MisterGibson because he was insulting. I was somewhat insulting back. I would just as soon not write to him. Don’t believe he is more than a Leftist toady; there is not an original thought in his head.

    These exchanges are tiresome. They require some thought– effort. When I am assaulted by four or five people it is hard to keep them separate. And some of them are quite insulting. I try my best to ignore that; sometimes i fail.

    Also, you, Roz, have lead these discussions miles away from the point of Daniel’s propaganda piece. I made a simple remark: that life would be little different if Gore had won in 2000. Why? Because we still have enemies; they would attack us. It is delusive to think that life would be perfect if a Democrat was in high office.

    Life is such that we never run out of problems. The important thing is to see life as it is rather than as we wish it would be. You on the Left want to demonize people on the Right. We just think you are too stupid to get out of the rain.

  • roz

    If you are dishonest on a personal level, clearly you have no credibility on any larger issue.

  • thebob

    UrbanBard wrote
    “I agree that Global Warming is real. Since the end of the “Little Ice Age” around 1850 the Earth’s Temperature has risen about a degree. There has been a corresponding rise of the ocean’s surface of about 8 inches, but that is no big deal.
    No one disputes that. The only question is the cause. The most reasonable answer is that it is a natural phenomenon. The Sun’s heat output is variable. The frost caps on the planet Mars are melting. The reasonable answer for that is the Sun. That answer applies to the Earth, too.”

    Reasonable answer? I disagree and so does the evidence, and the overwhelming consensus of scientists. There is no evidence for the raise in global temperatures being caused by sun activity.

    The records of C02 in the atmosphere, stretching back for hundreds of thousands of years confirm that global warming is man made. The records clearly show influence from the sun, in fact they are part of the evidence for a solar period of activity. Since the industrial revolution temperatures have leapt, and we are now at the hottest period in over half a million years, the rise in the last century is dramatic and unprecedented.

    UrbanBard also wrote
    “It’s not religious unless you call Socialism a religion. I believe it is just politics. I remember in the 1960’s the Environmentalists were promoting an Ice Age. Their solution is the same, both times: more government control of the economy.”

    No serious peer reviewed, evidence based papers written in the period you suggest exist. You are attempting to conbine two groups, who you disagree with so as to discredit them both. ie 1960’s the Environmentalists, and scientists.

    UrbanBard also wrote
    “You misstate the case. Natural selection is not in dispute even by the Catholic Church. It’s the religious (Atheistic) and political positions of evolution that we doubt. What Christians dispute is that Natural Selection is proof that God does not exist.

    Oh contraire, the position of the Catholic Church is undisputedly creationist. There are no “athiestic” or “political” positions to the theory of natural selection. Is is a robust theory that has stood up to centuries of experimental data collection and is one of the least controversial theories in the whole of science. It is incredible that people propose far out ideas like ID (Intelligent Design) and even more amazing that such ideas receive more than a passing smile from the general public.

    Man created God in his own image to try and explain the inexplicable. Slowly as science peeled back that ignorance, God had fewer places to hide. For the past few hundred years God has survived only in the people who have been brought up from birth to believe in it, and a few other impressionable individuals.

    There is a good evolutionary reason why young children are predisposed to believe in there parents and elders. Children who don’t follow the advice “ Don’t go near the creek, it’s full of crocodiles.” rarely survive long enough to spread their genes. This is why the “God virus” effect suggested by Dawkings has persisted in the face of evidence to the contrary.

    UrbanBard also wrote
    “As I said to Roz, there is no provision in the US Constitution for the funding of medical research, how ever valuable. There is plenty of private and State funded support. Embryonic Stem cell research seems like a dead end. It is too dangerous for a therapy; it gives people cancer. But there have been over a hundred Adult Stem Cell therapies developed. Private industry is researching those because there is a chance for a profit. Embryonic Stem Cell therapies are too far in the future. Leave it to the Universities.”

    Pure sophism. The Federal Government spends a huge amount of money on institutions up and down the country, these institutions now face penalties if embryonic stem cell research is carried out. The paperwork is so onerous, that institutions are not able to account for every paper clip, and prove their independent funding.

    Embryonic Stem cell research is far from a dead end. It is the most exciting area of research there has been for many problems, and the suggestion that it is dangerous and gives people cancer is only touted by Christian lobby groups and is discredited throughout mainstream science.

    UrbanBard also wrote
    “Thank goodness that children can see though Leftist dogma. The Left are not drawing a young audience today. The Left are strident and boring. There is nothing sexy about a sixties Leftist.”

    So you seem to say that you don’t care for the truth, because it’s Leftist truth? You appear to be using a definition of truth, to which I was previously unaware.

    UrbanBard also wrote
    You misstate the case. Your anti-religious bias is showing. I’m religious but I demand proof. That is why I am a Christian; I found it. I was once a Leftist and it was too painful an existence. I came to a choice between suicide or God. I chose God.

    Interesting that my disbelief in a concept supported by no evidence at all, is a bias. I expect that the sum of the proof that you demand for religion is that you “believe”.

    So let me get this straight. You had a belief, but because that was painful you contemplated suicide, but eventually you decided to believe in God?

    There are so many non-sequitur in you reasoning that it defies rational analysis. I seriously suggest you get counseling.

    UrbanBard also wrote
    “What is very interesting is that we will have proof in the next twelve years. We are at the hight of the Sun Spot cycle and the heat output of the Sun follows it by a year or so. Meanwhile, the satellites report that the temperature off the top of clouds has remained steady since 1992. So, if the Sun Spot cycle holds, and the sun cools down, then the Earth will be considerably colder in a decade than now. Will the Left start promoting an Ice Age again?”

    Back to this old chestnut, the sun activity cycle was one of the first theories discredited by scientists researching global warming. There are parts of the atmosphere that are not heating up, and some that are cooling. We live in a global system that is heating up. The sum input is greater than the output. Demonstrably this is getting worse.

    For some reason you don’t seem understand the difference between religion, politics and science.

    One is the irrational belief in an unprovable deity.

    One is social relations involving authority or power.

    One is the search for truth.

    To my observation that…
    “The technology exists today, but it is the mindset of astrology, religion, acupuncture, chiropractic and other mumbo jumbo that makes people think there is an alternative to science.”

    UrbanBard replied
    Leftist bigotry strikes again. You just don’t know the issues at debate.

    I retort.
    The issue is that without intervention our environment and our civilization is doomed.

    Unfortunately petty squabbling about who can stand on top of the hill, or whose god is stronger is more important to many, than the future of our species. This mindset is directly attributable to religion/alternative nonsense.

    Still, I expect UrbanBard can receive solace from the Church, Astrology, Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Yoga or some other faith based mumbo jumbo. Personally I will rely on science.

  • jdoc

    I’ve been reading these posts with much interest. UrbanBard clearly seems to have a grasp on history and reality when it comes to most things. Most others seem to be spewing out passionate retorts without really saying much, and adding a few insults to boot. But the most recent post by ‘thebob’ caught my interest- a couple of points seem to reflect the common misconceptions held by many Americans today.

    Regarding embryonic stem cells. First, some background. I am a physician in a large multi-specialty group. We have a large infertility lab and routinely perform various services for our infertile couples, including IVF (invitro fertilization). So suffice to say, I have more than a working knowledge of embryo science.

    There are many types of ‘stem cells’, and research in this field is promising because stem cells are ‘multipotent’ (at least most) or multipotential- ie, they have the ability to produce virtually any type of cell in the body, given the proper stimuli. Embryonic cells are just one type, and have no more or less potential to produce the cell/organ of interest. Unfortunately the media, and for the most part, the Left/Democrats in this country have politicized this issue unnecessarily. There is no shortage of private funding/donations for stem cell research, including stem cell research. I suspect that the private investors of Embryonic stem cell research thought that they could receive extra funding (and thus larger returns on their investments) from the Feds by making the issue a mainstream political one- they hired the likes of Michael J. Fox etc. to get the word out en mass, and people fell for it. Very sad indeed. There are dozens of projects throughout history which have aided the medical community immensely, all without Government funding. The most recent of which was the development of the Gardasil vaccine, for prevention of cervical cancer.

    Unfortunately, it seems that when the Feds provide monetary support, corruption seems to be the only result. The WHI (Womens Health Initiative) is the latest of the Fed debacles. Funded mostly by Fed dollars, the results were touted as devastating and changed the way we practiced medicine. When the dust cleared, the results of the study were suspect at best. I could give examples, but that’s beyond the scope of this topic.

    One other point- the science of manipulating embryo’s is far from perfect. For instance, those that go through the whole IVF process will have fetuses which are at higher risk for aneuploidy (chromosomal abnormalities). There are many theories for why this happens, but considering we’re merely fertilizing an egg outside of the womb, there’s not much in the way of manipulation on our side. So it’s certainly not unreasonable at all to think that once we start manipulating the genetic material of said embryos that untoward results could surface, not the least of which is cancer.

    Global warming: two links: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/. Global warming exists, and humans have had something to do with that. The question is how much of an effect has it had, and what do we do about it. The Bush administration has definitely acknowledged that global warming exists, but there’s no reason to rush to provide ‘solutions’ when we’re not certain what the causes are. I don’t blame the administration for wanting more information before proceeding. Having said that, we all could benefit from reduced fossil fuel emissions, and that can start at the homefront. Perhaps Gore should put his money where his mouth is with regards to that.

    Lastly: “Unfortunately petty squabbling about who can stand on top of the hill, or whose god is stronger is more important to many, than the future of our species. This mindset is directly attributable to religion/alternative nonsense.”

    This is just pure ignorance. Indeed, throughout history, many a great nation has fallen due to a LACK of faith or a formidable God. I suppose you lump all Christians into the ‘fanatical’ group, just as you may lump all Islamists into the ‘militant’ group. Last time I looked, Evolution was still a theory, and had MANY holes yet to fill. Natural selection/Darwinism exists on a small scale, and we can reproduce it in the lab, but it’s in no way a substitution for creationism. I suggest you read the Bible, or at least have someone interpret it for you before you insult the very fabric of the majority of our great nation, AND of our forefathers. That’s a close minded position, just like your assumptions that chiropractics and accupuncture have no role in medicine or science. Again, pure, thoughtless ignorance. BTW, Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic. By your logic, or lack thereof, if you are going to insult my religion based on the lack of a superior God, then you have the burden of proof- to prove that my God doesn’t exist. Meanwhile, I’ll live my Christian life in my free country.

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said:
    “If you are dishonest on a personal level, clearly you have no credibility on any larger issue.”

    People are not easy to understand. A person who is honest in the small things in his life, is usually honest in the larger. That is why I am generous with small change when people need it: to see if they give it back. It isn’t the money, it’s whether they care about my good opinion.

    The difference between us is that you are out of touch with reality; all leftists are. I must admit there are lunatics on the right, but the numbers on the left has them beat.

    I think of the Left as a false religion; that is the only explanation for why the left fail, time after time, to achieve their goals, yet insist on using the same methods again. One definition of insanity is to repeatedly do the same thing and each time expect a different result.

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said:
    “This argument would have more validity if the US had legitimate authority to invade but both Blix and Annan say that the US war in Iraq is illegal and goes against the UN charter. Seems like an odd way to defend the honor of the UN, to break its charter.”

    This is lunacy. Or total corruption on Blix and Annon’s part. I suspect the latter. If you are quoting them correctly, then they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

    Both men opposed the war; both were reluctantly forced to be a part of it. They are twisting things to try to defeat President Bush’s position. The problem is that they have to deny reality to do it. They are diplomats and bureaucrats; naturally they support diplomacy. But as General Clauswitz said, “War is politics carried on by other means.”

    Eventually, your diplomatic alternatives run out because reality asserts itself. Teddy Roosevelt said that, when confronted by a large dog, diplomacy is the soft words you speak while you are looking around for a stick.

    People compete with each other; they become at loggerheads. They adopt positions that are irrevocably at odds. Hitler intended to conquer Europe; He would lie, cheat and steal to do that. There was nothing that Chamberlain could do diplomatically to avoid that. It is delusive to pretend otherwise.

    It became clear, after 16 UN Resolutions and a sanctions scheme, that Saddam Hussein had no intent to keep his promises in UN Resolution 687. When everything else but war has been tried many times, then to pursue diplomacy is insane.

    Read UN Resolution 687 for yourself. It permits that if Saddam fails to live up to his promises, and both Blix and Annon agree that he failed, then any of the coalition signatories may end the cease fire and invade Iraq. What is more legal than that?

    ““Whipping Saddam’s ass in three weeks wasn’t prepared? Get real.”
    Again, my criticism was not on the invasion which went well but the occupation which we were not prepared for. ”

    And you do not understand that no occupation is ever peaceful. You can prepare all you want: that doesn’t mean that the enemy will cooperate with you. There will always be people (dead enders) who will continue to carry on a guerilla war.

    Saddam planned and trained his Fedayeen for that eventuality; he sited arms and supplies all around the country. More than that, Iraq is an attractor for al Qaeda; that is why two thirds of the insurgents we have killed or captured have been foreign fighters. Iraq is the best place to fight them.

    “Why is it so hard to admit that we did not have enough troops and a good enough plan when the people who were on the ground there working on the occupation say exactly that?”

    Because it would not matter. If the Bush administration had followed their advice, some other people on the Left would be complaining that we had too many troops in Iraq and that it was bankrupting the US.

    I’m not the expert here; nor are you. It’s the Generals in Iraq who are controlling the troop levels. Are you saying that, if we had enough troops in Iraq, then it would be peaceful? That is idiotic.

    “Wolfowitz planned to force not me and clearly there were not enough units there, I am not sure what you point is? I say we did not have enough, it was chaos.”

    All war is chaos; Your arguments will not change that. Wars have insurrections after them; that is a matter of fact. It is only your ignorance or duplicity that persuades you otherwise.

    You could argue that a larger force in Iraq would lessen the insurrection, but not end it. Peace was never an alternative. A larger force in Iraq could be at the cost of more of our troops getting killed.

    “You say occupation is not easy and an insurgency is predictable. That seems to make my point.”

    No, it doesn’t. You forget that time is needed to resolve issues. The people who oppose us need to be killed. That takes time. People in Iraq have to adjust to the new reality.

    The biggest thing is that you need to get the population on your side. They need to know that you won’t abandon them. The people of Iraq are with us in this war, that is why they are turning in the foreign fighters so our troops can kill them.

    The Iraqis want us to leave, just as we want to leave Iraq, but only when the foreign fighters are reduced enough so that the Iraqi Defense Forces can do the job.

    We will be pulling out troops next year, but we will be leaving 60 to 80 thousand in Iraq to face down Syria and Iran.

    “If given the fact that one should, as you say, expect and insurgency, then might be better to maintain the country’s existing army as much as possible rather than disband it. ”

    That is a canard. Our forces couldn’t maintain Saddam’s army; Saddam’s army had disbanded itself. The enlisted men were all conscripts– they went home. Saddam’s army had no equivalents to our noncommissioned officer corp. The officers were all Ba’athist Party members.

    What you envision would create an enemy INSIDE our lines. No. We had to re-build an Iraqi army from the ground up. Despite this, the enemy has tried to take over the Iraqi Defense forces. But, they could only do this as individuals, not as an organized force, so they were defeated piecemeal. You, obviously, have no understanding of either the military or politics.

    “This was the US Army’s own plan for an occupation of Iraq which was not followed. And put controls on the military stock-piles of the former regime – that seems pretty obvious to me.”

    You are unclear. I have not a clue of what you mean. Saddam had many plans. Some of them worked for him, some did not. Our military made plans. Some of them worked for us, some did not. It is SNAFU: Situation Normal, All Fouled Up.

    “Once we take someone as a prisoner we should treat them humanely and they should be given due process. ”

    Not at all. There is no due process in the Geneva Conventions. These are soldiers, not criminals. If the war is over we release them unless they committed crimes as individuals.

    The problem is that our enemies do not follow the Geneva Conventions. If they do not, then the Geneva Conventions say that we need not.

    It was a mistake of the Bush administration to have taken them prisoner; no intelligence they might have was worth this PR attack from the Left. The illegal combatants should have been killed on the battlefield. The Geneva Conventions allow for that.

    “We don’t need the Geneva convention to tell us that, its merely a standard.”

    Yes, we do. We need Rules of War to keep propagandist like yourself from twisting the truth out of recognition. The Geneva Conventions are for civilized enemies. We are fighting barbarians. The Geneva Conventions don’t apply. Nor does Socialist moralizing.

    “I really don’t see how focusing our effort on getting OBL is getting bogged down in detail.”

    Sometimes, you can’t get what you want, no matter how hard you try. If you know where OBL is, then please tell the US forces. Since you don’t, all this is asking for the impossible.

    “Seems like a pretty important thing that you’d want to do. … any reasonable person would be of the highest importance.”

    That is why you would lose this war if you were in charge. You do what you can in a war; doing something, anything, is often better than nothing.

    Looking for one person in hostile terrain and among people who would hide them, is next to impossible. Remember, most criminals are found when one of their acquaintances turns them in to the police. That won’t happen here.

    Look how long it took to find the UNIBOMBER– twenty years. His brother read his proclamation in the NY Times and turned him in.

    “There is a big difference between a mistake on a battle field or in preparation for battle and misunderstanding to the point of misrepresenting nearly all of the critical intelligence used as a basis to go to war.”

    Now, you are blaming this all on the CIA and George Tenet? Why did all the world’s intelligence agencies agree with the CIA about Saddam? Is this some grand conspiracy that you are fielding?

    “I am not obsessed with side issues. I just can’t accept your presenting lies as the truth. ”

    You cannot tell the truth from a lie. All you know is what has been spoon fed you by the Mainstream Media. You cannot think for yourself. You don’t know enough honest history to question your side’s position.

    I have looked at the argument from both left and right. The right is not always correct, but the Left’s positions are rubbish.

    “Have the dignity not to ignore or distort the facts is all I ask.”

    We disagree on the facts. You facts are garbage. You logic is execrable. Your opinions are illogical.

  • UrbanBard

    theBob said:
    “UrbanBard wrote
    “I agree that Global Warming is real. …The Sun’s heat output is variable. The frost caps on the planet Mars are melting. The reasonable answer for that is the Sun. That answer applies to the Earth, too.”

    Reasonable answer? I disagree and so does the evidence, and the overwhelming consensus of scientists.”

    It’s just as well that Science does not depend on a consensus. It’s on what can be proven. All the rest is politics.

    “There is no evidence for the raise in global temperatures being caused by sun activity.”

    That is how little you know. There are many atmospheric scientists and climatologists who believe exactly that.

    “The records of C02 in the atmosphere, stretching back for hundreds of thousands of years confirm that global warming is man made.”

    No it doesn’t. The greatest increase in the Earth’s temperature (0.5 decrees) in the last hundred years was BEFORE the second world war. The greatest increase in CO2 was AFTER the second world war. A correct logic would conclude that the temperature increase caused the CO2 increase, not the reverse.

    Also, volcanos put out Global warming agents. When Mount Penatubo in the Philippines and another volcano in Japan erupted during the 1980’s for six weeks, they put into the atmosphere enough Global Warming agents (methane mostly) to equal two thirds of the amount that mankind had for a hundred years. The result? Nothing– no change. The weather satellites say that the temperature off the top of clouds has been steady since 1992.

    Also, we have only had accurate temperature readings from 1860 or so on, because that was when the mercury thermometer was invented.

    “The records clearly show influence from the sun, in fact they are part of the evidence for a solar period of activity. Since the industrial revolution temperatures have leapt, and we are now at the hottest period in over half a million years, the rise in the last century is dramatic and unprecedented.”

    Wrong. You are forgetting about the Mediaeval Warm period from 800 to 1200 AD. In 1000 AD, the Earth was a degree and a half warmer than today. You are an ignoramus.

    “UrbanBard also wrote
    “It’s not religious unless you call Socialism a religion. I believe it is just politics. I remember in the 1960’s the Environmentalists were promoting an Ice Age. Their solution is the same, both times: more government control of the economy.”

    No serious peer reviewed, evidence based papers written in the period you suggest exist.”

    There is a dispute among scientists. I am following the real scientists. You are following are the politically connected ones. It’s all about grant money. The Left control the scientific bureaucracy.

    “UrbanBard also wrote
    “You misstate the case. Natural selection is not in dispute even by the Catholic Church. It’s the religious (Atheistic) and political positions of evolution that we doubt. What Christians dispute is that Natural Selection is proof that God does not exist.“

    Oh contraire, the position of the Catholic Church is undisputedly creationist.”

    Now you are an expert on the church, too? LOL

    “There are no “atheistic” or “political” positions to the theory of natural selection. ”

    There are political groups who are Atheists who use the theory of natural selection as a tool. That was who I meant.

    “Is is a robust theory that has stood up to centuries of experimental data collection and is one of the least controversial theories in the whole of science.”

    I never disputed Natural selection, just the Socialistic and Atheistic conclusions drawn from it.

    “It is incredible that people propose far out ideas like ID (Intelligent Design) ”

    I do not agree with Intelligent Design arguments either. I believe that neither the Evolutionist nor the Creationist are wholly correct.

    I don’t care that you disbelieve. The arguments that you throw up cannot disprove God’s existence. Since you have a closed mind, there is no reason for me to argue with you about it.

    “UrbanBard also wrote
    “As I said to Roz, there is no provision in the US Constitution for the funding of medical research, how ever valuable. There is plenty of private and State funded support. Embryonic Stem cell research seems like a dead end. … Leave it to the Universities.”

    Pure sophism. The Federal Government spends a huge amount of money on institutions ”

    The government does this illegally without Constitutional permission through congressional and judicial usurpation. We Republicans will get around to correcting that.

    “The paperwork is so onerous, that institutions are not able to account for every paper clip, and prove their independent funding.”

    So what? If they were privately funded they wouldn’t have those burdens.

    “Embryonic Stem cell research is far from a dead end. ”

    There has never been a successful therapy from Embryonic Stem cells while there are over a hundred from Adult Stem Cells. The scientists do not expect one for many decades.

    “UrbanBard also wrote
    “Thank goodness that children can see though Leftist dogma. The Left are not drawing a young audience today. The Left are strident and boring. There is nothing sexy about a sixties Leftist.”

    So you seem to say that you don’t care for the truth, because it’s Leftist truth? ”

    Prove to me that you have any truth. Everyplace where Socialist or Leftist ideas have been tried, they have failed. You people have an abysmal track record.

    “You appear to be using a definition of truth, to which I was previously unaware.”

    You apparently have never heard of “proof of the pudding.”

    “UrbanBard also wrote
    You misstate the case. Your anti-religious bias is showing. I’m religious but I demand proof. That is why I am a Christian; I found it. I was once a Leftist and it was too painful an existence. I came to a choice between suicide or God. I chose God.

    Interesting that my disbelief in a concept supported by no evidence at all, is a bias. I expect that the sum of the proof that you demand for religion is that you “believe”.”

    No, it took me decades for me to shed the false logic that you espouse. I cannot persuade you of this. I could not persuade the person I was thirty years ago. I had to grow up first.

    “So let me get this straight. You had a belief, but because that was painful you contemplated suicide, but eventually you decided to believe in God?”

    Yes, the Left was too empty of any truth or reality.

    “There are so many non-sequitur in you reasoning that it defies rational analysis. I seriously suggest you get counseling.”

    “There is none so blind as those who will not see. ” And no, I have no need for any Politically Correct brainwashing, thank you.

    “UrbanBard also wrote
    “What is very interesting is that we will have proof in the next twelve years. We are at the hight of the Sun Spot cycle and the heat output of the Sun follows it by a year or so. Meanwhile, the satellites report that the temperature off the top of clouds has remained steady since 1992. So, if the Sun Spot cycle holds, and the sun cools down, then the Earth will be considerably colder in a decade than now. Will the Left start promoting an Ice Age again?”

    Back to this old chestnut, the sun activity cycle was one of the first theories discredited by scientists researching global warming. …We live in a global system that is heating up. The sum input is greater than the output. Demonstrably this is getting worse.

    I said “we will see.” This is reality asserting itself. That is what science is about. Letting the evidence form our opinions, not the reverse.

    “For some reason you don’t seem understand the difference between religion, politics and science.”

    Oh, I do. But the Environmentalists wrap all of them into their beliefs, so I must bring in all aspects.

    “One is the irrational belief in an unprovable deity.”

    Certainly not provable to you.

    “One is social relations involving authority or power.”

    The Left is all about power relationships.

    “One is the search for truth.”

    I don’t claim that I have the truth, but that the absolute truth does exist. I merely try to make as good a case as I can.

    “UrbanBard replied
    Leftist bigotry strikes again. You just don’t know the issues at debate.

    I retort.
    The issue is that without intervention our environment and our civilization is doomed.”

    Yes, that is the point of Environmental politics; to turn all control of the society and the economy over to the government. This is a Socialist front, not science.

    “Unfortunately petty squabbling about who can stand on top of the hill, or whose god is stronger is more important to many, than the future of our species. This mindset is directly attributable to religion/alternative nonsense.”

    And you can prove nothing of what you believe. That is why you seek a false consensus.

    I will accept the evidence and the evidence is not conclusive. But if we have a frigid time of it in the next decade, will you change your opinions? Not likely. Who is more of the ideologue? You are me?

    “Still, I expect UrbanBard can receive solace from the Church, Astrology, Acupuncture, Chiropractic, Yoga or some other faith based mumbo jumbo. Personally I will rely on science.”

    You only listen to the leftist scientists. And the mainstream Media.

  • UrbanBard

    Jdoc said”
    “I’ve been reading these posts with much interest. UrbanBard clearly seems to have a grasp on history and reality when it comes to most things. ”

    Thank you for your remarks. I’m not emotionally involved with my arguments. They are merely what make sense to me. If my opponents had any persuasive points, I’d change my mind.

    The biggest thing I see is that they are the mental captives of a pressure group. I’m too contrary and independent a person to agree with some of the people on the right. I’m a “live and let live” guy, not a moralist. I don’t believe in “blue law” for instance. I see no evidence that God wants us to suppress other people’s sinfulness.

    That is why I disagree with Bush’s moral position on Embryonic Stem Cell research. I oppose it on Constitutional grounds and that it is impractical.

    I want there to be research, but I don’t want the US government to do it. If the State voters want to fund this, that is their business. That is why we have Federalism: to allow individual states to try actions and legislation to see what works effectively. The Left want to federalize everything.

    “Unfortunately, it seems that when the Feds provide monetary support, corruption seems to be the only result. ”

    Yes, You can’t professionalize the corruption unless you Federalize the corruption.

    “One other point- the science of manipulating embryo’s is far from perfect. ”

    This Stem Cell stuff is so far out into the future that it is scary. There is so little that we know. The activists think this like engineering where we merely have to apply what we have learned. We don’t know enough yet; that is why this needs to be funded through our long term research agencies– the Universities. There is no point in raising false hopes or creating a new bureaucracy.

    “Global warming exists, and humans have had something to do with that. The question is how much of an effect has it had, and what do we do about it. ”

    The problem is not with the Earth warming up; no reputable scientist disagrees that it is. The question is the cause, the consequences, the harm done and the political decisions of what to do about it, if anything.

    “The Bush administration has definitely acknowledged that global warming exists, but there’s no reason to rush to provide ’solutions’ when we’re not certain what the causes are. ”

    What is really strange is that the US, that did not ratify the Kyoto Treaty, is further ahead of reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions than the European Union, which signed Kyoto into law. But, the EU won’t obey Kyoto because it wrecks THEIR economy.

    “I don’t blame the administration for wanting more information before proceeding. Having said that, we all could benefit from reduced fossil fuel emissions, and that can start at the homefront. ”

    I’m uncertain of that. Of the last 125 thousand years only about 25 thousand were NOT in an Ice Age. Ice Ages are very hard on the life on this planet.

    We are at the tail end of an interglacial period that is 8 thousand years old– far beyond the norm. The most likely thing to believe in is that things will get colder.

    It might be in mankind’s interest to try to extend the current warm period. We still have quite some distance to go (a degree and a Half) before we get to the Medieval Warm period of a thousand years ago. And the Medieval Warm period was a time of plenty. I seriously doubt that anyone noticed that the oceans were a foot higher.

    The point is to not allow the environmentalists to panic us into hasty and inappropriate action. We could kick off the next Ice Age.

    “Lastly: “Unfortunately petty squabbling about who can stand on top of the hill, or whose god is stronger is more important to many, than the future of our species. This mindset is directly attributable to religion/alternative nonsense.”

    This is just pure ignorance. Indeed, throughout history, many a great nation has fallen due to a LACK of faith or a formidable God. ”

    One of the necessary conditions for military, social and economic decline is Atheism. This leads to moral degeneration and an unwillingness to defend one’s society from attacks. It allows barbarians equal rights with the civilized. Then, the barbarians overwhelm the civilization.

    “Last time I looked, Evolution was still a theory, and had MANY holes yet to fill. Natural selection/Darwinism exists on a small scale, and we can reproduce it in the lab, but it’s in no way a substitution for creationism. ”

    I am suggesting neither. Let us find the truth. We simply lack the knowledge, so we shouldn’t pre judge. Science has a way of expanding our horizons. It asks questions of religion that it is often not ready to answer. It clears away the nonsense, so we can focus on the truth.

    As a Christian, I am not opposed to science– that is, asking the hard questions. What I object to is scientism: a faith that puts science in God’s place. Science only can know about the physical world. It is beyond science’s purview to say that God does or does not exist. It is Metaphysics, Philosophy and Religion that asks those questions.

    “I suggest you read the Bible, or at least have someone interpret it for you before you insult the very fabric of the majority of our great nation, AND of our forefathers.”

    You are asking too much, jdoc. you are asking them to correct their ignorance and to have respect for other people.

  • roz

    “Unfortunately the media, and for the most part, the Left/Democrats in this country have politicized this issue unnecessarily.”

    Actually it was Bush that sought to control the use of Stem Cells to existing lines, which were found to be insufficient. This issue was not created by liberals.

    UrbanBard, you call me an ignoramus, anti american. Personally I think you are brainwashed, but I don’t send insults at you. I am not Anti-American in any way. Nothing that I have written that is in any way Anti-American. I am not saying I know everything, but I’m not an ignoramous as you have called me several times. At least I know the difference between debt and a deficit. I know that the US debt is not $180 billion.

    I reviewed 687. Clearly Hussein did violate, I do not see any enforcement terms allowing for an invasion of Iraq. Which section?

    “I’m not the expert here; nor are you. It’s the Generals in Iraq who are controlling the troop levels. Are you saying that, if we had enough troops in Iraq, then it would be peaceful? That is idiotic.”

    Why is that idiotic? We added troops at the surge, now its said that violence is down. Why would it not have mattered at the start? Actually I think it would have made a huge difference and we might be out of there by now.

    “A larger force in Iraq could be at the cost of more of our troops getting killed.”

    Generally I think the military logic says that overwhelming force has an advantage. And if they occupying authority had allowed the Iraqi army to be reconstituted, then they would have had much more security early on. We had enough troops to topple the government, not enough to securely occupy it.

    “That is a canard. Our forces couldn’t maintain Saddam’s army; Saddam’s army had disbanded itself. The enlisted men were all conscripts– they went home. Saddam’s army had no equivalents to our noncommissioned officer corp. The officers were all Ba’athist Party members.”

    Watch “No End is Sight”, there is quite a different look at it. This is not a leftist film. It interviews people like Jay Garner and others who led the occupation authority. We had people there who had what they thought were real contacts with Iraq army officers who were offering to help the occupation, but they were rebuffed. Say what you want, but to me this seemed like a huge error.

    “You, obviously, have no understanding of either the military or politics.”

    Stop trying to insult me all the time and just deal with the issue at hand.

    “You are unclear. I have not a clue of what you mean. Saddam had many plans. Some of them worked for him, some did not. Our military made plans. Some of them worked for us, some did not. It is SNAFU: Situation Normal, All Fouled Up.”

    Actually I have quite a clear view what I mean. Your position as an apologist for obvious mistakes baffles me: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/29/iraq9575.htm

    “Yes, we do. We need Rules of War to keep propagandist like yourself from twisting the truth out of recognition. The Geneva Conventions are for civilized enemies. We are fighting barbarians. The Geneva Conventions don’t apply. Nor does Socialist moralizing.”

    I am not a propagandist. Many people on the right, don’t approve of what is happening in Guantanamo.

    “You believe in a malignant fantasy; future events will prove you wrong.
    You probably think that the war in Iraq is lost as Senator Harry Reid alleges. Wrong. Dead Wrong. The fruits of our labors in Iraq are starting to bloom. For Instance? The grave diggers in Iraq are complaining about NOT ENOUGH BUSINESS. Believing the Mainstream Media causes you to miss most of the stories.”

    This is total rubbish. This is your fantasy. Show me the comment I have made where I said we would lose the war, or that I wanted that?

    Show me the comment that I have made that is at all Socialist or leftist for that matter? Either prove that or shut up about calling me that those things.

  • UrbanBard

    “Unfortunately the media, and for the most part, the Left/Democrats in this country have politicized this issue unnecessarily.”

    Actually it was Bush that sought to control the use of Stem Cells to existing lines, which were found to be insufficient. ”

    Oh! Deciding NOT to fund research is provocative? You must have a screwed up head to think that doing NOTHING is politicizing an issue. No, it was the Left who made this a political cause in the Mainstream Media. Bush just decided whether or not to veto it. He chose to make a compromise; He was wrong to do so. He gained no friends by leaning in your direction.

    “UrbanBard, you call me an ignoramus, anti american. Personally I think you are brainwashed, but I don’t send insults at you. ”

    You are what you are, Roz. It isn’t an insult to call someone an ignoramus when they display enormous ignorance. You do.

    “I am not Anti-American in any way.”

    You want America to lose the war against the terrorists. That means that tens to thousands of Americans will die. That’s a good start.

    “At least I know the difference between debt and a deficit. I know that the US debt is not $180 billion.”

    I was tired: you wore me down. I don’t pretend to be perfect. And when I am wrong I admit it, rather than changing the subject like you do.

    “I reviewed 687. Clearly Hussein did violate, I do not see any enforcement terms allowing for an invasion of Iraq. Which section?”

    Do you understand what a “Cease Fire” is? It is a temporary suppression of military action, hopefully mutual. UN Resolution 687 is a Cease Fire of the Gulf War based on Saddam’s good behavior. There were a series of conditions that Saddam had to fulfill or dire consequences would follow. The Resolution is couched in legalistic terms, but what it meant was that war was on again if Saddam didn’t comply. No one needed to hammer anyone over the head in getting their point across. If you break a treaty, there are consequences. None of the Coalition Partners needed to get permission to resume the war. Most Cease Fires are a matter of hours or days. Why can you not understand that?

    ““I’m not the expert here; nor are you. It’s the Generals in Iraq who are controlling the troop levels. Are you saying that, if we had enough troops in Iraq, then it would be peaceful? That is idiotic.”

    Why is that idiotic? We added troops at the surge, now its said that violence is down. ”

    Yes, because we are using them more effectively now because the Iraqi Defense Forces are there to do much of the work. Would that troop increase be as effective earlier? I doubt it. Why? Because we didn’t have the Human Intelligence Network that we do today. All that had to be built up first. The Sunni’s had to get angry at the ex-Ba’athists and al Qaeda for killing Sunni’s. We needed elections and a Parliament. None of that was possible earlier. Sheer numbers do not matter; military effectiveness is.

    “we might be out of there by now.”

    Not with you on the terrorist’s side.

    ““A larger force in Iraq could be at the cost of more of our troops getting killed.”

    Generally I think the military logic says that overwhelming force has an advantage. ”

    What is overwhelming force to you? 500 thousand troops? Where would we get them? How would we pay for them?

    The point I was making was that more boots on the ground meant more chances for the enemy to hit them. The General’s decided that a smaller force over a longer time was the right mix. Do you have the necessary expertise to dispute their conclusions? I doubt it.

    “And if they occupying authority had allowed the Iraqi army to be reconstituted, then they would have had much more security early on. ”

    And how many ex-Ba’athist and al Qaeda agents did you want in that Army? We had quite a few as it was.

    ““That is a canard. Our forces couldn’t maintain Saddam’s army; Saddam’s army had disbanded itself. The enlisted men were all conscripts– they went home. Saddam’s army had no equivalents to our noncommissioned officer corp. The officers were all Ba’athist Party members.”

    Watch “No End is Sight”, there is quite a different look at it. This is not a leftist film. It interviews people like Jay Garner and others who led the occupation authority. We had people there who had what they thought were real contacts with Iraq army officers who were offering to help the occupation, but they were rebuffed. Say what you want, but to me this seemed like a huge error.”

    No thanks. They have a right to disagree. We have free speech. I’m more interested in the future than rehashing disputes from the past.

    If mistakes were made then we have to find out what is effective. Often, the enemy changes their tactics and we have to adjust.

    Sometimes, we have to accept an indirect action because it leads us to a better place if we win. A good case in WWII was how we invaded North Africa because there were no good landing sites on Continental Europe.

    There are advantages and disadvantage of anything we do. Fighting the Terrorists is very hard, because they can hide among ordinary Muslims. The point about Iraq is that it divides the Islamists. It draws them out to where we can get at them. Perfection is not an option in war. Only an ignoramus would think so.

    ““You, obviously, have no understanding of either the military or politics.”

    Stop trying to insult me all the time and just deal with the issue at hand.”

    Based on the evidence; you are a know-nothing. You slavishly follow the Leftist talking points. You have not an original thought in your head.

    ““You are unclear. I have not a clue of what you mean. Saddam had many plans. Some of them worked for him, some did not. Our military made plans. Some of them worked for us, some did not. It is SNAFU: Situation Normal, All Fouled Up.”

    Actually I have quite a clear view what I mean. Your position as an apologist for obvious mistakes baffles me: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/29/iraq9575.htm

    The point was that you were doing a p*ss poor job of communicating your position. I had not a clue of what you meant. The failure was not mine.

    ““Yes, we do. We need Rules of War to keep propagandist like yourself from twisting the truth out of recognition. The Geneva Conventions are for civilized enemies. We are fighting barbarians. The Geneva Conventions don’t apply. Nor does Socialist moralizing.”

    I am not a propagandist. Many people on the right, don’t approve of what is happening in Guantanamo.”

    They have a right to their opinion. But, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they know anything more than you do. Which isn’t anything.

    ““You believe in a malignant fantasy; future events will prove you wrong.
    You probably think that the war in Iraq is lost as Senator Harry Reid alleges. Wrong. Dead Wrong. The fruits of our labors in Iraq are starting to bloom. For Instance? The grave diggers in Iraq are complaining about NOT ENOUGH BUSINESS. Believing the Mainstream Media causes you to miss most of the stories.”

    This is total rubbish. This is your fantasy. Show me the comment I have made where I said we would lose the war, or that I wanted that?”

    I can read between the same lines that you do when you make pronouncements about my character. If 100% of your Talking Points are identical to the ones on MediaMatters or MoveOn. org, then you betray yourself as a Leftist, and a far leftist at that. Birds of a feather, you know? You probably think that Hillary is a centrist.

    If I am wrong about a position then tell me where I am wrong. Every thing you write says that you want us to lose this war. That is why you obsess about trivial issues from the past.

    “Show me the comment that I have made that is at all Socialist or leftist for that matter? ”

    No one who wants national health care is anything but a leftist. No One who slavishly repeats MediaMatters talking Points is either.

    If you want me to think otherwise, then stop relentlessly attacking. Reveal yourself and your values. Let’s talk about those. You have begun to repeat yourself.

  • roz

    “Oh! Deciding NOT to fund research is provocative?”

    It was the one area of research ruled out to please the religious right.

    ““I am not Anti-American in any way.”

    You want America to lose the war against the terrorists. That means that tens to
    thousands of Americans will die. That’s a good start.”

    I don’t and I have said nothing of the sort. Stop lying about me.

    “Do you understand what a “Cease Fire” is?”

    Of course I do. But you overplayed the contents of that Resolution. it does not say anything about invading Iraq – as you said it did:

    “Read UN Resolution 687 for yourself. It permits that if Saddam fails to live up to his promises, and both Blix and Annon agree that he failed, then any of the coalition signatories may end the cease fire and invade Iraq…”

    “We needed elections and a Parliament. None of that was possible earlier. Sheer numbers do not matter; military effectiveness is.”

    Maybe so, but you said its was idiotic to think that more troops would have helped, to me that is wrong. You want to attack the person who makes any real criticism.

    ““we might be out of there by now.”
    Not with you on the terrorist’s side.””

    Again with the baseless personal attacks. Get a clue, not everyone who is critical of the handling of the war is a Leftist, a Socialist or a terrorist. You’d apparently would like to it be black and white like that but its simply not the case.

    As a taxpayer I am paying for this war and I have every right to examine how it is run. Sorry that bothers you but I simply don’t accept that that makes me in any way anti american.

    “Generally I think the military logic says that overwhelming force has an advantage. ”
    What is overwhelming force to you? 500 thousand troops? Where would we get them? How would we pay for them?
    The point I was making was that more boots on the ground meant more chances for the enemy to hit them. The General’s decided that a smaller force over a longer time was the right mix. Do you have the necessary expertise to dispute their conclusions? I doubt it.”

    We both know I am sure that the initial recommendation was for a presence at that level but it was shot down and the general who made it was fired. Clearly, if I don’t have the expertise, some with that expertise did not think it was idiotic.

    “And how many ex-Ba’athist and al Qaeda agents did you want in that Army? We had quite a few as it was.”
    At the initial stages there were not many al Qaeda in the country so I don’t know what you are taking about. And many Iraqi were Bathist, we have had to work with them anyway. I don’t see anything in 687 about Bathists.

    ““Show me the comment that I have made that is at all Socialist or leftist for that matter? ”

    No one who wants national health care is anything but a leftist. No One who slavishly repeats MediaMatters talking Points is either.””

    Did I argue for National Health Care, no! I said it was an important issue that needs Federal attention. It is and it does.

    Did I ever say I support Hillary? No. You just conflate it that anyone who does not play they ignore the hard facts the way you do is way on the left. Again, I just hate your lies.

    So to be clear, you agree that nothing I have said is leftist of socialist or anti american, since you have nothing to point to – great then shut up that talk.

    And I totally get why you want to call me an ignoramus, its because you are, for reasons of your own choosing, in the awkward position of having to defending the policies of one.

  • thebob

    jooc wrote
    “There are many types of ’stem cells’, and research in this field is promising because stem cells are ‘multipotent’ (at least most) or multipotential- ie, they have the ability to produce virtually any type of cell in the body, given the proper stimuli. Embryonic cells are just one type, and have no more or less potential to produce the cell/organ of interest.”

    If I may expand, ‘stem cells’ are multipotent. They can differentiate into a number of cell types.

    The reason that embrionic stem cells show so much promise is that they are ‘Pluripotent’ they have the potential to differientiate into any of the three germ layers, endoderm , mesoderm or ectoderm.

    They cannot develop into animals because they cannot develop extraembryonic tissue, ie a placenta.

  • thebob

    It seems that attempting to answer UrbanBard line by line is futile.

    My belief is that science is a system in which you first postulate a hypothesis. This hypothesis should be falsifiable. You then test your hypothesis by experiment or observation in nature. Each time your experiment supports your hypothesis, it adds to the evidence supporting your hypothesis. Confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory. ‘Any’ time an experiment disagrees with a hypothesis, it needs to be modified or discarded.

    Unfortunately UrbanBard appears to use a completely different, and to me unfathomable logic.

    It is easy to cherry pick data to conform to a belief, but this is pseudoscience. Unfortunately many people can’t or wont distinguish between them.

    Still I don’t consider my time wasted. At the very least the time spent by UrbanBard responding to my mails, may reduce the deluge of mail he sends everyday to Daniel. Hopefully this will enable Daniel to write more of his excellent articles.

    It’s a pity that this thread has been hijacked.

    I would have preferred, more comment on the great achievements of Al Gore, or even Jar-Jar Binks!

    Unfortunately it degenerated into political/religious mud slinging, with very little intellectual content.

    Still congratulations to Al Gore, who managed to win in the election, but not in the courts, who went on to gain one of the worlds greatest prizes, with his integrity, determination, and intelligence.

  • thebob

    jdoc wrote
    “Lastly:
    “Unfortunately petty squabbling about who can stand on top of the hill, or whose god is stronger is more important to many, than the future of our species. This mindset is directly attributable to religion/alternative nonsense.”

    This is just pure ignorance. Indeed, throughout history, many a great nation has fallen due to a LACK of faith or a formidable God. I suppose you lump all Christians into the ‘fanatical’ group, just as you may lump all Islamists into the ‘militant’ group. “

    If my reply is based on ignorance, your reply hasn’t educated me in any way.

    I am an Athiest, in fact I would describe myself, proudly as a fundametalist athiest. God has no job in my universe.

    You are an Agnostic, you dont believe in Allah, Budda or the “Flying Spagetti Monster. I just dont believe in one more God than you.

    I believe that most Christians, Muslims, Hindus ect. are conditioned from a very early age to conform to the “beliefs” of their parents and their society. We talk about Christian children, when they aren’t even old enough to have an opinion. I’m sure that you would object to sending children to “Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, or Fashist” schools but for some reason monotheist education is acceptable.

    Proletizing belief in a deity is detremental to education, as is any system that denys a child protection from mystical dogma.

    jdoc also wrote
    “Last time I looked, Evolution was still a theory, and had MANY holes yet to fill. Natural selection/Darwinism exists on a small scale, and we can reproduce it in the lab, but it’s in no way a substitution for creationism. “

    A theory is the higest level of scientific knowlege, as a doctor you should know this, but you have decided to cloud the issue with word games.

    Evolution is supported by a century and a half of scientific experimentation. The holes you talk about have been constantly reduced and the theory stands as one of the most challenged ideas in history. It only takes one experiment to disprove a theory, this has never been done, even though it has been attempted often.

    No experiment has ever been found to support the idea of creationisim.

    “I suggest you read the Bible, or at least have someone interpret it for you before you insult the very fabric of the majority of our great nation, AND of our forefathers. That’s a close minded position, just like your assumptions that chiropractics and accupuncture have no role in medicine or science. Again, pure, thoughtless ignorance. “

    I am extremly conversant with the Bible, Koran and Vedic. I can quote chapter and verse and have studied themall in great depth.

    Interesting that you consider that the Bible needs interpretation. It is supposed to be the word of God and infallable, so interpretation is only needed to clean up the glaring inconsistances.

    The whole concept of “Heaven” is aborrant. This great book promises an eternity of perfection to the believer. I would spend every day, stricken by the thought that people were being tormented in Hell. It appears that the great reward awaiting in heaven strips people of their consience, or how else could they survive in such terible circumstances. It is barbaric, morally wanting and plainly fiction.

    jdoc also wrote
    “That’s a close minded position, just like your assumptions that chiropractics and accupuncture have no role in medicine or science. Again, pure, thoughtless ignorance. “

    I dissagre that my mind is closed, I am open to any “evidence”. I am incredulous of religion and alternative medicine because there is “No” evidence to support it. Yes I will repeat that “No evidence whatsoever”.

    Why are Chiropractic, Accupuncture, Homeopathy ect, “Alternative medicine? Because there is no evidence to support their efficacy. Once “Alternative medicines” pass the test of experimentation they become simply medicine. So we can define these alternative techniques as “Lacking demonstratable effect, apart from placeblo.”

    jdoc also wrote
    “BTW, Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic. By your logic, or lack thereof, if you are going to insult my religion based on the lack of a superior God, then you have the burden of proof- to prove that my God doesn’t exist. “

    Not sure why you are pointing out dogmatic differences between Christian cults. But then you attack my logic, and suggest that I have the burden of proving a universal negative.

    Now if that is so, to support you position you need to prove the non existance of Allah, Budda, The Flying Spagetti monster ect. After all you profess there is only one God.

    jdoc also wrote
    “Meanwhile, I’ll live my Christian life in my free country.”

    Unfortunately, you “Christian life” is denying scientific rigor, and so preventing actions that are protecting “Our” planet.

  • jdoc

    thebob: “If I may expand, ‘stem cells’ are multipotent. They can differentiate into a number of cell types.

    The reason that embrionic stem cells show so much promise is that they are ‘Pluripotent’ they have the potential to differientiate into any of the three germ layers, endoderm , mesoderm or ectoderm.

    They cannot develop into animals because they cannot develop extraembryonic tissue, ie a placenta.”

    I appreciate your attempt to understand this, but you’re not quite right. ALL stem cells have the potential to develop into any type of cell in the human body, given the proper stimuli. Pluripotent and multipotent are the same thing, as used in this sense.

    Embryos DO produce placental tissue. Where do you think that those embryos used for research come from? They come mostly from frozen embryos- those that people have donated, and they no longer want to use. What we do in my office is extract an egg from mom’s ovary, combine that with dad’s sperm in a tube, add the necessary ingredients, then either inject the EMBRYO back into mom’s uterus, or freeze them for use at a later date- this is called IVF. This is the same thing that happens when an egg is fertilized in mom’s fallopian tube, then implants as an EMBRYO into her uterus (except it would then be IN VIVO).

    Roz: “Unfortunately the media, and for the most part, the Left/Democrats in this country have politicized this issue unnecessarily.”

    Actually it was Bush that sought to control the use of Stem Cells to existing lines, which were found to be insufficient. ”

    I realize that it’s popular to blame the Bush administration for pretty much everything today (heck, maybe we should blame him for the disappearance of the dinosaurs!), but you’re dead wrong on this issue. Bush may have decided not to provide FEDERAL FUNDING for embryonic research, for whatever reason, but it was the Democratic party that campaigned with this slogan, particularly Kerry/Edwards. I suppose that the researchers knew what a political firestorm embryonic stem cells would create, so they proposed federal funding to the left/Democrats, who then paraded celebrity types virtually everywhere they could. Bush just refused to commit federal funds, rightfully so.

    thebob: “Still congratulations to Al Gore, who managed to win in the election, but not in the courts, who went on to gain one of the worlds greatest prizes, with his integrity, determination, and intelligence.”

    I love this. How bitter some people still remain. The system is the way it is for a reason, and Al Gore lost. Of course, thebob would be singing a different tune if the tables were turned in favor of Gore.

  • jdoc

    thebob: “Evolution is supported by a century and a half of scientific experimentation. The holes you talk about have been constantly reduced and the theory stands as one of the most challenged ideas in history. It only takes one experiment to disprove a theory, this has never been done, even though it has been attempted often.”

    Like Archaeopteryx? We still have no reliable link between prehistory and today. That’s just one of many examples of the holes in the Theory of Evolution.

    “No experiment has ever been found to support the idea of creationisim.”

    Don’t need one. It’s in the Bible.

    “I suggest you read the Bible, or at least have someone interpret it for you before you insult the very fabric of the majority of our great nation, AND of our forefathers. That’s a close minded position, just like your assumptions that chiropractics and accupuncture have no role in medicine or science. Again, pure, thoughtless ignorance. “

    “I am extremly conversant with the Bible, Koran and Vedic. I can quote chapter and verse and have studied themall in great depth.

    Interesting that you consider that the Bible needs interpretation. It is supposed to be the word of God and infallable, so interpretation is only needed to clean up the glaring inconsistances.”

    I find it hard to believe that you are a self-proclaimed expert in the above readings- I’d love to challenge you on them, but it’s beyond the scope of this forum. I’m sure I’d pick you to pieces though. There’s a difference between proper interpretation and rubbish. I don’t know how many people today are fluent in ancient Hebrew- maybe you are?

    “The whole concept of “Heaven” is aborrant. This great book promises an eternity of perfection to the believer. I would spend every day, stricken by the thought that people were being tormented in Hell. It appears that the great reward awaiting in heaven strips people of their consience, or how else could they survive in such terible circumstances. It is barbaric, morally wanting and plainly fiction.”

    Don’t quite know what your getting at here. My duty as a Christian is to love God and my family, and to show people the way. I’m completely tolerant of other religions, I just believe that mine is the only way. My job is not to tell people that they will go to Hell if they don’t believe; it’s only to show them the true way to salvation in Heaven. Again, you need to read the Bible (again I presume).

    jdoc also wrote
    “That’s a close minded position, just like your assumptions that chiropractics and accupuncture have no role in medicine or science. Again, pure, thoughtless ignorance. “

    “I dissagre that my mind is closed, I am open to any “evidence”. I am incredulous of religion and alternative medicine because there is “No” evidence to support it. Yes I will repeat that “No evidence whatsoever”.”

    Wrong again (very wrong indeed). Plenty of evidence that alternative remedies work, and work well. We use a variety of therapies for our patients- everywhere from herbal hormonal remedies to chiropractic services. There are many studies backing these remedies. You need to research a bit more before posting such close-minded nonsense.

    “Why are Chiropractic, Accupuncture, Homeopathy ect, “Alternative medicine? Because there is no evidence to support their efficacy. Once “Alternative medicines” pass the test of experimentation they become simply medicine. So we can define these alternative techniques as “Lacking demonstratable effect, apart from placeblo.””

    Wrong again. They’re ‘alternative’ because the medical field as we know it has not provided the studies to back them. That certainly does not mean that the studies haven’t been done.

    jdoc also wrote
    “BTW, Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic. By your logic, or lack thereof, if you are going to insult my religion based on the lack of a superior God, then you have the burden of proof- to prove that my God doesn’t exist. “

    “Not sure why you are pointing out dogmatic differences between Christian cults. But then you attack my logic, and suggest that I have the burden of proving a universal negative.”

    Universal negative? Care to give your proof of that? The very wording that you chose (Christian Cult) proves your secular viewpoints, and close-mindedness once again.

    “Now if that is so, to support you position you need to prove the non existance of Allah, Budda, The Flying Spagetti monster ect. After all you profess there is only one God.”

    No I don’t. I only need belief in my God. I’m not attacking those beliefs. I’m tolerant, like I’ve mentioned before.

    jdoc also wrote
    “Meanwhile, I’ll live my Christian life in my free country.”

    “Unfortunately, you “Christian life” is denying scientific rigor, and so preventing actions that are protecting “Our” planet.”

    Right. And your proof of that is where?

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said”
    “Oh! Deciding NOT to fund research is provocative?”
    It was the one area of research ruled out to please the religious right.”

    When is it provocative when the government does NOTHING?

    ““I am not Anti-American in any way.”

    You want America to lose the war against the terrorists. That means that tens to
    thousands of Americans will die. That’s a good start on anti-Americanism.”

    “I don’t and I have said nothing of the sort. ”

    I call them as I see them. Tell me how you want to win this war, Roz. OH! I forgot. You want to use half hearted measures while crippling our military and intelligence agencies. Swell.

    ““Do you understand what a “Cease Fire” is?”

    Of course I do. But you overplayed the contents of that Resolution. it does not say anything about invading Iraq – as you said it did:”

    You don’t understand. The UN is highly bureaucratic and legalistic. UN Resolution 687 set up a Cease Fire in the war approved by UN Resolution 678. Hence, all it needed to say was what conditions Saddam had to follow through with to keep the Cease Fire operating. When Saddam broke his word in 687 then UN Resolution 678 took control again. What does it say?

    The security council…

    Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

    1. Demands that Iraq comply with resolution 660 and all subsequent resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwill, to do so;

    2. Authorizes Member States cooperating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 14 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in Paragraph 1 above, the above mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.

    So, what does it mean? The phrase “all means necessary” is bureaucratize for war. Resolution 678 authorizes the coalition to do what is necessary to restore peace. Does this give the coalition the power to depose Saddam? Yes, if there is no other way to bring peace to the region.

    The Cease Fire in 687 was designed to give Saddam’s regime a chance to rid itself of its WMD and it’s missile capability.

    As you said, Saddam did not comply with the term of resolution 687, so the Member States could, once again, do what was necessary to restore the peace and security of the region. But, having once been fooled by Saddam, they were not likely to use half measures. That is why President Clinton in 1998 sought permission from Congress to go to war with Iraq to depose Saddam. But, there was no political will to do so and Congress did not appropriate funds.

    ““We needed elections and a Parliament. None of that was possible earlier. Sheer numbers do not matter; military effectiveness is.”

    Maybe so, but you said its was idiotic to think that more troops would have helped, to me that is wrong. ”
    We have experts in the military to help us with these matters. Is it idiotic to think that throwing unprepared troops into the area will do more than get people killed? Yes. We have to have a plan. It has to be a good one.

    The generals in the field chose the troop levels. Why you do think that YOU have more expertise?

    “You want to attack the person who makes any real criticism.”

    I don’t mind criticism. But, you need to make sense. You need to lay out a good case with sound logic. You haven’t done any of that. All you do is deliver snide propaganda.

    “““we might be out of there by now.”
    Not with you on the terrorist’s side.””

    Again with the baseless personal attacks.”

    I’ve found that when you are absurd that this nonsense gets to you, so I use it to shake you up. Its a joke, man.

    I offered long ago to refrain from insults if you did. You turned me down. All bets are off now.

    How many times have I been insulted in this thread. I don’t know. Insults roll off my back if they are clearly false. If there a grain of truth to an accusation, I’ll look at it and change my ways if necessary.

    Do I think you are directly on the side of the terrorists? No. But will you do anything that will indirectly aid the terrorists? Yes. Will you hinder for ideological reasons the prosecution of the war even if that gets American killed? Yes.

    You are no friend of America in this war. One day, you will be forced to choose sides. I hope you decide to be with America, but I’d make no bets on it.

    “Get a clue, not everyone who is critical of the handling of the war is a Leftist, a Socialist or a terrorist. ”

    No, there are honest people who oppose this war. I respect them. But, they use reason instead of propaganda. They can be reasoned with. You can get an honest answer out of them instead an endless series of mindless accusations like the Far Left spouts. They don’t change the subject when they are losing. That is called “Intellectual Honesty.” You don’t have any.

    “You’d apparently would like to it be black and white like that but its simply not the case.”

    It’s your tactics that I find offensive; they are so mindless.

    “As a taxpayer I am paying for this war and I have every right to examine how it is run.”

    True. Every war needs a loyal opposition to keep the party prosecuting the war honest and accountable. I just wish we had a loyal opposition in America.

    ““Generally I think the military logic says that overwhelming force has an advantage. ”
    What is overwhelming force to you? 500 thousand troops? …
    The point I was making was that more boots on the ground meant more chances for the enemy to hit them. The General’s decided that a smaller force over a longer time was the right mix. Do you have the necessary expertise to dispute their conclusions? I doubt it.”

    We both know I am sure that the initial recommendation was for a presence at that level but it was shot down and the general who made it was fired. Clearly, if I don’t have the expertise, some with that expertise did not think it was idiotic.”

    When you have as big a military as we do, you will have disagreements among the Generals. Before, it had been part of the military code for a retired general not to criticize the the high command, so it was unusual.

    This was a political issue, too, for the dissenting generals. Rumsfeld was retiring and marginalizing the “old Cold War” officer corp and was installing a new force structure that was modeled on the Special Forces. The retired generals hated him for that. Some of that hatred and resentment passed over onto the plans to fight the War on Terror and the war in Iraq. Those generals are discredited now.

    ““And how many ex-Ba’athist and al Qaeda agents did you want in that Army? We had quite a few as it was.”
    At the initial stages there were not many al Qaeda in the country so I don’t know what you are taking about. ”

    You have got to be kidding There were at least ten thousand al Qaeda affiliated members in Iraq during the incursion.

    After Afghanistan, they no longer had the Taliban to protect them, so they scattered to the winds: to Iran, Syria, lebanon and mostly Iraq where they were trained by Saddam to be his Fedayeen– his guerilla force.

    “And many Iraqi were Ba’athist, we have had to work with them anyway. ”

    That is true. A minor official like a school principle had to be a Ba’athist Party member. But, almost all of the officers in Saddam’s Army were not passive Ba’athist members. Some of them that we allowed in the military started using the IDF to oppose the Iraqi Government and us. So, they had to be shot.

    “I don’t see anything in 687 about Ba’athists.”

    The Ba’athist were Saddam’s political party. They were the equivalent of the Communist party in Russia. Resolution 687 did not mention them, because there was no intent, then, to depose Saddam. If Saddam had kept his treaties there would be no need to.

    “““Show me the comment that I have made that is at all Socialist or leftist for that matter? ”

    No one who wants national health care is anything but a leftist. No One who slavishly repeats MediaMatters talking Points is either.””

    Did I argue for National Health Care, no! I said it was an important issue that needs Federal attention. It is and it does.”

    I disagree, but it is irreverent. You spout the MediaMatters party line. That is enough proof.

    “Did I ever say I support Hillary? No.

    No. I said that you probably didn’t support her because she was too far to the right. LOL

    “So to be clear, you agree that nothing I have said is leftist of socialist or anti american, since you have nothing to point to – great then shut up that talk.”

    When have you said anything that wasn’t straight out of far left organizations like MediaMatters?

    “And I totally get why you want to call me an ignoramus, its because you are, for reasons of your own choosing, in the awkward position of having to defending the policies of one.”

    Didn’t anyone tell you that personal attacks are proof of nothing, except that you were desperate? I am not defending George Bush. It’s just that the positions of the Democrats are insane. I have no choice.

  • thebob

    rdoc wrote
    ““No experiment has ever been found to support the idea of creationism.”
    Don’t need one. It’s in the Bible.”

    Duh! Argument from divine authority.

    rdoc also wrote
    ““I suggest you read the Bible, or at least have someone interpret it for you before you insult the very fabric of the majority of our great nation, AND of our forefathers. That’s a close minded position, just like your assumptions that chiropractics and accupuncture have no role in medicine or science. Again, pure, thoughtless ignorance. “
    “I am extremely conversant with the Bible, Koran and Vedic. I can quote chapter and verse and have studied them all in great depth.
    Interesting that you consider that the Bible needs interpretation. It is supposed to be the word of God and infallible, so interpretation is only needed to clean up the glaring inconsistencies.”

    I find it hard to believe that you are a self-proclaimed expert in the above readings- I’d love to challenge you on them, but it’s beyond the scope of this forum. I’m sure I’d pick you to pieces though. There’s a difference between proper interpretation and rubbish. I don’t know how many people today are fluent in ancient Hebrew- maybe you are?”

    Duh! Argument form personal incredulity, don’t care in your unsupported beliefs of what I know or don’t know.

    rdoc also wrote
    “”The whole concept of “Heaven” is aborrant. This great book promises an eternity of perfection to the believer. I would spend every day, stricken by the thought that people were being tormented in Hell. It appears that the great reward awaiting in heaven strips people of their conscience, or how else could they survive in such terrible circumstances. It is barbaric, morally wanting and plainly fiction.”

    Don’t quite know what your getting at here. My duty as a Christian is to love God and my family, and to show people the way. I’m completely tolerant of other religions, I just believe that mine is the only way.”

    Duh! Tautology. You believe in your monotheistic God. And you are totally tolerant of other religions except for the existence of their Gods.

    rdoc also wrote

    “My job is not to tell people that they will go to Hell if they don’t believe; it’s only to show them the true way to salvation in Heaven. Again, you need to read the Bible (again I presume).”

    Duh! Argument based on delegation of responsibility.

    “Your honour, I was only following orders in that concentration camp.”
    You truly believe in the concept of a “Heaven”, but refuse to consider any moral problems that could be connected with such a state?

    rdoc also wrote

    ““That’s a close minded position, just like your assumptions that chiropractics and accupuncture have no role in medicine or science. Again, pure, thoughtless ignorance. “
    “I disagree that my mind is closed, I am open to any “evidence”. I am incredulous of religion and alternative medicine because there is “No” evidence to support it. Yes I will repeat that “No evidence whatsoever”.”

    Wrong again (very wrong indeed). Plenty of evidence that alternative remedies work, and work well. We use a variety of therapies for our patients- everywhere from herbal hormonal remedies to chiropractic services. There are many studies backing these remedies. You need to research a bit more before posting such close-minded nonsense.”

    Well you seem to have a vested interest. But I challenge you to show one peer reviewed paper supporting the tenants of either Chiropractic, Accupuncture or Homeopathy.

    Chiropractic? Google for the philosophy behind this. Daniel David Palmer was a total charlatan

    Accupuncture? Double blind tests have been carried out for ever and the result never has it come above statistical chance.

    Homeopathy? Oh yeah I’m gonna get cured by a 30c mixture. I could drink the whole solar system and not consume a single molecule of active ingredient.

    Granted there are plenty of snake oil tests, but this is all just nonsense.

    rdoc also wrote

    ““Why are Chiropractic, Accupuncture, Homeopathy ect, “Alternative medicine? Because there is no evidence to support their efficacy. Once “Alternative medicines” pass the test of experimentation they become simply medicine. So we can define these alternative techniques as “Lacking demonstrable effect, apart from placebo.””

    Wrong again. They’re ‘alternative’ because the medical field as we know it has not provided the studies to back them. That certainly does not mean that the studies haven’t been done.”

    Duhh! So these tests have been done but strangely, practitioners in these fields never cite them when they are challenged? These guys would be shouting these results from the rooftops. Where are they kept? In a dark basement in a room with a sign saying “Beware of the leopard”?

    jdoc also wrote
    ““BTW, Catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are Catholic. By your logic, or lack thereof, if you are going to insult my religion based on the lack of a superior God, then you have the burden of proof- to prove that my God doesn’t exist. “
    “Not sure why you are pointing out dogmatic differences between Christian cults. But then you attack my logic, and suggest that I have the burden of proving a universal negative.”

    Universal negative? Care to give your proof of that? The very wording that you chose (Christian Cult) proves your secular viewpoints, and close-mindedness once again.”

    You asked me to prove something doesn’t exist. A universal negative.

    Cult = cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices

    rdoc also wrote

    ““Now if that is so, to support you position you need to prove the non existence of Allah, Budda, The Flying Spagetti monster ect. After all you profess there is only one God.”

    No I don’t. I only need belief in my God. I’m not attacking those beliefs. I’m tolerant, like I’ve mentioned before.”

    See above.

    Your belief doesn’t appear to be as strong as logic. Obviously your whole argument just boils down to “because I believe it” it must be true.

    rdoc also wrote

    ““Meanwhile, I’ll live my Christian life in my free country.”
    “Unfortunately, you “Christian life” is denying scientific rigor, and so preventing actions that are protecting “Our” planet.”
    Right. And your proof of that is where?”

    Deeply imbedded in the physical laws that govern the universe, and open to anyone to research and to attempt to discover their intricacies.

  • roz

    “When is it provocative when the government does NOTHING?”

    Well from what I understand, most University labs get some Federal funding of some kind. So outlawing the use of Federal funding means that Universities or other entities that receive funding can’t do stem cell research as they would like to, or they jeopardize that funding. So we have all these facilities with scientist all ready in the US yet none can do the research, new sources of funding have to be raised, and in some cases new buildings constructed to house that research. Maybe its not an issue for you, but someone in my family has Parkinson’s, this is one of the identified illnesses that it thought to have potential to be helped by stem cell research. So I’d really like to see this research proceed, I am not interested in BS political fights that delays research. And from what I can tell there is really nothing to this. We are already manipulating these embryos for use with IVF, no one cared. Its just a political chip to hand to the religious right, so that the Republicans can have something to point to for that constituency.

    I really have no interest in Media Matters. In fact, to be honest, a funny coincidence, I had never even heard of them! I guess you’d need to listen to Rush Limbaugh to hear about this stuff. But then today I saw this clip on YouTube, with Ann Coulter talking about how jews should not exist and she need to be perfected by being Christians, you know the disgusting rhetoric that comes from the conservatives that we all have to put up with, anyway, it ends, apparently the clip was provided by Media Matters! Funny eh? Guess you think they are nut cases for sharing that clip or something?

    “”You want America to lose the war against the terrorists. That means that tens to thousands of Americans will die. That’s a good start on anti-Americanism.””

    Again, I have never said anything of the sort. I want us to run the war against al Qaeda well and not be distracted and not have it be shunted into a completely other mission.

    And now that we are in Iraq I want the strategy to make sense.

    “True. Every war needs a loyal opposition to keep the party prosecuting the war honest and accountable. I just wish we had a loyal opposition in America.”

    So tired of crap like this coming from you and the right. Unless you want specifically say how I am disloyal??? But clearly you can’t point to any item where I have said anything to the detriment of the US, because I haven’t, so again drop this empty rhetoric.

    “Those generals are discredited now.”

    By whom? Rush Limbaugh? Do you have a source for a military person saying this? Clearly the invasion and toppling of the government went extremely fast, the issue is did we have the force level to deal with occupation. Do you have a source that says Shinseki’s estimate of the occupation forces needed were discredited?

    Here is a quote from Gen Abizaid on this issue:

    “GRAHAM: Was General Shinseki correct when you look backward that we needed more troops to secure the country, General Abizaid?

    ABIZAID: General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution, and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.”

    My point is, we might have done better if we had listened to these generals to a greater extent. We would have secured the country more immediately, we would not have had the mess of Abu Ghraib. We would not be struggling with infrastructure and basic services the way we are. Iraq secured might have been easier to transfer sovereignty to – that is the way I see it. Might have been more cost up front, less to deal with now – we have had to attempt to rebuild the country, its a massive undertaking.

    Brigadier General Mitchell M. Zais, U.S. Army (Retired), Ph.D.. Great read on his assessment of the war strategy:

    “Let me explain how the war is being fought on the cheap.
    From the very beginning, Defense Secretary Donald rumsfeld, who thankfully announced his departure yesterday, has striven to minimize the number of Soldiers and Marines in Iraq. Instead of employing the Colin Powell doctrine of “use massive force at the beginning to achieve a quick and decisive victory,” his goal has been to “use no more troops than absolutely necessary so we can spend defense dollars on new technology.””

    Oh you wanted a quote from Wolfowitz:

    “In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that “stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible,” but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. “I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction,” Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help”
    http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr07/Zais_INSIGHTS.pdf

    Oh and more:

    “Enlisting countries to help to pay for this war and its aftermath would take more time, he said. “I expect we will get a lot of mitigation, but it will be easier after the fact than before the fact,” Mr. Wolfowitz said. Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. “To assume we’re going to pay for it all is just wrong,” he said.

    At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld said the factors influencing cost estimates made even ranges imperfect. Asked whether he would release such ranges to permit a useful public debate on the subject, Mr. Rumsfeld said, “I’ve already decided that. It’s not useful.”” from 2/28/03 http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

    GHWB had the sense to collect his forces and contributions before the war – there was time afterall.

    I really don’t get why entering before the summer of 2003 mattered given that we have been there for years. I mean we were there in the summer of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. What difference did it make to enter before the summer of 2003?

    Oh and about those crazy democrats:

    “The Defense Department has fought the war on the cheap because, despite overwhelming evidence that the Army and Marine Corps need a significant increase in their size in order to accomplish their assigned missions, the civilian officials who run the Pentagon have refused to request authorization from Congress to do so. Two Democratic representatives, Mark Udall of Colorado and Ellen Tauscher of California, have introduced a bill into Congress that would add 80,000 troops to the end strength of the Active Army. Currently, this bill has no support from the Defense Department.”

    Here is a question I am asking sincerely…

    Is the effort to run the war without expanding the military part of a smaller government philosophy? That would be my assumption.

  • jdoc

    Hi thebob: we’ve gone way beyond the scope of this thread, but I will say, you’ve got spunk. But just as you are clearly clueless as to what an embryo is, or what stem cells mean, you have no clue as to what alternative remedies are or how they’re used in modern medicine. I went to med school at Hahnemann University in Phila, Pa (sound familiar?). It’s now a part of the Drexel Univ. network. Samuel Hahnemann was the father of homeopathy, and a respected scientist in his day- yes, I said scientist. We no longer use much of his teachings, which is why I didn’t mention homeopathy above. But the science he performed was extraordinary for his day, considering the means he had available. I bring this up not only to show that I know what I’m talking about, but to give you some insight as to how scientific knowledge and work changes with advancing technology- “Deeply imbedded in the physical laws that govern the universe, and open to anyone to research and to attempt to discover their intricacies.” This quote cracks me up. We know virtuallyu NOTHING about the universe. By the time we really figure anything out, we’ll all be long gone. But in the meantime, we WILL have theories that change and theories that are completely discredited. There is a lot of information that we will never know. Stephen Hawking once said, ‘there are things in the universe that we are incapable of understanding’. He was referring to the fact that our brains are literally too small to comprehend everything that goes on in the universe. So I’d love to know how much you know about the ‘physical laws that govern the universe’- so would the rest of the scientific world, since you seem to have a working knowledge of those that are ‘deeply imbedded’.

    One other point- you call the existence of my God a universal negative. Well, how do you know that? That’s the proof you need to show.

    The rest of your post was pretty meaningless. I suggest you learn what FAITH means, because you are clearly misguided. Every response you came up with in your last post inferred that my religion was based on violence or a cult mentality (cult |kəlt|
    noun
    a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object : the cult of St. Olaf.
    • a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister : a network of Satan-worshiping cults.
    • a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing : a cult of personality surrounding the leaders.). Clearly, cult infers irrational behavior. Like I said before, you probably think that all Islamists are militant, and all Christians are fanatics. Clearly I was right- you are ignorant. Please read the Bible (once again) before you go on the attack with senseless accusations.

    Two links: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/complementaryandalternativemedicine.html, http://www.amerchiro.org/

    Both of these are accredited, and recognized by the medical community. I hope you don’t plan on becoming a doctor one day.

  • roz

    “When is it provocative when the government does NOTHING?”

    Well from what I understand, most University labs get some Federal funding of some kind. So outlawing the use of Federal funding means that Universities or other entities that receive funding can’t do stem cell research as they would like to, or they jeopardize that funding. So we have all these facilities with scientist all ready in the US yet none can do the research, new sources of funding have to be raised, and in some cases new buildings constructed to house that research. Maybe its not an issue for you, but someone in my family has Parkinson’s, this is one of the identified illnesses that it thought to have potential to be helped by stem cell research. So I’d really like to see this research proceed, I am not interested in BS political fights that delays research. And from what I can tell there is really nothing to this. We are already manipulating these embryos for use with IVF, no one cared. Its just a political chip to hand to the religious right, so that the Republicans can have something to point to for that constituency.

  • roz

    I really have no interest in Media Matters. In fact, to be honest, a funny coincidence, I had never even heard of them! I guess you’d need to listen to Rush Limbaugh to hear about this stuff. But then today I saw this clip on YouTube, with Ann Coulter talking about how jews should not exist and she need to be perfected by being Christians, you know the disgusting rhetoric that comes from the conservatives that we all have to put up with, anyway, it ends, apparently the clip was provided by Media Matters! Funny eh? Guess you think they are nut cases for sharing that clip or something?

  • roz

    “”You want America to lose the war against the terrorists. That means that tens to thousands of Americans will die. That’s a good start on anti-Americanism.””

    Again, I have never said anything of the sort. I want us to run the war against al Qaeda well and not be distracted and not have it be shunted into a completely other mission.

    And now that we are in Iraq I want the strategy to make sense.

    “True. Every war needs a loyal opposition to keep the party prosecuting the war honest and accountable. I just wish we had a loyal opposition in America.”

    So tired of talk like this coming from you and the right. Unless you want specifically say how I am disloyal??? But clearly you can’t point to any item where I have said anything to the detriment of the US, because I haven’t, so again drop this empty rhetoric.

    “Those generals are discredited now.”

    By whom? Rush Limbaugh? Do you have a source for a military person saying this? Clearly the invasion and toppling of the government went extremely fast, the issue is did we have the force level to deal with occupation. Do you have a source that says Shinseki’s estimate of the occupation forces needed were discredited?

    Here is a quote from Gen Abizaid on this issue:

    “GRAHAM: Was General Shinseki correct when you look backward that we needed more troops to secure the country, General Abizaid?

    ABIZAID: General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution, and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.”

    My point is, we might have done better if we had listened to these generals to a greater extent. We would have secured the country more immediately, we would not have had the mess of Abu Ghraib. We would not be struggling with infrastructure and basic services the way we are. Iraq secured might have been easier to transfer sovereignty to – that is the way I see it. Might have been more cost up front, less to deal with now – we have had to attempt to rebuild the country, its a massive undertaking.

    Brigadier General Mitchell M. Zais, U.S. Army (Retired), Ph.D.. Great read on his assessment of the war strategy:

    “Let me explain how the war is being fought on the cheap.
    From the very beginning, Defense Secretary Donald rumsfeld, who thankfully announced his departure yesterday, has striven to minimize the number of Soldiers and Marines in Iraq. Instead of employing the Colin Powell doctrine of “use massive force at the beginning to achieve a quick and decisive victory,” his goal has been to “use no more troops than absolutely necessary so we can spend defense dollars on new technology.””
    http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr07/Zais_INSIGHTS.pdf

    Oh you wanted a quote from Wolfowitz:

    “In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. He said Iraqi civilians would welcome an American-led liberation force that “stayed as long as necessary but left as soon as possible,” but would oppose a long-term occupation force. And he said that nations that oppose war with Iraq would likely sign up to help rebuild it. “I would expect that even countries like France will have a strong interest in assisting Iraq in reconstruction,” Mr. Wolfowitz said. He added that many Iraqi expatriates would likely return home to help”

    Oh and more:

    “Enlisting countries to help to pay for this war and its aftermath would take more time, he said. “I expect we will get a lot of mitigation, but it will be easier after the fact than before the fact,” Mr. Wolfowitz said. Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. “To assume we’re going to pay for it all is just wrong,” he said.

    At the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld said the factors influencing cost estimates made even ranges imperfect. Asked whether he would release such ranges to permit a useful public debate on the subject, Mr. Rumsfeld said, “I’ve already decided that. It’s not useful.”” from 2/28/03 http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

    $95 B too high! France will pay for the war.

    I really don’t get why entering before the summer of 2003 mattered given that we have been there for years. I mean we were there in the summer of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. What difference did it make to enter before the summer of 2003?

    Oh and about those crazy democrats:

    “The Defense Department has fought the war on the cheap because, despite overwhelming evidence that the Army and Marine Corps need a significant increase in their size in order to accomplish their assigned missions, the civilian officials who run the Pentagon have refused to request authorization from Congress to do so. Two Democratic representatives, Mark Udall of Colorado and Ellen Tauscher of California, have introduced a bill into Congress that would add 80,000 troops to the end strength of the Active Army. Currently, this bill has no support from the Defense Department.”

    Here is a question I am asking sincerely…

    Is the effort to run the war without expanding the military part of a smaller government philosophy?

  • roz

    for some reason one comment of mine is “awaiting moderation” no idea why, but it may appear twice.

  • UrbanBard

    The Bob said:
    “My belief is that science is a system in which you first postulate a hypothesis. … ‘Any’ time an experiment disagrees with a hypothesis, it needs to be modified or discarded.”

    True, so far.

    “Unfortunately UrbanBard appears to use a completely different, and to me unfathomable logic.”

    I simply have more knowledge than you; I have studied more intellectual areas. Somethings, which are real, are not “falsifiable.”

    Often, people will adopt positions that are specious, that is, they sound reasonable, but are false. This is true of most the positions of the Democratic Party.

    Many questions are beyond the purview of science, because they are Metaphysical, Philosophical or Religious positions. Science can impact on them, but they are higher questions than science, since science deals merely with the material world.

    “It is easy to cherry pick data to conform to a belief, but this is pseudo-science. Unfortunately many people can’t or wont distinguish between them.”

    True. Look in a mirror. We all accept things on faith; expecially our dealings with our fellows. Can faith be grounded in reality, even though there is no conclusive proof? Yes.

    “Still I don’t consider my time wasted. At the very least the time spent by UrbanBard responding to my mails, may reduce the deluge of mail he sends everyday to Daniel. ”

    I don’t bother Daniel, at all. We haven’t exchanged emails since July 24, 2007 and that was just two emails.

    On his latest series of pictures of “What we expected; what we got”, I merely congratulated him for a job well done. As I have said, I bear him no ill will. The only thing that we disagree upon is that his politics make no sense.

    “Hopefully this will enable Daniel to write more of his excellent articles.”

    He’s good with concrete things– computers and such. His politics stink.

    “It’s a pity that this thread has been hijacked.”

    No. I merely stated an opinion that very little would have changed with a Gore Presidency. And you people descended upon me. Ever since, I have been correcting lies and distortions.

    You people are delusive. That comes from swallowing whole the spin of the Mainstream Media. You people have no ability to think. Neither does Daniel. He would rather not be bothered with reality.

    “I would have preferred, more comment on the great achievements of Al Gore, or even Jar-Jar Binks!”

    Save us from the idolatry, please.

    “Unfortunately, it degenerated into political/religious mud slinging, with very little intellectual content.”

    The only people making intellectual arguments on this web site are jdoc and me. You simply disagree with our positions.

  • thebob

    jdoc wrote
    “But just as you are clearly clueless as to what an embryo is, or what stem cells mean, you have no clue as to what alternative remedies are or how they’re used in modern medicine.”

    The doctor who claimed that “embryonic stem cells” are multipotent decides an ad hominem attack after his mistake is pointed out. They are pluripotent doc.

    Samuel Hahnemanns work in chemistry ie a test for arsenic was and still is good science. His premise “that which can produce a set of symptoms in a healthy individual, can treat a sick individual who is manifesting a similar set of symptoms.” the basis of Homeopathy, is pure quackery.

    In response to my challenge for evidence for alternative medicine you give 2 links, the first

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/complementaryandalternativemedicine.html

    Point to a page saying

    “Complementary and Alternative Medicine

    Also called: CAM
    Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is the term for medical products and practices that are not part of standard care. Standard care is what medical doctors, doctors of osteopathy and allied health professionals, such as registered nurses and physical therapists, practice. Alternative medicine means treatments that you use instead of standard ones. Complementary medicine means nonstandard treatments that you use along with standard ones. Examples of CAM therapies are acupuncture, chiropractic and herbal medicines.

    The claims that CAM treatment providers make about their benefits can sound promising. However, researchers do not know how safe many CAM treatments are or how well they work. Studies are underway to determine the safety and usefulness of many CAM practices.”

    So as I asserted no proof of efficacy.

    Your second link is the home page of the American Chiropractic Association, where I can only find people trying to claim other peoples studies apply to them.

    You claimed “Both of these are accredited, and recognized by the medical community.”

    “””””””speechless””””””””

    I rest my case no evidence from you, or any other source we can find.

    If I my defend my statement, in response to your question, “And the proof is where ?”

    I said it is,

    “Deeply imbedded in the physical laws that govern the universe, and open to anyone to research and to attempt to discover their intricacies.”.

    I suppose you would point to some assembled group of last stone age writing, that you infer has divine authority?

    I can’t find reference to your S.Hawking quote, but I suspect it was in connection to the speed of information. It is because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Although information transmitted by quantum entanglement appears to break this assumption.

    jdoc wrote
    “One other point- you call the existence of my God a universal negative. Well, how do you know that? That’s the proof you need to show.”

    You claimed I had the burden of proof, to prove your God didn’t exist. So you have asked me to prove a “Universal Negative”.

    I can’t prove Bertrand Russell’s teapot doesn’t exist either.

    I stand by my use of the word cult, you defined it quite well.

    Faith
    religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny

    jdoc wrote
    “Clearly I was right- you are ignorant. Please read the Bible (once again) before you go on the attack with senseless accusations.

    I hope you don’t plan on becoming a doctor one day.”

    I say sticks and stones will break my bones, but if you want to attack my logic you will have to do far better than that doc.

    I would like to point out that in my posts I have not attacked you. I have stated my opinions, and pointed out the things we disagree on.

    You have accused me of labeling, ignorance and being misguided among other things. Is that Christian?

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said”
    ““When is it provocative when the government does NOTHING?”

    Well from what I understand, most University labs get some Federal funding of some kind. So outlawing the use of Federal funding means that Universities or other entities that receive funding can’t do stem cell research as they would like to, or they jeopardize that funding. ”

    You exaggerate. The Universities can set up a firewall where only Private and State money are spent on anything but the currently approved lines of stem cells. They can create non-profit corporations and rent facilities across the street from the University.

    “Maybe its not an issue for you, but someone in my family has Parkinson’s, this is one of the identified illnesses that it thought to have potential to be helped by stem cell research.”

    I am not oppose to stem cell research. Any likely cure will be from Adult or Placental stem cells which can be Federally funded. Embryonic stem cell are too dangerous to be used now and will be for decades.

    Also, You are using the Socialist technique of ‘personalizing the issue.’ An emotional response such as this is Anti-intellectual.

    “We are already manipulating these embryos for use with IVF, no one cared. ”

    The government can choose what to spend our taxes on. The President has chosen that it will not be on ESC Research. There is no requirement that any Federal money be spent on this. This is a political decision and the majority of Americans agree with the President. You Leftists lost the argument.

    “I really have no interest in Media Matters. In fact, to be honest, a funny coincidence, I had never even heard of them! ”

    You don’t have to read them since the the people who fund mediamatters control the Democratic Party– George Soros and his ilk. You have read MediaMatters now. What, if anything, do you disagree with?

    “I guess you’d need to listen to Rush Limbaugh to hear about this stuff. ”

    Nope. I don’t care for Rush. It’s not his politics, but his style.

    “But then today I saw this clip on YouTube, with Ann Coulter talking about how jews should not exist and she need to be perfected by being Christians,”

    I don’t agree with Ann Coulter either. She serves a useful purpose: she keeps you Leftists foaming at the mouth. That makes you look rabid. Unable to persuade anyone of anything.

    ““”You want America to lose the war against the terrorists. … That’s a good start on anti-Americanism.””

    Again, I have never said anything of the sort. ”

    Of course not, You are an attack dog. You never betray anything about yourself. You never reveal what you believe in. Then you hide behind that.

    “I want us to run the war against al Qaeda well and not be distracted and not have it be shunted into a completely other mission. And now that we are in Iraq I want the strategy to make sense.”

    It does make sense. You are too ignorant and bigoted to perceive it.

    ““True. Every war needs a loyal opposition to keep the party prosecuting the war honest and accountable. I just wish we had a loyal opposition in America.”

    So tired of crap like this coming from you and the right. Unless you want specifically say how I am disloyal??? ”

    Make a statement of belief regarding what steps you would take to win this war, please. Do not frame it in an attack on the Republicans or the Bush administration. Try to make a case where what you want will get us better results. In short, say something intelligent.

    ““Those generals are discredited now.”

    By whom? Rush Limbaugh? Do you have a source for a military person saying this? ”

    What discredits them is no person, but events. They made rash statements that turned out to be untrue.

    Look at all the arm-chair generals who stated before the iraqi incursion that 2 million refugees would flee Iraq. Didn’t happen.

    Or that hundreds of thousand of Iraqi would die. Didn’t happen.

    Or that the Mid east would be destabilized. Didn’t happen.

    I’m talking about how these people made statement that made them look like fools. Some of these people are just not SEEN as fools yet.

    “Clearly the invasion and toppling of the government went extremely fast, the issue is did we have the force level to deal with occupation. ”

    We muddled through. Was this occupation worse than the historical average? No. Much less.

    You can always nitpick by expecting perfection. You can always say that some general was right when so many of them disagreed with each other. I expected mistakes in war. It’s SNAFU and FUBAR in war.

    I expected that there are other considerations, political backstabbing, that the administration had to be concerned about. Many influential people in the CIA and the State Department fought and sabotaged this war from the beginning. Its the REMF who waste the soldier’s lives.

    Are our troops in Iraq discontented? No. They are a better judge of conditions than those generals. They are closer to the action.

    ““GRAHAM: Was General Shinseki correct when you look backward that we needed more troops to secure the country, General Abizaid?

    ABIZAID: General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution, and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.”

    My point is, we might have done better if we had listened to these generals to a greater extent. ”

    You can always second guess. Hind-sight is perfect. It seems that Abizaid was complaining about, as much as anything, how little cooperation we got from Europe.

    Again, I am not saying that perfection was possible. I read history and sometimes wonder why the generals made the decisions they did. Often, they had little choice. Often, their allies screwed up events. Often, there was politics that forced a particular action. We have to deal with reality, Roz.

    We cannot expect war to work like clockwork. There will always be second guessing later. But, Abizaid did the best he could with what he had. What is silly is that you think that an alternative was possible. Most of war is muddling through; perfection is not an alternative.

    You must do more than expressing vain wishes; you must prove that an alternative was possible and the administration chose unwisely for impure motives. The proof needs to stand up in court. It can’t just be a talking point. People stop listening to you when you cry wolf, too often.

    ” we would not have had the mess of Abu Ghraib. ”

    Abu Ghraib is a settled matter; there can be no second guessing. We have had court cases; we have had all the evidence laid out. Soldiers have been sent to jail for their crimes.

    At no time, did the soldiers have the excuse that a superior officer order them to do this. That is why they went to jail, not the officer.

    Was there negligence? Yes. Is there negligence in every prison in every country? Yes. Does this, at times, lead to prisoner abuse? Yes.

    This was no official action. This was bored soldiers playing games on night shift. It was stupid. Just as stupid as the Mainstream Media who tried to use this to get Rumsfeld fired.

    “We would not be struggling with infrastructure and basic services the way we are.”

    We are getting a handle on that. The Terrorists are not blowing the infrastructure any more, they are running for their lives. The US Military did not CAUSE the lack of basic services, the sanctions did. Saddam stole the money from the “Food For Oil” Program which was meant for the Iraqi people.

    Did the administration make mistakes? Of course. Were they honest mistakes because the unforeseen happened? Yes. Did al Qaeda play into the mistakes? Yes.

    I do not believe that the administration knew that al Qaeda intended to make Iraq their battle ground. Was the administration disappointed when it became apparent? No. Al Qaeda was being stupid for fighting in Iraq; we had an army there. Al Qaeda had been a terrorist organization and they wanted to be an army? How absurd.

    Most of the mistakes that you speak of is the result of al Qaeda being stupid. Unfortunately, the Press is stupid too. Iraq is the best thing that happened to the Global War on Terror. It sucked in our enemies where we could kill them.

    “Here is a question I am asking sincerely…

    Is the effort to run the war without expanding the military part of a smaller government philosophy? That would be my assumption.”

    That is a complicated question that depends on your ignorance to even ask it.

    How much time is needed to increase the size of the military by the amount necessary to win a war? It takes five years to build an effective Battalion from ground up. In peace time, it is easier because you can split a battalion and fill half the spaces with experienced soldiers. In wartime, you do not have that option, because your experienced soldiers are in the field, training or on leave.

    Then there is the political problem of getting Congress to appropriate the funds necessary. And you must consider that the Military is in the process of restructuring to meet the new duties required after the “Cold War” ended. These are processes that can take decades.

    But, you weren’t asking that question, were you? Is English as second language for you? You are not a clear thinker. You muddled the question by trying to ask too much. Let me rephrase it.

    How do you, as a proponent of a smaller government, justify scrimping on the military during a time of war?

    I don’t. Survival of the country comes first. As the US Supreme Court Justice Blackburn put it, ” The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.” I am a Conservative, not a Libertarian. I do not get all caught up in individual rights. There are times, albeit rare, when the needs of the group supersede the rights of the individual.

    What you forget is that the part of the government that I want to shrink is not the military; that is necessitated by the Constitution. I want the military to be able to respond to realistic security needs.

    What I want to end are the “so called” entitlements when are at no place in the Constitution. They are a usurpation of the rights and power of the people.

  • jdoc

    thebob: Please read my posts a bit more carefully.

    my quote: Pluripotent and multipotent are the same thing, as used in this sense.

    IN THIS SENSE. The stage at which embryonic stem cells would be readily modifiable and useful is in the MULTIPOTENT stage. This is why I also said that embryonic stem cells provide no clear advantage over adult stem cells, which, FOR THE MOST PART, are multipotent. I didn’t think you would understand the molecular biology, so I didn’t feel the need to explain.

    Please research modern medicine again, and please re-read my posts. You pretty much made my points on alternative remedies and Homeopathy. I’ll summarize though: Homeopathy is not practiced today, to any great extent, because the science of Hahnemann’s time has, for the most part, been replaced by better technique, technology, and outcomes. Alternative medicine is not studied my mainstream medicine in this country. That doesn’t mean that it has not been studied. We use remedies every day in modern medicine. It involves patient needs, choices and outcomes. Please research on your own.

    Cult: I guess you don’t see the word ‘cult’ as even slightly insulting. Well, how about a tangible example. Mac users have been called cultists for years by the PC community. Clearly, we’ve responded in such a manner as to explain to them, because we were offended, that while there are fanatical Mac users, we’re certainly not all like that.

    Ignorant: ignorant |ˈignərənt|
    adjective
    lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated : he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid.
    • [ predic. ] lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular : they were ignorant of astronomy.
    • informal discourteous or rude : this ignorant, pin-brained receptionist.
    • black English easily angered : I is an ignorant man—even police don’t meddle with me.

    misguided: misguided |misˈgīdid|
    adjective
    having or showing faulty judgment or reasoning : misguided attempts to promote political correctness.

    It’s Christian to tell the truth. I’ve called you no names. Sorry your feelings were hurt.

    It’s very clear to me that I’m completely wasting my time trying to convince you to at least reconsider your opinions on faith, Christianity, and religion. That’s a closed mind to me, especially since you seem so blatantly misguided about the subject.

  • thebob

    UrbanBard said
    “I simply have more knowledge than you; I have studied more intellectual areas. Somethings, which are real, are not “falsifiable.”
    Often, people will adopt positions that are specious, that is, they sound reasonable, but are false. This is true of most the positions of the Democratic Party.”

    You have more knowledge than me?

    Somethings, which are real, are not “falsifiable.”

    Everything that is real, is not falsifiable. Duh, Because they are real.

    UrbanBard said
    “Many questions are beyond the purview of science, because they are Metaphysical, Philosophical or Religious positions. Science can impact on them, but they are higher questions than science, since science deals merely with the material world.”

    Arggh nice move, you attempt to place concepts you adhere to, outside the sphere of science to defend them from analysis.

    UrbanBard said
    ““It is easy to cherry pick data to conform to a belief, but this is pseudo-science. Unfortunately many people can’t or wont distinguish between them.”
    True. Look in a mirror. We all accept things on faith; especially our dealings with our fellows. Can faith be grounded in reality, even though there is no conclusive proof? Yes.”

    Are you attempting to infer that because faith is some times right, then it is always right? You agreed that reason should be hypothesis driven, but now you suggest there is a place for faith based reasoning? You also answered your own rhetorical question, to which I would have answered. No.

    UrbanBard wrote
    “Still I don’t consider my time wasted. At the very least the time spent by UrbanBard responding to my mails, may reduce the deluge of mail he sends everyday to Daniel. ”
    I don’t bother Daniel, at all. We haven’t exchanged emails since July 24, 2007 and that was just two emails.
    On his latest series of pictures of “What we expected; what we got”, I merely congratulated him for a job well done. As I have said, I bear him no ill will. The only thing that we disagree upon is that his politics make no sense.
    “Hopefully this will enable Daniel to write more of his excellent articles.”
    He’s good with concrete things– computers and such. His politics stink.

    I don’t care about his politics, in fact I have seen no evidence of them in his postings. I’m often interested in the inferences you make.

    Urban Bard wrote
    “Unfortunately, it degenerated into political/religious mud slinging, with very little intellectual content.”
    The only people making intellectual arguments on this web site are jdoc and me. You simply disagree with our positions.

    You appear to be a political animal, jdoc appears to be a religious one. If you feel so strongly about your political beliefs, why don’t you stand for office?

  • thebob

    jdoc wrote
    “thebob: Please read my posts a bit more carefully.”

    Unnecessary, what you assert is obvious, although somewhat convoluted.

    jdoc wrote
    “my quote: Pluripotent and multipotent are the same thing, as used in this sense.
    IN THIS SENSE. The stage at which embryonic stem cells would be readily modifiable and useful is in the MULTIPOTENT stage. This is why I also said that embryonic stem cells provide no clear advantage over adult stem cells, which, FOR THE MOST PART, are multipotent. .”

    You seriously want to qualify this with, “in this sense”?

    It is exactly the quality of pluripotence that makes embrionic stem cells useful. Once they have differentiated into multipotent cells, they loose the property that needs to be investigated.

    There are already many uses of multipotent cells in treatment.

    So I guess this is where your mistaken assertion of a usefull stage needs to be pointed out.

    It is the cells from the blastocyst that are controversial, but which hold the most promise. Pluripotent cells have been generated from adult fibroblast cultures. There is controversy over the existance of pluripotent adult stem cells.

    I am assuming you do understand this, although that assumption tends to mean you are being evasive.

    jdoc also wrote
    “I didn’t think you would understand the molecular biology, so I didn’t feel the need to explain.”

    No need for you to think that, I’m keeping up with you easily.

  • jdoc

    thebob: Your arrogance precedes you. No, you really aren’t keeping up with me.

    “It is exactly the quality of pluripotence that makes embrionic stem cells useful. Once they have differentiated into multipotent cells, they loose the property that needs to be investigated.”- you pretty much make my point for me. As it stands now, or ‘in this sense’, they DO lose the property that, you claim, needs to be investigated. This is what makes them no better than what’s out there already. And please work on your spelling- it’s ’embryonic’, not ’embrionic. And ‘lose’, not ‘loose’.

    Again, beyond the scope of this forum, but you may want to explain to our audience what a blastocyst is, and how, exactly, we can RELIABLY get from a blastocyst to a pluripotent or multipotent stem cell line, which can then be used to develop whichever cell line needed for medicinal or other purposes, and how, at this point, it differs from any other type of cell line brought about by any other type of stem cell line. I can explain this, and I can also say that it’s NOT reliably possible at this point. Way too many errors involved, many of which most likely cannot be overcome. Whether or not more research will help in this field is controversial at best. This coming from the person who claims that “They cannot develop into animals because they cannot develop extraembryonic tissue, ie a placenta”. Then you may be able to explain how and from what structure, the placenta DOES develop after an embryo (egg fertilized with sperm) is implanted into the womb, either via IVF for naturally? I’ll give you a hint- it MAY have to do with the embryo.

    There are many PROMISING uses for stem cell treatments, none being used reliably and frequently enough to be considered ‘standards of care’ (was that too evasive for you?).

    thebob: “Pluripotent cells have been generated from adult fibroblast cultures”. While I don’t think that fibroblasts are used as much as they used to be, this is not a result of stem cell technology, but instead of molecular genetics- manipulation of genes on a molecular level. Fibroblasts were used because they were easily and reliably grown in the lab. Incidentally, I think that this is the wave of the future, and will replace stem cell technology. If you would like me to explain how, I could email you, because I’m afraid it would bore our captive audience more than I’ve already done.

  • UrbanBard

    It is self evident that you have never taken a Philosophy course; if you did, it didn’t take. The Concept of Falsifiability was discovered by the Philosopher Popper in the 1920’s.

    “”Somethings, which are real, are not “falsifiable.”

    Everything that is real, is not falsifiable. Duh, Because they are real.”

    Somethings are not falsifiable because we have not the means to prove them true or false. Many ideas in Religion, Philosophy and Metaphysics do not fit Poppers model. He was aware of that.

    In most of our lives, we use empirical evidence derived over thousands of years of observation of cause-effect relationships. The folk saying is, “Don’t fix what ain’t broke.”

    Most socialist ideas interfere with this empirical evidence. When the Stock Market crashed in 1929, President Hoover immediately set out to use the Federal Government to help people.

    The traditional model that the government had followed in a “Banking Panic” was to do as little as possible. It tried to economize and lower taxes. It would undo some regulations. It would encourage people to lower their wages and prices. And. typically in six to nine months. it would be over. No one but people in the capital goods markets lost their jobs, and they quickly found jobs elsewhere.

    But, Hoover was a meddler. He tried to keep wages and prices high. He closed down banks and created a liquidity panic. He did not understand the complex relationships involved and he created the Great Depression which lasted under FDR until the Second World War.

    “UrbanBard said
    “Many questions are beyond the purview of science, because they are Metaphysical, Philosophical or Religious positions. Science can impact on them, but they are higher questions than science, since science deals merely with the material world.”

    Arggh nice move, you attempt to place concepts you adhere to, outside the sphere of science to defend them from analysis.”

    Again, you lack the knowledge in those disciplines. I’d also suspect an utter ignorance of Economics as well.

    “UrbanBard said
    ““It is easy to cherry pick data to conform to a belief, but this is pseudo-science. Unfortunately many people can’t or wont distinguish between them.”
    True. Look in a mirror. We all accept things on faith; especially our dealings with our fellows. Can faith be grounded in reality, even though there is no conclusive proof? Yes.”

    Are you attempting to infer that because faith is some times right, then it is always right? ”

    Hardly. We often take our chances. Being faithless is hard on people. Cynicism is hard on the body.

    “You agreed that reason should be hypothesis driven, but now you suggest there is a place for faith based reasoning? ”

    I am merely remarking that if you tried to examine the things that you accept on faith, you would be paralyzed. You wouldn’t get anything done. I’m suggesting that most people act on empirical evidence that something which has worked well in the past should work in the future, even when we do not know why.

    “UrbanBard wrote
    “Still I don’t consider my time wasted. At the very least the time spent by UrbanBard responding to my mails, may reduce the deluge of mail he sends everyday to Daniel. ”
    I don’t bother Daniel, at all. We haven’t exchanged emails since July 24, 2007 and that was just two emails.
    On his latest series of pictures of “What we expected; what we got”, I merely congratulated him for a job well done. As I have said, I bear him no ill will. The only thing that we disagree upon is that his politics make no sense.
    “Hopefully this will enable Daniel to write more of his excellent articles.”
    He’s good with concrete things– computers and such. His politics stink.

    I don’t care about his politics, in fact I have seen no evidence of them in his postings. I’m often interested in the inferences you make.”

    This thread was a Democratic Party propaganda piece. I said so. That is why I got so much flak from the people here. They wanted to believe that if Gore had won the 2000 election then all of the nasty things happening in the world would go away. Those nasty things might be swept under the carpet for a while. But, America has enemies. People through-out the world are in competition with us. Sometimes, that competition is friendly; in others, it is vindictive.

    “Urban Bard wrote
    “Unfortunately, it degenerated into political/religious mud slinging, with very little intellectual content.”
    The only people making intellectual arguments on this web site are jdoc and me. You simply disagree with our positions.

    You appear to be a political animal, jdoc appears to be a religious one. If you feel so strongly about your political beliefs, why don’t you stand for office?”

    Thank you, no. I’m too much the intellectual. Besides, Politics is a young man’s game.

    It’s hardly necessary to take action. The trends are for the Democrats to continue to lose power and prestige. Few young people believe in them. The Reagan Revolution won. Most American believe that “Government is not the solution: it is the problem” Could you falsify that position?

  • roz

    For whatever reason there are a few of us reading this and a few responding. How about in the interest of a reasonable decorum we set aside the nasty comments and insults?

  • roz

    “Look at all the arm-chair generals who stated before the iraqi incursion that 2 million refugees would flee Iraq. Didn’t happen.”

    “UNHCR estimates that more than 4.4 million Iraqis have left their homes. Of these, some 2.2 million Iraqis are displaced internally, while more than 2.2 million have fled to neighbouring states, particularly Syria and Jordan. Many were displaced prior to 2003, but an increasing number are fleeing now. In 2006, Iraqis had become the leading nationality seeking asylum in Europe.”
    http://www.unhcr.org/iraq.html

    “Or that hundreds of thousand of Iraqi would die. Didn’t happen.”

    As we know there is a debate on how many. At least 100k. Maybe many more.

    “Or that the Mid east would be destabilized. Didn’t happen.”

    This is the risk that people are concerned about. If we pull out this is the nightmare scenario. The risk of destabilization has certainly gone up.

    “Are our troops in Iraq discontented? No. They are a better judge of conditions than those generals. They are closer to the action.”

    I am sure some are some aren’t. Unless you have some kind of polling data, we don’t know.

    “ABIZAID: General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution, and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.”
    My point is, we might have done better if we had listened to these generals to a greater extent. ”
    You can always second guess. Hind-sight is perfect. It seems that Abizaid was complaining about, as much as anything, how little cooperation we got from Europe.”

    Yes European and Iraqi. European might have been an option with more time. Iraqi was an option not taken.

    “We are getting a handle on that.”

    4 years in and hundreds of billion $ later.

  • thebob

    UrbanBard wrote
    “This thread was a Democratic Party propaganda piece. I said so. That is why I got so much flak from the people here. They wanted to believe that if Gore had won the 2000 election then all of the nasty things happening in the world would go away.”

    The thread or the article?

    All Dan did was post images and say, What you expected: What you got:

    How this can be a propaganda piece is beyond me.

    50% of the voters voted for Gore, so you can assume they expected him to win, they just weren’t living in the right place!

    You asked the direct question “How different would life be if Al Gore had won in 2000? Would Gore have gotten awards from leftist organizations?”

    So because you don’t like the answers it becomes a Democratic Party propaganda piece.

    If everyone agreed with you would it become a Republican Party propaganda piece?

  • thebob

    UrbanBard wrote
    ““You agreed that reason should be hypothesis driven, but now you suggest there is a place for faith based reasoning? ”
    I am merely remarking that if you tried to examine the things that you accept on faith, you would be paralyzed. You wouldn’t get anything done. I’m suggesting that most people act on empirical evidence that something which has worked well in the past should work in the future, even when we do not know why.”

    Yes, very good example. B.F.Skinner conducted a bird feeding experiment. When birds were fed randomly, if a bird had looked over it’s shoulder just before the food came, it would increase the frequency that it looked over it’s shoulder, with the expectation that it would be fed.

    Skinner called this “superstitious behavior”. It shows that people are often deceived by what they deem to be evidence. It is manifested as manic compulsive behavior in humans.
    “UrbanBard wrote
    ”Somethings, which are real, are not “falsifiable.”

    I wrote
    Everything that is real, is not falsifiable. Duh, Because they are real.”

    UrbanBard wrote
    Somethings are not falsifiable because we have not the means to prove them true or false. Many ideas in Religion, Philosophy and Metaphysics do not fit Poppers model. He was aware of that.”

    Read the above carefully.

    I agree that some things are not falsifiable.
    But falsification, by definition denies the things reality.
    So it would not be in the set of “real” things if it were falsified.

    Or perhaps you can falsify it’s “thingyness”.
    If its not a thing, it can’t be a real “thing”.

    UrbanBard wrote
    “Government is not the solution: it is the problem” Could you falsify that position?

    Easily. If it was said in reference to anarchy.

  • thebob

    jdoc wrote
    ““thebob: “Pluripotent cells have been generated from adult fibroblast cultures”. While I don’t think that fibroblasts are used as much as they used to be, this is not a result of stem cell technology, but instead of molecular genetics- manipulation of genes on a molecular level. Fibroblasts were used because they were easily and reliably grown in the lab. Incidentally, I think that this is the wave of the future, and will replace stem cell technology. “

    Yeah, Yeah, Amazing attempt at defense by obsfucatory behavior.

    You obviously know what you are talking about but use your authority in the subject to support the ban on funding, by disregarding promising areas of research, because of your religious position.

    jdoc wrote
    “If you would like me to explain how, I could email you, because I’m afraid it would bore our captive audience more than I’ve already done.”

    No Thanks. If you look back to where this started, I think you will agree that a quick “Yes, ES cells are Pluripotent” would have done.

    jdoc wrote
    And please work on your spelling- it’s ‘embryonic’, not ‘embrionic. And ‘lose’, not ‘loose’.

    Oh yeah! Thanks for the spelling tips!

  • thebob

    jdoc wrote
    “It’s Christian to tell the truth. I’ve called you no names. Sorry your feelings were hurt.”

    But you define truth as being written in an old book, or something you believe it a in lot! We are using totally different words here.

    I better watch out that you don’t start calling me names.

    Don’t worry, all these have posts have made me smile. I can put up with a little truculence. I consider ad hominim attack to be a sign of a lack of intellectual rigour, but they hurt my feelings, not one iota.

    jdoc wrote
    “It’s very clear to me that I’m completely wasting my time trying to convince you to at least reconsider your opinions on faith, Christianity, and religion. That’s a closed mind to me, especially since you seem so blatantly misguided about the subject.”

    Throw me a bone!

    Say ‘one’ thing to convince me of either “faith, Christianity, or religion”. You haven’t even attempted to yet.

    I’m open to anything, but I warn you, the “old book”, and the “just believe” bit are old hat. Or maybe God doesn’t want me to believe in him?

  • thebob

    roz wrote
    “For whatever reason there are a few of us reading this and a few responding. How about in the interest of a reasonable decorum we set aside the nasty comments and insults?”

    Nice sentiment roz, but I think Daniel would step in if he wanted to.

    I get the feeling this article was experimental, and meant as a tribute to Al Gore’s achievements. I feel very proud of his achievements. I am in awe of his ability to stimulate debate, and his vision in which debates to stimulate.

    I am also a little put out that Dr Watsons recent comments may tarnish perceptions of other Nobel winners.

  • thebob

    jdoc wrote
    thebob: “Still congratulations to Al Gore, who managed to win in the election, but not in the courts, who went on to gain one of the worlds greatest prizes, with his integrity, determination, and intelligence.”
    I love this. How bitter some people still remain. The system is the way it is for a reason, and Al Gore lost. Of course, thebob would be singing a different tune if the tables were turned in favor of Gore.

    Personally I think it should have been declared a draw, and they should have formed a coalition. No doesn’t work does it. Just shows how far apart they are, and how under represented,so many people were.

    I cherish the memory of how Gore gracefully conceded. If the tables were turned I would have been be interested to see President Bush’s reaction.

    And do you think Bush would have managed to squeeze in any awards?

  • jdoc

    thebob: I can now see that I’m dealing with the mentality of a 3 year old (I know this- I have a 3 year old).

    “Yeah, Yeah, Amazing attempt at defense by obsfucatory behavior.” I attempt to teach you something, because you obviously haven’t a clue, and the response I get is this. I was presenting an opinion, based on my experience and knowledge. But then again, your response was pretty much as expected considering your behavior and closed-minded responses thus far. Nothing I can do about that.

    “No Thanks. If you look back to where this started, I think you will agree that a quick “Yes, ES cells are Pluripotent” would have done.” Again, completely lacking the ability to understand the subject at hand, and again completely unwilling to learn anything about it.

    “Say ‘one’ thing to convince me of either “faith, Christianity, or religion”. You haven’t even attempted to yet.” Again, you lack understanding. You cannot convince someone to have faith- that comes from within. You can present, in this case, the teachings of Christianity to someone. Whether or not they will have faith is up to them. Like I said before, my Christian duty is to present the teachings of Jesus Christ. I’m not out to say ‘believe in his teachings or you will die’. That’s clearly what you think- fanatical Christians, militant Islamists- they’re all the same to you. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you said that you’re basically an expert in the books listed above. I wholeheartedly doubt that, so it gave me no reason to review the teachings of the Bible with you, when you are apparently so resistent and closed minded. You were the one who launched an attack on my faith- I was merely attempting to teach you, not convert you.

    “You obviously know what you are talking about but use your authority in the subject to support the ban on funding, by disregarding promising areas of research, because of your religious position.” When did I say I supported the ban based on MY RELIGIOUS POSITION? That’s a mighty big assumption on your part. I don’t think that federal funding should be provided for ESC research, because like I said, it was falsely politicized and it offers no benefit above and beyond what’s already out there.

    “But you define truth as being written in an old book, or something you believe it a in lot! We are using totally different words here.” This is a pretty weak statement, and says pretty much nothing, except for a childish attempt to attack my beliefs.

    “Or maybe God doesn’t want me to believe in him?” God would love for you to believe in him. He would never turn you down, but he won’t obstruct your free will either.

    “I consider ad hominim attack to be a sign of a lack of intellectual rigour”- pot, meet kettle. A bit hypocritical, no?

    Interestingly enough, morning lecture today was about Alternative Medicine (God must be watching!).

    I’ll give you some info, and if you’re interested, you can look things up at your leisure.

    Speaker: Jackie Gutmann, MD, from Northern Fertility and Reproductive Associates, Phila, Pa. Yale grad.

    Title: “Complementary and Alternative Medicine in GYN- a Look at the Evidence”

    Stats: Since 1998, there has been a 47% increase in Americans seeking alternative therapies
    -accounted for 629 million office visits since 2005
    -most common alternative remedy in US- traditional Chinese medicine, of which acupuncture is the most common (www.nccaom.com)
    -Homeopathy- 204 remediesf for infertility, 166 for miscarriage, many of which are not used any longer.
    -former “alternative remedies”: digoxin, Taxol, botox, ephedra (respiratory use), penicillin, vitamin B6 (used for hyperemesis in pregnancy), ginger, vitamin C, Ginseng, Echinacea, Omega-3 FA, fish oil, black cohash, hyperbaric O2 chambers, TENS units, dietary remedies, osteopathic medicine, many others.

    The people who kept an open mind about alternative remedies gave us some of the most widely used and effective therapies today. Most current alternative remedies have not been studied by my colleagues, but acceptance of alternative remedies in this country is still in its infancy. I would expect much more to come in the future, as long as we keep an open mind!

  • UrbanBard

    Roz said?
    “For whatever reason there are a few of us reading this and a few responding. How about in the interest of a reasonable decorum we set aside the nasty comments and insults?”

    I’m not insulting you or anyone else. I am merely saying things that are true of the group that you apparently belong to. Since you will not reveal your values, then I aim my comments to the widest possibility. Where you have challenged my assertions I have refined and reworded them

    I am making provocative and presumptuous statements, that I feel are in some way true, that you may find offensive. Are they harsh and uncompromising. Yes. Do they show you in the worst possible light? Yes.

    But I did not start the derogatory remarks here. You have been consistently an attack dog. If you had shown any tendency toward curbing your presumptuous remarks, I would have continued with curbing mine.

    I do not believe in irrationally continuing with gentlemanly discourse with people who do not act like gentlemen.

  • UrbanBard

    “Look at all the arm-chair generals who stated before the iraqi incursion that 2 million refugees would flee Iraq. Didn’t happen.”

    “UNHCR estimates that more than 4.4 million Iraqis have left their homes. ”

    I was speaking of refugees because of the US incursion in 2003. I was clear about that, I thought.

    The present refugees left Iraq much later. That had nothing to do with the incursion. But with the fact there is no peace yet in Iraq.

    It is estimated that a half of the Sunni’s have left Iraq. Why? To avoid being massacred by the Shia if a civil war breaks out. The continued presence of US forces prevents such a civil war, but the Sunni’s have no reason to trust us.

    Statements by US politicians such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid make the Sunni’s believe that there will be an abrupt withdrawal of US forces which would result in civil war. The Shia would get their revenge on the Sunni’s for Saddam’s actions from which the Sunni’s benefited.

    You can’t have it both way, Roz. You can’t blame the US military for the refugees without blaming the US politicians who inflame the Sunni’s irrational fears. Increasingly, Sunni politicians are cooperating with the Iraqi parliament. Those fears will be soothed and the Sunni’s will come back.

    ““Or that hundreds of thousand of Iraqi would die. Didn’t happen.”

    As we know there is a debate on how many. At least 100k. Maybe many more.”

    Only far Left organizations use that high a number. They also include the people killed by Terrorists on the assumption that if the US wasn’t in Iraq then they wouldn’t be killed. That is absurd.

    ““Or that the Mid east would be destabilized. Didn’t happen.”

    This is the risk that people are concerned about. If we pull out this is the nightmare scenario. The risk of destabilization has certainly gone up.”

    One of the big problems is that many people in the European Union and the US wanted to maintain stability in Iraq at all costs. That meant that things couldn’t get worst, but they couldn’t get better, either.

    Any action we try may make things temporary worst, before things start to improve. Iraq was a Totalitarian state, almost any action we took would eventually lead to a better life. Polls of Iraqi say that they believe in high numbers (68% in one poll) that next year will be better than today. Only 12% thought it might be worse.

    There are forces in the world who are determined to prevent a better life for the Iraqi’s. The top al Qaeda leader in Iraq before he got killed last year Amman al Zarquwi said in a memo that if Democracy succeeded in Iraq then the al Qaeda cause was lost. I trust his statements more than I do yours.

    ““Are our troops in Iraq discontented? No. They are a better judge of conditions than those generals. They are closer to the action.”

    I am sure some are some aren’t. ”

    How could you know, Roz? Do you read the blogs of soldiers in Iraq? I do. The morale has shifted over the years. Two years ago, it was rough. Now, the troops can see success.

    ““ABIZAID: General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution, and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.”
    My point is, we might have done better if we had listened to these generals to a greater extent. ”
    You can always second guess. Hind-sight is perfect. It seems that Abizaid was complaining about, as much as anything, how little cooperation we got from Europe.”

    Yes European and Iraqi. European might have been an option with more time. Iraqi was an option not taken.”

    We disagree. There was no option with the old politicians in power. France actively defied us in the incursion. They prevented Turkey from allowing the US a Northern Front. This prevented the US from surrounding the Ba’athist dead enders and killing them swiftly. That lengthen the Insurrection.

    Europe is moving toward conservative positions; they are dropping their anti-Americanism because they are becoming afraid of Iran. Iran’s missiles can hit Eastern Europe now and they will improve in range. Iran intends to get Nukes; Israel will not be Iran’s only target. With Sarkozi in charge in France and Angela Merkel in Germany, things are quite different.

    ““We are getting a handle on that.”

    4 years in and hundreds of billion $ later.”

    Whoever told you life was easy or cheap lied.

  • UrbanBard

    Thebob said:
    “UrbanBard wrote
    “This thread was a Democratic Party propaganda piece. I said so. That is why I got so much flak from the people here. They wanted to believe that if Gore had won the 2000 election then all of the nasty things happening in the world would go away.”

    The thread or the article?”

    I used thread for the website, because there was not enough writing to call it an article.

    “All Dan did was post images and say, What you expected: What you got: How this can be a propaganda piece is beyond me.”

    A series of photographs can be powerful propaganda. There can be propaganda films. The NAZI’s, the Liberals and the Communists were quite good at this.

    “50% of the voters voted for Gore, so you can assume they expected him to win, they just weren’t living in the right place!”

    And your point is?

    “You asked the direct question “How different would life be if Al Gore had won in 2000? Would Gore have gotten awards from leftist organizations?””

    Sure. As I said Leftists protect each other. Kind of how Russian generals would pin metals on each other.

    “So because you don’t like the answers it becomes a Democratic Party propaganda piece.”

    No, the first six pictures set up an expectation for the last two. That everything would have been wonderful with Gore and awful with Bush. The point about propaganda is that it leads you to conclusion on an emotional basis. I disputed that conclusion. I said that many things would have been equally bad no matter who won.

    “If everyone agreed with you would it become a Republican Party propaganda piece?”

    No, I said that the premise was irrational.