Discussion:
US Gov't - Stingiest of All Nations!
(too old to reply)
k***@hotmail.com
2004-12-31 15:16:22 UTC
Permalink
US Gov't - Stingiest of All!

On Monday the Bush administration pledged an initial $15 million and
later pledged another $20 million bringing the total initial offering
to $35 million.

To put the figure in perspective, President Bush plans to spend between
$30 and $40 million for his upcoming inauguration celebration.

The amount pledged to victims of the tsunami is dwarfed by the Bush
administration's war effort in Iraq.

The U.S. has spent an average of $9.5 million every hour on the war and
occupation of Iraq. With a current price tag of $147 billion, the U.S.
has spent an average of about $228 million a day in Iraq. In other
words, the U.S. spends what it promised on the tsunami relief effort in
less than four hours in Iraq.

From:
http://www.democracynow.org

===============

When the world's governments met at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro
in 1992, they adopted a programme for action under the auspices of the
United Nations -- Agenda 21. Amongst other things, this included an
Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of gross
national product (GNP) for rich nations, roughly 22 members of the OECD
(Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development), known as the
Development Assistance Committee (DAC).

Even though these targets and agendas have been set, in the past decade
and more almost all rich nations have constantly failed to reach their
agreed obligations of the 0.7% target. Instead of 0.7%, the amount of
aid has been around 0.2 to 0.25%, some $100 billion short.

In addition some interesting observations can be made. For example:

* USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest
of any industrialized nation in the world...

ODA as GNP Percentage
Country 2003

1. Norway 0.92
2. Denmark 0.84
3. Netherlands 0.81
4. Luxembourg 0.8
5. Sweden 0.7
6. Belgium 0.61
7. Ireland 0.41
8. France 0.41
9. Switzerland 0.38
10. United Kingdom 0.34
11. Finland 0.34
12. Germany 0.28
13. Canada 0.26
14. Spain 0.25
15. Australia 0.25
16. New Zealand 0.23
17. Portugal 0.21
18. Greece 0.21
19. Japan 0.2
20. Austria 0.2
21. Italy 0.16
22. United States 0.14

Source:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

===========

"Until mankind can extend the circle of his compassion to include all
living things, he will never, himself, know peace." Albert Schweitzer

===========

"The developed nations of the world cannot remain secure islands of
prosperity in a seething sea of poverty. The storm is rising against
the privileged minority of the earth, from which there is no shelter in
isolation and armament. The storm will not abate until a just
distribution of the fruits of the earth enables men everywhere to live
in dignity and human decency."
Martin Luther King, Jr

===========

"Without sharing there can be no justice; without justice there can be
no peace; without peace there can be no future." Maitreya

===========

'A patriot always supports his country always and supports his
government when it deserves it.' Mark Twain

===========

"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience.
Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed
the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war,
and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . . Our
problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of
poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem
is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves,
and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our
problem." Howard Zinn, "Failure to Quit", p. 45
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim?
2004-12-31 19:28:41 UTC
Permalink
YOU ACTUALLY SOUND LIKE YOU EXPECT REPUBLICSCUMS TO TAKE CARE OF PEOPLE.
LMAO, REPUBLICSCUMS DON'T CARE ABOUT THOSE PEOPLE, THEY DON'T HAVE MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS OR AREN'T CEOS OF CORPORATIONS.

REPUBLICSCUMS DON'T TAKE CARE OF THE AVERAGE AMERICAN, WHY THE HELL WOULD
YOU EXPECT THEM TO TAKE CARE OF THE AVERAGE PERSON IN ANOTHER COUNTRY ?
Post by k***@hotmail.com
US Gov't - Stingiest of All!
On Monday the Bush administration pledged an initial $15 million and
later pledged another $20 million bringing the total initial offering
to $35 million.
To put the figure in perspective, President Bush plans to spend between
$30 and $40 million for his upcoming inauguration celebration.
The amount pledged to victims of the tsunami is dwarfed by the Bush
administration's war effort in Iraq.
The U.S. has spent an average of $9.5 million every hour on the war and
occupation of Iraq. With a current price tag of $147 billion, the U.S.
has spent an average of about $228 million a day in Iraq. In other
words, the U.S. spends what it promised on the tsunami relief effort in
less than four hours in Iraq.
http://www.democracynow.org
===============
When the world's governments met at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro
in 1992, they adopted a programme for action under the auspices of the
United Nations -- Agenda 21. Amongst other things, this included an
Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of gross
national product (GNP) for rich nations, roughly 22 members of the OECD
(Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development), known as the
Development Assistance Committee (DAC).
Even though these targets and agendas have been set, in the past decade
and more almost all rich nations have constantly failed to reach their
agreed obligations of the 0.7% target. Instead of 0.7%, the amount of
aid has been around 0.2 to 0.25%, some $100 billion short.
* USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest
of any industrialized nation in the world...
ODA as GNP Percentage
Country 2003
1. Norway 0.92
2. Denmark 0.84
3. Netherlands 0.81
4. Luxembourg 0.8
5. Sweden 0.7
6. Belgium 0.61
7. Ireland 0.41
8. France 0.41
9. Switzerland 0.38
10. United Kingdom 0.34
11. Finland 0.34
12. Germany 0.28
13. Canada 0.26
14. Spain 0.25
15. Australia 0.25
16. New Zealand 0.23
17. Portugal 0.21
18. Greece 0.21
19. Japan 0.2
20. Austria 0.2
21. Italy 0.16
22. United States 0.14
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
===========
"Until mankind can extend the circle of his compassion to include all
living things, he will never, himself, know peace." Albert Schweitzer
===========
"The developed nations of the world cannot remain secure islands of
prosperity in a seething sea of poverty. The storm is rising against
the privileged minority of the earth, from which there is no shelter in
isolation and armament. The storm will not abate until a just
distribution of the fruits of the earth enables men everywhere to live
in dignity and human decency."
Martin Luther King, Jr
===========
"Without sharing there can be no justice; without justice there can be
no peace; without peace there can be no future." Maitreya
===========
'A patriot always supports his country always and supports his
government when it deserves it.' Mark Twain
===========
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience.
Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed
the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war,
and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . . Our
problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of
poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem
is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves,
and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our
problem." Howard Zinn, "Failure to Quit", p. 45
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim?
2004-12-31 21:38:11 UTC
Permalink
don't worry, we'll donate just as much as other countries do when we have
tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. in this counrty.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
US Gov't - Stingiest of All!
On Monday the Bush administration pledged an initial $15 million and
later pledged another $20 million bringing the total initial offering
to $35 million.
To put the figure in perspective, President Bush plans to spend between
$30 and $40 million for his upcoming inauguration celebration.
The amount pledged to victims of the tsunami is dwarfed by the Bush
administration's war effort in Iraq.
The U.S. has spent an average of $9.5 million every hour on the war and
occupation of Iraq. With a current price tag of $147 billion, the U.S.
has spent an average of about $228 million a day in Iraq. In other
words, the U.S. spends what it promised on the tsunami relief effort in
less than four hours in Iraq.
http://www.democracynow.org
===============
When the world's governments met at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro
in 1992, they adopted a programme for action under the auspices of the
United Nations -- Agenda 21. Amongst other things, this included an
Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid target of 0.7% of gross
national product (GNP) for rich nations, roughly 22 members of the OECD
(Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development), known as the
Development Assistance Committee (DAC).
Even though these targets and agendas have been set, in the past decade
and more almost all rich nations have constantly failed to reach their
agreed obligations of the 0.7% target. Instead of 0.7%, the amount of
aid has been around 0.2 to 0.25%, some $100 billion short.
* USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest
of any industrialized nation in the world...
ODA as GNP Percentage
Country 2003
1. Norway 0.92
2. Denmark 0.84
3. Netherlands 0.81
4. Luxembourg 0.8
5. Sweden 0.7
6. Belgium 0.61
7. Ireland 0.41
8. France 0.41
9. Switzerland 0.38
10. United Kingdom 0.34
11. Finland 0.34
12. Germany 0.28
13. Canada 0.26
14. Spain 0.25
15. Australia 0.25
16. New Zealand 0.23
17. Portugal 0.21
18. Greece 0.21
19. Japan 0.2
20. Austria 0.2
21. Italy 0.16
22. United States 0.14
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
===========
"Until mankind can extend the circle of his compassion to include all
living things, he will never, himself, know peace." Albert Schweitzer
===========
"The developed nations of the world cannot remain secure islands of
prosperity in a seething sea of poverty. The storm is rising against
the privileged minority of the earth, from which there is no shelter in
isolation and armament. The storm will not abate until a just
distribution of the fruits of the earth enables men everywhere to live
in dignity and human decency."
Martin Luther King, Jr
===========
"Without sharing there can be no justice; without justice there can be
no peace; without peace there can be no future." Maitreya
===========
'A patriot always supports his country always and supports his
government when it deserves it.' Mark Twain
===========
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience.
Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed
the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war,
and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . . Our
problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of
poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem
is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves,
and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our
problem." Howard Zinn, "Failure to Quit", p. 45
Michael
2005-01-03 13:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@hotmail.com
US Gov't - Stingiest of All!
On Monday the Bush administration pledged an initial $15 million and
later pledged another $20 million bringing the total initial offering
to $35 million.
Sounds like something an anti-American bigot like the UN would say. Those
pledges were 1) made when estimates of lost life was 20,000
2) There was no indication of food and water problems
3) Were increased as the identified need was increased.

Compare this USA (both private and public) aid to Indonesia et al or any
other disaster in the world and America has traditionally come out on top,
contrary to the anti-american bigots at the UN. To be even more exact as
to who is stingy, compare the USA aid to Indonesia et al with the
outpouring of the rest of the World's charity for the Florida victems of 4
hurricans who also struggled with clean water and food, which was almost
$0.

Seems that the world is far more stingy than America. For a final
comparison, ask how much the UN officials who think America is stingy took
in from kick backs in the Oil for Palaces progromme?
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
j***@bellsouth.net
2005-01-03 19:45:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
US Gov't - Stingiest of All!
On Monday the Bush administration pledged an initial $15 million and
later pledged another $20 million bringing the total initial offering
to $35 million.
Sounds like something an anti-American bigot like the UN would say. Those
pledges were 1) made when estimates of lost life was 20,000
2) There was no indication of food and water problems
3) Were increased as the identified need was increased.
Compare this USA (both private and public) aid to Indonesia et al or any
other disaster in the world and America has traditionally come out on top,
In terms of % of GNP?
Can you document this claim?
Post by Michael
contrary to the anti-american bigots at the UN. To be even more exact as
to who is stingy, compare the USA aid to Indonesia et al with the
outpouring of the rest of the World's charity for the Florida victems of 4
hurricans who also struggled with clean water and food, which was almost
$0.
Seems that the world is far more stingy than America. For a final
comparison, ask how much the UN officials who think America is stingy took
in from kick backs in the Oil for Palaces progromme?
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
Michael
2005-01-07 21:46:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
US Gov't - Stingiest of All!
On Monday the Bush administration pledged an initial $15 million and
later pledged another $20 million bringing the total initial offering
to $35 million.
Sounds like something an anti-American bigot like the UN would say. Those
pledges were 1) made when estimates of lost life was 20,000
2) There was no indication of food and water problems
3) Were increased as the identified need was increased.
Compare this USA (both private and public) aid to Indonesia et al or any
other disaster in the world and America has traditionally come out on top,
In terms of % of GNP?
Can you document this claim?
Previous posters said that the %, lacking private donations and military
aid such as the planes, helicopters and men, without which, not much would
be happening in Indonesia right now, were posted on the UN SITE, I
couldn't find them, but you assured me that they were there so you already
have the base number. To that you would have to add the substantial
private donations and military aid, such as liberating Kurds in Iraq from
Saddam Insane (who murdered more Iraqis than the tsunami did in SE Asia).
I would be happy to document this further, how much are you paying me for
my time?
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by Michael
contrary to the anti-american bigots at the UN. To be even more exact as
to who is stingy, compare the USA aid to Indonesia et al with the
outpouring of the rest of the World's charity for the Florida victems of 4
hurricans who also struggled with clean water and food, which was almost
$0.
Seems that the world is far more stingy than America. For a final
comparison, ask how much the UN officials who think America is stingy took
in from kick backs in the Oil for Palaces progromme?
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
j***@bellsouth.net
2005-01-08 01:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
US Gov't - Stingiest of All!
On Monday the Bush administration pledged an initial $15 million and
later pledged another $20 million bringing the total initial offering
to $35 million.
Sounds like something an anti-American bigot like the UN would say.
Those
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by Michael
pledges were 1) made when estimates of lost life was 20,000
2) There was no indication of food and water problems
3) Were increased as the identified need was increased.
Compare this USA (both private and public) aid to Indonesia et al or any
other disaster in the world and America has traditionally come out on top,
In terms of % of GNP?
Can you document this claim?
Previous posters said that the %, lacking private donations and military
aid such as the planes, helicopters and men,
I missed any such statement being made in any previous post.

without which, not much would
Post by Michael
be happening in Indonesia right now,
The US military has , I suspect, significantly facilitated delivery of
needed services in places which cannot be reached except by helecopter. I
don't know if they are the only ones providing such service, or if they are
simply the only ones we in the US hear about. You are the first person I
have ever heard suggest that the cost of this is not included in the value
of assistance we state we are providing. It seems odd that it would not be.

were posted on the UN SITE, I
Post by Michael
couldn't find them, but you assured me that they were there so you already
have the base number.
I assured you of no such thing. I only that a previous poster had offered
such statistics and you had never presented any counter information nor
commented on the validity of his imformation, but only spouted rethoric in
response.


To that you would have to add the substantial
Post by Michael
private donations and military aid, such as liberating Kurds in Iraq from
Saddam Insane (who murdered more Iraqis than the tsunami did in SE Asia).
This is not aid.
Post by Michael
I would be happy to document this further, how much are you paying me for
my time?
Considering what it is worth, I'd have to bill you.
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by Michael
contrary to the anti-american bigots at the UN. To be even more exact as
to who is stingy, compare the USA aid to Indonesia et al with the
outpouring of the rest of the World's charity for the Florida victems of 4
hurricans who also struggled with clean water and food, which was almost
$0.
Seems that the world is far more stingy than America. For a final
comparison, ask how much the UN officials who think America is stingy took
in from kick backs in the Oil for Palaces progromme?
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
Michael
2005-01-11 21:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
US Gov't - Stingiest of All!
On Monday the Bush administration pledged an initial $15 million and
later pledged another $20 million bringing the total initial
offering
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
to $35 million.
Sounds like something an anti-American bigot like the UN would say.
Those
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by Michael
pledges were 1) made when estimates of lost life was 20,000
2) There was no indication of food and water problems
3) Were increased as the identified need was increased.
Compare this USA (both private and public) aid to Indonesia et al or
any
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by Michael
other disaster in the world and America has traditionally come out on
top,
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
In terms of % of GNP?
Can you document this claim?
Previous posters said that the %, lacking private donations and military
aid such as the planes, helicopters and men,
I missed any such statement being made in any previous post.
i didn't.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
without which, not much would
Post by Michael
be happening in Indonesia right now,
The US military has , I suspect, significantly facilitated delivery of
needed services in places which cannot be reached except by helecopter. I
don't know if they are the only ones providing such service, or if they are
simply the only ones we in the US hear about. You are the first person I
have ever heard suggest that the cost of this is not included in the value
of assistance we state we are providing. It seems odd that it would not be.
Why would it be odd? I even saw a newscast on the 'America is always
wrong' biased CNN that stated that without american military help in
distributing the donated food and water, not much would be happening
beyond a stockpile of undistributed supplies.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
were posted on the UN SITE, I
Post by Michael
couldn't find them, but you assured me that they were there so you already
have the base number.
I assured you of no such thing. I only that a previous poster had offered
such statistics and you had never presented any counter information nor
commented on the validity of his imformation, but only spouted rethoric in
response.
I still cant find the valuable statistics that he provided with the
assumptions and limiting conditions under which they were accumumlated,
which means that they wre merely spoited rethoric to begin with.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
To that you would have to add the substantial
Post by Michael
private donations and military aid, such as liberating Kurds in Iraq from
Saddam Insane (who murdered more Iraqis than the tsunami did in SE Asia).
This is not aid.
I certainly ain't stingy to risk an American life to save the life of a
Kurd, as Mastercard might say, that is priceless. BTW, mass
re-distribution is not aid either, and usually merely enabeling.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
I would be happy to document this further, how much are you paying me for
my time?
Considering what it is worth, I'd have to bill you.
Tee hee hee, you are ever the comedian.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by Michael
contrary to the anti-american bigots at the UN. To be even more exact
as
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by Michael
to who is stingy, compare the USA aid to Indonesia et al with the
outpouring of the rest of the World's charity for the Florida victems
of 4
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by Michael
hurricans who also struggled with clean water and food, which was
almost
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by Michael
$0.
Seems that the world is far more stingy than America. For a final
comparison, ask how much the UN officials who think America is stingy
took
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by Michael
in from kick backs in the Oil for Palaces progromme?
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
j***@bellsouth.net
2005-01-12 02:03:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
In article
Post by k***@hotmail.com
US Gov't - Stingiest of All!
On Monday the Bush administration pledged an initial $15 million and
later pledged another $20 million bringing the total initial
offering
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by k***@hotmail.com
to $35 million.
Sounds like something an anti-American bigot like the UN would say.
Those
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
pledges were 1) made when estimates of lost life was 20,000
2) There was no indication of food and water problems
3) Were increased as the identified need was increased.
Compare this USA (both private and public) aid to Indonesia et al or
any
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
other disaster in the world and America has traditionally come out on
top,
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
In terms of % of GNP?
Can you document this claim?
Previous posters said that the %, lacking private donations and military
aid such as the planes, helicopters and men,
I missed any such statement being made in any previous post.
i didn't.
Actually, you just plain lied. You are the only poster to make this claim.
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
without which, not much would
Post by Michael
be happening in Indonesia right now,
The US military has , I suspect, significantly facilitated delivery of
needed services in places which cannot be reached except by helecopter. I
don't know if they are the only ones providing such service, or if they are
simply the only ones we in the US hear about. You are the first person I
have ever heard suggest that the cost of this is not included in the value
of assistance we state we are providing. It seems odd that it would not be.
Why would it be odd? I even saw a newscast on the 'America is always
wrong' biased CNN that stated that without american military help in
distributing the donated food and water, not much would be happening
beyond a stockpile of undistributed supplies.
What does that have to do with your claim that the cost of distribution is
not included in the value of aid?
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
were posted on the UN SITE, I
Post by Michael
couldn't find them, but you assured me that they were there so you already
have the base number.
I assured you of no such thing. I only that a previous poster had offered
such statistics and you had never presented any counter information nor
commented on the validity of his imformation, but only spouted rethoric in
response.
I still cant find the valuable statistics that he provided with the
assumptions and limiting conditions under which they were accumumlated,
which means that they wre merely spoited rethoric to begin with.
That's because the "limiting conditions" exist only in your fertile brain. I
repostedlhis statistics.
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
To that you would have to add the substantial
Post by Michael
private donations and military aid, such as liberating Kurds in Iraq from
Saddam Insane (who murdered more Iraqis than the tsunami did in SE Asia).
This is not aid.
I certainly ain't stingy to risk an American life to save the life of a
Kurd, as Mastercard might say, that is priceless. BTW, mass
re-distribution is not aid either, and usually merely enabeling.
Invasion is still not aid. Also, we are still killing more Iraquis thqn
Sadddam did. The only question is whether it is the 100,000 more for the
period studied arrived at using standard statistical models, or the 30,000
more estimated by Bush supporters using non-standard models.
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
I would be happy to document this further, how much are you paying me for
my time?
Considering what it is worth, I'd have to bill you.
Tee hee hee, you are ever the comedian.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
contrary to the anti-american bigots at the UN. To be even more exact
as
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
to who is stingy, compare the USA aid to Indonesia et al with the
outpouring of the rest of the World's charity for the Florida victems
of 4
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
hurricans who also struggled with clean water and food, which was
almost
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
$0.
Seems that the world is far more stingy than America. For a final
comparison, ask how much the UN officials who think America is stingy
took
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
in from kick backs in the Oil for Palaces progromme?
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
Michael
2005-01-12 21:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
In article
Post by k***@hotmail.com
US Gov't - Stingiest of All!
On Monday the Bush administration pledged an initial $15 million
and
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by k***@hotmail.com
later pledged another $20 million bringing the total initial
offering
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by k***@hotmail.com
to $35 million.
Sounds like something an anti-American bigot like the UN would
say.
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Those
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
pledges were 1) made when estimates of lost life was 20,000
2) There was no indication of food and water problems
3) Were increased as the identified need was increased.
Compare this USA (both private and public) aid to Indonesia et al
or
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
any
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
other disaster in the world and America has traditionally come out
on
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
top,
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
In terms of % of GNP?
Can you document this claim?
Previous posters said that the %, lacking private donations and
military
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
aid such as the planes, helicopters and men,
I missed any such statement being made in any previous post.
i didn't.
Actually, you just plain lied. You are the only poster to make this claim.
Truth is not a democratic process, truth is often posted by only one, what
is your pont?
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
without which, not much would
Post by Michael
be happening in Indonesia right now,
The US military has , I suspect, significantly facilitated delivery of
needed services in places which cannot be reached except by helecopter.
I
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
don't know if they are the only ones providing such service, or if they
are
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
simply the only ones we in the US hear about. You are the first person I
have ever heard suggest that the cost of this is not included in the
value
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
of assistance we state we are providing. It seems odd that it would not
be.
Post by Michael
Why would it be odd? I even saw a newscast on the 'America is always
wrong' biased CNN that stated that without american military help in
distributing the donated food and water, not much would be happening
beyond a stockpile of undistributed supplies.
What does that have to do with your claim that the cost of distribution is
not included in the value of aid?
Where did the figures posted say that they included the cost of
distribution? The figures posted don't tell us how they were
manufactured.
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
were posted on the UN SITE, I
Post by Michael
couldn't find them, but you assured me that they were there so you
already
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
have the base number.
I assured you of no such thing. I only that a previous poster had
offered
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
such statistics and you had never presented any counter information nor
commented on the validity of his imformation, but only spouted rethoric
in
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
response.
I still cant find the valuable statistics that he provided with the
assumptions and limiting conditions under which they were accumumlated,
which means that they wre merely spoited rethoric to begin with.
That's because the "limiting conditions" exist only in your fertile brain. I
repostedlhis statistics.
But without knowing the undisclosed liminting conditions and assumptions
in his fertile brain, we have no way of knowing what his numbers mean, nor
how acccurate they are.
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
To that you would have to add the substantial
Post by Michael
private donations and military aid, such as liberating Kurds in Iraq
from
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Saddam Insane (who murdered more Iraqis than the tsunami did in SE
Asia).
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
This is not aid.
I certainly ain't stingy to risk an American life to save the life of a
Kurd, as Mastercard might say, that is priceless. BTW, mass
re-distribution is not aid either, and usually merely enabeling.
Invasion is still not aid.
It was for those who live today because Saddam was prevented from
murdering them.

Also, we are still killing more Iraquis thqn
Post by Michael
Sadddam did.
Can't find that to be the case. We may be killing more Bahist and
terrorists than the terrorist Saddam was murdering, but that is their
choice to be a terrorist and not the fault of America.

The only question is whether it is the 100,000 more for the
Post by Michael
period studied
By whom?
Post by Michael
arrived at using standard statistical models
Using what assumptions and limiting conditions?

, or the 30,000
Post by Michael
more estimated by Bush supporters using non-standard models.
All depends upon the assumptions and limiting conditions in the fertile
minds that prepared them, without which, no determination can be made that
any of the figures are correct or even believable.
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
I would be happy to document this further, how much are you paying me
for
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
my time?
Considering what it is worth, I'd have to bill you.
Tee hee hee, you are ever the comedian.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
contrary to the anti-american bigots at the UN. To be even more
exact
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
as
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
to who is stingy, compare the USA aid to Indonesia et al with the
outpouring of the rest of the World's charity for the Florida
victems
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
of 4
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
hurricans who also struggled with clean water and food, which was
almost
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
$0.
Seems that the world is far more stingy than America. For a final
comparison, ask how much the UN officials who think America is
stingy
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
took
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
in from kick backs in the Oil for Palaces progromme?
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
j***@bellsouth.net
2005-01-13 16:37:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
In article
Post by k***@hotmail.com
US Gov't - Stingiest of All!
On Monday the Bush administration pledged an initial $15 million
and
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by k***@hotmail.com
later pledged another $20 million bringing the total initial
offering
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by k***@hotmail.com
to $35 million.
Sounds like something an anti-American bigot like the UN would
say.
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Those
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
pledges were 1) made when estimates of lost life was 20,000
2) There was no indication of food and water problems
3) Were increased as the identified need was increased.
Compare this USA (both private and public) aid to Indonesia et al
or
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
any
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
other disaster in the world and America has traditionally come out
on
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
top,
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
In terms of % of GNP?
Can you document this claim?
Previous posters said that the %, lacking private donations and
military
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
aid such as the planes, helicopters and men,
I missed any such statement being made in any previous post.
i didn't.
Actually, you just plain lied. You are the only poster to make this claim.
Truth is not a democratic process, truth is often posted by only one, what
is your pont?
My point is that you lied about "a previous poster" saying that US aid
figures did not include private donations and distribution costs.
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
without which, not much would
Post by Michael
be happening in Indonesia right now,
The US military has , I suspect, significantly facilitated delivery of
needed services in places which cannot be reached except by helecopter.
I
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
don't know if they are the only ones providing such service, or if they
are
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
simply the only ones we in the US hear about. You are the first person I
have ever heard suggest that the cost of this is not included in the
value
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
of assistance we state we are providing. It seems odd that it would not
be.
Post by Michael
Why would it be odd? I even saw a newscast on the 'America is always
wrong' biased CNN that stated that without american military help in
distributing the donated food and water, not much would be happening
beyond a stockpile of undistributed supplies.
What does that have to do with your claim that the cost of distribution is
not included in the value of aid?
Where did the figures posted say that they included the cost of
distribution? The figures posted don't tell us how they were
manufactured.
You are the one claiming that thay DID NOT include those costs. Are you now
admitting that you do not know?
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
were posted on the UN SITE, I
Post by Michael
couldn't find them, but you assured me that they were there so you
already
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
have the base number.
I assured you of no such thing. I only that a previous poster had
offered
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
such statistics and you had never presented any counter information nor
commented on the validity of his imformation, but only spouted rethoric
in
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
response.
I still cant find the valuable statistics that he provided with the
assumptions and limiting conditions under which they were
accumumlated,
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
which means that they wre merely spoited rethoric to begin with.
That's because the "limiting conditions" exist only in your fertile brain. I
reposted his statistics.
But without knowing the undisclosed liminting conditions and assumptions
in his fertile brain, we have no way of knowing what his numbers mean, nor
how acccurate they are.
On what basis do you claim that there _are_ "limiting conditions".
The original post suggested no such limiting conditions, and you have still
provided no evidence of such.

You claimed, back when there were only six posts in this thread, that you
"couldn't find" the original post in order to evaluste the statistics, or
offer counter statistics, so I reposted them for you. (It took me less than
a minuite to find them) Your only "evalustion" has been ,"well, they might
not be accurate", or there could be some kind of "limiting conditions".
Where are your better figures and why are they more reliable?

My original comment to you was that the original poster had offfered
evidence to support his poinion and you had offered only blather. Thank you
cor continuing to illustrate my point.
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
To that you would have to add the substantial
Post by Michael
private donations and military aid, such as liberating Kurds in Iraq
from
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Saddam Insane (who murdered more Iraqis than the tsunami did in SE
Asia).
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
This is not aid.
I certainly ain't stingy to risk an American life to save the life of a
Kurd, as Mastercard might say, that is priceless. BTW, mass
re-distribution is not aid either, and usually merely enabeling.
Invasion is still not aid.
It was for those who live today because Saddam was prevented from
murdering them.
Not for the 30,000 to 100,000 more that were murdered during the months
following the invasion than during the same period under Saddam. Not for the
millions who had water and electricity under Saddam and do not yet in the
"new Iraq"
Post by Michael
Also, we are still killing more Iraquis thqn
Post by Michael
Sadddam did.
Can't find that to be the case. We may be killing more Bahist and
terrorists than the terrorist Saddam was murdering, but that is their
choice to be a terrorist and not the fault of America.
So you do admit that we "nay b"e killing more Iraqis than Saddam.
Post by Michael
The only question is whether it is the 100,000 more for the
Post by Michael
period studied
By whom?
Study published in "The Lancet" estimated 100. 000 more deaths in, a period
of, I believe 8 months following the Bush claim that the war was over than
during the same period under Saddam before the war began.
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
arrived at using standard statistical models
Using what assumptions and limiting conditions?
That would be coveved under the term "standard models".
Post by Michael
, or the 30,000
Post by Michael
more estimated by Bush supporters using non-standard models.
All depends upon the assumptions and limiting conditions in the fertile
minds that prepared them, without which, no determination can be made that
any of the figures are correct or even believable.
The best Bush supporters were able to do was reduce their estimate to a
30,000 increase.
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
I would be happy to document this further, how much are you paying me
for
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
my time?
Considering what it is worth, I'd have to bill you.
Tee hee hee, you are ever the comedian.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
contrary to the anti-american bigots at the UN. To be even more
exact
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
as
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
to who is stingy, compare the USA aid to Indonesia et al with the
outpouring of the rest of the World's charity for the Florida
victems
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
of 4
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
hurricans who also struggled with clean water and food, which was
almost
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
$0.
Seems that the world is far more stingy than America. For a final
comparison, ask how much the UN officials who think America is
stingy
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
took
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
in from kick backs in the Oil for Palaces progromme?
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
Michael
2005-01-14 02:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
In article
Post by k***@hotmail.com
US Gov't - Stingiest of All!
On Monday the Bush administration pledged an initial $15
million
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
and
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by k***@hotmail.com
later pledged another $20 million bringing the total initial
offering
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by k***@hotmail.com
to $35 million.
Sounds like something an anti-American bigot like the UN would
say.
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Those
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
pledges were 1) made when estimates of lost life was 20,000
2) There was no indication of food and water problems
3) Were increased as the identified need was increased.
Compare this USA (both private and public) aid to Indonesia et
al
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
or
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
any
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
other disaster in the world and America has traditionally come
out
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
on
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
top,
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
In terms of % of GNP?
Can you document this claim?
Previous posters said that the %, lacking private donations and
military
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
aid such as the planes, helicopters and men,
I missed any such statement being made in any previous post.
i didn't.
Actually, you just plain lied. You are the only poster to make this
claim.
Post by Michael
Truth is not a democratic process, truth is often posted by only one, what
is your pont?
My point is that you lied about "a previous poster" saying that US aid
figures did not include private donations and distribution costs.
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
without which, not much would
Post by Michael
be happening in Indonesia right now,
The US military has , I suspect, significantly facilitated delivery
of
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
needed services in places which cannot be reached except by
helecopter.
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
I
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
don't know if they are the only ones providing such service, or if
they
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
are
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
simply the only ones we in the US hear about. You are the first
person I
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
have ever heard suggest that the cost of this is not included in the
value
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
of assistance we state we are providing. It seems odd that it would
not
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
be.
Post by Michael
Why would it be odd? I even saw a newscast on the 'America is always
wrong' biased CNN that stated that without american military help in
distributing the donated food and water, not much would be happening
beyond a stockpile of undistributed supplies.
What does that have to do with your claim that the cost of distribution
is
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
not included in the value of aid?
Where did the figures posted say that they included the cost of
distribution? The figures posted don't tell us how they were
manufactured.
You are the one claiming that thay DID NOT include those costs. Are you now
admitting that you do not know?
Always did, there is no way to make a determination either way even to
agree with your unsupported assertions without the assumptions and
limiting conditions of how the numbers were generated. I can say with
certainty that the figures DO NOT include any of America's charity toward
tsunami victems, as the figures from the website were prepared long before
the tsunami and do not take that charity into any effect .
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
were posted on the UN SITE, I
Post by Michael
couldn't find them, but you assured me that they were there so you
already
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
have the base number.
I assured you of no such thing. I only that a previous poster had
offered
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
such statistics and you had never presented any counter information
nor
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
commented on the validity of his imformation, but only spouted
rethoric
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
in
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
response.
I still cant find the valuable statistics that he provided with the
assumptions and limiting conditions under which they were
accumumlated,
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
which means that they wre merely spoited rethoric to begin with.
That's because the "limiting conditions" exist only in your fertile
brain. I
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
reposted his statistics.
But without knowing the undisclosed liminting conditions and assumptions
in his fertile brain, we have no way of knowing what his numbers mean, nor
how acccurate they are.
On what basis do you claim that there _are_ "limiting conditions".
The original post suggested no such limiting conditions, and you have still
provided no evidence of such.
They have to have limiting conditions and assumptions, else how could one
compile the statistics, chosing what to include and what to exclude. Like
the inalienable rights that God provides all Americans, some truths is
self evident, particularly having prepared such complicated statistics.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
You claimed, back when there were only six posts in this thread, that you
"couldn't find" the original post in order to evaluste the statistics, or
offer counter statistics, so I reposted them for you. (It took me less than
a minuite to find them) Your only "evalustion" has been ,"well, they might
not be accurate", or there could be some kind of "limiting conditions".
Where are your better figures and why are they more reliable?
Not the point, the initial post lambasted America for a very specific lack
of charity in the tsunami and then posted statistics for Official
Development Assistance. Official Development Assistance is like an apple
to an orange when tring to use the Official Development Assistance
statistics (however they were compiled) to make a judgement regarding
charity.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
My original comment to you was that the original poster had offfered
evidence to support his poinion and you had offered only blather. Thank you
cor continuing to illustrate my point.
actually he merely offered his opinion regarding charity to tsunami
victems and then used irrelevant statistics for Official Development
Assistance, which ain't the same thing.s
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
To that you would have to add the substantial
Post by Michael
private donations and military aid, such as liberating Kurds in
Iraq
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
from
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Saddam Insane (who murdered more Iraqis than the tsunami did in SE
Asia).
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
This is not aid.
I certainly ain't stingy to risk an American life to save the life of
a
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Kurd, as Mastercard might say, that is priceless. BTW, mass
re-distribution is not aid either, and usually merely enabeling.
Invasion is still not aid.
It was for those who live today because Saddam was prevented from
murdering them.
Not for the 30,000 to 100,000 more that were murdered during the months
following the invasion than during the same period under Saddam.
How many did the Americans kill, and how many the terrorists, and how many
could have been spared if the terrorists acted civily?

Not for the
Post by k***@hotmail.com
millions who had water and electricity under Saddam and do not yet in the
"new Iraq"
I am not aware that anyone in Iraq today is without electricity or water,
am I wrong? In fact, reports from returning soldiers tell quite a
different story.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Also, we are still killing more Iraquis thqn
Post by Michael
Sadddam did.
Can't find that to be the case. We may be killing more Bahist and
terrorists than the terrorist Saddam was murdering, but that is their
choice to be a terrorist and not the fault of America.
So you do admit that we "nay b"e killing more Iraqis than Saddam.
No, my point was that we may be killing more terrorists than Saddam might
have murdered. Saddam liked terrorists and was one, it was the common
folks that he disliked.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
The only question is whether it is the 100,000 more for the
Post by Michael
period studied
By whom?
Study published in "The Lancet" estimated 100. 000 more deaths in, a period
of, I believe 8 months following the Bush claim that the war was over than
during the same period under Saddam before the war began.
Deaths of whom? Terrorists or law abiding Iraqis? we are still uncovering
unmarked mass graves, did he take these into consideration, especially the
ones uncovered since he estimated a number using an unknown set of
assumptions and limiting conditions?
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
arrived at using standard statistical models
Using what assumptions and limiting conditions?
That would be coveved under the term "standard models".
A standard model is an estimate based upon specific assumptions and
limiting conditions, vital to understanding the validity of the standard
model.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
, or the 30,000
Post by Michael
more estimated by Bush supporters using non-standard models.
All depends upon the assumptions and limiting conditions in the fertile
minds that prepared them, without which, no determination can be made that
any of the figures are correct or even believable.
The best Bush supporters were able to do was reduce their estimate to a
30,000 increase.
Depends upon their assumptions and limiting conditions, I suspect.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
I would be happy to document this further, how much are you paying
me
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
for
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
my time?
Considering what it is worth, I'd have to bill you.
Tee hee hee, you are ever the comedian.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
contrary to the anti-american bigots at the UN. To be even
more
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
exact
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
as
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
to who is stingy, compare the USA aid to Indonesia et al with
the
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
outpouring of the rest of the World's charity for the Florida
victems
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
of 4
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
hurricans who also struggled with clean water and food, which
was
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
almost
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
$0.
Seems that the world is far more stingy than America. For a
final
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
comparison, ask how much the UN officials who think America is
stingy
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
took
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
in from kick backs in the Oil for Palaces progromme?
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
j***@bellsouth.net
2005-01-14 03:47:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
In article
Post by k***@hotmail.com
US Gov't - Stingiest of All!
On Monday the Bush administration pledged an initial $15
million
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
and
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by k***@hotmail.com
later pledged another $20 million bringing the total initial
offering
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by k***@hotmail.com
to $35 million.
Sounds like something an anti-American bigot like the UN would
say.
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Those
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
pledges were 1) made when estimates of lost life was 20,000
2) There was no indication of food and water problems
3) Were increased as the identified need was increased.
Compare this USA (both private and public) aid to Indonesia et
al
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
or
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
any
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
other disaster in the world and America has traditionally come
out
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
on
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
top,
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
In terms of % of GNP?
Can you document this claim?
Previous posters said that the %, lacking private donations and
military
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
aid such as the planes, helicopters and men,
I missed any such statement being made in any previous post.
i didn't.
Actually, you just plain lied. You are the only poster to make this
claim.
Post by Michael
Truth is not a democratic process, truth is often posted by only one, what
is your pont?
My point is that you lied about "a previous poster" saying that US aid
figures did not include private donations and distribution costs.
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
without which, not much would
Post by Michael
be happening in Indonesia right now,
The US military has , I suspect, significantly facilitated delivery
of
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
needed services in places which cannot be reached except by
helecopter.
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
I
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
don't know if they are the only ones providing such service, or if
they
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
are
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
simply the only ones we in the US hear about. You are the first
person I
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
have ever heard suggest that the cost of this is not included in the
value
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
of assistance we state we are providing. It seems odd that it would
not
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
be.
Post by Michael
Why would it be odd? I even saw a newscast on the 'America is always
wrong' biased CNN that stated that without american military help in
distributing the donated food and water, not much would be happening
beyond a stockpile of undistributed supplies.
What does that have to do with your claim that the cost of distribution
is
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
not included in the value of aid?
Where did the figures posted say that they included the cost of
distribution? The figures posted don't tell us how they were
manufactured.
You are the one claiming that thay DID NOT include those costs. Are you now
admitting that you do not know?
Always did, there is no way to make a determination either way even to
agree with your unsupported assertions without the assumptions and
limiting conditions of how the numbers were generated. I can say with
certainty that the figures DO NOT include any of America's charity toward
tsunami victems, as the figures from the website were prepared long before
the tsunami and do not take that charity into any effect .
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
were posted on the UN SITE, I
Post by Michael
couldn't find them, but you assured me that they were there so you
already
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
have the base number.
I assured you of no such thing. I only that a previous poster had
offered
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
such statistics and you had never presented any counter information
nor
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
commented on the validity of his imformation, but only spouted
rethoric
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
in
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
response.
I still cant find the valuable statistics that he provided with the
assumptions and limiting conditions under which they were
accumumlated,
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
which means that they wre merely spoited rethoric to begin with.
That's because the "limiting conditions" exist only in your fertile
brain. I
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
reposted his statistics.
But without knowing the undisclosed liminting conditions and assumptions
in his fertile brain, we have no way of knowing what his numbers mean, nor
how acccurate they are.
On what basis do you claim that there _are_ "limiting conditions".
The original post suggested no such limiting conditions, and you have still
provided no evidence of such.
They have to have limiting conditions and assumptions, else how could one
compile the statistics, chosing what to include and what to exclude. Like
the inalienable rights that God provides all Americans, some truths is
self evident, particularly having prepared such complicated statistics.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
You claimed, back when there were only six posts in this thread, that you
"couldn't find" the original post in order to evaluste the statistics, or
offer counter statistics, so I reposted them for you. (It took me less than
a minuite to find them) Your only "evalustion" has been ,"well, they might
not be accurate", or there could be some kind of "limiting conditions".
Where are your better figures and why are they more reliable?
Not the point, the initial post lambasted America for a very specific lack
of charity in the tsunami
Which was the case at the time of the original post.

and then posted statistics for Official
Post by Michael
Development Assistance. Official Development Assistance is like an apple
to an orange when tring to use the Official Development Assistance
statistics (however they were compiled) to make a judgement regarding
charity.
They were offered as evidence that the original lack of response by our
government was not a single instance of stinginess, but part of a pattern.
Whether either part of the original poster's positions are accurate
(unwillingness to respond in a meaningful way to the tsunami until pressured
to do so, or a pattern of response which is weak in terms of our resources),
he at keast provided some evidence to support them. Your arguement against
them still consists of nothing stronger than, "Well, Oh Yeah!"
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
My original comment to you was that the original poster had offfered
evidence to support his poinion and you had offered only blather. Thank you
cor continuing to illustrate my point.
actually he merely offered his opinion regarding charity to tsunami
victems
He gave dollar amounts.

and then used irrelevant statistics for Official Development
Post by Michael
Assistance, which ain't the same thing.s
He never said they were the "same thing" He said that a weak response to the
tsunami was not typical and offered as evidence of this, a comparison of our
developmental assistance, in terms of our resources, compated to that of 22
other nations. I'm still waiting for your statistics to show that we
regularly give a greater percentage of our Gross National Product to
international charitable causes than those other nations.
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
To that you would have to add the substantial
Post by Michael
private donations and military aid, such as liberating Kurds in
Iraq
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
from
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Saddam Insane (who murdered more Iraqis than the tsunami did in SE
Asia).
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
This is not aid.
I certainly ain't stingy to risk an American life to save the life of
a
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Kurd, as Mastercard might say, that is priceless. BTW, mass
re-distribution is not aid either, and usually merely enabeling.
Invasion is still not aid.
It was for those who live today because Saddam was prevented from
murdering them.
Not for the 30,000 to 100,000 more that were murdered during the months
following the invasion than during the same period under Saddam.
How many did the Americans kill, and how many the terrorists, and how many
could have been spared if the terrorists acted civily?
More are dienig now than under Saddam. Do you think it matters all that much
to them or thier relatives left behind who is killing them?
Post by Michael
Not for the
Post by k***@hotmail.com
millions who had water and electricity under Saddam and do not yet in the
"new Iraq"
I am not aware that anyone in Iraq today is without electricity or water,
am I wrong?
Either you or all news reports from Iraq which all still say that drinkable
water is in limited supply and rolling blackouts are normal. Based on your
past record, I'm guessing you are wrong and the news is right.

In fact, reports from returning soldiers tell quite a
Post by Michael
different story.
About electricity and water? No, they do not.
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Also, we are still killing more Iraquis thqn
Post by Michael
Sadddam did.
Can't find that to be the case. We may be killing more Bahist and
terrorists than the terrorist Saddam was murdering, but that is their
choice to be a terrorist and not the fault of America.
So you do admit that we "nay b"e killing more Iraqis than Saddam.
No, my point was that we may be killing more terrorists than Saddam might
have murdered. Saddam liked terrorists and was one, it was the common
folks that he disliked.
He killed people suspected of trying to overthrow his government; we kill
people suspected of trying to overthrow the one we appointed. We are killing
more than he did.
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
The only question is whether it is the 100,000 more for the
Post by Michael
period studied
By whom?
Study published in "The Lancet" estimated 100. 000 more deaths in, a period
of, I believe 8 months following the Bush claim that the war was over than
during the same period under Saddam before the war began.
Deaths of whom? Terrorists or law abiding Iraqis?
The Lancet reported that the proportion of women and children killed after
the official end of the war was higher than before the invasion. The
alternate calculations did not challenge this statistic.

we are still uncovering
Post by Michael
unmarked mass graves,
Do you have any documentation on how many dead in these graves and when or
how they died?

did he take these into consideration, especially the
Post by Michael
ones uncovered since he estimated a number using an unknown set of
assumptions and limiting conditions?
This was not a 'he" it was the British equivalent of the American Medical
Association; I don't remember it's proper title.
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
arrived at using standard statistical models
Using what assumptions and limiting conditions?
That would be coveved under the term "standard models".
A standard model is an estimate based upon specific assumptions and
limiting conditions, vital to understanding the validity of the standard
model.
Check the Lancet.
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
, or the 30,000
Post by Michael
more estimated by Bush supporters using non-standard models.
All depends upon the assumptions and limiting conditions in the fertile
minds that prepared them, without which, no determination can be made that
any of the figures are correct or even believable.
The best Bush supporters were able to do was reduce their estimate to a
30,000 increase.
Depends upon their assumptions and limiting conditions, I suspect.
I suspect they used the assumptions and limitations which would give them
the smallest figure possible, since their intent was to challenge the
official estimate.
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
I would be happy to document this further, how much are you paying
me
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
for
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
my time?
Considering what it is worth, I'd have to bill you.
Tee hee hee, you are ever the comedian.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
contrary to the anti-american bigots at the UN. To be even
more
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
exact
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
as
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
to who is stingy, compare the USA aid to Indonesia et al with
the
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
outpouring of the rest of the World's charity for the Florida
victems
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
of 4
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
hurricans who also struggled with clean water and food, which
was
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
almost
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
$0.
Seems that the world is far more stingy than America. For a
final
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
comparison, ask how much the UN officials who think America is
stingy
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
took
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
in from kick backs in the Oil for Palaces progromme?
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
Michael
2005-01-15 18:12:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
In article
Post by k***@hotmail.com
US Gov't - Stingiest of All!
On Monday the Bush administration pledged an initial $15
million
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
and
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by k***@hotmail.com
later pledged another $20 million bringing the total
initial
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
offering
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
Post by k***@hotmail.com
to $35 million.
Sounds like something an anti-American bigot like the UN
would
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
say.
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Those
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
pledges were 1) made when estimates of lost life was
20,000
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
2) There was no indication of food and water problems
3) Were increased as the identified need was increased.
Compare this USA (both private and public) aid to
Indonesia et
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
al
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
or
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
any
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
other disaster in the world and America has traditionally
come
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
out
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
on
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
top,
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
In terms of % of GNP?
Can you document this claim?
Previous posters said that the %, lacking private donations
and
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
military
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
aid such as the planes, helicopters and men,
I missed any such statement being made in any previous post.
i didn't.
Actually, you just plain lied. You are the only poster to make this
claim.
Post by Michael
Truth is not a democratic process, truth is often posted by only one,
what
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
is your pont?
My point is that you lied about "a previous poster" saying that US aid
figures did not include private donations and distribution costs.
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
without which, not much would
Post by Michael
be happening in Indonesia right now,
The US military has , I suspect, significantly facilitated
delivery
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
of
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
needed services in places which cannot be reached except by
helecopter.
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
I
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
don't know if they are the only ones providing such service, or
if
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
they
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
are
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
simply the only ones we in the US hear about. You are the first
person I
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
have ever heard suggest that the cost of this is not included in
the
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
value
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
of assistance we state we are providing. It seems odd that it
would
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
not
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
be.
Post by Michael
Why would it be odd? I even saw a newscast on the 'America is
always
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
wrong' biased CNN that stated that without american military help
in
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
distributing the donated food and water, not much would be
happening
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
beyond a stockpile of undistributed supplies.
What does that have to do with your claim that the cost of
distribution
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
is
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
not included in the value of aid?
Where did the figures posted say that they included the cost of
distribution? The figures posted don't tell us how they were
manufactured.
You are the one claiming that thay DID NOT include those costs. Are you
now
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
admitting that you do not know?
Always did, there is no way to make a determination either way even to
agree with your unsupported assertions without the assumptions and
limiting conditions of how the numbers were generated. I can say with
certainty that the figures DO NOT include any of America's charity toward
tsunami victems, as the figures from the website were prepared long before
the tsunami and do not take that charity into any effect .
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
were posted on the UN SITE, I
Post by Michael
couldn't find them, but you assured me that they were there so
you
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
already
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
have the base number.
I assured you of no such thing. I only that a previous poster
had
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
offered
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
such statistics and you had never presented any counter
information
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
nor
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
commented on the validity of his imformation, but only spouted
rethoric
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
in
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
response.
I still cant find the valuable statistics that he provided with
the
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
assumptions and limiting conditions under which they were
accumumlated,
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
which means that they wre merely spoited rethoric to begin with.
That's because the "limiting conditions" exist only in your fertile
brain. I
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
reposted his statistics.
But without knowing the undisclosed liminting conditions and
assumptions
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
in his fertile brain, we have no way of knowing what his numbers mean,
nor
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
how acccurate they are.
On what basis do you claim that there _are_ "limiting conditions".
The original post suggested no such limiting conditions, and you have
still
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
provided no evidence of such.
They have to have limiting conditions and assumptions, else how could one
compile the statistics, chosing what to include and what to exclude. Like
the inalienable rights that God provides all Americans, some truths is
self evident, particularly having prepared such complicated statistics.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
You claimed, back when there were only six posts in this thread, that
you
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
"couldn't find" the original post in order to evaluste the statistics,
or
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
offer counter statistics, so I reposted them for you. (It took me less
than
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
a minuite to find them) Your only "evalustion" has been ,"well, they
might
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
not be accurate", or there could be some kind of "limiting conditions".
Where are your better figures and why are they more reliable?
Not the point, the initial post lambasted America for a very specific lack
of charity in the tsunami
Which was the case at the time of the original post.
and then posted statistics for Official
Post by Michael
Development Assistance. Official Development Assistance is like an apple
to an orange when tring to use the Official Development Assistance
statistics (however they were compiled) to make a judgement regarding
charity.
They were offered as evidence that the original lack of response by our
government was not a single instance of stinginess, but part of a pattern.
But the part offered, a small sliver of a particular scheme of
redistribution of wealth, has little to do with charity, and does does not
particularily have anything to do with charity at all.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Whether either part of the original poster's positions are accurate
(unwillingness to respond in a meaningful way to the tsunami until pressured
to do so, or a pattern of response which is weak in terms of our resources),
he at keast provided some evidence to support them. Your arguement against
them still consists of nothing stronger than, "Well, Oh Yeah!"
IOW, since the scant and specific statistics arrived at by unknown means
to a small sliver of a particular scheme to redistribute wealth which may
have nothing to do in the measurement of charity, it can be stretched to
support the bias of the user whether or not it is accurate or not? IOW,
the ends (anti-American bigotry) justify the means (irrespective of
whether the facts are relevant or even accurate)?
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
My original comment to you was that the original poster had offfered
evidence to support his poinion and you had offered only blather. Thank
you
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
cor continuing to illustrate my point.
actually he merely offered his opinion regarding charity to tsunami
victems
He gave dollar amounts.
and then used irrelevant statistics for Official Development
Post by Michael
Assistance, which ain't the same thing.s
He never said they were the "same thing"
If they are 'not the same thing' then they do not validate his prejudical
theory.

He said that a weak response to the
Post by k***@hotmail.com
tsunami was not typical and offered as evidence of this,
What does he think a strong response should be? Almost 50% of Americans
have donated to tsunami relief half way around the world to people in
nations who are deciddedly anti-American bigoted and murder Christians
over and above any government aid, does that make America stingy? I think
not.

a comparison of our
Post by k***@hotmail.com
developmental assistance, in terms of our resources, compated to that of 22
other nations.
America's trade deficit does more to deveolpe other nations that all of
the wealth redistribution progrommes put together.

I'm still waiting for your statistics to show that we
Post by k***@hotmail.com
regularly give a greater percentage of our Gross National Product to
international charitable causes than those other nations.
I am still waiting for the original poster to prove that they don't first,
and the assumptions and limiting conditions to the statistics he uses. So
far he has failed to support the thesis in any rational way, there is no
need for a rebuttal to a statement not yet sufficiently supported, for it
is prima fascia incorrect.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
To that you would have to add the substantial
Post by Michael
private donations and military aid, such as liberating Kurds
in
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Iraq
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
from
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Saddam Insane (who murdered more Iraqis than the tsunami did
in SE
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Asia).
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
This is not aid.
I certainly ain't stingy to risk an American life to save the life
of
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
a
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Kurd, as Mastercard might say, that is priceless. BTW, mass
re-distribution is not aid either, and usually merely enabeling.
Invasion is still not aid.
It was for those who live today because Saddam was prevented from
murdering them.
Not for the 30,000 to 100,000 more that were murdered during the months
following the invasion than during the same period under Saddam.
How many did the Americans kill, and how many the terrorists, and how many
could have been spared if the terrorists acted civily?
More are dienig now than under Saddam. Do you think it matters all that much
to them or thier relatives left behind who is killing them?
More terrorists are dying and more innocent people are living? Is that a
bad thing?
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Not for the
Post by k***@hotmail.com
millions who had water and electricity under Saddam and do not yet in
the
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
"new Iraq"
I am not aware that anyone in Iraq today is without electricity or water,
am I wrong?
Either you or all news reports from Iraq which all still say that drinkable
water is in limited supply and rolling blackouts are normal.
You mean like in California?

Based on your
Post by k***@hotmail.com
past record, I'm guessing you are wrong and the news is right.
I know people in the socalistic state of California, the rolling blackouts
are real and drinking water has become suspect.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
In fact, reports from returning soldiers tell quite a
Post by Michael
different story.
About electricity and water? No, they do not.
Actually they do, as well as cite the opening of schools and polling
places for a democratic vote of the people, notwithstanding the desperate
attempt of the terrorists to overturn these events.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Also, we are still killing more Iraquis thqn
Post by Michael
Sadddam did.
Can't find that to be the case. We may be killing more Bahist and
terrorists than the terrorist Saddam was murdering, but that is their
choice to be a terrorist and not the fault of America.
So you do admit that we "nay b"e killing more Iraqis than Saddam.
No, my point was that we may be killing more terrorists than Saddam might
have murdered. Saddam liked terrorists and was one, it was the common
folks that he disliked.
He killed people suspected of trying to overthrow his government;
Tee hee hee, Hitler also killed people suspected of trying to overthrow
his government, are you saying that America was wrong to show charity to
the people Hitler was oppressing?

we kill
Post by k***@hotmail.com
people suspected of trying to overthrow the one we appointed.
No, although we may kill terrorists more than suspected in preventing the
Iraqi people from electing their own government.

We are killing
Post by k***@hotmail.com
more than he did.
More terrorists are dying and more innocent people are living and being
given a change to vote democraticly for their government? Is that a bad
thing?
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
The only question is whether it is the 100,000 more for the
Post by Michael
period studied
By whom?
Study published in "The Lancet" estimated 100. 000 more deaths in, a
period
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
of, I believe 8 months following the Bush claim that the war was over
than
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
during the same period under Saddam before the war began.
Deaths of whom? Terrorists or law abiding Iraqis?
The Lancet reported that the proportion of women and children killed after
the official end of the war was higher than before the invasion. The
alternate calculations did not challenge this statistic.
But killed by whom? How? and Why? Even if the raw statistic is correct,
it does not necessarily mean what you want to imply. Does it mean that
the terrorists are killing more women and children that Saddam did?
Post by k***@hotmail.com
we are still uncovering
Post by Michael
unmarked mass graves,
Do you have any documentation on how many dead in these graves and when or
how they died?
I haven't seen the count, accurate records were not kept of the killing in
the mass graves nor were they in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR nor
Mao's China nor Christophobiic murder in Indonesia or Christans being
enslaved in the Sudan, but the mass graves continue and probably will
continue to be found.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
did he take these into consideration, especially the
Post by Michael
ones uncovered since he estimated a number using an unknown set of
assumptions and limiting conditions?
This was not a 'he" it was the British equivalent of the American Medical
Association; I don't remember it's proper title.
Granted, but the question remains the same; did the British equivalent of
the American Medical Association take these into consideration, especially
the ones uncovered since he estimated a number using an unknown set of
assumptions and limiting conditions?
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
arrived at using standard statistical models
Using what assumptions and limiting conditions?
That would be coveved under the term "standard models".
A standard model is an estimate based upon specific assumptions and
limiting conditions, vital to understanding the validity of the standard
model.
Check the Lancet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4076993.stm

A study in a medical journal said nearly 100,000 died after the invasion.
Other groups put the figure at 15,000.

The point, what assumptions and limiting condditions did Lancet use to
arrive at 100,000 when other groups put the figure at 15,000? That is
quite a difference. Why should we believe Lancet and not the other
groups? Is Lancet stretching the numbers by statical impropriety?
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
, or the 30,000
Post by Michael
more estimated by Bush supporters using non-standard models.
All depends upon the assumptions and limiting conditions in the
fertile
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
minds that prepared them, without which, no determination can be made
that
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
any of the figures are correct or even believable.
The best Bush supporters were able to do was reduce their estimate to a
30,000 increase.
Depends upon their assumptions and limiting conditions, I suspect.
I suspect they used the assumptions and limitations which would give them
the smallest figure possible, since their intent was to challenge the
official estimate.
Others suspect that Lancet used the assumptions and limitations which
would give them the greatest figure possible, since their intent may have
been to challenge the lower estimates. BTW, both are estimates, and
without the assumptions and limiting conditions stated, the suspecion of
Lancet is as equally as valid as the suspecion of the 'others', am I
wrong?
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
I would be happy to document this further, how much are you
paying
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
me
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
for
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
my time?
Considering what it is worth, I'd have to bill you.
Tee hee hee, you are ever the comedian.
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
contrary to the anti-american bigots at the UN. To be
even
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
more
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
exact
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
as
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
to who is stingy, compare the USA aid to Indonesia et al
with
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
the
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
outpouring of the rest of the World's charity for the
Florida
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
victems
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
of 4
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
hurricans who also struggled with clean water and food,
which
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
was
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
almost
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
$0.
Seems that the world is far more stingy than America. For
a
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
final
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
comparison, ask how much the UN officials who think
America is
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
Post by Michael
Post by Michael
stingy
Post by Michael
Post by k***@hotmail.com
took
Post by Michael
Post by j***@bellsouth.net
in from kick backs in the Oil for Palaces progromme?
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
Loading...