NCclimber

You have a very short memory. It has already been answered in this very thread. 24 British troops KIA, 9 by US forces. I'm just wondering why the other 23 soldiers who died in Gulf War I don't count as "British fatalities"? The "fact" you claimed was false.

You didn't know? I'm surprised. Got link showing his direct involvement of covering up the My Lai massacre? . About 178,000 links here. Re-read my question and then try again. I said direct involvement, not any kind of loose relationship. I did a google for george washinton beat slaves and got over 1 million hits. I wonder how many of those links talk about him beating slaves???

You didn't know? I'm surprised. Got link showing his direct involvement of covering up the My Lai massacre? I look forward to seeing how you dodge this one. LOL I guess you didn't bother to find out the FACTS of that either. The request came from the House sergeant-at-arms. Even the White House says your position on this is "silly". I'm not talking about what took place in DC, but rather your rationalizations for a hypothetical scenario. Any comment on your bogus claim of: "Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces."

Or it could be that Hoover fucked teh country so bad that even his own voted him out. Hoover fucked the country? Do you think he was responsible for the Great Depression?

Did someone here direct a racial slur at Obama? Getting back the Pelosi insult, how is that word any worse than asshole, prick, dickhead or any number of slurs that are almost exclusively directed at men? N-bomb is to Obama:: as cunt is to Pelosi. Is that so hard? Why? Because both are members of some "oppressed" class, so certain words are completely off-limits? This is right up there with the thinking that blacks who deeply hate whites, primarily for their skin color, shouldn't be considered racists. Underclass status trumps low class character. Welcome to our brave new world.

Yeah, the Germans and the Japanese have been really suffering under the yoke of US imperialism for the last 60 years.

I did not approve of cover-ups then nor do I now, your insipid post asking "do you approve of cover-ups?" was directed at another poster not me. My response was to highlight the nature of your question with the apocryphal equivalent "Have you stopped beating your wife?" (an error actually since it should begin "When did you..."). It's a pitty that when your research didn't confirm your memory, you posted anyway. You could have made an on topic post instead of a vapid attack, it was your choice. Welcome to Kallend's World, where it's perfectly acceptable for Speakers of the House to request a tax payer funded, upgraded 757as her own commuter plane, where a vaccine that could prevent cervical cancer in 1 out of 25,000 women should be equated to eradicating polio, where a valid assessment of the current costs of the war in Iraq should include all economic and productivity variables (into the indefinite future) that can be tacitly tied to the war. Earlier in this thread he said: "Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces." This was wrong and misleading. I guess - During Gulf War I, nine british soldiers died in an isolated friendly fire tragedy,... wouldn't have the same punch. And now I'm leanring that Colin Polwell was involved in covering up the My Lai massacre.

Clearly, you are the first to do such a thing...you're a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, person. How do you feel now?! I feel bad. I think I'll go have myself a good cry.

But is was an eyecatching title, don't you think? Lighten up, Frances. Are you really crying about thread titles being misleading, in Speakers Corner??? Tissue?

Of course, it does occassionally come back to bite me in the ass. You cut me to the quick.

One COULD say exactly the same about a book review. A review of Mein Kampf or Das Kapital can be made to sound quite reasonable. From Amazon.com No doubt - It's a conspiracy.

I bet a nickle we hear a great big silence from the OP about this. You'd lose. Aside from my cut and paste in the original post (and one other post) my participation in this thread has been about her not being "entitled" to a C32. Hey Kallend, Do you still think she's completely entitled to a C-32? Livendive, I'd change the title to "Another tempest in a teacup" if I could.

Thanks. She sounds like a true progressive. Funny how so many poster's immediately condemned her. What's that old saying about judging a book by its cover?

I'm not sure why, but these last few posts have the feel of something out of Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail. It's Dave.... no Fred.... no Into the abyss with him. Aaaaarrrgggggg.

FYI, I think most everyone here has caught on that you hash up these threads just to amuse yourself. Yes, you can make a big mess of other people's conversations which is an accomplishment of sorts, I guess. But nobody actually believes that the crap you spew is sincere. Funny how your MO is to merely attack my style or me personally, but rarely to you refute my factual assertions.

Would it surprise you to know that approximately one trillion dollars is spent every year for public healthcare? Or that the current cost of the war in Iraq is more like 370 billion... not the "trillions" people like to toss about? Did you know ... What am I thinking, it's NCclimber. Of course you have no idea. Rarely does one, knowing so little, post so much. Accusing me of ignorance for shedding a little light on your bogus claims. Ironic. As usual you snipe and whine. www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/cost_of_war_in_iraq.pdf I suppose you put the cost of long term health care and disability payments to wounded Iraq veterans on the "health care" ledger rather than the "war" ledger. The Sun set in the west yesterday - need a cite? Oh great. A long term hypothetical forecast to refute actual numbers. You crack me up.

Instead of backing up your claim or admitting you were wrong (can you imagine?), you try to put the onus on me. How predictable. DURRR If I wrote "The Sun rose in the east this morning" you would demand a cite, and then bicker about it. If you'd put up or own up, instead of consistently resorting to diversionary tactics, we could avoid so much. Kind of sucks being pressed to back up your claims, eh?

Thanks for the info on that. The point I'm trying to make is this report is a pretty big deal. It's on the front page of the USA Today, LA Times and NYT web sites. It's an official finding on what many people have claimed for four years. You seem intent on making it about "too little, too late" or focusing on what it doesn't cover. How about making a big deal about something, that in my opinion, is a big deal?

Was that part of the scope of this study?

Would it surprise you to know that approximately one trillion dollars is spent every year for public healthcare? Or that the current cost of the war in Iraq is more like 370 billion... not the "trillions" people like to toss about? Did you know ... What am I thinking, it's NCclimber. Of course you have no idea. Rarely does one, knowing so little, post so much. Accusing me of ignorance for shedding a little light on your bogus claims. Ironic.

Because it's very old news. I thought it was about an official report released by the Pentagon, this week. While it addresses actions (or attitudes) from four years ago, it seems to be the first official statement/investigation on the matter.

Seems pretty cut and dried. It's news. Why do you think anyone would not consider it news?

Would it surprise you to know that approximately one trillion dollars is spent every year for public healthcare? Or that the current cost of the war in Iraq is more like 370 billion... not the "trillions" people like to toss about?

Instead of backing up your claim or admitting you were wrong (can you imagine?), you try to put the onus on me. How predictable. DURRR

Please post where you confirmed these findings. You are in the military - how come you are unaware of stuff like this. Sleep through your training? Look who is ducking another question. Your response borders on the offensive because it reflects an ignorance of the biggest military disaster of the first Gulf War inflicted by another pair of American A10 pilots on British troops (heck it could be the same pair of pilots, we have no way of knowing). The question can't be evaded, it is seared into the British consciousness, even if it doesn't register on the American conscience. I just wonder what you're doing posting noise to a thread about a subject you're so ill-equipped to discuss. You seem to infer a great deal that is unstated. I meant no disrespect to British soldiers killed in combat. I was merely pressing Kallend to back up his claim.... which he has done. Can anyone explain why some sources claim British combat deaths were 24, while others claim a higher number of 47? What is it about those other 23 soldiers killed (47-24=23) that makes the cause of their deaths uncertain?