There is only one item in this article with which I mildly disagree:

`` There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans of
confident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circles
before the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able to
establish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and that
instead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidly
anti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and never
thereafter be seriously challenged. ''

But... What about me? What about my comment that it was a bad idea to
invade a country where civilians are armed to the teeth? As an NRA
member, I know very well that it is a bad idea, and I was not shy to
communicate it. But no one listened to the poor old Ignoramus!
Everyone thought that they were genius patriots and that Ignoramus
was, well, an ignorant traitor. Now I am in the unfortunate role of a
Cassandra, which American servicemen are getting killed in Iraq for no
good reason.

Article follows:
================================================== ====================

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 (UPI) -- The "death by a thousand cuts"
guerrilla attacks afflicting U.S. forces in Iraq are not the work of
a centralized network of Saddam Hussein loyalists. Would that they
were.
Until now, aggressive U.S. counter-insurgency tactics in
Iraq have been focused on precisely that assumption. And as a
result, U.S. forces have had remarkable success in targeting,
capturing and killing senior figures in Saddam's hierarchy. More
than half the "playing deck of cards" of most wanted men has been
apprehended -- one way or another -- since Baghdad fell four and a
half months ago.
But in the grimly familiar pattern of counter-insurgency
colonial-type wars of pacification, the more battles the Bush
administration has won on the ground, the more it has plunged
towards losing the overall conflict.
That is because the political strategy and the politically
determined intelligence evaluations imposed on the highly
professional, but appallingly undermanned and ill-equipped, U.S.
forces in Iraq were entirely wrong to begin with.
The hands-on policymakers in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense were convinced that 25 million Iraqis loathed Saddam and
would embrace the U.S. Army as their liberators. These policymakers
also ruled out the possibility of serious guerrilla activity
inflicting significant casualties on U.S. forces as defeatist and
not worth even considering. No provisional planning was made for any
such eventuality.
Remarkably, the Pentagon civilian planners did not even make
realistic provisions for restoring power, water and other vital
services to Baghdad and other cities in advance. A succession of
statements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggests that even
when the chaotic results of this blas&233; approach became
manifest, the Pentagon planners did not care anyway.
And neither the Pentagon planners nor their neo-conservative
cheering section in the U.S. media dreamed for a minute that serious
terrorist or guerrilla opposition to the U.S. forces could or would
be able to enjoy any serious constituency or reservoir of support
among the Iraqi people.
There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans of
confident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circles
before the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able to
establish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and that
instead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidly
anti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and never
thereafter be seriously challenged.
But the continued steady stream of fatal attacks on U.S.
troops, the serious sabotage already crippling Iraq's oil pipeline
network, and the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in
Baghdad this week can only be understood within the context of these
unanticipated realities.
Already, U.S. pundits are trying to use released preliminary
forensic findings to revive their tattered old claim that the
guerrilla attacks are almost all the work of Saddam loyalists. The
fact that old Iraqi army munitions appear to have been used to make
the monster bomb that demolished the U.N. compound and killed the
U.N. envoy has been presented as "evidence" of that.
It would be no surprise certainly if veterans of Saddam's
old Republican Guard were involved, nor should it be unexpected that
among the vast piles of munitions that Saddam was believed to have
secreted away, some of them should turn up in terror attacks.
But raw intelligence from U.S. field forces, and the
intelligence assessments of major Middle Eastern, Western European
and South Asian governments all point to a very different and
coherent picture:
Thousands of activists and supporters of al-Qaida and many
other Sunni Muslim jihadist groups have already streamed across the
open, undefended borders of Iraq from Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The
Iraqi Shiites are now not merely organized but in detailed, open
communication with supporters and sympathizers to the east in
neighboring Iran. And, most of all, Iraqis themselves have already
thrown their support in the hundreds of thousands to the rapidly
organizing Sunni and Shiite indigenous forces in Baghdad, the south
and the holy city of Najaf.
Therefore, far from "draining the swamp" of Iraqi extremism,
as proponents of the March-April war claimed it would do, U.S.
success in toppling Saddam has only succeeded in creating the very
Frankenstein monster it was supposed to destroy. The Pentagon
policymakers have only succeeded in opening a bottomless pit from
which the most virulent anti-American and -- as the attack on the UN
compound showed -- anti-Western forces can now flourish and breed.
Far from stabilizing the Middle East, this development poses
a threat to traditional regimes in the region many orders of
magnitude worse than anything Saddam did.
Saudi Arabia and Jordan will be under immediate threat. The
anti-government student protest movement in Iran is likely to be
distracted and even superceded by the return of virulent, Islamist
anti-American sentiments. And, far from knocking the fight out of
Palestinian Islamist terror onslaughts against Israeli civilians,
the growing success of the guerrilla war in Iraq has only emboldened
them, as this week's bombing of a crowded Jerusalem bus the same day
as the destruction of the U.N. compound amply testified.
Ironically, contrary to the received Conventional Wisdom of
successive U.S. governments over the past quarter of a century, a
fiercely anti-U.S. former president of Iran may have had the best
and most realistic constructive advice for U.S. policymakers this
week. On Friday, former Iranian President Ali-Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani called on the Bush administration to pull out of Iraq and
let the United Nations take over.
Rafsanjani's advice will certainly not be heeded, of course.
For the moment, U.S. forces will stay in Iraq, and the list of U.S.
troops killed there will grow inexorably longer with no end or even
improvement in sight. And America will be cast more than ever in the
role of the Great Satan in the eyes of scores of millions of
mainstream Muslims. One does not have to own a crystal ball to be
confident of that.

On 23 Aug 2003 01:21:04 GMT, Ignoramus25883
<ignoramus25883@NOSPAM.25883.invalid> wrote:
There is only one item in this article with which I mildly disagree:`` There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans ofconfident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circlesbefore the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able toestablish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and thatinstead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidlyanti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and neverthereafter be seriously challenged. ''But... What about me? What about my comment that it was a bad idea toinvade a country where civilians are armed to the teeth? As an NRAmember, I know very well that it is a bad idea, and I was not shy tocommunicate it. But no one listened to the poor old Ignoramus!

My advice is to "don't worry about it." People often don't listen to
others either.

Anything to say about this, Tim? :-)
Everyone thought that they were genius patriots and that Ignoramuswas, well, an ignorant traitor. Now I am in the unfortunate role of aCassandra, which American servicemen are getting killed in Iraq for nogood reason.

Um, have often felt that way myself, but AFIK the main reference only
technically refers to females and not males.

"However, Cassandra was a prophetess. In Greek legend the daughter of
Priam and Hecuba, gifted with the power of prophecy; but Apollo, whose
advances she had refused, brought it to pass that no one would believe
her predictions, although the were invariably correct. She appears in
Shakespeare's _ Troilus and Cressida_."

.....Brewers Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, first published 1870,
Eighth [revised] edition 1963, page 180.

If a Christian, have a look at Luke 7:30-35.

erniegalts
Article follows:========================================== ============================ WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 (UPI) -- The "death by a thousand cuts"guerrilla attacks afflicting U.S. forces in Iraq are not the work ofa centralized network of Saddam Hussein loyalists. Would that theywere. Until now, aggressive U.S. counter-insurgency tactics inIraq have been focused on precisely that assumption. And as aresult, U.S. forces have had remarkable success in targeting,capturing and killing senior figures in Saddam's hierarchy. Morethan half the "playing deck of cards" of most wanted men has beenapprehended -- one way or another -- since Baghdad fell four and ahalf months ago. But in the grimly familiar pattern of counter-insurgencycolonial-type wars of pacification, the more battles the Bushadministration has won on the ground, the more it has plungedtowards losing the overall conflict. That is because the political strategy and the politicallydetermined intelligence evaluations imposed on the highlyprofessional, but appallingly undermanned and ill-equipped, U.S.forces in Iraq were entirely wrong to begin with. The hands-on policymakers in the Office of the Secretary ofDefense were convinced that 25 million Iraqis loathed Saddam andwould embrace the U.S. Army as their liberators. These policymakersalso ruled out the possibility of serious guerrilla activityinflicting significant casualties on U.S. forces as defeatist andnot worth even considering. No provisional planning was made for anysuch eventuality. Remarkably, the Pentagon civilian planners did not even makerealistic provisions for restoring power, water and other vitalservices to Baghdad and other cities in advance. A succession ofstatements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggests that evenwhen the chaotic results of this blas&233; approach becamemanifest, the Pentagon planners did not care anyway. And neither the Pentagon planners nor their neo-conservativecheering section in the U.S. media dreamed for a minute that seriousterrorist or guerrilla opposition to the U.S. forces could or wouldbe able to enjoy any serious constituency or reservoir of supportamong the Iraqi people. There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans ofconfident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circlesbefore the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able toestablish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and thatinstead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidlyanti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and neverthereafter be seriously challenged. But the continued steady stream of fatal attacks on U.S.troops, the serious sabotage already crippling Iraq's oil pipelinenetwork, and the bombing of the United Nations headquarters inBaghdad this week can only be understood within the context of theseunanticipated realities. Already, U.S. pundits are trying to use released preliminaryforensic findings to revive their tattered old claim that theguerrilla attacks are almost all the work of Saddam loyalists. Thefact that old Iraqi army munitions appear to have been used to makethe monster bomb that demolished the U.N. compound and killed theU.N. envoy has been presented as "evidence" of that. It would be no surprise certainly if veterans of Saddam'sold Republican Guard were involved, nor should it be unexpected thatamong the vast piles of munitions that Saddam was believed to havesecreted away, some of them should turn up in terror attacks. But raw intelligence from U.S. field forces, and theintelligence assessments of major Middle Eastern, Western Europeanand South Asian governments all point to a very different andcoherent picture: Thousands of activists and supporters of al-Qaida and manyother Sunni Muslim jihadist groups have already streamed across theopen, undefended borders of Iraq from Saudi Arabia and Jordan. TheIraqi Shiites are now not merely organized but in detailed, opencommunication with supporters and sympathizers to the east inneighboring Iran. And, most of all, Iraqis themselves have alreadythrown their support in the hundreds of thousands to the rapidlyorganizing Sunni and Shiite indigenous forces in Baghdad, the southand the holy city of Najaf. Therefore, far from "draining the swamp" of Iraqi extremism,as proponents of the March-April war claimed it would do, U.S.success in toppling Saddam has only succeeded in creating the veryFrankenstein monster it was supposed to destroy. The Pentagonpolicymakers have only succeeded in opening a bottomless pit fromwhich the most virulent anti-American and -- as the attack on the UNcompound showed -- anti-Western forces can now flourish and breed. Far from stabilizing the Middle East, this development posesa threat to traditional regimes in the region many orders ofmagnitude worse than anything Saddam did. Saudi Arabia and Jordan will be under immediate threat. Theanti-government student protest movement in Iran is likely to bedistracted and even superceded by the return of virulent, Islamistanti-American sentiments. And, far from knocking the fight out ofPalestinian Islamist terror onslaughts against Israeli civilians,the growing success of the guerrilla war in Iraq has only emboldenedthem, as this week's bombing of a crowded Jerusalem bus the same dayas the destruction of the U.N. compound amply testified. Ironically, contrary to the received Conventional Wisdom ofsuccessive U.S. governments over the past quarter of a century, afiercely anti-U.S. former president of Iran may have had the bestand most realistic constructive advice for U.S. policymakers thisweek. On Friday, former Iranian President Ali-Akbar HashemiRafsanjani called on the Bush administration to pull out of Iraq andlet the United Nations take over. Rafsanjani's advice will certainly not be heeded, of course.For the moment, U.S. forces will stay in Iraq, and the list of U.S.troops killed there will grow inexorably longer with no end or evenimprovement in sight. And America will be cast more than ever in therole of the Great Satan in the eyes of scores of millions ofmainstream Muslims. One does not have to own a crystal ball to beconfident of that.

On 23 Aug 2003 02:44:28 GMT, Ignoramus25883
<ignoramus25883@NOSPAM.25883.invalid> wrote:
In article <220820031838129590%timcmay@removethis.got.net>, Tim May wrote: In article <bi6fi0$1fp$0@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus25883<ignoramus25883@NOSPAM.25883.invalid> wrote: There is only one item in this article with which I mildly disagree: `` There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans of confident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circles before the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able to establish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and that instead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidly anti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and never thereafter be seriously challenged. '' But... What about me? What about my comment that it was a bad idea to invade a country where civilians are armed to the teeth? As an NRA member, I know very well that it is a bad idea, and I was not shy to communicate it. But no one listened to the poor old Ignoramus! Everyone thought that they were genius patriots and that Ignoramus was, well, an ignorant traitor. Now I am in the unfortunate role of a Cassandra, which American servicemen are getting killed in Iraq for no good reason. And me, and others, even George Bush, Sr. (recall the 1998 book quote I posted here, which I'll post again at the end, as a reminder).Okay, so we see a rush of intelligent people trying to establish thatthey, too, warned others about the dangers of this invasion. Andobviously your predictions are well remembered. I just wanted toembellish my own role a little, as that UPI article gave me a perfectchance.The stupid sheople "patriots" who thought themselves to be experts inRealpolitik and salivated at the thought of stolen Iraqi oil, areslowly realizing that something is not quite right. Expect them toblame Bush who "misinformed" them. But make no mistake, they wereintentionally blind to his obvious lies.Even some pro-gun people forgot why the founding fathers intended usto be armed to the teeth, and decided that invading a country withmuch more brutal people who are armed to the teeth with great personalweapons (RPG-7 and AK-47), was a great idea.

and including (despite Iraq's generally secular population) no small
number of people more than willing to glorify themselves and secure
eternal buddy status with Allah by blowing themselves up along with as
many "oppressors" as possible. People so disposed as notoriously hard
to stop. Israel's experiences with them - even after turning their
entire country into a ****ty, repressive armed camp where fear is
constant, torture sanctioned, and freedom basically nonexistant -
should be ample evidence of that.

In article <fcqekv4n4bna0hul61uoooak4caom910mf@4ax.com>, leon@skunkers.org (leon skunkers) wrote: On 23 Aug 2003 02:44:28 GMT, Ignoramus25883<ignoramus25883@NOSPAM.25883.invalid> wrote:In article <220820031838129590%timcmay@removethis.got.net>, Tim May wrote: In article <bi6fi0$1fp$0@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus25883<ignoramus25883@NOSPAM.25883.invalid> wrote:> There is only one item in this article with which I mildly disagree:>> `` There was certainly no hint in any of the oceans of> confident comment and prediction that issued forth from such circles> before the March-April war that U.S. forces would never be able to> establish effective civilian control over much of Iraq and that> instead it would almost immediately fall into the hands of rabidly> anti-American Shiite and Sunni religious networks and never> thereafter be seriously challenged. ''>> But... What about me? What about my comment that it was a bad idea to> invade a country where civilians are armed to the teeth? As an NRA> member, I know very well that it is a bad idea, and I was not shy to> communicate it. But no one listened to the poor old Ignoramus!> Everyone thought that they were genius patriots and that Ignoramus> was, well, an ignorant traitor. Now I am in the unfortunate role of a> Cassandra, which American servicemen are getting killed in Iraq for no> good reason. And me, and others, even George Bush, Sr. (recall the 1998 book quote I posted here, which I'll post again at the end, as a reminder).Okay, so we see a rush of intelligent people trying to establish thatthey, too, warned others about the dangers of this invasion. Andobviously your predictions are well remembered. I just wanted toembellish my own role a little, as that UPI article gave me a perfectchance.The stupid sheople "patriots" who thought themselves to be experts inRealpolitik and salivated at the thought of stolen Iraqi oil, areslowly realizing that something is not quite right. Expect them toblame Bush who "misinformed" them. But make no mistake, they wereintentionally blind to his obvious lies.Even some pro-gun people forgot why the founding fathers intended usto be armed to the teeth, and decided that invading a country withmuch more brutal people who are armed to the teeth with great personalweapons (RPG-7 and AK-47), was a great idea. and including (despite Iraq's generally secular population) no small number of people more than willing to glorify themselves and secure eternal buddy status with Allah by blowing themselves up along with as many "oppressors" as possible. People so disposed as notoriously hard to stop. Israel's experiences with them - even after turning their entire country into a ****ty, repressive armed camp where fear is constant, torture sanctioned, and freedom basically nonexistant - should be ample evidence of that.

yep... we should have let them live in their own **** and not try to go
in and steal their oil...

i

Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they
invaded?

No..I was referring to Greylock's post...I agree with your views...



Ignoramus24807 wrote in message ...In article <vkf9oq6s0a9277@corp.supernews.com>, Clete wrote: Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they invaded?What are you trying to say? That I should cheerfully accept anymilitary misadventure?i

"Clete" <clete88@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vkf9oq6s0a9277@corp.supernews.com... Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they invaded?

Gunner has stated he would...

Dan

I just wondered how many of the people who are supporting the military
action would still support it if there was a Democrat in the
Whitehouse and not a Republican.

Jeff

On 23 Aug 2003 19:55:33 GMT, Ignoramus24807
<ignoramus24807@NOSPAM.24807.invalid> wrote:
In article <vkf9oq6s0a9277@corp.supernews.com>, Clete wrote: Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they invaded?What are you trying to say? That I should cheerfully accept anymilitary misadventure?i

I have no idea, I hate democrats because they want to take away my
guns. I actually voted for that turd Bush.

i

In article <foufkvohdq1mgtnlosrsj8drpndurgr1gu@4ax.com>, jeff s wrote: I just wondered how many of the people who are supporting the military action would still support it if there was a Democrat in the Whitehouse and not a Republican. Jeff On 23 Aug 2003 19:55:33 GMT, Ignoramus24807<ignoramus24807@NOSPAM.24807.invalid> wrote:In article <vkf9oq6s0a9277@corp.supernews.com>, Clete wrote: Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they invaded?What are you trying to say? That I should cheerfully accept anymilitary misadventure?i

In article <vkft919e549l89@corp.supernews.com>, Dan
<dchannah@charter.net> wrote:
"Clete" <clete88@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:vkf9oq6s0a9277@corp.supernews.com... Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they invaded? Gunner has stated he would...

Well, there's a certain subbreed of "homo militaricus.'

These are the people who shout "Hoo-rahhh!" at random intervals.

And they talk, in seeming seriousness, about how when their kind ends
up in their version of the Pearly Gates, that some honor brigade of
past soldiers will snap to attention, raise their swords and muskets
and shoult "Yes, Sir!" as they pass.

And they say "My country, right or wrong."

And the call other people "Son."

I am chortling to see the latest disgrace of the American imperialist
state and the foolish cannon fodder material now dying on a daily
basis.

Maybe someday the Constitution and limited government will become
fashionable again and we won't have people posturing as "Gunner" and
saying he'll stomp anyone who questions Our Supreme Commander, Whose
Boots Must Be Licked by Patriots!

"Hoooo-rahhhhh!"


--Tim May

Gunner probably has a lot of fond memories from his youth that he
spent in the military, hence his attitude.

i

In article <230820031753440613%timcmay@removethis.got.net>, Tim May wrote: In article <vkft919e549l89@corp.supernews.com>, Dan<dchannah@charter.net> wrote: "Clete" <clete88@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:vkf9oq6s0a9277@corp.supernews.com... Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they invaded? Gunner has stated he would... Well, there's a certain subbreed of "homo militaricus.' These are the people who shout "Hoo-rahhh!" at random intervals. And they talk, in seeming seriousness, about how when their kind ends up in their version of the Pearly Gates, that some honor brigade of past soldiers will snap to attention, raise their swords and muskets and shoult "Yes, Sir!" as they pass. And they say "My country, right or wrong." And the call other people "Son." I am chortling to see the latest disgrace of the American imperialist state and the foolish cannon fodder material now dying on a daily basis. Maybe someday the Constitution and limited government will become fashionable again and we won't have people posturing as "Gunner" and saying he'll stomp anyone who questions Our Supreme Commander, Whose Boots Must Be Licked by Patriots! "Hoooo-rahhhhh!"

In article <vkhefp1fqk0q53@corp.supernews.com>,
richj@remove.this.tairedd.com says... "erniegalts" <erniegalts@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message news:75fgkvo7dkv4ha35b66kgfb2472uu8p0iq@4ax.com... On 24 Aug 2003 04:10:07 GMT, Ignoramus24807 <ignoramus24807@NOSPAM.24807.invalid> wrote:Gunner probably has a lot of fond memories from his youth that hespent in the military, hence his attitude.i Very probably. Lots of people who fought in the Pacific in WW2 apparently talked about it for decades afterwards. Must have been quite an adventure for someone from the central or northern states to be shipped there. For some the duty might have been much as is depicted in the movie "South Pacific". As people age, they tend to remember the good and suppress and/or repress the bad. They tend to forget or minimize the danger, the boredom, the discomfort, etc. Have met people with fond memories of both world wars. Must admit haven't met that many with fond memories of Korea or Vietnam, though. Some claim that Iraq is starting to look a lot like Vietnam. See my earlier post . Can't wait for Tim's comments on it. :-) Vietnam...hardly. 1000 cuts- give me a break. To date we have around 140,000 troops there. We have experienced a loss of 65 personnel. Take the same number here and I would bet we loose near the same due to traffic and other accidental deaths. The main problem lays in an 80 sq mile area, the rest of the Country is secure. The terrorists have no safe external base of operations either. Vietnam...B.S.

IIRC, even during the Tet offensive we were losing more people on
American highways. I've also never met *anyone* who says we lost the war
in Vietnam to a superior military force. In fact, I've met a few who say
we never lost. We just found a better use for the troops and withdrew
them from that theater of operations. Care to make any predictions on
our exit strategy for Iraq?

Later,
Joe

Joe Kultgen said for all posterity... richj@remove.this.tairedd.com says... Vietnam...hardly. 1000 cuts- give me a break. To date we have around 140,000 troops there. We have experienced a loss of 65 personnel. Take the same number here and I would bet we loose near the same due to traffic and other accidental deaths. The main problem lays in an 80 sq mile area, the rest of the Country is secure. The terrorists have no safe external base of operations either. Vietnam...B.S. IIRC, even during the Tet offensive we were losing more people on American highways.

Very true. We lose about 40,000 a year in automobile accidents.
This number has been fairly steady for the last 40 years, I think.

I imagine that only a small minority of the population is aware of
this statistic.



Casey

"It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser."

Casey <ccl@cox.netremove> writes:
Joe Kultgen said for all posterity... richj@remove.this.tairedd.com says... Vietnam...hardly. 1000 cuts- give me a break. To date we have around 140,000 troops there. We have experienced a loss of 65 personnel. Take the same number here and I would bet we loose near the same due to traffic and other accidental deaths. The main problem lays in an 80 sq mile area, the rest of the Country is secure. The terrorists have no safe external base of operations either. Vietnam...B.S. IIRC, even during the Tet offensive we were losing more people on American highways. Very true. We lose about 40,000 a year in automobile accidents. This number has been fairly steady for the last 40 years, I think.

Actually, there has been a lot of variation. The "fatalities per mile
driven" has been decreasing steadily for quite a long time. It is now
less than 1/3 of what it was in 1957!

The fatalities per year peaked at about 55,000 per year in 1972, and
1973, and then declined sharply. (Can you say "gas lines" and
"national 55 mph speed limit?") It is now, indeed near 40,000
fatalities per year, as it was 40 years ago, but with many more miles
driven!

Doug Anderson said for all posterity... Casey <ccl@cox.netremove> writes: Joe Kultgen said for all posterity... richj@remove.this.tairedd.com says... > > Vietnam...hardly. 1000 cuts- give me a break. To date we have around > 140,000 troops there. We have experienced a loss of 65 personnel. Take the > same number here and I would bet we loose near the same due to traffic and > other accidental deaths. The main problem lays in an 80 sq mile area, the > rest of the Country is secure. The terrorists have no safe external base of > operations either. Vietnam...B.S. > > IIRC, even during the Tet offensive we were losing more people on American highways. Very true. We lose about 40,000 a year in automobile accidents. This number has been fairly steady for the last 40 years, I think. Actually, there has been a lot of variation. The "fatalities per mile driven" has been decreasing steadily for quite a long time. It is now less than 1/3 of what it was in 1957!

Yes, I know. The aggregate number of deaths has remained fairly
constant even though the number of drivers has steadily increased.
I was just remarking on the magnitude of the total number in
relation to combat casualties.
The fatalities per year peaked at about 55,000 per year in 1972, and 1973, and then declined sharply. (Can you say "gas lines" and "national 55 mph speed limit?") It is now, indeed near 40,000 fatalities per year, as it was 40 years ago, but with many more miles driven!

True. As I said above, I was just pointing out that (roughly)
40,000 die from something that most people don't give a lot of
thought to.


Casey

"It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser."

400,000 deaths per 300,000,000 americans...

that's 133 per 100,000 people per year.

American forces in iraq number 150,000. After "victory" was declared
in april, we lost about 120 more people in three months or so. That's
480 ppl per year, or about 320 people er 100,000 -- more dangerous
that driving cars.

i

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:13:47 -0700, "Dan" <dchannah@charter.net>
wrote:
"Clete" <clete88@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:vkf9oq6s0a9277@corp.supernews.com... Would you stand by your country's military no matter what country they invaded?Gunner has stated he would...Dan
Cites?

Gunner

"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better,
on average, than the citizens of Baltimore.
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee,
but why this is more stylish than
sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know."
-- P.J O'Rourke (1989)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 24 Aug 2003 19:38:15 GMT, Ignoramus1543
<ignoramus1543@NOSPAM.1543.invalid> wrote:
400,000 deaths per 300,000,000 americans...that's 133 per 100,000 people per year.American forces in iraq number 150,000. After "victory" was declaredin april, we lost about 120 more people in three months or so. That's480 ppl per year, or about 320 people er 100,000 -- more dangerousthat driving cars.i

Assuming the numbers do not decline as more of the Tangos get waxed.

Gunner

"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better,
on average, than the citizens of Baltimore.
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee,
but why this is more stylish than
sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know."
-- P.J O'Rourke (1989)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 19:24:29 GMT, Casey <ccl@cox.netremove> wrote:
Doug Anderson said for all posterity... Casey <ccl@cox.netremove> writes: Joe Kultgen said for all posterity... > richj@remove.this.tairedd.com says... > > > > Vietnam...hardly. 1000 cuts- give me a break. To date we have around > > 140,000 troops there. We have experienced a loss of 65 personnel. Take the > > same number here and I would bet we loose near the same due to traffic and > > other accidental deaths. The main problem lays in an 80 sq mile area, the > > rest of the Country is secure. The terrorists have no safe external base of > > operations either. Vietnam...B.S. > > > > > > IIRC, even during the Tet offensive we were losing more people on > American highways. Very true. We lose about 40,000 a year in automobile accidents. This number has been fairly steady for the last 40 years, I think. Actually, there has been a lot of variation. The "fatalities per mile driven" has been decreasing steadily for quite a long time. It is now less than 1/3 of what it was in 1957!Yes, I know. The aggregate number of deaths has remained fairlyconstant even though the number of drivers has steadily increased.I was just remarking on the magnitude of the total number inrelation to combat casualties. The fatalities per year peaked at about 55,000 per year in 1972, and 1973, and then declined sharply. (Can you say "gas lines" and "national 55 mph speed limit?") It is now, indeed near 40,000 fatalities per year, as it was 40 years ago, but with many more miles driven!True. As I said above, I was just pointing out that (roughly)40,000 die from something that most people don't give a lot ofthought to.Casey"It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser."


Jesus.. I go away for good three weeks and you people are STILL
talking about Iraq. Bleck!

--Brian

Casey <ccl@cox.netremove> writes:
Doug Anderson said for all posterity... Casey <ccl@cox.netremove> writes: Joe Kultgen said for all posterity... > richj@remove.this.tairedd.com says... > > > > Vietnam...hardly. 1000 cuts- give me a break. To date we have around > > 140,000 troops there. We have experienced a loss of 65 personnel. Take the > > same number here and I would bet we loose near the same due to traffic and > > other accidental deaths. The main problem lays in an 80 sq mile area, the > > rest of the Country is secure. The terrorists have no safe external base of > > operations either. Vietnam...B.S. > > > > > > IIRC, even during the Tet offensive we were losing more people on > American highways. Very true. We lose about 40,000 a year in automobile accidents. This number has been fairly steady for the last 40 years, I think. Actually, there has been a lot of variation. The "fatalities per mile driven" has been decreasing steadily for quite a long time. It is now less than 1/3 of what it was in 1957! Yes, I know. The aggregate number of deaths has remained fairly constant even though the number of drivers has steadily increased. I was just remarking on the magnitude of the total number in relation to combat casualties.

Right. But in relation to the combat casualties, it appears that the
fatality rate per mile driven in the late 50s in the US was
unacceptably high to _someone_, as mandatory seat belt and safety
requirements have reduced that rate to about 1/4 of where it was then.

So if the point is "why should we care about combat fatalities when we
tolerate such a high number of highway fatalities" I think that point
is a bit off base. The evidence is that we (or at least our
government) cares enough about the highway fatality rate to institute
mandates that have cut it significantly.

But it is true that most people don't use that number to scale things,
which isn't surprising since most people don't seem to be aware of the
notion of relative risks.

In article <bib477$bn5$2@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus1543
<ignoramus1543@NOSPAM.1543.invalid> wrote:
400,000 deaths per 300,000,000 americans... that's 133 per 100,000 people per year. American forces in iraq number 150,000. After "victory" was declared in april, we lost about 120 more people in three months or so. That's 480 ppl per year, or about 320 people er 100,000 -- more dangerous that driving cars.

And as others have pointed out, more people were dying per week, in
total, during the Vietnam years. But about 8,000 deaths per year during
the peak 5 years (1966-71) were enough to alarm Americans.

Our local newspaper is reporting a local Aptos man (my old
neighborhood) was one of those killed a few days ago when an SUV was
stopped in traffic and grenades were tossed in, killing 3 soldiers and
severely injuring a fourth.

Sentiment is turning even more sharply against Bush's Folly.

--Tim May

In article <bib477$bn5$2@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus1543
<ignoramus1543@NOSPAM.1543.invalid> wrote:
400,000 deaths per 300,000,000 americans... that's 133 per 100,000 people per year.

Are you talking about traffic deaths per year? If so, your number above
is 10 times too high. About 40,000 Americans die per year in traffic
accidents.
American forces in iraq number 150,000. After "victory" was declared in april, we lost about 120 more people in three months or so. That's 480 ppl per year, or about 320 people er 100,000 -- more dangerous that driving cars.

40,000 deaths per 300,000,000 Americans.

4000 per 30 million

400 per 3 million

40 per .3 million

13 per 100,000

If the death rate in Iraq equalled the U.S. traffic death rate, one
would expect about 18-20 deaths per year per 140,000 troops.

We're seeing that many deaths in less than a month.

And the car bombings are just starting...


--Tim May

Look at it this way, if there were only one death that would be too
much is that person was your husband, wife, sister, brother, father,
mother, and so on.

I think the real question is if we can prevent more deaths by having
more troops, a different mix of troops, whatever. If they are causing
more deaths because they don't want to spend the money or have more
troops there just because of political reasons.

No matter what has happen the administration has stated that they have
the right amount of troops, right mixture and so on. If they are
allowing more troops to die so they can say that their predictions
were correct, that would make the deaths useless.

Jeff

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 01:08:34 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
Casey <ccl@cox.netremove> writes: Doug Anderson said for all posterity... Casey <ccl@cox.netremove> writes: > Joe Kultgen said for all posterity... > > richj@remove.this.tairedd.com says... > > > > > > Vietnam...hardly. 1000 cuts- give me a break. To date we have around > > > 140,000 troops there. We have experienced a loss of 65 personnel. Take the > > > same number here and I would bet we loose near the same due to traffic and > > > other accidental deaths. The main problem lays in an 80 sq mile area, the > > > rest of the Country is secure. The terrorists have no safe external base of > > > operations either. Vietnam...B.S. > > > > > > > > > > IIRC, even during the Tet offensive we were losing more people on > > American highways. > > Very true. We lose about 40,000 a year in automobile accidents. > This number has been fairly steady for the last 40 years, I think. Actually, there has been a lot of variation. The "fatalities per mile driven" has been decreasing steadily for quite a long time. It is now less than 1/3 of what it was in 1957! Yes, I know. The aggregate number of deaths has remained fairly constant even though the number of drivers has steadily increased. I was just remarking on the magnitude of the total number in relation to combat casualties.Right. But in relation to the combat casualties, it appears that thefatality rate per mile driven in the late 50s in the US wasunacceptably high to _someone_, as mandatory seat belt and safetyrequirements have reduced that rate to about 1/4 of where it was then.So if the point is "why should we care about combat fatalities when wetolerate such a high number of highway fatalities" I think that pointis a bit off base. The evidence is that we (or at least ourgovernment) cares enough about the highway fatality rate to institutemandates that have cut it significantly.But it is true that most people don't use that number to scale things,which isn't surprising since most people don't seem to be aware of thenotion of relative risks.

jeff s <onlyjunkmail@email.com> writes:
Look at it this way, if there were only one death that would be too much is that person was your husband, wife, sister, brother, father, mother, and so on.

Yes, indeed.
I think the real question is if we can prevent more deaths by having more troops, a different mix of troops, whatever. If they are causing more deaths because they don't want to spend the money or have more troops there just because of political reasons.

I think they have no idea what they are doing. It is hard for me to
believe there will be fewer deaths with more troops. And as much as I
detest this administration and its policies, it's still necessary
for governments to make cost/benefit ratio calculations, and those
calculations might dictate _not_ sending more troops.
No matter what has happen the administration has stated that they have the right amount of troops, right mixture and so on. If they are allowing more troops to die so they can say that their predictions were correct, that would make the deaths useless.

I suspect that all these deaths will prove to be useless anyway,
unfortunately.

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:28:47 -0700, Tim May
<timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote:
In article <bib477$bn5$2@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus1543<ignoramus1543@NOSPAM.1543.invalid> wrote: 400,000 deaths per 300,000,000 americans... that's 133 per 100,000 people per year. American forces in iraq number 150,000. After "victory" was declared in april, we lost about 120 more people in three months or so. That's 480 ppl per year, or about 320 people er 100,000 -- more dangerous that driving cars.And as others have pointed out, more people were dying per week, intotal, during the Vietnam years. But about 8,000 deaths per year duringthe peak 5 years (1966-71) were enough to alarm Americans.Our local newspaper is reporting a local Aptos man (my oldneighborhood) was one of those killed a few days ago when an SUV wasstopped in traffic and grenades were tossed in, killing 3 soldiers andseverely injuring a fourth.Sentiment is turning even more sharply against Bush's Folly.

It isn't just Bush's folly. It's the American Folly, ever since 1898.
Bush doesn't know it, but his predecessors didn't either.

--
Robert Sturgeon
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge

Proud member of the vast right wing
conspiracy and the evil gun culture.

On 25 Aug 2003 03:23:18 GMT, Ignoramus1543
<ignoramus1543@NOSPAM.1543.invalid> wrote:
thanks for the correction, apparently I worked with an incorrectnumber.

You aren't the first to be a decimal point off, I assure you. :-)

I didn't want to correct you until was sure just what figure you had
in mind, and no time to check.

So chose to indicate it indirectly by pointing out in post that all
accidents only wiped 181,232 in all "accidents."

Of course, depends a lot on how one wants to define the word
"accidents".

If one chooses a risky adventure "sport" such as "white water rafting"
and gets killed, is that an "accident"?

If one chooses to get pregnant and dies is that an "accident"?

If one wants to join the military and gets killed is that an
"accident"?

To me, none are. All are deliberate assumptions of un-necessary
risks. Others would differ in their risk assessments of course.
In article <240820031840481497%timcmay@removethis.got.net>, Tim May wrote: In article <bib477$bn5$2@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus1543<ignoramus1543@NOSPAM.1543.invalid> wrote: 400,000 deaths per 300,000,000 americans... that's 133 per 100,000 people per year. Are you talking about traffic deaths per year? If so, your number above is 10 times too high. About 40,000 Americans die per year in traffic accidents. American forces in iraq number 150,000. After "victory" was declared in april, we lost about 120 more people in three months or so. That's 480 ppl per year, or about 320 people er 100,000 -- more dangerous that driving cars. 40,000 deaths per 300,000,000 Americans. 4000 per 30 million 400 per 3 million 40 per .3 million 13 per 100,000 If the death rate in Iraq equalled the U.S. traffic death rate, one would expect about 18-20 deaths per year per 140,000 troops. We're seeing that many deaths in less than a month. And the car bombings are just starting...
Unfortunately, the "car bombings" might be the least of the potential
risks.

Hm, if I were running the security services in Australia or the US
would be asking people to contribute info on potential risks on a
completely secure link.

Any reasonable "generalist" should be able to provide at least some
suggestions that they hadn't thought of before, and a valid security
service shouldn't have any great problem accessing me by e-mail with
proof that they are who they say they are. :-)

erniegalts

Remember we have only been in Iraq for 5 months or so and not 5 plus
years that we would have been in Vietnam by 1996. If I remember
correctly the 1st American troops started showing up in the late
1950's.

I do not believe that we will ever have the number of deaths in Iraq
like we did in Vietnam. The terrain of the country is very different
plus the American people will never allow it.

Jeff

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:28:47 -0700, Tim May
<timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote:
In article <bib477$bn5$2@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus1543<ignoramus1543@NOSPAM.1543.invalid> wrote: 400,000 deaths per 300,000,000 americans... that's 133 per 100,000 people per year. American forces in iraq number 150,000. After "victory" was declared in april, we lost about 120 more people in three months or so. That's 480 ppl per year, or about 320 people er 100,000 -- more dangerous that driving cars.And as others have pointed out, more people were dying per week, intotal, during the Vietnam years. But about 8,000 deaths per year duringthe peak 5 years (1966-71) were enough to alarm Americans.Our local newspaper is reporting a local Aptos man (my oldneighborhood) was one of those killed a few days ago when an SUV wasstopped in traffic and grenades were tossed in, killing 3 soldiers andseverely injuring a fourth.Sentiment is turning even more sharply against Bush's Folly.--Tim May

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 02:31:48 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
jeff s <onlyjunkmail@email.com> writes: Look at it this way, if there were only one death that would be too much is that person was your husband, wife, sister, brother, father, mother, and so on.Yes, indeed. I think the real question is if we can prevent more deaths by having more troops, a different mix of troops, whatever. If they are causing more deaths because they don't want to spend the money or have more troops there just because of political reasons.I think they have no idea what they are doing. It is hard for me to

I think they do know what they are doing but they are blinded by
political beliefs and the economics of the oil business.
believe there will be fewer deaths with more troops. And as much as I

It is the same thinking as having more police on the streets will
lower the crime rate.
detest this administration and its policies, it's still necessaryfor governments to make cost/benefit ratio calculations, and thosecalculations might dictate _not_ sending more troops. No matter what has happen the administration has stated that they have the right amount of troops, right mixture and so on. If they are allowing more troops to die so they can say that their predictions were correct, that would make the deaths useless.I suspect that all these deaths will prove to be useless anyway,unfortunately.

Jeff

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:20:26 -0700, "Dan" <dchannah@charter.net>
wrote:

A military has few compunctions about firing on armedcombatants, but is more reluctant about doing so on unarmedcivilians.



Kent State University

In article <cjtjkvcfuvbh1mj2anusffao858iv1n3sq@4ax.com>, jeff s
<onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote:
Remember we have only been in Iraq for 5 months or so and not 5 plus years that we would have been in Vietnam by 1996. If I remember correctly the 1st American troops started showing up in the late 1950's.

So? I correctly cited the pick death years as being 1966-71. This was
all I was doing, not describing the tricke during Eisenhower's years,
then the larger trickle during Kennedy's years.

For what it's worth, I was born in 1951, and thus saw the buildup in
Vietnam in the early 60s. I was in France in 1964 and the role was
still mainly for advisors, a matter of thousands, not tens of thousands
and certainly not hundreds of thousands.

It took the then-version of "weapons of mass destruction, oh my!!" for
that period, the fabricated event involving the Gulf of Tonkin in 1965,
for LBJ to order wide deployment of regular Army into the country.


--Tim May

In article <n15kkv04mrue8i3l9t61hm1gk1cd4laq8b@4ax.com>, Jake Nichols
<Jake_Nichols@nospam.toughguy.net> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:20:26 -0700, "Dan" <dchannah@charter.net> wrote:A military has few compunctions about firing on armedcombatants, but is more reluctant about doing so on unarmedcivilians. Kent State University

Kent State won't happen again.

During the time of Kent State, the U.S. military had little choice
except to kill students who protested their actions. Today, other
choices exist. With the establishment of Camp X-Ray, America's premier
concentration camp, those who speak against the country and its oil
interests can be sent for an indeterminate stay.

Arbeit Macht Frei,


--Tim May

Plonk!

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 11:49:11 GMT, jeff s <onlyjunkmail@email.com>
wrote:
Remember we have only been in Iraq for 5 months or so and not 5 plusyears that we would have been in Vietnam by 1996. If I remembercorrectly the 1st American troops started showing up in the late1950's.I do not believe that we will ever have the number of deaths in Iraqlike we did in Vietnam. The terrain of the country is very differentplus the American people will never allow it.Jeff

As if the Sheeple have any say in the matter.

The Iraqi invasion/diversion must continue. The
Powers-That-Be have big plans.


On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:28:47 -0700, Tim May<timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote:In article <bib477$bn5$2@pita.alt.net>, Ignoramus1543<ignoramus1543@NOSPAM.1543.invalid> wrote: 400,000 deaths per 300,000,000 americans... that's 133 per 100,000 people per year. American forces in iraq number 150,000. After "victory" was declared in april, we lost about 120 more people in three months or so. That's 480 ppl per year, or about 320 people er 100,000 -- more dangerous that driving cars.And as others have pointed out, more people were dying per week, intotal, during the Vietnam years. But about 8,000 deaths per year duringthe peak 5 years (1966-71) were enough to alarm Americans.Our local newspaper is reporting a local Aptos man (my oldneighborhood) was one of those killed a few days ago when an SUV wasstopped in traffic and grenades were tossed in, killing 3 soldiers andseverely injuring a fourth.Sentiment is turning even more sharply against Bush's Folly.--Tim May

"strabo" <strabo@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:pffokvgth84nnevg4slm7jk20ng81643p5@4ax.com... On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:51:26 -0500, Jake Nichols <Jake_Nichols@nospam.toughguy.net> wrote:On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 16:20:26 -0700, "Dan" <dchannah@charter.net>wrote:A military has few compunctions about firing on armedcombatants, but is more reluctant about doing so on unarmedcivilians.Kent State University Lately, Waco. Yes, the US military was very much involved.

Ah, but that just proves the point. They were armed (legally or not).

As has been pointed out, foreigners in a war zone don't quite meet
the same criteria, but still there has to be the appearance of a
threat.

Dan

Casey <ccl@cox.netremove> wrote erniegalts said for all posterity... On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 19:24:29 GMT, Casey <ccl@cox.netremove> wrote:Doug Anderson said for all posterity...>> Actually, there has been a lot of variation. The "fatalities per mile> driven" has been decreasing steadily for quite a long time. It is now> less than 1/3 of what it was in 1957!Yes, I know. The aggregate number of deaths has remained fairlyconstant even though the number of drivers has steadily increased.I was just remarking on the magnitude of the total number inrelation to combat casualties.

I see two reasons for this. 1)larger number of stupid drivers;
2)lighter cars cause less injury, but higher death toll.
Interesting how threads develop, isn't it? A former US administration official claims in a new book that the US is getting bogged down in Iraq and compares this to Vietnam. This is challenged on the basis of number of combat deaths, which is then compared with auto accidents.:-) Yes, we managed to divert an off-topic thread about Iraq into a more interesting off-topic thread on statistics and causes of death. <snip> If want more statistical info on causes of death the following site gives some interesting stats. <http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html?source=DeathClock> The information at the site you gave is quite educational. As the father of a 15 year-old boy, the following is weighing heavily on my mind right now: "Motor vehicle fatalities are the leading cause of death for people between ages 1-29, and the rate is particularly high between the ages of 15-24. A 16-year-old has 3 times the crash risk of an 18- year-old and 7 times the crash risk of a 25-year-old."

Having once been one myself (teenage boy), I can suggest how to make
the odds in _his_ favor. Beg, borrow, buy, an _old_ cheap car. Find a
large open parking lot, and teach him how a skid feels. Start with
slow speed turns, and work up to "O S--T!" turns. Do it on dry
pavement, and then on wet. Let him feel what happens when a car starts
to slide. That way, when it does happen, he is as ready as he can be.

Every car (or truck) I've ver driven, I knew how it felt, *before* I
needed to know.I alwayus had at least a pretty good idea where the
edge of control was. Most teens are killed/injured becaus ethey have
*no* knowledge of where that edge is. Worse, they have never
experienced loss of control. When it happens, they panic, because they
don't recognize it in time.
Casey "It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser."

Walter Daniels wrote:
Having once been one myself (teenage boy), I can suggest how to make the odds in _his_ favor. Beg, borrow, buy, an _old_ cheap car. Find a large open parking lot, and teach him how a skid feels. Start with slow speed turns, and work up to "O S--T!" turns. Do it on dry pavement, and then on wet. Let him feel what happens when a car starts to slide. That way, when it does happen, he is as ready as he can be.

Living in a "Winter Wonderland", this was a ritual with all three of my
boys every winter. At the first decent snow, I'd plop "whoever was
learning" in the car, and head for the mall.
Three hours and a tank of gas later, they were doing "one lane 180's",
and steering with the throttle.
They always wanted me to do it in the summer, but I couldn't afford
replacing tires every couple months.
;-)

Every car (or truck) I've ver driven, I knew how it felt, *before* I needed to know.I alwayus had at least a pretty good idea where the edge of control was. Most teens are killed/injured becaus ethey have *no* knowledge of where that edge is. Worse, they have never experienced loss of control. When it happens, they panic, because they don't recognize it in time.

We just lost three teens here in town exactly that way.
A long blind curve on a busy two lane road, horrible pavement,
(truck route), a bit too much speed, and they skittered into the
oncoming lane.
The driver survived.

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 16:59:41 GMT, YooperBoyka <cjdont@likeno.spam>
wrote:
Walter Daniels wrote: Having once been one myself (teenage boy), I can suggest how to make the odds in _his_ favor. Beg, borrow, buy, an _old_ cheap car. Find a large open parking lot, and teach him how a skid feels. Start with slow speed turns, and work up to "O S--T!" turns. Do it on dry pavement, and then on wet. Let him feel what happens when a car starts to slide. That way, when it does happen, he is as ready as he can be.Living in a "Winter Wonderland", this was a ritual with all three of myboys every winter. At the first decent snow, I'd plop "whoever waslearning" in the car, and head for the mall.Three hours and a tank of gas later, they were doing "one lane 180's",and steering with the throttle.They always wanted me to do it in the summer, but I couldn't affordreplacing tires every couple months.;-) Every car (or truck) I've ver driven, I knew how it felt, *before* I needed to know.I alwayus had at least a pretty good idea where the edge of control was. Most teens are killed/injured becaus ethey have *no* knowledge of where that edge is. Worse, they have never experienced loss of control. When it happens, they panic, because they don't recognize it in time.We just lost three teens here in town exactly that way.A long blind curve on a busy two lane road, horrible pavement,(truck route), a bit too much speed, and they skittered into theoncoming lane.The driver survived.

A Yooper? Piva!

Gunner,
Hancock, Larium, Lac LaBell and points south. And part of the Ojala
Clan.


"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling
which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being
free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stewart Mill

On 5 Sep 2003 09:00:15 -0700, fbngraph@earthlink.net (Walter Daniels)
wrote:
heavily on my mind right now: "Motor vehicle fatalities are the leading cause of death for people between ages 1-29, and the rate is particularly high between the ages of 15-24. A 16-year-old has 3 times the crash risk of an 18- year-old and 7 times the crash risk of a 25-year-old." Having once been one myself (teenage boy), I can suggest how to makethe odds in _his_ favor. Beg, borrow, buy, an _old_ cheap car. Find alarge open parking lot, and teach him how a skid feels. Start withslow speed turns, and work up to "O S--T!" turns. Do it on drypavement, and then on wet. Let him feel what happens when a car startsto slide. That way, when it does happen, he is as ready as he can be. Every car (or truck) I've ver driven, I knew how it felt, *before* Ineeded to know.I alwayus had at least a pretty good idea where theedge of control was. Most teens are killed/injured becaus ethey have*no* knowledge of where that edge is. Worse, they have neverexperienced loss of control. When it happens, they panic, because theydon't recognize it in time.

I agree 110%

I grew up in Northern Michigan, and when I had my drivers training 30+
yrs ago, it was part of the curriculum to do exactly that, learn to
drive, skid, recover etc on snowy/icy/wet roads.

The kids out here in California..are nearly helpless unless the sun is
shining and they drive within the envelope. Its always a kick in the
*** to me, to watch the numbers of folks ploughing into the ditches on
the sides of the freeways every time it rains in LA. A combination of
oil starting to float on the rain water, hydroplaning and stupidity
causes HUNDREDS of such spins, accidents and just in LA alone each
time it rains.

Its not so much fun when that dumb**** passing me decides to
hydroplane just after he goes by and I start seeing his *** end coming
around.......

Gunner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling
which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being
free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stewart Mill

> > Every car (or truck) I've ver driven, I knew how it felt, *before* Ineeded to know.I alwayus had at least a pretty good idea where theedge of control was. Most teens are killed/injured becaus ethey have*no* knowledge of where that edge is. Worse, they have neverexperienced loss of control. When it happens, they panic, because theydon't recognize it in time.

Odd. I am 48 years old and have been driving since I was 18 and have never
ONCE lost control of a car (knock wood). This has probably happened because
I do not drive like a moron. I actually drive the posted speed limit (yes,
always), and do not engage in distractive activities like singing along to
the radio, eat or drink, or (god forbid) look at a map while I am driving,
etc., etc.

I think it would be far more productive to teach youngsters to pay attention
to what in the hell they are doing behind the wheel rather than how to react
when the "ENEVITABLE" out of control situation occurs.

SD

Shashay Doofray said for all posterity... Every car (or truck) I've ver driven, I knew how it felt, *before* Ineeded to know.I alwayus had at least a pretty good idea where theedge of control was. Most teens are killed/injured becaus ethey have*no* knowledge of where that edge is. Worse, they have neverexperienced loss of control. When it happens, they panic, because theydon't recognize it in time. Odd. I am 48 years old and have been driving since I was 18 and have never ONCE lost control of a car (knock wood). This has probably happened because I do not drive like a moron.
I actually drive the posted speed limit (yes, always),

Hopefully in the right lane so I can blow past you.
and do not engage in distractive activities like singing along to the radio,

I don't consider that a distraction... unless my singing is so
horrible that it distracts someone else within earshot.
eat or drink, or (god forbid) look at a map while I am driving, etc., etc.

I guess reading the newspaper while eating a doughnut and drinking
coffee would be a no-no in your book?



Casey

"It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser."

On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 20:59:09 -0600, "Shashay Doofray"
<ShashayDoofray@yahoo.com> wrote:
Every car (or truck) I've ver driven, I knew how it felt, *before* Ineeded to know.I alwayus had at least a pretty good idea where theedge of control was. Most teens are killed/injured becaus ethey have*no* knowledge of where that edge is. Worse, they have neverexperienced loss of control. When it happens, they panic, because theydon't recognize it in time.Odd. I am 48 years old and have been driving since I was 18 and have neverONCE lost control of a car (knock wood). This has probably happened becauseI do not drive like a moron. I actually drive the posted speed limit (yes,always), and do not engage in distractive activities like singing along tothe radio, eat or drink, or (god forbid) look at a map while I am driving,etc., etc.I think it would be far more productive to teach youngsters to pay attentionto what in the hell they are doing behind the wheel rather than how to reactwhen the "ENEVITABLE" out of control situation occurs.SD
I take it you have never had your lady offer you a hummer at speed
either?

Chuckle

Gunner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling
which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being
free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
- John Stewart Mill

Gunner wrote:
A Yooper? Piva! Gunner, Hancock, Larium, Lac LaBell and points south. And part of the Ojala Clan.


HOLY JUMPIN' CATFISH MOSES!!!!
Santia Urho kick me inna keester!!!
Me,...Munising by birthright, Houghton for a time.
Suomolainen so dey say.

Gunner wrote:
Its not so much fun when that dumb**** passing me decides to hydroplane just after he goes by and I start seeing his *** end coming around.......


That's where the NASCAR boys got it right.
Ya aim right for 'em,... and when ya get there,
they're not.

Shashay Doofray wrote:
Odd. I am 48 years old and have been driving since I was 18 and have never ONCE lost control of a car (knock wood). This has probably happened because I do not drive like a moron. I actually drive the posted speed limit (yes, always), and do not engage in distractive activities like singing along to the radio, eat or drink, or (god forbid) look at a map while I am driving, etc., etc.

In Michigan, we have what is known as the "Basic Speed Law".
That means you can be ticketed for speeding for going 25
in a 45. "Safe and reasonable for conditions"
(We ALL lapse now and then,...don't get TOO cocky!!)
:-)
Besides,... if I couldn't sing, I wouldn't drive.

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 08:23:47 GMT, YooperBoyka <cjdont@likeno.spam>
wrote:
Gunner wrote: A Yooper? Piva! Gunner, Hancock, Larium, Lac LaBell and points south. And part of the Ojala Clan.HOLY JUMPIN' CATFISH MOSES!!!!Santia Urho kick me inna keester!!!Me,...Munising by birthright, Houghton for a time.Suomolainen so dey say.

Da Tech py heck eh!

Chuckle, now in California, the cereal state, the land of fruits,
flakes and nuts.

Im told that Bishop Baraga held mass in my great grand fathers house
on more than one occasion. We go way back in da UP. Lots of family
still in Calumet, tho de is getting old ya know. Grandpa was the
Swift Meat distributor in the UP for a gazillion years and the sign is
still painted on the side of one of the buildings in Hancock, last
time I was up that way. My aunt was the mayor of Manistique for years.
Uncle was the superintendent for the Calumet cemetary for 50 yrs...
Family used to rent the Copper Harbor lighthouse for the whole summer
each year...Coasties run in the family..<G> Got my first deer on
Brockway mountain and the second within earshot of Tahquamenon Falls,
with a Rambler station wagon......

Munising..hummm you is one of dem sudeners, but vhat the hey..you ok
anyways.

Gunner, jonesing really bad for a pastie right about now... or three
or 4. A dozen Madelines pasties, a gallon of milk and some rubarb pie
to fill in the empty spaces...heaven..sheer heaven....

Sigh

<G>


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

"Shashay Doofray" <ShashayDoofray@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bjbif8$he3l6$1@ID-177524.news.uni-berlin.de... Every car (or truck) I've ver driven, I knew how it felt, *before* Ineeded to know.I alwayus had at least a pretty good idea where theedge of control was. Most teens are killed/injured becaus ethey have*no* knowledge of where that edge is. Worse, they have neverexperienced loss of control. When it happens, they panic, because theydon't recognize it in time. Odd. I am 48 years old and have been driving since I was 18 and have
never ONCE lost control of a car (knock wood). This has probably happened
because I do not drive like a moron. I actually drive the posted speed limit
(yes, always), and do not engage in distractive activities like singing along to the radio, eat or drink, or (god forbid) look at a map while I am driving, etc., etc.

I generaly do the same , but that didnt stop a drunk old fella driving into
me , my wife is a exellent driver , but she was driven into by a cop driving
a 4x4 dogbox , totaling the car and giving her all sorts of issues about
driving.
Being a safe driver isnt a gaurentee , I kept my car on the road when I was
hit , mainly because I messed around on the flats since I was 7 in old bombs
, a car sliding at speed is nothing new to me , just unexpected ,my wife was
hit so hard the car was spun 180 degrees in its own length and left on its
side against a sign post . She was in shock , and is still rattled by it ,
even though it was four or more years ago .
I think it would be far more productive to teach youngsters to pay
attention to what in the hell they are doing behind the wheel rather than how to
react when the "ENEVITABLE" out of control situation occurs.

Its better to know than not to know , in case it is needed one day Its like
knowing how to use the stuff in your bug out bag , youll hopefully never
need to use that either , but its a good idea to have it anyway.
Its not only youngsters who need to pay attention to what they are doing.
Myal
SD

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 08:23:47 GMT, YooperBoyka <cjdont@likeno.spam>
wrote:
Suomolainen so dey say.
http://www.genealogia.fi/emi/art/article267be.htm

Chuckle

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

"YooperBoyka" <cjdont@likeno.spam> spouted delusions in message We just lost three teens here in town exactly that way. A long blind curve on a busy two lane road, horrible pavement, (truck route), a bit too much speed, and they skittered into the oncoming lane. The driver survived.

CJ, You can post all the lies and delusions you wish, about me, to the folks
on here, if that helps you in your recovery. But the five kids involved in
the accident need the truth spread, not rumors spewed by fools spouting
conjecture as fact.

WE DID NOT LOSE THREE TEENS!!!
As a parent actively involved in the lives of all five youth involved in the
accident, here are some facts.
R***, the driver, suffered no physical injuries but has needed the love and
support of friends and family to deal with the callous, blaming remarks of
insensitive classmates, (and a few foolish adults)
M***, suffered a broken pelvis, but will be returning to school next week,
in a wheelchair.
A**, fractured her pelvis in several places, but is determined to recover
quickly. Her spunk has helped her a lot in her first week of physical
rehab. She will be released form the hospital later today, and may return
to school in about a week.
A****, suffered a broken pelvis (six places), broken femur, broken clavicle
and ruptured bladder. He has just begun the long painful process of PT and
OT He will be home-schooled following his release from the hospital in a few
weeks.
A*****, remains in critical condition, but is showing improvement. Thank
God, she was blessed with a "second chance for life" when her lungs failed
through a machine called ECMO. This "external lung" is oxygenating her
blood while her lungs heal. She also suffered a broken pelvis, broken neck,
ruptured liver, removed spleen. The doctors anticipate she will be
hospitalized until around New Years.

The close friends of these five children, (one of which is my son) have
learned a great deal from this tragedy and have demonstrated a great amount
of maturity and compassion. They have established the AAARM fund (long arm
of love) to assist the families with medical and other related expenses.
They have spent countless hours designing/painting local tributes,
collecting donations, and arranging benefits to help out. Their first
benefit concert will be held next Friday.

"Swee'Pea" <swee_pea43@yahoo.com> wrote... "YooperBoyka" <cjdont@likeno.spam> spouted delusions... CJ, You can post all the lies and delusions you wish, about me, ...

This is de ja vu, all over again.
I thought that the first go 'round was quite sufficient. [Rog']

Roger B. said for all posterity... "Swee'Pea" <swee_pea43@yahoo.com> wrote... "YooperBoyka" <cjdont@likeno.spam> spouted delusions... CJ, You can post all the lies and delusions you wish, about me, ... This is de ja vu, all over again. I thought that the first go 'round was quite sufficient. [Rog']

Yeah, I thought so too.



Casey

"It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser."

"Casey" <ccl@cox.netremove> wrote in message
news:0Gn6b.133315$Ij4.15483@news2.central.cox.net. .. Roger B. said for all posterity... "Swee'Pea" <swee_pea43@yahoo.com> wrote... "YooperBoyka" <cjdont@likeno.spam> spouted delusions... CJ, You can post all the lies and delusions you wish, about me, ... This is de ja vu, all over again. I thought that the first go 'round was quite sufficient. [Rog'] Yeah, I thought so too.

You can never get enough of this kind of stuff! Now that I got my Ph.D., I'm
way too high class to watch the WWE Smackdown. But USENET mudwrestling?
That's high tech! That's sophisticated!

--
Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even
though checkered by failure; rather than to rank with those poor spirits who
neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in a gray twilight that
knows not victory nor defeat. --Theodore Roosevelt

"Shashay Doofray" <ShashayDoofray@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bjbif8$he3l6$1@ID-177524.news.uni-berlin.de... Every car (or truck) I've ver driven, I knew how it felt, *before* Ineeded to know.I alwayus had at least a pretty good idea where theedge of control was. Most teens are killed/injured becaus ethey have*no* knowledge of where that edge is. Worse, they have neverexperienced loss of control. When it happens, they panic, because theydon't recognize it in time. Odd. I am 48 years old and have been driving since I was 18 and have
never ONCE lost control of a car (knock wood). This has probably happened
because I do not drive like a moron. I actually drive the posted speed limit
(yes, always), and do not engage in distractive activities like singing along to the radio, eat or drink, or (god forbid) look at a map while I am driving, etc., etc. I think it would be far more productive to teach youngsters to pay
attention to what in the hell they are doing behind the wheel rather than how to
react when the "ENEVITABLE" out of control situation occurs. SD

What do you do for excitement?

"Shashay Doofray" <ShashayDoofray@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bjbif8$he3l6$1@ID-177524.news.uni-berlin.de... Every car (or truck) I've ver driven, I knew how it felt, *before* Ineeded to know.I alwayus had at least a pretty good idea where theedge of control was. Most teens are killed/injured becaus ethey have*no* knowledge of where that edge is. Worse, they have neverexperienced loss of control. When it happens, they panic, because theydon't recognize it in time. Odd. I am 48 years old and have been driving since I was 18 and have
never ONCE lost control of a car (knock wood). This has probably happened
because I do not drive like a moron. I actually drive the posted speed limit
(yes, always), and do not engage in distractive activities like singing along to the radio, eat or drink, or (god forbid) look at a map while I am driving, etc., etc. I think it would be far more productive to teach youngsters to pay
attention to what in the hell they are doing behind the wheel rather than how to
react when the "ENEVITABLE" out of control situation occurs. SD

Defensive driving is the most important part of driving. The woman that
was making a left turn and had her wheels turned in anticipation killed
herself, some parents and half the schools girls soccer team when a drunk
hit her in the rear. The van automatically started turning left, flipped on
it's left side and burst into flames. One example.
What do you do when you meet another vehicle going the wrong way on the
Interstate? I've had it happen 5 times and only wrecked once. Damn guy was
drunk and kept countering my evasive moves. I turned a headon into a
sideswipe. Never blink your lights at night, blast your horn etc. Stay in
the right lane, slow way down but keep enough speed to maneuver and prepare
to take off cross country if you have to.
Or the man fleeing the police and swung into the oncoming traffic that
was stopped for a red light. I was third in the intersection and he hit me
in the side. It was night and I was the third into the intersection but now
have a habit of looking both ways before entering. Cop said that he was
doing over 80 when he swung out. I hit the throttle and threw my arms thru
the steering wheel and pulled back as hard as I could. He hit me square in
the rear wheels, knocked out my rear end and broke it in half. We lived.
Wiped out a grocery store though. Went right thru the front window.
Eventually most drivers will get into a wreck or have close calls. Lots
of drunks or worse on the road and many old people who are slow reacting.
Example. Yesterday I drove to Globe from Young, Arizona. It is a state
highway. I met a number of people coming toward me around curves on the
wrong side of the road and the worst was two quads that came off a trail to
my right and turned toward me. I saw that they were not stopping for the
road and immediately slowed. They turned into me and were chatting and
watching each other instead of the traffic. Close call for them.
Experience level? I was driving trucks on the open road at 15 (they were
more lax then) and am now 73 and still living.

"Casey" <ccl@cox.netremove> wrote in message
news:Sed6b.130139$Ij4.42290@news2.central.cox.net. .. Shashay Doofray said for all posterity... > Every car (or truck) I've ver driven, I knew how it felt, *before*
I >needed to know.I alwayus had at least a pretty good idea where the >edge of control was. Most teens are killed/injured becaus ethey have >*no* knowledge of where that edge is. Worse, they have never >experienced loss of control. When it happens, they panic, because
they >don't recognize it in time. Odd. I am 48 years old and have been driving since I was 18 and have
never ONCE lost control of a car (knock wood). This has probably happened
because I do not drive like a moron. I actually drive the posted speed limit (yes, always), Hopefully in the right lane so I can blow past you. and do not engage in distractive activities like singing along to the radio, I don't consider that a distraction... unless my singing is so horrible that it distracts someone else within earshot. eat or drink, or (god forbid) look at a map while I am driving, etc., etc. I guess reading the newspaper while eating a doughnut and drinking coffee would be a no-no in your book? Casey "It is easier to get older than it is to get wiser."

Awhile back a boat came loose and fell off the trailer, skidded across
the median and hit a car head on. True story.