New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 7 Aug 2006 08:56 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <4jokvpF8utniU1(a)individual.net>, dated Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Dirk > Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> writes >> Annual deaths during Saddam rule: between 25,000 to 50,000 >> >> Annual deaths during U.S. Occupation: about 66,000" > > Your numbers for US include the initial invasion phase. The numbers > killed NOW by Coalition forces is minimal. The numbers being killed now *because* of the occupation is running at around 40,000-50,000 per year. Factor in the infant mortality now and compare it to the pre-sanctions evil-Saddam era and the figures now are vastly higher. Thanks to the incompetence of Bush and Blair the Iraqi people are now worse off than they were under Saddam. Dirk
From: John Woodgate on 7 Aug 2006 09:15 In message <44d73623$0$9998$e4fe514c(a)dreader13.news.xs4all.nl>, dated Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Frank Bemelman <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> writes >"John Woodgate" <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> schreef in bericht >news:9kDJ10XhXy1EFwHG(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk... >> In message <4jokvpF8utniU1(a)individual.net>, dated Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Dirk >> Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> writes >>>Annual deaths during Saddam rule: between 25,000 to 50,000 >>> >>>Annual deaths during U.S. Occupation: about 66,000" >> >> Your numbers for US include the initial invasion phase. The numbers killed >> NOW by Coalition forces is minimal. > >'NOW' as in the ~0.27 seconds it took you to type that word? > Yes, of course. Could I possibly have meant anything else? -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: John Woodgate on 7 Aug 2006 09:17 In message <4jork5F90tm3U1(a)individual.net>, dated Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> writes >The numbers being killed now *because* of the occupation is running at >around 40,000-50,000 per year. You blame the Coalition for the sectarian killings? Do you think they would stop if the Coalition withdrew? -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: Ken Smith on 7 Aug 2006 09:36 In article <sj9cd218jb0rvhqsn8bg604tnp0kck3dud(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On 6 Aug 2006 05:51:15 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >> >>Phat Bytestard wrote: >>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:57:58 -0500, John Fields >>> <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: >>> >>> >On 2 Aug 2006 16:37:35 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >>> > [....] >>> Yeah... I hope they are foolish enough to actually think we don't >>> still have neutron devices either. >> >>Ah, yes, The capitalists' bomb - kills people but leaves the buildings >>standing. >> > >It was intended as a battlefield tactical weapon, a low-fallout nuke >that could be used against tanks and troops, especially in Korea. It was also supposed to leave the area usable after a short time to allow the radiation to die off. I believe the "capitalist bomb" term was first used in a SciFi book well before the neutron bomb's invention. It got applied to the neutron bomb because it was a lot like the one in the story. The "communist bomb" destroyed the war material but left the people. Since at its most basic level, war is armed robbery on the large scale, the neutron bomb removes one of the main problems with atomic weapons. With the normal weapon you would make the assets you are fighting over near worthless. It would kill all the people and polute the land. It has been suggested that this is why the USSR vs US standoff was stable. It was said "They will never bomb the wheat". -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 7 Aug 2006 09:39
In article <YQEBg.5462$uo6.5302(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, joseph2k <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: [....] >How about you all read up on the effects of intense neutron radiation, it is >not clean at all. It leaves nearly everything around radioactive for quite >some time. Or is "neutron bomb" another classic misdirective misnomer. There's "clean" and then there's "clean compared to...". The clean of the neutron bomb in strickly the latter. You set it off far above the ground and it makes enough radiation to kill the people. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |