How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Draft: Inevitable?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Draft: Inevitable?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


75 posted 11-20-2004 12:28 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Ron,

The exaggerated number suggested, to me at least, something
equivalent to and on par with Saddam’s time.

John

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


76 posted 11-20-2004 12:56 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
But the estimate by the Hopkins team is sound in terms of how the data has been gathered and what it says about the casualty rate. A sample of 988 households with more than 7,800 people, in a country of 25 million, is a sizable sample. By comparison, pollsters in this country, using similar techniques of sampling (so the people interviewed in aggregate represent the demographics of the country as a whole), consider a sample of 1,500 people in a country of 280 million to be adequate for extrapolation and reliable results. Wherever possible, too, the researchers verified claims of fatalities with documents. A larger sample would be worthwhile, and as in any important empirical research, it would be useful to repeat the data collection to compare results. But the method is sound.

As a result, the estimates are likely to be quite a bit more accurate than the clumsy attempt to count through press reports, which is partial and not a representative sample. Indeed, the study directors believe the estimate of 100,000 deaths may be conservative. (Fallujah, for example, was not counted due to the extreme level of violence in that city.)

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20352

The 100,000 mark is probably closer to the actual number. I'm not sure I understand why anyone would exclude deaths from 'aerial weaponry'-- they mean bombs and missles, right?




Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


77 posted 11-20-2004 02:01 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Iraqbodycount:

quote:
This is a human security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military action by the USA and its allies. This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation. Results and totals are continually updated and made immediately available on this page and on various IBC counters which may be freely displayed on any website, where they will be automatically updated without further intervention. Casualty figures are derived solely from a comprehensive survey of online media reports. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.


This site, while no doubt useful, uses no statistical methodology.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


78 posted 11-20-2004 01:30 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

It shouldn't even matter if it was 20,000 or 100,000 that were killed in this war.



How many casualties must it be until everyone screams, "THAT'S ENOUGH?" When the numbers reach Saddam's total casualties, which were estimated between 750,000-875,000? It's sickening!

Anyway, I heard from an Iraqi body count organization that between March and November of 2003, approximately 37,000 Iraqis were killed.

I'd say the 100,000 number could be quite accurate (800 were killed in Falluja in such a short time recently) And even if it is just a number, what must it take to make people react?

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


79 posted 11-20-2004 06:57 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Noah,

“In the name of "international peace," more than one million Iraqis have died as a direct result of the sanctions, 567,000 of them children. Some 4,500 children under age five are dying each month from hunger and disease. Condemned by U.S. and UN planners to a starvation diet, little children have suffered a six-fold mortality rate increase since the onset of sanctions.”

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=86&sortorder=articledate


So other than war, and given the above regarding sanctions, what alternatives
were there?  

John

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


80 posted 11-21-2004 01:04 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I've answered this question before, and don't feel I have to be forced to keep answering again, as you're clearly trying to paint me into a corner.

Sanctions always have terrifying effects on large communities, and sadly more than just the governments are affected, but innocent people themselves. I wish they could simply be set up to only affect the government and its military capacities. Of course what could I say alone? I just believe there is such a lack of patience in so many current governments and impatience always seems to lead to rash conclusions.

Now how about you answer my question, which you haven't done yet.

Saddam killing hundreds of thousands of his people was wrong, I absolutely agree. Can't you agree killing 100,000 in trying to achieve "freedom" is wrong too?

It seems virtually EVERY time I ask that question now, people either tiptoe around the question and try and change the subject or simply refuse to answer.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


81 posted 11-21-2004 07:49 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Noah,

“Can't you agree killing 100,000 in trying to achieve "freedom" is wrong too?”

First saying again that that number is yet not applicable to Iraq,
no, killing 100,000 in trying to achieve freedom is not wrong.  In World
War II the United States helped directly or indirectly to kill millions,
including civilians, including, though by accident or without the wish
for it, thousands of allied civilians, (bombings in France).  The United
States did not do it for material gain.  It killed, at the expense of
hundreds of thousands of its own, to bring freedom back then to other
than it’s own citizens, and in the long term to protect freedom
for those then and someday back home.  Without that killing, much
of the world was immersed in lives not worth living by virtue of
the brutal aggressive tyrannies that governed them and only
at whose pleasure they drew breath.   No, killing 100,000 in trying
to achieve freedom is not wrong.

No, killing 100,000 in trying to achieve freedom is not wrong.

John

P.S.  Now one could say that even a dog wants to live.
To those who would have others live as animals
or would be content to do so themselves, I concede
your point.  I do not, as my parents did not, share it.

P.S.S. No, killing 100,000 in trying to achieve freedom is not wrong.

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (11-21-2004 10:19 AM).]

ice
Member Elite
since 05-17-2003
Posts 3059
Pennsylvania


82 posted 11-21-2004 08:36 AM       View Profile for ice   Email ice   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for ice

Of course it is wrong, Noah...But who are we peace lovers to stand in the way, even with our information that proves that war is futile, that it has never solved a problem fully, that it just changes the faces of hate  to different people­...So perhaps we should wave the banner of war mongers...

"Kill them all let God sort them out"

Maybe a quick death is best, especially if you are killed by one of Gods followers.

What's the difference in killing 100,000 so, so that many others may live in the much disrespected land of "freedom".. We must revenge the three thousand...about 33 to one is a respectable trade, even if our own deaths have nothing to do with the 100,000  Revenge is sweet, and just look at the spoils....

Those civilians are just in the way,
and not worth the effort of diplomatic protection.

But save a few, maybe we can torture them and they will tell us where the real enemy is hiding...

But we already know....Pogo told us long ago.." We have met the enemy, and they are us"
*
Carl Sandburg

[Edit - potential copyright infringement removed - Ron]

****************
My addition

Pile them high at Mosul and Fellujah
And pile them high  beside the Twin Towers.
Cover them with new buildings and monuments.
And still the passengers ask the conductor,
What place is this?
Where are we now..?

Shovel under the 103,000
I am the grass; let me work; I cover all.
­­
­

[This message has been edited by Ron (11-21-2004 02:11 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


83 posted 11-21-2004 09:27 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

The number 100,000 is a statistical number.

We need another real study to do it.


Guys, learn basic statistics before you jump.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


84 posted 11-21-2004 10:29 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

ice,

[Edit - potential copyright infringement removed - Ron]

Seems your basic point is
we’re all going to die anyway
so why try.

Both of my parents saw those piles
in Poland.  That may be why.

John

[This message has been edited by Ron (11-21-2004 02:11 PM).]

ice
Member Elite
since 05-17-2003
Posts 3059
Pennsylvania


85 posted 11-21-2004 08:49 PM       View Profile for ice   Email ice   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for ice

­Brad
I would also like to see a more scientific study of body count statistics...The Bush administration has said repeatedly that they do not count Iraqi bodies, only American casualties...so we can't depend on our government to give us the figures...

They would not be honest with the figures anyway, It would make them look bad.

But somehow, even with the indentured servant press in Iraq, some information on civilians killed is leaked out...this is all that we have to go on...these are our only "basic statistics"

The bodycount website draws its information from very varied sources and even if they are off by 50% or so on their estimations it is still an abomination....and is also highly illegal, according to the Geneva convention if that makes any difference at all to the US government and the pentagon.

John

"Seems your basic point is
we’re all going to die anyway
so why try."

I don't know how you derived that from what I said?
But it is far from what I meant...

Ron has edited out the Sandburg poem so I can't make reference to the lines that I need to, too show why the poem aligns itself with my thoughts.

It is the futility of war that he speaks of, in my opinion

I read into it that the foolishness of choices by humans will be covered in grass (History) I think he is warning us that we must change our approach or those choices will lead to more bodies piled high (as demonstrated by the world condition today)

The earth will sustain, human inhabitants or not...
The grass will cover all...What I would like to see is more grass covering bodies of people who die happy and of natural causes...That is why I believe we must "try" other means than war, to settle arguments.
­­
­ford/ice
ice
Member Elite
since 05-17-2003
Posts 3059
Pennsylvania


86 posted 11-21-2004 08:58 PM       View Profile for ice   Email ice   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for ice

Ron
I don't quite understand your need to edit out the Sandburg poem I used to demonstrate a point in this thread?

I feel it is legal for me to post the poem in full because of my understanding of the copyright law of the United States Of America (title 17, United States code)

I am not a copyright lawyer, but the language seems pretty clear in this case..it states in section 107....

"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

Perhaps you can point to a section of the copyright laws that support your need to edit out the poem in my post...

I know you are trying to protect pip from any law suits or infringement problems, I respect you for doing that, and believe it is your duty to do so.

Thank you for your vigilance.

ford/ice
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


87 posted 11-21-2004 10:53 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

ice,

If your point is the futility
of war I would still respond:

“Both of my parents saw those piles
in Poland.  That may be why.”

It is easy in a country fat with freedom
to laud the virtue of doing nothing.
And that in the light of the cost of sanctions
for example, (see above), seems all that is left;
that and the hope a monster dictator’s line dies out.

John


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


88 posted 11-21-2004 11:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"It seems virtually EVERY time I ask that question now, people either tiptoe around the question and try and change the subject or simply refuse to answer."

I think John's reply was fairly presented. These are your words, Noah..

How many casualties must it be until everyone screams, "THAT'S ENOUGH?"

Ok, I give up...how many?  Must be more than 567,000 children - must be more than almost 5000 a month - must be more than over a million, many buried in mass graves...because those figures did not cause you or anyone to cry out enough. Those figures were not enough to get your organization to conduct a march for them. You call the figures now sickening yet I suppose in your eyes there was nothing sickening about the other figures....interesting how you see things the way they fit into your political views only. No, you have never answered that question, regardless of how many times you've been asked. You simply say, "I know Hussein was wrong but...." and then you go off to criticize Bush and the actions in Iraq. You have never answered it because you have no answer - there is no answer.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


89 posted 11-21-2004 11:33 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include - ... (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole ...

In other words, we can quote a paragraph or two out of Steven King's latest novel, but we can't just print the whole novel on-line, or even whole chapters, and claim it's for criticism or education. Fair Use doctrine is a guideline, not a law, but courts have historically held that only very small portions of a copyrighted work qualify. The smaller the original work is, the less can be quoted without exceeding "amount and substantiality."

Of course, I don't actually expect the lawyers from Sandburg's estate to come knocking on my door, Ford. We're pretty small fry for that, I think. I don't even know, for sure, if the particular poem you included in your post is still under protection, as some of Sandburg's are and some aren't. Nor do I know if Sandburg, or those to whom he passed his rights, would object to your use. Those aren't my mandate.

The lawyers, to me, matter less than the law. We're all writers here, and if we don't respect someone's copyright, who will?
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


90 posted 11-22-2004 08:51 AM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

Balladeer, your response to Noah points out the ironic flaw in the position of the secular left.

If religion is wrong, then morality based upon religion is wrong.

As a result, the left is most tolerant of those the least tolerant.  If the morality of a Christian nation is not better than the morality of an extremist Muslim nation, then side with the Muslims because tolerance dictates the aggressor has to be wrong because both are in a equal moral position and one should tolerate the views of the non-aggressor.

It matters not that the accepted intolerance is diametrically opposed to the views of the left, and that an attempt is being made to free the intolerant from oppressive binds of fanatical extremism.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


91 posted 11-22-2004 04:02 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Balladeer, let's face it, you yourself didn't mobilize a huge rally when you may have first learned of Saddam killing thousands of his own people, did you? (you could share a photograph with me attending a rally to prove me wrong) You insinuate I'm a cold hard hypocrite because I assembled a rally speaking out against the war crimes of this administration yet didn't do one for Saddam's brutal regime.

Who could blame me? Who could blame you? Who could blame anyone who was shocked and appalled by all this? We don't govern Iraq, so we the people couldn't decide their fate. Just because I didn't conduct a major rally in 1991 doesn't mean I didn't feel and fathom the atrocities happening under his dictatorship.

Because I am a citizen of the United States of America, and can help determine the fate and direction of this nation, I feel it is my obligation to serve my country in my personal interests. I am against these wars, and find there to be an intense hypocrisy in how we must kill hordes in order to achieve "freedom" in the world. We are all overwhelmed by the atrocities Hussein did yet we only mirror these mass killings in wars like this. Then what could you possibly say when the numbers match up to those of Hussein's, should we stay in Iraq another 5-10 years as some generals are predicting.

I don't really blame religion on this war either, or morality based on it in that manner. I blame the impatience, misintelligence and miscalculations of our government itself.

I believe also it's no question that the left usually is most tolerant of the least tolerant. Liberalism has evolved very much since the days of Hobbes and Locke, but ever since the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt in particular, it's been defined primarily as the more broad,-minded, diverse school of thought and intolerant to totalitarian influences. It also gets defined often as the concept of balancing capitalism with morals and ethics.

What Tim said shouldn't really be that suprising. The left are pretty intolerant and lean to the intolerant. I am intolerant myself of any sort of punishing, oppressive regime. I am intolerant of and condemn Hussein's actions, but I am also intolerant of our administration only adding to the noise of war and terror in the region.

I believe I hold a consistency here. I'm intolerant of one unilateral, oppressive Hussein regime in Iraq, I'm intolerant of one unilateral, oppressive Bush occupation in Iraq.

And when you think of this diametrically, the left can happen to be tolerant and the right can be quite intolerant. Tolerance can go all across the panel.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


92 posted 11-22-2004 06:51 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

"I believe I hold a consistency here. I'm intolerant of one unilateral, oppressive Hussein regime in Iraq, I'm intolerant of one unilateral, oppressive Bush occupation in Iraq."

That would be the point, when you take morality out of the equation, you can view the U.S. and the Hussein regime to be equal in their levels of evil.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


93 posted 11-22-2004 07:03 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ok, Noah. There is not much more I can say beyond that. Apparently you believe there is a similarity between Hussein mass-murdering his people and our fighting there for their liberation. You draw parallels between the two, in which case you must find little difference between Hussein, the Taliban and Bush. You speak of one mirroring the other. You speak of fighting against tyranny being no better that tyrannists murdering their own. I have no idea what has caused you to have such a strong dislike for Bush that you consider him to be no better than one of the biggest mass-murderers  in history but, whatever it is, it appears to be too deeply ingrained for me to debate. I hope that someday you DO discover that there actually is a big difference between the two....
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


94 posted 11-22-2004 08:00 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

What a different world it would be
if Roosevelt, listening to those who
would have had the United States do nothing,
had simply played with his dog.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


95 posted 11-22-2004 08:53 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

It's because I oppose all these major violent campaigns, period. I don't know how much I have to stress that, and have prople understand that.

I personally believe the many voices of journalists and sociologists when they say you have to travel across the world to truly fathom the fullest of each culture and civilization. Who's to say all those innocent Iraqis themselves don't feel terrorized by all the stealth bombers and Humvees storming through the cities and across the boondocks of the fertile crescent?

I'm certain many of these families of those who've lost loved ones in the 20,000-100,000 or more who have perished under this war don't truly feel free now. Sights like the bombings of two hospitals in Falluja, uranium contaminants across the parched outskirts and in the water supply, no matter where they could be in the world, that would certainly startle anyone.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has just come out saying it is apparent there are failures by all sides in the conflict to respect humanitarian laws. Malnutrition among children and the young in Iraq has doubled in the last two years according to a new Washington Post report. Over 70 died this weekend after the Abu Hanifa mosque raid.

It's just...incredible...incredible to me that some don't believe it is wrong to have killed this many civilians so far. SHOULD the U.S stay there another 5-10 years and the numbers approach those of Saddam's doing, which I certainly pray won't happen, are you still going to say this was worth it because it was fighting against tyranny?

At least in my mind, it doesn't matter who you are or what kind of person you are; an act of violence is an act of violence.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


96 posted 11-22-2004 09:00 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

At least in my mind, it doesn't matter who you are or what kind of person you are; an act of violence is an act of violence.

In that case, Noah, I shall ask you the same question Ron asked you several threads ago which was never answered. Do you feel that police using violence  to fight crime or arrest a criminal is wrong?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


97 posted 11-22-2004 09:04 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

Noah,

In my mind I see my parents' eyes
as they told their stories . . .

Your attitude is the best friend
a thing like Hitler and his kind
could have.

John
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


98 posted 11-22-2004 09:27 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
As a result, the left is most tolerant of those the least tolerant.  If the morality of a Christian nation is not better than the morality of an extremist Muslim nation, then side with the Muslims because tolerance dictates the aggressor has to be wrong because both are in a equal moral position and one should tolerate the views of the non-aggressor.


Not everybody on the Left believes this, Tim. The difference is that we don't accept the Christian morality is, by definition, superior to any other type of morality. And even at that, we don't particularly think Christians are all that Christian all the time.

When a bad thing happens, call it a bad thing. When a good thing happens, call it a good thing.

As long as you keep that in mind, you don't need to make comparisons, you just call a spade a spade. I have no problems calling Bush a more moral man than Hussein, I have a problem calling Bush a competent president.

If you're going to start a war (Is there anybody who still thinks we were forced into this current debacle?), get it right! If you don't, pay the price!

Unfortunately, only 49% of the American people seem to think like that.



Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


99 posted 11-22-2004 09:34 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
That would be the point, when you take morality out of the equation, you can view the U.S. and the Hussein regime to be equal in their levels of evil.


Do you want us to give percentage points?

Hmm, let's see, okay Bush is only about 25% as bad as Hussein. Hussein is about 90% as bad as Pol Pot, Pot is 90% of Hitler, Hitler is 98% of Stalin.

Oh wait, where do I put Mao?


 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Draft: Inevitable?   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors