Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Please explain to me how Gorelick's wall has anything to do with Able Danger. Quote from the wall, please.

I believe it prevented the intelligence agencies from sharing information on Atta, i.e. Atta was on the CIAs list of possible terrorists but because of the Gorelick wall they could not share the info with the FBI. Apparently also, Atta was in Prague meeting with the Iraqis in 2001.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I believe it prevented the intelligence agencies from sharing information on Atta, i.e. Atta was on the CIAs list of possible terrorists but because of the Gorelick wall they could not share the info with the FBI. Apparently also, Atta was in Prague meeting with the Iraqis in 2001.

So you think the reason they put the wall in place was that someone at CIA had info on the Vince Foster thing and Hillary needed to freeze it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I believe it prevented the intelligence agencies from sharing information on Atta, i.e. Atta was on the CIAs list of possible terrorists but because of the Gorelick wall they could not share the info with the FBI. Apparently also, Atta was in Prague meeting with the Iraqis in 2001.

I asked for a cite because a blog I read, quoting from the New York Times, notes that the explanation given by official sources has evolved from suggested there was some legal basis to more of a PR concern about, e.g., what happened in Waco. I know the Waco angle will be a pet favorite of yours, so perhaps you should be blaming 9/11 on Janet Reno instead of Jamie Gorelick.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
perhaps you should be blaming 9/11 on Janet Reno instead of Jamie Gorelick.

I invented that

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
social democrat statist Scandanavian

The Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They have socialist parties but they do not promote socialism. These are welfare states. There is a huge difference. Following WWII they had some of the freest markets in Europe. In the seventies they started instituting the welfare state but they still left enterprise free. That is why Sweden sports a few billionaires and Nokia exists in Finland. However, they have had to reduce their welfare states because of the cost but the economies are still some of the freest in Europe.

The four largest growth rates in recent history occurred in Nazi Germany under Hitler, Communist Russia under Stalin, Hong Kong under the British and Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew. Nazi Germany used massive deficit spending to spring their economy to life and they paid back their massive debts with war looting profits (including confiscating all Jewish property) and then slave labor. Lenin drove the economy into the ground but then started the NEP, letting the Kulaks exercise free enterprise, and the Soviet Economy somewhat bounced back. Then Stalin came in and liquidated the Kulaks. He ended any free enterprise. He then set production quotas, and if these quotas were not met you were shot as a traitor. Not surprisingly the economy grew rapidly. It is also estimated that as much as one fifth of the population was in slave labor camps and this slave labor helped with growth. Once the terror stopped the economy stopped growing.

Hong Kong and Singapore simply had some of the freest markets in history.

So unless you want to use slave labor, threaten the lives of your managers, and confiscate property from your citizens it seems that the free market is the way to go.

[Spanky]

Putting the Iraq war in perspective.

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton started a war with Serbia without UN or French consent. Serbia never attacked us. That was seven years ago and we still have occupation forces in Serbia.

In the three years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. In addition, there has not been one casualty caused by a terrorist attack in the United States since 9-11.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick killing a woman.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
Putting the Iraq war in perspective.

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton started a war with Serbia without UN or French consent. Serbia never attacked us. That was seven years ago and we still have occupation forces in Serbia.

In the three years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. In addition, there has not been one casualty caused by a terrorist attack in the United States since 9-11.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick killing a woman.

This may get you to the Penske #1 position.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Putting the Iraq war in perspective.

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.

So how many combat-related killings were there in Detroit that month? Not so many, I'm thinking. And does anyone have any idea how many murders there were in Iraq that month? I think the police have their hands full with other problems.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So how many combat-related killings were there in Detroit that month? Not so many, I'm thinking. And does anyone have any idea how many murders there were in Iraq that month? I think the police have their hands full with other problems.

I can't believe you went there. More Americans were killed that month in Detroit than in all of Iraq where this terrible insurgency that is completely out of hand is supposed to exist. And that is just one city of 2 million - not even the size of baghdad - compared to the entire nation of Iraq.

Are gang related killings considered combat? If that is the case I am sure there are more combat killings in the United States everyday than there are in Iraq.

In the first four hours of D-Day there were three thousand deaths.

In the 1980s New York city averaged three deaths a day. I am sure there were more killings every day in the United States in the 1980s than there are in Iraq everyday now.

Iraq has twenty five million people. I don't think that even one percent of the population has died in this war. And yet everyone makes it sound like it is a complete blood bath.

Of course every death is a tragedy. But if everyone that was murdered every day in the United States pictures was put on the news this country would seem like it was totally out of hand and a blood bath. Can you imagine what it would be like if every night on the news if every victim of a violent crime's picture was put on the news? The news would not be long enough.

I think there around ten thousand highway deaths every year the United States. Can you imagine every picture being put on the news.

If you put the numbers in perspective you realize that Iraq is far from being an out of control or being a quagmire.

[Spanky]

There were 39 murders in Detroit in January. Detroits population is 951,279. So if you lived in Detroit in January there was a .004 percent chance you would die.

There were 35 combat deaths in Iraq in January and there are 1.4 million active and reserve personell in the US military.
If you were in the military there was a .0025 percent chance you would be killed in Iraq.

So in January it was almost twice as safe to be in the military during the "quagmire" in Iraq than it was to be a resident of Detroit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
There were 39 murders in Detroit in January. Detroits population is 951,279. So if you lived in Detroit in January there was a .004 percent chance you would die.

that was right after I turned nice here- steam had to go somewhere.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
I can't believe you went there. More Americans were killed that month in Detroit than in all of Iraq where this terrible insurgency that is completely out of hand is supposed to exist. And that is just one city of 2 million - not even the size of baghdad - compared to the entire nation of Iraq.

Are gang related killings considered combat? If that is the case I am sure there are more combat killings in the United States everyday than there are in Iraq.

In the first four hours of D-Day there were three thousand deaths.

In the 1980s New York city averaged three deaths a day. I am sure there were more killings every day in the United States in the 1980s than there are in Iraq everyday now.

Iraq has twenty five million people. I don't think that even one percent of the population has died in this war. And yet everyone makes it sound like it is a complete blood bath.

Of course every death is a tragedy. But if everyone that was murdered every day in the United States pictures was put on the news this country would seem like it was totally out of hand and a blood bath. Can you imagine what it would be like if every night on the news if every victim of a violent crime's picture was put on the news? The news would not be long enough.

I think there around ten thousand highway deaths every year the United States. Can you imagine every picture being put on the news.

If you put the numbers in perspective you realize that Iraq is far from being an out of control or being a quagmire.

Oh, and don't forget heart disease, cancer and old age. When you compare Iraq to those, its nothing. A blip. Not even an event worth noting.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Oh, and don't forget heart disease, cancer and old age. When you compare Iraq to those, its nothing. A blip. Not even an event worth noting.

One of my partners (math geek) proved that getting on an airplane the morning of 9/11/01 was still safer % than our drives into work that morning.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So how many combat-related killings were there in Detroit that month? Not so many, I'm thinking. And does anyone have any idea how many murders there were in Iraq that month? I think the police have their hands full with other problems.

Murders have been reclassified under the interim Iraqi constitution as “natural causes.” As an anonymous administration aide noted, “In war, murder is a natural cause. Its only right that we properly define during this transition phase. Once we have stability, it will of course be reclassified as ‘non-natural.’ Or is that ‘unnatural?’ You know what I mean, right?”

[dtb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
One of my partners (math geek) proved that getting on an airplane the morning of 9/11/01 was still safer % than our drives into work that morning.

The Freakonomics author (presumably a math geek as well) points out that when you factor in "hours spent in [method of transportation,]" flying is no safer than driving.

I KNEW it!