david_carnell

Awww, even as a spoken-for fella I think I can do better than that for a lovely gal like Kel... http://www.global-b2b-network.com/direct/dbimage/50322257/Sun_Flowers.jpg

MP, what you now doing is making a case for US intervention in Cambodia, Indonesia etc etc whilst criticising US involvement in other areas where they deposed tin-pot dictatorships. Are you in favour of intervention by western powers wherever they see a perceived injustice in the world? Your use of figures do the same, you cannot blame the US for deaths where they did nothing and blame them when they intervened.

I don't know whether I could begin to answer the "force for good" question but I just wanted to make the point that in no way, can US foreign policy over the past 60 years be compared to an 11 year reign of terror by a communist dictator. Although, now I think about it, yes, I believe they are a force for good. But, all deaths, civilian or combat, friend or foe, matter. Whether, under a basic utilitarian argument, they are for a greater good....I hope so.

I'd question it too if it was a biog or somesuch but all the figures I've used have reference points from academic research. If you want to challenge one, please feel free. I'll be happy to amend. Still think you'll struggle to add 15 million, mind you.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Whether you like it or not, racist or not, > America's foreign policy has been responsible for > upward of 5 million deaths in the post war period, > and probably higher than that by a figure I > wouldn't even be comfortable hazarding a guess at, > but I'd be opening bids in the 20s, putting it on > a par with Stalin's Soviet Union. I don't know you personally, Piers, but in the past I've respected much of what you've said on these forums. In this instance, however, I think you've well and truly crossed the line. You've made the classic mistake of aimlessly quoting arbitrary figures in the hope it will back-up your argument. I'm afraid it doesn't. So, post-1945 conflicts involving the US: Korea North Korean deaths - 215,000 Chinese deaths - 148,000 including non-combat deaths (US own estimate outs the figure at 400,000) Soviet deaths - 300 I'll ignore the the deaths of the allies (because this was UN sanctioned). Vietnam North Vietnamese dead - 1.1 million Chinese dead - 1400 It is almost impossible to estimate numbers of civilian deaths and these figures would include pro-American, South Vietnamese; estimates by Vietnam put the figure around 2 million Dominican Republic 1000 guerillas 3000 civilians El Salvador Total deaths - 70,000 Grenada Maximum of 200 deaths amongst the Grenada and Cuban forces Panama 1000 Panamanian deaths Gulf War 35,000 Iraqi combat deaths Again, civilian deaths are hard to calculate but estimates are between 2,000 and 200,000. I'll plump for 100,000. I doubt it'll make much difference to the overall total. Somalia 1000 combat deaths Bosnia I can't find figures for the NATO led air strikes that don't get warped by deaths from Croat forces. If someone else can, muchos gracias. Afghanistan 12,000 Taleban deaths Iraq 2 Iraqi combatant dead (invasion period): 7,600-10,800 Insurgents dead (post-Saddam): 15,976-21,805 All Iraqi violent deaths, Iraqi Health Ministry casualty survey for the World Health Organization, as of June 2006: 151,000 Drumroll please.....total dead due to direct US action - just under 4 million So, that's under your initial estimate and way lower than your estimate of Stalin. Estimates put deaths of USSR civilians under Stalin's regime between 3 million and 60 million. See here for explanations of the disparity and sources of research related to the topic. None of this includes the deaths suffered by US forces and their allies. I'm presuming from the sentiment expressed on here so far, they got what they deserved. I'm not supporting the US regime in all their exploits nor defending their record but before we start bandying figures around in support of arguments its worth bearing the above in mind. The US has been a force for good in the past. They helped defeat Nazi forces in WW2 and their spending on defence hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union. Cold War atrocities took place on both sides and if you make me choose, I'd rather live under capitalism than communism. Also, a muber of these operation took place with the support of various other international players. To imply that the US wanders around the globe alone, and without allies, is a spurious mis-truth. Apologies for the exceedingly long post.

Ahhh yes.....the crypt. Spooky!

Hopefully not beers with raw eggs in!

A pain in the arse.

Had any other canvassers MP? Guess you're a lost cause! ;-)

Am I stating the obvious when suggesting that, despite it being down to the owners to control their dogs, this bugger http://www.morganhilltimes.com/content/img/f163595/Pitbull-2-CR.jpg is going to do a lot more bloody (literally) damage when badly behaved than this fella http://www.geishawalk.com/images/creatures/small-dog.jpg Now, I'm not suggesting banning all large, possibly violent dogs, or anything nearly as knee-jerk. People are entitled to own whichever dog they wish. However, I think owner licenses would be a good idea. You have to prove to be responsible if you wish to own certain breeds (like the guy in the top photo) and sit tests - much like a car (theory and practical). That way the people that own dogs that are harmless don't need to worry but those that rightly wish to own Staffs, Dogos, Rottweillers, etc can be assured to have responsibilty.

They have the bottled versions of Goose Island IPA and Anchor Steam Brewery stuff. Very nice indeed. Shame to see this place up for sale. I suppose, optimistically, the new owners could continue with the same business albeit with minor changes to bring in some more cash. The ?4000 pw takings and an annual rent of ?20000 doesn't seem too bad. In fact that seems pretty good to me as a layman. Perhaps scor46 could put us right.

I guess naff is entirely subjective but most would agree that it's anything deemed "un-cool" by the meedja or commentariat. Anything a bit common. Also anything ludicrously ostentatious or poncey. I know more adjectives doesn;t necessarily help but I don't think this was meant as a serious thread to discuss semantics.

A Top-Gun era Val Kilmer, only without the rippled body or the gleaming teeth (sigh). This was according to two drunk Americans I met in Venice, so I don't hold too much water by it.

A chip butty Ladette to Lady Much 80s electro-pop (found that out last night watching Ashes to Ashes) Laser Quest

Any of the purveyors of fried chicken The Castle Any of the purveyors of maternity wear Le Moulin Barcelona Tapas(?) Grove Vale Library The Vale

Are you Britney in disguise?

It's a public forum, you're posting in the "lounge" section; unless you're a troll or a flamer then go for it. I'd echo Nero's point though - what reaction you'll get is anyone's guess. Plus if this is dodgy, Mr Administrator is known to deal with these things swiftly.

Dr Crippen loads, aims and fires. Meanwhile, some homeopaths are truthfully blunt. Or should that be bluntly truthful?!

lozzyloz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > d_c sorry not saying you're racist just an > observation on changing attitudes. Oh, sorry. I'm obviously in a defensive mood. > My experience of american friends on the East and > West coast is that they are just as savvy as our > Londoners (almost). Yes, perhaps. East coast definitely (excluding the aforementioned girl from S Carolina), it's the fly-over states that still carry electoral weight that tend to be more economically and socially conservative. Weirdly, they are also the most economically deprived so it's strange they should vote Republican in such large swathes. A socially-conservative Democrat should do well there (its why both Kerry and Gore chose Southern running-mates). Social issues seem to play more heavily I suppose. Religion is a BIG issue. Abortion is linked into that and stuff like gay marriage etc. Guliani would have been interesting. He would have appealed to Democrats in a way that none of the other candidates can due to his social liberalism on certain issues. U.S. politicsis more than just right-left spectrum. You have to go up-down on social liberalism vs social-authoritarianism. Very few manage to be at the end of both spectrums and be successful. Clinton and Obama will talk about taxing the rich but talk tough on crime. Romney will talk about tax breaks and limiting abortion. As I mentioned earlier, McCain could prove the dark horse. Despite his age he talks a good game and can balance these axis(es) well, appealing to both sets of voters.

It's not rascist (or even racist) but merely highlighting the fact that you can't expect an intelligent, ethical foreign policy from a country with this sort of electorate. We sit here asking ourselves "How can they vote for this moron Bush?" Because they are Bush. America produces some of the great minds of the modern age as well, mind you.

You tube is full of brillant examples of stupid Americans which is unfortunate as no other nation gets this sort of abuse. Try looking for the Miss America contest and inparticular the answer the contestant from South Carolina gives to "Why can't Americans find America on a map?" Says it all. Back on topic... Romney is dangerous. IMO he'd beat Clinton II. He's conservative but not a neo-con and despite the whole Mormon thing he's doing well in the polls with undecideds - the key constituency. Obama needs to now start targeting the Hispanic and Southern White demographics as this is where he's losing to Clinton. Super Tuesday is going to be fascinating. It could go all the way to the Democratic convention. If you don't know what that means, check out the penultimate series of the West Wing as Matt Santos battles to become the Democratic candidate. Brilliant stuff.

Can you point to Iran on a map? Points to Australia Wife nods in agreement. Genius!

DO NOT go to the barber on East Dulwich Rd along from Goose Green. You could do better with sheep shears and no mirror.

Don't bank on a Republican backlash electing a Democrat president. McCain is vehmently anti-war and has the added benefit(?) of being a 'Nam veteran. The worse the war gets, the bigger an issue it becomes. This will play well for McCain. He's not tainted with the Bush regime and appeals to conservative Democrats. He'd be the dangerous candidate. On a lighter note, classic footage of why American citizens should never be allowed to vote... Be afraid, be very afraid.

S