See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Idiocy in D.C., Progress in Baghdad
Source:
www.weeklystandard.com
URL Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte ... icles/000/000/013/416urcoa.asp
Published: Mar 17, 2007
Author: William Kristol
Post Date: 2007-03-17 20:20:21 by BeAChooser
Keywords: None
Views: 3472
Comments: 224
Idiocy in D.C., Progress in Baghdad The surge is working--that's what matters. by William Kristol 03/26/2007, Volume 012, Issue 27 In order to preserve the cosmic harmony, it seems the gods insist that good news in one place be offset by misfortune elsewhere. It may well be that Gen. David Petraeus is going to lead us to victory in Iraq. He is certainly off to a good start. If the karmic price of success in Iraq is utter embarrassment for senior Bush officials in Washington, D.C.--well, in our judgment, the trade-off is worth it. The world will surely note our success or failure in Iraq. It will not long remember the gang that couldn't shoot straight at the Justice Department--or, for that matter, the antics of congressional Democrats--unless either so weakens the administration as to undercut our mission in Iraq. Obviously, it's too early to say anything more definitive than that there are real signs of progress in Baghdad. The cocksure defeatism of war critics of two months ago, when the surge was announced, does seem to have been misplaced. The latest Iraq Update (pdf) by Kimberly Kagan summarizes the early effects of the new strategy backed up by, as yet, just one additional U.S. brigade deployed in theater (with more to be added in the coming weeks): This "rolling surge" focuses forces on a handful of neighborhoods in Baghdad, and attempts to expand security out from those neighborhoods. . . . A big advantage of a "rolling surge" is that the population and the enemy sense the continuous pressure of ever-increasing forces. Iraqis have not seen such a prolonged and continuous planned increase of U.S. forces before. . . . The continued, increasing presence of U.S. forces appears to be having an important psychological, as well as practical, effect on the enemy and the people of Iraq. . . . [Meanwhile] in Ramadi, in the belt south of Baghdad stretching from Yusifiyah to Salman Pak, and northeast in Diyala Province, . . . U.S. and Iraqi forces have deprived al Qaeda of the initiative. This sense of momentum is confirmed by many other reports in the media, and from Americans and Iraqis on the ground. But back in Washington, congressional Democrats are still mired in the fall of 2006 and seem determined to be as irresponsible as ever. They're being beaten back--in part thanks to the fighting spirit of stalwart congressional Republicans. Last week, the Senate defeated a resolution that would have restricted the use of U.S. troops in Iraq and set March 31, 2008, as a target date for removing U.S. forces from combat. On the same day, on a mostly party-line vote, the House Appropriations Committee reported out the Democratic version of a supplemental appropriations bill for the war. It was an odd piece of legislation--an appropriation to fight a war replete with provisions intended to ensure we lose it. Here's what the Democratic legislation does, according to the Washington Post: "Under the House bill, the Iraqi government would have to meet strict benchmarks. . . . If by July 1 the president could not certify any progress, U.S. troops would begin leaving Iraq, to be out before the end of this year. If Bush did certify progress, the Iraqi government would have until Oct. 1 to meet the benchmarks, or troops would begin withdrawing then. In any case, withdrawals would have to begin by March 1, 2008, and conclude by the end of that summer." Got that? Oh yes, in addition to the arbitrary timelines for the removal of troops, there's pork. As the Post explains, "Included in the legislation is a lot of money to help win support. The price tag exceeds the president's war request by $24 billion." Some of the extra money goes to bail out spinach farmers hurt by E. coli, to pay for peanut storage, and to provide additional office space for the lawmakers themselves. So much for an emergency war appropriations bill. The legislation may collapse on the floor of the House this week. It certainly deserves to. Republicans can insist on a clean supplemental--no timelines to reassure the enemy that if they just hang on, we'll be gone before long, and no pork. They can win this fight--and if they do, combined with progress in Iraq, the lasting news from March 2007 will not be Bush administration haplessness; it will be that we are on the way to success in Iraq.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-164) not displayed.
.
.
.
#165. To: scrapper2, diana, robin, ALL (#151)
I didn't suggest that Stalin was a nice guy. Or not a problem himself. I'm only saying that had we not helped the Soviets and the British, Hitler would likely have won WW2. And then where would we be today? I didn't say or suggest that either. You folks seem to rely mostly on strawmen. What I said is that without US help, Hitler would have won the war against Britain and the Soviets. There is a difference although perhaps its too subtle for you? No, the only thing that kept the Soviets afloat was support from the US. US built equipment moved their army and supplies. US foodstuffs fed their army. And US support of the UK and the threat of US invasion keep large portions of the German military from moving against the Soviets. The Soviets hung on by a thin thread and US support was vital to keeping that thread from breaking. Like I said. Without US support Britain would have starved. The British won the Battle of Britain primarily because of radar superiority and the failure of Germans to recognize its use. But by the end of that period, German technology in radar, aircraft and many other fields had far surpassed that of Britain (and the US). The Second Battle of Britain would have been much different had the US not been a partner to the British. British morale was high ONLY because the convoys were still getting through. Without US help to ensure that happened, Britain would have ended up isolated, starving and vulnerable once again. Oh ... is that why in May 1942 Rommel won a stunning victory at Gazala and captured Tobruk? Because the British were kicking his butt? Is that why he drove them back to Egypt? Because they were kicking his butt? The Battle of Alam el Halfa, which finally turned things around, took place between August 30 and September 6, 1942 ... 9 months after the US joined the war. The US invaded North Africa in November 42. It was Operation Torch which broke the back of the Germans in Africa. And guess who did it? An American general named ... Patton. But had there been no US help and Britain was still hanging on by its own thin thread ... Two can play this game. Had Hitler been deposed, German generals would have been free to fight the war as they saw fit. A very good case can be made that it was Hitler's mistakes against Britain, in North Africa and against the Soviets that kept Germany from winning in each case. And Hitler was lot closer to being deposed than Stalin ever was. With the US out of the picture perhaps the Generals would have seen the light? You only prove my point. Folks like you would have ensured the US didn't enter the war had the media of today reported the situation back then like it has reported the WOT. Or at least guaranteed that the mantra "FDR LIED, GIS DIED" would have ensured we lost that war or sued for peace before US might was really felt. ROTFLOL! I hate to tell you this, but your allies against the Iraq war, liberal democRATS and other leftists, are the ones who in the 80's and 90's wanted to appease and learn to live with the Soviet machine. It took a Republican President, a Catholic Pope and good ol' Margaret to bring it down. And when did this happen? Oh yes ... long, long, long after the US entered the war when US forces were knocking on Japan's door. I guess you missed that little detail.
yeah, he's one of 'those people', right? laugh it up, dickbag. while you're down there, you might want to pick some more trash from the Horowitz peanut gallery.
Oh please. Have you nothing but strawmen to offer? The ISSUE is whether the Germans would have defeated the Soviets had the US not helped them in WW2. The ISSUE is what would the world look like today had that happened. Keep in mind that the Germans were only a little behind America in the race for the bomb and that race was given urgency here in the US primarly because we were at war with Germany. Had that not been the case, Germany might well have beaten the US to its development. And you may not know this but at the end of 1945, the Germans had a bomber that could fly to the US and return. That bomber could easily have carried nuclear weapons. Like I said to you folks. What then?
Really? The Soviet regime lasted the better part of a century. That's enough time to do a lot of damage, Diana. Do you honestly think that had Germany and Japan won WW2 due to the US staying out of it, they'd have just ignored the US for all those years until they collapsed? Really??? (high squeaky south park voice with head tilted) Another strawman. No one is now being taught ALL Germans loved Hitler. The Soviets, which as scrapper has pointed out was just as bad or worse, lasted most of a century. And they didn't just ignore us, Diana. Neither would the victorious Germans or Japanese. You have got to be kidding. ROTFLOL!
Like happened in the Soviet Union? Like has happened in Communist China? Forget the Soviets. They are gone in your alternate world. The Germans defeated them using technology that even the US didn't have at the end of WW2. One would think the Soviet and Chinese people, being as miserable as they were for decades, would have revolted like you claim the Germans would have. Is that so? Then surely Saddam should have beaten us during the First and Second Gulf wars.
No that is not what I implied (or said). In fact, let me post something you were posted previously (back in LP days) that proves you aren't being truthful. ************* **************** http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1101.html Q: What is your opinion, as a professional health physicist, about the use of depleted uranium (DU) ammunition in war operations? A: Human health risks from exposure to DU can be broadly categorized in terms of radiological or chemical toxicity. Because of DU's low radioactivity or specific activity, a very high exposure is required to increase the radiological risk. For example, an acute inhalation of gram quantities of respirable DU aerosol would be needed. This would only be possible for soldiers present in armored vehicles struck by DU penetrators. Exposure of the general public to environmentally dispersed DU may pose a risk of chemical toxicity depending on the level of exposure, primarily from ingestion. At a recent experts' workshop on DU in the Balkans (Bad Honnef Germany; see the Health Physics Society's Newsletter, September 2001 for details), United Nations scientists studying the environmental behavior of DU showed that DU dissolving from penetrators embedded in soil did not migrate more than 20 cm from the source and that a very small fraction of the DU had dissolved. They did not find any DU contamination in milk, well water, houses, or vehicles in areas where DU munitions were used, nor was any DU measured in urine samples taken from soldiers who were deployed in regions where DU was used. Because evidence indicates that human exposures to DU will be very small, and that these levels will be small fractions of the public's routine exposure to natural uranium, predicted health effects appear to be inconceivable. Raymond A. Guilmette, PhD **************** And here, once again, is the collective wisdom of the Health Physics Society: http://hps.org/documents/dufactsheet.pdf Are there any health effects associated with exposure to DU? DU behavior in the body is identical to that of natural uranium. Uranium and DU are considered internal hazards. Therefore, inhalation and/or ingestion of these materials should be minimized. In general, natural U and DU are considered chemical health hazards, rather than radiation hazards. The exception is the case where DU is inhaled in the form of tiny insoluble particles, which lodge in the lungs and remain there for very long times. DU is less of a radiation hazard than natural U because it is less radioactive than natural U. Direct (external) radiation from DU is very low and only of concern to workers who melt and cast U metal. DU used in commercial civilian applications does not present a significant health hazard because it is usually in solid form and not available for inhalation or ingestion. Military operations with DU, however, may contaminate soil, groundwater, and breathing air. When used as a weapon, small particles of DU may be produced. These particles have high density and most fall to the ground very close to where they are produced. Studies have been made of workers and other persons who have ingested or inhaled uranium. There is no known association between low-level DU exposure and adverse health effects, including birth defects. In large quantities, DU exposure can cause skin or lung irritation, but only soldiers in the immediate vicinity of an attack that involves DU are potentially exposed to these levels of contamination. People who live or work in areas affected by DU activities may inhale or consume contaminated air, food, or water. Soldiers with wounds containing fragments of DU shrapnel may develop effects at the wound sites. However, the risks to these sites decrease quickly once the DU is removed. Persons exposed to very large inhalation doses of uranium have shown minor, transitory kidney effects, which typically disappear within days to a few weeks after exposure. Persons inhaling insoluble particulates that lodge in the lung may be at elevated risk of developing lung cancer many years later, particularly if they are smokers. But lung cancer has yet to be demonstrated in uranium workers or others exposed acutely or chronically to uranium. A group of Gulf War veterans who have small DU fragments still in their bodies continue to be followed by government scientists to determine whether there will be long-term health effects. As of early 2005, only subtle but clinically insignificant changes in measures of kidney function have been observed. One common observation is a persistent elevation in the amount of uranium measured in the urine more than 10 years after exposure. This reflects the continued presence of DU in wound sites and its ongoing low-level mobilization and absorption to blood. In summary, some minor health problems have been observed following exposure to DU, but ONLY with high levels of exposure. Exposures to airborne DU or to contaminated soil following military use are not known to cause any observable health or reproductive effects. ************* http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q746.html Q: How are bullets made by depleted uranium, and what reactions do they cause when they enter into contact with the ground and with humans? A: Because of its very high density—nearly twice that of lead—and certain other properties, depleted uranium is used in certain kinds of munitions because of its ability to penetrate heavily armored vehicles such as tanks and armored personnel carriers. Depleted uranium (DU) is not used in small cartridges or bullets for rifles or machines guns but alloyed DU is used in the 25, 105, and 120 millimeter (mm) kinetic energy cartridges used primarily as antitank munitions. DU is also a component in some tank armor and sometimes used as a catalyst for land mine systems. Since depleted uranium is weakly radioactive, the public has been concerned about the possiblility of adverse health effects from DU. DU is a heavy metal, and like all heavy metals such as mercury and lead, is toxic. However, except in certain very unusual situations, it is the chemical toxicity and not the radioactivity that is of concern. And, from a chemical toxicity standpoint, uranium is on the same order of toxicity as lead. Largely from work with animals along with a few instances in which humans inhaled very large amounts of uranium, the chemical toxicity of uranium is known to produce minor effects on the kidney, which in humans who have suffered large acute exposures have been transitory and wholly reversible. Because depleted and natural uranium are only weakly radioactive, radiological effects from ingested or inhaled uranium have not been detected in humans. Human experience with uranium has spanned more than 200 years. In the early part of the twentieth century, uranium was used therapeutically as a treatment for diabetes, and persons so treated were administered relatively large amounts of uranium by mouth. Tens of thousands of persons have worked in the uranium industry over the past several decades, and have been followed up and studied extensively as have populations in Canada and elsewhere who have high levels of uranium in their drinking water. Results of these studies have not revealed any ill health in these populations that is attributable to the intake of uranium. This is not surprising, as the risk from the radiation dose from uranium is far overshadowed by its potential chemical toxicity, and intakes of uranium of sufficient magnitude to produce chemotoxic effects are unlikely in and of themselves. Any such effects from ingestion or inhalation of uranium would likely manifest themselves first in the form of minor effects associated with the kidneys. That military personnel and others who may have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions are suffering from various illnesses is not in dispute. That their illnesses are attributable to their exposure to uranium is very, very unlikely. Health physicists are deeply concerned with the public health and welfare, and as experts in radiation and its effects on people and the environment, are quite aware that something other than exposure to uranium is the cause of the illnesses suffered by those who have had contact with depleted uranium from munitions. A truly enormous body of scientific data shows that it is virtually impossible for uranium to be the cause of their illnesses. Despite this body of scientific data to the contrary, misguided or unknowing people continue to allege that the depleted uranium, and specifically the radioactivity associated with the depleted uranium is the cause of these illness. This is indeed unfortunate, for health physicists and other scientists and physicians already know that depleted uranium is not the cause of these illnesses and thus any investigations into the cause of these illnesses should focus on other possible causes. If we are to offer any measure of relief or solace to these suffering people, and to gain some important additional knowledge of the cause of their illness, we should not waste our valuable and limited energies, resources, and time attempting to point the finger at depleted uranium as the culprit, when it is already known that uranium is almost certainly not the cause of the problem. With respect to reactions with the soil, in time depleted uranium will likely leach into the soil and become mixed with it. It will for all practical purposes be chemically indistinguishable from the natural uranium that is already present in the soil all over the earth. One could create all kinds of scenarios, but probably the best way to think about DU in the soil is to compare it with lead. Because lead and uranium are so similar from a toxicological standpoint, the concerns are about the same. Ronald L. Kathren, CHP **************** Now you go ahead and offer the name of a REAL health physicist who says DU is anything remotely approaching the threat you claim. Go ahead, FL.
And here's some more material you've been posted before: http://www.iem-inc.com/askset.html "Integrated Environmental Management, Inc. (IEM) is pleased to offer visitors to this web site an opportunity to ask a Certified Health Physicist (CHP) a question on any radiological issue that your firm or organization is facing." Well guess what ... someone already did. http://www.iem-inc.com/askq14.html "From my research, it looks like the military does monitor and test soldiers exposed to DU to determine the levels of uranium they may have been exposed to. I have found no scientific evidence of an increased rate of birth defects in children born to Iraq War veterans. Furthermore, exposures to the levels of DU experienced by military personnel would result in no toxic or debilitating health effects other than those that might be associated with conventional ordnance shrapnel wounds." *************** http://www.forces.gc.ca/health/information/med_vaccs/engraph/DU_Backgrounder_e.asp "... snip ... A souvenir hunter who picked up a piece of depleted uranium penetrator rod (the core of large DU munitions) and carried it in his pocket for a few days would receive a relatively high dose of short-range beta radiation to the skin adjacent to the souvenir. But it would not be enough to cause a burn - much less a significantly elevated risk of skin cancer" "In the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists the authors tried to estimate the possible external gamma-radiation levels on the battlefield by assuming that 100 tons of depleted uranium had been distributed uniformly over a one-kilometer-wide strip along 100 kilometers of the "Highway of Death" between Kuwait City and Basra, a city in southern Iraq. The average dose for someone who lived in the area for a year would be about one mrem - or about 10 percent of the dose from uranium and its decay products already naturally occurring in the soil. The dose rate immediately around a destroyed vehicle could be about 30 times higher. But even that figure would only add about 10 percent to the natural background radiation." "The authors of the article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists also note "For perspective, the driver of a tank equipped with DU munitions would get dose rates of up to 5 times natural background, corresponding to a doubling of the background dose if the driver spent 40 hours per week in the tank all year." Depending upon the nature of the impact, a significant fraction of a DU penetrator can burn, oxidizing into an inhalable aerosol. If we assume that 20 percent of the depleted uranium burns, a reasonable estimate based on army tests, the impact of a heavy DU penetrator might generate a kilogram of uranium oxide aerosol For soldiers outside struck vehicles, the aerosol inhaled in the minutes immediately after a vehicle struck by DU munitions would be greatly reduced by the fact that the kinetic energy was turned into heat by the impact. For a heavy penetrator, the released energy would be equivalent to the explosion of up to a kilogram of TNT, lifting the DU aerosol upward on a column of hot air. Because of this vertical dilution, the amount of depleted uranium inhaled by a person nearby would probably not exceed 0.1 milligrams. The dose to a person a mile away directly downwind would be about ten times less. The main cancer risk from inhaled depleted uranium would be from tiny insoluble particles lodged deep in the lungs. According to the inhalation-retention model constructed by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP), 15 percent of an insoluble inhaled uranium oxide aerosol could be retained in the lungs for more than a year. However, because of the low radioactivity of depleted uranium, the radiation dose would be quite low. For someone close to the battle who inhaled one milligram of depleted uranium - an unlikely scenario - the equivalent whole-body dose would be up to 0.1 rem. That is roughly half the annual dose from inhaled radon and its decay products in a typical single family home in the United States. The estimated added risk of cancer death for such a dose would be about one in 20,000. (To put things in perspective, we in the United States have a one-in five risk of dying of cancer)." Depleted uranium ammunition is shielded, which further reduces its radiological hazard. The Defence Radiological Protection Service in the UK has stated "The external radiation hazard would arise from personnel being in close proximity to DU and is concerned mainly with beta, gamma and x-ray radiation. The alpha radiation poses no external hazard to intact skin. AWE and DRPS have conducted measurements of external radiation levels inside tanks to establish the external radiation exposure. These demonstrate that personnel would need to be in a fully DU loaded tank for 1500 hours before they would reach the annual whole body dose limit (50 mSv). There is no significant external hazard to personnel working with and exposed to DU ammunition in armament depots or stores. Over 5000 hours of exposure to DU would be required before the current dose limit for exposure of the whole body (50 mSv) would be exceeded. The main external radiation hazard from DU is from contact with bare skin. The current dose limit to the skin will only be exceeded if the skin remains in contact continuously with DU for more than 250 hours per year. Naomi H. Harley is an authority on radiation physics. She earned her Ph.D. in radiological physics at the New York University where she is currently a research professor at the University's School of Medicine, Department of Environmental Medicine. She has authored or co-authored more than 100 peer-reviewed journal articles on radiation exposure, with emphasis on natural background radiation. She has written six chapters in books dealing with radiation or toxicology and holds three patents for radiation measurement devices. She is a council member on the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, an advisor to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and an editor of the journal Environment International. In commenting on reports of some doctors finding traces of depleted uranium in the urines of service members years after any possible exposure, Dr. Harley notes this would only be possible if the military members had depleted uranium fragments embedded in their bodies. She comments on the issue of some veterans being convinced that fragments could be inhaled particles lodged in their lungs by stating "It's hard to imagine that anybody could have inhaled enough material so that it could still be there eight or nine years later, enough so that you could see the amount being dissolved and then getting into the urine." Harley says she's heard people project that the use of depleted uranium will cause tens of thousands of new cancers in Gulf War veterans and Iraqi citizens, but says such projections frighten veterans unnecessarily because there is no scientific support for such claims. "There is no way you can get enough uranium into the body to cause even one cancer. You can't inhale it, you can't ingest it. You would choke to death before you could inhale that much material." ******************* http://www.bovik.org/du/snl-dusand.pdf Here is an excerpt from it's conclusions: "The study described in this report used mathematical modeling to estimate health risks from exposure to depleted uranium (DU) during the 1991 Gulf War for both U.S. troops and nearby Iraqi civilians. The analysis found that the risks of DU-induced leukemia or birth defects are far too small to result in an observable increase in these health effects among exposed veterans or Iraqi civilians. Only a few veterans in vehicles accidentally struck by U.S. DU munitions are predicted to have inhaled sufficient quantities of DU particulate to incur any significant health risk (i.e., the possibility of temporary kidney damage from the chemical toxicity of uranium and about a 1% chance of fatal lung cancer). The health risk to all downwind civilians is predicted to be extremely small." Let's see if you just dismiss or ignore them like you did then.
You mean by resuming the subsidized grain shipments to the USSR that Carter stopped? If nothing else, you're good for a mid-day belly laugh.
diana: Another thing, will triumphs over technology every time. BAC: Is that so? Then surely Saddam should have beaten us during the First and Second Gulf wars. a. LOL - look who is living in an alternate world - knock, knock anyone home,BAC? If you believe that the Germans defeated the Russians in WW II, then it's no wonder that you believe the propaganda from Weekly Standard and News Max about our eminently successful military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. You're a riot, oozer. From the BBC: "...In the spring of 1944, a Soviet invasion of Germany became a real possibility, as Soviet troops pursued the retreating German army. Hitler ordered the citizens of Germany to destroy anything that the enemy could put to good use. Embittered by defeats, he later turned against the Germans themselves. 'If the German people lose the war, then they will have proved themselves unworthy of me.' Hitler suffered his greatest military setback of the war in the summer of 1944. More destructive by far than the D-Day landings, Stalin's Operation Bagration in Belorussia eliminated three times more German army divisions than the Allies did in Normandy. Hitler retaliated by demanding specific divisions of the German army stand fast to the last man - the very tactic that Stalin had deployed so disastrously in the early days of the war. Defeat for Germany was only months away. Final victory came for Russia when Soviet soldiers hoisted the red flag over the Berlin Reichstag in April 1945. Soviet soldiers hoisted the red flag over the Berlin Reichstag in April 1945." End of story, BAC. b. You know why Stalin's government did not fall after WW II? One of the reasons and major it was - Stalin's brutal grip was strengthened by the FDR's lend-lease program. It did not just fuel Stalin's war machinery to fight Hitler, it strengthened him to fight any insurrections from within. Didn't you read the Professor Weeks' book from which you quoted? As for our "beating Saddam" - I don't recall Saddam's army fighting ours in 2003 - I just remember video clips of lots of army uniforms strewn on the streets but no army to face off against. Did you see something different than me? As for our successfully pacifying Iraq after the Iraqi military faded into the shadows, the verdict is still out in that regard. Diana is right - that the "will" of the Iraqi insurgents will ultimately overcome the technology of the foreign occupier. But what do you care? Israel has been made safer by the chaos and instability in Iraq. In fact at last week's AIPAC conference, Nancy Pelosi was booed when she called the Iraq War a failure - that particular crowd thinks the Iraq War was a success - it accomplished everything they wanted to happen - for Israel's national security. In fact, Olmert himself on several occassions has said the Iraq War is great, wonderbar. Well, some people are happy - too bad it's not the US public or the Iraqi civilians or the UK public. But AIPAC and Olmert are on the moon with joy. BAC, do you even care about the US soldiers' deaths [ apart from your empty platitudes about "respecting" US soldiers] who were sent to fight in a war for lies, a war for the benefit of Israel/Haliburton/Exxon? And why didn't you join this fabulous Iraq war effort if you believed in its merits? Last but not least the toll the war for lies has taken on our fair nation's reputation on the world stage is a loss we will not be able to recover from for generations to come. And for that we should thank the war mongering chickens**t IsraelFirst neocons like Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams and their anti-American ilk - better known as BAC's heroes.
What is his masters in? As you've probably seen I posted about the plane crash at Bijlmer, I was around there a couple years after it happened and it was a big issue. Americans aren't the only ones who are experts in such matters, and this Dr. Rokke certainly isn't the only person in the world who would or wouldn't know about DU. That would sound strange for a PhD in education to be an expert on DU but if he has a master's in a related science and did a lot of coursework in that area it would explain it, though he appears to have some detractors so who knows, it would be interesting to find out about the rest of his education.
"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." I had to look that up as that term is flying around a lot here lately.
They had help and were in a more secure location and larger geographically than Germany. Your bomb argument may have some merit, I'm not so sure they were that close to us at the time in development though as a lot of their best scientists defected.
I don't have time today to do more research into Dr. Rokke's undergraduate degrees, but he was indeed at one time viewed as an expert in DU matters, toxic chemicals in the environment. In fact, he is named as a participant in a CDC conference publication from 1999 - at that time Dr. Rokke was an Ass't Professor at the Dept. of Physical and Earth Sciences, Jacksonville State U and last I heard, Jacksonville State U was not a middle school. http://www.cdc.go v/nceh/publications/gulfwar/report.pdf "The Health Impact of Chemical Exposures During the Gulf War: A Research Planning Conference" February 28 - March 2, 1999 Crowne Plaza Hotel - Atlanta Airport Atlanta, Georgia Sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Collaboration with the Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services the National Institutes of Health, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry a. See Appendix A Registered Participants, page 65 Douglas Rokke, PhD Assistant Professor Jacksonville State University Dept. of Physical and Earth Science Jacksonville, AL b. And page 89: Prevention Workgroup: Members Douglas Rokke, PhD - Assistant Professor, Department of Physical and Earth Science, Jacksonville State University c. And page 100, Prevention Workshop Members' Presentations: "Dr. Douglas Rokke discussed procedures for identifying and handling toxic materials in the Gulf War theater and the role of mitigation efforts and criteria in limiting extent of exposures. He highlighted the need to recognize and select appropriate courses of action against various threats in the military arena."
Like the BBC and the Christian Science Monitor are not going to check what they print. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48191&Disp=112#C112 He is Dr Doug Rokke, a US health physicist who led the DU clean-up in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq immediately after the Gulf War. In 1994, Dr Rokke, an Army Reserve captain, was appointed director of the Pentagon's DU project, a job he left in 1997. Kosovo: Special Report He helped develop an education and training programme, and conducted tests on DU explosives in the Nevada desert. The Pentagon has confirmed that A-10 aircraft are using DU rounds in the war with Serbia. They are extremely heavy, and are used for their armour-piercing capability. Veterans from the 1991 conflict believe DU, which is both radioactive and toxic, may help to explain the existence of Gulf War Syndrome. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=48191&Disp=120#C120 "This [DU] is the Agent Orange of the 1990s - absolutely," says Doug Rokke, a former Army health physicist who was part of the DU assessment team in the Gulf War, and DU project director for the training package.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12 KJV
I don't believe that. Didn't say it. Didn't suggest it. Just another scrapper strawman. The Soviets defeated the Germans. BUT, in large part thanks to the help of the US. Had the US not provided that help ... Almost three years after the US entered the war. I'm glad you recognize that the Lend/Lease fueled Stalin's war machine. Without it Hitler's Germany would have won. Then what? Well I see you are rooting for their side. Too bad we have folks like you and those in the mainstream media doing everything possible (since almost day one) to weaken OUR will. Given that, whose side are you on?
I've previously linked his own resume. http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Rokke-Depleted-Uranium-DU21apr03.htm#1 It states: * Doctor of Philosophy; University of Illinois; 1992. It doesn't specify the field.
No more so than Germany would have been had it beaten the British and Germans. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4598955.stm "Historians working in Germany and the US claim to have found a 60-year-old diagram showing a Nazi nuclear bomb."
He is NOT named as an expert on DU in that report. DU is not even mentioned in the same sentence as Dr. Rokke in that report. Dr. Rokke was an Assistant Professor in environmental science. He did not gain tenure.
No he is NOT. robin still hasn't figured that out? Well, that's what happens when you listen to only one side of a debate. ROTFLOL!
So do you find U-239 and plutonium to be safe to inhale and ingest BAC?
A physicist or chemist with a doctorate degree holds a Phd, not any other type of doctorate degree. So Doctor of Philosophy could be a Phd in Physics (Doctor of Philosophy in Phyics).
Your propaganda outlets are either deliberately misleading people, or are unaware of the fact that DU is contaminated with transuranic elements. They apparently have never tested any real DU munitions, and are simply using theoretical values and assumptions based on invalid data.
So did you enter that Wikipedia article all by yourself BAC?
People don't get a PhD in Education, they get a Ed.D or D.Ed A PhD is a research degree and applies to a wide range of sciences and humanities. Not in this case. Various sources (that you've previously been linked) clearly indicate Rokke's degree was in Technology Education. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/supplements/FosterBibliography.html "A Partial Bibliography of Recent Graduate Research in Technology Education and Related Fields ... snip ... This bibliography is a compilation of recent masters theses and doctoral dissertations completed in Technology Education, and related fields such as Industrial Arts, Industrial Technology, Industrial Vocational Education, and Trade & Industrial Education at institutions listed in the NAITTE/CTTE Directory ... snip ... Rokke, D. L. (1992). "Perceived physics concepts needed to teach secondary technology education as general education." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign."
Really? ********************* http://teched.vt.edu/CTTE/ImagesPDFs/Mono17GradResearchDatabase.pdf The Technology Education Graduate Research Database 1892-2000 Council on Technology Teacher Education ... snip ... Rokke, Douglas Lind. (1992). Perceived physics concepts needed to teach secondary technology education as general education. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University Of Illinois At Urbana-Champaign. Dissertation Abstracts Online Accession No: AAG9236582 *********************** Why do you suppose that Rokke is not a member of any physics organizations? He's a member of the National Association of Industrial Technical Teacher Educators. *********************** http://www.coe.uga.edu/naitte/minutes/naitte_min_12-12-02.pdf "National Association of Industrial Technical Teacher Educators Executive Committee Meeting Las Vegas Hilton – Room 9 – 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM. Las Vegas, NV December 12, 2002" ... snip ... The major work of the past year was planning the NAITTE Program for the 2002 ACTE Convention. We again worked with the Technology Education Division to schedule the program. ... snip ... Checks that have come for the 2002-03 membership year imembers report in October. ... snip ... Marcelle Hardy, University du Quebec Montreal, $60.00 *************
So do you find U-239 and plutonium to be safe to inhale and ingest BAC?
A PhD is a research degree and applies to a wide range of sciences and humanities.
Answer the question, BAC.
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
LOL, I think BAC might be Marie Colvin.
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
Well I see you are rooting for their side. Too bad we have folks like you and those in the mainstream media doing everything possible (since almost day one) to weaken OUR will. Given that, whose side are you on? You are doing that strawman thing to scrapper here, and you are again inciting Aaron of LP to tie up the phone lines at Homeland Security. She simply said the will of the people will overcome technology, and then you call that rooting for their side which is an outrageous accusation and unfair comparison.
* Doctor of Philosophy; University of Illinois; 1992.< * Bachelor of Science; Western Illinois University; It doesn't specify the field. That's a bit odd, normally such information would be available. I'll look for it as it should be easy enough to find.
No strawman here, Diana. Since we ALL agree that "will" is very important to winning, then anything that hurts our will or bolsters our enemy's will is bad. And the media and many 4umers have been posting material from day one that can arguably be said to do that. That is, unless, you don't view our opponents as our enemies. Is that the case, Diana? Huh???
That or Judith Miller.
Have you ever given a dog helium?
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
BAC: Oh please. Have you nothing but strawmen to offer? The ISSUE is whether the Germans would have defeated the Soviets had the US not helped them in WW2. The ISSUE is what would the world look like today had that happened. Keep in mind that the Germans were only a little behind America in the race for the bomb and that race was given urgency here in the US primarly because we were at war with Germany. Had that not been the case, Germany might well have beaten the US to its development. And you may not know this but at the end of 1945, the Germans had a bomber that could fly to the US and return. That bomber could easily have carried nuclear weapons. Like I said to you folks. What then? What's the strawman? You make perfectly clear that you could give 2 hoots about the Eastern Europeans that we doomed to communism. It's only Hitler who is your focus and why is that? In sheer numbers of deaths he caused Hitler was an amateur compared to Stalin. And yet you see no problem with our aiding the worst butcher in modern history. Why is that, BAC? Hitler was no threat to America. Say what you will about Hitler and the bomb - he was several years from that. We had the bomb and we used the bomb. Hitler didn't. So why are you yammering about the dannger of Hitler to the world. Why don't you ask the Japanese about the dangers of a nation having a bomb and using it irresponsibly. And don't bother spamming me with it was the only way to stop the Japanese from fighting any longer. I provided you with a link to US Government documents recently released the showed the opposite to be true. Here's where your worries about Hitler and the bomb belong - in the trash heap of history like where this historian's book went, evidently - your claim and his about Hitler being minutes away from developing the bomb are laughable. http:// www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,346293,00.html March 14, 2005 Berlin historian Rainer Karlsch claims that the Nazis conducted three nuclear weapons tests in 1944 and 1945. But he has no proof to back up his theories. The United States needed 125,000 people, including six future Nobel Prize winners, to develop the atomic bombs that exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The uranium enrichment facility alone, including its security zone, was the size of the western German city of Frankfurt. Dubbed the Manhattan project, the quest ultimately cost the equivalent of about $30 billion. In his new book, "Hitler's Bomb," Berlin historian Rainer Karlsch claims Nazi Germany almost achieved similar results with only a handful of physicists and a fraction of the budget. The author writes that German physicists and members of the military conducted three nuclear weapons tests shortly before the end of World War II, one on the German island of Ruegen in the fall of 1944 and two in the eastern German state of Thuringia in March 1945. The tests, writes Karlsch, claimed up to 700 lives. If these theories were accurate, history would have history would have to be rewritten. Ever since the Allies occupied the Third Reich's laboratories and interrogated Germany's top physicists working with wunderkind physicist Werner Heisenberg and his colleague Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, it's been considered certain that Hitler's scientists were a long way from completing a nuclear weapon...
"Nazii-fixated folks like BAC" So you would have doomed them to Hitler. And unlike now, you have doomed them permanently. Hitler was only getting started. Well there you have it folks. scrapper assures us that Hitler was no threat. Just like Saddam was no threat. No, many experts think the Germans were perhaps 6 months from the bomb at the end of the war. And that was with US bombing and specific US efforts to take apart and sidetrack Germany's nuclear program. Had we not been in the war ... You trying to tell us that you think he wouldn't have if he had one? Especially if he were the only one with one? That deserves a laugh. ROTFLOL! You think our use of the bomb against Japan was irresponsible? Really? Refresh my memory.
BAC: I don't believe that. Didn't say it. Didn't suggest it. Just another scrapper strawman. The Soviets defeated the Germans. BUT, in large part thanks to the help of the US. Had the US not provided that help ... b. scrapper; Hitler suffered his greatest military setback of the war in the summer of 1944. BAC: Almost three years after the US entered the war. c. I'm glad you recognize that the Lend/Lease fueled Stalin's war machine. Without it Hitler's Germany would have won. Then what? d. d. scrapper: Diana is right - that the "will" of the Iraqi insurgents will ultimately overcome the technology of the foreign occupier. BAC: Well I see you are rooting for their side. Too bad we have folks like you and those in the mainstream media doing everything possible (since almost day one) to weaken OUR will. Given that, whose side are you on? a. Liar. This is what you said in post #169: "Forget the Soviets. They are gone in your alternate world. The Germans defeated them using technology that even the US didn't have at the end of WW2." b. What does one have to do with the other? The Russian army was singlehandedly responsible for the German defeat in the summer of 1944. The US military was not in Russia. In case you were not aware of this, BAC, the Russians had the largest standing army in the world as of 1941. There are historians including Viktor Suvorov who served in the Soviet army and military intel as well as historian Albert Weeks ( whose book you quoted)who believe that Stalin all along had hoped Hitler would challenge the world powers so Stalin could be called in as an ally to "liberate" European nations he had his eye on taking and brutalizing. Stalin had been preparing all along for a WW where he'd be the victor ( and he was right)and Stalin had been using FDR and his lend-lease plan to rebuild his army to expand Soviet domination and you think this was all well and good? Stalin had spies in FDR's Admin. Stalin stole military tech from our nation. FDR enabled a monster to get to be a bigger monster who double-crossed America. So why are we supposed to be proud of that? c. I never denied that the lend lease program fueled Stalin's war machine. What I said and so did your Professor Weeks - whose stats you merrily quoted without reading more about the content - was that FDR's lend lease program also fueled Stalin's oppressive machinery as well. FDR condemned millions upon millions of Eastern Europeans to servitude under communism or to immediate death in the gulags. And to that you say nothing - you don't care, and it's transparently clear why. If we had stayed out of the war, the 2 monster isms would have finished each other off and the Stalinists might have imploded thereafter and we wouldn't have lost 300,000 soldiers. There was zero chance that Hitler would invade Britain after he lost the Battle of Britain. Hitler didn't get his weapons re-armament plans implemeneted by Speer until 1943, for God's sake. Britain was way ahead of Germany in that regard. I'm wondering why are you so eager to jump into wars when you have never served in any? Have you seen anyone die of wounds? Have you ever killed anyone? War is brutal even to the survivors. So grow up and get over your illusions about war being a computer game. d. I support the troops by wanting them to come home asap. There is no mission in Iraq that is relevant to America. By forcing our troops to stay the course or to surge or whatever only benefit's Israel/Haliburton/Exxon. Is that what you support?- all 3 or just 1? Btw, don't you dare bad mouth or raise any cheesy questions my patriotism without knowing what me and my family have contributed over many generations. I don't have dual citizenship - like some, perhaps you? - I have loyalty to only one nation and that's America so keep your cheap punk back stabbing to the classrooms where you take your lessons at the AEI offices. As for will, the Iraqis have it because it's their country. They - the insurgents - or as war mongers like yourself like to label Iraqi citizens "the enemy" are planning to fight the foreign occupier to the last man - get it - they have legitimacy on their side - it's their country, not ours, not Israel's, not Haliburton's, not Exxon's. We were not invited to invade and occupy Iraq by the Iraqis. We invaded for lies generated by the Office of Special Plans. What we need to rely on now is common sense - something that has been in short supply the past 4 years in the White House. Common sense is telling most Americans - who don't have hidden agendas - that we should cut our losses and leave in an orderly fashion by the New Year and leave Iraq to its rightful citizen-owners. Btw, I saw 2 people interviewed on PBS today - representing both left and right schools of thinking - Wade from the Council of Foreign Relations and Mathews from the Carnegie Foundation and BOTH concurred that the Iraq War was a terrible mistake in judgement - both said they believed that if GWB had the chance to do over again, he would not invade Iraq, and that because of the invasion and occupation we have caused great harm to America's future on the int'l stage and that we are definitely more unsafe now because the neocons' Iraq War was such a grevious act that it has radicalized Muslims around the world as a result. I hope the neocons - every last Trotskyite one of them - burn in hell for what their duplitious selves wrought on our fair republic.
It's not just my opinion. http://www.ncesa.org/html/hirosh ima.html "Hiroshima: Historians Reassess" by Gar Alperovitz Foreign Policy (Summer 1995) No. 99: 15-34. Copyright 1995 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace "Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it." (Emphasis added.) The author of that statement is not a revisionist; he is J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nor is he alone in that opinion. Walker is summarizing the findings of modern specialists in his literature review in the Winter 1990 issue of Diplomatic History. Another expert review, by University of Illinois historian Robert Messer, concludes that recently discovered documents have been "devastating" to the traditional idea that using the bomb was the only way to avoid an invasion of Japan that might have cost many more lives...
b. You trying to tell us that you think he wouldn't have if he had one? Especially if he were the only one with one? That deserves a laugh. ROTFLOL! a. Hitler was no threat to us. He was loathe to have us come into the war. Hitler wanted continental Europe. If it weren't that he believed Russia was going to attack him, he probably would not have taken on the Eastern front either. But he did and it was his undoing. Saddam was no threat to us. It's been said by the 9/11 Commission and by the Iraq Study Group. Are you deaf and blind? Get with the program. And no one but you believes the prop of Billy Kristol and Normie Podhoretz and Richard Perle. b. Here's what I'm trying to tell you - since you didn't get it the first time round - we had the bomb. Hitler did not have the bomb and he was several years from getting the bomb, regardless of what your sources might say. We were in the driver's seat. And even if Hitler had eventually got the bomb, so what - haven't you heard of the phrase "mutual deterrance"? Duh - Russia had the bomb and we went through a 40 year cold war with them and Russia did not use the bomb. Pakistan has the bomb. N. Korea has the bomb. India has the bomb. There is only one nation that used the bomb. It's us - so get out from under your bed and breathe easier - you don't have to worry about "other" nations.
No, dummy. It took hundreds of thousands of people fighting against the communists in Afghanistan. Now brighter people than you might see some lesson(s) to be learned here.
Comments (206 - 224) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Stalin, the bloodiest Dictator of the 20th century
In fact, the Brits and Canadians in particular and Europeans generally take offense over the bravado and swagger of chest beating tinhorn macho men like yourself, BAC, who claim it was America that won the war.
America's entry helped but the war was already on the way to being lost by Hitler due to his choice to attack Russia.
The British maintained naval superiority
and had survived the Battle of Britain
- Rommel was getting his butt kicked on the North African front.
And if the US had not jumped in - Russia would have finished off Hitler and soon after Uncle Joe would have fallen
As for Pearl Harbor -HA! -faux reason that caused 300,000 US servicemen deaths including the 2500 at Pearl Harbor
Also, you don't seem too concerned about the millions upon millions of Eastern European Christians who were doomed to Uncle Joe's brutal rule and gulag camps. Oh well.
As for Japan - the Russians beat them up pretty good as well - they crushed their supply lines.
#166. To: BeAChooser (#161)
Now there's an *unbiased* source. (wink)
care to provide any source of his bias, smartass?ROTFLOL
#167. To: scrapper2, diana, ALL (#154)
Nazii-fixated folks like BAC probably view Catholics and Orthodox Christians as being disposable, forgettable, not special so why bother faulting Uncle Joe and the communists?
#168. To: Diana, scrapper2, ALL (#155)
Regimes ruled by insanity can't last.
Most everyone has been taught that all the Germans loved Hitler, and he killed 6 million Jews, which all the gentiles in Europe were so happy about.
he killed millions of people, he imposed impossibly high standards on all the civilians, made them snitch on neighbors, threw people in camps for the slightest infractions, raided other countries, it was a demonic regime and demonic regimes including Japan and Cambodia in the 1970s can only last so long.
Germany and Russia would have continued to fight and could have worn each other down to the point where both countries could have ended up with humane regimes.
#169. To: Diana, scrapper2, ALL (#156)
There would have eventually been uprisings and the nazi regime overthrown,
even without the help of the Soviets.
The German and Austrian people were increasingly miserable in spite of what the History Channel tells us, it would only have been a matter of time, and a very short time at that.
Another thing, will triumphs over technology every time.
#170. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#158)
So you're telling me that there isn't one "health physicist" that finds U- 239 and Plutonium to be harmful to human life?
"I haven't said or implied that at all. Strawman."
That is EXACTLY what you have implied,
Professor Emeritus Washington State University
#171. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#158)
#172. To: BeAChooser (#165)
I hate to tell you this, but your allies against the Iraq war, liberal democRATS and other leftists, are the ones who in the 80's and 90's wanted to appease and learn to live with the Soviet machine. It took a Republican President... to bring it down.
#173. To: BeAChooser, diana (#169)
(Edited)
BAC: Forget the Soviets. They are gone in your alternate world. The Germans defeated them using technology that even the US didn't have at the end of WW2.
#174. To: BeAChooser (#160)
Dr Rokke holds a PhD in Philosophy and a Master of Science.
#175. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, robin, All (#167)
Oh please. Have you nothing but strawmen to offer?
#176. To: BeAChooser (#168)
Really? The Soviet regime lasted the better part of a century.
#177. To: Diana, robin, BeAChooser (#174)
What is his masters in?...That would sound strange for a PhD in education to be an expert on DU but if he has a master's in a related science and did a lot of coursework in that area it would explain it
#178. To: scrapper2 (#177)
#179. To: scrapper2, ALL (#173)
If you believe that the Germans defeated the Russians in WW II
Hitler suffered his greatest military setback of the war in the summer of 1944.
It did not just fuel Stalin's war machinery to fight Hitler
Diana is right - that the "will" of the Iraqi insurgents will ultimately overcome the technology of the foreign occupier.
#180. To: Diana, ALL (#174)
"Dr Rokke holds a PhD in Philosophy and a Master of Science."
What is his masters in?
* Master of Science; University of Illinois; 1986.
* Bachelor of Science; Western Illinois University;
#181. To: Diana, ALL (#176)
They had help and were in a more secure location and larger geographically than Germany.
Your bomb argument may have some merit, I'm not so sure they were that close to us at the time in development
#182. To: scrapper2, ALL (#177)
but he was indeed at one time viewed as an expert in DU matters, toxic chemicals in the environment. In fact, he is named as a participant in a CDC conference publication from 1999
Dr. Rokke was an Ass't Professor at the Dept. of Physical and Earth Sciences, Jacksonville State U
#183. To: robin, ALL (#178)
Dr Doug Rokke, a US health physicist
#184. To: BeAChooser (#170)
(Edited)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#185. To: BeAChooser (#180)
Doctor of Philosophy; University of Illinois; 1992.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#186. To: BeAChooser (#171)
Let's see if you just dismiss or ignore them like you did then.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#187. To: BeAChooser (#160)
Yes, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about Doug Rokke:
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#188. To: Diana, BeAChooser (#174)
That would sound strange for a PhD in education to be an expert on DU
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#189. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#185)
So Doctor of Philosophy could be a Phd in Physics (Doctor of Philosophy in Phyics).
#190. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#188)
People don't get a PhD in Education, they get a Ed.D or D.Ed
Doctor of Education
A PhD is a research degree and applies to a wide range of sciences and humanities.
Doctor of Philosophy
Robert Hoewll, Fort Hays State University, $50.00
Aldo Jackson, Erie County Technical School, $50.00
Edward Mann, The University of Southern Mississippi, $50.00 + $10.00
Connie Munson, Student Membership $15.00
Mabel Okojie, Mississippi State University, 50.00 + $10.00
William Page, Clemson University, $150.00
Greg Petty, The University of Tennessee, $50.00
Ernest Savage, Bowling Green State Univ., $50.00
Jerry Streichler, Bowling Green State Univ., $50.00
Jack Wescott, Ball State University, $150.00
Jamie Harrington, Western Washington University, $50.00
Mark Johnson, Pittsburg State University, $50.00
Gary Lietz, U.S. Department of Energy, $50.00
Edward Mann, Univ. of Southern Mississippi, $150.00
Reynaldo Martinez, Jr., Oklahoma State University $50.00 + $10
Virginia Osgood, University of Central Oklahoma, $50.00
Douglas Rokke, $50.00 + $10.00
Thomas Walker, Temple University, $50.00 + $10.00
Tom Bell, Millersville University, $50.00
#191. To: BeAChooser (#190)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#192. To: BeAChooser (#190)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#193. To: FormerLurker, BeAChooser (#184)
So do you find U-239 and plutonium to be safe to inhale and ingest BAC?
#194. To: FormerLurker (#187)
#195. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#179)
Diana is right - that the "will" of the Iraqi insurgents will ultimately overcome the technology of the foreign occupier.
#196. To: BeAChooser (#180)
It states:
#197. To: Diana, ALL (#195)
Well I see you are rooting for their side. Too bad we have folks like you and those in the mainstream media doing everything possible (since almost day one) to weaken OUR will. Given that, whose side are you on?
You are doing that strawman thing to scrapper here,
and you are again inciting Aaron of LP to tie up the phone lines at Homeland Security.
#198. To: Dakmar (#194)
LOL, I think BAC might be Marie Colvin.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#199. To: BeAChooser (#197)
#200. To: BeAChooser, diana (#167)
scrapper: Nazii-fixated folks like BAC probably view Catholics and Orthodox Christians as being disposable, forgettable, not special so why bother faulting Uncle Joe and the communists?
#201. To: scrapper2, ALL (#200)
What's the strawman?
You make perfectly clear that you could give 2 hoots about the Eastern Europeans that we doomed to communism.
In sheer numbers of deaths he caused Hitler was an amateur compared to Stalin.
Hitler was no threat to America.
Say what you will about Hitler and the bomb - he was several years from that.
We had the bomb and we used the bomb. Hitler didn't.
Why don't you ask the Japanese about the dangers of a nation having a bomb and using it irresponsibly.
I provided you with a link to US Government documents recently released the showed the opposite to be true.
#202. To: BeAChooser, diana (#179)
a. scrapper: If you believe that the Germans defeated the Russians in WW II
#203. To: BeAChooser (#201)
You think our use of the bomb against Japan was irresponsible? Really?
#204. To: BeAChooser (#201)
a. Well there you have it folks. scrapper assures us that Hitler was no threat. Just like Saddam was no threat.
#205. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#165)
It took a Republican President, a Catholic Pope and good ol' Margaret to bring it down.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
.
.
.