WaPo "The evidence of a drop in violence in Iraq is becoming hard to dispute."

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
National Security Council. It's not the Patraeus plan and it's not the military. Nice try though.

As I understand it, the "Surge" was Bush's plan in which Petraeus was to execute. Perhaps you can link us to his plan instead of making vague references to it.

I don't think Bush came up with this plan on his own. I thought it was indeed Petraeus that developed it, but I am not sure.

I do know that prior to taking over Iraq Petraeus was in charge of writing the army's counter insurgency strategy, a strategy that he is putting into practice now. Certainly a case of right person in the right place at the right time.

 

[Rogodin2]

If you can't provide a link we'll just assume you are making things up.

This is twice you have posted these numbers and niether time did you provide proof.

I'm not going to post links to information you should already be aware of jon.

Do your own research. Look at the EIS, EIA, FDS, and ACE websites.

Rogo

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
National Security Council. It's not the Patraeus plan and it's not the military. Nice try though.

As I understand it, the "Surge" was Bush's plan in which Petraeus was to execute. Perhaps you can link us to his plan instead of making vague references to it.

I don't think Bush came up with this plan on his own. I thought it was indeed Petraeus that developed it, but I am not sure.

I do know that prior to taking over Iraq Petraeus was in charge of writing the army's counter insurgency strategy, a strategy that he is putting into practice now. Certainly a case of right person in the right place at the right time.

Here is the transcript right after Petreaus was confirmed by the Senate

THE PRESIDENT: The Senate confirmed this good man without a dissenting vote. I appreciate the quick action of the United States Senate. I appreciate them giving General David Petraeus a fair hearing, and I appreciate the vote. My instructions to the General is, get over to the zone as quickly as possible and implement a plan that we believe will yield our goals.

Q Thank you, sir. The other night in your State of the Union address, you asked Congress to give your plan a chance. But lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans, didn't really miss a step in starting to turn out resolutions against that plan. Why do you think it's okay to go ahead without their support?

THE PRESIDENT: One of the things I've found in Congress is that most people recognize that failure would be a disaster for the United States. And in that I'm the decision maker, I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster. In other words, I had to think about what's likely to work.

And so I worked with our military and I worked with Secretary Gates to come up with a plan that is likely to succeed. And the implementor of that plan is going to be General Petraeus. And my call to the Congress is, is that I know there is skepticism and pessimism, and that they are -- some are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work. And they have an obligation and a serious responsibility, therefore, to put up their own plan as to what would work.

I've listened a lot to members of Congress. I've listened carefully to their suggestions. I have picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed, because I understand, like many in Congress understand, success is very important for the security of the country.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2

If you can't provide a link we'll just assume you are making things up.

This is twice you have posted these numbers and niether time did you provide proof.

I'm not going to post links to information you should already be aware of jon.

Do your own research. Look at the EIS, EIA, FDS, and ACE websites.

Rogo

You brought up the numbers, its up to you to provide the links, thats how it works, sorry. You can't just go throwing numbers out there with nothing to back it up, then go tell everyone else to figure out where you got them from.

I was not aware that 74% of the country wants an IMMEDIATE withdrawal. It also looks alittle funny that everyone either wants an immediate withdrawl, or they support having the requisite number of troops...no one is in the middle here? No one wants to reduce troops but not have an immediate withdrawl? That doesn't sound right, I'd really like to see where you got those numbers from, I may be wrong.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
National Security Council. It's not the Patraeus plan and it's not the military. Nice try though.

As I understand it, the "Surge" was Bush's plan in which Petraeus was to execute. Perhaps you can link us to his plan instead of making vague references to it.

As you understand it? If you already know about the surge why were you asking me about it in the first place?

:roll:

As I said previously, you were asking a leading question. Now you've proven it. Stop attempting to play moronic games, please.

btw, how was it Bush's plan? Did Bush lay out the military strategy and specifics? Proof?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
National Security Council. It's not the Patraeus plan and it's not the military. Nice try though.

As I understand it, the "Surge" was Bush's plan in which Petraeus was to execute. Perhaps you can link us to his plan instead of making vague references to it.

As you understand it? If you already know about the surge why were you asking me about it in the first place?

:roll:

As I said previously, you were asking a leading question. Now you've proven it. Stop attempting to play moronic games, please.

btw, how was it Bush's plan? Did Bush lay out the military strategy and specifics? Proof?

What the fuck are you talking about? You keep alluding to Petraeus' plan. I want to see proof or shut up.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
National Security Council. It's not the Patraeus plan and it's not the military. Nice try though.

As I understand it, the "Surge" was Bush's plan in which Petraeus was to execute. Perhaps you can link us to his plan instead of making vague references to it.

I don't think Bush came up with this plan on his own. I thought it was indeed Petraeus that developed it, but I am not sure.

I do know that prior to taking over Iraq Petraeus was in charge of writing the army's counter insurgency strategy, a strategy that he is putting into practice now. Certainly a case of right person in the right place at the right time.

Here is the transcript right after Petreaus was confirmed by the Senate

THE PRESIDENT: The Senate confirmed this good man without a dissenting vote. I appreciate the quick action of the United States Senate. I appreciate them giving General David Petraeus a fair hearing, and I appreciate the vote. My instructions to the General is, get over to the zone as quickly as possible and implement a plan that we believe will yield our goals.

Q Thank you, sir. The other night in your State of the Union address, you asked Congress to give your plan a chance. But lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans, didn't really miss a step in starting to turn out resolutions against that plan. Why do you think it's okay to go ahead without their support?

THE PRESIDENT: One of the things I've found in Congress is that most people recognize that failure would be a disaster for the United States. And in that I'm the decision maker, I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster. In other words, I had to think about what's likely to work.

And so I worked with our military and I worked with Secretary Gates to come up with a plan that is likely to succeed. And the implementor of that plan is going to be General Petraeus. And my call to the Congress is, is that I know there is skepticism and pessimism, and that they are -- some are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work. And they have an obligation and a serious responsibility, therefore, to put up their own plan as to what would work.

I've listened a lot to members of Congress. I've listened carefully to their suggestions. I have picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed, because I understand, like many in Congress understand, success is very important for the security of the country.

Wow! So Bush did come up with the plan.

Now people will have to admit that he's a strategic and military genius in counter-insurgency operations, right? Now we know it's completely Bush's responsbility for the recently drastically reduced violence and pacification because it was his plan.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
National Security Council. It's not the Patraeus plan and it's not the military. Nice try though.

As I understand it, the "Surge" was Bush's plan in which Petraeus was to execute. Perhaps you can link us to his plan instead of making vague references to it.

I don't think Bush came up with this plan on his own. I thought it was indeed Petraeus that developed it, but I am not sure.

I do know that prior to taking over Iraq Petraeus was in charge of writing the army's counter insurgency strategy, a strategy that he is putting into practice now. Certainly a case of right person in the right place at the right time.

Here is the transcript right after Petreaus was confirmed by the Senate

THE PRESIDENT: The Senate confirmed this good man without a dissenting vote. I appreciate the quick action of the United States Senate. I appreciate them giving General David Petraeus a fair hearing, and I appreciate the vote. My instructions to the General is, get over to the zone as quickly as possible and implement a plan that we believe will yield our goals.

Q Thank you, sir. The other night in your State of the Union address, you asked Congress to give your plan a chance. But lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans, didn't really miss a step in starting to turn out resolutions against that plan. Why do you think it's okay to go ahead without their support?

THE PRESIDENT: One of the things I've found in Congress is that most people recognize that failure would be a disaster for the United States. And in that I'm the decision maker, I had to come up with a way forward that precluded disaster. In other words, I had to think about what's likely to work.

And so I worked with our military and I worked with Secretary Gates to come up with a plan that is likely to succeed. And the implementor of that plan is going to be General Petraeus. And my call to the Congress is, is that I know there is skepticism and pessimism, and that they are -- some are condemning a plan before it's even had a chance to work. And they have an obligation and a serious responsibility, therefore, to put up their own plan as to what would work.

I've listened a lot to members of Congress. I've listened carefully to their suggestions. I have picked the plan that I think is most likely to succeed, because I understand, like many in Congress understand, success is very important for the security of the country.

Wow! So Bush did come up with the plan.

Now people will have to admit that he's a strategic and military genius in counter-insurgency operations, right? Now we know it's completely Bush's responsbility for the recently drastically reduced violence and pacification because it was his plan.

Where's the link to Petraeus' plan that you keep alluding too? Proof or shut up.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
National Security Council. It's not the Patraeus plan and it's not the military. Nice try though.

As I understand it, the "Surge" was Bush's plan in which Petraeus was to execute. Perhaps you can link us to his plan instead of making vague references to it.

As you understand it? If you already know about the surge why were you asking me about it in the first place?

:roll:

As I said previously, you were asking a leading question. Now you've proven it. Stop attempting to play moronic games, please.

btw, how was it Bush's plan? Did Bush lay out the military strategy and specifics? Proof?

What the fuck are you talking about? You keep alluding to Petraeus' plan. I want to see proof or shut up.

You apparently don't need any proof. Nor do you want any. You're trolling, nothing more. Take a hike, moron.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
National Security Council. It's not the Patraeus plan and it's not the military. Nice try though.

As I understand it, the "Surge" was Bush's plan in which Petraeus was to execute. Perhaps you can link us to his plan instead of making vague references to it.

As you understand it? If you already know about the surge why were you asking me about it in the first place?

:roll:

As I said previously, you were asking a leading question. Now you've proven it. Stop attempting to play moronic games, please.

btw, how was it Bush's plan? Did Bush lay out the military strategy and specifics? Proof?

What the fuck are you talking about? You keep alluding to Petraeus' plan. I want to see proof or shut up.

You apparently don't need any proof. Nor do you want any. You're trolling, nothing more. Take a hike, moron.

Proof or shut up.

 

[Rogodin2]

You brought up the numbers, its up to you to provide the links, thats how it works, sorry. You can't just go throwing numbers out there with nothing to back it up, then go tell everyone else to figure out where you got them from.

I was not aware that 74% of the country wants an IMMEDIATE withdrawal. It also looks alittle funny that everyone either wants an immediate withdrawl, or they support having the requisite number of troops...no one is in the middle here? No one wants to reduce troops but not have an immediate withdrawl? That doesn't sound right, I'd really like to see where you got those numbers from, I may be wrong.

I'm not going to post links to primary source material that objective citizens should understand and know. I will give you a hint; NPR sponsored the show.

I've not respect for any of you that live the contemory american way of life; you and your children are the parasites that need to be expunged.

Rogo

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
National Security Council. It's not the Patraeus plan and it's not the military. Nice try though.

As I understand it, the "Surge" was Bush's plan in which Petraeus was to execute. Perhaps you can link us to his plan instead of making vague references to it.

As you understand it? If you already know about the surge why were you asking me about it in the first place?

:roll:

As I said previously, you were asking a leading question. Now you've proven it. Stop attempting to play moronic games, please.

btw, how was it Bush's plan? Did Bush lay out the military strategy and specifics? Proof?

What the fuck are you talking about? You keep alluding to Petraeus' plan. I want to see proof or shut up.

You apparently don't need any proof. Nor do you want any. You're trolling, nothing more. Take a hike, moron.

Proof or shut up.

Go troll someone else. I am not impressed by your transparent motives.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2

You brought up the numbers, its up to you to provide the links, thats how it works, sorry. You can't just go throwing numbers out there with nothing to back it up, then go tell everyone else to figure out where you got them from.

I was not aware that 74% of the country wants an IMMEDIATE withdrawal. It also looks alittle funny that everyone either wants an immediate withdrawl, or they support having the requisite number of troops...no one is in the middle here? No one wants to reduce troops but not have an immediate withdrawl? That doesn't sound right, I'd really like to see where you got those numbers from, I may be wrong.

I'm not going to post links to primary source material that objective citizens should understand and know. I will give you a hint; NPR sponsored the show.

I've not respect for any of you that live the contemory american way of life; you and your children are the parasites that need to be expunged.

Rogo

Well I don't really have much respect for people that pull numbers out of their ass and then expect everyone else to figure out where they got them from. I'll be waiting for you to come "expunge" me and my children, good luck with that. Although I doubt that will ever happen, you're all talk.

Edit - you sound like a total douche by the way, you should really stop talking down to people like that.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
National Security Council. It's not the Patraeus plan and it's not the military. Nice try though.

As I understand it, the "Surge" was Bush's plan in which Petraeus was to execute. Perhaps you can link us to his plan instead of making vague references to it.

As you understand it? If you already know about the surge why were you asking me about it in the first place?

:roll:

As I said previously, you were asking a leading question. Now you've proven it. Stop attempting to play moronic games, please.

btw, how was it Bush's plan? Did Bush lay out the military strategy and specifics? Proof?

What the fuck are you talking about? You keep alluding to Petraeus' plan. I want to see proof or shut up.

You apparently don't need any proof. Nor do you want any. You're trolling, nothing more. Take a hike, moron.

Proof or shut up.

Go troll someone else. I am not impressed by your transparent motives.

Why do you refuse to provide a link to Petraeus' plan that you keep alluding to? The only motives I see is that you can't provide proof and resort to ad hom attacks (as usual).

 

[JD50]

What is with people in this thread not wanting to provide links to back up what they say?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
National Security Council. It's not the Patraeus plan and it's not the military. Nice try though.

As I understand it, the "Surge" was Bush's plan in which Petraeus was to execute. Perhaps you can link us to his plan instead of making vague references to it.

As you understand it? If you already know about the surge why were you asking me about it in the first place?

:roll:

As I said previously, you were asking a leading question. Now you've proven it. Stop attempting to play moronic games, please.

btw, how was it Bush's plan? Did Bush lay out the military strategy and specifics? Proof?

What the fuck are you talking about? You keep alluding to Petraeus' plan. I want to see proof or shut up.

You apparently don't need any proof. Nor do you want any. You're trolling, nothing more. Take a hike, moron.

Proof or shut up.

Go troll someone else. I am not impressed by your transparent motives.

Why do you refuse to provide a link to Petraeus' plan that you keep alluding to? The only motives I see is that you can't provide proof and resort to ad hom attacks (as usual).

Why do you keep asking stupid questions?

First you post a NSC document as your "proof," then you ignore the fact that you were way off base.

I don't need to prove a damn thing. Bush isn't over in Iraq managing the troops, Patraeus is. The onus is on you to prove it was actually Bush's plan. So where's the Bush plan that you claim exists, troll?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
National Security Council. It's not the Patraeus plan and it's not the military. Nice try though.

As I understand it, the "Surge" was Bush's plan in which Petraeus was to execute. Perhaps you can link us to his plan instead of making vague references to it.

As you understand it? If you already know about the surge why were you asking me about it in the first place?

:roll:

As I said previously, you were asking a leading question. Now you've proven it. Stop attempting to play moronic games, please.

btw, how was it Bush's plan? Did Bush lay out the military strategy and specifics? Proof?

What the fuck are you talking about? You keep alluding to Petraeus' plan. I want to see proof or shut up.

You apparently don't need any proof. Nor do you want any. You're trolling, nothing more. Take a hike, moron.

Proof or shut up.

Go troll someone else. I am not impressed by your transparent motives.

Why do you refuse to provide a link to Petraeus' plan that you keep alluding to? The only motives I see is that you can't provide proof and resort to ad hom attacks (as usual).

Why do you keep asking stupid questions?

First you post a NSC document as your "proof," then you ignore the fact that you were way off base.

I don't need to prove a damn thing. Bush isn't over in Iraq managing the troops, Patraeus is. The onus is on you to prove it was actually Bush's plan. So where's the Bush plan that you claim exists, troll?

LOL, are you serious? I just posted the transcript that you replied to. Did you even read that? I'm still waiting for the Petraeus' plan you're referring to.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
National Security Council. It's not the Patraeus plan and it's not the military. Nice try though.

As I understand it, the "Surge" was Bush's plan in which Petraeus was to execute. Perhaps you can link us to his plan instead of making vague references to it.

As you understand it? If you already know about the surge why were you asking me about it in the first place?

:roll:

As I said previously, you were asking a leading question. Now you've proven it. Stop attempting to play moronic games, please.

btw, how was it Bush's plan? Did Bush lay out the military strategy and specifics? Proof?

What the fuck are you talking about? You keep alluding to Petraeus' plan. I want to see proof or shut up.

You apparently don't need any proof. Nor do you want any. You're trolling, nothing more. Take a hike, moron.

Proof or shut up.

Go troll someone else. I am not impressed by your transparent motives.

Why do you refuse to provide a link to Petraeus' plan that you keep alluding to? The only motives I see is that you can't provide proof and resort to ad hom attacks (as usual).

Why do you keep asking stupid questions?

First you post a NSC document as your "proof," then you ignore the fact that you were way off base.

I don't need to prove a damn thing. Bush isn't over in Iraq managing the troops, Patraeus is. The onus is on you to prove it was actually Bush's plan. So where's the Bush plan that you claim exists, troll?

LOL, are you serious? I just posted the transcript that you replied to. Did you even read that? I'm still waiting for the Petraeus' plan you're referring to.

LOL. Not only did I read it, I already responded to that post.

So you are admitting that Bush is some sort of military and counter-insurgency genius since his plan has worked out so well?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
National Security Council. It's not the Patraeus plan and it's not the military. Nice try though.

As I understand it, the "Surge" was Bush's plan in which Petraeus was to execute. Perhaps you can link us to his plan instead of making vague references to it.

As you understand it? If you already know about the surge why were you asking me about it in the first place?

:roll:

As I said previously, you were asking a leading question. Now you've proven it. Stop attempting to play moronic games, please.

btw, how was it Bush's plan? Did Bush lay out the military strategy and specifics? Proof?

What the fuck are you talking about? You keep alluding to Petraeus' plan. I want to see proof or shut up.

You apparently don't need any proof. Nor do you want any. You're trolling, nothing more. Take a hike, moron.

Proof or shut up.

Go troll someone else. I am not impressed by your transparent motives.

Why do you refuse to provide a link to Petraeus' plan that you keep alluding to? The only motives I see is that you can't provide proof and resort to ad hom attacks (as usual).

Why do you keep asking stupid questions?

First you post a NSC document as your "proof," then you ignore the fact that you were way off base.

I don't need to prove a damn thing. Bush isn't over in Iraq managing the troops, Patraeus is. The onus is on you to prove it was actually Bush's plan. So where's the Bush plan that you claim exists, troll?

LOL, are you serious? I just posted the transcript that you replied to. Did you even read that? I'm still waiting for the Petraeus' plan you're referring to.

LOL. Not only did I read it, I already responded to that post.

So you are admitting that Bush is some sort of military and counter-insurgency genius since his plan has worked out so well?

Stop trying to change the subject and post the proof.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
National Security Council. It's not the Patraeus plan and it's not the military. Nice try though.

As I understand it, the "Surge" was Bush's plan in which Petraeus was to execute. Perhaps you can link us to his plan instead of making vague references to it.

As you understand it? If you already know about the surge why were you asking me about it in the first place?

:roll:

As I said previously, you were asking a leading question. Now you've proven it. Stop attempting to play moronic games, please.

btw, how was it Bush's plan? Did Bush lay out the military strategy and specifics? Proof?

What the fuck are you talking about? You keep alluding to Petraeus' plan. I want to see proof or shut up.

You apparently don't need any proof. Nor do you want any. You're trolling, nothing more. Take a hike, moron.

Proof or shut up.

Go troll someone else. I am not impressed by your transparent motives.

Why do you refuse to provide a link to Petraeus' plan that you keep alluding to? The only motives I see is that you can't provide proof and resort to ad hom attacks (as usual).

Why do you keep asking stupid questions?

First you post a NSC document as your "proof," then you ignore the fact that you were way off base.

I don't need to prove a damn thing. Bush isn't over in Iraq managing the troops, Patraeus is. The onus is on you to prove it was actually Bush's plan. So where's the Bush plan that you claim exists, troll?

LOL, are you serious? I just posted the transcript that you replied to. Did you even read that? I'm still waiting for the Petraeus' plan you're referring to.

LOL. Not only did I read it, I already responded to that post.

So you are admitting that Bush is some sort of military and counter-insurgency genius since his plan has worked out so well?

Stop trying to change the subject and post the proof.

Stop trying to avoid the issue. Bush could barely pronounce counter-insurgency let alone develop a viable plan for success in Iraq.

Don't be so idiotic.

 

[Rogodin2]

What is with people in this thread not wanting to provide links to back up what they say?

The bush administraion is able to pull numbers without a reference point. I'm able to do the same lad.

With a GOP this corrupt who needs numbers?

Rogo

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2

What is with people in this thread not wanting to provide links to back up what they say?

The bush administraion is able to pull numbers without a reference point. I'm able to do the same lad.

With a GOP this corrupt who needs numbers?

Rogo

Nice cop out.....:roll:

At least you admit that you're as FOS as Bush is.

 

[Rogodin2]

Nice cop out.....

At least you admit that you're as FOS as Bush is.

Bush doesn't release numbers that aren't maninpulated by his administration. My numbers are based on NPR resources, I'm just too lazy to look them up for you. I know that you like to Do It Yourself lad.

Have fun.

Rogo

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Rogodin2

Nice cop out.....

At least you admit that you're as FOS as Bush is.

Bush doesn't release numbers that aren't maninpulated by his administration. My numbers are based on NPR resources, I'm just too lazy to look them up for you. I know that you like to Do It Yourself lad.

Have fun.

Rogo

Oh, did someone steal your lucky charms laddie? I don't think I know what "Do It Yourself lad" means, could you translate that please? Or better yet, just provide the proof to back up your numbers, otherwise, you're just full of shit.

 

[Rogodin2]

I don't think I know what "Do It Yourself lad" means, could you translate that please? Or better yet, just provide the proof to back up your numbers, otherwise, you're just full of shit.

You do know what I mean. Do it yourself and take my hints with a nice solid grain of research aptitude.

I'm not going to post the link because you've asked so pleasantly.

You might want to read some JSM and Sharporaov. I don't like the kensyian economic model of post ww1 though his global evaluation of coal/gas did make manifest the lack of supply in both the UK and AU.

Are you really such a tool?

Rogo