penniless

Facts remain facts even if you are tired of hearing them. The stated reason for the Iraq invasion turned out to be false. We invaded a sovereign nation under false pretenses. Colin Powell's speech to the UN turned out to be an embarrassment of falsehoods. "Mission Accomplished" was nothing of the sort. Thousands of American boys dead and maimed, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians too. Costs spiraling out of control. All on account of US hubris. Those are the facts.

Those who invade other people's countries cannot expect it to be all flowers and kisses. do you think it was an unwarrented "invasion" then? Why put invasion in quotes? It was an invasion. And it was done under false pretenses. There were no WMDs, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Those who invade other people's countries cannot expect it to be all flowers and kisses. I wondered who would be first with this stupid answer.... How to win friends in Iraq

The SYSTEM involves everything from the operating room technology to the way the funding works to the proselytizing to the people so they are aware of what's available, and everything in between. Although parts of the US system are excellent (particularly if you are wealthy or have a good employer), other parts suck, and considered as a whole the system is no better than mediocre.

Those who invade other people's countries cannot expect it to be all flowers and kisses.

What are talking about, are you saying jumping outa planes is not an extreme action, but sitting on a plank of wood in in water is, who has more right to to extreme word thing. just a question I agree with the guy who said to drop the "eXtreme" label. It's like labeling yourself "Immature".

In order to meet its recruiting goals, the US Army has had to DOUBLE the number of recruits it accepts that have the lowest score on the aptitude test. Thanks be to Bush.

It was Nixon's policy of "Vietnamization" per se and a policy of getting the US out of the country. He was not going to do so under fire. Splitting hairs, I know, but that is the distinction. Those "beaten nations" can be a problem, can't they? In August 1940 the US ambassador to Britain told Roosevelt that Britain would be defeated in 2 weeks. Sometimes the "beaten nation" doesn't give up so easily. I notice we're still fighting in Iraq, 3 years after "Mission Accomplished".

That's pretty obvious.

Such a thing would never happen in Texas, would it? I think you all need to study the meaning of the phrase "party whip". Oh yes, the Republicans have whips too.

How come we left with our tail between our legs, then, if NV was "a beaten nation"? There's something seriously wrong with your logic.

Only those with a very weak grasp of statistics could consider 11% a meaningful "win". It must really chap the Liberal's asses that all the other "mainstream" media couldn't even pull THAT much... Really? The BBC and CNN look pretty good if you quit being so parochial. Was there a particular part of "most trusted source in U.S." that you didn't understand? *hint: look at the thread title, it's right there* What don't you understand about "parochial"? The thread title is parochial.

yup. In canada it is: 1st down 2nd down punt In your case it would be: 1st down 2nd down 3rd down punt

Only those with a very weak grasp of statistics could consider 11% a meaningful "win". It must really chap the Liberal's asses that all the other "mainstream" media couldn't even pull THAT much... Really? The BBC and CNN look pretty good if you quit being so parochial.

yup. In canada it is: 1st down 2nd down punt In your case it would be: 1st down 2nd down 3rd down punt

yup. In canada it is: 1st down 2nd down punt In your case it would be: 1st down 2nd down 3rd down punt

you say that like I didn't admit it - kind of a waste of you quoting my entire post isn't it? You're supposed to be groveling, not critiquing the length of my quote.

Yes, just like Margaret Thatcher.

Might want to increase the number of skilled workers we allow in, too: Forty thousand visas are available in the first preference, EB-1, which covers international managers and executives, outstanding professors and researchers, and people of extraordinary ability. Why have lower limits for these folks than for grape-pickers?

I expect they are the same people that tell you the US has the world's best healthcare system.

Yeah, I knew that, but the blanket statements are still crappy ways to look at data. And t-test of rates still require the total sample size and are much harder to run. (And some countries aren't even millions in total population,) But I'll run it again to see if it works with a 'reasonable' sample base. ---the 0.4% vs 0.6% difference is significant at a base sample size of just under 10,000 (when tested as a proportion instead of a rate (at 95% confidence). In fact, a direct sample size analysis would say 1060 sample size (which makes more sense to me) At these samples, the results will normally be identical with either test of rates or proportions). My abject apologies. For large countries, this is extremely likely to be a real difference and not natural variation. No groveling will be forthcoming as the original poster used no logic, only personal gut and bias in coming to his conclusions, though. The only thing in question at this point is the data collection definition. For samples around 9000 or less, .4% vs .6% isn't meaningful Sample X N Sample p 1 36 9000 0.004000 2 54 9000 0.006000 Difference = p (1) - p (2) Estimate for difference: -0.002 95% CI for difference: (-0.00406060, 0.0000606049) Test for difference = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -1.90 P-Value = 0.057 Approx. 4,000,000 births annually in USA, approx 700,000 annually in UK. I think that makes the sample size excellent, considering that all births and deaths are recorded. I case you haven't noticed, 4 million is somewhat larger than your 9,000 value.

because we're bringing up a generation of geographically illiterate young adults. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_geography.html

Since you crave facts, data ARE PLURAL.

sheesh - read and comment, will ya? I said that the differences are less than claimed, and that there are issues in America that are not endemic to our method of health care. I think 50% higher death rate is a big difference. I also said the US only looks good by comparison with 3rd world countries. So which western nation looks worse than the US? Even Cuba is better than the US. My claim is accurate, infant mortality in the US is shameful.

wrong - with a sample size of only 1000, you can't say that 6 and 4 are meaningfullly different considering normal variation. Hint - to say they are meaningfully different, the confidence interval of the difference can't contain zero. This means that if you took another 1000 samples, the results might be reversed, the same, or even 4 vs 6 again, or otherwise..... "Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help. Test and CI for Two Proportions Sample X N Sample p 1 4 1000 0.004000 2 6 1000 0.006000 Difference = p (1) - p (2) Estimate for difference: -0.002 95% CI for difference: (-0.00818181, 0.00418181) Test for difference = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -0.63 P-Value = 0.526" Umm - the sample size is millions of births. The 4 or 6 in 1000 is the RATE of infant mortality. Your abject groveling apology will be accepted.