[KHL]Republitard Fuckwit

[Spyder]

2000 what died in Iraq? Sentences involving casualty figures always seem to leave out the words "US soldiers," or "Americans." Same went for the 50,000 Viet Nam figure mentioned earlier. I do hope people aren't getting the impression that the missing word is "People," because that wouldn't be factually accurate.

[FSTargetDrone]

In my personal observations patrolling the streets of that country, the people are not going to just jump up and embrace freedom. Like the sheep following the herd, they'll be going after whatever the guy with all the guns says. That is how they've lived in the past, and what they are used to. If Iraq is going to ever have a hope of getting back on its feet, the US will have to hold its hand for quite some time yet. And there's no guarantee that once we let go and let it walk on its own, it won't take a few steps, fall back down, and the whole cycle starts anew.

2,000 dead is a hell of a price to pay. I know three of these men who died. Two were my classmates at Armor school, another, was from my troop, who died in the course of trying to protect what tenuous freedom we'd brought to this country. And I know many more men who bear the wounds of this conflict, some physical scars from where they were lacerated by shrapnel. Others bear the invisible scars commonly known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Good men have endured 18 months of combat operations in this part of the world, only to be broken by the stress of what they had lived through those months. Broken.

What would you say is the general consensus of your fellow soldiers/marines that you were in contact with or served with over there, in regard to Iraq's ultimately running itself in a relatively peaceful state? Are people optimistic, cautiously hopeful, or just counting the days until their deployments are up and they can rotate home? Do people see it as being worth it? Do they feel that what has happened with the war is genuinely in the best interest for Iraq? And for the US? Do you even talk among yourselves about what you're doing, or is it just something you avoid?

As an aside, I think far little attention is being paid to the wounded vets. We hear about 2000 dead, which is horrible enough, but the wounded don't seem to get significant coverage of their own in stories about this.

[Edi]

As an aside, I think far little attention is being paid to the wounded vets. We hear about 2000 dead, which is horrible enough, but the wounded don't seem to get significant coverage of their own in stories about this.

Well, it really isn't at all appropriate to let the nation see exactly what the cost in ruined and damaged lives is. How dare you suggest aiding the terrorists with such vile means as letting people see anything other than a sugarcoated picture from behind a rose-tinted glass?

Edi

[18-Till-I-Die]

As an aside, I think far little attention is being paid to the wounded vets. We hear about 2000 dead, which is horrible enough, but the wounded don't seem to get significant coverage of their own in stories about this.

Well, it really isn't at all appropriate to let the nation see exactly what the cost in ruined and damaged lives is. How dare you suggest aiding the terrorists with such vile means as letting people see anything other than a sugarcoated picture from behind a rose-tinted glass?

Edi

I was just saying something to my mom yesterday about that. Yeah 2000 Americans died, Lord only knows how many Iraqis, now where arethe numbers for people without arms, or legs, or burns over most of their face. These people's lives will never be the same. There was one kid i read about, lost BOTH his arms, an Iraqi teen, and he was talking about suicide and shit. You can talk anout fake limbs and skin grafts all you please, the fact is they'll never be whole again physically, and in the end for what? To what end? A new Iraqi constitution? To wage war on 'terror'?

Its something people dont want to, or more like refuse to, think about. Rhetoric is cuter.

[Broomstick]

now where arethe numbers for people without arms, or legs, or burns over most of their face.

Here's a little trick:

90% of the military wounded in Iraq are surviving to come back to the US and (eventually) leaving the hosptial. So... if 2,000 have died, then we have had in the neighborhood of 18,000 wounded (assuming I am capable of doing math at 4:30 am and pre-caffeine). Those wounds will, of course, vary in severity, but it gives you some idea.

This, of course, entirely leaves out the carnage among contract workers and the Iraqis themselves. Neither group has access to the save level of emergency care or rehabilitation, so the numbers there will be much more dire.

[KHL]

So what big deal, nobody said that Saddam was a great guy. Ever hear of begging the question? And you're lying or trying to twist the truth, you didn't try to argue for Saddam being a bad guy, you've tried to prove that things under the coalition forces will be better than under Saddam, and you failed. No evidence means you fail. And the constitution is no evidence.

I've already said I can't prove things will be better. At least, not yet

You're such a freaking bonehead. Let's try this another way. You say we shouldn't even mention Bush, look to the future, that sort of thing. Why the fuck did you mention Clinton then hmm?

Um as a historical reference? You were the moron who locked in on such a minor point and made a mountain out of a mole hill.

You still don't get it. A constitution is not enough to support a theory that Iraq will be "better in the future than under Saddam" given the current conditions in Iraq. It doesn't matter if Iraq doesn't have a world wide depression and hyper inflation, it has much worse, a terrorist insurgency that won't go away and desparate groups who will plunge the nation into civil war if the Americans left right now.

Brian

Obviously if a constitution isn't followed up on, then it can't bring about a better future. I'm optimistic that it will be followed up on.

As for your other claim, prove the nation would plunge into civil war.

[brianeyci]

I've already said I can't prove things will be better. At least, not yet

So concede you trolling moron. If you can't prove it you lose.

Um as a historical reference? You were the moron who locked in on such a minor point and made a mountain out of a mole hill.

You're a fucking liar.

Clinton was brought up to show that this wasn't merely "Bush deciding Saddam must go". Regime change in Iraq was official U.S. policy.

You were trying to show a link between current US policy in Iraq and Clinton, ignoring the fact Bush was Commander in Chief of the United States military and personally was responsible for starting the war.



In other words it was about Bush deciding to go you moron and nothing about Clinton. Of course you'll keep denying that despite the evidence clear as day that anybody can go back in the thread and see.

Obviously if a constitution isn't followed up on, then it can't bring about a better future. I'm optimistic that it will be followed up on.

Well then shut up and stop trying to present your personal hopes or delusions as fact.

As for your other claim, prove the nation would plunge into civil war.

According to Global Security and Wikipedia,

Lack of training

As of October 5, 2005 the New Iraqi Army had 1 Battalion, or 750 soldiers, trained well enough to be "deployed independently," i.e. without the help of others such as the United States. [1]

Training has been impeded by domestic instability, infiltration by insurgents, and high desertion rates.

According to CNN.com, the the Iraq Insurgency numbers between 13,000 and 17,000. More realistic numbers taking into account the number of people who were part of the pre-Saddam military and the jobless,



In other words, the Iraqi Army couldn't defend itself against even the lowest estimate of insurgents, never mind a reasonable estimate.

Now where are your numbers, your evidence? None. You ask others for evidence when you have none of your own? What a douche . Go troll somewhere else, or concede like a rational man.

Brian

[Chris OFarrell]

In other words, the Iraqi Army couldn't defend itself against even the lowest estimate of insurgents, never mind a reasonable estimate.

Brian

And thats ignoring the fact that its probable that more then a few of the insurgents belong to the Iraqi army...

[brianeyci]

Well these 750 soldiers are out of the US wank-fest of 60,000 estimate of soldiers, and this batallion doesn't need any logistical support from the US. If the US trusts them to operate independently, these are probably the cream of the crop of the 60k. If the US really pulled out right now, the rest of the army would by the admission of the US go to shit and these 750 men be what was standing between an Islamic Republic and the government.

Brian

[Chris OFarrell]

Well these 750 soldiers are out of the US wank-fest of 60,000 estimate of soldiers, and this batallion doesn't need any logistical support from the US. If the US trusts them to operate independently, these are probably the cream of the crop of the 60k. If the US really pulled out right now, the rest of the army would by the admission of the US go to shit and these 750 men be what was standing between an Islamic Republic and the government.

Brian

And all this in only THREE years of work? I'm impressed!

[brianeyci]

And all this in only THREE years of work? I'm impressed!

To be fair, you can't teach things like patriotism and loyalty to someone. It has to come from within. My manager said to me before he hired me, "I can't teach someone attitude." The Iraqi Army has to be willing to fight, and die for the new government. Why would you be willing to fight and die for a government you see as being run by foreigners? It doesn't make sense, and mass dessertions and unreliability are hardly unjustified. Until individual Iraqi soldiers are willing in large numbers to fight and die for their country, it won't work.

No matter how good the training is or how rigorous or how preparatory, willingness to fight and die for a country which didn't even have a constitution until recently can't come from training. Especially after the flag fiasco. Are Iraqis supposed to feel they have a national identity worth dying for while under foreign occupation?

Brian

[KHL]

So concede you trolling moron. If you can't prove it you lose.

I said I can't prove it yet. I'm not conceding, rather post poning.

You're a fucking liar.

You're fucking delusional

In other words it was about Bush deciding to go you moron and nothing about Clinton. Of course you'll keep denying that despite the evidence clear as day that anybody can go back in the thread and see.

Clinton was only brought in as a historical footnote. You are the one who dry humped the hell out of him in your hatred for Bush.

As for your other claim, prove the nation would plunge into civil war.

According to Global Security and Wikipedia,

Lack of training

As of October 5, 2005 the New Iraqi Army had 1 Battalion, or 750 soldiers, trained well enough to be "deployed independently," i.e. without the help of others such as the United States. [1]

Training has been impeded by domestic instability, infiltration by insurgents, and high desertion rates.

According to CNN.com, the the Iraq Insurgency numbers between 13,000 and 17,000. More realistic numbers taking into account the number of people who were part of the pre-Saddam military and the jobless,



In other words, the Iraqi Army couldn't defend itself against even the lowest estimate of insurgents, never mind a reasonable estimate.

Estimates aren't proof. Give me some hard evidence!

Firstly, the Iraqi Army numbers over 150,000. Those numbers alone would crush the "conservative estimate" even if they did not enjoy the firepower, organization and logistics advantages. Just because only 750 are considered fully trained by U.S. standards doesn't mean the rest of them are fucking useless.

As for your other estime, it strikes me as nothing more than wild speculation. If the insurgency really had numbers that great, then I've got to believe the violence would be much higher.

[Surlethe]

Estimates aren't proof. Give me some hard evidence!

ROTFLMFAO!! This is the best quote EVAR! I'm sooo going to put this in your Encyclopaedia Moronnica entry!

As for your other estime, it strikes me as nothing more than wild speculation. If the insurgency really had numbers that great, then I've got to believe the violence would be much higher.

Why? Why would you believe such a thing? Do you have evidence to back up the assertion those numbers are unrealistic and inflated? You don't actually think the entire insurgency is involved in attacks, do you?

[brianeyci]

I said I can't prove it yet. I'm not conceding, rather post poning.

At the least this is incredibly bad form, at the worst this is deliberate dishonesty.

You're fucking delusional

Man that is just dripping with irony .

Clinton was only brought in as a historical footnote. You are the one who dry humped the hell out of him in your hatred for Bush.

Historical footnote for what you dickweed? To feed your Bush apologism?

Estimates aren't proof. Give me some hard evidence!

Sorry, my cock stays in my pants for those who I trust. And every number of the insurgency must be a fucking estimate given the insurgency doesn't publish an order of battle.

Firstly, the Iraqi Army numbers over 150,000. Those numbers alone would crush the "conservative estimate" even if they did not enjoy the firepower, organization and logistics advantages. Just because only 750 are considered fully trained by U.S. standards doesn't mean the rest of them are fucking useless.

You're a fucking liar, if you bothered to read the link you'll note the 750 is not just the amount that are trained, but the amount that can operate without logistical support from the US. If the US pulled out, there would be insufficient logistical support for the rest of the army and they would crumble. Armies need huge amounts of food, water and medicine to operate, this just doesn't come out of thin air you retard. Not to mention equipment, of which the Iraqi army has none -- 5 tanks, no infantry fighting vehicles, no heavy artillery, no aircraft.

As for your other estime, it strikes me as nothing more than wild speculation. If the insurgency really had numbers that great, then I've got to believe the violence would be much higher.

Do you have any idea how many insurgents the US Army kills or arrests every month? You get three guesses. There were fifty thousand killed in seven months according to a US General.

Brian

[Pick]

I'm sorry to crash this for a moment (I've been reading this thread as it develops, though not posting) but:

Estimates aren't proof. Give me some hard evidence!

WAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

What numbers should we operate under when we're making plans for the future, then? What --the visitation from the alien space money told us? How about what might be politically convenient? Now that's a plan!

[brianeyci]

And KHL, where the fuck did you get the 150,000 sized Iraqi army? Looking at this explains where you got it... from the mouth of DoD officials, or Bush-appeasement. From the mouth of Rummy himself probably, gee what a reliable source . Quoting the relevant section,

"All told, the Pentagon summary maintains, there were 208,821 Iraqis in the various security services. But counting only those fully trained and on duty, the total was 114,789. And 95 percent of that force comprised security guards and civil defense members - not the front-line forces. Add up the active and fully trained Iraqi police, border personnel and military forces, and the number of Iraq security troops is 6,114. Throw in those partially trained, and the total goes up to 37,874. The Iraqi security forces hardly could boast over 200,000 troops 'providing security,' as Rumsfeld claimed in March."

If there were really 150,000 soldiers ready to fight and die for this new government, we'd be seeing drastic troop reductions. But keep bullshitting dickhead, it's fun making you look like an idiot .

Brian

[wilfulton]

What would you say is the general consensus of your fellow soldiers/marines that you were in contact with or served with over there, in regard to Iraq's ultimately running itself in a relatively peaceful state? Are people optimistic, cautiously hopeful, or just counting the days until their deployments are up and they can rotate home? Do people see it as being worth it? Do they feel that what has happened with the war is genuinely in the best interest for Iraq? And for the US? Do you even talk among yourselves about what you're doing, or is it just something you avoid?

As an aside, I think far little attention is being paid to the wounded vets. We hear about 2000 dead, which is horrible enough, but the wounded don't seem to get significant coverage of their own in stories about this.

Different soldiers will naturally have their own different opinions, but in my observation most of them were simply counting down days until they return home to the United States. Don't get me wrong, my soldiers were generally hopeful that Iraq would get back on its feet, but were also fully aware that the Iraqi people are used to being bullied around at gunpoint. As such, we're also aware that liberating that nation will take a long time, and in the end, is probably wishful thinking.

[wilfulton]

Estimates aren't proof. Give me some hard evidence!

Firstly, the Iraqi Army numbers over 150,000. Those numbers alone would crush the "conservative estimate" even if they did not enjoy the firepower, organization and logistics advantages. Just because only 750 are considered fully trained by U.S. standards doesn't mean the rest of them are fucking useless.

As for your other estime, it strikes me as nothing more than wild speculation. If the insurgency really had numbers that great, then I've got to believe the violence would be much higher.

When planning any military operation, you look at the ground you're going to be fighting on, and make a best guess of what you're up against. You weigh two major factors, the most likely scenario, and the worst-case scenario.

Thanks to the fog of war, nothing in military planning is ever definate. So you estimate the number of bad guys you're up against, which is what brianeyci is getting at. That number is what you should prepare for if you're planning to fend off the insurgency.

Naturally, the task of hunting down insurgents is difficult at best. Given their tactic of moving about through the civilian populace. Most Iraqis simply want to live in peace knowing they won't get blown up by a terrorist today.

[General Brock]

...

According to Global Security and Wikipedia,

Lack of training

As of October 5, 2005 the New Iraqi Army had 1 Battalion, or 750 soldiers, trained well enough to be "deployed independently," i.e. without the help of others such as the United States. [1]

Training has been impeded by domestic instability, infiltration by insurgents, and high desertion rates.

According to CNN.com, the the Iraq Insurgency numbers between 13,000 and 17,000. More realistic numbers taking into account the number of people who were part of the pre-Saddam military and the jobless,



In other words, the Iraqi Army couldn't defend itself against even the lowest estimate of insurgents, never mind a reasonable estimate.

Estimates aren't proof. Give me some hard evidence!

Firstly, the Iraqi Army numbers over 150,000. Those numbers alone would crush the "conservative estimate" even if they did not enjoy the firepower, organization and logistics advantages. Just because only 750 are considered fully trained by U.S. standards doesn't mean the rest of them are fucking useless.

As for your other estime, it strikes me as nothing more than wild speculation. If the insurgency really had numbers that great, then I've got to believe the violence would be much higher.

I really should stay out of this. But, anyway,

KHL, your link post average is rather low here. If brianeyci and everyone else here can go through the trouble of finding hard data and posting links to them, and base well-constructed arguements on them, you could at least show some of the same dilignence.

Hell, some of the pro-war types have you in their sights. The precious time you can't afford to waste, wasted so far, might have been better spent on Google. There's a section on this site listing common debating fallacies.

You obviously have an internet connection. You can read hardcopy papers and magazines. You didn't sleepwalk into this debating forum, you know SDNet can be a harsh place, and yet you still demonstrate no plan. Step back, review your material and arguments in notepad, do some research of your own. Have you even studied the posted links? You must have your own sources.

[Sam Or I]

My time is limited on the computer, just to heat the flame of this debate, and make a quick point.

If a stable democracy does come to Iraq (big IF), it will be better for the people than Saddam's regiem.

Need proof, Iraq will no longer be considered a rouge state by the international community. There will be no trade sanctions , and it will fold more easily under international pressure.

[Surlethe]

My time is limited on the computer, just to heat the flame of this debate, and make a quick point.

If a stable democracy does come to Iraq (big IF), it will be better for the people than Saddam's regiem.

Need proof, Iraq will no longer be considered a rouge state by the international community. There will be no trade sanctions , and it will fold more easily under international pressure.

No shit, sherlock. The problem is not with the logic; the problem is with the hypothesis of the implication. You could go on and on with the implications of stable democracy in Iraq -- positive influence on the region; destabilizing affects on neighbouring regimes; oil wealth; oil trade partner in the middle east; etc., etc. Unfortunately, all of those rest on the presumption Iraq becomes a stable democracy, and there is no evidence of that happening.

[Spyder]

There will be no trade sanctions , and it will fold more easily under international pressure.

Making it so that a nation folds easilly under international pressure is a good reason to invade it? Sweet, Canadians, turn your war machine south! It's for their own good!

[Coyote]

The funny thing is, there actually is a lot of historical and social raw material to forge a better government and civilisation in Iraq-- if someone who knew what the fuck they were dealing with was calling the shots. As it is, we have the Bush Admin, and I don't trust them to spread shit on a cracker.

KHL, the odd thing I actually agree with some of your ideas, but we needed a better plan and a better sense of top-down situational awareness from the start-- a failure of leadership has caused a lot of very unnecessary grief.

So, yeah-- by accepting and defending things as they are is to be making spin for Bush. The situation over there could have been better than it is-- my opinion, I cannot provide more than 'educated guesswork' about a alternate universe where this had a better outcome-- and we wouldn't be pulling molehills of success out of mountains of bullshit.

[KHL]

The funny thing is, there actually is a lot of historical and social raw material to forge a better government and civilisation in Iraq-- if someone who knew what the fuck they were dealing with was calling the shots. As it is, we have the Bush Admin, and I don't trust them to spread shit on a cracker.

KHL, the odd thing I actually agree with some of your ideas, but we needed a better plan and a better sense of top-down situational awareness from the start-- a failure of leadership has caused a lot of very unnecessary grief.

So, yeah-- by accepting and defending things as they are is to be making spin for Bush. The situation over there could have been better than it is-- my opinion, I cannot provide more than 'educated guesswork' about a alternate universe where this had a better outcome-- and we wouldn't be pulling molehills of success out of mountains of bullshit.

I finally have some time to put this together so here it goes:

I'm not saying that things are going great over there right now. Yes things could have been done better, but the bottom line is at the point we're at, things are progressing. Every day that we are there training their armed forces and rebuilding infrastructure is another nail in the coffin of the insurgency.

We will continue to train and better equip the Iraqi armed forces while the resources of the insurgency are starved out. If you take Brian's numbers of "likely" 180,000 insurgents, and then subtract the 60,000 or so reported killed, you've cut quite a large chunk out of their force. I personally feel that the estimate is on the high side, and if I'm correct then they are in even worse shape.

Remember, the intial insurgent attacks? They were controlling entire cities such as Fallujah and Najaf. Now you don't hear about things like that. Anymore its a suicide bombing here, an ambush of soldiers there. These aren't displays of power they are terrorist attacks. This indicates to me a weakening of the insurgency as they aren't able to mount the large scale operations that they had previously. Our presence may be disliked, but the insurgents' terror attacks against the Iraqi people aren't winning them any friends amongst the populace either.

We also have this letter indicating things aren't all roses on the insurgents side:


Yes I know that the terrorists have since denied its authenticity, but you can believe what you want.

The basic premise of democracy is taking hold in Iraq. The people are continuing to vote in large numbers. The voter turnout for the constitutional election was 63 percent, and the total number of votes was over 1 million more than in the initial elections. This indicates that insurgency has not only failed to turn Iraqis against the idea of democracy, but that the opposite has in fact occured. This alone is reason for optimisim that Iraq can function as a democracy and that the people are willing to get behind it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00357.html

Many have tried to paint the new constitution as creating a "theocracy" simply because it states that Islam will be drawn from as a source of law. This is utterly ridiculous as many laws in many nations have their roots in religous belief. Hell, Ontario Canada has authorized the use of Sharia law in civil arbitrations, if both parties consent. Simply acknowledging Islam having a place as part of the government doesn't mean that the people will be living under a Taliban style regime.

The Iraqi constitution states specifically:


Article (2): 1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source
of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms
outlined in this constitution.
2nd - This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the
Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of
creed and religious practices.


Ofcourse, everyone zeros in on the mention of "Islam" and equates that with the consitution establishing sharia as the governmental model which is clearly not the case. Further, the wording regarding "fixed elements" or "undisputed rules" of Islam immediately narrows the scope of its application. As we all know, there are many things that are disputed by the various sects of Islam.

The members of government are elected by the people not by regligous leaders. The members of government are not required to be members of the religious class. Might they be influenced by religious leaders? Sure, but then again Americans have to deal with that in the U.S. as do leaders in many nations.

To me, the most important part of the Iraqi constiution is Chapter 2 which guarantees nearly all the same rights and freedoms enjoyed by most modern western nations. Obviously, if the constitution is not followed then its not worth the paper its written on. However, given the large percentage of Iraqis voting as noted above, and given the fact that approx 78 percent of them voted for this consitution, I'd say that it has the support of the majority of the people.

[brianeyci]

Very good KHL. Finally something.

Your information with Ontario is outdated. Premier McGuinty recently rejected the proposition to introduce Sharia arbitration. These kind of arbitrations have existed for the Jewish and Catholics for awhile, for family disputes. It would have been voluntary but the concern was that women would have been pressured to go to a Sharia arbitration rather than family court. It would not have superseded civil or criminal law. In Iraq, that's what we're worried about, passing of actual Islamic laws, which would have had no chance to pass in the legislature in Ontario even if McGuinty hadn't trashed the whole proposal. And yes, the concern was that Sharia would become the law of the land by practise if not legally because Muslim women would be pressured by their community to go to Sharia arbitration rather than family court, and the Premier seems to agree with my viewpoint.

People flamed you for mentioning the constitution because a constitution alone is not sufficient to show that Iraq is headed for a good future. Yes, I myself did nitpick at the mention of Islam, and the constitution is not a bastion of Sharia. It however has many "outs" that religious leaders can use to sneak Sharia in, and that is the worry. I showed a few chinks in the armor of the constitution, and that's enough for concern. The "undisputed" rules of Islam... one could argue that there are no disputed rules of Islam under a particular intepretation. There are ways to go around semantics, to semantic whore (as you well know) and placing faith in the country because a constitution appears to be carefully worded enough is ridiculous. It is a cause for optimism, nothing more. As well, nobody mentioned a "Taliban style regime". That is your strawman. The fact that Islam is in the constitution at all opens the door to Islamic law, or elements of it.

Fifty thousand insurgents were killed or arrested over seven months. That doesn't mean the insurgency is dying down. In fact, the insurgency seems to be growing stronger. If you are not aware, the US military is continually going back and retaking towns which it had secured in the past. Go down and click on "Makeshift bombs grow more sophisticated" and there is reference to 100 attacks a day and 50 of those being improvised explosive devices, and certain devices growing more and more sophisticated, enough to worry senior US Generals.

Again, if the insurgency was dying down, or under control as you said, why is the US military going back and retaking towns which it had supposedly secured a year, a year and a half ago? Moreover, why are there not significant troop pullouts? There is insufficient manpower in Iraq, and the insurgency is not being defeated.

I have yet to see your source for the 150,000 Iraqi troop figure.

Yes I know that the terrorists have since denied its authenticity, but you can believe what you want.

Better to reference specific parts in the letter, and attach it to concrete examples of why you think this letter is authentic.

What's been wrong this whole thread is you continually refusing to provide any kind of objective evidence. If you had posted like this from the beginning rather than whine about persecution or semantic whore, there would have been no problems. Or had conceded without a snide remark, which by the way deserves an apology.

Brian