"What flew up your pant leg? Continue that tone and you can simply ‘talk to the hand’."

LOL! Rob- I'm yankin' your chain. Don't even deny yer not trying to rattle my cage.

"My stats were neither intentionally narrow nor selective. If they are so selective then it should be easy for you to find evidence to refute them. Find your own context, be my guest- spin it any way you can."

Oh, come on now- you throw out this 4.4 billion as evidence about the great financial gain Afghanistan is gathering, but you won't also bring out numbers about how much international aid was before then?

You throw out this 4.4 bln as evidence that the mighty bush is single handedly rebuilding afghanistan, but when it comes down to it you admit the US is only throwing in 1.5 bln?

Scuse me while I chuckle a bit

And then you say thats just fine for a country as depleted and hapless as afghanistan, and don't even bat an eye when I point out that the much more advanced and comparably better off Iraq is taking around 80 bln of US money alone for rebuilding.

Scuse me while I chuckle some more.

Your statistics are selective and not backed up by any numbers relating to the bigger picture (Like historucal totals or justifications against Ithe sum spent on Iraq), sorry if that bugs you Rob, but its just a true statement. Unless you want to answer the questions I raised? Hmm?

"And I have no idea how you could find them misleading. For you to make accusations like those you obviously felt that your position was threatened by them. They are either true or they are not.

For why I say they are misleading, see above. As for if I find them threatening to my position, see above.

As for true or not true: C'mon, who do you think your talking to.

The truth of a matter has little to do with the truth of the inferences you draw from it, inless the inferences are drawn in ways consistant with logic. Write that down somewhere. Its the very reason one can lie with staistics, and why idiots like Lee (well, the obes smarter than him at least) can occasionaly talk a good game with eugenics. And exactly why statistical flasehoods and falsehoods like eugenics (and communism) fall completely apart when introduced to that thing called the real world. Now, you are not lee and are not pushing an agenda as ofious as eugenics, please don't get me wrong or think that I'm trying to hang that on you.

But none-the-less, your data is selective and misleading, and the inferences you draw from your data do nopt logically (or empirically) follow.

The question, in the end, is are you using your ideology to gather your facts, or are your facts leading you to your ideology.

"Your grasping at straws- absolutely pathetic.
"

I see, so you think the war in Iraq was not about WMD? Okay, good to know.

"If you’re having a tantrum because I think your wrong then by all means show me where I'm wrong"

Its not that your wrong- its just that you are not right. See above with my complaints about your statistics.

As for tantrum- you may characterize (or even caricaturize) it how you so wish, just go back and answer the questions I raised!

"I'm not as attached to being right as you are.
"

Also, recall, all of these- um- inflamitory statement from which insults can be directly inferred? Shouldn't you have posted this on flame?

Hmm.. I suppose I'll take your word for it [me being more attached to being right than you]. However, its interesting that you were for the Iraq war, but you say your not that interested in being right? Tell that to the dead Iraqis. I'm sure theyd just love that. If they could laugh. Maybe you should be more attached to being right and less attached to endorsing the wholesale slaughter of people who don't agree with you, or who your ideology is not consistent with them living?

Davin L.