Progress In Iraq?

Mindcrime · Guru

Progress In Iraq?

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

Christmas break is over .

taking a swag , i will say that the ball started out in the endzone and currently is on the 15 yard line .

the bad guys are loosing - the good guys [us] are winning .

the iraqis now have an elected government, a constitution , an army . all this is works in progress but look at how much progress there is in only 2 years .

still new bad guys come to die for their country , in iraq - not in USA , it doesnt get much better than this .

3 cheers for the current POTUS and his policies .

Mindcrime · Guru

mike of the mountain wrote:

the bad guys are loosing - the good guys [us] are winning . Really? Let's look at why: the iraqis now have an elected government, With no power or control a constitution ,That NO ONE agrees upon, and... an army .Which couldn't repel a troop of asthmatic Boy Scouts all this is works in progress but look at how much progress there is in only 2 years . still new bad guys come to die for their country , in iraq - not in USA Which is why terrorists are setting up shop on the Mexican & Canadian borders

Yes, yes, blah blah, freedom, blah blah, struggle, blah blah, liberty... My point is that after years of conflict, a conflict that wasn't supposed to last more than 3 months, our opponents don't seem to be having any trouble killing our troops. In 2003, the American military death toll was 485, but granted, that was a partial year. 2004 saw 846 American soldiers dead, nearly TWICE as many. And for 2005? Only four short of the previous record, 842.

Now, I'm not a soldier, but I've studied military science and I'm fairly certain that somewhere I read that you're not 'winning' until you've removed your opponents' ability to wage war. Seems like the insurgents are doing just fine. And they don't even have a coalition...

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

Mindcrime wrote:
My point is that after years of conflict, a conflict that wasn't supposed to last more than 3 months, our opponents don't seem to be having any trouble killing our troops. In 2003, the American military death toll was 485, but granted, that was a partial year. 2004 saw 846 American soldiers dead, nearly TWICE as many. And for 2005? Only four short of the previous record, 842. Now, I'm not a soldier, but I've studied military science and I'm fairly certain that somewhere I read that you're not 'winning' until you've removed your opponents' ability to wage war. Seems like the insurgents are doing just fine. And they don't even have a coalition...

ok using that midset - posted casualty ratios as per DOD are about 30 to 1 , one of ours to 30 bad guys - so in the war of attrition , we win - slowly , locals are taking over the grunt work and Americans are running support roles , American casualties will decline over the next few months as land is held , not captured and released -

this is good . and our economy is the best in the west . what a fine POTUS we have .

Mindcrime · Guru

The only thing our POTUS is any good at is clearing the never-ending brush on his ranch. (And even that wounded him not long ago )

The Iraqis are not taking over much so far...I remember a story a few months ago about the battle-readiness of the Iraqi troops. Out of 107 fighting groups, 3 were battle-ready. 3. Then about a month ago, they recapped the story, only now they had 1. What's basic training in the US? 6 weeks? Why are these guys not ready after several months? I just don't see the progress. Progress means you move forawrd. Iraq seems to be stumbling backward.

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

in 2 years the iraqis have a new parliment, a new constitution , running water , electricity and the profits from oil sales dont get funneled into a dictators retirement account . ? in only two years , a work in progress to be sure but right on schedule .

Mindcrime · Guru

Be sure to let me know when the "Mission" actually becomes "Accomplished." I'll be over there collecting my social security...

oh wait, no I won't. The government will have spent it all by then.

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

Mindcrime wrote:

Be sure to let me know when the "Mission" actually becomes "Accomplished." I'll be over there collecting my social security... oh wait, no I won't. The government will have spent it all by then.

i can not predict the future , it will be finished when it is over . but have a look at Korea .... wrapped that up in 1953 , look at Germany , finished in 1945 , Japan finished in 1945 - we still have a significant presence in all those places . we may be in Iraq when you collect SS or whatever .

i bet we will be in Iran too ....

in the meantime , if you are single , you can work in Iraq , make big bucks , retire early .... http://www.oilcareer.org/iraq.htm such a deal they have . i showed my cousin but he did not want to go .

Mindcrime · Guru

mike of the mountain wrote:

...i cannot predict the future, it will be finished when it is over.

That's a little vague, isn't it? Remember when we first invaded? The whole war was supposed to last 3 months, at best. Here it is, over three years later, with no real progress. Is this gross underestimation acceptable from the guy in charge?

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

Mindcrime wrote:

mike of the mountain wrote: ...i cannot predict the future, it will be finished when it is over.

That's a little vague, isn't it? no , it is very accurate Remember when we first invaded? The whole war was supposed to last 3 months, at best.well that is about how long it took to route the entire iraqi military at the time . Here it is, over three years later, with no real progress. except a new constitution a new parlament a new prime minister / president , oil is flowing , etc etc .

Is this gross underestimation acceptable from the guy in charge? no , there is no gross underestimatation , we are right on self imposed schedule .

http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/articleFull.asp?TID=45&Type=Article even the left leaning anti war CEO of the un agrees that the schedule is being kept .

but , the un asked question should be - when does our military turn to iran , a problem that can not be ignored much longer , many support action as opposed to inaction http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20060127&Category=REPOSITORY&ArtNo=601270377&SectionCat=NEWS04&Template=printart

Scott Leffler · Veteran Member

I'm sorry, Mike, but MC's got you on this one. Bush ... Cheney ... Rummy ... Wolfewicz ... they all said we'd be there a few months. Three years later, we're still there ... and we're still losing soldiers DAILY. This is not the time line they shared with the American people before going in. But that's hardly shocking. Most of what was shared with the American people before Iraq was just pulled out of Dick Cheney's @ss anyway.

nuclearlou · Senior Member

Hey Scott:

Lay off the Jell-O, you're getting soft. I agree with you on your every point, except one.

M.C. has gotten more over than several on this one. This form of "debate" or "argument" sounds an awful lot just like those Right-wing radio guys and I'm no lefty. In all the politics that I've been near this was always called Rhetoric. Lots of that here too.

"Is this gross underestimation acceptable from the guy in charge?" Short answer, NO. N.O.

There seems to be many "gross" inconsistencies in word and deed.

"Self imposed" to me would seem to be that original three month statement.

Now, not only isn't it three months but we are loosing our boys daily--and with this additional talk of more invasions, JEESH! Not for anything but this is the Twenty-first Century. When will Democracy take the lead in making the world a less warring place and settle differences with diplomacy instead of dU shells?

Who's imposing their will on whom here? Agenda, agenda and it is in NO WAY what we, The American People were told. "Stats" from the LA Times should be added up, because they don't portray what is being said here.

Do the statistical differential between what 3 months is in relation to only one year = three months is one quarter in any SPIN. Three years is 12 quarters. So you do the math for the percentage of err on that prediction.

*Addendum-Sat. morn. - POTUS wants THREE MORE YEARS TO "win" over there. That makes TWENTY FOUR QUARTERS, or SIX YEARS. Now, do the POTUS math.

90 Days -v- SIX YEARS "MISSION ABOLISHED!"

-- Edited by nuclearlou at 07:51, 2006-01-28

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

Scott Leffler wrote:

I'm sorry, Mike, but MC's got you on this one. Bush ... Cheney ... Rummy ... Wolfewicz ... they all said we'd be there a few months. Three years later, we're still there ... and we're still losing soldiers DAILY. This is not the time line they shared with the American people before going in. But that's hardly shocking. Most of what was shared with the American people before Iraq was just pulled out of Dick Cheney's @ss anyway.

i dunno mr Judge & jury sir , i dont remember anyone one of those people stating we would leave Iraq after a few months ? i dont remember anyone stating that we would not stay until the country of Iraq had a constitution and an elected government and could stand on it's own feet . i also do not remember all the the above stating that the war on terror [ recently renamed to be the war on Islam o fasiciats ] would be an easy or short term thing . so here we are , right on schedule .

in 2 years the iraqis have a new parlament, a new constitution , running water , electricity and the profits from oil sales dont get funneled into a dictators retirement account . ? in only two years , a work in progress to be sure but right on schedule . according to Kofi annon , who by the way is one of the detractors of the efforts of our POTUS regarding the war in the middle east.

and we are getting better at what we do ; http://abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=1554655

also remember , for all the bluster and horsepoop spewd from the mouth of osama and his cohorts there has not been another attack on US soil since 9-11 .

John Villella · Member

Mike, Do you really believe the junk you are posting? Please, go back and review the news reports, printed, and live interviews from the Pres., VP and the rest of the leadership 3 years ago and come back with some straight discussion.

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

John Villella wrote:

Mike, Do you really believe the junk you are posting? [yes] Please, go back and review the news reports, printed, and live interviews from the Pres., VP and the rest of the leadership 3 years ago and come back with some straight discussion.

ok , more junk , no mention of our exiting Iraq in 3 months though ... please note the dates .

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/19/sprj.irq.war.bush/ cnn s version of the presidents speech about the begining of the war .

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/19/sprj.irq.war.bush.transcript/index.html and another , no mention of time in or out ,, from the anti war anti Bush cnn .

culledfrom here msnbc , another anti Bush media outlet 4 months into the "war" interveiw with the vice POTUS ; http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

What is our plan for Iraq? How long will the 140,000 American soldiers be there? How many international troops will join them? And how much is this going to cost?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, some of those questions are unknowable at present, Tim. It’ll depend on developments. It’ll depend on how fast it takes us to achieve our objectives. Remember when we went there, that we went there specifically to take down the Saddam Hussein regime, to wrap up all WMD capability he had possessed or developed, to deal with the threat that his regime represented to the region, and the United States. Very significant challenge. But we have, in fact, I think, been very successful at achieving that.

In terms of where we’re going now, we’re moving aggressively to deal with the security situation. We’re continuing those efforts. We’ve got some first-rate troops undertaking those efforts, and, needless to say, we’ve had major success, major progress when you think about the number of Iraqi bad guys that we’ve eliminated or captured. We’ve—working very aggressively, Bremer is, to stand up a new government. We’ve now got a 25-man governing council in place made up of Iraqis, a broad representative group of Iraqi officials.

We’ve got Iraqis now in charge of each ministry in the government. We’ve got 90 percent—over 90 percent of the cities and towns and villages of Iraq are now governed by democratically elected or appointed local councils. We’ve got all the schools open; we’ve got all the hospitals up and functioning. We’re making major progress in restoring the electricity to pre-war levels. We’re rebuilding the oil system and infrastructure in the country. So all of that’s happening. And it’s a very important part of our total strategy. We’re also working to stand up an Iraqi security force. And in four months we’ve put together a force now of some 55,000 Iraqis serving in the police force, serving in the border security force and so forth at the local level. But that will continue to grow. The second largest security contingent in Iraq today behind the U.S. is Iraqi. We’ve been successful to some extent in getting international support. We’ve got a Polish division. We stood up a Polish-led division a few weeks ago that has troops in it from 17 countries.

-- Edited by mike of the mountain at 23:28, 2006-01-29

nuclearlou · Senior Member

This POTUS is bogus! As is his entire cabinet.

Lay, Abramoff, WMDs, Oil, Plame, sure don/t look like a good POTUS. Bad POTUS!

Was it ever mentioned here on this blog about the recent (2003-2004) Bush Administration ordered change in the radioactive materials regulations (specifically targeting our local LOOW waste site) that HE WAS RESPONSIBLE for having lobbied and changed directly leaving the legacy LOOW site materials buried in a leaking containment (old basements) and into our environment? Was it mentioned that the same family company that built the now leaking "containment" are also big contributors to HIS political campaign chest?

Has any of that been mentioned here before--oh wait, it has been mentioned and overlooked by someone. Why no comment on this I wonder through the last year or more? I've never mentioned it on these political threads mainly because I never came over here. I always expected to get an answer or response on one of the important Lewiston enviro threads--but it never happened, so here I am.

This was the second single most unintelligent and ill advised envrionmental decision EVER made against the people of Niagara County. For 60 + years, it was promised to remove the VERY SAME AFRICAN Uranium/Radium K-65 wastes left in Lewiston, New York, from the processing of AFRICAN URANIUM!! You know, EXACTLY LIKE WHAT WAS SAID TO BE HIDDEN OVER THERE---Oh, but it's right here and NOT SO hidden because that's what we've been talking about since this blog started...

Now, in 2006 and for ANY FORSEEABLE FUTURE, because of our good (not) POTUS and House Resolution HR2754, the wastes from the exact same materials that WERE NOT FOUND in IRAQ, BUT ARE FOUND RIGHT HERE IN NIAGARA COUNTY, will remain buried and leaking here forever. What part of that isn't understood?

African Yellow Cake = Uranium = African K-65 = Radium = Lewiston Waste = Gabon = Niger = Congo = Buried in Niagara County = African K-65 wastes = NOT FOUND THERE in Iraq BUT IT IS HERE in Niagara!

POTUS = SUCKS NOT Kofi Annan.

Please understand this--POTUS brought this country to war over the exact same materials that Mike Webb's (his own words) father was refining over at Union Carbide right here in Niagara Falls and historically was refined in mass quantities with wastes buried locally, INCLUDING the African U. These exact same materials (and many way worse) are buried in Lewiston, New York. What part of that is not being comprehended here?

Good POTUS don't do things like that. Kind of like that Christian thing.

NO Good POTUS would do this to his Citizens.

BAD POTUS! Yes, very bad.

-- Edited by nuclearlou at 05:49, 2006-01-30

Mindcrime · Guru

mike of the mountain wrote:

John Villella wrote: Mike, Do you really believe the junk you are posting? yes Please, go back and review the news reports, printed, and live interviews from the Pres., VP and the rest of the leadership 3 years ago and come back with some straight discussion. ok , more junk , no mention of our exiting Iraq in 3 months though ... please note the dates .

Ahem, http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm

I had thought this was common knowledge, guess not. The last thing we want to accuse Bush-supporters of is re-writing history...

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

nuclearlou wrote:

This POTUS is bogus! As is his entire cabinet. 2003-2004) Bush Administration ordered change in the radioactive materials regulations (specifically targeting our local LOOW waste site) that HE WAS RESPONSIBLE for having lobbied and changed directly leaving the legacy LOOW site materials buried in a leaking containment (old basements) and into our environment? African Yellow Cake = Uranium = African K-65 = Radium = Lewiston Waste = Gabon = Niger = Congo = Buried in Niagara County = African K-65 wastes = NOT FOUND THERE in Iraq BUT IT IS HERE in Niagara! POTUS = SUCKS NOT Kofi Annan..-- Edited by nuclearlou at 05:49, 2006-01-30

the demoncrat clinton with his energy secratary o'leary were presented with files and facts buried by previous administrations that if acted on would have at least presented the information to those who could have made decisions to resolve the problems , but most never saw the information because the demoncrats clinton and o'leary dropped the ball .... and never presented it at the hearings convined for the presentation .

refresh your memory .... http://www.security-policy.org/papers/1997/97-D121.html

if acted upon then , the problem should have been resolved or the resolution should have been in progress before the current POTUS took office.

---------------------------------------

NOTE ; demoncrat administrations put the problems in the ground ,a demoncrat administration screwed up the oppourtunity to begin the solutions to the problems in the ground , and somehow that is the fault of the POTUS with the mostest , GW BUSH ? hmmm , nope . i can not arrive at that conclusion using the facts .

the current POTUS apparently made decisions supported by the Experts in the field that consulted him on these issues , see below from one of the experts in the field .

========================================

culled from this thread ; http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0406/threads.html

we see ;

Re:Numerous Transuranics found at Niagara - Help

To: NiagaraNet@AOL.COM <mailto:NiagaraNet@AOL.COM>, radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu <mailto:radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu>

Subject: Re:Numerous Transuranics found at Niagara - Help

From: "Mccormick, Luke I" <LUKE.Mccormick@dhs.gov <mailto:LUKE.Mccormick@dhs.gov>>

Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 09:09:45 -0400

Reply-To: "Mccormick, Luke I" <LUKE.Mccormick@dhs.gov <mailto:LUKE.Mccormick@dhs.gov>>

Sender: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu <mailto:owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu>

To get a better view of what is going on you may wish to look at the

following site.

<http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/fusrap/nfss/>

Niagara Falls Storage Site is a FUSRAP site because it is the repository

for the Belgain congo ore residuals. These ores were about 65% uranium as

opposed to the low concentrations found in the US ores. Since the site was

also used as a rad waste dump into the '50s there are a great number of

radionuclides at the site. The risk driver for the site is the Ra-226

buried there. The estimated concentrations are greater than class C, so

there are a number of transportation and disposal problems associated with

trying to remove the wastes. There are monitoring wells all around the site

and there is little migration seen so far. The site is capped so that is to

be expected. I think the risk assesment showed there may be a greater risk

in removing the wastes and transporting them than there is in leaving them

on site.

I've been out of the loop on that project for 6 months but heard that

something is in the planning stages for the site but I do not know what

that plan is for.

There are a ton of other issues associated with this site. To do it

justice, you need to review the few thousand pages of preliminary

assessment/site investigation data.

Regards,

Luke McCormick

DHS (former USACE) HP.

____________________Reply Separator____________________

Subject: Numerous Transuranics found at Niagara - Help

Author: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

Date: 6/25/2004 2:31 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

none the less;

the site shown below has been selected for remediation

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2005/August/Day-05/i15503.htm

why moab and not the LOOW ? i dont know , i will guess that the "expert professionals" in the field were persuaded that it was the correct and proper solution for that site . the same laws apply to both sites .

nuclearlou · Senior Member

Hey Mike: Do you know Mr. McCormick? I'd suggest that you remove or edit your post.

According to the way you are just portraying, Mr. McCormick is the expert that POTUS used to decide to leave this waste here? As a matter of fact, POTUS went AGAINST the expert recommendations. It's just too bad that you don't do your homework. You only go out on the Web and pull misleading and dangerous info, and then post it like you know something. That's just dumb and dangerous--especially about this subject. You're not even smart enough to see that are you Mike Webb of the mountain of misrepresentation? You're ego is too big to learn anything isn't it? You started to get even bolder while SHughes was jerking your chain as Starlight and I think that you and DOvey both got a little bolder after that--the real sign of dolts. Look around you. I guess I'm the only one here or at the Gazette that wants to even argue with you. I need to stop doing this too, or it makes me no better. OMG!

You think it's OK to leave this stuff--THEN you should GET THE HECk away from the genuine conversation. You really don't have a clue and going against the very recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences in your mindless pursuit of ill politics and nothing scientific or healthy. This is only a political issue with you. That assad as are you.

Since you just pulled this last post out of of thin air and from the Web, do you know that he and I communicated about this? Do you further know that he is with Homeland Security? Any importance to you?

I'd suggest that you remove this post. I don't wish to have to explain publically. I also don't wish to have to drop a note to him.

Get rid of it NIT WIT! Are you purposely exposing us here or are you just being STUPID? Do you EVEN have a clue what I am referring to? I thought not.

Michael Webb, of Hopewell, New York, Dutchess County, YOUR COMMENTS HAVE BECOME A DANGER TO MY COMMUNITY. Please cease.

-- Edited by nuclearlou at 13:36, 2006-01-31

nuclearlou · Senior Member

Scott: I wish you'd just dump this guy. What he has just done is really stupid and was discussed with the guy from DHS. WHY in the world Mike Webb wants to pull posts from elsewhere (a professional board) and make posts here that are potentially disasterous for us here, is WAY beyond me. If he doesn't pull the last post I'll send a note to the fellow that was addressing me in that post from a couple a years ago. Webb has no concern for us here, no class or savvy either.

In Mike Webb's own words in this forum, he said that his father worked with these very same radioactive materials that helped to contaminate things all around. Go look through his posts. He misprepresented himself to me from day one in saying he came here to offer any help. There has been no such thing and IMHO could be thought that he's even trying to help *&^% things up further. For what Mike--?

Agenda? My Dad didn't work in the Uranium factory!

Hey Mike Webb, YOUR POSTS HAVE BECOME A DANGER TO MY COMMUNITY. PLEASE CEASE.

-- Edited by nuclearlou at 13:29, 2006-01-31

nuclearlou · Senior Member

Michael webb writes-

the demoncrat clinton with his energy secratary o'leary were presented with files and facts buried by previous administrations that if acted on would have at least presented the information to those who could have made decisions to resolve the problems , but most never saw the information because the demoncrats clinton and o'leary dropped the ball .... and never presented it at the hearings convined for the presentation .

THIS IS ABSOLUTE BS. IF NOT FOR CLINTON OLEARY YOU WOULDN'T EVEN BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION dummy. Learn to spell too.

nuclearlou · Senior Member

Are YOU FOR REAL??? Do you know that you are contradicting yourself? Or do you think we don't know? Which? Remember, you said that both can't be true at once. So which is it?

You don't know what a transuranic even is--until you go look it up right now. Please see the dates of these communications and what was trying to be accomplished with my serious and legitimate questions. When did you join this Radsfae board? Were you just searching my name--AW How sweet and nice. I'm flattered that you would go to that trouble. So sweet.

-----------------------------------------------

----On the one hand you say this--

the current POTUS apparently made decisions supported by the Experts in the field that consulted him on these issues , see below from one of the experts in the field .
========================================
why moab and not the LOOW ? i dont know , i will guess that the "expert professionals" in the field were persuaded that it was the correct and proper solution for that site . the same laws apply to both sites .

----------------------------------

THEN at the end -- ARE YOU FOR REAL? Momma drop Bad Mikey on his head? BAD POTUS. Lewiston - Fernald = BAD POTUS. NO SCIENCE = BAD POTUS. BAD SCIENCE = BAD POTUS .. NOW BAD POTUS HE HAD OPPORTUNITY AND TURNED HIS BACK TO BURY US HERE - Did so, no NOT IN DUTCHESS COUNTY. SO YOU'RE GLAD THIS HAPPENED? Mike Webb, you seem to be doing all you can do to help this POTUS hide HIS error in allowing this situation to continue in Niagara County! You've said it's bad, and then when YOUR Republican POTUS is driving--you never mentioned a word either while this was going on--Till I Bring It Up, AND TODAY THIS IS GOOD???

Hmmm, how odd is that? Bad = POTUS on us. He did BAD = POTUS ON US! And now You support BAD POTUS ON US! LOL Makes = Bad Mike and POTUS = Bad Mike and POTUS! Maybe one of them other "Bad = Guys" too..

-- Edited by nuclearlou at 13:47, 2006-01-31

nuclearlou · Senior Member

Mad Mike of the Misinformation Mountain:

You didn't even bother to post my original question asked and posted for help to the professionals. Not doing that shows exactly how absolutely little class you really have. Didn't your mother teach you better? To give no credit for my efforts at getting these SERIOUS Questions answered, and doing so by including my original question out to the radiation community, shows that you have a dangerous agenda and are someone who's word should always be checked for veracity and this agenda. You are quite an individual. I think everyone can see that with you.

Here's the original posting made by me trying to get answers for OUR community, not Mike Webbs. He doesn't live here and obviously isn't concerned about anyone else that may be here, including his own kin. WOW!

To: "$SENDER"@list.Vanderbilt.Edu, radsafe-digest@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
Subject: Numerous Transuranics found at Niagara - Help
From: NiagaraNet@AOL.COM
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:13:57 EDT
CC: NiagaraNet@AOL.COM
Reply-To: NiagaraNet@AOL.COM
Sender: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

Dear Radsafers:

I'm looking for some assistance. There have been numerous transuranic
materials found around Niagara Falls, New York, including Plutonium, Lanthanum,
Strontium, Actinium, Cesium and perhaps others. All of these fission products have been buried at the Lake Ontario Ordnance Works since at least 1944. All
products were disposed of in direct contact to the soils and within feet of the
water table.

Would someone be able to tell me the dangers of these materials being in the
environment and in contact to the soils and in near proximity to the water
table.
This situation, I believe, is serious and perhaps even catastrophic in
magnitude.

I would appreciate any comments, guidance or direction to address this
situation of grave concern.

Thanking you each in advance for any help.

Sincerely,
Louis Ricciuti
Niagara Falls Lewiston - Porter, New York
"Los Alamos East"

------------------------------------And what part of that message didn't you understand Mike Webb? Further, could you have ANY IDEA of who contacted me about this offline?

Mindcrime · Guru

mike of the mountain wrote:

the POTUS with the mostest , GW BUSH ?

Who do you think this guy is, Michael Keaton? Whatever...

mike of the mountain · Senior Member

nuclearlou wrote:

Mad Mike of the Mountain: You didn't even bother to post my original question asked and posted for help to the professionals.

out of common courtesy ; i also did not post the parts of the thread where the replys to you from the professionals at Radsafe were extremely unflattering to yourself , for which you fail to thank me ? and i still dont link them .

Further, could you have ANY IDEA of who contacted me about this offline?

no , how could i know that , so unless you want to keep it a secret or have curious or interested people go searching through the thread for it , post it . what ever , it is it is irrelevent to my post above .