Oh no not again....

Page 3 of 5 First 12345 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Those battle plans have been around forever but this is another exmaple of the news media digging up something that has been around for years and trying to put a spin on it
    You beat me to it...


  2. Ha! Same thought, same time.


    This is like someone digging up battle plans for the invasion of Cuba and writing how we are planning to invade.

    They are called military contigency plans. If something happened and we didn't have plan s for it, the same people would blast them for not having them...
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    They are called military contigency plans. If something happened and we didn't have plan s for it, the same people would blast them for not having them...
    Exactly!!

  4. Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    Recent news reports are showing the white house backing down from talks of military strikes:
    Yeah - I heard bush this this morning. Whatever it may mean... Then he said something like 'Didn't I tell you so, when I put them in the axis of evil'...

  5. You guys are right...after looking into things further, that first report wasn't from the white house. Just from the sensationalist media. Granted, Im sure there are plans drawn up for a military strike - but the US was discussing using tactical bunker buster nukes at the beginning of the Iraq war too, could have been someone just digging for a story.

    BV
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982
    That is so very true. I believe the exact same thing.. what we are doing over there is right... I've done 2 tours so far.. volunteering for a 3rd.

    Adams
    Stay safe.
  7. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Please, I have a hard enough time holding my sides in laughing at CNN. I don't tihnk I could take it form the New York Times who seem to me getting more outragoues by the day since their stock has plummeted in the last year.

    And could someone please tell the minister what the definition of civil war because obvisouly he does not.

    "A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, both have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations."

    Sorry, no civil war but it will sure sell those papers.

    As I said before, conflict sells....for every one of those reports you state of sectarian violence I can find 10 about a murder here in the US. The news is predominantly negative for a reason.
    I'd encourage you to read the article. The New York Times is quoting a report produced by the US Military command in B aghdad and the US Embassy in Baghdad.

    As to the definition of civil war, the one you quote isn't the standardly accepted one by scholars and military strategists. Maynardmeek acknowledged that when I challenged him on quoting such a restrictive definition.

    Currently, 50-100 Iraqis are dying EACH DAY. Most of whom are being kidnapped, tortured and executed by militias of one political faction or another. If you adjusted for population size, that is the equivalent of 750-1500 Americans. If 1500 Americans were being executed EACH DAY by militias run by the Democratic and Republican parties, I imagine it would look an awful lot like a civil war to the average American.
  8. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    I'd encourage you to read the article. The New York Times is quoting a report produced by the US Military command in B aghdad and the US Embassy in Baghdad.

    As to the definition of civil war, the one you quote isn't the standardly accepted one by scholars and military strategists. Maynardmeek acknowledged that when I challenged him on quoting such a restrictive definition.

    Currently, 50-100 Iraqis are dying EACH DAY. Most of whom are being kidnapped, tortured and executed by militias of one political faction or another. If you adjusted for population size, that is the equivalent of 750-1500 Americans. If 1500 Americans were being executed EACH DAY by militias run by the Democratic and Republican parties, I imagine it would look an awful lot like a civil war to the average American.
    I read the article. Its pure spin.


    The New York Time expects the US to wage war with no casualties, have every contigencny plan 100% fool proof and for every report to be 100% accurate. If not, its a conspiracy.

    "If you adjusted for population size, that is the equivalent of 750-1500 Americans. If 1500 Americans were being executed EACH DAY by militias run by the Democratic and Republican parties, I imagine it would look an awful lot like a civil war to the average American."



    Where are you getting these numbers of how many Iraqi's are killed each day? Plius equating numbers to our population is ridiculous.




    "However, the number of Iraq civilians killed per month has been rising steadily again through January and February after dipping to much lower levels during the October through December period. Some 511 were killed and 894 injured by insurgent action through February, the Iraq Index Project said. These were markedly higher figures than the 418 killed and 732 injured in January that it had previously documented."

    That is nowhere near 50-100/day. Not even close. At the highest that is 17/day in a country at war with 25 million people.

    Sorry, not civil war to me. Saddam and his gov't probably killed 17/day before lunch.


    I would like for all of you that think this is Armegeddon to feel secure in your position, Ben Aflack is on your side!!! Check out his latest quotes. You guys are in good company....
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  9. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Where are you getting these numbers of how many Iraqi's are killed each day? Plius equating numbers to our population is ridiculous.

    "However, the number of Iraq civilians killed per month has been rising steadily again through January and February after dipping to much lower levels during the October through December period. Some 511 were killed and 894 injured by insurgent action through February, the Iraq Index Project said. These were markedly higher figures than the 418 killed and 732 injured in January that it had previously documented."

    That is nowhere near 50-100/day. Not even close. At the highest that is 17/day in a country at war with 25 million people.

    Sorry, not civil war to me. Saddam and his gov't probably killed 17/day before lunch.

    That's an interesting quote because it actually CONTRADICTS the reports issued by the Iraq Index Project. The most recent (April 2006) report put the civilian death toll at between 44,000 and 89,000 (or 40 to 81 per day). These numbers are necesarily imprecise because neither the Iraqi government nor the coalition forces are actually keeping count of civilian deaths.

    As to normalizing the population samples (adjusting populations so that there could be an apples to apples comparison), it's what statisticians do when trying to convey an accurate comparison.

    In this case, we have 4 armed factions (suni insurgents, foreign fighters, 2 different Shia militias - the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi army) fighting the Coaltion forces and fighting themselves (although many Americans think of the Shias as united, the two Shia armies regularly engage in combat with each other). The death toll (from your source) of 40 to 81 a day.

    Normalized to compare with America's population, that is the quivalent of 600 to 1215 deaths a day largely from violence between rivial political factions. You don't have to agree but I believe that if 600 to 1215 Americans were dying a day from violence related to private armies run by political parties, the average American would call that a civil war.

    That same report shows that a number of indicators of violence went up dramatically between 2004 and 2005:

    Roadside Bombs doubled (5607 to 10,953);
    Insurgent Attacks upon Coalition forces (26,496 to 34,131);
    Suicide Car Bombs more than tripled (133 to 411);
    Car Bombs more than doubled (420 to 873).

    Oil Production is 20% BELOW pre-war levels;
    Electricity availability is down 2/3 in Baghdad (only 8 hours a day currently).

    And it goes on and on.

    Regardless of whether one supports this war or not, the picture is a pretty grim one as to its progress.
  10. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    That's an interesting quote because it actually CONTRADICTS the reports issued by the Iraq Index Project. The most recent (April 2006) report put the civilian death toll at between 44,000 and 89,000 (or 40 to 81 per day). These numbers are necesarily imprecise because neither the Iraqi government nor the coalition forces are actually keeping count of civilian deaths.

    As to normalizing the population samples (adjusting populations so that there could be an apples to apples comparison), it's what statisticians do when trying to convey an accurate comparison.

    In this case, we have 4 armed factions (suni insurgents, foreign fighters, 2 different Shia militias - the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi army) fighting the Coaltion forces and fighting themselves (although many Americans think of the Shias as united, the two Shia armies regularly engage in combat with each other). The death toll (from your source) of 40 to 81 a day.

    Normalized to compare with America's population, that is the quivalent of 600 to 1215 deaths a day largely from violence between rivial political factions. You don't have to agree but I believe that if 600 to 1215 Americans were dying a day from violence related to private armies run by political parties, the average American would call that a civil war.

    That same report shows that a number of indicators of violence went up dramatically between 2004 and 2005:

    Roadside Bombs doubled (5607 to 10,953);
    Insurgent Attacks upon Coalition forces (26,496 to 34,131);
    Suicide Car Bombs more than tripled (133 to 411);
    Car Bombs more than doubled (420 to 873).

    Oil Production is 20% BELOW pre-war levels;
    Electricity availability is down 2/3 in Baghdad (only 8 hours a day currently).

    And it goes on and on.

    Regardless of whether one supports this war or not, the picture is a pretty grim one as to its progress.
    I don't know where you are getting your numbers from because they certainly don't match up with the PDF that I am looking at. I will attach the report so everyone can see it. You are inlcuding crimes since the beginning of the war which is NOT a reflection of what is happening now.


    Here is another source:

    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/


    Sorry, I don't see anything that indicated 50-100 people being murdered, kidnapped, and tortured every single day. Its not even close.

    Now lets look at your stats from 2005-2006.

    Car bombs March 2005 - 69 March 2006 - 22
    Car bomba April 2005 - 135 April 2006 - ?


    What you do have is more Iraqi Police being killed as they are handling more situations. What you also have is multiple fatality bombings up since last year but overall less bombings. In other words the incidents are much less but the ones that od happen kill more people.


    Look at most stats in that PDF and I don't see any evidence its getting worse at all. I see the opposite. I also don't understand why you comparing 2004-2005 when civil war wasn't even mentioned at that point.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  11. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright

    And it goes on and on.

    Regardless of whether one supports this war or not, the picture is a pretty grim one as to its progress.

    Actually it doens't because if you look at the stats from 2005-2006 in the pdf above the trend is the complete opposite of what you are stating.

    Its war. Its not supposed to be conflict free. War and conflict tend to go together and sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to get something done. It seems the the vets on this board tend to believe in what they are doing.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  12. I'd also like to make a point that - I guess that is regardless where you stand in your view on this war - the ethnical problems within Iraq are not really a result of the American intervention.

    The tensions were there before the Americans came in, Saddam, like any successful dictator, just suppressed them. That itself is really not that special either - we've seen a similar scenarios before, e.g. after the (still ongoing) ethnic conflicts after the breakup of the former Soviet Union and it's satellite countries. The former Yugoslavia that broke up after Tito's death comes to mind. They all have one thing in common - as long as the dictator has a strong hold on the country the tensions stay canned. But once the cap is off it always leads to some more or less violent quarrels among the groups.

    I don't know why that is the case, but I would like to speculate that the situation as it is now in Iraq would not have been all too different if the people of Iraq would have freed themselves from Saddam in other ways.

    The other question is - well, we opened this can of worms. Should we now leave and let others deal with the problems?
  13. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    I don't know where you are getting your numbers from because they certainly don't match up with the PDF that I am looking at.
    Page 10. Bottom right-hand corner of the boxtable: Estimates of Iraqi civilians killed since the start of the war including deaths from crime as of April 3, 2006: 44,000 to 89,000.

    My math: (3 years since invasion) 365 x 3 = 1095 days. 44,000 divided by 1095 = 40.1 deaths per day. 89,000 divided by 1095 days = 81.2 deaths per day. Thus, 40 to 81 per day. These figures also exclude the deaths of all police and security forces and the death of civilians that took place during the initial stages of the war (when it is regrettable but expected that civilians will die).

    As to the 2006 data, the same report qualifies their data saying that numbers for 2006 are incomplete, don't include any of the deaths since the February 22nd mosque bombing (after which violence took a radical upswing) and are "most probably lower than the actual number."
  14. Angry


    The administration is also coming under pressure from Israel, which has warned the Bush team that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb than Washington thinks and that a moment of decision is fast approaching.

    And this is why we should destroy Iran? Because Israel says they're developing a nuclear bomb faster than we figure? Who's next on Israels list? Why not just have the silly ole United States send ALL their troops and spend ALL their money to fight Israel's battles?

    In going to war against Iraq (like will be with Iran), America fought against Itself. It launched a war certain to cause more hatred and terrorism against the U.S., cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and inflicted terrible damage to American economic and diplomatic interests at home and abroad.

    Even more importantly, it was a callous betrayal of the brave fighting men of the American military who should never be put in harms' way other than for the true security and freedom of the American people.

    The Israeli lobby is the one lobby in Washington that no American politician dares to forthrightly oppose. It should disturb any patriotic American to think that the most powerful lobby in America's congress is in the service of a foreign nation.

  15. I'd also like to make a point that - I guess that is regardless where you stand in your view on this war - the ethnical problems within Iraq are not really a result of the American intervention.

    The tensions were there before the Americans came in, Saddam, like any successful dictator, just suppressed them. That itself is really not that special either - we've seen a similar scenarios before, e.g. after the (still ongoing) ethnic conflicts after the breakup of the former Soviet Union and it's satellite countries. The former Yugoslavia that broke up after Tito's death comes to mind. They all have one thing in common - as long as the dictator has a strong hold on the country the tensions stay canned. But once the cap is off it always leads to some more or less violent quarrels among the groups.

    I don't know why that is the case, but I would like to speculate that the situation as it is now in Iraq would not have been all too different if the people of Iraq would have freed themselves from Saddam in other ways.

    The other question is - well, we opened this can of worms. Should we now leave and let others deal with the problems?
    I think our leaders were foolish to think that this wouldnt happen. After all...I can't think of one democratic country on the map today that wasnt born from destruction, chaos, and outright civil war.

    I think its more of a human issue than anything else...people are *******s - in general they just cant live and let live. Just like chimps that have to raid and kill other chimp clans in the forest because they dont like the way they look. (Did you know that chimpanzees and man share that similarity in that they both declare organized war on eachother?) We are what we are

    BV

  16. Quote Originally Posted by rocketscientist
    I'd also like to make a point that - I guess that is regardless where you stand in your view on this war - the ethnical problems within Iraq are not really a result of the American intervention.

    You make an important point. Iraq was configured the way it is as a convenience to the British Empire after World War I (when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled). It never made sense as a nation because it mixed ethnic groups with historic animosity and split apart ethnic groups who should have been put into the same nation (ex. the Kurds becamse split between Iraq and Turkey).

    Here is an interesting piece from the BBC on the predictability of today's situation:

    How predictions for Iraq came true

    By John Simpson
    BBC World Affairs Editor

    It was a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq, three years ago. I was interviewing the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, in the ballroom of a big hotel in Cairo.

    Shrewd, amusing, bulky in his superb white robes, he described to me all the disasters he was certain would follow the invasion.

    The US and British troops would be bogged down in Iraq for years. There would be civil war between Sunnis and Shias. The real beneficiary would be the government in Iran.

    "And what do the Americans say when you tell them this," I asked? "They don't even listen," he said.

    Over the last three years, from a ringside seat here in Baghdad, I have watched his predictions come true, stage by stage.

    Falluja fallout

    The first stage was the looting.

    As Saddam Hussein fled Baghdad, people started attacking every symbol of the old system, no matter how self-destructive that might be.

    I saw crowds of people sacking a hospital, running out with bits of equipment which were useless to them, but essential to the running of the hospital.

    At the information ministry, I watched them stripping the claddings from the walls and the underlay from the floors. The American soldiers outside did nothing to stop them. Sometimes they would fire in the air, but the looters scarcely even looked round.

    Until then, most Iraqis had thought the US was all-powerful, and was there to help them. The perception started to change then and there.

    For the next year, if you were careful, you could wander round Baghdad, and even drive to other parts of the country.

    When we arrived for a tour of duty we travelled by road to Baghdad from Jordan, through places like Falluja, or else from Kuwait, past Nasiriya and Hilla. It was sometimes nerve-racking, but we always got through. Now there is no alternative to flying in.

    The BBC, like most other news organisations, is based in the city centre, not inside the Green Zone. It still is, but now our bureau is protected like a fortress.

    Everything in Iraq changed in April 2004, with the American onslaught on Falluja. The town is small, but it took a long time to subdue - and it never has been subdued entirely. The ferocity of the American attack angered a broad swathe of Iraqi opinion.

    At the same time, against the advice of many Iraqi politicians, the Americans also took on the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

    After that, the towns and cities of central Iraq became markedly more dangerous. We started hearing more of the American acronym IED, or improvised explosive device (it simply means a bomb).

    Post-traumatic stress

    The Coalition Provisional Authority under the leadership of Paul Bremer handed over to an interim Iraqi administration in July 2004.

    There is an all-out effort to provoke a civil war. The bombings of Shia shrines are always followed by the murder of individual Sunnis
    It made little difference: the corruption had already started, and people now realised that neither the coalition nor the Iraqi administration could do anything about the failing water, power and fuel supplies.

    The next key moment was the election of January 2005. The violence dropped noticeably, as the insurgents saw the size of the turnout and felt the general enthusiasm, and waited to see if they could do a deal with the new government.

    But there was no new government for a full three months. The politicians squabbled among themselves, and the moment passed. The violence soon returned to its former level.

    By July of last year there was already talk of civil war. A referendum and another election followed, and an effective administration was as far away as ever. Four months after the December election, Iraq still has no government.

    'Easier targets'

    The insurgency is fading a little now. Fewer American, British and Iraqi troops are dying, and there are less frequent attacks on the Iraqi police.

    Instead, easier targets present themselves. There is an all-out effort to provoke a civil war. The bombings of Shia shrines are always followed by the murder of individual Sunnis: sometimes dozens at a time.

    There is a quiet movement of population, as people leave mixed areas and head for places where others like them live. Marriages between Sunnis and Shias used to be frequent; now they've dropped away to almost nothing.

    A psychiatrist at one of the main hospitals in Baghdad told me that serious mental illness in Iraq in the past had affected fewer than 3% of the population. Now, he said, the figure was 17%.

    Another psychiatrist told me that in the days of Saddam Hussein, his patients had shown the effects of living under a ferocious dictatorship: stress levels were very high.

    Now, he said, most of his patients suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. It's no longer the fear of violence and injury which troubles them, it's the daily reality of it.

    While we were filming, someone fired a gun close by. I won't easily forget the terrified way some of the patients flinched.

    Doing and undoing

    Just over three years ago, when I interviewed the Saudi foreign minister, I asked him why he thought the US was determined to invade Iraq.

    He said he had put the same question to Vice-President Cheney. Mr Cheney had replied: "Because it's do-able."

    It was. The trouble is, undoing the kind of damage the Saudi foreign minister foresaw is proving very hard indeed.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4894148.stm
  17. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    Page 10. Bottom right-hand corner of the boxtable: Estimates of Iraqi civilians killed since the start of the war including deaths from crime as of April 3, 2006: 44,000 to 89,000.

    My math: (3 years since invasion) 365 x 3 = 1095 days. 44,000 divided by 1095 = 40.1 deaths per day. 89,000 divided by 1095 days = 81.2 deaths per day. Thus, 40 to 81 per day. These figures also exclude the deaths of all police and security forces and the death of civilians that took place during the initial stages of the war (when it is regrettable but expected that civilians will die).

    As to the 2006 data, the same report qualifies their data saying that numbers for 2006 are incomplete, don't include any of the deaths since the February 22nd mosque bombing (after which violence took a radical upswing) and are "most probably lower than the actual number."

    That included crime data up to the start of operations, crimes that would be committed regardless. THe amounts of death per day are recorded each day by various sites so you don't need to even do your math based on data for a 3 year period especially when the worst of the action and military operations is over. That is like stating Germany was in a civil war in 1946 based on 1944's statistics. Its not accurate at all.

    If you want to include the police and securtiy forces then do so and you wouldn't even come close to a 50-100 per day death rate. The stats are in the PDF.

    The mosque bombing caused an upswing that has since decreased dramatically. Look at the statisitics for April already. You seem to be only looking a tthe number form last year and applying it to now...They said the civil war is happening now and according to the data it isn't even close as the frequencny of bombing is down, the death rate is down almost across the board except for the police force because they are handling the situation at an increased frequency. This is something they were not even doing this time last year.

    Of course 2006 data isn't complete. 2006 isn't complete but look at the data for Feb and March. You know, the time they stated a civil war is occurring.


    Deaths in March - Max 450 Min 257 Average 353/30 = 11.76/day in a nation of 25 MILLION.

    Civil war? Don't think so.


    Even if you wanted to do some comparisons then we could compare it to some of our current cities.

    City of Chicago had a DROP in murder rate. 2004 they were 448 people murdered in a city of 2.8 million people. 2.8mil/448 equals 1 murder for every 6250 people. Remember this isn't deaths from crimes, just murder rates.

    As of last March there are 11 people killed per day in a nation of 25 million. So thats 25mil/4015 (11 x 365 days) total deaths which equal 1 death for every 6226 people.

    I guess Chicago is in a civil war as well. You sure you want to base everything on how a statistician would calculate it?
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Zero Tolerance
    The administration is also coming under pressure from Israel, which has warned the Bush team that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb than Washington thinks and that a moment of decision is fast approaching.

    And this is why we should destroy Iran? Because Israel says they're developing a nuclear bomb faster than we figure? Who's next on Israels list? Why not just have the silly ole United States send ALL their troops and spend ALL their money to fight Israel's battles?

    In going to war against Iraq (like will be with Iran), America fought against Itself. It launched a war certain to cause more hatred and terrorism against the U.S., cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and inflicted terrible damage to American economic and diplomatic interests at home and abroad.

    Even more importantly, it was a callous betrayal of the brave fighting men of the American military who should never be put in harms' way other than for the true security and freedom of the American people.

    The Israeli lobby is the one lobby in Washington that no American politician dares to forthrightly oppose. It should disturb any patriotic American to think that the most powerful lobby in America's congress is in the service of a foreign nation.

    Oh god give me a break. Yeah, Israel determines our actions.


    Maybe you should read the UN's decree.


    "U.N. Security Council OKs statement on Iran nukes
    UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council demanded Wednesday that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the first time the powerful body has directly urged Tehran to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons.

    Iran remained defiant, maintaining its right to nuclear power but insisting that it was committed to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and had no intention of seeking weapons of mass destruction."
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by rocketscientist
    I don't know why that is the case, but I would like to speculate that the situation as it is now in Iraq would not have been all too different if the people of Iraq would have freed themselves from Saddam in other ways.

    ?
    The Kurds tried. They were gased to death.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  20. In history there is one thing that stands out: numbers. When the people decide in numbers that things change, they change. Nothing to do about it.

  21. Want numbers? THis is an extremely old report but just shows how the numbers can be skewed by "certain" newspapers.


    How High Is the Murder Rate in Baghdad?
    Tuesday, December 16, 2003
    By John R. Lott Jr.

    Despite Saddam Hussein's capture this weekend, many are still pessimistic about controlling the levels of violence in Iraq.

    Yet, this pessimism largely depends on the numbers one relies on. Take what has become a surprisingly controversial number: Baghdad's murder rate (search). Some assert that in October Baghdad had one of the highest murder rates in the world, while others point to numbers that it was below even the U.S.'s own murder rate. The political overtones are obvious, not just in terms of the Bush administration's successes but as people try to explain why the numbers are as high or as low as they are.

    This June, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld started the ruckus when he said: “You've got to remember that if Washington, D.C., were the size of Baghdad, we would be having something like 215 murders a month.” Some were bothered simply because this indicated that Iraq was being handled well. Others were upset that a country where civilians were able to freely own machine guns could have a lower murder rate than our own nation’s capital where even handguns are banned. The claim did not sit well with those pushing to renew the assault weapons ban (search) in our own country.

    The apparently low crime rate was all the more surprising because Saddam had let all of Iraq’s criminals out of jail before his government was removed. In addition, Iraq is still in turmoil: Iraqi police are new to their jobs and terrorist attacks stretch them thin.

    On the other side, a New York Times op-ed by two Brookings Institution (search) researchers, Adriana Lins de Albuquerque and Michael O’Hanlon, claims that Baghdad’s murder rate is among the highest in the world. Supposedly Baghdad’s annualized murder rate from April to October this year ranged from an incredible 100 to 185 per 100,000 people -- a number, they pointed out, that averaged several times greater than the rate in Washington, D.C.

    Even an op-ed in the U.S. edition of the Wall Street Journal by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey says that Rumsfeld is in “denial” when he claims the “crime levels” are comparable in the two cities. An AP story points to bodies in the morgue and claims, "Baghdad is in the midst of an unprecedented crime wave."

    Yet, according to the Wall Street Journal Europe, the U.S. Army 1st Division in Baghdad reports that the numbers fell continually from a high of 19.5 per 100,000 in July to only 5 per 100,000 in October. The October rate is actually lower than the 5.6 U.S. murder rate in 2002. By contrast, the New York Times’ latest numbers for October claim to show a murder rate of 140 per 100,000 -- a difference of 28-fold!

    Albuquerque and O’Hanlon not only imply that murders are rampant, but generally rising. By contrast, the Wall Street Journal Europe shows crime is under control and falling. If the Wall Street Journal Europe proves correct, Rumsfeld is vindicated. The murder rate would then never be even half as high as that for Washington, D.C. If Albuquerque and O’Hanlon are right, Rumsfeld has some serious explaining to do.

    So whom should we believe? The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal Europe?

    I contacted the authors of both pieces. Albuquerque and O’Hanlon, who wrote the Times piece, provided two sources for their murder rate numbers: An article by Neil MacFarquhar in the New York Times (Sept. 16, 2003) and a piece by Lara Marlowe in the Irish Times (Oct. 11, 2003). Yet, both references clearly stated that much more than murder was included in the reports that they used from the Baghdad morgue. MacFarquhar notes that these deaths also included “automobile accidents” and cases where people “were shot dead by American soldiers,” cases that clearly did not involve murders. The Irish Times piece mentions that “up to a quarter of fatal shootings [in the morgue] are caused by U.S. troops.”

    For some perspective, in D.C., murders account for fewer than 5 percent of all deaths. Even counting only the types of deaths explicitly mentioned in the stories citing the Baghdad morgue (accidental deaths, murders, suicides) and assuming that soldiers were engaged in the same type of fighting in D.C. as they are in Iraq, murders in D.C. would account for just a third of deaths. (The respective numbers for the U.S. as a whole are even lower: a half of one percent and 11 percent.) Obviously, counting these other deaths as “murders” in D.C. would imply that murders were three to 20 times more common than they actually were.

    The Wall Street Journal Europe instead relied on the U.S. Army 1st Division stationed in Baghdad. A public affairs officer with that division, Jason Beck, confirmed for me that a large part of the Iraqi legal system is being overseen by the U.S. JAG officers, and they are using the same standards for murder rates as used in the U.S. and separating out murders from other deaths.

    Numbers mean a lot. Perceptions that conditions in Iraq are deteriorating constantly gets play in evaluating whether President Bush deserves re-election. When a publication of record such as the New York Times gets Baghdad’s October murder rates wrong by up to a factor of 28 to 1 and no correction is issued, the consequences are significant. To equate accidental deaths and U.S. soldiers killing terrorists with murders is irresponsible.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Oh god give me a break. Yeah, Israel determines our actions.
    It's a lot easier to not think about it...

  23. Its even easier to overstate it...
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  24. The Bush Administration is more immune to the influence of the powerful Jewish lobby.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    The Kurds tried. They were gased to death.
    So did the Sh1tes and to the same fate.
  26. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    That included crime data up to the start of operations, crimes that would be committed regardless. THe amounts of death per day are recorded each day by various sites so you don't need to even do your math based on data for a 3 year period especially when the worst of the action and military operations is over. That is like stating Germany was in a civil war in 1946 based on 1944's statistics. Its not accurate at all.

    If you want to include the police and securtiy forces then do so and you wouldn't even come close to a 50-100 per day death rate. The stats are in the PDF.

    The mosque bombing caused an upswing that has since decreased dramatically. Look at the statisitics for April already. You seem to be only looking a tthe number form last year and applying it to now...They said the civil war is happening now and according to the data it isn't even close as the frequencny of bombing is down, the death rate is down almost across the board except for the police force because they are handling the situation at an increased frequency. This is something they were not even doing this time last year.

    Of course 2006 data isn't complete. 2006 isn't complete but look at the data for Feb and March. You know, the time they stated a civil war is occurring.


    Deaths in March - Max 450 Min 257 Average 353/30 = 11.76/day in a nation of 25 MILLION.

    Civil war? Don't think so.


    Even if you wanted to do some comparisons then we could compare it to some of our current cities.

    City of Chicago had a DROP in murder rate. 2004 they were 448 people murdered in a city of 2.8 million people. 2.8mil/448 equals 1 murder for every 6250 people. Remember this isn't deaths from crimes, just murder rates.

    As of last March there are 11 people killed per day in a nation of 25 million. So thats 25mil/4015 (11 x 365 days) total deaths which equal 1 death for every 6226 people.

    I guess Chicago is in a civil war as well. You sure you want to base everything on how a statistician would calculate it?

    Bobo,

    It seems likely that we're not going to agree on our conclusions. However, my facts are spot on.

    In my original post (which you disputed), I said: "Currently, 50-100 Iraqis are dying EACH DAY. " I could gesture at any number of news accounts like this one from the Washington Post putting the death toll for March at averaging 75 per day (this is the same mathematically as saying between 50 and 100 per day as I did). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...033101745.html

    You however gestured at a report from the Brookings Institute to dispute my facts. When I read that report, they in fact gave a very similar average death toll (between 40 and 81 per day - excluding deaths from the initial combat operations, and the deaths of police and military forces since then).

    When I pointed this out, you gestured at a specific subset of data contained in the Brookings report (the death toll compiled by the Iraqi Body Count website). However, the very group that compiled that data freely admits that they are undercounting the true death count in their methodology. They explain on their website that their count is not meant to be a total death count and that they ONLY include deaths "that are reported by at least two approved international media sources." They go on to acknowledge that their figure should be viewed as a minimum death count but that the true figure (since most deaths are not reported to the international media) is much higher.

    You gesture at the statistics fro April as evidence that things have gotten better but the very report you're quoting notes that it's figures for April are inaccurate and won't be accurate for another month or two in the future (after they've had a chance to compile and verify pieces of information). It doesn't make sense to quote a report when the authors of the report tell you that their data for that time period is unreliable.

    If we need to take a proxy figure for how things are in Iraq during April, we could look at US casualty figures. As of today, 32 US servicement have died during the last 11 days in Iraq. That's more than died in all of March (31). So, things have gotten worse at the very least for those servicemen who have lost their lives.

    Like I said, we don't have to agree on the conclusions we draw from this data, but my factual assertions are spot on accurate.
  27. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    Bobo,

    It seems likely that we're not going to agree on our conclusions. However, my facts are spot on.

    In my original post (which you disputed), I said: "Currently, 50-100 Iraqis are dying EACH DAY. " I could gesture at any number of news accounts like this one from the Washington Post putting the death toll for March at averaging 75 per day (this is the same mathematically as saying between 50 and 100 per day as I did). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...033101745.html

    You however gestured at a report from the Brookings Institute to dispute my facts. When I read that report, they in fact gave a very similar average death toll (between 40 and 81 per day - excluding deaths from the initial combat operations, and the deaths of police and military forces since then).

    When I pointed this out, you gestured at a specific subset of data contained in the Brookings report (the death toll compiled by the Iraqi Body Count website). However, the very group that compiled that data freely admits that they are undercounting the true death count in their methodology. They explain on their website that their count is not meant to be a total death count and that they ONLY include deaths "that are reported by at least two approved international media sources." They go on to acknowledge that their figure should be viewed as a minimum death count but that the true figure (since most deaths are not reported to the international media) is much higher.

    You gesture at the statistics fro April as evidence that things have gotten better but the very report you're quoting notes that it's figures for April are inaccurate and won't be accurate for another month or two in the future (after they've had a chance to compile and verify pieces of information). It doesn't make sense to quote a report when the authors of the report tell you that their data for that time period is unreliable.

    If we need to take a proxy figure for how things are in Iraq during April, we could look at US casualty figures. As of today, 32 US servicement have died during the last 11 days in Iraq. That's more than died in all of March (31). So, things have gotten worse at the very least for those servicemen who have lost their lives.

    Like I said, we don't have to agree on the conclusions we draw from this data, but my factual assertions are spot on accurate.
    No, your facts are not spot on.

    You responded to my inital joke about the news media claiming there is a civil war occurring by quoting some 50-100/day death rate which is completely false. The only way you can even come close is by including the crime data for the last 3 years in a time period of extensive military operation and forget to even mention that Baghdad was top 10 in murder rate before the war even started. As of the last 3 months the stats are clear and average from 11-13 deaths / day which is nowhere near your 50-100/day figure and in no way do 11-20 deaths per day equate to a civil war in a nation of 25 million people.

    You selectively take the data you want then put a spin on it such as the New York Times has done.

    The single point you wanted to make was that Iraq was in a civil war and according to the data its not even close. If we used your definition of civil war then Los Angelse, Chicago and New York would all qualify as having death rates to state there is a "civil war".

    As members have stated in other threads you seem to fall into the group that glorifies the headlines but ignore the trends.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  28. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright

    If we need to take a proxy figure for how things are in Iraq during April, we could look at US casualty figures. As of today, 32 US servicement have died during the last 11 days in Iraq. That's more than died in all of March (31). So, things have gotten worse at the very least for those servicemen who have lost their lives.

    .
    Yeah, its so much worse compared to the 96 that died in January, 93 in December, 68 in Febuary.....


    ..or lets compare to 104 in January 2005, or 137 in November of 2005.

    Then after that lets look as US wounded, British KIA, Non US-UK deaths, Iraqi and Military Police killed, Car Bombs, Iraqi civilian...all trends show a decrease.

    Headlines don't show the story, trends over time do.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  29. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Yeah, its so much worse compared to the 96 that died in January, 93 in December, 68 in Febuary.....


    ..or lets compare to 104 in January 2005, or 137 in November of 2005.

    Then after that lets look as US wounded, British KIA, Non US-UK deaths, Iraqi and Military Police killed, Car Bombs, Iraqi civilian...all trends show a decrease.

    Headlines don't show the story, trends over time do.
    Bobo, this has been said a few times in recent posts... but it doesnt seem to sink in.. that is why I quit wasting my breath.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend
  30. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982
    Bobo, this has been said a few times in recent posts... but it doesnt seem to sink in.. that is why I quit wasting my breath.

    Adams
    Anti-Bush sentiments tend to selectively blind people.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. OH NO! Not ANOTHER Superdrol/PP Log!!
    By ex-tightend83 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 04-20-2007, 07:12 AM
  2. Not again...
    By jjohn in forum Nutraplanet
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-30-2007, 08:51 PM
  3. Sore Nip question. ( No, Not gyno )
    By Stinger124 in forum Male Anti-Aging Medicine
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-07-2007, 03:07 PM
  4. Oh no...I'm on a roll....
    By Dwight Schrute in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-28-2003, 01:00 AM
  5. No! Not the "natural guy!"
    By bigpetefox in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-18-2003, 05:41 PM
Log in
Log in