Oh no not again....
- Thread starter BigVrunga
- Start date
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
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.
yeahright said:
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.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
The Experiment said:
No, they won't go up. Its a fact of presidents as war goes on. Some of the most popular presidents in the world had awful approval ratings as war's dragged on. Check the history books
"Presidents who seek to change the nation's direction know that they are bound to alienate those who profit from the status quo. Great presidents go ahead anyway. "Judge me," FDR said, "by the enemies I have made." Truman's approval rating at the end of his presidency was down to 31 percent. Look where he ranks now."
Approval ratings means jack ****. History repeats itself.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Here is a pretty good analysis of second term presidents:
"At this point, we can see a first pattern:
Presidential failure in the second term consistently has been the result of
unsatisfactory wars or perceptions that the president was a criminal. Wilson
fought the First World War successfully but tried to bring it to an
unacceptable conclusion at Versailles. Truman could not terminate the Korean
War; Johnson could not terminate the Vietnam War. All were perceived, by the
end of their terms, as having entangled themselves in a war with unrealistic
goals. It was not always the war itself that damaged the presidents' service,
but the growing sense that these presidents did not have a strategy in the
war that served the national interest.
The issue, however, is more
complex than this. All four failed presidents were reviled by the end of
their second terms. But so were FDR, Reagan and Clinton. Even Eisenhower,
though it is hard to recall now, was treated with extreme contempt by the
press and others for his perceived personal, intellectual failings --
however, the level of animosity was neither as deep or as broad as with the
others. The intensity of feeling against all eight men during their second
terms was enormous: All faced a substantial group of vitriolic,
irreconcilable opponents. At various points, this group expanded to
constitute a majority. But the core issue -- the key differentiator between
the two groups of "failed' or "troubled" presidents -- was this: Among the
troubled presidents, at no point did their own base of support crack.
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton were reviled and at times on the
defensive, but at no point did their own core supporters waver
significantly.
The failed presidents, on the other hand, all failed
not because their opponents reviled them or even because those opponents
became a majority, but because their own base of political support lost
basic confidence in them. Wilson had suffered a revolt among the Democrats.
Truman no longer could get the Democratic nomination. It is doubtful that
Johnson could have won his party's nomination had he sought it. Nixon
collapsed when Republican senators turned on him. On the other hand, no
matter what attacks were launched against FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan or
Clinton, their base held like a rock. Even when FDR was outgunned by the
isolationists, he held his base, and he was never broken.
Bush's
problem, therefore, is the war in Iraq. But the issue is not his Democratic
opposition, nor even whether his opponents swell to become a majority. The
threat to Bush's presidency will come if, and only if, his own political
base breaks. By all polls, that base -- which historically has been at about
40-42 percent -- is holding. If that continues to be the case, he will be
able to execute foreign policy effectively. If that base is shattered, he
fails."
"At this point, we can see a first pattern:
Presidential failure in the second term consistently has been the result of
unsatisfactory wars or perceptions that the president was a criminal. Wilson
fought the First World War successfully but tried to bring it to an
unacceptable conclusion at Versailles. Truman could not terminate the Korean
War; Johnson could not terminate the Vietnam War. All were perceived, by the
end of their terms, as having entangled themselves in a war with unrealistic
goals. It was not always the war itself that damaged the presidents' service,
but the growing sense that these presidents did not have a strategy in the
war that served the national interest.
The issue, however, is more
complex than this. All four failed presidents were reviled by the end of
their second terms. But so were FDR, Reagan and Clinton. Even Eisenhower,
though it is hard to recall now, was treated with extreme contempt by the
press and others for his perceived personal, intellectual failings --
however, the level of animosity was neither as deep or as broad as with the
others. The intensity of feeling against all eight men during their second
terms was enormous: All faced a substantial group of vitriolic,
irreconcilable opponents. At various points, this group expanded to
constitute a majority. But the core issue -- the key differentiator between
the two groups of "failed' or "troubled" presidents -- was this: Among the
troubled presidents, at no point did their own base of support crack.
Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton were reviled and at times on the
defensive, but at no point did their own core supporters waver
significantly.
The failed presidents, on the other hand, all failed
not because their opponents reviled them or even because those opponents
became a majority, but because their own base of political support lost
basic confidence in them. Wilson had suffered a revolt among the Democrats.
Truman no longer could get the Democratic nomination. It is doubtful that
Johnson could have won his party's nomination had he sought it. Nixon
collapsed when Republican senators turned on him. On the other hand, no
matter what attacks were launched against FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan or
Clinton, their base held like a rock. Even when FDR was outgunned by the
isolationists, he held his base, and he was never broken.
Bush's
problem, therefore, is the war in Iraq. But the issue is not his Democratic
opposition, nor even whether his opponents swell to become a majority. The
threat to Bush's presidency will come if, and only if, his own political
base breaks. By all polls, that base -- which historically has been at about
40-42 percent -- is holding. If that continues to be the case, he will be
able to execute foreign policy effectively. If that base is shattered, he
fails."
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
DAdams91982 said:
You can't. The New York Times says you are disgruntled and your morale is at an all time low.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Bobo said:You can't. The New York Times says you are disgruntled and your morale is at an all time low.
hehe... roger that... NOW I have seen the light.
Adams
rocketscientist
Registered User
I'm afraid we're going to be biting off more than we can chew. With our troops (including reserves) already being deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq we don't have all the resources available that we would like to have. We can still run air strikes, but it is debatable how effective these would be and what the consequences would be. Iran after all is a significant power on the oil market which gives them a lot of leverage.
At the same time we would be messing around with yet another Islamic country (the self-declared most Islamic of all Islamic countries), though I'm not sure if we can make things any worse with respect to our image in the mid-east.
The only real option would seem to me as another democratization of a lucky country, but that would require troops from somewhere... hmmm - seeing it like that, bush could actually pull the troops out of Iraq - hey, isn't that what everybody wants anyway - and move them into Iran...
Finally - at some point with the costs for all our endeavors piling up, the s*** will hit the fan.
I think this is a bluff - given the list above I can't realistically see how this should work out for us. But I've been wrong many times...
At the same time we would be messing around with yet another Islamic country (the self-declared most Islamic of all Islamic countries), though I'm not sure if we can make things any worse with respect to our image in the mid-east.
The only real option would seem to me as another democratization of a lucky country, but that would require troops from somewhere... hmmm - seeing it like that, bush could actually pull the troops out of Iraq - hey, isn't that what everybody wants anyway - and move them into Iran...
Finally - at some point with the costs for all our endeavors piling up, the s*** will hit the fan.
I think this is a bluff - given the list above I can't realistically see how this should work out for us. But I've been wrong many times...
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Of course they will because it will only hurt them in terms of public opinion.
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 because lets face it, the news mdeia and the current administrsation do not get along especially when you have the vice president publically blasting them. From that point on the media has another objective besides making money and that is to embarrass the White House.
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 because lets face it, the news mdeia and the current administrsation do not get along especially when you have the vice president publically blasting them. From that point on the media has another objective besides making money and that is to embarrass the White House.
Mass_69
Well-known member
Again, none of this is really new news. The US is always planning preemptive military plans when/if it sees a threat. And last I recall, the US has been going through the UN to use their diplomacy with the situation in Iran...
Someone just decided to write an article to the masses as "breaking news," suggesting as if these military plans were "imminent."
Someone just decided to write an article to the masses as "breaking news," suggesting as if these military plans were "imminent."
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
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... :lol:
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... :lol:
rocketscientist
Registered User
BigVrunga said:
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'...
BigVrunga
Well-known member
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
BV
yeahright
Well-known member
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
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.
Bobo said:
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.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
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.... :lol:
yeahright said:
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.... :lol:
yeahright
Well-known member
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
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.
Bobo said:
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.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
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:
Invalid Link Removed
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.
yeahright said:
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:
Invalid Link Removed
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.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
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.
yeahright said:
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.
rocketscientist
Registered User
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?
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?
yeahright
Well-known member
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
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."
Bobo said:
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."
Zero Tolerance
Registered User
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.
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.
BigVrunga
Well-known member
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
yeahright
Well-known member
rocketscientist said:
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.
Invalid Link Removed
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
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?
yeahright said:
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?
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Zero Tolerance said:
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."
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
rocketscientist said:
The Kurds tried. They were gased to death.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
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.
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.
Zero Tolerance
Registered User
Bobo said:
It's a lot easier to not think about it...
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Its even easier to overstate it...
BioHazzard
Banned
The Bush Administration is more immune to the influence of the powerful Jewish lobby.
BioHazzard
Banned
So did the Sh1tes and to the same fate.Bobo said:
yeahright
Well-known member
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
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). Invalid Link Removed
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.
Bobo said:
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). Invalid Link Removed
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.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
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.
yeahright said:
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.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
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.
yeahright said:
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.
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
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
Bobo said:
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
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
Anti-Bush sentiments tend to selectively blind people.
DAdams91982 said:
Anti-Bush sentiments tend to selectively blind people.
yeahright
Well-known member
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
Ummmmmmmmmm, so what part of "currently, 50 to 100 Iraqis are dying EVERY DAY" was false? The Washington Post says 75 per day average for the time period I referenced. Invalid Link Removed
The average number between 50 and 100 is 75. Seems pretty spot on to me.
Bobo said:
Ummmmmmmmmm, so what part of "currently, 50 to 100 Iraqis are dying EVERY DAY" was false? The Washington Post says 75 per day average for the time period I referenced. Invalid Link Removed
The average number between 50 and 100 is 75. Seems pretty spot on to me.
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
He made a major point that you're taking these extremely biased media sources with agendas out of blind faith. Collect the data for yourself and you'll get different numbers than what the washington post states.
Think about it...these people who are telling everyone that steroids turn you into a raging lunatic who can also go into a random super depressed state andwill probably die at 24yrs old of a hearth attack with a small weenie from steroid use are the same people reporting the war info. Just thnk about that for one second. In one instance you deny the info they put forth as fact, right? Yeah..that's because you know better than that. In the other instance you accept it as fact. Why? Out of ignorance! No offense, but you need to dig deeper for answers.
Jesus manyeahright said:
He made a major point that you're taking these extremely biased media sources with agendas out of blind faith. Collect the data for yourself and you'll get different numbers than what the washington post states.Think about it...these people who are telling everyone that steroids turn you into a raging lunatic who can also go into a random super depressed state andwill probably die at 24yrs old of a hearth attack with a small weenie from steroid use are the same people reporting the war info. Just thnk about that for one second. In one instance you deny the info they put forth as fact, right? Yeah..that's because you know better than that. In the other instance you accept it as fact. Why? Out of ignorance! No offense, but you need to dig deeper for answers.
BioHazzard
Banned
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
LOL That is one brilliant stroke! lol You just yanked the carpet from underneath his feet! LOL :trout:
kwyckemynd00 said:Jesus man
Think about it...these people who are telling everyone that steroids turn you into a raging lunatic who can also go into a random super depressed state andwill probably die at 24yrs old of a hearth attack with a small weenie from steroid use are the same people reporting the war info. Just thnk about that for one second. In one instance you deny the info they put forth as fact, right? Yeah..that's because you know better than that. In the other instance you accept it as fact. Why? Out of ignorance! No offense, but you need to dig deeper for answers.
LOL That is one brilliant stroke! lol You just yanked the carpet from underneath his feet! LOL :trout:
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
Anti-bush people tend to be easily blinded by ignorance (Not to mention easily influenced by idealist idiotology--yes, that was on purpose...i know...lame, eh?)
I have good reason to dislike bush...but none of my reasons are the same as some of these whackos wth tin-foil on their heads :lol:
Eh, incomplete / incorrect statement IMO.Bobo said:
Anti-bush people tend to be easily blinded by ignorance
(Not to mention easily influenced by idealist idiotology--yes, that was on purpose...i know...lame, eh?)I have good reason to dislike bush...but none of my reasons are the same as some of these whackos wth tin-foil on their heads :lol:
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
Haha well said.. if I didnt have to spread some rep. elsewhere.. you would get it!!!
Adams
kwyckemynd00 said:Eh, incomplete / incorrect statement IMO.
Anti-bush people tend to be easily blinded by ignorance
I have good reason to dislike bush...but none of my reasons are the same as some of these whackos wth tin-foil on their heads :lol:
Haha well said.. if I didnt have to spread some rep. elsewhere.. you would get it!!!
Adams
kwyckemynd00
Registered User
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
Damnit! The rep-whore in me is crying :'(DAdams91982 said:
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
I support Bush myself.. but I can respect somone who doesnt.. as long as it isnt for the bull**** they spew all over the media.
Adams
kwyckemynd00 said:
I support Bush myself.. but I can respect somone who doesnt.. as long as it isnt for the bull**** they spew all over the media.
Adams
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
The 50-100 part.
Wow. The Washingotn Post. Tell Amy Shipley I said hi.
yeahright said:
The 50-100 part.
Wow. The Washingotn Post. Tell Amy Shipley I said hi.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
Hmm...Lets look at that post article a bit more.
"U.S. forces suffered 30 fatalities in the past month, less than one a day, according to data compiled by the Brookings Institution. It was the lowest total since February 2004, when 21 service members were killed. Combat-related deaths during March numbered 25, declining for the fifth consecutive month."
Well that is obvisouly bad. Things are getting much worse from that stat.
"But recent weeks have also been among the most lethal of the war for Iraqi civilians, police officers and soldiers, who were killed and wounded at a rate of about 75 a day, a rate three times as high as at the start of 2004."
Now did they look at the Brookings Institute for this stat? No, just "officials". Who?
March, 193 Iraqi Police and Military killed. 350 Iraqi civilians killed in the month of March. Total, 543 deaths which is 18.1/day in a nation of 25 million.
Where is this 75/day? Oh, that must be their inaccurate counting.
yeahright said:
Hmm...Lets look at that post article a bit more.
"U.S. forces suffered 30 fatalities in the past month, less than one a day, according to data compiled by the Brookings Institution. It was the lowest total since February 2004, when 21 service members were killed. Combat-related deaths during March numbered 25, declining for the fifth consecutive month."
Well that is obvisouly bad. Things are getting much worse from that stat.
"But recent weeks have also been among the most lethal of the war for Iraqi civilians, police officers and soldiers, who were killed and wounded at a rate of about 75 a day, a rate three times as high as at the start of 2004."
Now did they look at the Brookings Institute for this stat? No, just "officials". Who?
March, 193 Iraqi Police and Military killed. 350 Iraqi civilians killed in the month of March. Total, 543 deaths which is 18.1/day in a nation of 25 million.
Where is this 75/day? Oh, that must be their inaccurate counting.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
You don't know what you are talknig about it. Its not like you were there!!
DAdams91982 said:
You don't know what you are talknig about it. Its not like you were there!!