rocketscientist
Registered User
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
Thank god for Fox News...
DAdams91982 said:
Thank god for Fox News...
Oh no not again....
- Thread starter BigVrunga
- Start date
DAdams91982
Board Sponsor
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
Oh so true!!!
:rofl:
Adams
Bobo said:You don't know what you are talknig about it. Its not like you were there!!
Oh so true!!!
:rofl:
Adams
yeahright
Well-known member
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
I'm sure you can do better than that. I made a statement: "currently, 50 to 100 Iraqis are dying EVERY DAY." I gave a citation to a newspaper article stating that the death toll for March was indeed an average of 75 per day (75 being the average number of the range I gave of 50 to 100).
You disputed this figure which is fair enough. However, to do so you quoted an article, which quoted a report, which quoted another report.
When one looks at the source report, the very people who generated that report say that their numbers should not be used as you are using them. They say that their numbers should be viewed as the absolutely verifiable MINIMUM casualty rate because they only count deaths that are reported to two international media soruces. Since most deaths are not reported to the international media, they caution that the true death rate is very likely far higher than their number.
Moreover, the Brookings analysis (built in part on this data whose authors themselves caution that it is low) say that their own data for March is incomplete.
So, you have an opinion that my number is wrong but the only data you gesture at to support your opinion is refuted by the very authors of that data. You're certainly entitled to your opinion but I'd ask you to respect mine unless you have a coherant critique of it.
Bobo said:
I'm sure you can do better than that. I made a statement: "currently, 50 to 100 Iraqis are dying EVERY DAY." I gave a citation to a newspaper article stating that the death toll for March was indeed an average of 75 per day (75 being the average number of the range I gave of 50 to 100).
You disputed this figure which is fair enough. However, to do so you quoted an article, which quoted a report, which quoted another report.
When one looks at the source report, the very people who generated that report say that their numbers should not be used as you are using them. They say that their numbers should be viewed as the absolutely verifiable MINIMUM casualty rate because they only count deaths that are reported to two international media soruces. Since most deaths are not reported to the international media, they caution that the true death rate is very likely far higher than their number.
Moreover, the Brookings analysis (built in part on this data whose authors themselves caution that it is low) say that their own data for March is incomplete.
So, you have an opinion that my number is wrong but the only data you gesture at to support your opinion is refuted by the very authors of that data. You're certainly entitled to your opinion but I'd ask you to respect mine unless you have a coherant critique of it.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
Its just so funny that you try to discredit the report as not accurate then post an article by the Washington Post that claims 75/day with NO NAMED SOURCE.
The authors state its not completely accurate but if you actually want to sit their and believe that its not accurate to the point that the numbers will be doubled or tripled then your anti-bush blinders are working overtime.
That is the only leg you can stand on because every report whether completelty accurate or not shows a POSITIVE TREND.
Go on thinking its a civil war and spreading your complete overdramatized headlines. I'll watch the trends over time, not the latest NY Times and Washington Post headlines to base my opinion.
When the numbers of the most complete report available to this date don't support your arguement you turn to the Washington Post with unamed sources to back your arguement. Unbelievable. Let me get some Fox News reports to back mine
yeahright said:
Its just so funny that you try to discredit the report as not accurate then post an article by the Washington Post that claims 75/day with NO NAMED SOURCE.
The authors state its not completely accurate but if you actually want to sit their and believe that its not accurate to the point that the numbers will be doubled or tripled then your anti-bush blinders are working overtime.
That is the only leg you can stand on because every report whether completelty accurate or not shows a POSITIVE TREND.
Go on thinking its a civil war and spreading your complete overdramatized headlines. I'll watch the trends over time, not the latest NY Times and Washington Post headlines to base my opinion.
When the numbers of the most complete report available to this date don't support your arguement you turn to the Washington Post with unamed sources to back your arguement. Unbelievable. Let me get some Fox News reports to back mine
LCSULLA
Well-known member
The media is so inaccurate its scary. I remeber reading Blackhawk Down and there was a quote in their from one of the Rangers. He basicly said that after they came back from an operation they would turn on the news to see what the media was saying. And everytime they were so off it was just insane.
The media ONLY cares about scooping the other guy. Bigger, better stories. Yellow journalism at it's finest.
The media ONLY cares about scooping the other guy. Bigger, better stories. Yellow journalism at it's finest.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Funny, a guy in this thread has been there twice and going back for a third time and he will tell you how it is but people won't listen to him because they have those "I hate Bush" cottonballs stuffed in their ears
The troops!?!?! BAH, they don't know what they are talking about!
The troops!?!?! BAH, they don't know what they are talking about!
yeahright
Well-known member
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
I'm not discrediting the report, I'm reading the report. The authors give very clear qualifiiers for their data and explicitly caution against using the data as a definitive death toll as you are doing.
Bobo said:
I'm not discrediting the report, I'm reading the report. The authors give very clear qualifiiers for their data and explicitly caution against using the data as a definitive death toll as you are doing.
yeahright
Well-known member
Bobo said:Funny, a guy in this thread has been there twice and going back for a third time and he will tell you how it is but people won't listen to him because they have those "I hate Bush" cottonballs stuffed in their ears
The troops!?!?! BAH, they don't know what they are talking about!
Fourth retired general calls for Rumsfeld's termination for mismanaging the war in Iraq
Invalid Link Removed
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
Who said anything was definitive and 100% accurate? The first person to make ANY predictions of a death rate was you. YOU stated 50-100 people per day and failed to even come close to proving it at all and show you take the word of the Washington Post over a 3rd part indiependent source.
You attack the credibility of the Iraqi Index yet use politically biased newspapres to prove your point.
yeahright said:
Who said anything was definitive and 100% accurate? The first person to make ANY predictions of a death rate was you. YOU stated 50-100 people per day and failed to even come close to proving it at all and show you take the word of the Washington Post over a 3rd part indiependent source.
You attack the credibility of the Iraqi Index yet use politically biased newspapres to prove your point.
yeahright
Well-known member
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
I don't understand where we're getting sideways here. I'm not attacking the credibility of the Iraqi Index. I'm taking them at their word. They are themselves quoting another report to generate their civilian death toll statistic (The Iraq Body Count). When you look at the Iraq Body Count report, you find that They are the ones that say their statistics are an undercount. They explain that their methodology (only counting deaths that have been reported to two international media outlets) is inaccurate and should only be used as the MINIMUM death count.
"Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media."
There you have the very people who generated the stat you are relying upon saying that their count omits "many if not most civilian casualties."
You're saying that their stats are the definitive number when THEY say that their stats aren't. Why would you misuse their stats in the very way they warn against?
Bobo said:
I don't understand where we're getting sideways here. I'm not attacking the credibility of the Iraqi Index. I'm taking them at their word. They are themselves quoting another report to generate their civilian death toll statistic (The Iraq Body Count). When you look at the Iraq Body Count report, you find that They are the ones that say their statistics are an undercount. They explain that their methodology (only counting deaths that have been reported to two international media outlets) is inaccurate and should only be used as the MINIMUM death count.
"Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media."
There you have the very people who generated the stat you are relying upon saying that their count omits "many if not most civilian casualties."
You're saying that their stats are the definitive number when THEY say that their stats aren't. Why would you misuse their stats in the very way they warn against?
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
yeahright said:
Pay attention the word "retired".
When you find a war that has been run with 100% satisfaction, let me know.
Until then I take it for it is, criticism, then I will look at the trends.
Are there anymore headlines form the Washington Post and New York times that bash the current administration? If you don't have any I'm sure I can find some for you.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
Oh thats right, you.
I used their number to show the trends are POSITIVE. Even if the number are LOW and a MINIMUM the trends are still POSITIVE.
Who said it was definitive and who was the first person to start quoting death rates?yeahright said:
Oh thats right, you.
I used their number to show the trends are POSITIVE. Even if the number are LOW and a MINIMUM the trends are still POSITIVE.
yeahright
Well-known member
Bobo said:
You were the one complaining that no one listens to the opinion of the troops. Here we have:
Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004-2005;
Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, who held the key post of director of operations on the staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2000 to 2002;
Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton who oversaw the training of Iraqi army troops in 2003-2004;
Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni who was the chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Iraq and the rest of the Middle East;
All saying that the war has been mismanaged from Washington DC and that Rumsfeld should be terminated. I'm willing to assume that they know what they're talking about.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
yeahright said:
Funny, all have not been in action in the last year over there?
And they would know about a civil war how?
People don't listen about the current conditions there RIGHT NOW.
When did I argue with you about Rumsfield? I'm not really a fan of his anyways but when is the last time these generals have been to Iraq?
The issue was how it is NOW. You know, the current "civil war"????
I mean that was your whole point in the first place unless your goal was to post every negative article from every liberal newspaper out there.
And for every one of them you can find current officiers that DON'T agree wtih them. Maybe you missed the Rumsfield press conference yesterday when they covered this?
Are you really this desperate?
So we go from your ficticous death rate to how the war is mismanaged? I don't think people are arguing that. I'm a realist and historian and understnad all wars are mismanged to a point.
Now how did this relate to this current "civil war"?
Or will you drag this on so everyone can hear how much you hate Bush?
yeahright
Well-known member
Bobo said:
I pointed out the recent statements from the retired generals in reference to your other point ("no one is listening to the troops"). It was just a coincidence that in the days before you made that statement 4 generals who had been involved in the planning and execution of the war were saying the same thing about Rumsfeld (he didn't listen to their advice and that is why the consolidation phase of the war has gone so badly). Two additional generals came out today to say the same thing:
Maj. Gen. John Riggs said Rumsfeld and his civilian subordinates do not listen to, or even seek, the advice of professional military officers, except when it is convenient.
Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack Jr., who led troops on the ground in Iraq as commander of the Army's 82nd Airborne Division said ""We need to continue to fight the global war on terror and keep it off our shores," General Swannack said in a telephone interview. "But I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq."
Take their statements for whatever credibility you give the generals who planned and executed the war. I'm actually quite shocked as it is extremely unusual to have career military publicly speak against their civilian superiors. Respect for chain of command and subordination to civilian authority are deeply ingrained in military culture. I have to assume that something profound is afoot to see this.
As to the death statistics, we've been over this. You quoted an article which quoted a report which in of itself got its statistics from another report. When you read that source report (as I did), they explicitly say NOT to quote their statistics as you are doing. I pointed this out, you didn't refute it. My quote of the current civilian death rate of between 50 and 100 a day corresponds with news accounts of the civilian death rate. Your refutation of that statistic is predicated upon misusing a third-hand statistic in PRECISELY the way the authors of the statistical data say NOT to do.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
yeahright said:
Nobody was listneing to our troops about the current conditions...you know, the CIVIL WAR?!?!?!?!
What about that point do you not get?
I don't care about the generals opinion on Rumsfield. I don't care about the generals statements about the mismanagement of the military operation in 2004-2005. And actually, no its not uncommom for military personnel to disagree with the civilian leadership. It happened in this war, Kosovo, Kuwait, Panama, Vietnam, etc....its quite common. Military leadership doesn't like to be told what to do on the battlefield. Its a common problem throughout history. The Pentagon and Rumsfield dind't get along even before the war. Even now as a response, military are coming out now defending Rumsfield (Gen. Mike Delong). Isn't it funny Gen. Villi has a book coming out? Those criticisms come out a pretty convenient time! :lol:
The whole thread is about what is GOING ON NOW.
I don't care about your stats because they are completely baseless. You quote a liberal newspaper for just about every "fact" you have. Its quite ridiculous.
I would use the Iraqi Index anyday over the Washington Post even though the authors state not all deaths are reported. That actually goes to the credibilty of the authors, something you will never see in the Washington Post...they won't even quote a SOURCE! It still shows the trends over time which ARE positive. I look at trends over times, not the next days' headlines. It seems thats all you have.
Sorry, no civil war here.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
Pretty interesting:
March 01, 2006
False Notes On Civil War Fears
The New York Times issues a warning about an impending civil war in Iraq that sounds a couple of false notes. Its editorial this morning attempts a historical review of the Iraqis that misses a couple of germane points while it scolds the administration indirectly for causing the problem by toppling Saddam Hussein:
"Iraq has moved perilously close to civil war. Everyone who knows anything about the tortured history of that country, cobbled together from disparate parts by British colonial officials less than a century ago, has always dreaded such an outcome.
Fear of civil war stayed the hand of the first President George Bush, when he turned back American troops and left Saddam Hussein in power. It generated much of the opposition to the current President Bush's invasion in 2003. Yet many critics of the invasion, including this page, believed that the dangers from civil war were so dire that American troops, once in, were obliged to remain as long as there was a conceivable route to a just peace.
The only alternative to civil war is, and has always been, a national unity government of Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds. Unless these mutually suspicious groups can work together, the United States will be faced with the impossible task of trying to create a stable democracy that Iraqis have refused to create for themselves."
The reason that the Bush 41 administration left Saddam in power was because the UN refused to endorse a march on Baghdad in 1991, when the road was open and the Republican Guard had largely been routed. Perhaps Bush 41 had little enthusiasm for rebuilding Iraq to the extent required by a full-scale invasion, but the UN would not allow it in any case. Bush 41 either had to turn his back on the coalition he created for the liberation of Kuwait or bow to its demands. He chose the latter. As history showed in the twelve years of chronic violations of the cease-fire and the UN resolutions demanding accountability for his weapons programs, as well as the mass murders of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens who opposed him in 1991 after the war, that was a bad and costly decision.
What I find so fascinating about the liberal hysteria over the civil war is that they argued specifically to start one instead of invading Iraq in 2003. Let's take a look at the history that the Times forgets. In 1998, Congress and Bill Clinton created a foreign policy explicitly stating that the US goal in Iraq was regime change -- that American policy would be created to remove Saddam Hussein from power. At the time that this policy was formulated and made explicit, lawmakers from both parties made a lot of speeches about how dangerous Saddam was to our interests in particular and the world in general. No one labored under the notion that Saddam had been rendered harmless by UN sanctions, already in full application for over five years at that point.
When George Bush (43) decided to press for military action to remove Saddam from power, he cited this official policy as one of the justifications when he went to Congress in October 2002 for authorization. All of a sudden, people started talking about how sanctions had kept Saddam "in his box" despite plenty of evidence that various countries had routinely violated those sanctions. They also claimed that the entire purpose of the policy was for the US to foment a domestic uprising against the Saddam regime, not for America to take any overt action to end his genocidal rule.
In other words, they wanted Bush to start a civil war in Iraq. And not just a gang war that involved a few sectarian militias taking potshots against each other as we see now, but a full-fledged civil war that involved an unarmed and oppressed people taking on the region's fourth-largest army and a dictator who had used chemical warfare against his own people in the past.
What exactly did they think would be the result of that uprising? Did they imagine that it had any chance of getting off the ground at all, given the betrayal they experienced in 1991 when the West failed to come to their aid when the Shi'a in the south rebelled against Saddam? And even if it did, did the Left not understand that the entire nation would have not come together as a people but would have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic tribalism, having no unifying structures or voluntary processes -- like those provided by open elections and a national assembly?
I agree that civil war in Iraq remains a dangerous potential outcome. Had we left it to the Left in 2002, however, that is exactly what we would have today by their own design. I find their belated concern over the consequences of civil war somewhat disingenuous now.
March 01, 2006
False Notes On Civil War Fears
The New York Times issues a warning about an impending civil war in Iraq that sounds a couple of false notes. Its editorial this morning attempts a historical review of the Iraqis that misses a couple of germane points while it scolds the administration indirectly for causing the problem by toppling Saddam Hussein:
"Iraq has moved perilously close to civil war. Everyone who knows anything about the tortured history of that country, cobbled together from disparate parts by British colonial officials less than a century ago, has always dreaded such an outcome.
Fear of civil war stayed the hand of the first President George Bush, when he turned back American troops and left Saddam Hussein in power. It generated much of the opposition to the current President Bush's invasion in 2003. Yet many critics of the invasion, including this page, believed that the dangers from civil war were so dire that American troops, once in, were obliged to remain as long as there was a conceivable route to a just peace.
The only alternative to civil war is, and has always been, a national unity government of Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds. Unless these mutually suspicious groups can work together, the United States will be faced with the impossible task of trying to create a stable democracy that Iraqis have refused to create for themselves."
The reason that the Bush 41 administration left Saddam in power was because the UN refused to endorse a march on Baghdad in 1991, when the road was open and the Republican Guard had largely been routed. Perhaps Bush 41 had little enthusiasm for rebuilding Iraq to the extent required by a full-scale invasion, but the UN would not allow it in any case. Bush 41 either had to turn his back on the coalition he created for the liberation of Kuwait or bow to its demands. He chose the latter. As history showed in the twelve years of chronic violations of the cease-fire and the UN resolutions demanding accountability for his weapons programs, as well as the mass murders of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens who opposed him in 1991 after the war, that was a bad and costly decision.
What I find so fascinating about the liberal hysteria over the civil war is that they argued specifically to start one instead of invading Iraq in 2003. Let's take a look at the history that the Times forgets. In 1998, Congress and Bill Clinton created a foreign policy explicitly stating that the US goal in Iraq was regime change -- that American policy would be created to remove Saddam Hussein from power. At the time that this policy was formulated and made explicit, lawmakers from both parties made a lot of speeches about how dangerous Saddam was to our interests in particular and the world in general. No one labored under the notion that Saddam had been rendered harmless by UN sanctions, already in full application for over five years at that point.
When George Bush (43) decided to press for military action to remove Saddam from power, he cited this official policy as one of the justifications when he went to Congress in October 2002 for authorization. All of a sudden, people started talking about how sanctions had kept Saddam "in his box" despite plenty of evidence that various countries had routinely violated those sanctions. They also claimed that the entire purpose of the policy was for the US to foment a domestic uprising against the Saddam regime, not for America to take any overt action to end his genocidal rule.
In other words, they wanted Bush to start a civil war in Iraq. And not just a gang war that involved a few sectarian militias taking potshots against each other as we see now, but a full-fledged civil war that involved an unarmed and oppressed people taking on the region's fourth-largest army and a dictator who had used chemical warfare against his own people in the past.
What exactly did they think would be the result of that uprising? Did they imagine that it had any chance of getting off the ground at all, given the betrayal they experienced in 1991 when the West failed to come to their aid when the Shi'a in the south rebelled against Saddam? And even if it did, did the Left not understand that the entire nation would have not come together as a people but would have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic tribalism, having no unifying structures or voluntary processes -- like those provided by open elections and a national assembly?
I agree that civil war in Iraq remains a dangerous potential outcome. Had we left it to the Left in 2002, however, that is exactly what we would have today by their own design. I find their belated concern over the consequences of civil war somewhat disingenuous now.
yeahright
Well-known member
Bobo said:
Fair enough....but you don't seem to understand the problem with their stats. It's not just that they acknowledge their stats aren't complete, but they didn't even generate the core statistic they relied upon. Look at the source citations. They relied upon a different report (The Iraq Body Count). When you go read that data set, the authors of that set (which Iraqi Index are relying upon) explicitly say that their numbers SHOULD NOT be quoted as a total death count but as an absolutely verifiable minimum number and they believe that "many if not most" civilian deaths are NOT included in their count because of its methodology (only counting deaths reported to at least two international media sources). So what we have is a heavily qualified statistic from one group, being quoted by another group (without the qualifications), being quoted by you to mean something that the original authors of the statistic EXPLICITLY SAY their stats don't mean. It's a great example of the telephone game. As a historian, you should understand the danger of relying upon third hand data.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
yeahright said:
So the Washington Post is more accurate?
When we have primary sources available I will stop using the Iraqi Index. Until then its the best available source available to show trends over time.
Still dont see civil war here.
Dwight Schrute
I am faster than 80% of all snakes
yeahright said:
You seem to forget, they are not under Rumsfield anymore. It was the same when Schwarzkopf publically disagreed with Bush (1) about marching to Baghdad. The military was publically critical of Mcnamara during Vietnam because of his belief we should pull troops out during Kenedy's administration.
As for the other examples I will have too look them up. I have several books on the subject.
BioHazzard
Banned
Let's not forget that the military brass do not like the reform that Rumsfeld has been pushing.
mtruther
Member
BioHazzard said:
Which military brass? The 6 that the media are hyping right now? It's also a question of what's meant by not liking Rumsfeld's changes: the range runs from mild technical disagreements here and there to "I think he should resign in disgrace."
I'm just very sketpical of our media in this war. I think they've been patently unfair and often dishonest. We hear so much about these 6 generals as of late. You realize that there are 900 active generals in the military, right? And of these, 10-15% retire every year. Finding 6 retired generals out of a pool of thousands to carp about Rumsfeld would not be that difficult.
I don't think we're hearing the full story, and nor do I trust the press to give it to us.
If you have some actual data, I'd be genuinely interested in reading through it.
Recall that in the 2004 election, the military brass supported Bush by a nearly 80:20 margin to Kerry. If they opposed Rumsfeld so much, I very seriously doubt that those figures would have been as lop-sided as they were.