Generals attacking "Rummy" Rumsfeld

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
solong said:
Now Mr. Dong, when I said that we have made Iraq safer than we are right here in the United States in any of our MAJOR cities, I meant that, and I am not using my powers of persuasion at all. I'm using the FBI's own crime statistics. I didn't make them up....)

I don't think anyone is disputing the US figures, they are a matter of record.

solong said:
I live in a small town and last night on our evening news was a typical report of two more murders here. Night before last we had one and several woundings. Night before that was muggings and a firefight outside a bar, etc. etc. and one person murdered, for sure. In a town of 440,000, we had 130 murders last year. That's 29.54 murders/100,000 population. Now let's translate that to Baghdad. In order to just keep up with our small town rate here, we would have had to lose, in just ONE YEAR'S TIME, in Baghdad, 1625 Americans to equal the same murder rate that we have right here on a regularly monthly basis. I don't see the media blowing their stacks over us!

However, that isn't fair, because our military are scattered all over Iraq. So were you to do it right, and extrapolate the 29.54 murders/100,000 throughout the nation of Iraq, instead of just concentrating them all in one small area, you'd get a true picture, and you'd see then that if Iraq claims 55 million population for instance (hypothetical), we would by now have counted 16,250 bodybags coming home, PER YEAR! That would be our home town murder rate-- no more or less.

As iraq has a population of about 25/26 million what is this 55 Million (hypothetical) about? You are not comparing reality so the comparison is meaningless.

solong said:
So, frankly, Dong, I don't see your point, but if you can multiply, using the FBI's own figures for murder throughout the United States, then you have to see mine. I made my point with the simplest of tools. Arithmetic.

I can see your point just fine, I just disagree with you.

solong said:
I just love it when I'm right. Nobody can do anything about the facts. But you gotta be careful where you get your (so-called) "facts." I am using proven death toll by murders. I don't want to see some liberal whack-job's assertions because I won't even reply to that. I want to see hard evidence, like I've given you.

Arrogance is poorly received here

Solong as I said before raw figure hide the true situation on the ground but if you want to insist:

Lets take some murder rate (per 100k) examples - 1980, 2004 and 2005:

1980
US:10.2
Iraq: 5 (Source United Nations http://www.uncjin.org/stats/wcsascii/wcsone.txt)

2004
US:5.5
Iraq:43.5 (11312 Civilian deaths March 2004-March 2005)

2005
US :Not yet available - lets say 5
Iraq: 48.52 (12617 Civilian deaths March 2005-March 2006)

Iraq figures 2004 and 2005 source: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr13.php and I am sure these are conservative numbers.

Of course it's hard to define murder in a war zone but as you can see the figures for 2004 and 2005 are almost ten times those in 1980 for Iraq but only 50% for the US.

So one can infer US is now twice as 'safe' but Iraq is now 10 times more dangerous. Do you feel safer solong? Your post suggests not.

You are asserting that US troops have made Iraq safer than it was prior to 2003, well I ask you; safer for whom? US and/or coalition troops....you cannot be serious, Iraqi civililans...surely not (if so then the estimated 100000 civilans killed since 2003 would take issue with you on this point but sadly they are dead).

Quoting from an aricle by Stephen Soldz in 2004:


"Perhaps the best known estimate of civilian deaths from the fighting is that of the Iraq Body Count project.[5] This British-based group of researchers has systematically examined the western press and collated all accounts of civilian casualties. They tabulate all deaths that are independently reported by two sources. Based on this rigorous methodology, they estimate civilian casualties from the invasion until October 29, 2004 at between 14,181 and 16,312. Other estimates have come from the Brookings Institution[6] (between 15,200 and 31,400 "killed as a result of violence from war and crime between May, 2003 and September 30, 2004." Some of their estimates are based on Iraq Body Count data), and the Iraqi People's Kifah[7] (through a household survey they identified 37,000 deaths between March and October 2003).

With the exception of the People's Kifah estimates, which might be considered suspect as they are an anti-occupation organization and they have published no details about their methods (and which only covers the first eight months of war and occupation), these estimates largely are based on western press accounts. As is acknowledged by Iraq Body Count, such accounts likely underestimate deaths as many, perhaps most, battles and other military actions, and resultant Iraqi deaths, are often not reported unless coalition forces suffered casualties.[8] Additionally, in recent months western reporters have been unable to move about Iraq independently, meaning that even such high-profile claims of mass civilian deaths from US bombing as the killing by US bombing of upwards of 45 Iraqis at a wedding party in the town of Mogr el-Deeb in May[9] could not be independently verified. Thus, all previous estimates of Iraq civilian deaths since the invasion are probably on the low side."

The Study Methodology

The researchers used a traditional epidemiologic technique called a clustered sample survey. Without getting into technical details, the country was divided into a number (33 in this instance) of subgroups and a community was randomly selected from each cluster. In each community, Global Positioning System (GPS) devices combined with random numbers were used to select a particular point in the community. Then the nearest 30 household were surveyed; these 30 households are referred to as a cluster.......

Discussion and Critique of Results

By the luck of the draw, the Iraqi city of Falluja was included in their sample. The researchers found an enormous number of deaths in that besieged city, much higher than in any over cluster they sampled. Researchers call such an observation an outlier and have developed a number of techniques for dealing with them. These researchers used the most conservative approach: namely, they presented many of their data excluding Falluja. With this exclusion they found that mortality (deaths) rose from 5.0 deaths per 1000 people per year to 7.9 deaths.

Public health researchers usually report such data as the relative risk of death post-invasion, compared to pre-invasion. A relative risk greater than 1.0 means that more people died after the invasion than in an equivalent time period before the invasion. With Falluja included, the relative risk post-invasion was 2.5, whereas with Falluja excluded it was 1.5. so they estimated that roughly 50% more people died post-invasion than had died in the same time period before."

The whole article is available here :http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6565%20

But to keep balance and support your assertion:

Reporting from the New York Times in Jan 2005 showed that Iraq had 202 murders in 14 days or 14.4 per day during the first two weeks of that year. Iraqi population estimates vary, but for comparison purposes Chicago had 450 confirmed murders in 366 days with a population of 2.8 million which equates to .439 murders per million per day. The two would be equal if Iraq's population was 32,858,867 people! Population estimates vary but about 25 million people live in Iraq. Therefore, the streets of Iraq are about as safe as the streets of Chicago.

Whatever you or I say about 'figures' which as I just demonstrated can be made to say whatever one likes, the true test of your convictions will be, be bearing in mind my previous paragraph an honest answer to this simple question:

It's 2 am, you are a little drunk and unsure of your way, walking home alone down poorly lit streets and think you see someone following you..."

Where would YOU rather be solong? Baghdad or Chicago or even your home town?
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Dr Rock said:
please quit quoting solong's posts guys - he's on ignore for a reason

Hey Dr Rock, point taken but I'll make that decision for myself. He IS entitled to his opinions (as of course are you) so please don't deny me mine.

Plus I'm bored waiting for the cable guy and felt like a fight. :biggrin1:
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
So far as Solong's array to statistics on the war, I am reminded of this famous quote of the 19th century.
"There are statistics, damn statistics and lies."

I think I quoted it right.

Statistics, notwithstading, I 'll stay right here in America and not go to the safe place called Iraq. It may be safer, but it doesn't SOUND safer.

My beef with Rumsfied is that he has no apparent exit strategy. Come on, it took America 4 years to conquor both Japan and Germany, two very powerful nations at the time in military strength. Iraq is a small country. We should have had that nation wiped up and finished long before now.

The real problem is above Rumsfield. Some guy named George who likes to play cops and robbers. Something from his childhood I guess,
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Freddie53 said:
So far as Solong's array to statistics on the war, I am reminded of this famous quote of the 19th century.
"There are statistics, damn statistics and lies."

I think I quoted it right.

I think it was "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" but statistically they may be equal :smile:
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
dong20 said:
I think it was "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" but statistically they may be equal :smile:
Thanks, I knew that didn't sound quite right. I am in no way taking up for Rusmsfield. I just realize he is not the king here. He is a pawn in all this. Replacing him will only change the face and personality. This war's agenda is set from above. Some of the folks runing the show, we have never met.

Though replacing Rumsfield might help some. He does sound convincing on the TV which may be part of the problem. Rummy may be a good con artist in presenting his side of the issue.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Freddie53 said:
...... Some of the folks runing the show, we have never met.

This perhaps is the really evil truth, not only are these folk faceless and unaccountable they are thus almost certainly un-elected.

Of course they could also be figments of our collective paranoia :confused:
 

ClaireTalon

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Posts
1,917
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
183
Age
60
Location
Puget Sound
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Freddie53 said:
So far as Solong's array to statistics on the war, I am reminded of this famous quote of the 19th century.
"There are statistics, damn statistics and lies."

I think I quoted it right.

Statistics, notwithstading, I 'll stay right here in America and not go to the safe place called Iraq. It may be safer, but it doesn't SOUND safer.

My beef with Rumsfied is that he has no apparent exit strategy. Come on, it took America 4 years to conquor both Japan and Germany, two very powerful nations at the time in military strength. Iraq is a small country. We should have had that nation wiped up and finished long before now.

The real problem is above Rumsfield. Some guy named George who likes to play cops and robbers. Something from his childhood I guess,

Statistics can be interpreted in many ways, and sometimes both interpretations go very different ways. As Churchill put it, "[SIZE=-1]Never trust a statistic you didn't fake yourself". And to make the transition from statistic evaluations to reality, I'd feel lafer walking the streets of Kansas City, Miami, New York or Los Angeles than I'd feel walking those of Hillah, Baghdad, Tikrit or Fallujah. Why? Because we have something Iraq doesn't have: A police that has a chance to get a grip on criminals, and doesn't have to fear their station being blasted apart if they do their job. And if you look at statistics, don't only look at the US soldiers' death toll, count the Iraqis who also got killed in the aftermath of the action. Do I remember correctly, or wasn't it ten thousands of them?

Solong, I don't know how many plans there have been, I guess I didn't have security clearance high enough to see those, sorry. But applied military thinking tells me that there must be at least three evaluations for a plan: Best case, worst case, middle case. And our observations at reality tell us some factors and effects have been estimated in a very optimistic way, I'm talking about required force level for pacification and peace-keeping, about measures to be taken to avoid civil insurrections, about possible conflicts between Shiites, Sunnites, Kurds, and all the other ethnic groups of Iraq. A strategy paper dating back to 88/89, issued by the State Department, dealt with the possible consequences of the deprivation of Saddam Hussein's regime, with a four-letter-word conclusion: DON'T! The executed plan possibly is a mix of several others, but the optimistic estimations have lead into the post-war disaster.

I think Rumsfeld has some points speaking in favor of him. When he came into office, I appreciated his clear way of thinking, and his military background. Obviously his post requires someone who doesn't change opinions fastly, but meanwhile he is holding on to a wrong plan for too long. An immediate retreat is no option, but he and the occupation authorities should turn their focus on solving Iraq's matters with adequate means (policing, intelligence etc...), instead with always new large-scale pushes against terrorists.
[/SIZE]
 

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
Dong, you know, I've never expected somebody to agree with me 100%, and I often disagree with myself, later on. At which time I'm happy to disagree with myself, publicly, because it doesn't matter to me if I'm always right. My little thing about "I just love it" was (I guess you would classify as) "Bravado Humor." Of course I like to be right, and the obvious point is, so does everybody else, so I'm speaking for everyone. But...I don't have to be. my "image" is not contingent upon being right, but it IS contingent upon being honest to myself and to the facts and to those friends I am speaking with.

Now, besides the fact that most of my points and those of General DeLong have been summarily ignored, I'd now like to quote to you the Pasadena Weekly News and Entertainment article, taken from all places, the Washington Post and the New York Times. Here are the "terrible" and totally factual REAL statistics about the war so far-- that is, since Tuesday, 4/18/06. Put on your helmet, because this really gets rough.

Day 2,027 of the Iraq War...


As of Tuesday, day 2,027 of the Iraq War…

  • 2,379 American soldiers have been reported killed in Iraq.
  • 17,648 have been reported wounded in action.
  • 34,493 is the minimum number of civilian casualties in Iraq.
  • $255 billion in taxpayer funds have been spent on the war, enough to have provided more than 153 million children with health insurance for one year.
What this tells us, I'm sure that even Dr. Rock is able to figure out (well, ok then, maybe not) but if not, I know you are able, Dong, as I have had intelligent conversations with you in the past and I like your inputs because they are reasoned, and you are not dismissive.

In 2,027 days of the war in Iraq, we have had a total of 2,379 casualties. That accounts to 1.17 casualties per day. In just one city in Iraq-- Baghdad-- with 5.5 million people, that American mortality rate is so low that it doesn't even register, much less to amortize it to the entire nation of Iraq.

When I say that you are only hearing and seeing the media's gruesome magnification of American carnage, that doesn't begin to describe it, and Americans are so gullible, that when they are pointed in a certain direction and told to ignore everything else to the contrary, they do so with a vengeance. We, nationally, are very easily led into anything our media expects us to think-- to the exclusion of everything else. We should be ashamed.

When you read that 34,493 Iraqis have died since the war, we are there actually including enemy Iraq casualties as well, because they come from Iraqi homes, so no distinction is made. That means, 3/4ths of these casualties are the enemy. And yet in 4 years' time, Saddam Hussein would have tortured to death ten times more than that! Many of his victims, he put through a feed pelletizer, feet first. I'd think that should make interesting reading.

In 4 years time that's an average casualty rate of 8623.25 civilians/year. We are talking now about the entire nation of Iraq, not Baghdad.

I'd think that a reasonable man would at least back up and say, "I'd never thought about it like that, before."

Notice too, that I didn't come here armed with my own opinions, and I never tell someone, "I can't disagree with your facts and figures, so I will just opt to disagree on general principles." A general principle is a euphemism for an incorrigible opinion. I don't think that sounds like y6ourself, Dong. You have always been quite reasonable, before now, and I can't see you becoming that way. So if you agree with the New York Times' own statistics, then you have to agree with me that Iraq is FAR safer than our own homeland, even in time of war.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. So now, I've shown you what I've got. It's time you show me yours.
 

RideRocket

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Posts
3,009
Media
0
Likes
49
Points
268
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
ClaireTalon said:
[SIZE=-1]Solong, I don't know how many plans there have been, I guess I didn't have security clearance high enough to see those, sorry. But applied military thinking tells me that there must be at least three evaluations for a plan: Best case, worst case, middle case. And our observations at reality tell us some factors and effects have been estimated in a very optimistic way, I'm talking about required force level for pacification and peace-keeping, about measures to be taken to avoid civil insurrections, about possible conflicts between Shiites, Sunnites, Kurds, and all the other ethnic groups of Iraq. A strategy paper dating back to 88/89, issued by the State Department, dealt with the possible consequences of the deprivation of Saddam Hussein's regime, with a four-letter-word conclusion: DON'T! The executed plan possibly is a mix of several others, but the optimistic estimations have lead into the post-war disaster. [/SIZE]

Claire,
Being prior military, you would also know that contingency plans are constantly being updated and modified to fit real-time geo-political events. While a strategy paper dated from 1988/89 may have reached a "DON'T" conclusion, too much has changed since then for that assessment to remain valid. Three factors that have changed our outlook and assessment of Iraq:

1. Obviously the first major change was the Gulf War/Desert Storm after Iraq invaded Kuwait. When we saw how shaky his command and control was over his forces and his country, I guarantee our strategic plan towards Iraq drastically changed. A lot of foreign policy armchair quarterbacks with their 20/20 hindsight will tell you we should have driven on to Baghdad. However, that would have failed because that was not our UN directive nor would the coalition have stuck together.

2. Also, in 1988/1989, the Iran-Iraq War was just reaching a cease-fire. We chose to support the lesser of two evils in the area to maintain regional stability. Did we know Saddam Hussein was a bad guy? Of course, but sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Iraq presented a much less volatile scenario than a regime run by fanatic fundamentalist Islamists.

3. Which leads us to the biggest turning point on our view of the world, let alone Southwest Asia - 9/11. Reality caught up with us and we finally realized (after we ignored the warning signs) that there are people out there with the will and desire to destroy Western civilization.

Anyway, just some specific comments regarding your reference to a dated plan.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Only 255 Billion dollars spent in Iraq! Sounds like someone has hidden much of the cost of the war. That is done all the time. Creative bookkeeping.

The truth also is we have a new generation of war technology. We needed a way to get rid of the older military supplies and test some of our new stuff.

WE have to have a war every 15 years or so. Generals have to be trained. We need to find out who can and who can't conduct a war.

In 15 years we will find another country to priactice war on. But it won't be someone who can really hurt us or is a real danger to us. That would too dangersous.

Rumsfield is testing equipment and generals.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
solong said:
My little thing about "I just love it" was (I guess you would classify as) "Bravado Humor." Of course I like to be right, and the obvious point is, so does everybody else, so I'm speaking for everyone. But...I don't have to be. my "image" is not contingent upon being right, but it IS contingent upon being honest to myself and to the facts and to those friends I am speaking with.

We all like to be right and even when we are (and I'm not saying that I think you are) that doesn't mean one needs to force it down others throats...magnanimity is victory is an admirable trait.

solong said:
Now, besides the fact that most of my points and those of General DeLong have been summarily ignored,.....

I didn't ignore you, I disagreed with you and continue to do so.

solong said:
Day 2,027 of the Iraq War...

????
March 19th 2003-date = 3 years 1 Month and 1 day:
(365 * 3) + 30 + 1=1126 days or is there some other Iraq war going on?

solong said:
As of Tuesday, day 2,027 of the Iraq War…
  • 2,379 American soldiers have been reported killed in Iraq.
  • 17,648 have been reported wounded in action.
  • 34,493 is the minimum number of civilian casualties in Iraq.

We are not just talking about Military casualties and even if we were the US is not the only nation with troops on the ground.

solong said:
In 2,027 days of the war in Iraq, we have had a total of 2,379 casualties. That accounts to 1.17 casualties per day. In just one city in Iraq-- Baghdad-- with 5.5 million people, that American mortality rate is so low that it doesn't even register, much less to amortize it to the entire nation of Iraq.

You just listed 34,493 civilian casualties then ignored them in your calculations in your next sentence. Let me re-do them:

2379+34493=36872/1126=32.75 or 27.99 times your original figure. If you insist on using statistics, use them consistently.

solong said:
When I say that you are only hearing and seeing the media's gruesome magnification of American carnage, that doesn't begin to describe it, and Americans are so gullible, .....

I'm not American, nor I am I gullable. Did you serve in Iraq? if so then you have my respect for that (whatever the motivation for going) if not then perhaps, as in your comment about slavery acceed to the fact that like myself, you have Zero first hand knowledge of what happened and must rely on and interperate often conflicting available information as best able to.

solong said:
When you read that 34,493 Iraqis have died since the war, we are there actually including enemy Iraq casualties as well, because they come from Iraqi homes, so no distinction is made. That means, 3/4ths of these casualties are the enemy. And yet in 4 years' time, Saddam Hussein would have tortured to death ten times more than that! Many of his victims, he put through a feed pelletizer, feet first. I'd think that should make interesting reading.

We are not discussing what Saddam did or what he may hypothetically have done so keep to the topic in hand.

You referred to these 34,493 people as civilians above now you say some may be combatants....by definition they cannot be both so lets say for arguments sake they were all combatants, then to meet a general consenus of approx 100k Iraqi 'non army' casualties that leaves about 65,000 true civilian casualties which you have conveniently ignored.

Adding them into the equation gives 101872/1126=90.47 0r 77.32 times your original casualty per day figure. Even allowing 2027??? days that's 50.25 times.

I have also ignored the 000's of uniformed Iraqi army casualties but let's not muddy these waters any further.

solong said:
In 4 years time that's an average casualty rate of 8623.25 civilians/year. We are talking now about the entire nation of Iraq, not Baghdad.

Even 2027 days <> 4 years, which four years are you referring to? Also I think you will find that the figure is rather higher than than, quote your sources please.

solong said:
I'd think that a reasonable man would at least back up and say, "I'd never thought about it like that, before."

Many did and came to differing conclusions, some of which happen not co-incide with your own.

solong said:
So if you agree with the New York Times' own statistics, then you have to agree with me that Iraq is FAR safer than our own homeland, even in time of war.

I didn't say I agreed with it, I merely quoted it to illustrate that it is dangerous to rely on a single source of information, and in fact the article did NOT say it was far safer, indeed it didn't say it was safer at all as you well know.

You didn't answer my question which I know re-state:

"It's 2 am, you are a little drunk and unsure of your way, walking home alone down poorly lit streets and think you see someone following you..."

Where would YOU rather be solong? Baghdad or Chicago or even your home town?"

solong said:
I've shown you what I've got. It's time you show me yours.

Just did but I got more
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Claire, sorry your thread seems to have become a tad waylaid!

Hindsight is 20:20 and while it may fill tabloid press column inches such open recriminations seldom serve any useful purpose. I think that Rumsfeld is a skillful politician and I would rather have a leader who held strong views and articulated them consistently, clearly and publically whether I agreed with them or not, than some spineless simp who courted the ebbs and flows of public opinion.

True democracy is an illusion, in a true 'democracy' people would have an equal say in making collective decisions, in a representative democracy the people have an equal say in choosing the people to make those decisions for them.

Inevitably those people will sometimes make decisions that are unexpected, unwelcome, flawed, based on predjudiced or biased information and false premises, prove to be incompetent, dishonest or indeed all of the above. Much as people generally do from time to time.

I'm not singling out Rumsfeld as I have very low opinion of politicians generally. However If you serve in a professional military then you have to accept that there will be times when orders will conflict with your personal morality or appear simply 'wrong'. I believe that if you can't live with this then then quit and if you feel the need to say why you did so the do it at the time. If you can't then shut up and get on with it.

I don't see how you can do the latter and then say afterwards it was wrong or "I was only following orders" that's been tried.

I know that that is easier said than done but surely we should always aim high.
 

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
dong20 said:
We all like to be right and even when we are (and I'm not saying that I think you are) that doesn't mean one needs to force it down others throats...magnanimity is victory is an admirable trait.

I don't think I'm victorious, Dong. I am kidding, sometimes, and I think you're taking it too seriously. Granted, I write differently than I speak, and find that when I try to express myself on paper, I put people on the defense. But if you knew me personally, you'd know that I always give you the benefit of the doubt. There's nothing to be gained by putting anybody on the defensive.

I didn't ignore you, I disagreed with you and continue to do so.

You know-- that's cool. I don't like people that don't have a strong opinion, but likewise, I don't like people who rely on them, either. And when the facts are in (WHICH, by the way, are not "Statistics") then I get bored with the kindergarteners really fast when they say, "Hmm, Oh yeah! I see, now. He's citing...statistics!!" (Sign of the cross, back away slowly, and fear.)


????
March 19th 2003-date = 3 years 1 Month and 1 day:
(365 * 3) + 30 + 1=1126 days or is there some other Iraq war going on?

Glad you brought this up. However, you failed to read close enough to see that these are from the Washington Post and the New York Times. I have nothing to do with the stats you just quoted. I am analyzing the stats which the New York Times has claimed is correct, and so I'm telling you how they fall out. OK?

We are not just talking about Military casualties and even if we were the US is not the only nation with troops on the ground.

UH, that's true also, and glad you mentioned it! I'ld like to take that into consideration, also.

You just listed 34,493 civilian casualties then ignored them in your calculations in your next sentence. Let me re-do them:

2379+34493=36872/1126=32.75 or 27.99 times your original figure. If you insist on using statistics, use them consistently.

I think you misunderstood, here. Why not go back and re-read the NYT stats first. Then realize that in my first observation, I am speaking of Americans only. Not all the civilian casualties. Then I take up their total of all the civilian casualties in the 4 years in Iraq. (Keeping in mind, now that we are talking NEW YORK TIMES ACCURACY ONLY! OK?) If in fact 35000 casualties is right, and IF IN FACT that occurred in 4 years (which is ONLY 1440 days, not what they said, then the casualty rate/year is higher than 8750. I know that!

The point I'm making is this-- when you take a liberal paper's word for it, then you don't know what the hell you got! I'll give you credit for this-- you didn't take their word for it!


I'm not American, nor I am I gullable. Did you serve in Iraq? if so then you have my respect for that (whatever the motivation for going) if not then perhaps, as in your comment about slavery acceed to the fact that like myself, you have Zero first hand knowledge of what happened and must rely on and interperate often conflicting available information as best able to.


We are not discussing what Saddam did or what he may hypothetically have done so keep to the topic in hand.

Well, I don't think that's too far out of hand, to say that Saddam Hussein murdered far more than was killed in the war, per year. I think that's smack on target, on subject, and relevant. I think any Iraqi would agree. It's a comparison they make all the time, between us, and Saddam.

You referred to these 34,493 people as civilians above now you say some may be combatants....by definition they cannot be both so lets say for arguments sake they were all combatants, then to meet a general consenus of approx 100k Iraqi 'non army' casualties that leaves about 65,000 true civilian casualties which you have conveniently ignored.

Adding them into the equation gives 101872/1126=90.47 0r 77.32 times your original casualty per day figure. Even allowing 2027??? days that's 50.25 times.

No, I didn't say some MAY be combatants. I said there was no way to separate the enemy Iraqis from the friendly ones, when it came to this tabulation. And since the NYT didn't mention it either, we don't have to assume "friendly." We are obliged to understand "total."

I have also ignored the 000's of uniformed Iraqi army casualties but let's not muddy these waters any further.

I didn't. I'm quoting the Pasadena Weekly, whose source was the New York Times. I want you to see what whacked out people these are.

Even 2027 days <> 4 years, which four years are you referring to? Also I think you will find that the figure is rather higher than than, quote your sources please.

I have, and when you go back and reread it, you'll see you just missed it. And I also agree with your conclusion. And I also appreciate the fact that you didn't take anthing for granted.

Many did and came to differing conclusions, some of which happen not co-incide with your own.

I didn't say I agreed with it, I merely quoted it to illustrate that it is dangerous to rely on a single source of information, and in fact the article did NOT say it was far safer, indeed it didn't say it was safer at all as you well know.

You didn't answer my question which I know re-state:

"It's 2 am, you are a little drunk and unsure of your way, walking home alone down poorly lit streets and think you see someone following you..."

Where would YOU rather be solong? Baghdad or Chicago or even your home town?"

I'd rather be in my home town, because I know where to go to ditch a mugger. But in Baghdad, I would be shot down from someone hiding in a building. They aren't going to confront me on a street, unless they really know what they're doing!

Just did but I got more

My message seems to end up inside the quote box. I wish I knew how to list the quote boxes liek you can do it, but maybe you can read this.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Solong, in the end this entire argument is based on the premise: Iraq is Safer:

Hypothetical scenario:

Country A
Population 200 Million
Murder rate 5 per 100000=10000 in a year

Country B
Population 50 Million
Murder rate 5 per 100000=2500 in a year

50000 troops from county A 'invade' and occupy corrupt county B. In doing so 10000 soldiers are killed on each side and 25000 civilians. None of which can be considered murder as they are casualties of war. War is declared over and Government of country B asks country A troops to remain to keep order.

Over the next year 10000 country A troops are killed by civilian or non uniformed combatants, these will be considered Murder, at the same time 50000 'civilians' are also killed, in 'self defence' by soldiers of country A.

Death toll:
Country A=20000
Country B=85000

Of these we shall call 10000 murder (peacekeeping troops killed by civilians) all the rest are discounted as war casualties or self defence.

Revised Rates discounting population growth.

Country A
199,950,000
Rate 5 per 100000=9997

Country B
Population = 49945000
Total 'Normal' murders=2497
Actual Murders=10000 + 2497=12497
Revised rate=12497/49945000 *100000=25 or 5 times the former rate.

Is country B now safer? Because that's what you are in effect saying. If you choose to ignore the occupying troops being 'murdered' then the rate is unchanged and you destroy your own argument.

Country B will only be safer when the rate falls below 5. It only takes 3 Country A troops to be murdered to push the rate over what it was before invasion.

You say may my logic is flawed because they were an occupying force so the troop murders are irrelevant but you were the one who insisted on applying ALL murders in Country B across the whole country. What I am saying again is that numbers don't tell the full story.

To return to our discussion, you were are saying is that

A) Statistical murder rates in Iraq are lower than the US

B) Iraq is safer since the US have been in occupation.

Well I'd say

A) That may be true but I don't know for sure and with respect neither do you

B) Well, lets rework the figures for US/Iraq - Ignoring numbers of days/ratio of combatants to civilians etc

Assuming an initial rate of 5 per 100k in Iraq (1980 figure) unless you have proof of another figure. With 140k troops it needs only ((140000/100000 * 5) +1) = 8 extra troops (or civilians) to be murdered each year for the rate to exceed that initial rate of 5.

The actual numbers are far higher (8000+) so by your own argument you must concede that that Iraq is proven to be more dangerous than before. The only way this could be countered is with proof that for every soldier or civilian killed as a result of occupation one or more murders has not occured elswhere solely because the US were there (i.e. not Saddam) and thus the overall number of murders remains unchanged or reduced which is what I think you are saying?

Do you have that proof? If you don't then your argument is conjucture NOT fact. Nothing wrong with that but please don't try and pass it off as fact is all I'm saying.



 

solong

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Posts
180
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Gender
Male
dong20 said:
Solong, in the end this entire argument is based on the premise: Iraq is Safer:

Hypothetical scenario:

Country A
Population 200 Million
Murder rate 5 per 100000=10000 in a year


Country B
Population 50 Million
Murder rate 5 per 100000=2500 in a year


50000 troops from county A 'invade' and occupy corrupt county B. In doing so 10000 soldiers are killed on each side and 25000 civilians. None of which can be considered murder as they are casualties of war. War is declared over and Government of country B asks country A troops to remain to keep order.

Over the next year 10000 country A troops are killed by civilian or non uniformed combatants, these will be considered Murder, at the same time 50000 'civilians' are also killed, in 'self defence' by soldiers of country A.

Death toll:
Country A=20000
Country B=85000

Of these we shall call 10000 murder (peacekeeping troops killed by civilians) all the rest are discounted as war casualties or self defence.

Revised Rates discounting population growth.

Country A
199,950,000
Rate 5 per 100000=9997

Country B
Population = 49945000
Total 'Normal' murders=2497
Actual Murders=10000 + 2497=12497
Revised rate=12497/49945000 *100000=25 or 5 times the former rate.

Is country B now safer? Because that's what you are in effect saying. If you choose to ignore the occupying troops being 'murdered' then the rate is unchanged and you destroy your own argument.

Country B will only be safer when the rate falls below 5. It only takes 3 Country A troops to be murdered to push the rate over what it was before invasion.

You say may my logic is flawed because they were an occupying force so the troop murders are irrelevant but you were the one who insisted on applying ALL murders in Country B across the whole country. What I am saying again is that numbers don't tell the full story.

Dong, your numbers don't tell any story at all because you are making a fatal flaw in math logic first, called the zero sum error. It shakes out that way. It is also begging the question to ask, Is now country A safer, after having killed 85000 in country B and losing 20,000 of their own? Well, the question assumes that country B was innocent and not intent on catching country A off its guard. So you are taking off into the wild blue yonder. You are stopping with the initial death toll of the war. You are not considering the consequences had A not gone to war, nor giving any reason for A to go to war.

We now know from the Saddam Hussein tapes that there were 4 major terrorist training camps in Iraq. We now know that the Russians flew tons of bomb grade plutonium back to Russia. We now know that a truck convoy transported all of Iraq's factories into Syria, 24 hours/day for months. We now know Bush wasn't lying about the yellow cake uranium Saddam was trying to purchase in Africa. It was Joe Wilson who was the liar.


After deposing Saddam, finding 485 tons of high explosive "flour, 28 Foxbat jet planes buried in the sand and their wings stacked beside them, also in the sand (the delivery system), and other stuff too numerous to mention here, you are asking how could a casualty toll of 20,000 possibly be worth it to country A? I think your hypothetical situation doesn't really depict the situation at all.

If country A just arbitrarily decided to attack country B for no reasons at all, then you made your point, but it would have no meaning.


Assuming an initial rate of 5 per 100k in Iraq (1980 figure) unless you have proof of another figure. With 140k troops it needs only ((140000/100000 * 5) +1) = 8 extra troops (or civilians) to be murdered each year for the rate to exceed that initial rate of 5.

The actual numbers are far higher (8000+) so by your own argument you must concede that that Iraq is proven to be more dangerous than before. The only way this could be countered is with proof that for every soldier or civilian killed as a result of occupation one or more murders has not occured elswhere solely because the US were there (i.e. not Saddam) and thus the overall number of murders remains unchanged or reduced which is what I think you are saying?

Again, zero sum thinking. We don't have to prevent anything.


Here's the site you can go to to find the information that I copied and pasted:

http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/index.php

Iraq is (for Iraqis)a safer place than the big cities in the USA are for Americans, by our own crime statistics. I think the 2379 death toll is pretty close to being right.. I do not know what percentage of the troops occupy Baghdad, versus all the other places in Iraq. I also have no way of finding out what the percentage of other allied troops occupying Iraq may be, and what percentage of them are in Baghdad. We initially had more than we have today, which is about 130,000 right now. We are planning on expanding that number to 180,000, according to the Boston Globe.

You can't add civilian and military deaths together. They are often are in different places, the enemy directives are totally different, and civilians usually get blown up in shopping centers, Mosques, and religious gatherings. Their death toll is different from our death toll. We don't as often get blown up by the same bombs as they do. However, when Americans are patroling their streets and a car bomb goes off, the chances of an American death is decreased by the number of civilians around them.

A bomb releases energy, and that energy is absorbed by everything in its kill zone. The more people at the blast's center, the less likely someone further away is going to be killed.

The NYT is all wet. Let's say the 2,379 death toll took place over 1460 days' time. That puts the American casualty rate per day at 1.63 deaths/day since the war began.

So my point is this-- that's not bad at all for a war. We were told by the Democrats that we'd better get ready with 50,000 body bags, because we were about to get trounced. They are all wet, as usual.

To sum up, America has an amazingly low casualty rate, and has also kept Iraqi casualties to a minimum. From Saddam's own burial grounds and "fertilizer heaps of human chunks," we know that at least from what we've found so far that in the last few years of his reign he murdered about 80,000 people every year. We have so far found almost a half million bodies in hundreds of plots of 15 to 30,000 each. Compared to that carnage, this war was a picnic to an Iraqi.
 

D_Humper E Bogart

Experimental Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
2,172
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
258
Freddie53 said:
Only 255 Billion dollars spent in Iraq! Sounds like someone has hidden much of the cost of the war. That is done all the time. Creative bookkeeping.

The truth also is we have a new generation of war technology. We needed a way to get rid of the older military supplies and test some of our new stuff.

WE have to have a war every 15 years or so. Generals have to be trained. We need to find out who can and who can't conduct a war.

In 15 years we will find another country to priactice war on. But it won't be someone who can really hurt us or is a real danger to us. That would too dangersous.

Rumsfield is testing equipment and generals.
Makes me wonder why most fiction refers to the "American Empire". Just don't start salting the earth or mass enslavement camps will you?
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
solong said:
Dong, your numbers don't tell any story at all because you are making a fatal flaw in math logic first, called the zero sum error. It shakes out that way. It is also begging the question to ask, Is now country A safer, after having killed 85000 in country B and losing 20,000 of their own? Well, the question assumes that country B was innocent and not intent on catching country A off its guard. So you are taking off into the wild blue yonder. You are stopping with the initial death toll of the war. You are not considering the consequences had A not gone to war, nor giving any reason for A to go to war.

Solong you are soooo missing my point. This was a hypothetical example not an exercise in applied or theoretical maths, keep it in perspective!! Country A invaded Country B because on a state visit the Head of state of country B left the seat up. Hell's teeth solong what does it matter? it was hypothetical :biggrin1:

solong said:
We now know from the Saddam Hussein tapes that there were 4 major terrorist training camps in Iraq. We now know that the Russians flew tons of bomb grade plutonium back to Russia. We now know that a truck convoy transported all of Iraq's factories into Syria, 24 hours/day for months. We now know Bush wasn't lying about the yellow cake uranium Saddam was trying to purchase in Africa. It was Joe Wilson who was the liar.


After deposing Saddam, finding 485 tons of high explosive "flour, 28 Foxbat jet planes buried in the sand and their wings stacked beside them, also in the sand (the delivery system), and other stuff too numerous to mention here, you are asking how could a casualty toll of 20,000 possibly be worth it to country A? I think your hypothetical situation doesn't really depict the situation at all.

If country A just arbitrarily decided to attack country B for no reasons at all, then you made your point, but it would have no meaning.

See above.....For the last time it was HYPOTHETICAL what on earth have training camps, foxbat jets, Joe Wilson and Uranium got to do with this theoretical mathematical exercise? So much obfuscation.



solong said:
Here's the site you can go to to find the information that I copied and pasted: http://www.pasadenaweekly.com/index.php
[/quote]

Thanks but it says 1113 days but you pasted 2027 which why I called you on it.

solong said:
Iraq is (for Iraqis)a safer place than the big cities in the USA are for Americans, by our own crime statistics. I think the 2379 death toll is pretty close to being right.. I do not know what percentage of the troops occupy Baghdad, versus all the other places in Iraq.

You don't have accurate figures for the the current murder rates in Iraq, so you cannot state that Iraq is safer than my kitchen as a fact period! You can argue it till you grow old but that all you can do.

You cannot use standard death rates calculation methods for US casualties as they are a hated, targeted occupying force in the minority, a direct comaparison is utterly meaningless. The only 'comparison' I can think of is to look at the comparative murder rates for blacks in inner cities they are so far out of whack with background rates it's scary. You may statistically be 'safe' in a city based on background values unless you are black for example in which case you may as well have a target on you head, which US troops pretty much do.

solong said:
You can't add civilian and military deaths together. They are often are in different places, the enemy directives are totally different, and civilians usually get blown up in shopping centers, Mosques, and religious gatherings. Their death toll is different from our death toll. We don't as often get blown up by the same bombs as they do. However, when Americans are patroling their streets and a car bomb goes off, the chances of an American death is decreased by the number of civilians around them.

Factually correct however murder is murder, death is death. Your argument is specious.

solong said:
A bomb releases energy, and that energy is absorbed by everything in its kill zone. The more people at the blast's center, the less likely someone further away is going to be killed.

Never knew that Duh:rolleyes: This has everything to do with physics but ZERO to do with my point.

solong said:
The NYT is all wet. Let's say the 2,379 death toll took place over 1460 days' time. That puts the American casualty rate per day at 1.63 deaths/day since the war began.

It is 1113 days in your source (or is it 2027) and in your last post you used 1440 but on this issue I have lost the will to live.

solong said:
So my point is this-- that's not bad at all for a war. We were told by the Democrats that we'd better get ready with 50,000 body bags, because we were about to get trounced. They are all wet, as usual.

That's about as insensitive and crass a comment as I can imagine, nearly as much as your assertion that most slaves liked or indeed loved their masters so much that's why so many stayed around when freed. Tell that to the parents and relatives of those killed or the decendents of those slaves.

1 body bag is 1 too many. I suggest you apologise solong. Right now.
 

Matthew

Legendary Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Posts
7,291
Media
0
Likes
1,503
Points
583
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
dong20 said:
1 body bag is 1 too many. I suggest you apologise solong. Right now.

Just don't hold your breath waiting, Dong. We want to keep you around.