THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

dyslexia wrote:

I think we have a contest. They killed more than we did, no no we killed more than they did. Actually the dead don't care who killed them (or how many) cause they're dead. Well yeah but if you read the fine print some of them may or may not be dead. Well, that's a problem we can take care of.

I know what you mean dyslexia, going by Ican reasoning why would anyone ever count the dead in any war or act of aggresssion.

I think history might very well call this time the age of twisted reasoning.

0 Replies

[my comments are in darkred]

revel wrote:

Ican, the purpose of the no fly zones was to protect the Kurds. If Saddam could not fly there to attack, why would he be able walk there to attack?
[Why not? Why wouldn't Saddam be able to have his forces drive or run or walk there to attack those critters? Here in the US, aviators are prohibited from flying in what are called PROHIBITED AREAS, but they are not also prohibited from driving or running or walking in those areas]
He would have to argue the case about the "critters" to show cause for going into the protected area or else we would have seen it as a hostile action.
[Saddam didn't have to show cause. You may have forgotten that the US requested Saddam to capture Zarqawi and the rest of the critter leadership and turn them over to us]
That only makes common sense.
[No, it's only common sense that we would permit Saddam to do exactly what we asked him to do. Saddam chose not to capture Zarqawi and the rest of the critter leadership and turn them over to us: that is, Saddam tolerated those critters being encamped in northern Iraq. So we invaded Iraq to try and accomplish that capture, among other things, ourselves.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds

Quote:
Kurdish regions during the 1990s had de-facto independence, with fully functioning civil administrations, and were protected by the US-enforced Iraqi no-fly zone which stopped Iraqi air attacks.

[Yes, that's true! We protected the Kurds (and the Shia) from Saddam's Iraq regime air attacks. Otherwise, Saddam's Iraq regime governed the country at the Iraqi national level, but not at some local levels.]
It seems to me since the area was under our protection we were responsible for the critters.
[Well, it sure turned out that way. Saddam's Iraq regime wouldn't try to capture and turn those critters over to us, so we decided to try to do that by and for ourselves] [/b]

[NET: Saddam tolerated the critters encamped in northern Iraq, and, thereby, harbored the critters in northern Iraq. So, just as Bush warned the nations of the world he would do, on the nights of 1/11/01 and 1/20/01, we invaded Iraq, for among other reasons, to stop that harboring]

[The only rational counter argument I can think of is: Perhaps we didn't have to remove Saddam and his baathist government. Perhaps we could have temporarily neutralized his government, while we attempted to remove all the al Qaeda critters from Iraq; Perhaps then we could have left the country, and thereby saved many US lives and money, if not many Iraq lives and money. That of course is only my speculation.]

0 Replies

revel wrote:

... I know what you mean dyslexia, going by Ican reasoning why would anyone ever count the dead in any war or act of aggresssion. ... I think history might very well call this time the age of twisted reasoning.

Surely you and dyslexia understand that in the case of our invasion of Iraq we have a unique situation. While some of the civilian casualties and fatalities are caused by Coalition actions, many, perhaps a large majority, are caused not by Coalition actions, but are caused by Insurgent actions or other causes. Those civilian casualties and fatalities caused by Insurgent actions, are solely the responsibility of the Insurgents themselves.

BY THE WAY according to Britannica:

Iraq population in 2001 = 23,332,000;
Death Rate per Thousand in 2001 = 6.2 (world = 9.1);

So Deaths in Iraq in 2001 = 23,332,000 x 6.2 / 1000 = 144,658.

Shouldn't those annual deaths be excluded when computing deaths caused by the Iraqi war Question

Of course they should Exclamation

0 Replies

Only a twisted mind thinks like ican.

0 Replies

That was very polite, c.i.!

0 Replies

Actually, ican's reasoning works delightfully.

Given the decrease in the death rate due to other causes, ican's plan would mean that there has been no increase in deaths in coalition countries due to the invasion. In which case, you have to wonder why the NG and reserve are having such a hard time getting people to sign up. They were gonna die in any case.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Actually, ican's reasoning works delightfully. Given the decrease in the death rate due to other causes, ican's plan would mean that there has been no increase in deaths in coalition countries due to the invasion. In which case, you have to wonder why the NG and reserve are having such a hard time getting people to sign up. They were gonna die in any case.

Clearly, y'all need a bit of help with your reasoning. Laughing

Let's say the non-war-caused-civilian death rate in Iraq for the year 2004 was 5.0 per thousand, down from the 6.2 per thousand in 2001.

Let's also say the population of Iraq was up from 23,332,000 to 25,000,000 in 2004.

Now y'all among the majority of the voters in the blue states, and among the minority of the voters in the red states listen up and focus. Laughing

The non-war-caused-civilian deaths in Iraq in 2001 = 23,332,000 x 6.2 / 1000 = 144,658.

Then the non-war-caused-civilian deaths in Iraq in 2004 = 25,000,000 x 5 / 1000 = 125,000.

The number of non-war-caused-civilian deaths in Iraq reduced from 144,658 in 2001 to 125,000 in 2004 which is a decrease = 144,658 - 125,000 = 19,658.

Now let's say the total number of deaths from all causes in Iraq in 2004 = 225,000. Laughing

Please pay close attention y'all. This may be very very complicated for y'all. Laughing

The number of war-caused-civilian deaths in Iraq in 2004 = total deaths - non-war-caused-civilian deaths in 2004 = 225,000 - 125,000 = 100,000.

Let's say in 2004, 25,000 of that 100,000 were caused by the Coalition. Laughing

Then the number of war-caused-civilian deaths not caused by the Coalition = 100,000 - 25,000 = 75,000.

Laughing

Whoops y'all! I didn't use decrease = 144,658 - 125,000 = 19,658. What is its relevance? What relevance does it have? Beats me! Oh, well y'all, I don't know everything, yet! Laughing

Now class, this is homework for y'all. Laughing

Supose now let's say the total number of deaths from all causes in Iraq in 2004 = 100,000 and not 225,000. What would y'all conclude from that? Hmmmmmm? Laughing

0 Replies

Ican, here's some more numbers to play with. The UN estimated the embargo Killed over a Million Iraqis by 1999. Sad

It seems their management of peace was about as deadly than our management of war.

0 Replies

"about as deadly"? You really think the war has taken out a million people? I think not. I'm pretty sure Obill and Ican think not. We all, however, think.

0 Replies

Right you are, Foxy, I was pro-rating the deaths out over the decade or so in question and didn't want to use to precise of terms because I didn't feel like trying to verify minor details. I most certainly do not think the war has killed a million people and in fact; strongly believe it will ultimately save many millions of people. IMHO, the stats on the decade of death preceding our re-emption of hostilities support this conclusion.

0 Replies

A wise man--I cannot think of the name at the moment--once said something to the effect that the absence of war is not necessarily peace.

0 Replies

so then, what is the absence of peace?

0 Replies

A wise man said? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha... ROFLMAO

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

so then, what is the absence of peace?

The absence of

Quote:

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

!

0 Replies

I found many using that quote, but could not find a name for the original source. These are especially pertinent however:

Dorothy Thompson: They have not wanted Peace at all; they have wanted to be spared war -- as though the absence of war was the same as peace.

Aristotle: We make war that we may live in peace.

HH the Dalai Lama: Peace, in the sense of the absence of war, is of little value to someone who is dying of hunger or cold. It will not remove the pain of torture inflicted on a prisoner of conscience. It does not comfort those who have lost their loved ones in floods caused by senseless deforestation in a neighboring country. Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free.

0 Replies

Ican, I give up on you. I think infrablue is better able to answer and I may be keeping him from it.

0 Replies

I'd like to test a theory, but don't know how.

My theory is:
A majority, perhaps all, of those who are members of red-state majorities or members of blue-state minorities (call them rednecks) reason from assumptions to conclusions, while a majority, perhaps all, of those who are members of blue-state majorities or members of red-state minorities (call them bluenecks) reason from conclusions to assumptions.

In other words, I'm theorizing that rednecks try to induce conclusions from evidence, while bluenecks try to deduce evidence from conclusions.

Simple examples:
John slandered his colleagues, therefore John is a slanderer.
George is a liar, therefore George lied.

How can a redneck test that theory?

How can a blueneck refute that theory?

0 Replies

Is this a "coloured" joke? Not very PC of you ican.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Is this a "coloured" joke? Not very PC of you ican.

Excellent!

redneck: This is a colored joke, therefore Ican is not very PC!

blueneck: Ican is not very PC, therefore this is a colored joke.

***************

dyslexia spells colored c o l o u r e d, therefore dyslexia was educated in a British school.

dyslexia was educated in a British school, therefore dyslexia spells colored c o l o u r e d.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Ican, I give up on you. I think infrablue is better able to answer and I may be keeping him from it.

I give up on Ican, therefore Ican is persistently wrong.
Ican is persistently wrong, therefore I give up on Ican. :wink:

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know