THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Again, Cyclo, speaking of incompetence, your thinking Lancet's statistics are valid is incompetent thinking.

Lancet on page 1 of its report wrote:

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,963 ... excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post invasion deaths, 601,027 ... were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.

From Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Year 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007:

Quote:

YEAR .... IRAQ ...... TOTAL
....... POP'LATION . DEATHS

2006 28,513,000 156,822
2005 27,818,000 158,563
2004 25,375,000 147,175
2003 24,683,000 145,630
TOTAL ........... 608,189

For Lancet to allege that during March 2003 to July 2006 there were "654,963 ... excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war," is gross incompetence, when the TOTAL DEATHS in Iraq January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2006 were 608,189--a number 46,774 less than the total deaths Lancet alleged.

Also, Lancet claimed that 601,027 of the "654,963 died of violent causes during this period. While Britannica claims that less than 150,000 died of both accidents and violence during this period.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Well yes ican it does seem that Cheney and pals failed at their every endeveavor from welcoming flowers on the street, cost of the invasion and finally OIL.

Dys, now that was truly a brilliant response. That would of course include their failed objective of all about oil.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

from bernie's post :

Quote:
"Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that," Abizaid said of the Iraq campaign early on in the talk. . .

it seems that we must now assume that general Abizaid (and any others voicing similar thoughts ) did not know why the U.S. went into iraq a/t to ican's opinion ?
what seems puzzling that many of those that are now speaking out where in fairly senior positions in the administration . i assume that they must have learned a fair bit between the time that the became part of the administration and the time they left - unless they already knew upfront but were not willing to speak up . it must be one or the other - or there any other options ?
hbg

Another option is that "general Abizaid (and any others voicing similar thoughts)" are being quoted falsely or out of context, because they actually claimed that oil was one reason but not the only reason.

EXAMPLE OTHER REASON:

Congress wrote:

Congress's Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
...
[10th]Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 09/08/2006, wrote:

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq

But so far, no one seems to want to even guess what was the administration's specific Iraq oil objective.

0 Replies

ican has difficulty with telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
** There was no threat posed by Iraq.

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
** Bush failed to get UN Security Council authorization for war.

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
** Iraq had no involvement on the 9-11 attack in the US.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Again, Cyclo, speaking of incompetence, your thinking Lancet's statistics are valid is incompetent thinking.

Lancet on page 1 of its report wrote:

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,963 ... excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post invasion deaths, 601,027 ... were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.

From Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Year 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007:

Quote:
YEAR .... IRAQ ...... TOTAL
....... POP'LATION . DEATHS

2006 28,513,000 156,822
2005 27,818,000 158,563
2004 25,375,000 147,175
2003 24,683,000 145,630
TOTAL ........... 608,189

For Lancet to allege that during March 2003 to July 2006 there were "654,963 ... excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war," is gross incompetence, when the TOTAL DEATHS in Iraq January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2006 were 608,189--a number 46,774 less than the total deaths Lancet alleged.

Also, Lancet claimed that 601,027 of the "654,963 died of violent causes during this period. While Britannica claims that less than 150,000 died of both accidents and violence during this period.

Well, naturally, Lancet provides methodology and data where Brittanica provides none. Therefore, Lancet is superior information in every way.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican has difficulty with telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
** There was no threat posed by Iraq.

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
** Bush failed to get UN Security Council authorization for war.

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
** Iraq had no involvement on the 9-11 attack in the US.

Cice, Mr. "the whole truth and nothing but the truth," you left out the 23 whereases (i.e., reasons for granting the President this authority, 13 of which were valid).

Of the 23 "Whereases" (i.e., reasons) given by the USA Congress for its October 16, 2002 resolution, 13 were subsequently proven true. The remaining 10 were subsequently proven false.

All 23 of the reasons are numbered by me in brackets. The 13 reasons subsequently proven true are: 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23. The 10 reasons subsequently proven false in one or more respects are: 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19.

Please note, that underlined reasons 10 and 11 are each independently sufficient and independently proven reasons for invading Iraq.

Congress wrote:

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

[1:TRUE] Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

[2: TRUE] Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

[3: FALSE] Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

[4: FALSE] Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

[5: FALSE] Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

[6: FALSE] Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

[7: TRUE] Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

[8: FALSE] Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

[9:TRUE] Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

[10:TRUE] Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

[11:TRUE] Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

[12: FALSE] Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

[13: FALSE] Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

[14: FALSE] Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

[15: FALSE] Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;

[16:TRUE] Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

[17:TRUE] Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

[18:TRUE] Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

[19: FALSE] Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

[20:TRUE] Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

[21:TRUE] Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

[22:TRUE] Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

[23:TRUE] Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:

Now therefore be it, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Authorization for use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Again, Cyclo, speaking of incompetence, your thinking Lancet's statistics are valid is incompetent thinking.

Lancet on page 1 of its report wrote:

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,963 ... excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post invasion deaths, 601,027 ... were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.

From Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Year 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007:

Quote:
YEAR .... IRAQ ...... TOTAL
....... POP'LATION . DEATHS

2006 28,513,000 156,822
2005 27,818,000 158,563
2004 25,375,000 147,175
2003 24,683,000 145,630
TOTAL ........... 608,189

For Lancet to allege that during March 2003 to July 2006 there were "654,963 ... excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war," is gross incompetence, when the TOTAL DEATHS in Iraq January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2006 were 608,189--a number 46,774 less than the total deaths Lancet alleged.

Also, Lancet claimed that 601,027 of the "654,963 died of violent causes during this period. While Britannica claims that less than 150,000 died of both accidents and violence during this period.

Well, naturally, Lancet provides methodology and data where Brittanica provides none. Therefore, Lancet is superior information in every way.

Cycloptichorn

Britannica provides statistical data that it calls Britannica World Data. Britannica has been providing this data since 1985 for over a 160 nations--including the USA--from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe. The data they provide include Demography, Vital statistics, National economy, Foreign trade, Education and health, and Military.

Britannica Book of the Year, 1985, in Introduction, page 615, wrote:

Validity and Recency of Data.
The researchers and editors who compile and edit the Encyclopedia Britannica, Britannica Book of the Year, and the other publications that the Britannica World Data supplements must consult thousands of reference works, statistical and otherwise, to assure the continued quality, accuracy, and up-to-dateness of our publications. The "Bibliography and sources" beginning on page 958 enumerates some of the national and international sources used in compilation of the Britannica World Data. All of these sources are held, and updated continuously, in the statistical collections of Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
...

They have been doing this work for 22 years.

Lancet's methodology is provably incompetent and so is its data. No matter how thoroughly they describe how they arrived at their conclusions, their conclusions are demonstrably false. The war in Iraq cannot possibly produce 46,774 more fatalities than the total number of fatalities that actually occurred iin Iraq 2003 through 2006.

0 Replies

from ican's post :

Quote:

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region

i'm sure most iraqis are wondereing when the noble goal
" to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region " will be achieved . i'm sure many will not live long enough to experience security , let alone peace .
hbg

0 Replies

We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

After April 2007, A Month by Month, Daily Average of IBC's Count of Violent Deaths in Iraq:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

May = 3,755 / 31 = ... 121 per day

.. Surge fully operational in June ..

June = 2,386 / 30 = ...... 80 per day.
July = 2,077 / 31 = ......... 67 per day.
August = 2,084 / 31 = ........ 67 per day.
September = 1,333 / 30 = .. 44 per day.
October = 67 / 3 = ...... 22 per day.*
November = ----? / 30 = ----? per day.**
December = ----? / 31 = ----? per day.**

*Data currently available for only first 3 days of this month.
**Data not yet available.

Daily Average Violent Deaths in Iraq:
A = 1/1/1979 - 12/31/2002 = 1,229,210/ 8,766 days = 140 per day;
B = 1/1/2003 - 10/03/2007 = 82,193/1,736 days = ... 47 per day;
A/B = 140/47 = 2.96.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

from ican's post :

Quote:
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region

i'm sure most iraqis are wondereing when the noble goal
" to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region " will be achieved . i'm sure many will not live long enough to experience security , let alone peace .
hbg

I'm sure many more Iraqis would not have lived long enough to experience security, let alone peace, if Saddam had remained in power.

0 Replies

Here's more evidence of Lancet's incompetence.

Lancet on page 1 of its report, under [u]Summary[/u] (also see page 9 under [u]Discussion[/u]), wrote:

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
...
We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,963 ... excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post invasion deaths, 601,027 ... were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.
...

That preceding Lancet violent death number does not agree with the sum of Lancet's page 7, Figure 4, violent death numbers.

On Page 7, Figure 4, Lancet showed that total violent deaths in Iraq, March 2003 - April 2004, May 2004 - May 2005, and June 2005 - June 2006, were, respectively, 21,000, 35,000, and 57,000 = a total of 113,000;
AND NOT a total of 601,027 as Lancet claimed on page 1, under Summary;
AND NOT a total of 601,000 as Lancet claimed on page 9, under Discussion.

0 Replies

Report says buildup in Iraq gained little
U.S. military, civilian officials warn progress will require years of work
By David Wood | Sun reporter
October 19, 2007

WASHINGTON - Despite hopes that the U.S. military "surge" in Iraq would encourage economic and political headway and sap the strength of the insurgency, very little lasting progress has been achieved, according to a new U.S. report.

The study, based on the assessments of dozens of U.S. military and civilian officials working at local levels across Iraq, runs counter to the optimistic forecasts by the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. It said that with the exception of Anbar province, there has been "little progress" toward political reconciliation, a key U.S. goal in Iraq.

Withdrawal of U.S. troops would produce "open battlegrounds of ethnic cleansing" in some Baghdad neighborhoods and elsewhere in Iraq, the report said.

In high-profile congressional hearings last month, Petraeus and Crocker testified that the addition of 28,000 American troops in Iraq, ordered last winter by President Bush, was reducing violence and providing opportunity for economic projects, government reform and political reconciliation.

The troop "surge" is temporary, with the first of the reinforcement units scheduled to leave Iraq before Christmas.

But instead of charting progress, the new report, by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, warns that Iraq "will require years of steady engagement" before there is significant progress in providing Iraqis with power and clean water, jobs, health resources and government that works.

"Iraq's complex and overlapping sectarian, political, and ethnic conflicts, as well as the difficult security situation, continue to hinder progress in promoting economic development, rule of law, and political reconciliation," the report cautioned.

With a $44 billion investment by American taxpayers in rebuilding Iraq, there are some visible improvements, the report said. But it warned that local and provincial governments "have little ability to manage and maintain" new health clinics, water treatment plants, power-generating facilities and other projects.

One U.S. official in Iraq, quoted anonymously in the report, said he foresaw a "train wreck" ahead as costly U.S. projects in Iraq grind to a halt for lack of manpower or maintenance.

The report's grim conclusions parallel previous U.S. assessments, including a major national intelligence estimate in August that said there had been little economic improvement. That report forecast that sectarian violence would continue displacing Iraqis from their own neighborhoods and that Iraq's government would "become more precarious" over the next six to 12 months.

Nevertheless, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates dismissed the report's conclusion, which he said "doesn't square" with what he is hearing from senior U.S. military officers in Iraq.

I can't help getting the impression that our senior military leaders are as much out of touch with reality in Iraq as they were in Vietnam. You would have thought our military would have learned something from Vietnam but they didn't.

The office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, created by Congress three years ago to probe U.S. spending in Iraq, is headed by Stuart W. Bowen, a lawyer who previously worked for then-Gov. Bush in Texas and served on Bush's White House staff in Washington.

His report, released yesterday, is based on assessments from 32 provincial reconstruction teams made up of U.S. military and civilian experts in local government.

But Gates says, 'Your wrong. I want to believe the prettier picture my generals tell me.' No wonder we're losing our ass.

Despite the arduous and often dangerous conditions these teams work under, they have achieved some "incremental" success, the report said. But it went on to document continuing problems that run deep and wide through Iraq.

The judicial system is not functioning because of police corruption and judges who are subject to intimidation by sectarian violence. To boost employment, U.S. military commanders are spending millions of dollars on short-term reconstruction projects that employ Iraqis, but these projects often are not coordinated with local governments and rarely provide long-term job opportunities, the report said.

The report documented "a growing public frustration" of Iraqis with their government. As a result, there has been "little progress" toward political reconciliation, which it said was being undermined by jockeying for power among rival Shiite groups and a "sense of alienation" on the part of the minority Sunnis.

Asked yesterday about the report, Gates said he had not read it and does not believe its assessment.

Nothing like an open mind here.

"The information that we're getting from the commanders and from the ambassador doesn't square with that," Gates said at a Pentagon news briefing. "Our sense is that, in fact, there is progress in these areas - more than we would have expected."

Adm. Mike Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said the report's assessments differ from what he saw on a recent trip to Iraq.

As evidence of a growing economy, Mullen cited a butcher at a local market just outside Baghdad who until recently was selling a sheep every week. Now, the butcher is selling a sheep every day, Mullen said.

Excellent indicator of what's happening in Iraq; a single butcher at a local market.

"I don't want to overly state it ... but it's starting to happen," he said.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/world/iraq/bal-te.iraq19oct19,0,3632210.story

Remember George Romney and the brainwashing incident during the Vietnam War?

Quote:

Replied Romney: "When I came back from Viet Nam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get when you go over to Viet Nam."

Gordon: By the generals?

Romney: Not only by the generals but also by the diplomatic corps over there, and they do a very thorough job, and, since returning from Viet Nam, I've gone into the history of Viet Nam, all the way back into World War II and before that. And, as a result, I have changed my mind.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,941126,00.html

Perhaps these two articles should be re-read to give an idea about bad generalship and the state of denial in Vietnam and Iraq.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2007/05/2635198

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/magazine/26military-t.html?_r=1&em&ex=1188360000&en=fcf5b3241acbd31e&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

0 Replies

Ican,

You are appealing to Authority, a logical fallacy. I still haven't seen Britannica's data or methodology. Without seeing those, I can't make a rational decision about whether or not their figures are accurate.

Therefore, your argument fails due to reliance on a source which cannot be proven to be true or false. You cannot independently judge Lancet's numbers using a source which doesn't provide methodology or data. There is no reason to believe that their casualty numbers are in fact correct, yet you seem to take them as gospel. Most likely, b/c it supports your position better to do so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

There's some press today on a US airstrick killing civilians in Iraq. Seymour Hersch had written some months ago that the US military was switching strategy to increase air attacks so as to minimize US ground force casualties (a political necessity). And as he noted, obviously this policy shift would have the consequence of a marked increase in the number of innocents killed and maimed. What is most notable about today's coverage is how unusual it is in American media coverage.

0 Replies

Use of air attacks to minimise US losses on the ground has been a feature of this conflict since the beginning.

How many pops did they have at villages and town streets trying to kill Saddam? Five or six. All missed their intended victim, but many died.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ican,

You are appealing to Authority, a logical fallacy.

You too are appealing to authority. Only in your case, you are appealing to a much lesser authority whose report is self contradictory. How about that for a logical falacy?

I still haven't seen Britannica's data or methodology. Without seeing those, I can't make a rational decision about whether or not their figures are accurate.

You made an irrational decision based on a report that is self-contradictory and that describes a polling process that obtains the unverified opinions of people that may or may not constitute a true statistically accurate representation of the Iraqi population.

Therefore, your argument fails due to reliance on a source which cannot be proven to be true or false. You cannot independently judge Lancet's numbers using a source which doesn't provide methodology or data. There is no reason to believe that their casualty numbers are in fact correct, yet you seem to take them as gospel. Most likely, b/c it supports your position better to do so.

It isn't my argument that fails. It is your reasoning that fails. My source does provide data, lots of data for lots of countries--more than 200 countries in its Britannica Book of the Year 2007, section titled, Britannica World Data.

You and I can independently judge the validity of Lancet's data based on the content of its report without resort to any Britannica reference. As I have already explained, Lancet contradicts its own Figure 4 on page 7 with its own well advertised data given on pages 1 and 6 of its report.

You or anyone else can checkout both Britannica's data and its specified sources (e.g., page 852 of Book of the Year 2007) simply by going to a public library and accessing the relevant Britannica Books of the Year--2004, 2005, 2005, and 2006, and 2007.

You do have reason not to believe the Lancet report--that reason is contained in the Lancet report. You do not have any reason not to believe Britannica's data--data they have been supplying for 22 years, originally for more than 160 nations and currently for more than 200 nations.

Whether you like it or not, the total number of deaths in Iraq since the war started cannot possibly be less than the number of "excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war." But Lancet claims otherwise.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ican,

You are appealing to Authority, a logical fallacy.

You too are appealing to authority. Only in your case, you are appealing to a much lesser authority whose report is self contradictory. How about that for a logical falacy?

I still haven't seen Britannica's data or methodology. Without seeing those, I can't make a rational decision about whether or not their figures are accurate.

You made an irrational decision based on a report that is self-contradictory and that describes a polling process that obtains the unverified opinions of people that may or may not constitute a true statistically accurate representation of the Iraqi population.

Therefore, your argument fails due to reliance on a source which cannot be proven to be true or false. You cannot independently judge Lancet's numbers using a source which doesn't provide methodology or data. There is no reason to believe that their casualty numbers are in fact correct, yet you seem to take them as gospel. Most likely, b/c it supports your position better to do so.

It isn't my argument that fails. It is your reasoning that fails. My source does provide data, lots of data for lots of countries--more than 200 countries in its Britannica Book of the Year 2007, section titled, Britannica World Data.

You and I can independently judge the validity of Lancet's data based on the content of its report without resort to any Britannica reference. As I have already explained, Lancet contradicts its own Figure 4 on page 7 with its own well advertised data given on pages 1 and 6 of its report.

You or anyone else can checkout both Britannica's data and its specified sources (e.g., page 852 of Book of the Year 2007) simply by going to a public library and accessing the relevant Britannica Books of the Year--2004, 2005, 2005, and 2006, and 2007.

You do have reason not to believe the Lancet report--that reason is contained in the Lancet report. You do not have any reason not to believe Britannica's data--data they have been supplying for 22 years, originally for more than 160 nations and currently for more than 200 nations.

Whether you like it or not, the total number of deaths in Iraq since the war started cannot possibly be less than the number of "excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war." But Lancet claims otherwise.

Cycloptichorn

Bullsh*t. Crying about a 27-person difference in statistics which number in the hundreds of thousands is ridiculous.

Britannica does not provide sources for their data, nor their methodology - so they are not to be taken seriously in a discussion such as this.

Your disagreements with the Lancet study are not based in actual knowledge of the processes of statistical sampling, but upon your political beliefs. I make no such claim about Britannica - only that you have failed to provide any data to back up their claims.

I don't think you understand Lancet's methodology at all. Here's Jane Galt:

http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009519.html

Read up on statistics a little, and then get back to me. I'll trust the word of people who know something about the subject over the half-assed analysis of a senile old man any day.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Report says buildup in Iraq gained little
U.S. military, civilian officials warn progress will require years of work
By David Wood | Sun reporter
October 19, 2007

WASHINGTON - Despite hopes that the U.S. military "surge" in Iraq would encourage economic and political headway and sap the strength of the insurgency, very little lasting progress has been achieved, according to a new U.S. report.

...

It is necessary for us to sufficiently "sap the strength of the insurgency," before we can adequately "encourage economic and political headway." We are have made progress in sapping the strength of the insurgency.

A Month by Month, Daily Average of IBC's Count of Violent Deaths in Iraq, After April 2007:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

May = 3,755 / 31 = ... 121 per day

.. Surge fully operational in June ..

June = 2,386 / 30 = ...... 80 per day.
July = 2,077 / 31 = ......... 67 per day.
August = 2,084 / 31 = ........ 67 per day.
September = 1,333 / 30 = .. 44 per day.
October = 67 / 4 = ...... 19 per day.*
November = ----? / 30 = ----? per day.**
December = ----? / 31 = ----? per day.**

*Data currently available for only first 4 days of this month.
**Data not yet available.

Daily Average Violent Deaths in Iraq:
A = 1/1/1979 - 12/31/2002 = 1,229,210/ 8,766 days = 140 per day;
B = 1/1/2003 - 10/04/2007 = 82,203/1,737 days = ... 47 per day;
A/B = 140/47 = 2.96.

We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ican,

You are appealing to Authority, a logical fallacy.

You too are appealing to authority. Only in your case, you are appealing to a much lesser authority whose report is self contradictory. How about that for a logical falacy?

I still haven't seen Britannica's data or methodology. Without seeing those, I can't make a rational decision about whether or not their figures are accurate.

You made an irrational decision based on a report that is self-contradictory and that describes a polling process that obtains the unverified opinions of people that may or may not constitute a true statistically accurate representation of the Iraqi population.

Therefore, your argument fails due to reliance on a source which cannot be proven to be true or false. You cannot independently judge Lancet's numbers using a source which doesn't provide methodology or data. There is no reason to believe that their casualty numbers are in fact correct, yet you seem to take them as gospel. Most likely, b/c it supports your position better to do so.

It isn't my argument that fails. It is your reasoning that fails. My source does provide data, lots of data for lots of countries--more than 200 countries in its Britannica Book of the Year 2007, section titled, Britannica World Data.

You and I can independently judge the validity of Lancet's data based on the content of its report without resort to any Britannica reference. As I have already explained, Lancet contradicts its own Figure 4 on page 7 with its own well advertised data given on pages 1 and 6 of its report.

You or anyone else can checkout both Britannica's data and its specified sources (e.g., page 852 of Book of the Year 2007) simply by going to a public library and accessing the relevant Britannica Books of the Year--2004, 2005, 2005, and 2006, and 2007.

You do have reason not to believe the Lancet report--that reason is contained in the Lancet report. You do not have any reason not to believe Britannica's data--data they have been supplying for 22 years, originally for more than 160 nations and currently for more than 200 nations.

Whether you like it or not, the total number of deaths in Iraq since the war started cannot possibly be less than the number of "excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war." But Lancet claims otherwise.

Cycloptichorn

Bullsh*t. Crying about a 27-person difference in statistics which number in the hundreds of thousands is ridiculous.

...

I'll trust the word of people who know something about the subject over the half-assed analysis of a senile old man any day.

Cycloptichorn

First, thank you for your very creative and enjoyable concession to me via your personal attack on me: "half-assed analysis of a senile old man." Laughing

Second, the difference between Lancet's claim on page 1--or page 6--and Lancet's claim on page 7, Figure 4, is not "a 27-person difference."

Even this "half-assed ... senile old man" can subtract better than that.

Specifically, I am challenging the validity of the Lancet report based on the difference between the 654,965 number on page 1, and the 113,000 sum computed from page 7, Figure 4 (21,000 +35,000+57,000 = 113,000). That's a tad more than 27--wherever in hell you got that number. Rolling Eyes

That difference is: 654,965 - 113,000 = 541,965.

0 Replies

ican wrote:

We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

As always ican your full of crap. We didn't lose freedom when we got our butts kicked in Vietnam and we won't if we lose in Iraq. The only way we will lose our freedom is if we let the neo-cons scare us out of our wits and we surrender it to them. If that happens than we deserve to lose our freedom.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know