9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:43 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Success is not achieved merely by complaining about the lack of it.


Nor cheerleading false statistics.

Cycloptichorn

Perfection is not achieved merely by complaining about the lack of it.


The quest for perfection is futile.

We'd be satisfied with competence, something which our leadership does not display.

Cycloptichorn

Competence is not achieved by complaining about the lack of it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:47 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Success is not achieved merely by complaining about the lack of it.


Nor cheerleading false statistics.

Cycloptichorn

Perfection is not achieved merely by complaining about the lack of it.


The quest for perfection is futile.

We'd be satisfied with competence, something which our leadership does not display.

Cycloptichorn

Competence is not achieved by complaining about the lack of it.


How is it achieved?

The problem in our case is that there has been no evidence of increases in competence by the leadership; we don't have time for them to 'achieve' anything.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:50 pm
McGentrix wrote:
So, what exactly would be success for you?


Success? You are looking for signs of what?

The Iraq war has become a disaster that we have chosen to forget

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2205216,00.html

....Dahr Jamail was a mountain guide in Alaska in 2003 who began to take an interest in US foreign policy and ended up picking up his backpack and swapping American mountains for Baghdad and Falluja, driven by a fierce moral imperative that "as a US citizen he was complicit in the devastation of Iraq". After more than three years of reporting he has post-traumatic stress disorder, but has not lost his conviction that "if the people of the United States had the real story about what their government has done in Iraq, the occupation would already have ended".

What is chilling about Jamail's accounts is the routine destructiveness of the US forces; how they demolish nearby homes after a roadside bomb, leave unexploded munitions in the fields of farmers who don't give information, bulldoze orchards. Livelihoods destroyed, families displaced every day, incubating hatred. One of the worst episodes occurred when Jamail's friend was caught by chance at prayer time in a mosque when worshippers were shot dead, with children trapped in the mayhem: a holy place desecrated in a US operation. We may know nothing of such routine details of the prosecution of this war, but these are the stories filling the Arabic media. Across the Muslim world they are taken as irrefutable evidence of the humiliation and persecution of their Islamic faith. We can only pretend we don't understand.

In the meantime, the biggest human displacement crisis in the Middle East for 60 years is unfolding, the fastest growing refugee crisis in the world. One in six Iraqis has now been displaced, 60,000 a month are leaving the country, spilling into Syria (1.4 million) and Jordan (750,000). In an uncanny magnification of our own anxieties about migration and the strain on public services, the capacities of these two Middle Eastern countries to educate thousands of traumatised children or provide basic healthcare have been swamped. The UN's budget for refugees in Syria for 2007 is $700,000 - less than a dollar per person. But this crisis offers no telegenic vistas - people are crammed into the apartments of friends rather than tents on a windy African plain. So it gets even less attention.
Of these millions, Britain confirmed last week that it will take just 500 refugees with a record of having worked for British forces. It drags its feet over offering any more assistance for dispersal, despite requests from the UN; of 123 from Jordan whom the UN have allocated to Britain on tight criteria of having relatives in this country to provide for them, we have so far accepted only three. Britain washes its hands of the consequences of its invasion with the US. There's a horrible contradiction here: those in power accept no responsibility. Those who might have a sense of responsibility feel utterly powerless.

It can take a generation or more for people to grasp the significance and magnitude of historical events. Facts that are infinitely more bizarre and awful than fiction - as Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine documents - take a long time to be fully absorbed. The Iraq war has been about the abject failure of democracy: governments have not been held to account for a war that has squandered lives, billions in public money and the stability of an entire region with reckless criminality.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:59 pm
Daily Average Violent Deaths in Iraq--PRE AND POST JANUARY 1, 2003:
PRE = 1/1/1979 - 12/31/2002 = 1,229,210/ 8,766 days = 140 per day;

POST = 1/1/2003 - 10/21/2007 = 83,029/1,755 days = …... 47 per day;

PRE / POST = 140/47 = 2.96.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 04:01 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Daily Average Violent Deaths in Iraq--PRE AND POST JANUARY 1, 2003:
PRE = 1/1/1979 - 12/31/2002 = 1,229,210/ 8,766 days = 140 per day;

POST = 1/1/2003 - 10/21/2007 = 83,029/1,755 days = …... 47 per day;

PRE / POST = 140/47 = 2.96.


The accuracy of your first number (PRE) is questionable at best.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 04:05 pm
ican, Nice statistics; the only problem is the simple fact that more American lives are being sacrificed to save Iraqis. The biggest problem is when our surge troops begin to come home; the future of Iraq is still unsettled, and getting worse for their own citizens.

Many have migrated to other countries, millions more are displaced in their own country, most of their professionals have left their country for safer havens, and their government is ineffective and non-operational.

Yeah, lets continue to look at the reduction in Iraqi dead; but don't forget what Americans are sacrificing for this lost cause. When our vets come home, they're not provided with the necessary health care and benefits they have earned; a stab in the back by Bush.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 04:48 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Daily Average Violent Deaths in Iraq--PRE AND POST JANUARY 1, 2003:
PRE = 1/1/1979 - 12/31/2002 = 1,229,210/ 8,766 days = 140 per day;

POST = 1/1/2003 - 10/21/2007 = 83,029/1,755 days = …... 47 per day;

PRE / POST = 140/47 = 2.96.


The accuracy of your first number (PRE) is questionable at best.

Cycloptichorn

It is questionable by you, but not questionable by the Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Year.

You have already demonstrated conclusively that you are incompetent to judge the validity of statistics. Your support of the self-contradicting Lancet statistics for April 2003 thru June 2006, Iraq violent deaths, by alleging a consensus supports it, rather than defering to the logic that refutes it, is demonstration enough. But then you went on to claim Jane Galt's article supports the Lancet statistics, which her article does not do. In fact, she describes the IBC statistics, which significantly contradict the Lancet statistics, as inaccurate no more than plus or minus 50%. Even if the IBC statistics were doubled (i.e., increased 100%), the Lancet Iraq violent death statistics would be more than 4 times the IBC statistics.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 04:55 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Daily Average Violent Deaths in Iraq--PRE AND POST JANUARY 1, 2003:
PRE = 1/1/1979 - 12/31/2002 = 1,229,210/ 8,766 days = 140 per day;

POST = 1/1/2003 - 10/21/2007 = 83,029/1,755 days = …... 47 per day;

PRE / POST = 140/47 = 2.96.


The accuracy of your first number (PRE) is questionable at best.

Cycloptichorn

It is questionable by you, but not questionable by the Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Year.

You have already demonstrated conclusively that you are incompetent to judge the validity of statistics. Your support of the self-contradicting Lancet statistics for April 2003 thru June 2006, Iraq violent deaths, by alleging a consensus supports it, rather than defering to the logic that refutes it, is demonstration enough. But then you went on to claim Jane Galt's article supports the Lancet statistics, which her article does not do. In fact, she describes the IBC statistics, which significantly contradict the Lancet statistics, as inaccurate no more than plus or minus 50%. Even if the IBC statistics were doubled (i.e., increased 100%), the Lancet Iraq violent death statistics would be more than 4 times the IBC statistics.


Nobody but you considers the Encyclopedia Britannica to be an authoritative source.

I'm not interested in your inability to comprehend basic statistical modeling. We've been over this before.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 04:55 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, Nice statistics; the only problem is the simple fact that more American lives are being sacrificed to save Iraqis. The biggest problem is when our surge troops begin to come home; the future of Iraq is still unsettled, and getting worse for their own citizens.

Many have migrated to other countries, millions more are displaced in their own country, most of their professionals have left their country for safer havens, and their government is ineffective and non-operational.

Yeah, lets continue to look at the reduction in Iraqi dead; but don't forget what Americans are sacrificing for this lost cause. When our vets come home, they're not provided with the necessary health care and benefits they have earned; a stab in the back by Bush.

When we win and succeed in Iraq, a large percentage of the alleged migrated and displaced Iraqis will begin returning home, just as they did for a while after Saddam's government was removed.

As for American sacrifices, these sacrifices are being made in an effort to help Americans avoid suffering significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:01 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Daily Average Violent Deaths in Iraq--PRE AND POST JANUARY 1, 2003:
PRE = 1/1/1979 - 12/31/2002 = 1,229,210/ 8,766 days = 140 per day;

POST = 1/1/2003 - 10/21/2007 = 83,029/1,755 days = …... 47 per day;

PRE / POST = 140/47 = 2.96.


The accuracy of your first number (PRE) is questionable at best.

Cycloptichorn

It is questionable by you, but not questionable by the Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Year.

You have already demonstrated conclusively that you are incompetent to judge the validity of statistics. Your support of the self-contradicting Lancet statistics for April 2003 thru June 2006, Iraq violent deaths, by alleging a consensus supports it, rather than defering to the logic that refutes it, is demonstration enough. But then you went on to claim Jane Galt's article supports the Lancet statistics, which her article does not do. In fact, she describes the IBC statistics, which significantly contradict the Lancet statistics, as inaccurate no more than plus or minus 50%. Even if the IBC statistics were doubled (i.e., increased 100%), the Lancet Iraq violent death statistics would be more than 4 times the IBC statistics.


Nobody but you considers the Encyclopedia Britannica to be an authoritative source.

I'm not interested in your inability to comprehend basic statistical modeling. We've been over this before.

Cycloptichorn

Nobody but you, and some of your like minded incompetents, considers the Encyclopedia Britannica to not be an authoritative source.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:04 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Daily Average Violent Deaths in Iraq--PRE AND POST JANUARY 1, 2003:
PRE = 1/1/1979 - 12/31/2002 = 1,229,210/ 8,766 days = 140 per day;

POST = 1/1/2003 - 10/21/2007 = 83,029/1,755 days = …... 47 per day;

PRE / POST = 140/47 = 2.96.


The accuracy of your first number (PRE) is questionable at best.

Cycloptichorn

It is questionable by you, but not questionable by the Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Year.

You have already demonstrated conclusively that you are incompetent to judge the validity of statistics. Your support of the self-contradicting Lancet statistics for April 2003 thru June 2006, Iraq violent deaths, by alleging a consensus supports it, rather than defering to the logic that refutes it, is demonstration enough. But then you went on to claim Jane Galt's article supports the Lancet statistics, which her article does not do. In fact, she describes the IBC statistics, which significantly contradict the Lancet statistics, as inaccurate no more than plus or minus 50%. Even if the IBC statistics were doubled (i.e., increased 100%), the Lancet Iraq violent death statistics would be more than 4 times the IBC statistics.


Nobody but you considers the Encyclopedia Britannica to be an authoritative source.

I'm not interested in your inability to comprehend basic statistical modeling. We've been over this before.

Cycloptichorn

Nobody but you, and some of your like minded incompetents, considers the Encyclopedia Britannica to not be an authoritative source.


My like minded competents have been far, far more accurate at making predictions about this war then you and your ilk, Ican. Naturally, you seek to forget years and years of rosy predictions of success on your part.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:21 pm
If ican is still alive in 20 years, and the war in Iraq is still on-going, he'll tell us "we're making progress."

He'll give us counts of the Iraqi dead and maimed - as proof.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 06:11 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:


...

ican711nm wrote:

Nobody but you, and some of your like minded incompetents, considers the Encyclopedia Britannica to not be an authoritative source.


My like minded competents have been far, far more accurate at making predictions about this war then you and your ilk, Ican. Naturally, you seek to forget years and years of rosy predictions of success on your part.

Cycloptichorn

Ah ha! You now change the subject from challenging the validity of my Iraq past violent death statistics to challenging the validity of my predictions about the Iraq war.

I have not forgotten! Yes, I have predicted that the Iraq violent death rate would decline very much faster than it has. But it is at least declining. I hope that decline continues to the point we can win and succeed in Iraq. I am now predicting that it will continue to decline and we will win and succeed in Iraq within the next 26 years. I predict most of that time will require far more political winning and succeeding than it will require military winning and succeeding.

But what do my false or inaccurate predictions about the future have to do with the validity of my conclusions about past Iraq violent death rates before and after January 1, 2003? Answer? Nothing!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 06:16 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
If ican is still alive in 20 years, and the war in Iraq is still on-going, he'll tell us "we're making progress."

He'll give us counts of the Iraqi dead and maimed - as proof.


You got it! As long as these counts are available and not zero, I'll report them here.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 06:17 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:


...

ican711nm wrote:

Nobody but you, and some of your like minded incompetents, considers the Encyclopedia Britannica to not be an authoritative source.


My like minded competents have been far, far more accurate at making predictions about this war then you and your ilk, Ican. Naturally, you seek to forget years and years of rosy predictions of success on your part.

Cycloptichorn

Ah ha! You now change the subject from challenging the validity of my Iraq past violent death statistics to challenging the validity of my predictions about the Iraq war.

I have not forgotten! Yes, I have predicted that the Iraq violent death rate would decline very much faster than it has. But it is at least declining. I hope that decline continues to the point we can win and succeed in Iraq. I am now predicting that it will continue to decline and we will win and succeed in Iraq within the next 26 years. I predict most of that time will require far more political winning and succeeding than it will require military winning and succeeding.

But what do my false or inaccurate predictions about the future have to do with the validity of my conclusions about past Iraq violent death rates before and after January 1, 2003? Answer? Nothing!


Wrongo. Inability to accurately judge one situation is indicative of inability to accurately judge the other.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 07:18 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:


...

Wrongo. Inability to accurately judge one situation is indicative of inability to accurately judge the other.

Cycloptichorn

Laughing

Malarkey!

Ability to accurately predict the future is a completely different skill than is the ability to accurately evaluate the past.

But let me apply your bigoted rule to you. Since you failed to accurately evaluate the past in one instance, you are incapable of accurately evaluating the past in any iinstance. Also, since you failed to accurately predict the future in one instance, you are incapable of accurately predicting the future in any iinstance.

Now you can really make me laugh by claiming that you have never evaluated the past inaccurately, and you have never predicted the future inaccurately.

If you do that, you will have demonstrated by your own bigoted rule that since you have evaluated yourself inaccurately in this instance, you are incapable of evaluating yourself accurately in any instance.

Shocked

By the way, by application of your rule to yourself you will also have demonstrated your inability to learn from your mistakes. Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 07:32 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:


...

Wrongo. Inability to accurately judge one situation is indicative of inability to accurately judge the other.

Cycloptichorn

Laughing

Malarkey!

Ability to accurately predict the future is a completely different skill than is the ability to accurately evaluate the past.

But let me apply your bigoted rule to you. Since you failed to accurately evaluate the past in one instance, you are incapable of accurately evaluating the past in any iinstance. Also, since you failed to accurately predict the future in one instance, you are incapable of accurately predicting the future in any iinstance.

Now you can really make me laugh by claiming that you have never evaluated the past inaccurately, and you have never predicted the future inaccurately.

If you do that, you will have demonstrated by your own bigoted rule that since you have evaluated yourself inaccurately in this instance, you are incapable of evaluating yourself accurately in any instance.

Shocked

By the way, by application of your rule to yourself you will also have demonstrated your inability to learn from your mistakes. Crying or Very sad


It's your proven inability to make correct judgments which makes posts like this useless.

Your criticisms of me are no more valid then your predictions of success in Iraq.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 07:45 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:


...

Wrongo. Inability to accurately judge one situation is indicative of inability to accurately judge the other.

Cycloptichorn

Laughing

Malarkey!

Ability to accurately predict the future is a completely different skill than is the ability to accurately evaluate the past.

But let me apply your bigoted rule to you. Since you failed to accurately evaluate the past in one instance, you are incapable of accurately evaluating the past in any iinstance. Also, since you failed to accurately predict the future in one instance, you are incapable of accurately predicting the future in any iinstance.

Now you can really make me laugh by claiming that you have never evaluated the past inaccurately, and you have never predicted the future inaccurately.

If you do that, you will have demonstrated by your own bigoted rule that since you have evaluated yourself inaccurately in this instance, you are incapable of evaluating yourself accurately in any instance.

Shocked

By the way, by application of your rule to yourself you will also have demonstrated your inability to learn from your mistakes. Crying or Very sad


It's your proven inability to make correct judgments which makes posts like this useless.

Your criticisms of me are no more valid then your predictions of success in Iraq.

Cycloptichorn

Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 07:48 pm
It makes me sad as well.

It's always been a mystery to me, that someone who has intelligence can make so many errors in judgment. I think you are letting your heart tell you what is best about Iraq, instead of your head; or else you would see that the back end of your scare scenario is no more valid then those who proclaimed the takeover of communism if we left Vietnam - and you use similar scare tactics, devoid of evidence or proof, to make your point.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 08:18 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It makes me sad as well.

It's always been a mystery to me, that someone who has intelligence can make so many errors in judgment. I think you are letting your heart tell you what is best about Iraq, instead of your head; or else you would see that the back end of your scare scenario is no more valid then those who proclaimed the takeover of communism if we left Vietnam - and you use similar scare tactics, devoid of evidence or proof, to make your point.

Cycloptichorn

Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/25/2025 at 07:19:48