CounterTrey Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 That is the first sensible thing I have seen you post. . .ever. Yeah I second that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 How black n white of you.Doubling the troops doesn't mean twice the killing. that's a Sarge and AFC wet dream, not reality. Doubling the troops means they have enough support to complete bigger missions and let the situation better prepared to stay that way. I'm for 3X'ing the troops there. Where you get them? I don't know. But, what is happening not clearly isn't working. Doubling the troops at this point would not have the desired effect. As you know, the military plan was to use up to 500,000 troops upon invasion to secure the infrastructure: hospitals, energy plants, dams, prisons, military facilities, historic facilities, etc. This does not mean that you can simply add more troops and things will go back to the original plan. The damage is done, the malitias are dug in, the hospitals and weapons caches have been looted. Rumsfeld and the Bush administration really screwed the pooch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 How black n white of you.Doubling the troops doesn't mean twice the killing. that's a Sarge and AFC wet dream, not reality. Doubling the troops means they have enough support to complete bigger missions and let the situation better prepared to stay that way. I'm for 3X'ing the troops there. Where you get them? I don't know. But, what is happening not clearly isn't working. I'm talking about a MASSIVE troop increase AND a change in war strategy, which means no more effin' around. When I say "kill everything that moves", I'm talking about killing every last terrorist, thug, war criminal no matter where they are hiding. No more targets that are "hands off". Even the Israelis got suckered into that mentality with the Hezbollah cowards in Lebanon. If we're going to fight a war, let's do it right. I'm tired of seeing American soldiers getting killed because they're walking around with targets on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted October 12, 2006 Author Share Posted October 12, 2006 Lets see option1:Pull out now. Option2: Kill everything that moves.. I'm guessing there are a "couple" of options in between those two that would be more appropriate... for every 50k Army/Police Trained: 25k troops come out starting last June. I see you missed the doubling the troops part. . . :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 These are the same people who came out with the last 'high' death count. You'll forgive me if I feel a touch skeptical. Especially since 20 years of higher intensity warfare in Vietnam didn't have this same pace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I'm talking about a MASSIVE troop increase AND a change in war strategy, which means no more effin' around. When I say "kill everything that moves", I'm talking about killing every last terrorist, thug, war criminal no matter where they are hiding. No more targets that are "hands off". Even the Israelis got suckered into that mentality with the Hezbollah cowards in Lebanon. If we're going to fight a war, let's do it right. I'm tired of seeing American soldiers getting killed because they're walking around with targets on them.Where will we be getting those troops? How long could we keep them there? Who's going to pay for all this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Where will we be getting those troops? How long could we keep them there? Who's going to pay for all this? IF you decide to stay and fight, then you do it right. You get the troops by any means possible. Institute a draft if you must. Start rationing food, as we did during WWII, to pay for it all. Get ****ing serious and stop half-assing it, as Bush and company have done. You go all out. I'm talking about knocking on every ****ing door, every ****ing night and waking the jihadists up out of there sleep and saying "what's shaking, Achmed". Don't let the ****ers sleep, eat, or ****. You either go all out or you pull out. Simple plan. We just don't have people in power with the balls to do either one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 How's the sun burn on ya neck doin? I have an idea what you mean . . . and I take offense to it. So, maybe add something to the conversation or help put out the wildfires in your country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 so... have we decided the value of this article yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted October 13, 2006 Author Share Posted October 13, 2006 so... have we decided the value of this article yet? Well, the methodology they used, which Bush said was "discredited" (by only him and his scientific mind), yet the methodology they used has been used as the top scientific method for determining mass casualty across the globe. It was how the Tsunami death count was found, death count in cases of civil war and ethnic cleansing, mass killings everywhere. It is a proven scientific method which was funded by MIT, done by Johns Hopkins and is as credible as any scientific study you will see. If people don't want to believe it, please have them rip apart the science behind the study, here is the methodology. . . http://www.usatoday.com/news/news/news%20pdfs%20mjm/human%20cost%20of%20war%20-%20final%20oct%209.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 lets for the sake of arguement agree the methodology is sound, what do you hope to achieve by spreading it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 lets agree the methodology is sound, what do you hope to achieve by spreading it? one would hope the truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 whose truth? truth isnt that simple, groups create truths faster than lies. Its what your goal of promoting the truth your putting on your sign that is all important. Truth, as much as we want it to be universal, only exists in science and even then it can only be temporary. I might be wrong, but I think mathematics is the only unwavering truth. People who claim to seek the truth really are some of the more deceptive people on the planet, its not cause of truth but its cause how they use it. So again I ask my question what is your goal by promoting this "truth". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Also I want to know why Dahuk wasnt included in this "truth", Im guessing cause even though it has a high population its pacified. No need to use a cluster there to prove a truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 lets for the sake of arguement agree the methodology is sound, what do you hope to achieve by spreading it? Should they not report it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Should they not report it? one does not answer a question with a question, shame on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 groups promote truths all the time to bring down a greater action, probably the most relatable to most of you that want us to fail is marijuana. There are many truths that are used to misrepresent the drug, many of the times relying on actions attributed to users that dont reflect the greater populace. Also, attributing truthfully by statistical interviews about actions of the users that also dont reflect the greater group. Its very easy to do, and its done all the time and all the while very truthfull. So again I ask, and Im sure I wont get an answer again, what is your goal with promoting this truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 one does not answer a question with a question, shame on you. I have no idea what they are trying to achieve. I simply believe they are reporting the facts. I really don't see an agenda here (maybe there is --- who knows). Even if there is an agenda, why does it matter? The methodology seems sound. Should they not report it? I think it important to know what the war is costing us, not just in monetary terms, but in lives as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 why the exclusion of Duhak? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 why the exclusion of Duhak? couldn't tell you..........have no idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 couldn't tell you..........have no idea yet you run with the "truth". I can accept that you run with the "truth" cause your against Bush, just be honest about it. Dont try to play it off like "hey look I found this truth". Say it out loud I hate Bush and Im gonna use this "truth" against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 yet you run with the "truth". I can accept that you run with the "truth" cause your against Bush, just be honest about it. Dont try to play it off like "hey look I found this truth". Say it out loud I hate Bush and Im gonna use this "truth" against him. Huh? What the hell are you talking about? All I asked was........should they not report it? I have not once in this thread used this report as an argument against the war. So spare me the truth nonsense and stop questioning my motives every damn thread (I am not the only one). I should add they didn't include Fallujah in their 2004 report (a question a lot of anti-war folks asked in 2004). I don't hate Bush. For God Sakes, I supported his campaign in 2000 with my money and my time (I was a volunteer). So obviously I found something attractive about the man. I have said it many times; he seems like a very nice guy. A guy who would be really cool to hang out with. However, I do disapprove of his administration views and policies. I have made that clear many times. I am not hiding from anything. I am not some blind partisan Bush hater. The thing is YOU KNOW THAT. Damn, dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Can anyone tell me how they came up with the baseline mortality of 5.5? That and where the surveys were done seem the most troubling. Added: for those that wish to use scientific methods,compare these results with the other indepenent death counts...seems a anomoly by a factor of 4. Perhaps they are correct,but it seems ODD no one else is close to thier #'s. http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1160708956.shtml Soldier's Dad : I'll shoot a hole in the Lancet Study. The mortality rate in the EU is 10.10/1000. The Mortality rate in the US is 8.5/1000. The mortality rate in Hungary is 13/1000 The world average mortality rate is 8.5/1000 per year. The Lancet study uses a "baseline" mortality rate of 5.5. Half the mortality rate of Europe. After all their fancy interviews...the Lancet Study comes up with a mortality rate for Iraq that is statistically the same as Hungary. I must have missed it, but Hungary hasn't been at war for decades. The EU has been at peace for 60 years. They have the worlds best healthcare. But their baseline mortality rates are more than double Saddams Iraq. It is really easy to come up with a huge "excess deaths" number if one believes that no one ever died of anything in Iraq prior to 2003. Iraq was an idyllic socialist paradise...unequaled since the Garden of Eden during Saddams reign. Just ask Saddam...and not those pesky Kurds or Shiites that were mass murdered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Can anyone tell me how they came up with the baseline mortality of 5.5? http://mattwelch.com/NatPostSave/Sanctions.htm This is what i found from an old article before the war: The UNICEF studies also produced fodder for the pro-sanctions crowd: namely, that child mortality actually decreased in the no-fly-zone north (from 80 per 1,000 in 1984-89 to 71 in 1994-98) while more than doubling in Saddam's south (from 56 per 1,000 to 131). "Sanctions killing Iraq civilians, UN says 1 million -- half children under 5 -- have died for want of food and safe water." So 7000 a month for 12 years before the war? And that was just children? Not including the adults being thrown off the roof and the buses going to the mass graves... from the 600k+ article Researchers spoke to *nearly* 1,850 families, comprising more than 12,800 people in dozens of 40-household clusters around the country. Of the 629 deaths they recorded among these families, 13% took place in the 14 months before the invasion and 87% in the 40 months afterwards. Such a trend repeated nationwide would indicate a rise in annual death rates from 5.5 per 1,000 to 13.3 per 1,000. So they Averaged: 6.9 people per house? with 34% of those houses having a death? The also did 14 months before?? Why 14 and not 40 months before/40 months after? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 groups promote truths all the time to bring down a greater action, probably the most relatable to most of you that want us to fail is marijuana. There are many truths that are used to misrepresent the drug, many of the times relying on actions attributed to users that dont reflect the greater populace. Also, attributing truthfully by statistical interviews about actions of the users that also dont reflect the greater group.Its very easy to do, and its done all the time and all the while very truthfull. So again I ask, and Im sure I wont get an answer again, what is your goal with promoting this truth. You must be pretty dim if you need this explained 1. this is a republic 2. in a republic the people choose their reps 3. if some of the reps have ****ed up it is best to know that truth so: 4. better reps can be elected without the truth we will not be able to make informed decisions and the country will fail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.