Starting a war is no more wrong than starting a fight. Under the right circumstances it's not only RIGHT, it's the ONLY reasonable course of action. Especially when the overall death rate in Iraq is roughly the same as pre-war levels, AND the situation actually has a chance of improving now. What you're really saying is "It's ok for hundreds of thousands of people to die and be oppressed....as long as there's no US soldiers in the area". That manner of malleable morality is massively misguided.
And how many civilians has the US actually killed? no, you don't get to blame every single civilian death on the US. If you're going to make these types of idiotic comparisons, I want you to have a clear number.
I can guarantee you right now by the way that it'll be about 1% of Saddam's total, and that 99% of those will have been accidents. Those pretty fucking good odds. If you save 100 people in a hostage situation, but accidentaly shoot one of the hostages, I'd say you did alright.
You're right the fuck out of 'er buds. The US casualty count is the lowest for any conflict in history, yet "they have no clue how to to deal with it"? Put down the crack pipe. Maybe talk to a couple soldiers. he entire doctrine of warfare has changed in the last 5-6 years, not just for the US but for all western nations. Only an utterly gormless simpleton could make the types of claims you're making. Why do people like you feel the need to comment on things which they're utterly clueless about?
"As for the honesty issue, that's why the survey asked the households to show death certificates for the deaths that they reported. The vast majority of them showed them."
Yeah, see, that's another thing that's fishy. If the vast majority of these casualties had death certificates, who issued them? There must be official repositories, so why can't you get an accurate count of deaths simply by collecting and counting the government copies? Something's wrong there.
"the fact that you have 47 points, 407 points, or 4 points, doesn't affect the validity of that calculation - it changes directly the results you get and that information is expressed in the confidence bounds."
Or 1 point?
Ok, you don't believe that. Let's pick out a comparable figure. What do you think is the daily death rate for the United States? (The US population is a little over 10 times that of Iraq)
The answer is, in 1996, 6342.
You're being disingenuous and comparing apples and oranges. One is the Iraqi VIOLENT death rate, the other is the US overall death rate.
Unless, ofcourse, you're trying to suggest that the Iraqi death rate is the same as the US death rate, and as such the majority of those deaths have nothing to do with the US presence?
And that's why we have that confidence interval - it is calculated by taking account of the fact that they clustered what they did.
Really? How would you do that exactly? If you only have 47 cluster points, how do you determine whether those cluster points accurately represent the overall picture in Iraq? Just the fact that Fallujah was included in the cluster points is going to MASSIVELY skew your poll. Not to mention that the poll depends on the honesty of the participants, which would be rather troublesome in certain Iraqi communities.
Oh, and I just realized that the 600,000 is a 500,000 jump from the figures published only 2 years earlier. That means that according to this "study", there's been an average of 684 Iraqis dying every day for the last 2 years. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that these figures are massively skewed.
Anyway, that's the end of this argument. A door-to-door poll of 2,000 Iraqis in 47 (supposedly "random") neighbourhoods is a ludicrous way to compute a count of total deaths. If you're happy accepting it, hey, whatever, maybe I can interest you in some beach front property too.
But that's what you are doing by comparing the two death rates! If you assume otherwise, that past facts are not a good measure from which to base future predictions on, then this entire discussion is meaningless. It would be impossible to argue that the US army saved or killed anyone even if every Iraqi was dead today or if no one died after the invasion.
By that logic there's also no point in bringing up the current post-invasion death count, because, for all we know, Iraq might turn into paradise on earth tomorrow, and have no more violent deaths for the next 2,000 years.
Past behaviour is a useful indicator of future trends. It's not conclusive, no, but it can be useful for making comparisons. If you think Saddam's death count was irrelevant, then you should have no problem forgetting about the casualties which have occurred while US forces were in country.
Oh, I see. Because we neglected to mention that democracy would take time and effort in Iraq, you "intellectuals" figured we just expected it to happen.
Well, I'd suggest you get a refund on your mail-order diploma. We've had plenty of experience in places like Korea, Bosnia, and Kosovo, to know what to expect. If you misunderstood our intentions, that's your own damn fault. Guess you're too "educated" to understand us simpletons.
NOBODY gives a shit about what happens in Germany. That's the point. How many people in this world watch German news channels? Now how many watch CNN? Are you starting to understand yet? The whole point is that you could have a mass-murderer kill 500 people in Germany, and the story would get eclipsed by the newest Britney Spears scandal. Not just in the US, but EVERYWHERE, except maybe for Germany. US culture is all pervasive. People might bitch and complain about it, but they eat it up. The average Canadian follows US politics more closely than they follow their own! Every Brit can tell you the name of the US Secretary of Defence, but probably 3 out of 4 don't know the name of their own minister of defence. What does that tell you about the state of the world? Everyone watches the US with a fucking magnifying glass, while paying very little attention to any other country.
Actually, that study doesn't actually claim 600,000, what they say is that there's a 95% chance that the number of Iraqis killed is between 426,369 and 793,663. That's a hell of a margin of error, and by itself pretty much invalidates the "study". But more importantly, they used only 47 cluster points for a sample of 1,849 people. Most such studies would use 150+ cluster points to ensure accuracy. In 2004 the UNDP used some 2,200 cluster points to achieve accurate results. 47 cluster points might be enough for your neighbourhood, but it's certainly not enough for a country with a population of 26 million people.
And what rate Sadam was killing at just prior to the invasion is irrelevant unless you have some way to show that he would have continued at the same rate if the invasion hadn't happened.
It's typical: a US soldier gets accused of killing a civilian, and it's all over CNN, the BBC, and Al Jazeera for the next 2 weeks at least. 2 hours after it first airs, 3 billion people know about it, and there have already been 15 protests world wide, with 20 people killed either by accident at the protest, or in retaliatory murders.
On the other hand, a German soldier gets accused of killing a civilian, and it maybe makes the evening news in Germany, with a one-line mention in The London Times if it's a really slow news day. Plus the Guardian writes an article blaming it on American influence, and Al Jazeera claims he was really a CIA agent in disguise. A grand total of 1 million people read about it, and promptly forget all about it.
It was this mess that was clear to me and to the rest of the world. Everybody but you saw that the americans would only be getting in the way of the inevitable mess that it's become.
Why do you assume that I didn't see it?
Where we differ is that you see the result as undesirable, and a sign of defeat, whereas I see it as inevitable, and a step on the road to victory. If everyone knew it would happen, why is everyone saying it's a sign that the US should pull out? That's nonsense. Insurgent fighting was an expected result, and even civil war was foreseen as a possibility. Why do you assume that those are obstacles which cannot be overcome?
Can you be proud of what's happening when america's bravest warriors have been demoted to toy-cop?
I can't really remember the last time I saw a toy cop busting down doors, conducting combat patrols, disarming explosive devices, and engaging in combat operations...
Maybe you just live in a REALLY tough neighbourhood....
1. Stop making up numbers. 2. Irrelevant. 3. A handful, maybe? 4. 1% possibly? Irrelevant in any case. 5. Ah yes, gotta link the US again. Those brown people are too stupid to do anything for their own reasons. It's always the white man's fault. 6. 0 7. 0
What the hell does any of the above have to do anything? You remind me of the 9/11 deniers, always linking irrelevant information (and disinformation) to try and make your case appear more legit. If you're going to discuss how many lives were saved by the US invasion, it doesn't matter what the US position on Saddam was while he was butchering people. Using your logic (or lack thereof) we could link the US to every single death that occurs anywhere in the world. And by the same (lack of) logic, nobody ever has the right to intervene in any crime committed by his or her friend, acquaintance, or business partner. I can't understand how anyone living in a western nation could believe this sort of drivel. You make creationists seem almost logical.
Similar technique my ass. The Iraqi figure was arrived at by door to door surveys, in an unusually small number of areas, many of which "just happened" to be the sites of recent conflict. Such as, for instance, fallujah. These figures were then interpolated to try and reflect the rest of the country. Unfortunately, when you start off with invalid figures, your end result is useless. Their method is the equivalent of going door to door in the 30 worst US ghettos, asking people about their income, and then trying to claim that those figures are representative of average US income. Let's not be silly. The Sudanese death toll on the other hand was calculated in a totaly different manner, the official death figure is NOT 600,000, and the UN, US government, and WHO have all admitted that they don't have any truly accurate estimates.
You'd have to be an utter imbecile to accept the 600,000 figure. Even 100,000 works out to more than 70 per day. 600,000 would work out to more than 420 per day. Hell, 600,000 is more than all the German civilians killed during all the allied bombings of WW2. According to your logic, carpet bombing saves lives.
You want an accurate figure? Try roughly 100,000. And that's total dead, including military, police, insurgents, and civilians. AND most of those are casualties caused by "the insurgency". Whereas Saddam has nobody but himself to blame.
It's a low-ball estimate based on a bunch of different figures. Start adding up estimates for Iraqi mass graves, executions of Kurds post '91 war, mass executions, wars, etc, and the numbers add up fast. There's no definite figure that I've been able to find, but if you look through a history of Iraq during Sadams reign, you'll add up at least the 1.2 million that I mentioned, and probably quite a few more.
And you say it's nothing to be proud of....keep in mind that the vast majority of those dying are due to Iraqi "insurgents" and foreign terrorist organizations, and not due to US forces. Certainly, if the US military was responsible for killing 60-70 Iraqis per day, that'd be a little disturbing. As it stands though? Well....you'd have to be pretty biased to accuse the US of mass murder in Iraq, especially when the people making those accusations managed to turn a blind eye to Sadams crimes.
Sadam, during his 25 year reign, was responsible for some 1.2 million deaths. Also for the creation of over 4 million refugees, but we'll ignore that one for now. Break that down to a daily average and you have roughly 140 death per day for 25 years. Multiply that by the number of days Sadam has been out of power and you end up with some 180,000 lives. We're talking direct violence here, not things like starvation and medical problems, which have also gotten better. If you take into consideration the overall situation there's absolutely no question that the US has improved the overall situation in Iraq. Even in the midst of this so-called "civil war", the Iraqi violent death rate is hovering around 60-70 per day, including civilians, police, and military. That's less than half of Sadam's average.
Eh, you know what, forget it. I don't know why I bother. There's no way I can convince people like you. Not because you're ignorant or anything, just because you've been so brainwashed by the fucking media that you have absolutely no idea what's actually going on over there. So forget it. Thanks for showing me once again that the propaganda war can be even more important than the ground battles. Hopefully one of these days the politicians will learn that lesson too, and will develop a strategy to fight back.
Curiously enough, the US isn't alone in this. The Canadian and Brit armies get the same treatment. About the only western nations that can still commit to extended missions are Germany and France, and that's generally because the media never pays them any attention. It shows in their ROE's too - the Germans were friggin' brutal. In Afghanistan they ended up killing several local kids just outside the wire because their ROE's were almost non-existent, yet you NEVER hear about those incidents in the media.
Technically speaking, the war in Iraq has SAVED some 180,000 Iraqi lives. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good America-bashing session. God forbid any of you bigots actualy try to educate yourselves for a change.
Wow. You're truly insane, you know that? You're trying to tell me that "the rest of the world" thought that the worlds largest, and best equipped military force couldn't take on a piddly little country like Iraq? Buddy. What colour is the sky in your world?
Ofcourse, you could be right, and maybe that's really what the rest of the world though....in which case I gotta wonder just what sort of propaganda passes for news in those countries. Your newspapers must make PRAVDA look fair and balanced.
And you surrender again! Wow. Well, no surprise, and no great loss. Although I would have preferred it had you not come out in the first place. If you're not going to put in a decent effort, you may as well stay out of it.
You know, your army has over 1 million personnel, and only 150,000 are in Iraq. I'm just guessing here, but I think you might be able to find at least one or two of them inside the US.
Or maybe I'll check our some picture they can no longer send.
What?
Oh, wait I know I'll ask someone who is essentially *ordered* to have a positive outlook how things are going.
Where do you get this shit from?
Seriously, your comments just emphasize your utter lack of knowledge about the military. And when you don't even understand the first thing about your own military, how can you expect to understand the situation in Iraq?
Maybe you need to go ask an Iraqi how things are going.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh. Well, there's two ways. Either write something so stupid or vulgar that it's not worthy of a response, or just post as an AC.
Although, I WILL break my rule once in a while, if an AC makes an exceptionally good post. Doesn't happen often at all, but you never know....
Tell that to the victims of 9/11.
Starting a war is no more wrong than starting a fight. Under the right circumstances it's not only RIGHT, it's the ONLY reasonable course of action. Especially when the overall death rate in Iraq is roughly the same as pre-war levels, AND the situation actually has a chance of improving now. What you're really saying is "It's ok for hundreds of thousands of people to die and be oppressed....as long as there's no US soldiers in the area". That manner of malleable morality is massively misguided.
And how many civilians has the US actually killed? no, you don't get to blame every single civilian death on the US. If you're going to make these types of idiotic comparisons, I want you to have a clear number.
I can guarantee you right now by the way that it'll be about 1% of Saddam's total, and that 99% of those will have been accidents. Those pretty fucking good odds. If you save 100 people in a hostage situation, but accidentaly shoot one of the hostages, I'd say you did alright.
You're right the fuck out of 'er buds. The US casualty count is the lowest for any conflict in history, yet "they have no clue how to to deal with it"? Put down the crack pipe. Maybe talk to a couple soldiers. he entire doctrine of warfare has changed in the last 5-6 years, not just for the US but for all western nations. Only an utterly gormless simpleton could make the types of claims you're making. Why do people like you feel the need to comment on things which they're utterly clueless about?
"As for the honesty issue, that's why the survey asked the households to show death certificates for the deaths that they reported. The vast majority of them showed them."
Yeah, see, that's another thing that's fishy. If the vast majority of these casualties had death certificates, who issued them? There must be official repositories, so why can't you get an accurate count of deaths simply by collecting and counting the government copies? Something's wrong there.
"the fact that you have 47 points, 407 points, or 4 points, doesn't affect the validity of that calculation - it changes directly the results you get and that information is expressed in the confidence bounds."
Or 1 point?
Ok, you don't believe that. Let's pick out a comparable figure. What do you think is the daily death rate for the United States? (The US population is a little over 10 times that of Iraq) The answer is, in 1996, 6342.
You're being disingenuous and comparing apples and oranges. One is the Iraqi VIOLENT death rate, the other is the US overall death rate.
Unless, ofcourse, you're trying to suggest that the Iraqi death rate is the same as the US death rate, and as such the majority of those deaths have nothing to do with the US presence?
And that's why we have that confidence interval - it is calculated by taking account of the fact that they clustered what they did.
Really? How would you do that exactly? If you only have 47 cluster points, how do you determine whether those cluster points accurately represent the overall picture in Iraq? Just the fact that Fallujah was included in the cluster points is going to MASSIVELY skew your poll. Not to mention that the poll depends on the honesty of the participants, which would be rather troublesome in certain Iraqi communities.
Oh, and I just realized that the 600,000 is a 500,000 jump from the figures published only 2 years earlier. That means that according to this "study", there's been an average of 684 Iraqis dying every day for the last 2 years. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that these figures are massively skewed.
Anyway, that's the end of this argument. A door-to-door poll of 2,000 Iraqis in 47 (supposedly "random") neighbourhoods is a ludicrous way to compute a count of total deaths. If you're happy accepting it, hey, whatever, maybe I can interest you in some beach front property too.
But that's what you are doing by comparing the two death rates! If you assume otherwise, that past facts are not a good measure from which to base future predictions on, then this entire discussion is meaningless. It would be impossible to argue that the US army saved or killed anyone even if every Iraqi was dead today or if no one died after the invasion.
By that logic there's also no point in bringing up the current post-invasion death count, because, for all we know, Iraq might turn into paradise on earth tomorrow, and have no more violent deaths for the next 2,000 years.
Past behaviour is a useful indicator of future trends. It's not conclusive, no, but it can be useful for making comparisons. If you think Saddam's death count was irrelevant, then you should have no problem forgetting about the casualties which have occurred while US forces were in country.
Oh, I see. Because we neglected to mention that democracy would take time and effort in Iraq, you "intellectuals" figured we just expected it to happen.
Well, I'd suggest you get a refund on your mail-order diploma. We've had plenty of experience in places like Korea, Bosnia, and Kosovo, to know what to expect. If you misunderstood our intentions, that's your own damn fault. Guess you're too "educated" to understand us simpletons.
Awesome response. Get back to me when you graduate from highschool.
*sigh*
NOBODY gives a shit about what happens in Germany. That's the point. How many people in this world watch German news channels? Now how many watch CNN? Are you starting to understand yet? The whole point is that you could have a mass-murderer kill 500 people in Germany, and the story would get eclipsed by the newest Britney Spears scandal. Not just in the US, but EVERYWHERE, except maybe for Germany. US culture is all pervasive. People might bitch and complain about it, but they eat it up. The average Canadian follows US politics more closely than they follow their own! Every Brit can tell you the name of the US Secretary of Defence, but probably 3 out of 4 don't know the name of their own minister of defence. What does that tell you about the state of the world? Everyone watches the US with a fucking magnifying glass, while paying very little attention to any other country.
Actually, that study doesn't actually claim 600,000, what they say is that there's a 95% chance that the number of Iraqis killed is between 426,369 and 793,663. That's a hell of a margin of error, and by itself pretty much invalidates the "study". But more importantly, they used only 47 cluster points for a sample of 1,849 people. Most such studies would use 150+ cluster points to ensure accuracy. In 2004 the UNDP used some 2,200 cluster points to achieve accurate results. 47 cluster points might be enough for your neighbourhood, but it's certainly not enough for a country with a population of 26 million people.
And what rate Sadam was killing at just prior to the invasion is irrelevant unless you have some way to show that he would have continued at the same rate if the invasion hadn't happened.
Heh. The question is WHAT headlines.
It's typical: a US soldier gets accused of killing a civilian, and it's all over CNN, the BBC, and Al Jazeera for the next 2 weeks at least. 2 hours after it first airs, 3 billion people know about it, and there have already been 15 protests world wide, with 20 people killed either by accident at the protest, or in retaliatory murders.
On the other hand, a German soldier gets accused of killing a civilian, and it maybe makes the evening news in Germany, with a one-line mention in The London Times if it's a really slow news day. Plus the Guardian writes an article blaming it on American influence, and Al Jazeera claims he was really a CIA agent in disguise. A grand total of 1 million people read about it, and promptly forget all about it.
It was this mess that was clear to me and to the rest of the world. Everybody but you saw that the americans would only be getting in the way of the inevitable mess that it's become.
Why do you assume that I didn't see it?
Where we differ is that you see the result as undesirable, and a sign of defeat, whereas I see it as inevitable, and a step on the road to victory. If everyone knew it would happen, why is everyone saying it's a sign that the US should pull out? That's nonsense. Insurgent fighting was an expected result, and even civil war was foreseen as a possibility. Why do you assume that those are obstacles which cannot be overcome?
Can you be proud of what's happening when america's bravest warriors have been demoted to toy-cop?
I can't really remember the last time I saw a toy cop busting down doors, conducting combat patrols, disarming explosive devices, and engaging in combat operations...
Maybe you just live in a REALLY tough neighbourhood....
1. Stop making up numbers.
2. Irrelevant.
3. A handful, maybe?
4. 1% possibly? Irrelevant in any case.
5. Ah yes, gotta link the US again. Those brown people are too stupid to do anything for their own reasons. It's always the white man's fault.
6. 0
7. 0
What the hell does any of the above have to do anything? You remind me of the 9/11 deniers, always linking irrelevant information (and disinformation) to try and make your case appear more legit. If you're going to discuss how many lives were saved by the US invasion, it doesn't matter what the US position on Saddam was while he was butchering people. Using your logic (or lack thereof) we could link the US to every single death that occurs anywhere in the world. And by the same (lack of) logic, nobody ever has the right to intervene in any crime committed by his or her friend, acquaintance, or business partner. I can't understand how anyone living in a western nation could believe this sort of drivel. You make creationists seem almost logical.
Similar technique my ass. The Iraqi figure was arrived at by door to door surveys, in an unusually small number of areas, many of which "just happened" to be the sites of recent conflict. Such as, for instance, fallujah. These figures were then interpolated to try and reflect the rest of the country. Unfortunately, when you start off with invalid figures, your end result is useless. Their method is the equivalent of going door to door in the 30 worst US ghettos, asking people about their income, and then trying to claim that those figures are representative of average US income. Let's not be silly. The Sudanese death toll on the other hand was calculated in a totaly different manner, the official death figure is NOT 600,000, and the UN, US government, and WHO have all admitted that they don't have any truly accurate estimates.
You'd have to be an utter imbecile to accept the 600,000 figure. Even 100,000 works out to more than 70 per day. 600,000 would work out to more than 420 per day. Hell, 600,000 is more than all the German civilians killed during all the allied bombings of WW2. According to your logic, carpet bombing saves lives.
You want an accurate figure? Try roughly 100,000. And that's total dead, including military, police, insurgents, and civilians. AND most of those are casualties caused by "the insurgency". Whereas Saddam has nobody but himself to blame.
Oil? Please. That's not even worth responding to. Don't pollute these forums with such rubbish.
It's a low-ball estimate based on a bunch of different figures. Start adding up estimates for Iraqi mass graves, executions of Kurds post '91 war, mass executions, wars, etc, and the numbers add up fast. There's no definite figure that I've been able to find, but if you look through a history of Iraq during Sadams reign, you'll add up at least the 1.2 million that I mentioned, and probably quite a few more.
And you say it's nothing to be proud of....keep in mind that the vast majority of those dying are due to Iraqi "insurgents" and foreign terrorist organizations, and not due to US forces. Certainly, if the US military was responsible for killing 60-70 Iraqis per day, that'd be a little disturbing. As it stands though? Well....you'd have to be pretty biased to accuse the US of mass murder in Iraq, especially when the people making those accusations managed to turn a blind eye to Sadams crimes.
I guess in your world, "two" == "all"?
Yes, it is hard to get unbiased info, and that's unfortunate. People like you distorting the facts doesn't help either.
Sadam, during his 25 year reign, was responsible for some 1.2 million deaths. Also for the creation of over 4 million refugees, but we'll ignore that one for now. Break that down to a daily average and you have roughly 140 death per day for 25 years. Multiply that by the number of days Sadam has been out of power and you end up with some 180,000 lives. We're talking direct violence here, not things like starvation and medical problems, which have also gotten better. If you take into consideration the overall situation there's absolutely no question that the US has improved the overall situation in Iraq. Even in the midst of this so-called "civil war", the Iraqi violent death rate is hovering around 60-70 per day, including civilians, police, and military. That's less than half of Sadam's average.
Except that's not what we're seing now.
Eh, you know what, forget it. I don't know why I bother. There's no way I can convince people like you. Not because you're ignorant or anything, just because you've been so brainwashed by the fucking media that you have absolutely no idea what's actually going on over there. So forget it. Thanks for showing me once again that the propaganda war can be even more important than the ground battles. Hopefully one of these days the politicians will learn that lesson too, and will develop a strategy to fight back.
You're preaching to the choir brother.
Curiously enough, the US isn't alone in this. The Canadian and Brit armies get the same treatment. About the only western nations that can still commit to extended missions are Germany and France, and that's generally because the media never pays them any attention. It shows in their ROE's too - the Germans were friggin' brutal. In Afghanistan they ended up killing several local kids just outside the wire because their ROE's were almost non-existent, yet you NEVER hear about those incidents in the media.
Technically speaking, the war in Iraq has SAVED some 180,000 Iraqi lives. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good America-bashing session. God forbid any of you bigots actualy try to educate yourselves for a change.
Wow. You're truly insane, you know that? You're trying to tell me that "the rest of the world" thought that the worlds largest, and best equipped military force couldn't take on a piddly little country like Iraq? Buddy. What colour is the sky in your world?
Ofcourse, you could be right, and maybe that's really what the rest of the world though....in which case I gotta wonder just what sort of propaganda passes for news in those countries. Your newspapers must make PRAVDA look fair and balanced.
And you surrender again! Wow. Well, no surprise, and no great loss. Although I would have preferred it had you not come out in the first place. If you're not going to put in a decent effort, you may as well stay out of it.
Sure, I'll run right over there and ask them.
You know, your army has over 1 million personnel, and only 150,000 are in Iraq. I'm just guessing here, but I think you might be able to find at least one or two of them inside the US.
Or maybe I'll check our some picture they can no longer send.
What?
Oh, wait I know I'll ask someone who is essentially *ordered* to have a positive outlook how things are going.
Where do you get this shit from?
Seriously, your comments just emphasize your utter lack of knowledge about the military. And when you don't even understand the first thing about your own military, how can you expect to understand the situation in Iraq?
Maybe you need to go ask an Iraqi how things are going.
I have. Have you?