Hooray! Another baseless statistic!

[Bustem' Down]

American politics at it's finest!

Disputed study claims 655,000 Iraqi deaths

NEW YORK (AP) -- A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.

The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."

In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer.

"Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study, said in a statement.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.death.toll.ap/index.html

 

[Larry Gude]

Baseless?

How so?

Things are not going in Iraq as planned. Not even close. We had and still have the power to subdue the entire country and it's borders and make the Iraqi's behave. We chose not to and there is no argument to be made that what we read about what's going on over there, from every source, is NOT even close to what we'd hoped for.

I placed my faith in the President that he knew what he was doing. Unlike the Clinton Chorus of dupes who will forever hold him faultless, I ain't doing the same thing. This IS a mess. Is should NOT be. Now, we gotta straighten it out.

I'm not going to argue that things are even remotely better now than they were before we put boots on the ground.

 

[Bustem' Down]

How so?

Things are not going in Iraq as planned. Not even close. We had and still have the power to subdue the entire country and it's borders and make the Iraqi's behave. We chose not to and there is no argument to be made that what we read about what's going on over there, from every source, is NOT even close to what we'd hoped for.

I placed my faith in the President that he knew what he was doing. Unlike the Clinton Chorus of dupes who will forever hold him faultless, I ain't doing the same thing. This IS a mess. Is should NOT be. Now, we gotta straighten it out.

I'm not going to argue that things are even remotely better now than they were before we put boots on the ground.

But the reaserch is flawed, no other estimates from respected research groups come even close, and at least one expert has already come forward to say that it's rediculous. This report is politics. The same group made a report shortly before the 2004 election that was similar. The war is a mess, but this report is, for lack of better words, made up.

 

[SamSpade]

American politics at it's finest!



http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.death.toll.ap/index.html

P!sses me off that it even gets called a "study" or "statistics". Good mathematical analysis can practically guess the numbers of hairs on your head - this kind of BS doesn't deserve to be called anything but guesswork. It's not based on any kind of scientific methodology that wouldn't get laughed out of an undergraduate class.

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm not going to argue that things are even remotely better now than they were before we put boots on the ground.

But they are. At least they're on the right track now, as opposed to before when there was no hope and nothing to look forward to.

I'm still onboard. Granted, Bush hasn't been perfect in his handling of the war, but what president ever is? I'm happy to criticize Bush and Rumsfeld for their missteps, but at the end of the day you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

 

[SamSpade]

But they are. At least they're on the right track now, as opposed to before when there was no hope and nothing to look forward to.

I'm still onboard. Granted, Bush hasn't been perfect in his handling of the war, but what president ever is? I'm happy to criticize Bush and Rumsfeld for their missteps, but at the end of the day you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

On the way home yesterday, I was thinking how the press and discussion might have gone, if we had today's environment, and the war was --- the Revolutionary War.

This was a war that had VERY strong anti-war sentiment. We had fully a third of the country *helping* the British, and another third that didn't care. We could barely maintain troop strengths, because men didn't want to fight beyond their enlistment. We were losing - BADLY. After a few good wins in upstate New York, and having evicted the British completely from New England - we'd lost everywhere else. We'd lost New York. We'd lost Philadelphia and most of the South. And by 1781, it had been going on for a bloody, brutal 6 years.

Washington - our illustrious commander-in-chief - had managed to lose New York, running with his tail between his legs. We were crushed. His generals refused to cooperate with him. One of the war's early heroes decided it was time to side with the British - Benedict Arnold. After Trenton, Washington was pretty much losing. It was just a matter of time before Cornwallis secured the South and re-took New England.

Don't you think today's press would have said it was time to just give up - stop fighting a pointless war with a nation that had not attacked us and that most of the country wasn't for, in the first place? Wouldn't they have pilloried Washington for being an ineffective goon, and lampooned all of the patriots in New England for having foisted an unwelcome war on the rest of the colonies?

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

But the reaserch is flawed, no other estimates from respected research groups come even close, and at least one expert has already come forward to say that it's rediculous. This report is politics. The same group made a report shortly before the 2004 election that was similar. The war is a mess, but this report is, for lack of better words, made up.

...let's assume, as I do, that the numbers are not good. I saw numbers like this a year ago making the same case; more Iraqi's are dying now than under Saddam.

We did not undertake this thing, invading a nation, in order to get X number of deaths down to y numbers. That is all ancillary. If we agree, basically, that this is a mess, then the question is simply one of; Is where we are now reasonably close to what was planned for and expected when we decided to invade?'

That's it.

WWII, our Civil war, all had dark days but the goal never changed; defeat the enemy. That is what sustains people through loss, a clear goal. So, Vietnam, now Iraq, what is the damn goal? Saddam is still around. The WMD threat is off the table for the near term. Cheap oil has obviously never been a serious part of the agenda.

My fear here is that Democrats offer NOTHING in terms of doing this job better. In fact, I believe that the last thing we need is Democratic 'leadership'. I have this pervasive feeling of having everything in place, public support, a good mission, and letting it all slip away.

Bush is straddling a fence; on the one side, turning the military loose and imposing our will vs. this neighborhood watch, hearts and minds thing. Straddle long enough, you get your balls crushed. In the meantime, time itself keep on ticking and a status quo takes hold; are we on the right path? Are we even close?

 

[Larry Gude]

Come on...

Don't you think today's press would have said it was time to just give up - stop fighting a pointless war with a nation that had not attacked us and that most of the country wasn't for, in the first place? Wouldn't they have pilloried Washington for being an ineffective goon, and lampooned all of the patriots in New England for having foisted an unwelcome war on the rest of the colonies?

...everyone who was fighting for independence was fighting for THEIR independence. Now, we're trying to get these people in Iraq to fight for theirs. Big difference. Plus, Great Britain was no neutral country; they owned us.

A better analogy would be to flip this around and say that the Brits then are us now. We know how that turned out.

 

[Railroad]

How so?

Things are not going in Iraq as planned. Not even close. We had and still have the power to subdue the entire country and it's borders and make the Iraqi's behave. We chose not to and there is no argument to be made that what we read about what's going on over there, from every source, is NOT even close to what we'd hoped for.

Had 'we' done it correctly (go in there with everything and everybody necessary to get the country under control), the U.S. Democrats, the French, the Germans, etc., would have complained about our ruthless imperialism (or some other label they'd concoct). So we pulled our punch, and that has cost us in time and lives - as military folks knew it would. So the U.S. Democrats, the French, the Germans, and others like them are complaining that we haven't been able to get Iraq under control.

Seems to me like we're Dem'd if we do and Dem'd if we don't!

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes...

Had 'we' done it correctly (go in there with everything and everybody necessary to get the country under control), the U.S. Democrats, the French, the Germans, etc., would have complained about our ruthless imperialism (or some other label they'd concoct). So we pulled our punch, and that has cost us in time and lives - as military folks knew it would. So the U.S. Democrats, the French, the Germans, and others like them are complaining that we haven't been able to get Iraq under control.

Seems to me like we're Dem'd if we do and Dem'd if we don't!

...we agree, so the choice boils down to either be damned if you do and get the job done or be damned if you don't and entagle your nation and it's people, both civilian and military, in a mess; a job 1/2 done.

Has Bush found a third way? A 1/2 in, 1/2 out method to success?

 

[SamSpade]

...everyone who was fighting for independence was fighting for THEIR independence. Now, we're trying to get these people in Iraq to fight for theirs. Big difference. Plus, Great Britain was no neutral country; they owned us.

A better analogy would be to flip this around and say that the Brits then are us now. We know how that turned out.

The point was not to draw a historical parallel beyond the premise I was making - namely, we were engaged in a long drawn out war that we were LOSING badly against an enemy we had little hope of defeating and that it was started by a bunch of hotheads who provoked the war, it was being run by men who seemed unending in their ability to LOSE battles - and that two-thirds of the the country - was AGAINST it. Less so in New England, but increasingly so as you made your way south.

The point was - would today's press and popular sentiment be any different? The Revolutionary War was one of the most unpopular wars in our history.

 

[Kerad]

...

My fear here is that Democrats offer NOTHING in terms of doing this job better. In fact, I believe that the last thing we need is Democratic 'leadership'. I have this pervasive feeling of having everything in place, public support, a good mission, and letting it all slip away. ...

This is a fallacy....a Republican talking point that has no merit. There are Democratic alternatives...Biden's being the best that I have read. He offered this plan multiple times in the past...but it's dismissed by Republicans because it's from a Democrat.

Interestingly enough...this plan (or one very similar) will be discussed by James Baker (and others) as part of the "changing the course" planning that will be out and about after the election in November. "Conveniently" after the election.

"At best, the course we're on has no end in sight. At worst, it leads to a terrible civil war and possibly a regional war. This plan offers a way to bring our troops home, protect our security interests and preserve Iraq as a unified country. Those who reject this plan out of hand must answer one simple question: What is your alternative?"[/QUOTE]

 

[Larry Gude]

History serves us...

The point was not to draw a historical parallel beyond the premise I was making - namely, we were engaged in a long drawn out war that we were LOSING badly against an enemy we had little hope of defeating and that it was started by a bunch of hotheads who provoked the war, it was being run by men who seemed unending in their ability to LOSE battles - and that two-thirds of the the country - was AGAINST it. Less so in New England, but increasingly so as you made your way south.

The point was - would today's press and popular sentiment be any different? The Revolutionary War was one of the most unpopular wars in our history.

..as long as we listen and learn from it. Popularity has nothing to do with this. WWII wasn't popular. Our civil war wasn't 'popular' once small towns started losing almost all their sons. Righteous purpose is what sustains us.

We had purpose in our war for independence. We had purpose in WWII. We had purpose but lost it in Viet Nam.

What is our present purpose in Iraq? Saddam? WMD? Nation building?

 

[Larry Gude]

Leave it to you Kerad...

...to make holding ones own party responsible as difficult as possible.

This is a fallacy....a Republican talking point that has no merit.

'Fallacy' is a subjective word and if you're intent was to play spin, by all means, give me and everyone else critical of the GOP reason to just shut up because you'd rather score petty points than address the issue.


To offer up Joe Biden is to offer up nothing. Where is his support within your party? Is he a front runner for President? No. How about Joe Lieberman? Why don't you just offer up Zell Miller as representative of Democratic ideas?

discussed by James Baker (and others) as part of the "changing the course" planning that will be out and about after the election in November. "Conveniently" after the election.

There you go again. Play politics with it. Make me regret saying a word. It's all politics, all the time, right? So, if Baker comes up now, it's politics. If he comes up later it's politics.

As I said, the idea of Pelosi or Kerry or Dean or Edwards or Kennedy leadership on Iraq makes this all the worse. Thanks for reaffirming it.

 

[Kerad]

...to make holding ones own party responsible as difficult as possible.



'Fallacy' is a subjective word and if you're intent was to play spin, by all means, give me and everyone else critical of the GOP reason to just shut up because you'd rather score petty points than address the issue.


To offer up Joe Biden is to offer up nothing. Where is his support within your party? Is he a front runner for President? No. How about Joe Lieberman? Why don't you just offer up Zell Miller as representative of Democratic ideas?



There you go again. Play politics with it. Make me regret saying a word. It's all politics, all the time, right? So, if Baker comes up now, it's politics. If he comes up later it's politics.

As I said, the idea of Pelosi or Kerry or Dean or Edwards or Kennedy leadership on Iraq makes this all the worse. Thanks for reaffirming it.

What the heck are you talking about? You said the Democrats haven't offered up an alternative. I refer you to a Democratic alternative, and you call it "playing politics".

A better question to be asking is why we have to wait "a couple months" to address reconsidering the plan in Iraq. Why doesn't Baker and his group go after this problem now? Does he really think things may magically start working during the next couple months? No...I honestly don't think that's what he's thinking. I wish Baker would start doing something about this today.

 

[SamSpade]

..as long as we listen and learn from it. Popularity has nothing to do with this.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. One thing we learn from history - aside from the fact that we don't really learn a lot from history - is that democratic nations typically don't like to fight for a long time. The reason we won the Revolution - aside from having completely trapped the largest British army on our shores - was that the Brits lost the will to continue the battle. The British population began to criticize their government. They were losing good men to a pointless struggle.

But in the early days - oh they were FOR it. The colonies - their brothers across the sea - were being overrun by thugs and criminals. Insurgents and brutes were fomenting riots and turning otherwise peaceful Loyalists either into brutes themselves - or cowering in their homes. You should read some of the early press being written about our little war here. The Brits weren't some group of snobs looking down on the colonists - they believed they were protecting the colonies from some self-aggrandizing opportunists who hired thugs to do their dirty work.

They were putting down an insurgency by a minority of persons. Funny, huh?

So were we, in Vietnam. We were going to fight Communists. We were going to stop its spread throughout the world. We'd stopped the Nazis - we'd fought the Communists to a truce in Korea - and we were determined to stop it again.

We had the same fervor going into THIS war. Inevitably, we lose it. Osama still had it right when he declared in Somalia that Americans have no stomach for war.

Actually, this is one of the things that still - P!SSES me off about Democrats who voted for the war, but have since changed their minds - probably because it's become unpopular. It's probably the ONLY thing that keeps me having the slightest shred of respect for Hillary (because while she isn't for the war in particular, she hasn't joined the anti-war crowd entirely, because she voted for it). And it's because of this thing I've repeated endlessly -

The time for shrill anti-war rhetoric - is before the war. Once you engage, you have to see it through to its completion, or you allow good men to give up their lives for no reason. Voting FOR a war means, the cause is worth risking and losing American lives. Voting against it means, the cause is NOT worth losing American lives. But voting FOR it and then turning against it means, you don't give a crap about lives at all. They don't matter. You could just as easily turn right around and send MORE men to their deaths if it becomes politically expedient - and then once again rescind such a command, because it's not popular.

No, the *WILL* to fight a war is vital to its completion.

 

[PsyOps]

How so?

Things are not going in Iraq as planned. Not even close. We had and still have the power to subdue the entire country and it's borders and make the Iraqi's behave. We chose not to and there is no argument to be made that what we read about what's going on over there, from every source, is NOT even close to what we'd hoped for.

I placed my faith in the President that he knew what he was doing. Unlike the Clinton Chorus of dupes who will forever hold him faultless, I ain't doing the same thing. This IS a mess. Is should NOT be. Now, we gotta straighten it out.

I'm not going to argue that things are even remotely better now than they were before we put boots on the ground.

Larry… Folks like you always have me begging for answers. How was this war supposed to go “as planned”? I mean, what was the “plan”? I realize things could be better, but war is too unpredictable to have such “plans” (at least as I see it). But you see it differently so I would like to hear YOUR “plan”.

I’m sure you remember WWII. Even though we won that long war decisively did things really go “as planned”? Look at what happened after the war. Our ally – Russia – turned on us. Following that war we fought a decades-long cold war that cost us billions (if not trillions) and countless lives. So what’s this “things are not going as planned” thing? I’m looking for a definition of “going as planned”.

You believe we can “subdue the entire country”? How? What is your “plan” for this? Whatever you do, you have to consider the political and international ramifications of it. Do you suggest we do as Kerry condemned our military of doing and go house to house “terrorizing women and children” in order to flush out terrorists and insurgents? Should it be the US to secure the border or should the Iraqi forces be taking this responsibility? How would the borders be secured?

I’m just trying to figure out where Americans have developed this mentality that war has some definable timeline, perfect ending and expected results. Everyone has become an expert at military strategy and decision-making processes of a President. Everyone is full of criticism but no solutions. I want things better in Iraq, and in the war overall, but I know this will come easier with support rather than condemnation.

 

[SamSpade]

What the heck are you talking about? You said the Democrats haven't offered up an alternative. I refer you to a Democratic alternative, and you call it "playing politics".

A better question to be asking is why we have to wait "a couple months" to address reconsidering the plan in Iraq. Why doesn't Baker and his group go after this problem now? Does he really think things may magically start working during the next couple months? No...I honestly don't think that's what he's thinking. I wish Baker would start doing something about this today.

Mostly - I think something LIKE Biden's plan is one that will have to be considered. I'm leery of it for a couple reasons, though....

One is, there's no reason to believe that a Sunni autonomous region around Baghdad wouldn't become EXACTLY like the Baathist regime that was there before. There's little reason to suspect that they wouldn't put someone just like Saddam in power there. We'd still have the Iraq we had before, with ties to the Baathists in Syria - it'd just be a little smaller. It could turn out so bad, we'd have effectively gone in there for exactly nothing.

 

[SamSpade]

I’m just trying to figure out where Americans have developed this mentality that war has some definable timeline, perfect ending and expected results.

Vrai has pointed out some of this before ....

Where in the world have we fought a war in the last 125 years - where we aren't STILL THERE, in some capacity?

 

[Larry Gude]

We're getting the issue confused here...

...I was responding to your;

The point was - would today's press and popular sentiment be any different? The Revolutionary War was one of the most unpopular wars in our history.

I said;

Popularity has nothing to do with this.

Now you're talking about;

No, the *WILL* to fight a war is vital to its completion.

We agree here and where does will come from?

I said;

Righteous purpose is what sustains us.

Purpose. Not 'popularity', pupose.

Will and purpose go together. Will and popularity do not.

So, if you're saying popularity is where the will comes from, we disagree. It might start a war but it does not sustain the will to see it through. Purpose does.

If we're saying the same thing and just mis-communicating, we agree.