The surge

Can you please explain the chart for me ? I am interested in these figures.
Especially for the months that the US had about the same troop strength as
the surge will provide. Thanks.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png

"Scotty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Can you please explain the chart for me ? I am interested in these
figures. Especially for the months that the US had about the same
troop strength as the surge will provide. Thanks.

It's a box and whisker histogram. The heavy horizontal line on each box
is the median value. The box contains the middle two quartiles (ends of
box represent the 1st and 3rd quartile values) and the whiskers the
0-25% and 75 -100% values.

Phil H

Quoted message said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png

On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article [email hidden], "Robert

Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png

Nice boxplot you got there......
You do know what an outlier is don't you?

Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops where
you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?

More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.

In article said:

On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article [email hidden], "Robert

Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png

Nice boxplot you got there......
You do know what an outlier is don't you?

Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops where
you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?

More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.

No, there are not more deaths than that in many major cities in the US. Secondly,
even if there were more deaths than that in a major US city, the population of that
city is far greater than the total number of US troops in Iraq. Therefore, the
deaths per capita of people in this ficitious US city would pale in comparison to
the rate of death among the soldiers in Iraq.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"ST" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article [email hidden],
"Robert

Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png

Nice boxplot you got there......
You do know what an outlier is don't you?

That's like asking if the Pope is a Catholic.

Quoted message said:

Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops
where
you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a
max?

More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.

Phil H

ST said:

Robert Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png

Nice boxplot you got there......
You do know what an outlier is don't you?

Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops where
you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?

More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.

Robert's plot shows the average number of deaths of coalition
soldiers (who are mostly healthy young people) only. If you want
to compare deaths in major cities, an appropriate comparison
would be the number of civilian violent deaths (murders) per day
in a major US city versus, say, the number of Iraqi civilian violent
deaths per day in Baghdad. I am sure the comparison would not be
flattering. For example,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1981434,00.html
The sad thing is that the country is such a mess we don't even
know by how much the number is an underestimate.

ST said:

On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article [email hidden], "Robert

Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png

Nice boxplot you got there......
You do know what an outlier is don't you?

Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops where
you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?

More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.

Dumbass -

No it isn't.

It doesn't matter anyways because the "victory" (or failure) will be
measured by what replaces Saddam Hussein's government and the true
measure of how that is how many Iraqis are dying. The Lancet study put
the figure at anywhere from 350,000 to 950,000. The vast majority of it
is sectarian violence and with that sort of bloodshed going on between
the tribes, it's pretty much guaranteed that the government will not
succeed.

The Civil War, it's inevitable. The reason there are so many willing
suicide bombers is their culture dictates that slain relatives must be
avenged. So the suicide bomber kills more which engenders more
avengers. We can't stop it. Neither can they.

Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
a few more troops will somehow solve it.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
a few more troops will somehow solve it.

An interesting note on the person who seems to have authored the logic of the
surge, Fred Kagan:

______________________________
It was at Camp David last June that Kagan, a military historian and fellow of the
American Enterprise Institute, outlined his plans for pouring more troops into Iraq
to Bush and his war cabinet.

Donald Rumsfeld, the then defence secretary, was unimpressed, but Kagans views got
another hearing when Bush was searching for ways to ditch the seemingly defeatist
recommendations of James Bakers Iraq Study Group. "Wow, you mean we can still win
this war?" a grateful Bush reportedly said.
______________________________

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-524-2546344-524,00.html

Furthermore:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011921.php

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
a few more troops will somehow solve it.

What amazes me at least as much the dopes who still support Bush's
actions in Iraq.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
a few more troops will somehow solve it.

What amazes me at least as much the dopes who still support Bush's
actions in Iraq.

Dumbass -

Less troops are killed than in US cities every day! The war is a
success!! It's a great thing that we invaded!!! It's a great use of US
lives and resources!!!!

thanks,

Masters Fattie Idiot

Kurgan Gringioni said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
a few more troops will somehow solve it.

What amazes me at least as much the dopes who still support Bush's
actions in Iraq.

Dumbass -

Less troops are killed than in US cities every day! The war is a
success!! It's a great thing that we invaded!!! It's a great use of US
lives and resources!!!!

Your sarcasm gives aid and comfort to the enemy.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On 14 Jan 2007 23:32:09 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
> cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
> a few more troops will somehow solve it.
What amazes me at least as much the dopes who still support Bush's
actions in Iraq.

Dumbass -

Less troops are killed than in US cities every day! The war is a
success!! It's a great thing that we invaded!!! It's a great use of US
lives and resources!!!!

Your sarcasm gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

They're gonna need all the aid and comfort they can get 'cause Georgy's
sendin over another can of good old Americun Whoop Ass(TM)!

YEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWWW!!!

Kurgan Gringioni said:

ST said:

On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article [email hidden], "Robert

Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png

Nice boxplot you got there......
You do know what an outlier is don't you?

Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops where
you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?

More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.

Dumbass -

No it isn't.

It doesn't matter anyways because the "victory" (or failure) will be
measured by what replaces Saddam Hussein's government and the true
measure of how that is how many Iraqis are dying. The Lancet study put
the figure at anywhere from 350,000 to 950,000. The vast majority of it
is sectarian violence and with that sort of bloodshed going on between
the tribes, it's pretty much guaranteed that the government will not
succeed.

The Civil War, it's inevitable. The reason there are so many willing
suicide bombers is their culture dictates that slain relatives must be
avenged. So the suicide bomber kills more which engenders more
avengers. We can't stop it. Neither can they.

Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
a few more troops will somehow solve it.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Bush doesn't want to solve it. Just wants to make sure he retains all
the stolen oil. The death count does not matter one bit to him. To him
the Iraqi civilians and the invading American soldiers are not people
just numbers.

Andre

Andre said:

Quoted message said:

Dumbass -

No it isn't.

It doesn't matter anyways because the "victory" (or failure) will be
measured by what replaces Saddam Hussein's government and the true
measure of how that is how many Iraqis are dying. The Lancet study put
the figure at anywhere from 350,000 to 950,000. The vast majority of it
is sectarian violence and with that sort of bloodshed going on between
the tribes, it's pretty much guaranteed that the government will not
succeed.

The Civil War, it's inevitable. The reason there are so many willing
suicide bombers is their culture dictates that slain relatives must be
avenged. So the suicide bomber kills more which engenders more
avengers. We can't stop it. Neither can they.

Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
a few more troops will somehow solve it.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Bush doesn't want to solve it. Just wants to make sure he retains all
the stolen oil. The death count does not matter one bit to him. To him
the Iraqi civilians and the invading American soldiers are not people
just numbers.

Dumbass -

If only that were true.

One of the problems with this administration is that they're ideologues
(ignoring data that doesn't fit their preconceived notions) and
actually believe they're doing the right thing.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Kurgan Gringioni said:

One of the problems with this administration is that they're ideologues
(ignoring data that doesn't fit their preconceived notions) and
actually believe they're doing the right thing.

Kurganbutt: That's two, two problems with this administration.

You're welcome <g>. --D-y

On 1/14/07 10:16 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Howard Kveck"

Quoted message said:

In article said:

On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article [email hidden], "Robert

Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png

Nice boxplot you got there......
You do know what an outlier is don't you?

Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops where
you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?

More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.

No, there are not more deaths than that in many major cities in the US.
Secondly,
even if there were more deaths than that in a major US city, the population of
that
city is far greater than the total number of US troops in Iraq. Therefore, the
deaths per capita of people in this ficitious US city would pale in comparison
to
the rate of death among the soldiers in Iraq.

You logic is stupid.......
Over there is a war, here it is not.
There are many cities were there are more than 5 deaths per day.

On 1/14/07 11:32 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Kurgan Gringioni"

Quoted message said:

ST said:

On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article [email hidden], "Robert

Chung said:

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png

Nice boxplot you got there......
You do know what an outlier is don't you?

Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops where
you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?

More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.

Dumbass -

No it isn't.

It doesn't matter anyways because the "victory" (or failure) will be
measured by what replaces Saddam Hussein's government and the true
measure of how that is how many Iraqis are dying. The Lancet study put
the figure at anywhere from 350,000 to 950,000. The vast majority of it
is sectarian violence and with that sort of bloodshed going on between
the tribes, it's pretty much guaranteed that the government will not
succeed.

The Civil War, it's inevitable. The reason there are so many willing
suicide bombers is their culture dictates that slain relatives must be
avenged. So the suicide bomber kills more which engenders more
avengers. We can't stop it. Neither can they.

Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
a few more troops will somehow solve it.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

An admission?
There culture is backwards and screwed up.

On 1/15/07 5:42 AM, in article [email hidden],

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
a few more troops will somehow solve it.

What amazes me at least as much the dopes who still support Bush's
actions in Iraq.

You rope-a-dopes don't get it.......
Their culture is looking at reaching goals 2+ generations into the future.
We gotta have it NOW!!

That is a big part of the problem. Not to mention they are just as happy to
kill each other. Do you want that culture to dominate your great-grandkids??

The rules of engagement suck over there. They have to go through about a
dozen factors before they can pull the trigger not to mention, most of the
time, phoning home to ask mommy & daddy for permission first...

Surely was not like that in WWII. Do you remember how many civilians were
killed in the Berlin et al. air raids?

If you blowhards would make the same stink about civilian deaths in regards
to other area in the world I might look at your whining as unbiased.

On 1/15/07 6:24 AM, in article
[email hidden], "Kurgan Gringioni"

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
a few more troops will somehow solve it.

What amazes me at least as much the dopes who still support Bush's
actions in Iraq.

Dumbass -

Less troops are killed than in US cities every day! The war is a
success!! It's a great thing that we invaded!!! It's a great use of US
lives and resources!!!!

thanks,

Masters Fattie Idiot

While Gorilla boy is a real [censored] along the lines of.............you!
At least he is smart enough not to try to argue this topic with you assbags.