The surge

On 1/15/07 3:45 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Andre"

Quoted message said:

Kurgan Gringioni said:

ST said:

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

> 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

Hey.....
Yes you, you lying sack of cow [censored]. Got any facts?

On 1/15/07 3:54 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Kurgan Gringioni"

Quoted message said:

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.

We were ideologues in WWI & WWII [censored]....
Over there they are major flaming ideologues. Where is the same bashing??

ST said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> 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.

Umm, that's the point.

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

On 1/15/07 5:14 PM, in article [email hidden],

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

ST said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, ST <[email hidden]> wrote:

> On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article [email hidden], "Robert
> Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> 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.

Umm, that's the point.

Everyone knows that..........
What the hell was the point of that stupid post above?

Would you rather it be here?

ST said:

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.

I make a stink about civilian deaths caused by my country and my
government that are pointless. The civilian deaths in Iraq are
pointless -- they contribute to no one's secutiry. Insofar as the US
invasion precipitated that violence, I have to protest it.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On 1/15/07 5:16 PM, in article [email hidden],

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

ST said:

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

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.

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.

I make a stink about civilian deaths caused by my country and my
government that are pointless. The civilian deaths in Iraq are
pointless -- they contribute to no one's secutiry. Insofar as the US
invasion precipitated that violence, I have to protest it.

Protest all you want homer.......
I am very certain about your political leanings and believes. You are
probably hip to that "Maybe we should give Marxism another chance.."
bandwagon.

You got one vote........vote!
Pretty much all civil war type situations going on in the world involves
Muslims not getting along with their neighbors. Their religious freaky
leaders are trying to convince them this is a Christian crusade. Even you
windbags are smart enough to know that is a lie. We build [censored] over there
and in 5 minutes they come out and blow up there own infrastructure.

It sux...... But trying to say it is our fault (all you liberals whack jobs
say is Bush..) for the secondary & tertiary actions of those whackjobs who
have a long history of violence and backwards ancient culture is stupid.

Saying the reason why Bush initiated the issue over there was because of his
religion?? Come on! Those guys are religious whackjobs.

Quoted message said:

The sad thing is that the country is such a mess we don't even
know by how much the number is an underestimate.

The sad thing is thinking you need a statistician and numbers to know
right from wrong.

ST said:

On 1/15/07 5:14 PM, in article [email hidden],

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

ST said:

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

> In article <[email hidden]>, ST <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article [email hidden], "Robert
>> Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.

Umm, that's the point.

Everyone knows that..........
What the hell was the point of that stupid post above?

GWB started a war for no point, and people are dying because of it.
Pretty simple.

Oh yeah, one other point -- some dopes think that was a good idea.

Quoted message said:

Would you rather it be here?

I'd rather it be neither.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

ST said:

Saying the reason why Bush initiated the issue over there was because of his
religion??

Who said that here?

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

ST said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Dumbass -

You've got your head up your ass. You missed the entire point of the
post. I'm not whining about the civilian deaths.

Hint: it's not a conventional war.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

In article said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> 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.

Then it should be quite simple for you to name a few. It'll be even more relevant
if these cities have a population of about 150,000.

By the way, Steve, I know this stuff gets you really worked up, but try taking
the time to proofread your posts before you hit send. As it is, you're giving aid
and comfort to Carl.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On 1/15/07 8:01 PM, in article
[email hidden], "Howard Kveck"

Quoted message said:

In article said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, ST <[email hidden]> wrote:

> On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article [email hidden],
> "Robert
> Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> 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.

Then it should be quite simple for you to name a few. It'll be even more
relevant
if these cities have a population of about 150,000.

By the way, Steve, I know this stuff gets you really worked up, but try
taking
the time to proofread your posts before you hit send. As it is, you're giving
aid
and comfort to Carl.

Here ya go Professor Ass Bag........

http://newsbusters.org/node/9932
http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ViolDeathGraph1206.jpeg

ST <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

http://newsbusters.org/node/9932
http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/ViolDeathGraph1206.jpeg

That's a little misleading. If you look at one year at random and look
at a lot of U.S. cities, instead of using the outlier years for cities in
the midst of drug wars or riots, the average murder rate is fairly low.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html

If you consider most of the Iraqi deaths are in and around Baghdad and
don't spread them over the entire population (i.e., Basra and most of the
south is relatively peaceful, as is Kurdistan), then the murder rate
there is on order of 200 per 100,000 or so (using the 16,000 dead figure
from the Iraqi government and assuming maybe 75% of them are from Baghdad
(pop. est. 6,000,000)), nearly an order of magnitude larger than the
average for U.S. cities.

But the real reason that chart is misleading is it doesn't take into
account the non-fatal casualties, which are underreported since there
aren't medical facilities to treat the wounded. I would think a
reasonable estimate might be 6 to 7 times as many seriously wounded as
killed, taking the coalition force numbers as an example, bringing the
total casualty rate among Baghdad residents up to over 1,000 per 100,000,
or around 1%. That is extraordinary for a "peacetime" population and
demonstrates why reconstruction is virtually at a standstill there. If
the true casualty numbers are higher than the government reports, as some
have suggested, it is simply staggering.

Clearly not all of Iraq is as violent as Baghdad, but Baghdad remains a
completely volatile place to live. The war there is a disaster and will
remain a disaster for generations. Cherry-picking murder rates simply
can't gild a turd that big. It isn't anti-American to point this out,
it's simple arithmetic.

--
Bill Asher

Kurgan Gringioni said:

Quoted message said:

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!!!!

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Your sarcasm gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

Lidocaine ?

ST said:

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.

So you're saying a gorilla is smarter than you are ?

William Asher said:

Cherry-picking murder rates simply can't gild a turd that big.

Anyone cherry picking a turd deserves what he finds.

William Asher said:

If you consider most of the Iraqi deaths are in and around Baghdad and
don't spread them over the entire population (i.e., Basra and most of the
south is relatively peaceful, as is Kurdistan), then the murder rate
there is on order of 200 per 100,000 or so (using the 16,000 dead figure
from the Iraqi government and assuming maybe 75% of them are from Baghdad
(pop. est. 6,000,000)), nearly an order of magnitude larger than the
average for U.S. cities.

<snip>

Dumbass -

According to the Iraq Study Group, chaired by former Bush Sr. Secretary
of State James Baker, the casualty figures for the Iraqi civilians are
12 times too low.

Violence that doesn't involve US personnel are not counted by the USDD.
Clearly that method
is not a good indicator of the *overall* level of violence in Iraq
since the great majority of the deaths are Iraqi civilian deaths due to
internecine sectarian violence. The factor of 12 corresponds to the
difference in the figures arrived at by the USDD and the Lancet
Casualty Study.

I am posting this from Fox News just so our resident Fatass Idiot won't
be able to claim that it's a liberal conspiracy.

From:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Dec07/0,4670,IraqIntelligence,00.html

<snip>

The group also said that intelligence officials are underreporting the
violence in Iraq. Its official counts leave out the deaths of Iraqis,
sectarian attacks whose source can't be determined and bombings or
other attacks that don't hurt U.S. personnel.

"On one day in July 2006, there were 93 attacks or significant acts of
violence reported," the study said. "Yet a careful review of the
reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence."

<snip><end>

Kurgan Gringioni said:

William Asher said:

If you consider most of the Iraqi deaths are in and around Baghdad
and don't spread them over the entire population (i.e., Basra and
most of the south is relatively peaceful, as is Kurdistan), then the
murder rate there is on order of 200 per 100,000 or so (using the
16,000 dead figure from the Iraqi government and assuming maybe 75%
of them are from Baghdad (pop. est. 6,000,000)), nearly an order of
magnitude larger than the average for U.S. cities.

<snip>

Dumbass -

According to the Iraq Study Group, chaired by former Bush Sr.
Secretary of State James Baker, the casualty figures for the Iraqi
civilians are 12 times too low.

Violence that doesn't involve US personnel are not counted by the
USDD. Clearly that method
is not a good indicator of the *overall* level of violence in Iraq
since the great majority of the deaths are Iraqi civilian deaths due
to internecine sectarian violence. The factor of 12 corresponds to the
difference in the figures arrived at by the USDD and the Lancet
Casualty Study.

I am posting this from Fox News just so our resident Fatass Idiot
won't be able to claim that it's a liberal conspiracy.

From:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Dec07/0,4670,IraqIntelligence,00.html

<snip>

The group also said that intelligence officials are underreporting the
violence in Iraq. Its official counts leave out the deaths of Iraqis,
sectarian attacks whose source can't be determined and bombings or
other attacks that don't hurt U.S. personnel.

"On one day in July 2006, there were 93 attacks or significant acts of
violence reported," the study said. "Yet a careful review of the
reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence."

<snip><end>

I agree completely that the figure of a 1% overall casualty rate in Baghdad
is likely at least an order of magnitude too low. But as an exercise it is
instructive that even with the lower numbers you come up with a rate that
is really high for what are supposedly non-wartime conditions. A rate on
the order of 10% would be similar (although not quite as high) to the
casualty rate for London in 1940 at the height of the Blitz.

--
Bill Asher

William Asher said:

I would think a reasonable estimate might be 6 to 7 times
as many seriously wounded as killed

That turns out to be a reasonable estimate for US forces in Iraq: the ratio
of dead to (seriously) wounded is about 0.13. During Vietnam, the ratio for
US troops was 0.24.

Robert Chung said:

William Asher said:

I would think a reasonable estimate might be 6 to 7 times
as many seriously wounded as killedThat turns out to be a reasonable estimate for US forces in Iraq: the ratio

of dead to (seriously) wounded is about 0.13. During Vietnam, the ratio for
US troops was 0.24.

Not sure what the ratio is but everything I've seen says that they are
saving a much higher percentage of seriously wounded. Most of whom
would've died even a decade ago. That's going to give you a much higher
ratio of seriously wounded to KIA. I've seen guesses between 20,000 to
35,000 from sources close to the military, though even they admit they
aren't sure of the numbers.
Bill C