It’s like the media is so dumb they haven’t noticed this pattern that has repeated itself over the entire length of this godforsaken war in Iraq. “Good news” is heralded, the righties echo it endlessly and use it as a club against liberals, then the “good news” turns out to be not so good and usually it’s more horrible than you could think. Wash, rinse, repeat. And yet, we’re in one of those cycles right now with “OMG TEH SURGE IS WORKING!!! WHY DO DEMOCRATS HATE TEH TROOPS! BUSH IS TEH BEST!!”
How soon before it turns out that, once again, there’s just no sense to having American soldiers referee a civil war. And why must the right and the press conveniently forget that over 3,000 Americans have sadly died in vain while Bush asks for more time (aka, 2 years so he can get his ass out of town)?
So he’s looking for 4 FUs?
Hey, so far the PR campaign in the place of actual accomplishments has been working!
Like your new design. Only thing, I miss the picture you had before as you have a nice smile.
As for the surge, yeah, they’ve been saying it’s working since Twig announced he was going to do it. Twits.
Considering how many net lives they have saved, and that we have ridded the Mideast of a dangerous, murderous dictator, they did not die in vain. In fact, they died serving their country – which is what they are supposed to do. God bless ‘em all.
Iraq is the new LA alright.
When you ask someone to die serving their country, you owe it to them to make that service mean something.
How can “net lives” have been saved when every life saved from Saddam in Iraq is still in danger from all manner of new threats? If you delay somebody’s violent death, can you really trumpet that you “saved” them, especially when you are partially responsible for the current conditions?
The Middle East had a dangerous dictator removed and in its place sprung up an ineffectual puppet government and mindless bloody chaos. Victory!
Net lives, Spider. The death rate under Saddam was higher. Thats how. If the Repubs and Dems in Congress had not authorized Bush to go to war, statistically, more (brown-skin) people specifically would be dead now.
Actually it was victory – an expensive victory and at this time, an incomplete victory. But aguably better than the murderous Saddam-Baathist alternative that leftist ’shields’ sought to protect
You’re cold, man. Just cold.
I doubt any of the actual people in the middle of that mess are tabulating the “rate” of violent death and determining that, well, “algebraically speaking our lives are better.”
How comfortable it must be to have such distance as you.
“… statistically, more (brown-skin) people specifically would be dead now.”
Of course, Dugs has nothing to actually back this “fact” up.
… but that hasn’t stopped him from repeating at every opportunity for the last fours years …
Yes, according to Dugger, 50,000 Iraqis died every year under Hussein. Currently 80,000 or so die in the occupation and civil war. Its Duggebra.
I see. Nice lead time he gives himself–as long as the death toll in Iraq is less in twenty years post-Saddam as it was during Saddam, then it will be clear that the war was a good thing.
(Shut up with your whining about the political infrastructure and the rise of religious fundamentalism and the traumatized Iraqi populace. They’re not dead, are they? Mission Accomplished!)
Dugger, some of those “leftist shields” took the fellow at his word who said:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”
If that man had been alive today, he no doubt would have been derided for his pacifism as some kind of cheese-eating, terrorist-coddling surrender monkey.
Midder is flat wrong. I have plenty to back it up. Taking middle of the road sources, like IBC for Iraqi dead, and historical sources for total Saddam dead, the ratio of deaths, not total, is near 3 to 1 for the murderous dictator. Think 60,000 over over four years (post Saddam) versus 1,100,000 for 28 years Saddam(15K versus 40K per year).
And Spider, do you also think it cold to realize the scope and horror of the Holocaust? Saddam was a mass murderer. Detailing his deeds and understanding the scope of his evil is essential if we are to combat genocide. Sticking your head in the stand and pretending the horror of Saddma will go away so you can hate Bush won’t hack it.
“pretending the horror of Saddma (sic) will go away so you can hate Bush”
What? How does the first activity–which I never did, but feel free to toss the accusation around–help me do the second? (Which I also don’t do, but again, feel free to accuse.)
I have no problems with combating genocide. I have problems with single-dimension thinking, which the Iraq war is a dire example of. You want to bring up the Holocaust, fine, but the Allies post-WWII at least bothered to come up with a cogent reconstruction plan for the aftermath of stopping the genocide.
Your posts here have led me to believe that you, Dugger, could look directly into the eyes of an Iraqi who’s lost half his family to violence in the past four years and tell him “Your life is great. The dictator is gone.”
That’s why I say you’re cold. Because you seem to be all scope and horror with very little interest in the human cost of the conflict, save how the numbers play out.
Dugger just demonstrates his ignorance. IBC quite clearly states it cannot and does not account for all or most of the deaths in Iraq. It says it can only track a small fraction of deaths.
Granted, IBC is better than the last standard Dugger was using, which turned out to be a median derived from polling average Americans’ uninformed guesses.
Think 60,000 over over four years (post Saddam)
You forgot a zero, here, I think.
no duros – about 60K
and wrong midder
IBC – Same source I always used.
The leftist Bush-hating WaPo just recemntly dealt with very similar numbers (to mine).
I know you both would like to believe the throroughly dicredited Lancet numbers. But they have been just that discredited by multiple sources – multiple times.
And Spider, you have it bass-ackwards. You wnat to say that those 60K dead post Saddam are somehow worse that that far greater number dead under Saddam. Thats cold.
Whats more important than saving lives? Name one thing.
If gencocide is not the greatest evil, what is? And we can’t establish genocide without chronicling the butchery of the purveyor, can we.
You know, Dugger, it’s possible to say that things were bad under Saddam and they’re bad under our occupation as well. You do realize that, right? While you’re arguing “but we’re not AS bad,” you’re ignoring that nonetheless, it’s still pretty bloody bad in Iraq. And my point is that none of the civilians in the war zone are playing the same quantitative measurement games as you. They’re too busy mourning their family members.
Saving lives is important, but if you can’t keep them safe immediately afterwards, then what’s the point? Saving somebody who’s on fire by throwing them in a pool of crocodiles is not a job well done.
“Saving somebody who’s on fire by throwing them in a pool of crocodiles is not a job well done.”
It is in Bushworld.
Hell, get out the Medals of Freedom!
Heckuva job, Duggie.
Dugger, you moron, you can’t simply average deaths per year when comparing two different time frames to suggest that we are “saving lives” because less people are being killed now per year than before.
Why don’t you just average out the total number of Iraqis murdered going back 1,000 years to argue that Iraq is now safer now than it has ever been in the history of mankind?
Your use of statistics is absolutely mind boggling, and yet you keep coming back with dumber and dumber arguments.
Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths – which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.
So Dugger uses as his basis a total that reflects only confirmed and reported deaths on one side of his equation, and then on the other side uses a figure that is entirely based on estimates. Two different standards.
355,000 is not an unreasonable estimate if we take the Lancet study of 655,000 and add it to the IBC 55,000 and average the two which is far more accurate than Dugger’s method of taking a low that is presumed by it’s researchers to be way low and using that.
Let me ask you Dugs, why don’t you compare the number of peole Hussein killed in the four years prior to our invasion to the fours year since.
Do you have numbers for the four years just before our invasion?
Whats more important than saving lives? Name one thing
Not taking lives!
why don’t you compare the number of people Hussein killed in the four years prior to our invasion to the fours year since.
What are you, a freakin’ commie? That would be an equivalent. We can’t have that.
There were only two alternatives: with Saddam or without. With Saddam the total deaths and the death rate was much higher. Without much lower. Lancet is and has been discredited.
I’m sorry it hurts your feelings to think that Bush and the Republicans and Democrats who voted for war may have done mankind some good, but they did.
Don’t believe me? See what WaPo most recently says about casualties.
Jesus. Dugger, people are being slaughtered everyday in Iraq as we speak.
Your entire argument that this is still a good thing rests on a totally bogus comparison, not to mention the worst kind of utilitarian morality.
You live in a fantasy land.
I hope those folks who got blown up by a tanker full of chlorine over the weekend know how fucking good they have it now and stop their whining.
Boo-hoo, my eyes, my lungs, wahh, waah. At least you weren’t thrown off a roof.
Salt of the earth, Dugger. That’s what you are. You know the kind where nothing will ever grow again.
Poor Dugger, got his favorite talking point dismantled again with no defense. More Iraqis have been killed since the US invasion than would have been killed under Hussein. 80,000+/year over a four year period is a higher number than 40,000/year over a 25 year or whatever period. And that isn’t even arguing that under the last ten years of Hussein’s rule the death toll was significantly lower a trend that would have continued if not for the US invasion.
Poor Dugger, he’s gonna ruin his kidney drinking all that Kool Aid to wash away the taste of that.
Dugger:
1. Prove it.
2. You have proven many times in the past that you don’t know the basic of algebra or statistics.
3. Why the hell should we believe a racist, child molesting, gay bashing, sadistic Nazi?
Wow, maybe Dugger should be banned. His obvious debating faults and trollish behavior aside, Zython has now learned that Dugger is a racist who donates to NAMBLA and beats his wife.
Note to Dugger: you have to admit I am not lying when I say this.
I keep hoping somebody will make a serious attempt to debate on this and none do. Like destroying the ‘Bush lied’ concept, I guess I have won this one too.
Let’s see, I just destroyed your whole argument earlier in the thread, what do you want?
Recap: You used two different and incompatible standards to make a comparison.
On one hand you take an estimate of the whole and accept that as a fair representation.
On the other side you take an estimation of a fragment of the whole and declare it to be representative of the whole.
That makes for an invlaid statement on your part and until you address it all of your arguments are built on a foundation of sand with the tide coming in.
For the logically impaired an example
Let’s compare the networths of Bob and Larry.
Bob owns a home worth about $300,000, his retirement and other accounts have about $300,000, his car and personal belongings are worth about $60,000. He has no outstanding loans. A fair estimate his networth might be about $660,000
Larry has $820 in his wallet. His networth might be about $820.
Dugger,
As Midderpidge and everyone else has pointed out repeatedly, there is nothing to debate because the “factual” comparison you are using to support your entire argument — that things are better in Iraq — is 100 percent bogus.
But Larry made $820,000 over the entire course of his life, while Bob has only gotten that stuff over the past 4-5 years, so clearly Larry has more!