Bush needs to clean up his mess

~^ beancounter ~^ wrote:

Clintion policies led Bush into the 9/11 mess....




If you say so.

John Mullen

On 23 Jun 2006 10:05:57 -0700, wrote:


Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:40:29 GMT, Ricardo wrote:

...

We're nearly two years on now. Try this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11674.htm

I know you're stupid but it appears that you can at least read. Should you
have actually read the cite you posted you would be aware that the article in
question references the Lancet article. You know, the one where they are 95%
sure the number is between 6,000 and 194,000 but are either unwilling or unable
to narrow it down with any real confidence.


Unwilling to commit fraud because there is no statistically valid way
to 'narrow' down the results.

Untrue. It could have been accomplished with a larger sample size.

The conclusion was that the mortality rate was determined, at a
confidence level of 95%, to be higher post-invasion than pre-invasion.

That wasn't the conclusion at all. Between diverting food and medicine funds
to build more palaces, starting wars with his neighbors and using chemical
weapons on his own people; Saddam was easily killing 50,000 or more of his own
people every single year in addition to all other causes

On 23 Jun 2006 11:16:02 -0700, wrote:


Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo wrote:

The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
this as a 'terrorist'.

So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
reprisal?

If you answered none, you'd be correct.

That has yet to be determined.

"According to policy"

Care to cite the official policy of the US military to round up civilians and
have them executed in reprisals for attacks on US troops?

Take all the screens you need, I'll wait.

In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
narrow it down further.

Since you are not familiar with statistics,

That's an unwarranted assumption on your part.

OTOH, it was considered to be too dangerous to conduct interviews
in some areas, those were assumed to have the same mortality
rates and the safer surrounding areas. That tends to underestimate
mortality.

That's another unwarranted assumption on your part, just because it might have
been dangerous for interviewers doesn't mean that more people died there.

The numbers 6,000 to 194,000 were not estimated total deaths.
They were an estimate of deaths in excess of the number of deaths
in a similar period before the invasion.

I'm well aware of that and so is everyone else, thanks though.

I do not remember the median value exactly, it was around 100,000.
That implies a 50% confidence that the excess deaths were less
than 100,000 and simultaneously 50% confidence that they were
greater.

100,000 plus or minus 94,000, they have a guess with such a large margin that
it is all but meaningless. If a doctor tells you that you have between 12 and
18 months to live you can do something useful with that information. If the
doctor tells you that you have between 6 months and 22 years to live; that's all
but useless information to you.

Johnny Bravo wrote:
On 23 Jun 2006 11:16:02 -0700, wrote:


Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo wrote:

The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
this as a 'terrorist'.

So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
reprisal?

If you answered none, you'd be correct.

That has yet to be determined.

"According to policy"

Care to cite the official policy of the US military to round up civilians and
have them executed in reprisals for attacks on US troops?

You are correct, there is, as of yet, no evidence that the shootings in
Ieraq were according to policy. Nor do I expect any to be forthcoming.
I do believe that the murders of Dilawar and Habibulah in Bagram prison
were according to the policy of, or at best a consequence of the
willfull ignorance of the base commander. the light sentences for
those
convicted are telling.

LIght sentences for persons convicted of beating chained
prisoners to death is not a good policy.


Take all the screens you need, I'll wait.

In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
narrow it down further.

Since you are not familiar with statistics,

That's an unwarranted assumption on your part.

I was giving you the benefit of doubt. Someone who is familiar with
statistics, who makes a statement such as yours above, would not
be writing honestly.


OTOH, it was considered to be too dangerous to conduct interviews
in some areas, those were assumed to have the same mortality
rates and the safer surrounding areas. That tends to underestimate
mortality.

That's another unwarranted assumption on your part, just because it might have
been dangerous for interviewers doesn't mean that more people died there.

I agree that it is an assumption. I disagree that it is unwarranted.


The numbers 6,000 to 194,000 were not estimated total deaths.
They were an estimate of deaths in excess of the number of deaths
in a similar period before the invasion.

I'm well aware of that and so is everyone else, thanks though.

Regardless, a number of OTHER persons make the false claim
that the study shows that the US has killed 100,000 civilians in Iraq.


I do not remember the median value exactly, it was around 100,000.
That implies a 50% confidence that the excess deaths were less
than 100,000 and simultaneously 50% confidence that they were
greater.

100,000 plus or minus 94,000, they have a guess with such a large margin that
it is all but meaningless.

Again, a person who understands statistics knows that 'guessing'
is not involved. Whether you are being honest or not is left as
an exercise for the reader.

If a doctor tells you that you have between 12 and
18 months to live you can do something useful with that information. If the
doctor tells you that you have between 6 months and 22 years to live; that's all
but useless information to you.

I disagree.

I presume that you have no disagreement with the other meaningful
comments you edited out.

I also note that you did not insert any indicator of where and how
you edited my remarks before replying...

--

FF

In message , Alan Lothian
writes
In article , Paul J. Adam
wrote:
In semi-modern parlance, US domestic opinion was a centre of gravity,
and keeping public opinion on-side was a key enabling factor that North
Vietnam successfully attacked.

Well, yes. It's that "attention deficit" again. Something that US
allies have learned to worry about. For a distressingly long time.

(Sorry for the delayed response, Alan, been having fun up in the
Minches)

To give them credit, when you convince the US public, they can get very
determined, but when El Presidente makes a decision without getting his
country behind him... it goes about as badly as when we try it.

Or, flipping it around, if the "fight" crowd in the US had made a better
case for "why we fight" then things might have been very different.

Hmmm. Yes, but.

I never said "better" - one risk is a little too much MacArthuresque
"never fear, Mr President, those cowardly commies will _never_ dare
to... well, who'd'a'thunk it?" - but most certainly different. Once a
_Dolchstoss_ myth takes hold it's remarkably powerful, and a US without
that is a big change. (Probably more appropriate to s.h.w-i, though)

At the risk of pushing this more-than-somewhat OT topic
into an arid wilderness, we are faced with the fait accompli of the
destruction of the liberal arts education in the US and much of the
anglosphere in favour of some kind of bizarre, historically-ignorant,
posturing self-loathing that passes for "the Left". Which has gained
itself a stranglehold, a bit like Russian ivy, all over the bloody
place, especially the meeja.

You hardly need it, Alan, but Frances Wheen's "How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered
The World" is a good read on these matters - I especially enjoyed the
description of l'affaire Sokal, which I had not previously heard of, but
which conformed with horrible precision my preconceptions of how such a
prank might go.

Me, when I need leftwing guidance, I ask myself what Lenin would have
done. The answer rarely involves gender politics or queer studies, but
tends towards, shall we say, more robust solutions.

When in doubt, shoot some more intellectuals, revisionists, hooligans
and saboteurs... and if they run short, shoot anyone inconvenient and
_then_ denounce them as revisionists, intellectuals, saboteurs and
hooligans. (Today's soggy-Left should thank their lucky stars Lenin and
Stalin are no more, it always seemed to be easier to kill toadies than
real opponents. Trotsky took a lot of hunting and killing, while Stalin
executed most of his 'inner circle' with little apparent effort)

From which, as the
most liberal and tolerant of men, I am usually obliged to distance
myself. Still, it's always there as a thought.

I'd consider myself fairly liberal, in the classical sense at least
(even got a degree from UCL) though I grow less tolerant with age.

Perhaps Lenin was too soft in limiting himself to small-arms.

This is one reason I get very, very angry with anyone who dismisses "the
media". They may be ill-informed (and many are), they may be downright
hostile (and many are), but they have to be worked with and dealt with.
Ignore them or annoy them and they will hurt you badly.

Another "yes, but." The thing I can't forgive the meeja (by which I
mean overwhelmingly tv) is their utter incapacity to avoid telling
lies. Indeed, their complete epistemological inability to tell one from
the other: only what makes "good" tv and what does not. They're quite
smart at that.

From a military point of view, that's like complaining about geography:
why do the enemy never let you assault them downhill, over dry ground
with good going yet plenty of nice concealing folds and tussocks, on a
day not so hot you sweat to death during the assault nor so cold that
certain important bits froze off waiting for H-Hour?

"The meeja" exist as they are, just as the weather and the ground and
the enemy do. Good commanders do what they can to gain benefit from them
(like, making sure 'Our Story' is better TV than 'Their Story') while
limiting the damage they can do. Not easy, but that's why good
commanders are to be cherished.

Hence, the hard work required of a J3 Media Ops staffer.

Thankless in success, worse in failure.

Sadly, far from alone in the military pantheon. Even I, having a layer
of political insulation and friendly distance from the _direct_
consequences of any failure, will likely only come to notice if things
go badly pear-shaped.

--
Paul J. Adam

Johnny Bravo wrote:
On 23 Jun 2006 10:05:57 -0700, wrote:


Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:40:29 GMT, Ricardo wrote:

...

We're nearly two years on now. Try this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11674.htm

I know you're stupid but it appears that you can at least read. Should you
have actually read the cite you posted you would be aware that the article in
question references the Lancet article. You know, the one where they are 95%
sure the number is between 6,000 and 194,000 but are either unwilling or unable
to narrow it down with any real confidence.


Unwilling to commit fraud because there is no statistically valid way
to 'narrow' down the results.

Untrue. It could have been accomplished with a larger sample size.

No, that would not narrow down the results. It would produce a
new, larger dataset with new results.


The conclusion was that the mortality rate was determined, at a
confidence level of 95%, to be higher post-invasion than pre-invasion.

That wasn't the conclusion at all. Between diverting food and medicine funds
to build more palaces, starting wars with his neighbors and using chemical
weapons on his own people; Saddam was easily killing 50,000 or more of his own
people every single year in addition to all other causes

Just where in the study published in Lancet did you find that
conclusion?

--

FF

Ed Rasimus wrote:

:On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 16:35:38 -0700, "Robert" wrote:
:
:"Vince" wrote in message
m...
: Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
: leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.
:
: Except that the Russians quite clearly let us know that we risked nuclear
: war if we did that. Not to mention That we didn't have the million men in
: 1964 to spare from confronting the Warsaw Pact.
:
:You REALLY need to view Vietnam in context, not in hind sight.
:
:View it as the war after Korea.
:Where when the west was in danger of 'wining' militarily the ChiComs sent in
:large numbers of troops instead of just supplies. And kicked butt.
:
:That was why all the 'pussy footing' around happened. Fear of getting into
:an actual shooting war with China, again.
:
:Then, review Korea. The Korean war was a UN action. The Security
:Council voted to deploy UN forces (not USA) and that was to maintain
:the integrity of the south from a manifest invasion. Fixed,
:conventional military forces, not revolutionaries. You are correct
:that the Chinese intervened when it was apparent that their proxies
:could not get the job done.
:
:Note that the intervention was NOT nuclear. Note that the Soviets were
:NOT involved either.

Also note that there was bombing just pretty close to Chinese
territory (if not actually in it) which may have had a bit to do with
their decision to send troops.

:Now, review the relationship between Vietnam and China. Vietnam was
:and is NOT a friend of China. There was NOT an invasion (until well
:into 1968) and the war was not a conventional fixed piece, traditional
:front sort of conflict. The US forces did not move N. of the 17th
arallel and weren't anywhere near the Chinese border, even if China
:were a supporter of NVN.
:
:Much different situation than Korea.

And, as I said, if we'd just said we'd stop well short of the Chinese
border there probably wouldn't have been a Chinese reaction at all.

--
"We come into the world and take our chances.
Fate is just the weight of circumstances.
That's the way that Lady Luck dances.
Roll the bones...."
-- "Roll The Bones", Rush

wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ed Rasimus wrote:
:
: :No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
: :back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
: :had the political will to do so.
:
: The real problem was a new military strategy called 'gradualism',
: which was intended to show that we were willing to stay in the fight
: as long as required.
:
: It amounted to only putting in enough troops and force to make a
: little headway and then giving the other guy time to adjust before we
: did anything more.
:
: Along about 1964 we should have sunk everything in Haiphong Harbor,
: leveled Hanoi and put a million men in the country marching north.
:
:Because that strategy worked so well in Korea?

South Korea is an independent, relatively free nation. South Vietnam
is what?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

wrote:

:But to what degree was Vietnam different precisely because we
:adopted a different strategy against the North?

That's why the outcome was different. The war, of course, would have
been different, regardless. Not because of there being adjacent
countries, but because of the difference between triple-canopy jungle
and mountains.

--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell

wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: ...
:
: 2) If guilty, they'll wind up tried and convicted and in the military
: prison in Leavenworth (if they don't draw a death penalty, which is
: pretty unlikely in a military court).
:
:So far, every man convicted of contributing to the murders at
:Bagram has returned to duty. That does not inspire much
:confidence.

Circumstances alter cases, no matter how much you might dislike it.

: 3) They're being held in a military brig here in the States, with
: conditions probably worse than those in Cuba.
:
:Held in a brig, sure. Worse than in Cuba, not likely.

Don't know much about either military brigs or Cuba, do you?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson