Kerry Supporters: Some Consolation

[Geoff_M]

Now your link was definitely NOT biased,huh! Swag, indeed.

The "biased" link highlighted relevant statistical problems with the model used to generate the figure. The model they selected is clearly a case of "drawing the line and then plotting the points". But I understand your need to attack the source instead of the facts.

Let me ask you... if you looked at the number of deaths due to acts of terrorism in 2001 in several US cities (including NYC as one of them) as a percentage of their population and then applied that rate to the general US population, do you think that would give you an accurate number of US citizens killed by terrorists in the whole of the US in 2001???

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by crazyforgoofy
So Prof, did you and Kendra attend the same school? You both tend to lecture rather than converse.

OOOOH. . . well, i'll have to file this under "another liberal baiting me".

You know, if you have an issue with my posts, you know what you can do, right?

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Originally posted by Kendra17
OOOOH. . . well, i'll have to file this under "another liberal baiting me".

You know, if you have an issue with my posts, you know what you can do, right?

Nope, all outta tissues. Sounds to me like I hit a small nerve though. And I wasn't baiting you . .

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
The "biased" link highlighted relevant statistical problems with the model used to generate the figure. The model they selected is clearly a case of "drawing the line and then plotting the points". But I understand your need to attack the source instead of the facts.

Let me ask you... if you looked at the number of deaths due to acts of terrorism in 2001 in several US cities (including NYC as one of them) and then applied that rate to the general US population, do you think that would give you an accurate number of US citizens killed by terrorists in the whole of the US in 2001???

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, was the whole of the US being attacked by terrorists in 2001?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by crazyforgoofy
Nope, all outta tissues. Sounds to me like I hit a small nerve though. And I wasn't baiting you . .

Nope, crazyforgoofy. . . many here frequently get on my nerves. Don't you worry 'bout it at all!

 

[Geoff_M]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, was the whole of the US being attacked by terrorists in 2001?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, has the whole of Iraq seen the level of violence that Falluja has?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by crazyforgoofy
Nope, all outta tissues. Sounds to me like I hit a small nerve though. And I wasn't baiting you . .

I certainly wasn't implying that you should get a tissue. Gee, is that all you thought?

 

[WishingStar]

I just finished watching my local news. There was a local soldier killed today in Fallujah. He hadn't been married very long, still practically a newlywed. His wife is right now pregnant with twins, she is due in January. Hearing things like this is why I have issues with this war, and you know what? Maybe I will grab that tissue, because each of our soldiers lives that are lost is a tragedy. Because of a war that was poorly planned out.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by WishingStar
I just finished watching my local news. There was a local soldier killed today in Fallujah. He hadn't been married very long, still practically a newlywed. His wife is right now pregnant with twins, she is due in January. Hearing things like this is why I have issues with this war, and you know what? Maybe I will grab that tissue, because each of our soldiers lives that are lost is a tragedy. Because of a war that was poorly planned out.

So if it was better planned his death wouldn't have been a tragedy?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by Peter Pirate
fighting back in Afghanistan (where the terrorists lived) = GOOD

fighting back in Iraq (where the oil lives) = BAD

Does the name al-Zaqarwi ring any bells. If you think there weren't terrorists in Iraq you're being a bit naive.

Hell, even Kerry thought Iraq was part of the war on terror..

"Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that..." -- John Kerry 12/15/03

He also said this:

"If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." -- USA Today on 2/13/03

Which apparently he was referring to himself, and the American people took his advice.

 

[chadfromdallas]

Originally posted by dmadman43
Does the name al-Zaqarwi ring any bells. If you think there weren't terrorists in Iraq you're being a bit naive.

a recent CIA report concluded that there was no evidence that Saddam's regime had in any way harbored, provided aid, or in any other way supported al-Zarqawi.

While the Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his followers were indeed located inside Iraq's borders prior to the U.S. invasion, they were not based in Baghdad, but in the far north of the country inside the Kurdish safe havens the United Nations had established in 1991, well beyond the control of the Saddam's government.

They were in areas that could have been taken care of without a war.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3783

I thought this was funny in a very sad, people dying, type of way:

Ironically, since the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, the al-Zarqawi terror network has established extensive cells in Baghdad and elsewhere in the country, which they were unable to do during Saddam's regime.

 

[bsears]

Originally posted by Grumpy Professor
That's an inflated number. Sad, but highly inflated. Don't believe everything you read. We can play this game all day long. The reality is you folks will never admit that any good will come out of removing SH. I think the Iraqi's (and they're fighting for freedom) might feel just a little bit different than you.

same tune, different name...now how did that happen?

 

[bsears]

Originally posted by Geoff_M
This demonstrates the practice of a concept known as "lying for justice". Some one makes up a SWAG number and throws it out as "fact". Accuracy doesn't matter because the intention is "good". When someone then questions the accuracy of the figure, they are then labeled as attempting to "minimize" the problem.

no, this is the practice of pointing out a distasteful fact that no one wants to admit: That the actual number of lives has less meaning to us because they are not American lives.

 

[mortimer45]

Originally posted by Microcell
Well said! We didn't start this war, but we will do our best to finish it to our satisfaction and ultimately the world will be better off.

 

[Geoff_M]

no, this is the practice of pointing out a distasteful fact that no one wants to admit: That the actual number of lives has less meaning to us because they are not American lives.

No, I will fully agree to that statement... as it has been true in any military conflict that we have ever engauged in. For example, I don't remember a mass pouring out of emotions when Allied firebombing of Dresden, Germany killed tens of thousands of German citizens during WWII (the loss of life there was on the same scale as the atomic bombings in Japan)... but that's not the same as endorsing the loss of the innocents. However, some of the feelings about such losses are formed with the knowledge that such loss don't occurr in a vacuum and aren't deliberate targeting.

It's OK for people to be concerned about the loss of non-combatant life in Iraq. But personally, if people are going to generate numbers to support their positions, I don't think it's asking too much for them to not apply their fingers on the scales.

 

[dcentity2000]

Four points:

Number one
If the US stands for freedom and democracy, why is it presumed that when altering the world the world should just follow you? Without asking the world what the majority wants, this is certainly the textbook definition of despotism (source: Encyclopædia Britannica)

Number two
All links between Saddam and Al Queda have been disproven and the weapons that were meant to be in Iraq were either exported when the war began (instead of, say, using them) or weren't there to begin with, logically implying that the war there is not connected to the war on terror; the strongest link that exists is that there are terrorists there, in which case Ireland, Zimbabwe, Lybia, northern Spain, southern Russia, Brazil and the US itself are all attack worthy, some more than Iraq, some less.

Number three
It was right to remove the head of a dictatorship, but have the cons outweighed the pros? Thousands upn thousands are dead and numbers are starting to mushroom up all over the media suggesting that had the US simply ignored the country, Saddam would have killied (based on past trends) a significantly lower amount of people than have already caused by the war, leaving out casualties on the hostile forces (US, Spain, UK, etc) of course.

Number four
With a much higher incidence of death, curfews, threats of foreign attacks, threat of militia attacks and no strong police force (however evil it may have been) to keep a cap on things, liberties have actually shrunk by a distressing amount; however, the future may prove to be much better



Rich::

 

[bsears]

It's OK for people to be concerned about the loss of non-combatant life in Iraq. But personally, if people are going to generate numbers to support their positions, I don't think it's asking too much for them to not apply their fingers on the scales.

I believe you know perfectly well that whoever quoted the number did so unaware that it was false. The simplest thing to do, and the most polite, might have been to point out the error. But why go the simple route, when someone makes a mistake and others get a chance to pounce? Wow..an opportunity to take a shot at another poster ! How fun ! Never mind that the original point gets totally lost in the endless discussion of "getting the numbers right". But perhaps obscuring the original point is the intention all along?

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by bsears
I believe you know perfectly well that whoever quoted the number did so unaware that it was false. The simplest thing to do, and the most polite, might have been to point out the error. But why go the simple route, when someone makes a mistake and others get a chance to pounce? Wow..an opportunity to take a shot at another poster ! How fun ! Never mind that the original point gets totally lost in the endless discussion of "getting the numbers right". But perhaps obscuring the original point is the intention all along?

I was pointed out. But the poster apparently chose to ignore the facts

 

[Funkyzeit mit Bruno]

Originally posted by dcentity2000

Number two
All links between Saddam and Al Queda have been disproven and the weapons that were meant to be in Iraq were either exported when the war began (instead of, say, using them) or weren't there to begin with, logically implying that the war there is not connected to the war on terror; the strongest link that exists is that there are terrorists there, in which case Ireland, Zimbabwe, Lybia, northern Spain, southern Russia, Brazil and the US itself are all attack worthy, some more than Iraq, some less.

Rich::

From Richard Clarke's testimony to the 911 Commission, regarding Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Islamist terrorist who attacked the U.S., on U.S. soil (1993 WTC bombing):

The Iraqi government, because, obviously, of the hostility between us and them, didn't cooperate in turning him over, and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists.



From the 911 Commission Report:

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative.
In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.

 

[dmadman43]

Originally posted by dcentity2000
Four points:

Number one
If the US stands for freedom and democracy, why is it presumed that when altering the world the world should just follow you? Without asking the world what the majority wants, this is certainly the textbook definition of despotism (source: Encyclopædia Britannica)

Afghantistan didn't seem to mind voting, given their turn out. they are now free to form whatever govt they like. I know having lived in a country that for centuries practiced Imperalism, it's hard to understand that's not what we are doing. We'll see what the voter turn out in Iraq is in Jan. Get back to me then.

Number two
All links between Saddam and Al Queda have been disproven and the weapons that were meant to be in Iraq were either exported when the war began (instead of, say, using them) or weren't there to begin with, logically implying that the war there is not connected to the war on terror; the strongest link that exists is that there are terrorists there, in which case Ireland, Zimbabwe, Lybia, northern Spain, southern Russia, Brazil and the US itself are all attack worthy, some more than Iraq, some less.

You obviously have not been keeping up with current events. Read the Dulfer report and get back to me

Number three
It was right to remove the head of a dictatorship, but have the cons outweighed the pros? Thousands upn thousands are dead and numbers are starting to mushroom up all over the media suggesting that had the US simply ignored the country, Saddam would have killied (based on past trends) a significantly lower amount of people than have already caused by the war, leaving out casualties on the hostile forces (US, Spain, UK, etc) of course.

You REALLY believe Saddam would have stopped killing? Really? It's a matter of scale with you? "Well, he wouldn't have killed all that many if we let him stay in power". Is that what you are saying?

Number four
With a much higher incidence of death, curfews, threats of foreign attacks, threat of militia attacks and no strong police force (however evil it may have been) to keep a cap on things, liberties have actually shrunk by a distressing amount; however, the future may prove to be much better



Rich::

I am hearing you correctly. Leaving Saddam in power would have been better, all things considered?