Baghdad, Iraq, Oct. 29 (UPI) -- A Baltimore public health expert says the Iraq war has killed more than 100,000 civilians, the Times of London reported Friday.
Read more...
Read more...
Report: 100,000-plus Iraqi civilians dead
- Thread starter CheapyD
- Start date
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
Ah yes, the ever popular "Baltimore public health official" now I realize the person mentioned has nothing but good intentions but.... honestly, what does he know?
John Hopkins is a fine hospital with some of the best minds in the world but I really don't find this credible.
John Hopkins is a fine hospital with some of the best minds in the world but I really don't find this credible.
The study is from The Lancet, a respected medical journal.
http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9445/full/llan.364.9445.early_online_publication.31137.1
you can login with this:
tissit
tissit
http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9445/full/llan.364.9445.early_online_publication.31137.1
you can login with this:
tissit
tissit
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
I read it and don't find it credible.
Reason? 33 clusters of 30 families/homes.
You have no idea of how this was weighted. For example if there 10 deaths from one of the clusters that involved violent death that extrapolation into 100,000 would be enormous if you pro-rated it.
I'm not disupting that many innocent people have died, been injured, left homeless or found themselves between terrorists, neighbors, the interim government and American/British/coalition forces. War is hell. However this method of recording 100,000 deaths is dubious.
I don't think one Iraqi health official or interior ministry official has proclaimed any such number. If they did, the MSM would be all over it like stink on shit. I know you're just trying to put out something thought provoking but I'm not buying this mainly due to the methodology used.
Reason? 33 clusters of 30 families/homes.
You have no idea of how this was weighted. For example if there 10 deaths from one of the clusters that involved violent death that extrapolation into 100,000 would be enormous if you pro-rated it.
I'm not disupting that many innocent people have died, been injured, left homeless or found themselves between terrorists, neighbors, the interim government and American/British/coalition forces. War is hell. However this method of recording 100,000 deaths is dubious.
I don't think one Iraqi health official or interior ministry official has proclaimed any such number. If they did, the MSM would be all over it like stink on shit. I know you're just trying to put out something thought provoking but I'm not buying this mainly due to the methodology used.
No offence, but I don't think you are in a position to tell The Lancet how to perform a scientific study.
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I read it and don't find it credible.
Reason? 33 clusters of 30 families/homes.[/quote]
Its 33 clusters of 30 households each (read: 33x30). That's almost 1000 families.
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I read it and don't find it credible.
Reason? 33 clusters of 30 families/homes.[/quote]
Its 33 clusters of 30 households each (read: 33x30). That's almost 1000 families.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
But a fact is just not a fact unless it comes from Fox News or Drudge, right PAD?
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
I don't take your statement offensively.
If your test basis is 33 clusters of 30 homes you're working with 990 homes. Now, what is the geological dispersion of those homes? How is the sample weighted? Are there 9 clusters in the Baghdhad metro area? Do they reflect population density? Do they reflect 33 clusters equally distributed around Iraq? Do they fall into areas like the Kurd controlled north where there have been minimal conflict? Is it weighted heavily in the Sunni triangle?
We don't know. They didn't list methodology.
I don't know or have the scientific knowledge to conduct, measure or gague the effectiveness of double blind, placebo controlled medical studies. In that regard I am NO EXPERT in scientific study.
However I do know, inside and out, the basis of any type of consumer measurement study that would be conducted by Nielsen, Arbitron, Gallup etc. I can tie any of their reps and demographers in knots asking to defend their sample pools. That's where I respectfully disagree with this study.
We're not measuring the effects of a vacinnation by geographical location, ethnic, gender, age or medical condition. That would be medical which I can't speak to.
What is being measured is did someone in these homes die? What did they die from? Natural, unnatural causes. From a research standpoint it's no different than measuring consumer buying, intent to purchase or opinions. That I can debate and question until I'm blue in the face and be legitimate in my arguments.
Like I said, there is no weighting or methodology given. None. The first basis of scientific research is to list the criteria of your control groups. In this study we're told 33 clusters of 30 homes. That's it.... nothing more.
If your test basis is 33 clusters of 30 homes you're working with 990 homes. Now, what is the geological dispersion of those homes? How is the sample weighted? Are there 9 clusters in the Baghdhad metro area? Do they reflect population density? Do they reflect 33 clusters equally distributed around Iraq? Do they fall into areas like the Kurd controlled north where there have been minimal conflict? Is it weighted heavily in the Sunni triangle?
We don't know. They didn't list methodology.
I don't know or have the scientific knowledge to conduct, measure or gague the effectiveness of double blind, placebo controlled medical studies. In that regard I am NO EXPERT in scientific study.
However I do know, inside and out, the basis of any type of consumer measurement study that would be conducted by Nielsen, Arbitron, Gallup etc. I can tie any of their reps and demographers in knots asking to defend their sample pools. That's where I respectfully disagree with this study.
We're not measuring the effects of a vacinnation by geographical location, ethnic, gender, age or medical condition. That would be medical which I can't speak to.
What is being measured is did someone in these homes die? What did they die from? Natural, unnatural causes. From a research standpoint it's no different than measuring consumer buying, intent to purchase or opinions. That I can debate and question until I'm blue in the face and be legitimate in my arguments.
Like I said, there is no weighting or methodology given. None. The first basis of scientific research is to list the criteria of your control groups. In this study we're told 33 clusters of 30 homes. That's it.... nothing more.
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
We don't know. They didn't list methodology.
[SNIP]
Like I said, there is no weighting or methodology given. None. The first basis of scientific research is to list the criteria of your control groups. In this study we're told 33 clusters of 30 homes. That's it.... nothing more.[/quote]
Full 8 page report:
http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf
We don't know. They didn't list methodology.
[SNIP]
Like I said, there is no weighting or methodology given. None. The first basis of scientific research is to list the criteria of your control groups. In this study we're told 33 clusters of 30 homes. That's it.... nothing more.[/quote]
Full 8 page report:
http://image.thelancet.com/extras/04art10342web.pdf
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
Amazing how this doesn't go with the press release.
I read through the first 4 pages. Biggest hole in the entire report? If they visited a home in their sample where no one was home, they never went back or attempted to contact them again.
So let's say in Falluja they had 30 homes. During one of the sample months 20 of those homes evacuated the city. They were never contacted again. Does this not seem to be a problem?
They also estimated 7 people per residence. Based on what? Do you know what such a high household sample estimation can do to a study if you apply that to an entire country? Lets say those 30 homes in the Falluja cluster are the sample, of those more than likely a few were unable to be contacted at some point when the city was evacuated last summer. Is it possible? Yes.
Let's further reason that the homes in Falluja reported that 10 people died in the conflict in the last year. Thats out of a sample size of 210 people (30 homes, 7 people per home.) If you have a population of 500,000 in the region divided by 7 people per or 71, 400 households. Does that mean that there were 23,800 dead in Falluja?
Without disintegrating this into a thesis about research methodology and how this study doesn't hold up.... let's ask one basic question. Is it possible for any study to be done with a reasonable accuracy without a fluctuating sample size through invasion, war, insurgency, rebuilding, evacuations, returning from evacuations? That's a pretty basic no brainer.
BOMBS GOING OFF, GUNFIRE! HELLO! ACHMED! WE'RE HERE FOR THE STUDY! BOOM! BANG!
WHAT IS YOU CRAZY! HELIDOPTERS FLY OVERHEAD, RPGH FIRE, AUTOMATIC GUNFIRE IN THE BACKGROUND.
NO! WE NEED TO KNOW IF SOMEONE DIED!
YOU'LL DIE ALLAH WILLING UNLESS YOU HIDE!
BOOM BOOM BOOM!
I read through the first 4 pages. Biggest hole in the entire report? If they visited a home in their sample where no one was home, they never went back or attempted to contact them again.
So let's say in Falluja they had 30 homes. During one of the sample months 20 of those homes evacuated the city. They were never contacted again. Does this not seem to be a problem?
They also estimated 7 people per residence. Based on what? Do you know what such a high household sample estimation can do to a study if you apply that to an entire country? Lets say those 30 homes in the Falluja cluster are the sample, of those more than likely a few were unable to be contacted at some point when the city was evacuated last summer. Is it possible? Yes.
Let's further reason that the homes in Falluja reported that 10 people died in the conflict in the last year. Thats out of a sample size of 210 people (30 homes, 7 people per home.) If you have a population of 500,000 in the region divided by 7 people per or 71, 400 households. Does that mean that there were 23,800 dead in Falluja?
Without disintegrating this into a thesis about research methodology and how this study doesn't hold up.... let's ask one basic question. Is it possible for any study to be done with a reasonable accuracy without a fluctuating sample size through invasion, war, insurgency, rebuilding, evacuations, returning from evacuations? That's a pretty basic no brainer.
BOMBS GOING OFF, GUNFIRE! HELLO! ACHMED! WE'RE HERE FOR THE STUDY! BOOM! BANG!
WHAT IS YOU CRAZY! HELIDOPTERS FLY OVERHEAD, RPGH FIRE, AUTOMATIC GUNFIRE IN THE BACKGROUND.
NO! WE NEED TO KNOW IF SOMEONE DIED!
YOU'LL DIE ALLAH WILLING UNLESS YOU HIDE!
BOOM BOOM BOOM!
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
:lol: Good points, PAD
Gee, I'm sure the scientists, WHO DO THIS FOR A FREAKIN' LIVING, didn't think of any of these things.
Yes, we all know that any study that paints this administration in a negative light doesn't hold up. Even the ones from well recognized and respected scientific journals.
Oh, I forgot, we have a president that doesn't believe in science or facts, just his gut and heart (which Jesus changed forever).
Yes, we all know that any study that paints this administration in a negative light doesn't hold up. Even the ones from well recognized and respected scientific journals.
Oh, I forgot, we have a president that doesn't believe in science or facts, just his gut and heart (which Jesus changed forever).
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
Cheapy D, if the Iraqi's had 100,000 dead do you not think the world press would have been all over this for the past year decrying the fact that 273 Iraqi's a day were dying....
Or are we to believe a "study".
World press that hates Bush.... no declaration of 273 Iraqi's dying in this conflict daily.
Study.
Hmmmm.
Which one to believe. The world press not reporting this....
Study.
Wow, the choices are so hard.
Hell, not even Al Jazeera has put casualtiy rates this high but if you want to believe the study?
MMMMMKAY!
Oh, and do you believe that because they are scientists they can't have an agenda? You obviously don't follow the environmental movement much.
Or are we to believe a "study".
World press that hates Bush.... no declaration of 273 Iraqi's dying in this conflict daily.
Study.
Hmmmm.
Which one to believe. The world press not reporting this....
Study.
Wow, the choices are so hard.
Hell, not even Al Jazeera has put casualtiy rates this high but if you want to believe the study?
MMMMMKAY!
Oh, and do you believe that because they are scientists they can't have an agenda? You obviously don't follow the environmental movement much.
The world press is reporting it, the study was released today.
Here are 300 articles based on the report, many from outside the US:
http://news.google.com/?hl=en&ncl=h...n/story_page/0,5744,11227527%255E2703,00.html
Yes, the scientists have an agenda, its called science, something that Bush is not a big fan of.
Here are 300 articles based on the report, many from outside the US:
http://news.google.com/?hl=en&ncl=h...n/story_page/0,5744,11227527%255E2703,00.html
Yes, the scientists have an agenda, its called science, something that Bush is not a big fan of.
broke
CAGiversary!
Net/net alot of people are dying, and that is not good.
Whether the 100,000 number is correct or not, there are many many civilians that have died in this conflict (as well as US and Iraqi troops).
I'm sure you guys read about the 50 new recruits that were gunned down recently. I'm not sure whether they would be considered civilians or Iraqi pro-US forces in a tally, but it shows the deep-seeded hatred that the rebel Iraqis have for the occupying force.
I realize that we have already commited ourselves to the conflict, and the chances are that the best thing to do is somehow see this through. But we need to be real and not candy-coat everything. We have made a number of mistakes deciding whether to get into this war and the implementation of our plan (or lack there of). If we are going to continue to fight this war we need to be honest with each other and stop blaming the liberals or conservatives or whomever and band together to figure out the best solution. This veered a little off of the topic (ie is this report valid) but I feel much better. Hope it made sense.
Whether the 100,000 number is correct or not, there are many many civilians that have died in this conflict (as well as US and Iraqi troops).
I'm sure you guys read about the 50 new recruits that were gunned down recently. I'm not sure whether they would be considered civilians or Iraqi pro-US forces in a tally, but it shows the deep-seeded hatred that the rebel Iraqis have for the occupying force.
I realize that we have already commited ourselves to the conflict, and the chances are that the best thing to do is somehow see this through. But we need to be real and not candy-coat everything. We have made a number of mistakes deciding whether to get into this war and the implementation of our plan (or lack there of). If we are going to continue to fight this war we need to be honest with each other and stop blaming the liberals or conservatives or whomever and band together to figure out the best solution. This veered a little off of the topic (ie is this report valid) but I feel much better. Hope it made sense.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
[quote name='CheapyD']The world press is reporting it, the study was released today.
Here are 300 articles based on the report, many from outside the US:[/quote]
300 articles on one report. Meanwhile I'm saying if 273 people were dying daily, which isn't the case, that's what it takes to equal 100,000 over the course of a year. If 273 people were dying daily in Iraq every newspaper in the world would be reporting it.
Al Jazeera would turn that 273 daily deaths into a "crusade" that we were waging against Islam. Since 273 deaths aren't occuring daily 100,000 people can't be dead as the result of the last year of conflict in Iraq.
Here are 300 articles based on the report, many from outside the US:[/quote]
300 articles on one report. Meanwhile I'm saying if 273 people were dying daily, which isn't the case, that's what it takes to equal 100,000 over the course of a year. If 273 people were dying daily in Iraq every newspaper in the world would be reporting it.
Al Jazeera would turn that 273 daily deaths into a "crusade" that we were waging against Islam. Since 273 deaths aren't occuring daily 100,000 people can't be dead as the result of the last year of conflict in Iraq.
[quote name='CheapyD']The world press is reporting it, the study was released today.
Here are 300 articles based on the report, many from outside the US:
http://news.google.com/?hl=en&ncl=h...n/story_page/0,5744,11227527%255E2703,00.html
Yes, the scientists have an agenda, its called science, something that Bush is not a big fan of.[/quote]
To be fair you can get a scientist to say just about anything. There are a lot of out there theories that they back up with questionable evidence. Although in this case I'd say 100,000 may be close. A result of the cowards running their operations in residential neighborhoods
Here are 300 articles based on the report, many from outside the US:
http://news.google.com/?hl=en&ncl=h...n/story_page/0,5744,11227527%255E2703,00.html
Yes, the scientists have an agenda, its called science, something that Bush is not a big fan of.[/quote]
To be fair you can get a scientist to say just about anything. There are a lot of out there theories that they back up with questionable evidence. Although in this case I'd say 100,000 may be close. A result of the cowards running their operations in residential neighborhoods
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'][quote name='CheapyD']The world press is reporting it, the study was released today.
Here are 300 articles based on the report, many from outside the US:[/quote]
300 articles on one report. Meanwhile I'm saying if 273 people were dying daily, which isn't the case, that's what it takes to equal 100,000 over the course of a year. If 273 people were dying daily in Iraq every newspaper in the world would be reporting it.
Al Jazeera would turn that 273 daily deaths into a "crusade" that we were waging against Islam. Since 273 deaths aren't occuring daily 100,000 people can't be dead as the result of the last year of conflict in Iraq.[/quote]
If there are 300 articles on it, it sounds to me like the press is covering it. And Iraq is pretty
ed up at the moment so I can see why we're not getting daily stories from every newspaper in the world.
Here are 300 articles based on the report, many from outside the US:[/quote]
300 articles on one report. Meanwhile I'm saying if 273 people were dying daily, which isn't the case, that's what it takes to equal 100,000 over the course of a year. If 273 people were dying daily in Iraq every newspaper in the world would be reporting it.
Al Jazeera would turn that 273 daily deaths into a "crusade" that we were waging against Islam. Since 273 deaths aren't occuring daily 100,000 people can't be dead as the result of the last year of conflict in Iraq.[/quote]
If there are 300 articles on it, it sounds to me like the press is covering it. And Iraq is pretty
ed up at the moment so I can see why we're not getting daily stories from every newspaper in the world.Lawmachine
CAG Veteran
[quote name='jlarlee']To be fair you can get a scientist to say just about anything. There are a lot of out there theories that they back up with questionable evidence. Although in this case I'd say 100,000 may be close. A result of the cowards running their operations in residential neighborhoods[/quote]
Or rather, a result of bigots invading their residential neighborhoods?
Or rather, a result of bigots invading their residential neighborhoods?
[quote name='Lawmachine'][quote name='jlarlee']To be fair you can get a scientist to say just about anything. There are a lot of out there theories that they back up with questionable evidence. Although in this case I'd say 100,000 may be close. A result of the cowards running their operations in residential neighborhoods[/quote]
Or rather, a result of bigots invading their residential neighborhoods?[/quote]
I tell you what next time you enter my neighborhood I will open fire at you and throw a couple of grenades your way and then we will see how you react.
Or rather, a result of bigots invading their residential neighborhoods?
[/quote]I tell you what next time you enter my neighborhood I will open fire at you and throw a couple of grenades your way and then we will see how you react.
Lawmachine
CAG Veteran
[quote name='jlarlee']I tell you what next time you enter my neighborhood I will open fire at you and throw a couple of grenades your way and then we will see how you react.[/quote]
Well, I’ll make sure I won’t enter your neighborhood then. Barksdale AFB Louisiana is probably not known for their hospitality anyway.
Well, I’ll make sure I won’t enter your neighborhood then. Barksdale AFB Louisiana is probably not known for their hospitality anyway.
[quote name='jlarlee']I tell you what next time you enter my neighborhood I will open fire at you and throw a couple of grenades your way and then we will see how you react.[/quote]
Yeah, thats kind of what should be expected when you try to occupy a foreign country and our commander in chief has noing clue what he's doing.
Yeah, thats kind of what should be expected when you try to occupy a foreign country and our commander in chief has no
ing clue what he's doing.[quote name='CheapyD'][quote name='jlarlee']I tell you what next time you enter my neighborhood I will open fire at you and throw a couple of grenades your way and then we will see how you react.[/quote]
Yeah, thats kind of what should be expected when you try to occupy a foreign country and our commander in chief has no shaq-fuing clue what he's doing.[/quote]
I lay more blame on his father than I do at him. If we don't participate in the first desert storm and piss off Bin Laden in the first place things may have gone differently. It's just an incredibly FUBAR situation there. We should have just let Saddam continue gassing his people and using their money for things like a five story crystal chandleir in his sons palace
Yeah, thats kind of what should be expected when you try to occupy a foreign country and our commander in chief has no shaq-fuing clue what he's doing.[/quote]
I lay more blame on his father than I do at him. If we don't participate in the first desert storm and piss off Bin Laden in the first place things may have gone differently. It's just an incredibly FUBAR situation there. We should have just let Saddam continue gassing his people and using their money for things like a five story crystal chandleir in his sons palace
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='jlarlee'][quote name='CheapyD'][quote name='jlarlee']I tell you what next time you enter my neighborhood I will open fire at you and throw a couple of grenades your way and then we will see how you react.[/quote]
Yeah, thats kind of what should be expected when you try to occupy a foreign country and our commander in chief has no shaq-fuing clue what he's doing.[/quote]
I lay more blame on his father than I do at him. If we don't participate in the first desert storm and piss off Bin Laden in the first place. It's just an incredibly FUBAR situation there. We should have just let Saddam continue gassing them and using their money for things like a five story crystal chandleir in his sons palace[/quote]
So you blame Bush Sr. more than Dubya yet you still insist you won't vote for a Democrat?
Yeah, thats kind of what should be expected when you try to occupy a foreign country and our commander in chief has no shaq-fuing clue what he's doing.[/quote]
I lay more blame on his father than I do at him. If we don't participate in the first desert storm and piss off Bin Laden in the first place. It's just an incredibly FUBAR situation there. We should have just let Saddam continue gassing them and using their money for things like a five story crystal chandleir in his sons palace[/quote]
So you blame Bush Sr. more than Dubya yet you still insist you won't vote for a Democrat?
[quote name='Lawmachine'][quote name='jlarlee']I tell you what next time you enter my neighborhood I will open fire at you and throw a couple of grenades your way and then we will see how you react.[/quote]
Well, I’ll make sure I won’t enter your neighborhood then. Barksdale AFB Louisiana is probably not known for their hospitality anyway.[/quote]
Actually about the safest neighborhood you have ever seen. I was just saying the people on the whole are not bigoted that serve over there. They just act bad sometimes when the shit hits the fan
Well, I’ll make sure I won’t enter your neighborhood then. Barksdale AFB Louisiana is probably not known for their hospitality anyway.
[/quote]Actually about the safest neighborhood you have ever seen. I was just saying the people on the whole are not bigoted that serve over there. They just act bad sometimes when the shit hits the fan
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='jlarlee'][quote name='CheapyD'][quote name='jlarlee']I tell you what next time you enter my neighborhood I will open fire at you and throw a couple of grenades your way and then we will see how you react.[/quote]
Yeah, thats kind of what should be expected when you try to occupy a foreign country and our commander in chief has no shaq-fuing clue what he's doing.[/quote]
I lay more blame on his father than I do at him. If we don't participate in the first desert storm and piss off Bin Laden in the first place. It's just an incredibly FUBAR situation there. We should have just let Saddam continue gassing them and using their money for things like a five story crystal chandleir in his sons palace[/quote]
So you blame Bush Sr. more than Dubya yet you still insist you won't vote for a Democrat?[/quote]
Clinton let the military infrastructure go to crap. Half of the reason we are having so much problems with this war is that we were so under funded by Clinton that a lot of our programs had gone to hell. That surplus the democrats like to talk about so much came with a price. Heck like I said in another post I would like to see us Abolish political parties all together. Party line voting does us no good. There hasn't been a good democrat president since JFK
Yeah, thats kind of what should be expected when you try to occupy a foreign country and our commander in chief has no shaq-fuing clue what he's doing.[/quote]
I lay more blame on his father than I do at him. If we don't participate in the first desert storm and piss off Bin Laden in the first place. It's just an incredibly FUBAR situation there. We should have just let Saddam continue gassing them and using their money for things like a five story crystal chandleir in his sons palace[/quote]
So you blame Bush Sr. more than Dubya yet you still insist you won't vote for a Democrat?[/quote]
Clinton let the military infrastructure go to crap. Half of the reason we are having so much problems with this war is that we were so under funded by Clinton that a lot of our programs had gone to hell. That surplus the democrats like to talk about so much came with a price. Heck like I said in another post I would like to see us Abolish political parties all together. Party line voting does us no good. There hasn't been a good democrat president since JFK
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='jlarlee'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='jlarlee'][quote name='CheapyD'][quote name='jlarlee']I tell you what next time you enter my neighborhood I will open fire at you and throw a couple of grenades your way and then we will see how you react.[/quote]
Yeah, thats kind of what should be expected when you try to occupy a foreign country and our commander in chief has no shaq-fuing clue what he's doing.[/quote]
I lay more blame on his father than I do at him. If we don't participate in the first desert storm and piss off Bin Laden in the first place. It's just an incredibly FUBAR situation there. We should have just let Saddam continue gassing them and using their money for things like a five story crystal chandleir in his sons palace[/quote]
So you blame Bush Sr. more than Dubya yet you still insist you won't vote for a Democrat?[/quote]
Clinton let the military infrastructure go to crap. Half of the reason we are having so much problems with this war is that we were so under funded by Clinton that a lot of our programs had gone to hell. That surplus the democrats like to talk about so much came with a price. Heck like I said in another post I would like to see us Abolish political parties all together. Party line voting does us no good. There hasn't been a good democrat president since JFK[/quote]
Congress has to approve all of the spending so maybe you should put some blame on the Republican-controlled Congress under Clinton. Also the Cold War ended under Bush Sr. and that's when the big military cuts began. There was no reason to keep military spending at that level without a USSR threat. And a bigger military would not have prevented 9/11 either.
Yeah, thats kind of what should be expected when you try to occupy a foreign country and our commander in chief has no shaq-fuing clue what he's doing.[/quote]
I lay more blame on his father than I do at him. If we don't participate in the first desert storm and piss off Bin Laden in the first place. It's just an incredibly FUBAR situation there. We should have just let Saddam continue gassing them and using their money for things like a five story crystal chandleir in his sons palace[/quote]
So you blame Bush Sr. more than Dubya yet you still insist you won't vote for a Democrat?[/quote]
Clinton let the military infrastructure go to crap. Half of the reason we are having so much problems with this war is that we were so under funded by Clinton that a lot of our programs had gone to hell. That surplus the democrats like to talk about so much came with a price. Heck like I said in another post I would like to see us Abolish political parties all together. Party line voting does us no good. There hasn't been a good democrat president since JFK[/quote]
Congress has to approve all of the spending so maybe you should put some blame on the Republican-controlled Congress under Clinton. Also the Cold War ended under Bush Sr. and that's when the big military cuts began. There was no reason to keep military spending at that level without a USSR threat. And a bigger military would not have prevented 9/11 either.
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='jlarlee'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='jlarlee'][quote name='CheapyD'][quote name='jlarlee']I tell you what next time you enter my neighborhood I will open fire at you and throw a couple of grenades your way and then we will see how you react.[/quote]
Yeah, thats kind of what should be expected when you try to occupy a foreign country and our commander in chief has no shaq-fuing clue what he's doing.[/quote]
I lay more blame on his father than I do at him. If we don't participate in the first desert storm and piss off Bin Laden in the first place. It's just an incredibly FUBAR situation there. We should have just let Saddam continue gassing them and using their money for things like a five story crystal chandleir in his sons palace[/quote]
So you blame Bush Sr. more than Dubya yet you still insist you won't vote for a Democrat?[/quote]
Clinton let the military infrastructure go to crap. Half of the reason we are having so much problems with this war is that we were so under funded by Clinton that a lot of our programs had gone to hell. That surplus the democrats like to talk about so much came with a price. Heck like I said in another post I would like to see us Abolish political parties all together. Party line voting does us no good. There hasn't been a good democrat president since JFK[/quote]
Congress has to approve all of the spending so maybe you should put some blame on the Republican-controlled Congress under Clinton. Also the Cold War ended under Bush Sr. and that's when the big military cuts began. There was no reason to keep military spending at that level without a USSR threat. And a bigger military would not have prevented 9/11 either.[/quote]
I never said a bigger military would have stopped 9/11. A bigger military would make it easier with what we are doing right now because we are fighting at so many different locations. Congress tried increasing military spending but Clinton often shot them down with the veto pin. Party line voting at its best
Yeah, thats kind of what should be expected when you try to occupy a foreign country and our commander in chief has no shaq-fuing clue what he's doing.[/quote]
I lay more blame on his father than I do at him. If we don't participate in the first desert storm and piss off Bin Laden in the first place. It's just an incredibly FUBAR situation there. We should have just let Saddam continue gassing them and using their money for things like a five story crystal chandleir in his sons palace[/quote]
So you blame Bush Sr. more than Dubya yet you still insist you won't vote for a Democrat?[/quote]
Clinton let the military infrastructure go to crap. Half of the reason we are having so much problems with this war is that we were so under funded by Clinton that a lot of our programs had gone to hell. That surplus the democrats like to talk about so much came with a price. Heck like I said in another post I would like to see us Abolish political parties all together. Party line voting does us no good. There hasn't been a good democrat president since JFK[/quote]
Congress has to approve all of the spending so maybe you should put some blame on the Republican-controlled Congress under Clinton. Also the Cold War ended under Bush Sr. and that's when the big military cuts began. There was no reason to keep military spending at that level without a USSR threat. And a bigger military would not have prevented 9/11 either.[/quote]
I never said a bigger military would have stopped 9/11. A bigger military would make it easier with what we are doing right now because we are fighting at so many different locations. Congress tried increasing military spending but Clinton often shot them down with the veto pin. Party line voting at its best
The problem isn't the military infrastructure, its the lack of planning on what happens after we knocked Saddam out of power.
The Bush administration had this retarded notion that the Iraqis would just love to be occupied by the USA.
"...they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."
-GWB
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html
The Bush administration had this retarded notion that the Iraqis would just love to be occupied by the USA.
"...they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."
-GWB
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='jlarlee']I never said a bigger military would have stopped 9/11. A bigger military would make it easier with what we are doing right now because we are fighting at so many different locations. Congress tried increasing military spending but Clinton often shot them down with the veto pin. Party line voting at its best[/quote]
Perhaps not invading Iraq and consentrating on bin Laden would have been a good idea...
Perhaps not invading Iraq and consentrating on bin Laden would have been a good idea...
[quote name='CheapyD']The problem isn't the military infrastructure, its the lack of planning on what happens after we knocked Saddam out of power.
The Bush administration had this retarded notion that the Iraqis would just love to be occupied by the USA.
"...they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."
-GWB
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html[/quote]
For what it's worth Colin Powell advised him not to do it and predicted the outcome. I really wish he would change his mind and go for the presidency in 2008.
The Bush administration had this retarded notion that the Iraqis would just love to be occupied by the USA.
"...they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."
-GWB
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html[/quote]
For what it's worth Colin Powell advised him not to do it and predicted the outcome. I really wish he would change his mind and go for the presidency in 2008.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='jlarlee'][quote name='CheapyD']The problem isn't the military infrastructure, its the lack of planning on what happens after we knocked Saddam out of power.
The Bush administration had this retarded notion that the Iraqis would just love to be occupied by the USA.
"...they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."
-GWB
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html[/quote]
For what it's worth Colin Powell advised him not to do it and predicted the outcome. I really wish he would change his mind and go for the presidency in 2008.[/quote]
Powell lost all credibility shilling this war before the UN. He's still the least despicable member of Bush's cabinet but that is faint praise.
The Bush administration had this retarded notion that the Iraqis would just love to be occupied by the USA.
"...they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either."
-GWB
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html[/quote]
For what it's worth Colin Powell advised him not to do it and predicted the outcome. I really wish he would change his mind and go for the presidency in 2008.[/quote]
Powell lost all credibility shilling this war before the UN. He's still the least despicable member of Bush's cabinet but that is faint praise.
The thing about what we are doing over there is that even things we do with good intentions are going wrong. We supplied their guard with new equipment while I was there and 2 days later the stuff was turning up on the black market and being used on our convoys
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='jlarlee'][quote name='CheapyD']The world press is reporting it, the study was released today.
Here are 300 articles based on the report, many from outside the US:
http://news.google.com/?hl=en&ncl=h...n/story_page/0,5744,11227527%255E2703,00.html
Yes, the scientists have an agenda, its called science, something that Bush is not a big fan of.[/quote]
To be fair you can get a scientist to say just about anything. There are a lot of out there theories that they back up with questionable evidence. Although in this case I'd say 100,000 may be close. A result of the cowards running their operations in residential neighborhoods[/quote]
Exactly.
Here are 300 articles based on the report, many from outside the US:
http://news.google.com/?hl=en&ncl=h...n/story_page/0,5744,11227527%255E2703,00.html
Yes, the scientists have an agenda, its called science, something that Bush is not a big fan of.[/quote]
To be fair you can get a scientist to say just about anything. There are a lot of out there theories that they back up with questionable evidence. Although in this case I'd say 100,000 may be close. A result of the cowards running their operations in residential neighborhoods[/quote]
Exactly.
bread's done