The "Numbers" in Iraq...
Thanks to The Intellectual Activist for the tip.
The following is from http://www.myelectionanalysis.com/?p=875
Numbers
81, 76, 50, 49, 43, 25
What are these numbers? This week’s Powerball winners? A safe deposit combo? New numbers to torment those poor b*stards stranded on the island in Lost?
No, they’re the number of troops that have died in hostile actions in Iraq for each of the past six months. That last number represents the lowest level of troop deaths in a year, and second-lowest in two years.
But it must be that the insurgency is turning their assault on Iraqi military and police, who are increasingly taking up the slack, right?
215, 176, 193, 189, 158, 193 (and the three months before that were 304, 282, 233)
Okay, okay, so insurgents aren’t engaging us; they’re turning increasingly to car bombs then, right?
70, 70, 70, 68, 30, 30
Civilians then. They’re just garroting poor civilians.
527, 826, 532, 732, 950, 446 (upper bound, two months before that were 2489 and 1129).
My point here is not that everything is peachy in Iraq. It isn’t. My point isn’t that the insurgency is in its last throes. It isn’t. My point here isn’t even to argue that we’re winning. I’m at best cautiously-pessimistic-to-neutral about how things are going there.
My only point is that, at the very least, people who complain that good news coming out of Iraq gets shuttered by the press aren’t crazy. I’m a regular denizen of the right-leaning blogosphere (though I spend about half my daily routine with left-leaning sites), and I was unequivicolly shocked when I saw this. Completely the opposite of what I’d expected. My non-scientific sample of three friends, all of whom are considerably more bullish about the prospects in Iraq than I am, revealed three people similarly surprised by these numbers. I’m guessing if I polled people on this site regarding the direction those numbers were going, and people didn’t answer strategically (eg figure I was up to something from the question words), no one would predict any of those numbers were on a downward trend, or were even flat.
Again, my point isn’t that we’re winning. My only point is that if the data you’ve received left you completely surprised by these numbers, what does that really say about the completeness of the data you’ve received?
Complete post by clicking on the title above... or paste this into your browser:http://www.myelectionanalysis.com/?p=875
The following is from http://www.myelectionanalysis.com/?p=875
Numbers
81, 76, 50, 49, 43, 25
What are these numbers? This week’s Powerball winners? A safe deposit combo? New numbers to torment those poor b*stards stranded on the island in Lost?
No, they’re the number of troops that have died in hostile actions in Iraq for each of the past six months. That last number represents the lowest level of troop deaths in a year, and second-lowest in two years.
But it must be that the insurgency is turning their assault on Iraqi military and police, who are increasingly taking up the slack, right?
215, 176, 193, 189, 158, 193 (and the three months before that were 304, 282, 233)
Okay, okay, so insurgents aren’t engaging us; they’re turning increasingly to car bombs then, right?
70, 70, 70, 68, 30, 30
Civilians then. They’re just garroting poor civilians.
527, 826, 532, 732, 950, 446 (upper bound, two months before that were 2489 and 1129).
My point here is not that everything is peachy in Iraq. It isn’t. My point isn’t that the insurgency is in its last throes. It isn’t. My point here isn’t even to argue that we’re winning. I’m at best cautiously-pessimistic-to-neutral about how things are going there.
My only point is that, at the very least, people who complain that good news coming out of Iraq gets shuttered by the press aren’t crazy. I’m a regular denizen of the right-leaning blogosphere (though I spend about half my daily routine with left-leaning sites), and I was unequivicolly shocked when I saw this. Completely the opposite of what I’d expected. My non-scientific sample of three friends, all of whom are considerably more bullish about the prospects in Iraq than I am, revealed three people similarly surprised by these numbers. I’m guessing if I polled people on this site regarding the direction those numbers were going, and people didn’t answer strategically (eg figure I was up to something from the question words), no one would predict any of those numbers were on a downward trend, or were even flat.
Again, my point isn’t that we’re winning. My only point is that if the data you’ve received left you completely surprised by these numbers, what does that really say about the completeness of the data you’ve received?
Complete post by clicking on the title above... or paste this into your browser:http://www.myelectionanalysis.com/?p=875
posted by Joe at Monday, April 10, 2006
7 Comments:
Very interesting. One would never know that from the stories one hears. Now that I think about it, there have not been more stories -- it's just that one is tired that the whole thing did not turn out better, that average Iraqis are average Iraqis [in the sense that they have absorbed the average Iraqi culture] and that they cannot get their act together and form a government.
Thank you for the info.
The US made sure that they can never form a government. First step was to dissolve the Iraqi Armi. How you expect a strong central government in a multi ethnic and multireligious society in the midst of a war without a strong army.
By the way the numbers of Iraqi dead since the war started exceeds the number of Iraqi killed by Saddam Hussain. So I am not sure what the US did liberate Iraq from.
As I said before, it was a mistake to let them elect whomever they wanted without any controls set up by the U.S. We should have set up a constitutional republic similar to our own and made sure they stuck to it. That would have solved all the infighting on the spot.
An by the way, your claim about Iraqi deaths is not just bizzarre, it's wrong. According to www.iraqibodycount.org the estimate is around 35,000 Iraqis killed.
How many did Saddam kill?
Read this:
"The US-led occupation authority in Iraq has said at least 300,000 people were buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million people were executed."
And this:
"Saddam's Kill tally: Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranians killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War."
www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html
Joe, you always know it all. You have the solution for every problem in this f**en planet, I think you should run for president.
As to the Iraqi casualties you are including over a million who died in a war fully supported by the US (the Iraq Iran war), and you are wxcluding 1.5 million dead by the sanctions imposed by the US on Iraq. Of course not to talk about the US supporting the Iraqi regime throughout the years before Saddam tries to turn against the hand which fed him for years.
Sam, And you are always sympathetic to Saddam... why is that?
Not liking American policies is does not mean supporting people like Sadam. The US was the biggest supporter of Sadam till the Kuwait invasion. The US supported Sadam when he used Chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds. So you do not need to look beyond your government for Saddam supporter, especially that boy Ramsfield, who even his Generals are arguing his sanity and competence.
Some people think the enemy of your enemy is your friend... I do not.
Armchair generals can argue all they want about Rumsfeld. I've never heard an insane word come out of his mouth. It makes me wonder about the political motives of these retired generals.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home