moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Other parts of a potential Democratic agenda receive less support, especially calls to impeach Bush: 47 percent of Democrats say that should be a “top priority,” but only 28 percent of all Americans say it should be, 23 percent say it should be a lower priority and nearly half, 44 percent, say it should not be done. (Five percent of Republicans say it should be a top priority and 15 percent of Republicans say it should be a lower priority; 78 percent oppose impeachment.) Rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts would be contentious too: 38 percent of Americans say the Dems should make that a top priority; 28 percent say it should be a lower priority; and 28 percent say it shouldn’t be done at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hidden inside of this <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/page/2/" target="_blank">Newsweek article</a> is a poll with a margin of error of 4 percentage points that says 51% of America approves of impeaching Bush. Didn't Bush call 51% a mandate?
<!--quoteo(post=1571079:date=Oct 24 2006, 12:39 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Oct 24 2006, 12:39 PM) [snapback]1571079[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Didn't Bush call 51% a mandate?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <@Bush> Man date? I thought I was trying to get those banned.
on a more serious note. a statistical analasys of the reasons the us is still in iraq shows that bush flip-flops 150% more than kerry. oh snap.
<!--quoteo(post=1568792:date=Oct 2 2006, 01:25 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Oct 2 2006, 01:25 PM) [snapback]1568792[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is pure speculation based on appearences. I mean, come on. I give you a standardized test score, which I guess he could have cheated on, and you tell me he just <i>looks</i> stupid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you really want evidence to Bush's morality, take a look at pictures before be elected and compare them to now. He's aged. It's taken a toll on him. Unless he's faking that somehow, he's been having just as hard a time as he says he's been.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You defeated your own argument.
Also, I don't think he can be considered a morally good person when it is likely that over 600k people have died in Iraq.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
I don't plan on actually participating in this discussion, but I wanted to speak my mind on the initial subject:
No, we shouldn't. I hate him, I hate his regime, I hate Cheney, I hate every single one of them.
I hate the Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branches.
Our checks and balances are so the different groups don't have power over one another. But does that matter when the American people themselves cannot influence how things change in government? There is no check and balance for the government having the free will to do what it likes completely separately from the American people. Our system is broken. Why? Because the entire thing is supported under a system that doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it.
Were supposed to be a "Democracy". No, were a republic. But thats okay- that can still be successful. Problem is, the president is voted in by an electoral congress- once again, not a bad thing- but this electoral congress can be pushed and swayed in any direction it gladly feels. The polls don't matter, either, as a smaller population state(such as Arizona, as my teacher put it), can outweigh a location with twice the population, purely based on the electoral college's system.
But all of that doesn't change the fact that the system should still work. But it doesn't. Because it never accounted for corruption. I understand that is hard to account for, but I don't think anyone ever expected it to get this bad, and continue- at least the British got control of their country's horrible leader when he was doing nothing they liked, such as taxing the poor, and not taxing the rich(though he eventually taxed the hell out of them too).
Our system has no way for the American people to tell them to stop, when the entire system has become corrupted. You may say, "lets vote in people who aren't corrupted"- problem is, corruption breeds corruption, and were at a point where the few uncorrupted ones either become corrupted, or simply don't have the power to change anything. And the Republican party(I hate to lay blame to them- note that they could only achieve this because Democrats did nothing about it, and sat there and took it like sick dogs) gets America to think in a very separatist fashion, in such a way as to even say things like, "If you don't support the president, you're supporting terrorism" or something of the such. Even if they don't believe that though, they find the unity of the American people a pointless endeavor, and have no faith in their neighbor, causing unrest throughout communities purely based on a political stance, with no will to reason whatsoever.
In the process, our government has become a cesspool of corruption that cannot be cured in any conventional way. Voting people out won't work. Impeachment won't work. Reforms won't work. Nothing short of a revolution would work- and that is more risky than just putting up with what we have, as Revolutions tend to breed a even more dictatorship-like environment, at least for a little while, than corruption does. But do not be so foolish to think that just because there is more than one, or two, or a dozen at the helm(say, a number like 550?) does not make it a dictatorship. A evil dictatorship has nothing to do with it being a dictatorship- one ruler can rule fairly justly, after all- but if all of them are corrupted and care nothing of its own people or world, with no one to hold them to any standards, as none of us could hold anything against them(especially now that legislation has erased what freedoms we had) in the first place.
In short, America would need a revolution at this point to fix itself really, with how polluted it has become. And while some may still have faith in the system- and while I wish I could believe alongside you- I know that not everyone would agree. And frankly, I wouldn't want a revolution anyway. It'd breed problems that would be worse than what we have now, for sure.
The only option at this point, is keep trying like we always have, if you pray, pray, if you can hope, hope, and if you're satisfied- I'm happy for you.
<!--quoteo(post=1571199:date=Oct 25 2006, 01:40 AM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Oct 25 2006, 01:40 AM) [snapback]1571199[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I don't plan on actually participating in this discussion, but I wanted to speak my mind on the initial subject:
No, we shouldn't. I hate him, I hate his regime, I hate Cheney, I hate every single one of them.
I hate the Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branches.
Our checks and balances are so the different groups don't have power over one another. But does that matter when the American people themselves cannot influence how things change in government? There is no check and balance for the government having the free will to do what it likes completely separately from the American people. Our system is broken. Why? Because the entire thing is supported under a system that doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it.
Were supposed to be a "Democracy". No, were a republic. But thats okay- that can still be successful. Problem is, the president is voted in by an electoral congress- once again, not a bad thing- but this electoral congress can be pushed and swayed in any direction it gladly feels. The polls don't matter, either, as a smaller population state(such as Arizona, as my teacher put it), can outweigh a location with twice the population, purely based on the electoral college's system.
But all of that doesn't change the fact that the system should still work. But it doesn't. Because it never accounted for corruption. I understand that is hard to account for, but I don't think anyone ever expected it to get this bad, and continue- at least the British got control of their country's horrible leader when he was doing nothing they liked, such as taxing the poor, and not taxing the rich(though he eventually taxed the hell out of them too).
Our system has no way for the American people to tell them to stop, when the entire system has become corrupted. You may say, "lets vote in people who aren't corrupted"- problem is, corruption breeds corruption, and were at a point where the few uncorrupted ones either become corrupted, or simply don't have the power to change anything. And the Republican party(I hate to lay blame to them- note that they could only achieve this because Democrats did nothing about it, and sat there and took it like sick dogs) gets America to think in a very separatist fashion, in such a way as to even say things like, "If you don't support the president, you're supporting terrorism" or something of the such. Even if they don't believe that though, they find the unity of the American people a pointless endeavor, and have no faith in their neighbor, causing unrest throughout communities purely based on a political stance, with no will to reason whatsoever.
In the process, our government has become a cesspool of corruption that cannot be cured in any conventional way. Voting people out won't work. Impeachment won't work. Reforms won't work. Nothing short of a revolution would work- and that is more risky than just putting up with what we have, as Revolutions tend to breed a even more dictatorship-like environment, at least for a little while, than corruption does. But do not be so foolish to think that just because there is more than one, or two, or a dozen at the helm(say, a number like 550?) does not make it a dictatorship. A evil dictatorship has nothing to do with it being a dictatorship- one ruler can rule fairly justly, after all- but if all of them are corrupted and care nothing of its own people or world, with no one to hold them to any standards, as none of us could hold anything against them(especially now that legislation has erased what freedoms we had) in the first place.
In short, America would need a revolution at this point to fix itself really, with how polluted it has become. And while some may still have faith in the system- and while I wish I could believe alongside you- I know that not everyone would agree. And frankly, I wouldn't want a revolution anyway. It'd breed problems that would be worse than what we have now, for sure.
The only option at this point, is keep trying like we always have, if you pray, pray, if you can hope, hope, and if you're satisfied- I'm happy for you. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No saviour from on high delivers No trust we have in prince or peer Our own right hand the chains must shiver Chains of hatred, greed and fear. Ere the thieves will out with their booty And to all give a happier lot. Each at his forge must do his duty And strike the iron while its hot.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1571210:date=Oct 25 2006, 02:11 AM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Oct 25 2006, 02:11 AM) [snapback]1571210[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> No saviour from on high delivers No trust we have in prince or peer Our own right hand the chains must shiver Chains of hatred, greed and fear. Ere the thieves will out with their booty And to all give a happier lot. Each at his forge must do his duty And strike the iron while its hot. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
o.o
Thats more philisophical than I think my mind gives way to. As well as being out of my range fo thinking.
Well I think an uprising of some sort is needed to set things right, whether it's actually overthrowing the current government and establishing a new one and a more democratic system through physical means, or to apply pressure within the boundries of the current system. Either way would require activating a large part of the population. I lean towards the less violent way though. History has shown that the risk of a revolution is a good catalyst for social change that benefits the majority of the people.
I believe having read that the consitution encourages a revolution in case of a clearly corrupt government, it being a reason for the right to bear arms.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1571260:date=Oct 25 2006, 12:46 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Oct 25 2006, 12:46 PM) [snapback]1571260[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Well I think an uprising of some sort is needed to set things right, whether it's actually overthrowing the current government and establishing a new one and a more democratic system through physical means, or to apply pressure within the boundries of the current system. Either way would require activating a large part of the population. I lean towards the less violent way though. History has shown that the risk of a revolution is a good catalyst for social change that benefits the majority of the people.
I believe having read that the consitution encourages a revolution in case of a clearly corrupt government, it being a reason for the right to bear arms. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off, hello again, dunno if anyone remembers me but I finally figured out how to access these forums <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Second off - wow guys. Just wow. I used to be Bush's most vitrolic defender on these forums, and even I can conceed the man has made many many many massive mistakes and wont be too sad to see the back of him come 2008. (to prove my point, my sig is still the same I had years ago when I was backing Bush tooth and nail <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
But claims of resurgent fascism and revolution?
I think that's going just too far. Do you really realise what it would mean if you started a revolution in the US? Despite everything Bush has done, and despite the state of the Republican party, still at least a third of your population supports them. You wont get a revolution, you'll get civil war. Some of those people who will agree with nearly everything you say about Bush and want him gone desperately would still fight against you simply because you and your fellow revolutionaires stand between them and personal security and safety. People in your neighbourhood who would normally smile and wave and ask about the weather, the sort of folk you would <b>like</b> to meet in a dark alley, would be willing to kill you, or at least see you killed, in order to protect their families from the instability and blood of a revolution.
It gets worse when you consider that many of the left wing voters more likely to support overthrowing Bush are city folk. I'm not trying to slur them, but if you look at the map of the last election, a lot of the blue states were the big cities. Those kind of folk are gentle people I'm sorry, and its not to their discredit, but they aren't fighters.
And then you get the military. Back in ye olde days of revolution, travel was slow, military technology was rudimentary. You cant start a pocket of revolution that spreads, because the military will be there within hours. You cant march on the Whitehouse, because there are a lot of trained and equipped fiercely patriotic soldiers at every level of the military who would be willing to kill and die defending it.
I dont blame anyone for wanting to change stuff, or for being frustrated with the political system. Talking on blogs or forums or in your WoW guildchat or whatever, I can understand how you might eventually wind up thinking a revolution is a good idea.
But it isnt. It would mean the end of your entire life up until now, the end of security and a high possibility of death or long term incarceration. Worse, it makes it much harder for you to change things in the already difficult to change political system. Because it makes you sound insane. Republicans point to lefties screaming about impeachment and revolution because to the average voter, that is a massive turn off.
You cant have your revolution, and talking about it is just making your side of politics look worse <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1571274:date=Oct 25 2006, 06:02 PM:name=Marine0I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marine0I @ Oct 25 2006, 06:02 PM) [snapback]1571274[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Republicans point to lefties screaming about impeachment and revolution because to the average voter, that is a massive turn off.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Jesus I hate being a partisan hack but holy god man. I agree revolution is pretty far fetched (although I don't really see anyone talking about it). But impeachment? Wow. Clinton got impeached for adultery and lying about it. While this is bad it absolutely pales in comparison to the likely over 600,000 Iraqis killed by Bush's war. Think about what you're saying.
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1571274:date=Oct 25 2006, 03:02 PM:name=Marine0I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marine0I @ Oct 25 2006, 03:02 PM) [snapback]1571274[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> First off, hello again, dunno if anyone remembers me but I finally figured out how to access these forums <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Second off - wow guys. Just wow. I used to be Bush's most vitrolic defender on these forums, and even I can conceed the man has made many many many massive mistakes and wont be too sad to see the back of him come 2008. (to prove my point, my sig is still the same I had years ago when I was backing Bush tooth and nail <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
But claims of resurgent fascism and revolution?
I think that's going just too far. Do you really realise what it would mean if you started a revolution in the US? Despite everything Bush has done, and despite the state of the Republican party, still at least a third of your population supports them. You wont get a revolution, you'll get civil war. Some of those people who will agree with nearly everything you say about Bush and want him gone desperately would still fight against you simply because you and your fellow revolutionaires stand between them and personal security and safety. People in your neighbourhood who would normally smile and wave and ask about the weather, the sort of folk you would <b>like</b> to meet in a dark alley, would be willing to kill you, or at least see you killed, in order to protect their families from the instability and blood of a revolution.
It gets worse when you consider that many of the left wing voters more likely to support overthrowing Bush are city folk. I'm not trying to slur them, but if you look at the map of the last election, a lot of the blue states were the big cities. Those kind of folk are gentle people I'm sorry, and its not to their discredit, but they aren't fighters.
And then you get the military. Back in ye olde days of revolution, travel was slow, military technology was rudimentary. You cant start a pocket of revolution that spreads, because the military will be there within hours. You cant march on the Whitehouse, because there are a lot of trained and equipped fiercely patriotic soldiers at every level of the military who would be willing to kill and die defending it.
I dont blame anyone for wanting to change stuff, or for being frustrated with the political system. Talking on blogs or forums or in your WoW guildchat or whatever, I can understand how you might eventually wind up thinking a revolution is a good idea.
But it isnt. It would mean the end of your entire life up until now, the end of security and a high possibility of death or long term incarceration. Worse, it makes it much harder for you to change things in the already difficult to change political system. Because it makes you sound insane. Republicans point to lefties screaming about impeachment and revolution because to the average voter, that is a massive turn off.
You cant have your revolution, and talking about it is just making your side of politics look worse <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" /> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When did I say we needed a revolution because of Republicans? I never said anything of the sort. I said we need it because our entire government is a corrupted cesspool of idiotic money-loving idiots who bear no regard for the American people.
Say my politics look worse. You're right. Because my politics aren't politics- their action, their change, something we've needed for a long time, that politicians will <b><i>never</i></b> bring about.
<!--quoteo(post=1571274:date=Oct 25 2006, 05:02 PM:name=Marine0I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marine0I @ Oct 25 2006, 05:02 PM) [snapback]1571274[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> First off, hello again, dunno if anyone remembers me but I finally figured out how to access these forums <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Second off - wow guys. Just wow. I used to be Bush's most vitrolic defender on these forums, and even I can conceed the man has made many many many massive mistakes and wont be too sad to see the back of him come 2008. (to prove my point, my sig is still the same I had years ago when I was backing Bush tooth and nail <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hello there <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> You are back and wiser I see !
Now all we need is Aegeri, some threads on ###### marriage and/or Ugarit, some vodka and life shall be grand once more ! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1571280:date=Oct 26 2006, 10:37 AM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Oct 26 2006, 10:37 AM) [snapback]1571280[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Jesus I hate being a partisan hack but holy god man. I agree revolution is pretty far fetched (although I don't really see anyone talking about it). But impeachment? Wow. Clinton got impeached for adultery and lying about it. While this is bad it absolutely pales in comparison to the likely over 600,000 Iraqis killed by Bush's war. Think about what you're saying. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look, you just cant flat out state 600,000 Iraqi's killed by Bush's war. It doesnt work like that. I understand people from a certain side of the political spectrum feel comfortable assigning the blame for every death directly onto the one man, but you have to realise most people dont view it as such.
Firstly, the 600000 figure has been widely discredited, particularly because it was released before an election, just like last time, by a self confessed couple of political partisans. If you want a thorough destruction of the 600,000 claim, probably the best stop for you would be <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php" target="_blank">Iraq Body Count</a>. These guys are lefties too, they started their site to catalogue the death toll from what they view and viewed as an immoral war, so I figure if you're going to believe anyone you'll believe them.
Secondly, many people dont immediately link it with Bush because they recognise most of the deaths weren't Americans killing Iraqi's. Heaps of them are insurgents Americans have killed, or Iraqi's that insurgents have killed, or Iraqi soldiers fighting with the coalition that the Iraqi insurgents have killed. By and large it is recognised that Americans are fighting to stop these insurgents killing civilians, so morally, they have no problem with the death count. The US isnt the ones trying to pile up the corpses, that's the other side.
You might see Bush as being ultimately responsible for it all, but a lot of folk dont. Unfortunately, that makes the political left look a lil strange to a lot of people, when they want to impeach him for something they have no problem with. The Republicans are about to get a beating in the mid term elections, but that's because of incompetence in handling the war, overspending, corruption and sleaze. The only thing that's saving them from a total rout is that the Democrats dont look like a feasible alternative. Its not because people think they are evil and directly responsible for every death, or even most deaths, in Iraq.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> When did I say we needed a revolution because of Republicans? I never said anything of the sort. I said we need it because our entire government is a corrupted cesspool of idiotic money-loving idiots who bear no regard for the American people.
Say my politics look worse. You're right. Because my politics aren't politics- their action, their change, something we've needed for a long time, that politicians will never bring about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My mistake sorry, I misread your position. Okay, lets call it action. I and many others would be willing to see you killed or incarcerated to stop you destabilising the US government in the hope of bringing about change. If you want to talk about it, I'm comfortable with it just being ignored while its on the fringe. If it ever starts to become organised however, I would advocate the government rounding you up and imprisoning you. If you resisted, I'd advocate the use of lethal force.
That isn't a threat btw, I'm not sitting here thinking about killing you or anything silly <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. All I'm saying is that a hell of a lot of folk would be willing to fight against you if you ever tried to convert word into deed. Change is needed, but if it's attempted via revolution, its going to get bloody.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hello there smile-fix.gif You are back and wiser I see !
Now all we need is Aegeri, some threads on ###### marriage and/or Ugarit, some vodka and life shall be grand once more!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hello again <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />. Yeah I've kinda mellowed in my old age <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> cept on the religious stuff tho, I'm still a Bible thumping fanatic. I'm all for a thread on the marriage of same sex couples, but lets not bring Aegeri back, he used to stomp my face hard in the evo threads <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
edited October 2006
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My mistake sorry, I misread your position. Okay, lets call it action. I and many others would be willing to see you killed or incarcerated to stop you destabilising the US government in the hope of bringing about change. If you want to talk about it, I'm comfortable with it just being ignored while its on the fringe. If it ever starts to become organised however, I would advocate the government rounding you up and imprisoning you. If you resisted, I'd advocate the use of lethal force.
That isn't a threat btw, I'm not sitting here thinking about killing you or anything silly <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. All I'm saying is that a hell of a lot of folk would be willing to fight against you if you ever tried to convert word into deed. Change is needed, but if it's attempted via revolution, its going to get bloody.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Feel free. I wouldn't attempt to organize it myself, but if a real good chance came around, I'd be one of the first to go with 'em.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1571298:date=Oct 25 2006, 08:57 PM:name=Marine0I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marine0I @ Oct 25 2006, 08:57 PM) [snapback]1571298[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Look, you just cant flat out state 600,000 Iraqi's killed by Bush's war. It doesnt work like that. I understand people from a certain side of the political spectrum feel comfortable assigning the blame for every death directly onto the one man, but you have to realise most people dont view it as such.
Firstly, the 600000 figure has been widely discredited, particularly because it was released before an election, just like last time, by a self confessed couple of political partisans. If you want a thorough destruction of the 600,000 claim, probably the best stop for you would be <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php" target="_blank">Iraq Body Count</a>. These guys are lefties too, they started their site to catalogue the death toll from what they view and viewed as an immoral war, so I figure if you're going to believe anyone you'll believe them. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Feel free to give me a link, but I haven't heard anything about that figure being discredited. I think its worth mentioning however, that their margin of error in the study was 200,000, so it could be anywhere from 400000 to 800000. The discrepency between iraqbodycount.org, and that study has to do with methodology. Iraqbodycount.org bases their numbers only on deaths that are reported by a news organization. As such, they expect their numbers to be a gross underestimate, but it's an inarguable number because every single one is backed up by a news report, and usually more than one. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to the ratio of reported deaths to unreported deaths, but 10 to 1 seems reasonable, so I'm inclined to believe the study.
<!--quoteo(post=1571322:date=Oct 26 2006, 03:38 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Oct 26 2006, 03:38 PM) [snapback]1571322[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Feel free to give me a link, but I haven't heard anything about that figure being discredited. I think its worth mentioning however, that their margin of error in the study was 200,000, so it could be anywhere from 400000 to 800000. The discrepency between iraqbodycount.org, and that study has to do with methodology. Iraqbodycount.org bases their numbers only on deaths that are reported by a news organization. As such, they expect their numbers to be a gross underestimate, but it's an inarguable number because every single one is backed up by a news report, and usually more than one. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to the ratio of reported deaths to unreported deaths, but 10 to 1 seems reasonable, so I'm inclined to believe the study. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont think 1/10 is reasonable. Over half a million people slaughtered in a country with a population just over 20 million is an epic bloodbath. I mean that sort of mass slaughter doesnt go unseen. The Iraq Body Count link I presented above doesnt just link to the IBC main website, it links to their systematic criticism of the <i>Lancet</i> study.
Here is the summary: <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php" target="_blank">http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php</a>
A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:
1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms; 2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment; 3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq; 4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued; 5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.
If these assertions are true, they further imply:
* incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began; * bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis; * the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas; * an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's just the summary. It only gets more indepth from there on in. <i>Lancet</i> really threw its credibility away this time. The first time around, when they released that 100,000 figure in November just before the US Presidential elections, people were inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. The second time around, with an even more vastly inflated figure just in time for a US election, there was no way they should have thought it was possible to pull this one off. And they didnt.
<!--quoteo(post=1571298:date=Oct 25 2006, 08:57 PM:name=Marine0I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marine0I @ Oct 25 2006, 08:57 PM) [snapback]1571298[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Look, you just cant flat out state 600,000 Iraqi's killed by Bush's war. It doesnt work like that. I understand people from a certain side of the political spectrum feel comfortable assigning the blame for every death directly onto the one man, but you have to realise most people dont view it as such.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What doesn't work like that? Have you even read the study? Do you know what a peer reviewed scientific journal is? Tell me what's wrong with the study. Read the study and find errors.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Firstly, the 600000 figure has been widely discredited, particularly because it was released before an election, just like last time, by a self confessed couple of political partisans. If you want a thorough destruction of the 600,000 claim, probably the best stop for you would be <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php" target="_blank">Iraq Body Count</a>. These guys are lefties too, they started their site to catalogue the death toll from what they view and viewed as an immoral war, so I figure if you're going to believe anyone you'll believe them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 600k has been widely discredited? By who? Tell me why the report is unreliable. IBC doesn't count. It only reports things that are reported in several news sources. It's only use is as a low estimate for the absolute minimum number of people killed. Comparing its number to 600k is like comparing apples to oranges.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Secondly, many people dont immediately link it with Bush because they recognise most of the deaths weren't Americans killing Iraqi's. Heaps of them are insurgents Americans have killed, or Iraqi's that insurgents have killed, or Iraqi soldiers fighting with the coalition that the Iraqi insurgents have killed. By and large it is recognised that Americans are fighting to stop these insurgents killing civilians, so morally, they have no problem with the death count. The US isnt the ones trying to pile up the corpses, that's the other side.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course I realize that not all (and not even half) of the deaths are directly from the US military. But that doesn't change the fact that an additional ~600k deaths have been caused due to the war. At some point, all these deaths come down to the invasion. No invasion and these deaths wouldn't have happened. I'm not saying Saddam was a good guy but there certainly was a lower death rate.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You might see Bush as being ultimately responsible for it all, but a lot of folk dont. Unfortunately, that makes the political left look a lil strange to a lot of people, when they want to impeach him for something they have no problem with. The Republicans are about to get a beating in the mid term elections, but that's because of incompetence in handling the war, overspending, corruption and sleaze. The only thing that's saving them from a total rout is that the Democrats dont look like a feasible alternative. Its not because people think they are evil and directly responsible for every death, or even most deaths, in Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Invading a country and causing an additional 600k deaths makes you pretty responsible for them, in my eyes at least.
I urge you to read the study: <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/j...73606694919.pdf</a> and form your own opinion. You need to find specific problems in the study that bias the research one way or another. Also, if you have a legitimate problem with the report I'd suggest you submit it to the Lancet, or some other peer reviewed journal. I have my doubts that you will find anything, the peer review process is not lenient and is done by professionals. Anyway, submit your paper, and wait for feedback, it's called science and it's the best method of gaining knowledge we know of.
<!--quoteo(post=1571328:date=Oct 26 2006, 12:25 AM:name=Marine0I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marine0I @ Oct 26 2006, 12:25 AM) [snapback]1571328[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> <b>I dont think 1/10 is reasonable.</b> Over half a million people slaughtered in a country with a population just over 20 million is an epic bloodbath. I mean that sort of mass slaughter doesnt go unseen. The Iraq Body Count link I presented above doesnt just link to the IBC main website, it links to their systematic criticism of the <i>Lancet</i> study.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance" target="_blank">Argument From Incredulity</a> I'd suggest that you <b>read the study</b>. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Our estimate of excess deaths is far higher than those reported in Iraq through passive surveillance measures.1,5 This discrepancy is not unexpected. Data from passive surveillance are rarely complete, even in stable circumstances, and are even less complete during conflict, when access is restricted and fatal events could be intentionally hidden. Aside from Bosnia,21 we can find no conflict situation where passive surveillance recorded more than 20% of the deaths measured by population-based methods. In several outbreaks, disease and death recorded by facility-based methods underestimated events by a factor of ten or more when compared with populationbased estimates.11,22–25 Between 1960 and 1990, newspaper accounts of political deaths in Guatemala correctly reported over 50% of deaths in years of low violence but less than 5% in years of highest violence.26 Nevertheless, surveillance tallies are important in monitoring trends over time and in the provision of individual data, and these data track closely with our own findings (figure 4).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Also, the government infrastructure is falling apart, there is no guarantee about any of the official records, that they are even close to accurate.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here is the summary: <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php" target="_blank">http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php</a> That's just the summary. It only gets more indepth from there on in. <i>Lancet</i> really threw its credibility away this time. The first time around, when they released that 100,000 figure in November just before the US Presidential elections, people were inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. The second time around, with an even more vastly inflated figure just in time for a US election, there was no way they should have thought it was possible to pull this one off. And they didnt.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lancet threw away its credibility? Sigh. It makes me sad that you don't present any objections to the paper other than arguments from incredulity, when there is plenty of counter evidence, (see the cited studies in the paper) and claim that this well respected peer reviewed journal has lost its credibility. Vastly inflated? I have yet to see one objection to their methodology from you. Let's see it.
From <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/12/145222" target="_blank">http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/12/145222</a> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->LES ROBERTS: You know, I don't want to sort of stoop to that level and start saying general slurs, but I just want to say that what we did, this cluster survey approach, is the standard way of measuring mortality in very poor countries where the government isn’t very functional or in times of war. And when UNICEF goes out and measures mortality in any developing country, this is what they do. When the U.S. government went at the end of the war in Kosovo or went at the end of the war in Afghanistan and the U.S. government measured the death rate, this is how they did it. And most ironically, the U.S. government has been spending millions of dollars per year, through something called the Smart Initiative, to train NGOs and UN workers to do cluster surveys to measure mortality in times of wars and disasters.
So, I think we used a very standard method. I think our results are couched appropriately in the relative imprecision of [inaudible]. It could conceivably be as few as 400,000 deaths. So we’re upfront about that. We don’t know the exact number. We just know the range, and we’re very, very confident about both the method and the results.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's a standard method that the US Government uses and spends money on, and when Bush calls the study a 'guess' and 'not credibile' it's just flat out dishonest.
<!--quoteo(post=1571298:date=Oct 25 2006, 07:57 PM:name=Marine0I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marine0I @ Oct 25 2006, 07:57 PM) [snapback]1571298[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> My mistake sorry, I misread your position. Okay, lets call it action. I and many others would be willing to see you killed or incarcerated to stop you destabilising the US government in the hope of bringing about change. If you want to talk about it, I'm comfortable with it just being ignored while its on the fringe. If it ever starts to become organised however, I would advocate the government rounding you up and imprisoning you. If you resisted, I'd advocate the use of lethal force.
That isn't a threat btw, I'm not sitting here thinking about killing you or anything silly <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. All I'm saying is that a hell of a lot of folk would be willing to fight against you if you ever tried to convert word into deed. Change is needed, but if it's attempted via revolution, its going to get bloody. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look, McCarthyism rears it's ugly head again. "Destabilising the US government in the hope of bringing about change" is what politics in general is. Every time you disagree and spread an opinion that things are wrong you are "destabilising the government". That's what democracy is all about isnt it. If the people disagree they change it.
Lock all them Reds up, they want a system where they can feel safe knowing their vote is weighed fairly and perhaps even state funded medical care.
"I would advocate the government rounding you up and imprisoning you. If you resisted, I'd advocate the use of lethal force" when talking about political movements is a statement that would have upset a great many people in a great many western democratic countries if it was said there but not in the US? What does that tell you.
For the duration of our rule, we have brought the country stability. But now, elections threaten the stability, threaten to completely change our government. I suggest we round up all the members of the opposing parties and have them thrown into prison. Luckily, without habeas corpus, we have the right to do that.
<!--quoteo(post=1571333:date=Oct 26 2006, 05:38 PM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Oct 26 2006, 05:38 PM) [snapback]1571333[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> What doesn't work like that? Have you even read the study? Do you know what a peer reviewed scientific journal is? Tell me what's wrong with the study. Read the study and find errors. 600k has been widely discredited? By who? Tell me why the report is unreliable. IBC doesn't count. It only reports things that are reported in several news sources. It's only use is as a low estimate for the absolute minimum number of people killed. Comparing its number to 600k is like comparing apples to oranges. Of course I realize that not all (and not even half) of the deaths are directly from the US military. But that doesn't change the fact that an additional ~600k deaths have been caused due to the war. At some point, all these deaths come down to the invasion. No invasion and these deaths wouldn't have happened. I'm not saying Saddam was a good guy but there certainly was a lower death rate. Invading a country and causing an additional 600k deaths makes you pretty responsible for them, in my eyes at least.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nadagast, I have not read the entire study, no. I dont think very many people have. I have read enough to believe I understand its claims however. I do know what peer review is, as I come in contact with peer reviewed journals day in and day out as a third year undergrad bachelor of science student. I'm not saying that to impress, because it's very commonplace, but I do hope you'll believe me when I say that what I have seen enough of peer reviewed journals to treat them with the skepticism they deserve. People pretend that peer review is infallible, and these are usually folk who spend the least time dealing with them. Once you get to know members of the academic faculties, you get a lot more ... balance view of the invincibilities of the peer review system. But you dont have to take my word on it, its nothing concrete.
Guys, you didn't click my link. IBC didnt just say "this study disagrees with me", it went on to prove, systematically, that the Lancet estimate just couldnt possibly be accurate.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Also, the government infrastructure is falling apart, there is no guarantee about any of the official records, that they are even close to accurate. Lancet threw away its credibility? Sigh. It makes me sad that you don't present any objections to the paper other than arguments from incredulity, when there is plenty of counter evidence, (see the cited studies in the paper) and claim that this well respected peer reviewed journal has lost its credibility. Vastly inflated? I have yet to see one objection to their methodology from you. Let's see it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do not be fooled into thinking I dismissed these people out of hand. Again, I'm sorry but you missed my link above. There are many, many serious objections to the claims of the Lancet report, and that is the best synopsis you will find. Plenty of other conservatives have taken a swing at it, but IBC are leftwing and very very thorough, so I figured you'd find the truth more palatable from them.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Look, McCarthyism rears it's ugly head again. "Destabilising the US government in the hope of bringing about change" is what politics in general is. Every time you disagree and spread an opinion that things are wrong you are "destabilising the government". That's what democracy is all about isnt it. If the people disagree they change it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Quanaut wants to participate in the US political system to bring about change, that's great. That's why we have a democracy, so change can take place with the least possible destabilisation. But I dont think that's what he was talking about. He was talking about revolutions/uprisings. That is circumventing the normal avenues to get things done, and almost always leads to violence. I dont want to lock up the Democrats or the Libertarians, but if either of them start organising a marching on Washington to start revolution to change all these inherenant flaws in our current democracy, then its time to fight, unless its 100% peaceful.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For the duration of our rule, we have brought the country stability. But now, elections threaten the stability, threaten to completely change our government. I suggest we round up all the members of the opposing parties and have them thrown into prison. Luckily, without habeas corpus, we have the right to do that. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really. There is no way that could ever happen quite frankly. I think you guys are getting a little overwrought about it all. Habeus corpus has only been "suspended" for aliens to the US, and then again only because of inherent stupidity in the US Supreme Court, and its highly targetted towards Guantanamo bay inmates. If you think Bush and his supposed lackies are waiting to imprison that hot exchange student from Germany you have a crush on, you are going to sorely disappointed. It's a sad day when you actually need laws to prevent your judiciary from trying to grant US citizen rights onto foreign terrorists, but this is material for a different thread.
You may call it "overwrought." We call it "erring on the side of caution." We figure it's better than "waking up in a totalitarian police state and wondering how that happened."
<!--quoteo(post=1571365:date=Oct 26 2006, 07:25 AM:name=Marine0I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marine0I @ Oct 26 2006, 07:25 AM) [snapback]1571365[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nadagast, I have not read the entire study, no. I dont think very many people have. I have read enough to believe I understand its claims however. I do know what peer review is, as I come in contact with peer reviewed journals day in and day out as a third year undergrad bachelor of science student. I'm not saying that to impress, because it's very commonplace, but I do hope you'll believe me when I say that what I have seen enough of peer reviewed journals to treat them with the skepticism they deserve. People pretend that peer review is infallible, and these are usually folk who spend the least time dealing with them. Once you get to know members of the academic faculties, you get a lot more ... balance view of the invincibilities of the peer review system. But you dont have to take my word on it, its nothing concrete.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am not saying the peer review process is infalliable, (but good strawman) I know it can make mistakes. But it takes more than a couple arguments from incredulity for me to believe that there's something wrong with the study. <b>Please tell me specifically the problems you have with their methodology.</b> If the study is so obviously wrong, there is something wrong with the method. The study is only like 10 pages long, it doesn't take a long time to read. Do yourself a favor and read it. I did, and it really helps you cut through the politics of it. It's sad that politicians are held so unaccountable that they can call a study like this a 'guess' and 'discredited' and not even get challenged on that, when the government they govern spends millions using the exact same method.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Guys, you didn't click my link. IBC didnt just say "this study disagrees with me", it went on to prove, systematically, that the Lancet estimate just couldnt possibly be accurate. Do not be fooled into thinking I dismissed these people out of hand. Again, I'm sorry but you missed my link above. There are many, many serious objections to the claims of the Lancet report, and that is the best synopsis you will find. Plenty of other conservatives have taken a swing at it, but IBC are leftwing and very very thorough, so I figured you'd find the truth more palatable from them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, let's look at their claims from the summary (since I have to go to class in a minute or two). <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--># On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The study clearly says that they could find only one case where passive surveillance reported even 20% of deaths. Also, this is an argument from incredulity. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Argument from incredulity... <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This doesn't even seem like an argument. It seems like they are restating the results of the study in order to lead people to form their own argument from incredulity. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sigh... argument from incredulity... <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Argument from incredulity...
From looking over (briefly, I have to go to class in a minute) the press release, I just see a bunch of problems that they have with the study's results. I want to hear problems with their method. I need your next post to be about problems with their method, not problems with their results. Read the study (I linked it last post) and tell me what's wrong with their method. If you can't do this, I see no reason to view the study as 'discredited'.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1571365:date=Oct 26 2006, 07:25 AM:name=Marine0I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marine0I @ Oct 26 2006, 07:25 AM) [snapback]1571365[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Habeus corpus has only been "suspended" for aliens to the US, and then again only because of inherent stupidity in the US Supreme Court, and its highly targetted towards Guantanamo bay inmates. If you think Bush and his supposed lackies are waiting to imprison that hot exchange student from Germany you have a crush on, you are going to sorely disappointed. It's a sad day when you actually need laws to prevent your judiciary from trying to grant US citizen rights onto foreign terrorists, but this is material for a different thread. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It doesn't just apply to aliens, read the bill. Anyone whom a military commission declares to be an Enemy Combatant, is by definition an Enemy Combatant and loses their rights. The judiciary isn't granting rights to foreign terrorists, they are granting rights to people who someone in the government thought might be a terrorist. Need I remind you that we had 14 year olds in Guantanamo bay?
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
Also, even if you aren't declared an enemy combatant, but are falsely accused of being an alien, how exactly are you supposed to prove your innocence under this new legislation?
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1571365:date=Oct 26 2006, 04:25 AM:name=Marine0I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marine0I @ Oct 26 2006, 04:25 AM) [snapback]1571365[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If Quanaut wants to participate in the US political system to bring about change, that's great. That's why we have a democracy, so change can take place with the least possible destabilisation. But I dont think that's what he was talking about. He was talking about revolutions/uprisings. That is circumventing the normal avenues to get things done, and almost always leads to violence. I dont want to lock up the Democrats or the Libertarians, but if either of them start organising a marching on Washington to start revolution to change all these inherenant flaws in our current democracy, then its time to fight, unless its 100% peaceful. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Problem is, without a significant change of heart in the American people(thusly fueling a peaceful revolution), nothing can be changed for the better, as the crass amount of corruption and evil covers the system so completely, its ridiculous.
Without a majority-heart-changing, the only other way is a revolution by whatever means necessary. I'd go peaceful as long as I could, but frankly, I doubt an administration, congress, and supreme court known for starting wars however and whenever they can would be so interested in maintaining peace, even on home soil.
<!--quoteo(post=1571388:date=Oct 27 2006, 03:53 AM:name=Nadagast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nadagast @ Oct 27 2006, 03:53 AM) [snapback]1571388[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Do yourself a favor and read it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Righteo. I've read it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Argument from incredulity... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really dont think you understand what an argument from incredulity is. It is also more commonly described as an argument from ignorance - basically ignorance is all that leads a person to disbelieve a certain claim.
When IBC claims that Lancet has stuffed up, it goes on to show why. For example:
Their claims of extrapolation just dont fit the facts. They found 91 deaths from between January and June 2006, which extrapolated all the way up to 180,000 deaths. Thats about 1000 deaths per day. Current death reports pick about 100 deaths per day. Basically, the media and the government and everyone involved over there is either viciously imcompetent or covering it up, because its borderline impossible to miss an extra 900 deaths per day.
But it gets worse from then on. There is an old standard for estimating casualties which puts the amount of wounded for every person killed at 3 for every death. This means that not only do you have are huge swath of the Iraqi population exterminated without the media or the officials knowing, but you have 800,000 Iraqi's who were wounded who didn't seek medical help. This is on top of the deaths. It's not possible for half a million excess deaths to just hide away, its even less possible for a further 740,000 people to simply not seek medical help. And if they are seeking medical help, why are Iraqi hospitals only reporting 60,000 people over the last 2 years asking for medical help? Is it in their best interest to tell the Government "hey guys, we dont need more help or funding, we're handling fine" when masses of wounded Iraqi's are pouring through their doors daily. Or is there some kind of backyard medical craze going on in Iraq I dont know about? Despite the decayed state of their nation, do you really think the hospitals would just have failed to notice overwhelming numbers of violence victims like that?
But wait, there's more!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> In 87% of cases where deaths were reported, the survey team asked to see death certificates, leading to the Lancet authors' statement that "92% of households had death certificates for deaths they reported". Assuming, as the authors do, that this is representative of the population as a whole, would imply that officials in Iraq have issued approximately 550,000 death certificates for violent deaths (92% of 601,000). Yet in June 2006, the total figure of post-war violent deaths known to the Iraqi Ministry of Health (MoH), combined with the Baghdad morgue, was approximately 50,000.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's going on here? If its reasonable to extrapolate upwards as these researchers did, where are those extra 500,000 death certificates coming from? We treat their word as reliable because they are relying on Iraqi's producing death certificates.... but there <b>aren't that many death certificates in the entire country by a factor of 10</b>. If you take a random sample of cars going into an empty car lot per hour, and decide from that that there must be 100 cars inside, but you find only 10 when you do a count inside, you cant talk about how your methodology was perfect - it aint. Its failed. Try again.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If the Lancet estimate is correct then it follows that either (a) 500,000 documented violent deaths, for which certificates were issued, have somehow managed to completely disappear without a trace to Iraqi officials or the international media or (b) there is a vast, elaborate, and very successful, cover up of this massive number of bodies and their associated paper trail being carried out in Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> According to Lancet calculations, Coalition forces killed 32,000 Iraqis from late March 2003 to the end of April 2004. This is a period that included the large-scale invasion in which 20,000 air strikes rained 30,000 bombs on a largely urbanized country along with an untold quantity of artillery, as well as an additional 240,000 cluster bombs. This type of assault was then repeated on a smaller but still significant scale in Falluja. All available evidence points to a significant and progressive reduction in Coalition military operations overall since the first year of the invasion.
Yet, according to Lancet estimates, the number of Iraqis killed by the Coalition rose to 70,000 in year two (May 2004 – May 2005), and rose yet again in the third year (June 2005 – June 2006) to 86,000, nearly three times more than in year 1.
When looking at US air strikes, the picture becomes even more puzzling. This data is comprised of 40 deaths:
* 1 killed in January 2002-March 2003 (estimate: 2,000 killed); * 6 killed in March 2003-April 2004 (estimate: 12,000 killed); * 13 killed in May 2004-May 2005 (estimate: 26,000 killed); * 20 killed in June 2005-June 2006 (estimate: 40,000 killed).
Those who keenly recall the reported carnage associated with the invasion in 2003 will scarcely credit the notion that similar events but of a much greater scale and extent have continued unremarked and unrecorded, including by locals, in a nation at the level of education and urbanisation of Iraq. Iraq is not an undeveloped society where tiny, self-sufficient communities live in isolation and ignorance of each other.
Six thousand civilians were reported killed by Coalition forces in the first three weeks of the invasion, i.e., 285 per day. The Lancet estimate of 86,000 Iraqis killed by Coalition forces in the 13 months from 2005-2006 averages 217 per day over a much longer, relentlessly sustained period. And as shocking as such a secret toll would be, it is claimed to constitute only 26% of the even greater carnage inflicted by anti-Coalition or unattributable bombs and bullets, which it is claimed killed 330,000 Iraqis in this period, also almost always without being noticed by anyone but the victims. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It just gets worse and worse for the Lancet. Maybe one of these factors could be ignored individually, but all up it leads to one inevitable conclusion... there is simply far too much evidence against their figures being true for them to be treated with any credibility at all.
I'm sorry, but there is a very painful life lesson to be learned here. <b>Scientists and researchers are just you like you and me</b>. They have biases, they make mistakes, they refuse to capitulate to evidence, and not even peer review can proof them from it. There may be more or less deaths in Iraq than we know, but Lancet's study doesnt help at all, because its clearly wrong.
I'm not going to argue about the articles in general, just wanted to comment on something I noticed and found interesting.
I know that when I did my military service (in a country with general obligatory armed service for every 18 year old male for six months to fifteen months) I heard, many times, that in in case of war ANY information pertaining to an assumed capitulation were false. The war never ends as long as foreign troops are on Swedish soil.
In Sweden fewer do the military service every year because of a percieved lack of threat of being invaded within the forseeable future. I venture to say Iraq didn't draw the same conclusion and decide to cut down on the number of draftees to their military. Wihtout having checked my data, it seems reasonable to assume that most males between 18-19 and, say, 35 would be expected to take up arms in one form or another in case of an invasion.
I'm not sure exactly where I want to get with this, I just felt like I had to comment on the difference between how the American military is fueled and how the Iraqi military was. The line between the civilian population and the armed forces isn't as clear cut as in a country who's army consists of only volunteer professional soldiers.
<!--quoteo(post=1571469:date=Oct 27 2006, 03:34 AM:name=Marine0I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marine0I @ Oct 27 2006, 03:34 AM) [snapback]1571469[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I really dont think you understand what an argument from incredulity is. It is also more commonly described as an argument from ignorance - basically ignorance is all that leads a person to disbelieve a certain claim.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No... I do.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When IBC claims that Lancet has stuffed up, it goes on to show why. For example:
Their claims of extrapolation just dont fit the facts. They found 91 deaths from between January and June 2006, which extrapolated all the way up to 180,000 deaths. Thats about 1000 deaths per day. Current death reports pick about 100 deaths per day. Basically, the media and the government and everyone involved over there is either viciously imcompetent or covering it up, because its borderline impossible to miss an extra 900 deaths per day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is like the definition of argument from incredulity. How many times do I have to ask you to find problems with their method (NOT their results)? Not to mention, the study cites several other studies that show that passive surveillance (which the IBC and the Iraq government are doing) commonly underestimate deaths by a factor of ~10. I've mentioned this before and I haven't even seen you comment on it yet.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But it gets worse from then on. There is an old standard for estimating casualties which puts the amount of wounded for every person killed at 3 for every death. This means that not only do you have are huge swath of the Iraqi population exterminated without the media or the officials knowing, but you have 800,000 Iraqi's who were wounded who didn't seek medical help. This is on top of the deaths. It's not possible for half a million excess deaths to just hide away, its even less possible for a further 740,000 people to simply not seek medical help.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, so you're saying that a peer reviewed study is wrong because of some random rule of thumb that I've never seen before? Sounds solid to me... Also, the hospitals don't seem to be a good place to go: <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/eveningnews/main2064668.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/...in2064668.shtml</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And if they are seeking medical help, why are Iraqi hospitals only reporting 60,000 people over the last 2 years asking for medical help? Is it in their best interest to tell the Government "hey guys, we dont need more help or funding, we're handling fine" when masses of wounded Iraqi's are pouring through their doors daily. Or is there some kind of backyard medical craze going on in Iraq I dont know about? Despite the decayed state of their nation, do you really think the hospitals would just have failed to notice overwhelming numbers of violence victims like that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/eveningnews/main2064668.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/...in2064668.shtml</a> Again this really boils down to an argument from incredulity. You personally find it implausible that in a chaotic nation, we might receive numbers that are wrong, or that people won't go to hospitals because of the death squads. When are you going to actually critique their method and not the results? Do you understand how science works? Maybe I'm wrong, but as I understand it, to cast doubt on a study, you critique their method, or you repeat the same method and get different results. It's not about saying, "I personally find it implausible that this could be happening. So the study is wrong. Somehow."
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What's going on here? If its reasonable to extrapolate upwards as these researchers did,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes it is, unless you object to the field of statistics.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->where are those extra 500,000 death certificates coming from? We treat their word as reliable because they are relying on Iraqi's producing death certificates.... but there <b>aren't that many death certificates in the entire country by a factor of 10</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't know where the 500k extra death certificates came from, but it just might be because of: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the morgue itself is believed to be controlled by the same Shiite militia blamed for many of the killings: the Mahdi Army, founded and led by anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> According to the CBS news article I linked. Also, remember that many previous studies have shown that surveillance like this consistently underestimates casualties by a large factor. <-- YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THIS. WHY?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you take a random sample of cars going into an empty car lot per hour, and decide from that that there must be 100 cars inside, but you find only 10 when you do a count inside, you cant talk about how your methodology was perfect - it aint. Its failed. Try again.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You have yet to show me why the methodology is wrong. And again, passive surveillance always underestimates casualties. It's nothing new.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It just gets worse and worse for the Lancet. Maybe one of these factors could be ignored individually, but all up it leads to one inevitable conclusion... there is simply far too much evidence against their figures being true for them to be treated with any credibility at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you serious? I'm going to object to Quantum Mechanics because I don't like the results of the theory. Would you believe me or call me crazy? What evidence? A bunch of passive surveillance that <b>we already know underestimates casualties by a large factor</b>. Not to mention Bush's unbelievable hypocrisy in stating that the method is discredited while his own government spends millions a year training people to do the exact same thing.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry, but there is a very painful life lesson to be learned here. <b>Scientists and researchers are just you like you and me</b>. They have biases, they make mistakes, they refuse to capitulate to evidence, and not even peer review can proof them from it. There may be more or less deaths in Iraq than we know, but Lancet's study doesnt help at all, because its clearly wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm sure that scientists make mistakes and have biases, BUT YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN ME A SINGLE ONE IN THIS STUDY. All you've done is objected to the results and made like 50 arguments from incredulity.
<!--sizeo:5--><span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->In your next post please find something wrong with their method. Not their results...<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
Comments
Hidden inside of this <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15357623/site/newsweek/page/2/" target="_blank">Newsweek article</a> is a poll with a margin of error of 4 percentage points that says 51% of America approves of impeaching Bush. Didn't Bush call 51% a mandate?
<@Bush> Man date? I thought I was trying to get those banned.
on a more serious note. a statistical analasys of the reasons the us is still in iraq shows that bush flip-flops 150% more than kerry. oh snap.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you really want evidence to Bush's morality, take a look at pictures before be elected and compare them to now. He's aged. It's taken a toll on him. Unless he's faking that somehow, he's been having just as hard a time as he says he's been.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You defeated your own argument.
Also, I don't think he can be considered a morally good person when it is likely that over 600k people have died in Iraq.
No, we shouldn't. I hate him, I hate his regime, I hate Cheney, I hate every single one of them.
I hate the Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branches.
Our checks and balances are so the different groups don't have power over one another. But does that matter when the American people themselves cannot influence how things change in government? There is no check and balance for the government having the free will to do what it likes completely separately from the American people. Our system is broken. Why? Because the entire thing is supported under a system that doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it.
Were supposed to be a "Democracy". No, were a republic. But thats okay- that can still be successful. Problem is, the president is voted in by an electoral congress- once again, not a bad thing- but this electoral congress can be pushed and swayed in any direction it gladly feels. The polls don't matter, either, as a smaller population state(such as Arizona, as my teacher put it), can outweigh a location with twice the population, purely based on the electoral college's system.
But all of that doesn't change the fact that the system should still work. But it doesn't. Because it never accounted for corruption. I understand that is hard to account for, but I don't think anyone ever expected it to get this bad, and continue- at least the British got control of their country's horrible leader when he was doing nothing they liked, such as taxing the poor, and not taxing the rich(though he eventually taxed the hell out of them too).
Our system has no way for the American people to tell them to stop, when the entire system has become corrupted. You may say, "lets vote in people who aren't corrupted"- problem is, corruption breeds corruption, and were at a point where the few uncorrupted ones either become corrupted, or simply don't have the power to change anything. And the Republican party(I hate to lay blame to them- note that they could only achieve this because Democrats did nothing about it, and sat there and took it like sick dogs) gets America to think in a very separatist fashion, in such a way as to even say things like, "If you don't support the president, you're supporting terrorism" or something of the such. Even if they don't believe that though, they find the unity of the American people a pointless endeavor, and have no faith in their neighbor, causing unrest throughout communities purely based on a political stance, with no will to reason whatsoever.
In the process, our government has become a cesspool of corruption that cannot be cured in any conventional way. Voting people out won't work. Impeachment won't work. Reforms won't work. Nothing short of a revolution would work- and that is more risky than just putting up with what we have, as Revolutions tend to breed a even more dictatorship-like environment, at least for a little while, than corruption does. But do not be so foolish to think that just because there is more than one, or two, or a dozen at the helm(say, a number like 550?) does not make it a dictatorship. A evil dictatorship has nothing to do with it being a dictatorship- one ruler can rule fairly justly, after all- but if all of them are corrupted and care nothing of its own people or world, with no one to hold them to any standards, as none of us could hold anything against them(especially now that legislation has erased what freedoms we had) in the first place.
In short, America would need a revolution at this point to fix itself really, with how polluted it has become. And while some may still have faith in the system- and while I wish I could believe alongside you- I know that not everyone would agree. And frankly, I wouldn't want a revolution anyway. It'd breed problems that would be worse than what we have now, for sure.
The only option at this point, is keep trying like we always have, if you pray, pray, if you can hope, hope, and if you're satisfied- I'm happy for you.
I don't plan on actually participating in this discussion, but I wanted to speak my mind on the initial subject:
No, we shouldn't. I hate him, I hate his regime, I hate Cheney, I hate every single one of them.
I hate the Executive, Judicial and Legislative Branches.
Our checks and balances are so the different groups don't have power over one another. But does that matter when the American people themselves cannot influence how things change in government? There is no check and balance for the government having the free will to do what it likes completely separately from the American people. Our system is broken. Why? Because the entire thing is supported under a system that doesn't make sense no matter how you look at it.
Were supposed to be a "Democracy". No, were a republic. But thats okay- that can still be successful. Problem is, the president is voted in by an electoral congress- once again, not a bad thing- but this electoral congress can be pushed and swayed in any direction it gladly feels. The polls don't matter, either, as a smaller population state(such as Arizona, as my teacher put it), can outweigh a location with twice the population, purely based on the electoral college's system.
But all of that doesn't change the fact that the system should still work. But it doesn't. Because it never accounted for corruption. I understand that is hard to account for, but I don't think anyone ever expected it to get this bad, and continue- at least the British got control of their country's horrible leader when he was doing nothing they liked, such as taxing the poor, and not taxing the rich(though he eventually taxed the hell out of them too).
Our system has no way for the American people to tell them to stop, when the entire system has become corrupted. You may say, "lets vote in people who aren't corrupted"- problem is, corruption breeds corruption, and were at a point where the few uncorrupted ones either become corrupted, or simply don't have the power to change anything. And the Republican party(I hate to lay blame to them- note that they could only achieve this because Democrats did nothing about it, and sat there and took it like sick dogs) gets America to think in a very separatist fashion, in such a way as to even say things like, "If you don't support the president, you're supporting terrorism" or something of the such. Even if they don't believe that though, they find the unity of the American people a pointless endeavor, and have no faith in their neighbor, causing unrest throughout communities purely based on a political stance, with no will to reason whatsoever.
In the process, our government has become a cesspool of corruption that cannot be cured in any conventional way. Voting people out won't work. Impeachment won't work. Reforms won't work. Nothing short of a revolution would work- and that is more risky than just putting up with what we have, as Revolutions tend to breed a even more dictatorship-like environment, at least for a little while, than corruption does. But do not be so foolish to think that just because there is more than one, or two, or a dozen at the helm(say, a number like 550?) does not make it a dictatorship. A evil dictatorship has nothing to do with it being a dictatorship- one ruler can rule fairly justly, after all- but if all of them are corrupted and care nothing of its own people or world, with no one to hold them to any standards, as none of us could hold anything against them(especially now that legislation has erased what freedoms we had) in the first place.
In short, America would need a revolution at this point to fix itself really, with how polluted it has become. And while some may still have faith in the system- and while I wish I could believe alongside you- I know that not everyone would agree. And frankly, I wouldn't want a revolution anyway. It'd breed problems that would be worse than what we have now, for sure.
The only option at this point, is keep trying like we always have, if you pray, pray, if you can hope, hope, and if you're satisfied- I'm happy for you.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No saviour from on high delivers
No trust we have in prince or peer
Our own right hand the chains must shiver
Chains of hatred, greed and fear.
Ere the thieves will out with their booty
And to all give a happier lot.
Each at his forge must do his duty
And strike the iron while its hot.
No saviour from on high delivers
No trust we have in prince or peer
Our own right hand the chains must shiver
Chains of hatred, greed and fear.
Ere the thieves will out with their booty
And to all give a happier lot.
Each at his forge must do his duty
And strike the iron while its hot.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
o.o
Thats more philisophical than I think my mind gives way to. As well as being out of my range fo thinking.
I guess my question is, did you agree or not?
I believe having read that the consitution encourages a revolution in case of a clearly corrupt government, it being a reason for the right to bear arms.
Well I think an uprising of some sort is needed to set things right, whether it's actually overthrowing the current government and establishing a new one and a more democratic system through physical means, or to apply pressure within the boundries of the current system. Either way would require activating a large part of the population. I lean towards the less violent way though. History has shown that the risk of a revolution is a good catalyst for social change that benefits the majority of the people.
I believe having read that the consitution encourages a revolution in case of a clearly corrupt government, it being a reason for the right to bear arms.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree.
[Edit] Oh wait, that's already happening :/ But that's another discussion I guess.
Second off - wow guys. Just wow. I used to be Bush's most vitrolic defender on these forums, and even I can conceed the man has made many many many massive mistakes and wont be too sad to see the back of him come 2008. (to prove my point, my sig is still the same I had years ago when I was backing Bush tooth and nail <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
But claims of resurgent fascism and revolution?
I think that's going just too far. Do you really realise what it would mean if you started a revolution in the US? Despite everything Bush has done, and despite the state of the Republican party, still at least a third of your population supports them. You wont get a revolution, you'll get civil war. Some of those people who will agree with nearly everything you say about Bush and want him gone desperately would still fight against you simply because you and your fellow revolutionaires stand between them and personal security and safety. People in your neighbourhood who would normally smile and wave and ask about the weather, the sort of folk you would <b>like</b> to meet in a dark alley, would be willing to kill you, or at least see you killed, in order to protect their families from the instability and blood of a revolution.
It gets worse when you consider that many of the left wing voters more likely to support overthrowing Bush are city folk. I'm not trying to slur them, but if you look at the map of the last election, a lot of the blue states were the big cities. Those kind of folk are gentle people I'm sorry, and its not to their discredit, but they aren't fighters.
And then you get the military. Back in ye olde days of revolution, travel was slow, military technology was rudimentary. You cant start a pocket of revolution that spreads, because the military will be there within hours. You cant march on the Whitehouse, because there are a lot of trained and equipped fiercely patriotic soldiers at every level of the military who would be willing to kill and die defending it.
I dont blame anyone for wanting to change stuff, or for being frustrated with the political system. Talking on blogs or forums or in your WoW guildchat or whatever, I can understand how you might eventually wind up thinking a revolution is a good idea.
But it isnt. It would mean the end of your entire life up until now, the end of security and a high possibility of death or long term incarceration. Worse, it makes it much harder for you to change things in the already difficult to change political system. Because it makes you sound insane. Republicans point to lefties screaming about impeachment and revolution because to the average voter, that is a massive turn off.
You cant have your revolution, and talking about it is just making your side of politics look worse <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
Jesus I hate being a partisan hack but holy god man. I agree revolution is pretty far fetched (although I don't really see anyone talking about it). But impeachment? Wow. Clinton got impeached for adultery and lying about it. While this is bad it absolutely pales in comparison to the likely over 600,000 Iraqis killed by Bush's war. Think about what you're saying.
First off, hello again, dunno if anyone remembers me but I finally figured out how to access these forums <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Second off - wow guys. Just wow. I used to be Bush's most vitrolic defender on these forums, and even I can conceed the man has made many many many massive mistakes and wont be too sad to see the back of him come 2008. (to prove my point, my sig is still the same I had years ago when I was backing Bush tooth and nail <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
But claims of resurgent fascism and revolution?
I think that's going just too far. Do you really realise what it would mean if you started a revolution in the US? Despite everything Bush has done, and despite the state of the Republican party, still at least a third of your population supports them. You wont get a revolution, you'll get civil war. Some of those people who will agree with nearly everything you say about Bush and want him gone desperately would still fight against you simply because you and your fellow revolutionaires stand between them and personal security and safety. People in your neighbourhood who would normally smile and wave and ask about the weather, the sort of folk you would <b>like</b> to meet in a dark alley, would be willing to kill you, or at least see you killed, in order to protect their families from the instability and blood of a revolution.
It gets worse when you consider that many of the left wing voters more likely to support overthrowing Bush are city folk. I'm not trying to slur them, but if you look at the map of the last election, a lot of the blue states were the big cities. Those kind of folk are gentle people I'm sorry, and its not to their discredit, but they aren't fighters.
And then you get the military. Back in ye olde days of revolution, travel was slow, military technology was rudimentary. You cant start a pocket of revolution that spreads, because the military will be there within hours. You cant march on the Whitehouse, because there are a lot of trained and equipped fiercely patriotic soldiers at every level of the military who would be willing to kill and die defending it.
I dont blame anyone for wanting to change stuff, or for being frustrated with the political system. Talking on blogs or forums or in your WoW guildchat or whatever, I can understand how you might eventually wind up thinking a revolution is a good idea.
But it isnt. It would mean the end of your entire life up until now, the end of security and a high possibility of death or long term incarceration. Worse, it makes it much harder for you to change things in the already difficult to change political system. Because it makes you sound insane. Republicans point to lefties screaming about impeachment and revolution because to the average voter, that is a massive turn off.
You cant have your revolution, and talking about it is just making your side of politics look worse <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When did I say we needed a revolution because of Republicans? I never said anything of the sort. I said we need it because our entire government is a corrupted cesspool of idiotic money-loving idiots who bear no regard for the American people.
Say my politics look worse. You're right. Because my politics aren't politics- their action, their change, something we've needed for a long time, that politicians will <b><i>never</i></b> bring about.
First off, hello again, dunno if anyone remembers me but I finally figured out how to access these forums <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Second off - wow guys. Just wow. I used to be Bush's most vitrolic defender on these forums, and even I can conceed the man has made many many many massive mistakes and wont be too sad to see the back of him come 2008. (to prove my point, my sig is still the same I had years ago when I was backing Bush tooth and nail <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hello there <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> You are back and wiser I see !
Now all we need is Aegeri, some threads on ###### marriage and/or Ugarit, some vodka and life shall be grand once more ! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Jesus I hate being a partisan hack but holy god man. I agree revolution is pretty far fetched (although I don't really see anyone talking about it). But impeachment? Wow. Clinton got impeached for adultery and lying about it. While this is bad it absolutely pales in comparison to the likely over 600,000 Iraqis killed by Bush's war. Think about what you're saying.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look, you just cant flat out state 600,000 Iraqi's killed by Bush's war. It doesnt work like that. I understand people from a certain side of the political spectrum feel comfortable assigning the blame for every death directly onto the one man, but you have to realise most people dont view it as such.
Firstly, the 600000 figure has been widely discredited, particularly because it was released before an election, just like last time, by a self confessed couple of political partisans. If you want a thorough destruction of the 600,000 claim, probably the best stop for you would be <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php" target="_blank">Iraq Body Count</a>. These guys are lefties too, they started their site to catalogue the death toll from what they view and viewed as an immoral war, so I figure if you're going to believe anyone you'll believe them.
Secondly, many people dont immediately link it with Bush because they recognise most of the deaths weren't Americans killing Iraqi's. Heaps of them are insurgents Americans have killed, or Iraqi's that insurgents have killed, or Iraqi soldiers fighting with the coalition that the Iraqi insurgents have killed. By and large it is recognised that Americans are fighting to stop these insurgents killing civilians, so morally, they have no problem with the death count. The US isnt the ones trying to pile up the corpses, that's the other side.
You might see Bush as being ultimately responsible for it all, but a lot of folk dont. Unfortunately, that makes the political left look a lil strange to a lot of people, when they want to impeach him for something they have no problem with. The Republicans are about to get a beating in the mid term elections, but that's because of incompetence in handling the war, overspending, corruption and sleaze. The only thing that's saving them from a total rout is that the Democrats dont look like a feasible alternative. Its not because people think they are evil and directly responsible for every death, or even most deaths, in Iraq.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
When did I say we needed a revolution because of Republicans? I never said anything of the sort. I said we need it because our entire government is a corrupted cesspool of idiotic money-loving idiots who bear no regard for the American people.
Say my politics look worse. You're right. Because my politics aren't politics- their action, their change, something we've needed for a long time, that politicians will never bring about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My mistake sorry, I misread your position. Okay, lets call it action. I and many others would be willing to see you killed or incarcerated to stop you destabilising the US government in the hope of bringing about change. If you want to talk about it, I'm comfortable with it just being ignored while its on the fringe. If it ever starts to become organised however, I would advocate the government rounding you up and imprisoning you. If you resisted, I'd advocate the use of lethal force.
That isn't a threat btw, I'm not sitting here thinking about killing you or anything silly <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. All I'm saying is that a hell of a lot of folk would be willing to fight against you if you ever tried to convert word into deed. Change is needed, but if it's attempted via revolution, its going to get bloody.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hello there smile-fix.gif You are back and wiser I see !
Now all we need is Aegeri, some threads on ###### marriage and/or Ugarit, some vodka and life shall be grand once more!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hello again <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />. Yeah I've kinda mellowed in my old age <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> cept on the religious stuff tho, I'm still a Bible thumping fanatic. I'm all for a thread on the marriage of same sex couples, but lets not bring Aegeri back, he used to stomp my face hard in the evo threads <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
That isn't a threat btw, I'm not sitting here thinking about killing you or anything silly <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. All I'm saying is that a hell of a lot of folk would be willing to fight against you if you ever tried to convert word into deed. Change is needed, but if it's attempted via revolution, its going to get bloody.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Feel free. I wouldn't attempt to organize it myself, but if a real good chance came around, I'd be one of the first to go with 'em.
Look, you just cant flat out state 600,000 Iraqi's killed by Bush's war. It doesnt work like that. I understand people from a certain side of the political spectrum feel comfortable assigning the blame for every death directly onto the one man, but you have to realise most people dont view it as such.
Firstly, the 600000 figure has been widely discredited, particularly because it was released before an election, just like last time, by a self confessed couple of political partisans. If you want a thorough destruction of the 600,000 claim, probably the best stop for you would be <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php" target="_blank">Iraq Body Count</a>. These guys are lefties too, they started their site to catalogue the death toll from what they view and viewed as an immoral war, so I figure if you're going to believe anyone you'll believe them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Feel free to give me a link, but I haven't heard anything about that figure being discredited. I think its worth mentioning however, that their margin of error in the study was 200,000, so it could be anywhere from 400000 to 800000. The discrepency between iraqbodycount.org, and that study has to do with methodology. Iraqbodycount.org bases their numbers only on deaths that are reported by a news organization. As such, they expect their numbers to be a gross underestimate, but it's an inarguable number because every single one is backed up by a news report, and usually more than one. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to the ratio of reported deaths to unreported deaths, but 10 to 1 seems reasonable, so I'm inclined to believe the study.
Feel free to give me a link, but I haven't heard anything about that figure being discredited. I think its worth mentioning however, that their margin of error in the study was 200,000, so it could be anywhere from 400000 to 800000. The discrepency between iraqbodycount.org, and that study has to do with methodology. Iraqbodycount.org bases their numbers only on deaths that are reported by a news organization. As such, they expect their numbers to be a gross underestimate, but it's an inarguable number because every single one is backed up by a news report, and usually more than one. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to the ratio of reported deaths to unreported deaths, but 10 to 1 seems reasonable, so I'm inclined to believe the study.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dont think 1/10 is reasonable. Over half a million people slaughtered in a country with a population just over 20 million is an epic bloodbath. I mean that sort of mass slaughter doesnt go unseen. The Iraq Body Count link I presented above doesnt just link to the IBC main website, it links to their systematic criticism of the <i>Lancet</i> study.
Here is the summary: <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php" target="_blank">http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Summary
A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:
1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.
If these assertions are true, they further imply:
* incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;
* bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
* the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;
* an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's just the summary. It only gets more indepth from there on in. <i>Lancet</i> really threw its credibility away this time. The first time around, when they released that 100,000 figure in November just before the US Presidential elections, people were inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. The second time around, with an even more vastly inflated figure just in time for a US election, there was no way they should have thought it was possible to pull this one off. And they didnt.
Look, you just cant flat out state 600,000 Iraqi's killed by Bush's war. It doesnt work like that. I understand people from a certain side of the political spectrum feel comfortable assigning the blame for every death directly onto the one man, but you have to realise most people dont view it as such.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What doesn't work like that? Have you even read the study? Do you know what a peer reviewed scientific journal is? Tell me what's wrong with the study. Read the study and find errors.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Firstly, the 600000 figure has been widely discredited, particularly because it was released before an election, just like last time, by a self confessed couple of political partisans. If you want a thorough destruction of the 600,000 claim, probably the best stop for you would be <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php" target="_blank">Iraq Body Count</a>. These guys are lefties too, they started their site to catalogue the death toll from what they view and viewed as an immoral war, so I figure if you're going to believe anyone you'll believe them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
600k has been widely discredited? By who? Tell me why the report is unreliable. IBC doesn't count. It only reports things that are reported in several news sources. It's only use is as a low estimate for the absolute minimum number of people killed. Comparing its number to 600k is like comparing apples to oranges.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Secondly, many people dont immediately link it with Bush because they recognise most of the deaths weren't Americans killing Iraqi's. Heaps of them are insurgents Americans have killed, or Iraqi's that insurgents have killed, or Iraqi soldiers fighting with the coalition that the Iraqi insurgents have killed. By and large it is recognised that Americans are fighting to stop these insurgents killing civilians, so morally, they have no problem with the death count. The US isnt the ones trying to pile up the corpses, that's the other side.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course I realize that not all (and not even half) of the deaths are directly from the US military. But that doesn't change the fact that an additional ~600k deaths have been caused due to the war. At some point, all these deaths come down to the invasion. No invasion and these deaths wouldn't have happened. I'm not saying Saddam was a good guy but there certainly was a lower death rate.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You might see Bush as being ultimately responsible for it all, but a lot of folk dont. Unfortunately, that makes the political left look a lil strange to a lot of people, when they want to impeach him for something they have no problem with. The Republicans are about to get a beating in the mid term elections, but that's because of incompetence in handling the war, overspending, corruption and sleaze. The only thing that's saving them from a total rout is that the Democrats dont look like a feasible alternative. Its not because people think they are evil and directly responsible for every death, or even most deaths, in Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Invading a country and causing an additional 600k deaths makes you pretty responsible for them, in my eyes at least.
I urge you to read the study: <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/j...73606694919.pdf</a>
and form your own opinion. You need to find specific problems in the study that bias the research one way or another. Also, if you have a legitimate problem with the report I'd suggest you submit it to the Lancet, or some other peer reviewed journal. I have my doubts that you will find anything, the peer review process is not lenient and is done by professionals. Anyway, submit your paper, and wait for feedback, it's called science and it's the best method of gaining knowledge we know of.
<!--quoteo(post=1571328:date=Oct 26 2006, 12:25 AM:name=Marine0I)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marine0I @ Oct 26 2006, 12:25 AM) [snapback]1571328[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
<b>I dont think 1/10 is reasonable.</b> Over half a million people slaughtered in a country with a population just over 20 million is an epic bloodbath. I mean that sort of mass slaughter doesnt go unseen. The Iraq Body Count link I presented above doesnt just link to the IBC main website, it links to their systematic criticism of the <i>Lancet</i> study.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance" target="_blank">Argument From Incredulity</a>
I'd suggest that you <b>read the study</b>.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Our estimate of excess deaths is far higher than those
reported in Iraq through passive surveillance measures.1,5
This discrepancy is not unexpected. Data from passive
surveillance are rarely complete, even in stable circumstances,
and are even less complete during conflict, when
access is restricted and fatal events could be intentionally
hidden. Aside from Bosnia,21 we can find no conflict
situation where passive surveillance recorded more than
20% of the deaths measured by population-based
methods. In several outbreaks, disease and death recorded
by facility-based methods underestimated events by a
factor of ten or more when compared with populationbased
estimates.11,22–25 Between 1960 and 1990, newspaper
accounts of political deaths in Guatemala correctly
reported over 50% of deaths in years of low violence but
less than 5% in years of highest violence.26 Nevertheless,
surveillance tallies are important in monitoring trends
over time and in the provision of individual data, and
these data track closely with our own findings (figure 4).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, the government infrastructure is falling apart, there is no guarantee about any of the official records, that they are even close to accurate.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Here is the summary: <a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php" target="_blank">http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php</a>
That's just the summary. It only gets more indepth from there on in. <i>Lancet</i> really threw its credibility away this time. The first time around, when they released that 100,000 figure in November just before the US Presidential elections, people were inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. The second time around, with an even more vastly inflated figure just in time for a US election, there was no way they should have thought it was possible to pull this one off. And they didnt.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lancet threw away its credibility? Sigh. It makes me sad that you don't present any objections to the paper other than arguments from incredulity, when there is plenty of counter evidence, (see the cited studies in the paper) and claim that this well respected peer reviewed journal has lost its credibility.
Vastly inflated? I have yet to see one objection to their methodology from you. Let's see it.
From <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/12/145222" target="_blank">http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/12/145222</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->LES ROBERTS: You know, I don't want to sort of stoop to that level and start saying general slurs, but I just want to say that what we did, this cluster survey approach, is the standard way of measuring mortality in very poor countries where the government isn’t very functional or in times of war. And when UNICEF goes out and measures mortality in any developing country, this is what they do. When the U.S. government went at the end of the war in Kosovo or went at the end of the war in Afghanistan and the U.S. government measured the death rate, this is how they did it. And most ironically, the U.S. government has been spending millions of dollars per year, through something called the Smart Initiative, to train NGOs and UN workers to do cluster surveys to measure mortality in times of wars and disasters.
So, I think we used a very standard method. I think our results are couched appropriately in the relative imprecision of [inaudible]. It could conceivably be as few as 400,000 deaths. So we’re upfront about that. We don’t know the exact number. We just know the range, and we’re very, very confident about both the method and the results.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a standard method that the US Government uses and spends money on, and when Bush calls the study a 'guess' and 'not credibile' it's just flat out dishonest.
My mistake sorry, I misread your position. Okay, lets call it action. I and many others would be willing to see you killed or incarcerated to stop you destabilising the US government in the hope of bringing about change. If you want to talk about it, I'm comfortable with it just being ignored while its on the fringe. If it ever starts to become organised however, I would advocate the government rounding you up and imprisoning you. If you resisted, I'd advocate the use of lethal force.
That isn't a threat btw, I'm not sitting here thinking about killing you or anything silly <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />. All I'm saying is that a hell of a lot of folk would be willing to fight against you if you ever tried to convert word into deed. Change is needed, but if it's attempted via revolution, its going to get bloody.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Look, McCarthyism rears it's ugly head again. "Destabilising the US government in the hope of bringing about change" is what politics in general is. Every time you disagree and spread an opinion that things are wrong you are "destabilising the government". That's what democracy is all about isnt it. If the people disagree they change it.
Lock all them Reds up, they want a system where they can feel safe knowing their vote is weighed fairly and perhaps even state funded medical care.
"I would advocate the government rounding you up and imprisoning you. If you resisted, I'd advocate the use of lethal force" when talking about political movements is a statement that would have upset a great many people in a great many western democratic countries if it was said there but not in the US? What does that tell you.
What doesn't work like that? Have you even read the study? Do you know what a peer reviewed scientific journal is? Tell me what's wrong with the study. Read the study and find errors.
600k has been widely discredited? By who? Tell me why the report is unreliable. IBC doesn't count. It only reports things that are reported in several news sources. It's only use is as a low estimate for the absolute minimum number of people killed. Comparing its number to 600k is like comparing apples to oranges.
Of course I realize that not all (and not even half) of the deaths are directly from the US military. But that doesn't change the fact that an additional ~600k deaths have been caused due to the war. At some point, all these deaths come down to the invasion. No invasion and these deaths wouldn't have happened. I'm not saying Saddam was a good guy but there certainly was a lower death rate.
Invading a country and causing an additional 600k deaths makes you pretty responsible for them, in my eyes at least.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nadagast, I have not read the entire study, no. I dont think very many people have. I have read enough to believe I understand its claims however. I do know what peer review is, as I come in contact with peer reviewed journals day in and day out as a third year undergrad bachelor of science student. I'm not saying that to impress, because it's very commonplace, but I do hope you'll believe me when I say that what I have seen enough of peer reviewed journals to treat them with the skepticism they deserve. People pretend that peer review is infallible, and these are usually folk who spend the least time dealing with them. Once you get to know members of the academic faculties, you get a lot more ... balance view of the invincibilities of the peer review system. But you dont have to take my word on it, its nothing concrete.
Guys, you didn't click my link. IBC didnt just say "this study disagrees with me", it went on to prove, systematically, that the Lancet estimate just couldnt possibly be accurate.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Also, the government infrastructure is falling apart, there is no guarantee about any of the official records, that they are even close to accurate.
Lancet threw away its credibility? Sigh. It makes me sad that you don't present any objections to the paper other than arguments from incredulity, when there is plenty of counter evidence, (see the cited studies in the paper) and claim that this well respected peer reviewed journal has lost its credibility.
Vastly inflated? I have yet to see one objection to their methodology from you. Let's see it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do not be fooled into thinking I dismissed these people out of hand. Again, I'm sorry but you missed my link above. There are many, many serious objections to the claims of the Lancet report, and that is the best synopsis you will find. Plenty of other conservatives have taken a swing at it, but IBC are leftwing and very very thorough, so I figured you'd find the truth more palatable from them.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Look, McCarthyism rears it's ugly head again. "Destabilising the US government in the hope of bringing about change" is what politics in general is. Every time you disagree and spread an opinion that things are wrong you are "destabilising the government". That's what democracy is all about isnt it. If the people disagree they change it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Quanaut wants to participate in the US political system to bring about change, that's great. That's why we have a democracy, so change can take place with the least possible destabilisation. But I dont think that's what he was talking about. He was talking about revolutions/uprisings. That is circumventing the normal avenues to get things done, and almost always leads to violence. I dont want to lock up the Democrats or the Libertarians, but if either of them start organising a marching on Washington to start revolution to change all these inherenant flaws in our current democracy, then its time to fight, unless its 100% peaceful.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->For the duration of our rule, we have brought the country stability. But now, elections threaten the stability, threaten to completely change our government. I suggest we round up all the members of the opposing parties and have them thrown into prison. Luckily, without habeas corpus, we have the right to do that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really. There is no way that could ever happen quite frankly. I think you guys are getting a little overwrought about it all. Habeus corpus has only been "suspended" for aliens to the US, and then again only because of inherent stupidity in the US Supreme Court, and its highly targetted towards Guantanamo bay inmates. If you think Bush and his supposed lackies are waiting to imprison that hot exchange student from Germany you have a crush on, you are going to sorely disappointed. It's a sad day when you actually need laws to prevent your judiciary from trying to grant US citizen rights onto foreign terrorists, but this is material for a different thread.
I am not saying the peer review process is infalliable, (but good strawman) I know it can make mistakes. But it takes more than a couple arguments from incredulity for me to believe that there's something wrong with the study. <b>Please tell me specifically the problems you have with their methodology.</b> If the study is so obviously wrong, there is something wrong with the method. The study is only like 10 pages long, it doesn't take a long time to read. Do yourself a favor and read it. I did, and it really helps you cut through the politics of it. It's sad that politicians are held so unaccountable that they can call a study like this a 'guess' and 'discredited' and not even get challenged on that, when the government they govern spends millions using the exact same method.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Guys, you didn't click my link. IBC didnt just say "this study disagrees with me", it went on to prove, systematically, that the Lancet estimate just couldnt possibly be accurate.
Do not be fooled into thinking I dismissed these people out of hand. Again, I'm sorry but you missed my link above. There are many, many serious objections to the claims of the Lancet report, and that is the best synopsis you will find. Plenty of other conservatives have taken a swing at it, but IBC are leftwing and very very thorough, so I figured you'd find the truth more palatable from them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, let's look at their claims from the summary (since I have to go to class in a minute or two).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--># On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The study clearly says that they could find only one case where passive surveillance reported even 20% of deaths. Also, this is an argument from incredulity.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Argument from incredulity...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This doesn't even seem like an argument. It seems like they are restating the results of the study in order to lead people to form their own argument from incredulity.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sigh... argument from incredulity...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Argument from incredulity...
From looking over (briefly, I have to go to class in a minute) the press release, I just see a bunch of problems that they have with the study's results. I want to hear problems with their method. I need your next post to be about problems with their method, not problems with their results. Read the study (I linked it last post) and tell me what's wrong with their method. If you can't do this, I see no reason to view the study as 'discredited'.
Habeus corpus has only been "suspended" for aliens to the US, and then again only because of inherent stupidity in the US Supreme Court, and its highly targetted towards Guantanamo bay inmates. If you think Bush and his supposed lackies are waiting to imprison that hot exchange student from Germany you have a crush on, you are going to sorely disappointed. It's a sad day when you actually need laws to prevent your judiciary from trying to grant US citizen rights onto foreign terrorists, but this is material for a different thread.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't just apply to aliens, read the bill. Anyone whom a military commission declares to be an Enemy Combatant, is by definition an Enemy Combatant and loses their rights. The judiciary isn't granting rights to foreign terrorists, they are granting rights to people who someone in the government thought might be a terrorist. Need I remind you that we had 14 year olds in Guantanamo bay?
If Quanaut wants to participate in the US political system to bring about change, that's great. That's why we have a democracy, so change can take place with the least possible destabilisation. But I dont think that's what he was talking about. He was talking about revolutions/uprisings. That is circumventing the normal avenues to get things done, and almost always leads to violence. I dont want to lock up the Democrats or the Libertarians, but if either of them start organising a marching on Washington to start revolution to change all these inherenant flaws in our current democracy, then its time to fight, unless its 100% peaceful.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Problem is, without a significant change of heart in the American people(thusly fueling a peaceful revolution), nothing can be changed for the better, as the crass amount of corruption and evil covers the system so completely, its ridiculous.
Without a majority-heart-changing, the only other way is a revolution by whatever means necessary. I'd go peaceful as long as I could, but frankly, I doubt an administration, congress, and supreme court known for starting wars however and whenever they can would be so interested in maintaining peace, even on home soil.
Do yourself a favor and read it. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Righteo. I've read it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Argument from incredulity...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I really dont think you understand what an argument from incredulity is. It is also more commonly described as an argument from ignorance - basically ignorance is all that leads a person to disbelieve a certain claim.
When IBC claims that Lancet has stuffed up, it goes on to show why. For example:
Their claims of extrapolation just dont fit the facts. They found 91 deaths from between January and June 2006, which extrapolated all the way up to 180,000 deaths. Thats about 1000 deaths per day. Current death reports pick about 100 deaths per day. Basically, the media and the government and everyone involved over there is either viciously imcompetent or covering it up, because its borderline impossible to miss an extra 900 deaths per day.
But it gets worse from then on. There is an old standard for estimating casualties which puts the amount of wounded for every person killed at 3 for every death. This means that not only do you have are huge swath of the Iraqi population exterminated without the media or the officials knowing, but you have 800,000 Iraqi's who were wounded who didn't seek medical help. This is on top of the deaths. It's not possible for half a million excess deaths to just hide away, its even less possible for a further 740,000 people to simply not seek medical help. And if they are seeking medical help, why are Iraqi hospitals only reporting 60,000 people over the last 2 years asking for medical help? Is it in their best interest to tell the Government "hey guys, we dont need more help or funding, we're handling fine" when masses of wounded Iraqi's are pouring through their doors daily. Or is there some kind of backyard medical craze going on in Iraq I dont know about? Despite the decayed state of their nation, do you really think the hospitals would just have failed to notice overwhelming numbers of violence victims like that?
But wait, there's more!
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> In 87% of cases where deaths were reported, the survey team asked to see death certificates, leading to the Lancet authors' statement that "92% of households had death certificates for deaths they reported". Assuming, as the authors do, that this is representative of the population as a whole, would imply that officials in Iraq have issued approximately 550,000 death certificates for violent deaths (92% of 601,000). Yet in June 2006, the total figure of post-war violent deaths known to the Iraqi Ministry of Health (MoH), combined with the Baghdad morgue, was approximately 50,000.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's going on here? If its reasonable to extrapolate upwards as these researchers did, where are those extra 500,000 death certificates coming from? We treat their word as reliable because they are relying on Iraqi's producing death certificates.... but there <b>aren't that many death certificates in the entire country by a factor of 10</b>. If you take a random sample of cars going into an empty car lot per hour, and decide from that that there must be 100 cars inside, but you find only 10 when you do a count inside, you cant talk about how your methodology was perfect - it aint. Its failed. Try again.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If the Lancet estimate is correct then it follows that either (a) 500,000 documented violent deaths, for which certificates were issued, have somehow managed to completely disappear without a trace to Iraqi officials or the international media or (b) there is a vast, elaborate, and very successful, cover up of this massive number of bodies and their associated paper trail being carried out in Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> According to Lancet calculations, Coalition forces killed 32,000 Iraqis from late March 2003 to the end of April 2004. This is a period that included the large-scale invasion in which 20,000 air strikes rained 30,000 bombs on a largely urbanized country along with an untold quantity of artillery, as well as an additional 240,000 cluster bombs. This type of assault was then repeated on a smaller but still significant scale in Falluja. All available evidence points to a significant and progressive reduction in Coalition military operations overall since the first year of the invasion.
Yet, according to Lancet estimates, the number of Iraqis killed by the Coalition rose to 70,000 in year two (May 2004 – May 2005), and rose yet again in the third year (June 2005 – June 2006) to 86,000, nearly three times more than in year 1.
When looking at US air strikes, the picture becomes even more puzzling. This data is comprised of 40 deaths:
* 1 killed in January 2002-March 2003 (estimate: 2,000 killed);
* 6 killed in March 2003-April 2004 (estimate: 12,000 killed);
* 13 killed in May 2004-May 2005 (estimate: 26,000 killed);
* 20 killed in June 2005-June 2006 (estimate: 40,000 killed).
Those who keenly recall the reported carnage associated with the invasion in 2003 will scarcely credit the notion that similar events but of a much greater scale and extent have continued unremarked and unrecorded, including by locals, in a nation at the level of education and urbanisation of Iraq. Iraq is not an undeveloped society where tiny, self-sufficient communities live in isolation and ignorance of each other.
Six thousand civilians were reported killed by Coalition forces in the first three weeks of the invasion, i.e., 285 per day. The Lancet estimate of 86,000 Iraqis killed by Coalition forces in the 13 months from 2005-2006 averages 217 per day over a much longer, relentlessly sustained period. And as shocking as such a secret toll would be, it is claimed to constitute only 26% of the even greater carnage inflicted by anti-Coalition or unattributable bombs and bullets, which it is claimed killed 330,000 Iraqis in this period, also almost always without being noticed by anyone but the victims. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It just gets worse and worse for the Lancet. Maybe one of these factors could be ignored individually, but all up it leads to one inevitable conclusion... there is simply far too much evidence against their figures being true for them to be treated with any credibility at all.
I'm sorry, but there is a very painful life lesson to be learned here. <b>Scientists and researchers are just you like you and me</b>. They have biases, they make mistakes, they refuse to capitulate to evidence, and not even peer review can proof them from it. There may be more or less deaths in Iraq than we know, but Lancet's study doesnt help at all, because its clearly wrong.
I know that when I did my military service (in a country with general obligatory armed service for every 18 year old male for six months to fifteen months) I heard, many times, that in in case of war ANY information pertaining to an assumed capitulation were false. The war never ends as long as foreign troops are on Swedish soil.
In Sweden fewer do the military service every year because of a percieved lack of threat of being invaded within the forseeable future. I venture to say Iraq didn't draw the same conclusion and decide to cut down on the number of draftees to their military. Wihtout having checked my data, it seems reasonable to assume that most males between 18-19 and, say, 35 would be expected to take up arms in one form or another in case of an invasion.
I'm not sure exactly where I want to get with this, I just felt like I had to comment on the difference between how the American military is fueled and how the Iraqi military was. The line between the civilian population and the armed forces isn't as clear cut as in a country who's army consists of only volunteer professional soldiers.
No... I do.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->When IBC claims that Lancet has stuffed up, it goes on to show why. For example:
Their claims of extrapolation just dont fit the facts. They found 91 deaths from between January and June 2006, which extrapolated all the way up to 180,000 deaths. Thats about 1000 deaths per day. Current death reports pick about 100 deaths per day. Basically, the media and the government and everyone involved over there is either viciously imcompetent or covering it up, because its borderline impossible to miss an extra 900 deaths per day.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is like the definition of argument from incredulity. How many times do I have to ask you to find problems with their method (NOT their results)?
Not to mention, the study cites several other studies that show that passive surveillance (which the IBC and the Iraq government are doing) commonly underestimate deaths by a factor of ~10. I've mentioned this before and I haven't even seen you comment on it yet.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But it gets worse from then on. There is an old standard for estimating casualties which puts the amount of wounded for every person killed at 3 for every death. This means that not only do you have are huge swath of the Iraqi population exterminated without the media or the officials knowing, but you have 800,000 Iraqi's who were wounded who didn't seek medical help. This is on top of the deaths. It's not possible for half a million excess deaths to just hide away, its even less possible for a further 740,000 people to simply not seek medical help.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, so you're saying that a peer reviewed study is wrong because of some random rule of thumb that I've never seen before? Sounds solid to me...
Also, the hospitals don't seem to be a good place to go:
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/eveningnews/main2064668.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/...in2064668.shtml</a>
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And if they are seeking medical help, why are Iraqi hospitals only reporting 60,000 people over the last 2 years asking for medical help? Is it in their best interest to tell the Government "hey guys, we dont need more help or funding, we're handling fine" when masses of wounded Iraqi's are pouring through their doors daily. Or is there some kind of backyard medical craze going on in Iraq I dont know about? Despite the decayed state of their nation, do you really think the hospitals would just have failed to notice overwhelming numbers of violence victims like that?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/eveningnews/main2064668.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/...in2064668.shtml</a>
Again this really boils down to an argument from incredulity. You personally find it implausible that in a chaotic nation, we might receive numbers that are wrong, or that people won't go to hospitals because of the death squads. When are you going to actually critique their method and not the results? Do you understand how science works? Maybe I'm wrong, but as I understand it, to cast doubt on a study, you critique their method, or you repeat the same method and get different results. It's not about saying, "I personally find it implausible that this could be happening. So the study is wrong. Somehow."
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What's going on here? If its reasonable to extrapolate upwards as these researchers did,<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it is, unless you object to the field of statistics.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->where are those extra 500,000 death certificates coming from? We treat their word as reliable because they are relying on Iraqi's producing death certificates.... but there <b>aren't that many death certificates in the entire country by a factor of 10</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know where the 500k extra death certificates came from, but it just might be because of:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the morgue itself is believed to be controlled by the same Shiite militia blamed for many of the killings: the Mahdi Army, founded and led by anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to the CBS news article I linked.
Also, remember that many previous studies have shown that surveillance like this consistently underestimates casualties by a large factor. <-- YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THIS. WHY?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If you take a random sample of cars going into an empty car lot per hour, and decide from that that there must be 100 cars inside, but you find only 10 when you do a count inside, you cant talk about how your methodology was perfect - it aint. Its failed. Try again.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have yet to show me why the methodology is wrong.
And again, passive surveillance always underestimates casualties. It's nothing new.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It just gets worse and worse for the Lancet. Maybe one of these factors could be ignored individually, but all up it leads to one inevitable conclusion... there is simply far too much evidence against their figures being true for them to be treated with any credibility at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you serious? I'm going to object to Quantum Mechanics because I don't like the results of the theory. Would you believe me or call me crazy?
What evidence? A bunch of passive surveillance that <b>we already know underestimates casualties by a large factor</b>. Not to mention Bush's unbelievable hypocrisy in stating that the method is discredited while his own government spends millions a year training people to do the exact same thing.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm sorry, but there is a very painful life lesson to be learned here. <b>Scientists and researchers are just you like you and me</b>. They have biases, they make mistakes, they refuse to capitulate to evidence, and not even peer review can proof them from it. There may be more or less deaths in Iraq than we know, but Lancet's study doesnt help at all, because its clearly wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure that scientists make mistakes and have biases, BUT YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN ME A SINGLE ONE IN THIS STUDY. All you've done is objected to the results and made like 50 arguments from incredulity.
<!--sizeo:5--><span style="font-size:18pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->In your next post please find something wrong with their method. Not their results...<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->