Bush needs to clean up his mess

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:48:08 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:

If the Iraqi's can't stand up and fight this for themselves by January 19,
2009 then they aren't worth saving.

The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
this as a 'terrorist'. Think what happened to the French, at the hands
of their fellow countrymen who did collaborate with the Nazis of the
1940s, when they got their country back!

With over 250,000 Iraqi civilians dead it's small wonder that those with
any guts have decided to fight the oppressor.

Sort of like all those NATO countries from 1949 until 1989?

All which NATO countries?




Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

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

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

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

If you answered none, you'd be correct.

How many did the Germans execute?

If you answered, a hell of a lot more than none, you'd be correct.

Don't compare us to Nazis kid, it just belittles those who actually lived
through German occupation.

Think what happened to the French, at the hands
of their fellow countrymen who did collaborate with the Nazis of the
1940s, when they got their country back!

With over 250,000 Iraqi civilians dead it's small wonder that those with
any guts have decided to fight the oppressor.

Got any other numbers you'd like to pull out of your ass?

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

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


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


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

If you answered none, you'd be correct.

How many did the Germans execute?

If you answered, a hell of a lot more than none, you'd be correct.

Don't compare us to Nazis kid, it just belittles those who actually lived
through German occupation.

And you lived through it?

Most recent news on the subject:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle13637.htm


Think what happened to the French, at the hands
of their fellow countrymen who did collaborate with the Nazis of the
1940s, when they got their country back!

With over 250,000 Iraqi civilians dead it's small wonder that those with
any guts have decided to fight the oppressor.


Got any other numbers you'd like to pull out of your ass?

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


Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
just not worth keeping figures!

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

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

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

"Ricardo" wrote in message
. uk...




Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
just not worth keeping figures!

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

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

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

These statistics are about as plausible as these:
http://www.area51central.com/aliens/...ons/facts.html

And since I found this on the internet it must be true!

Jarg

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



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


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


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

If you answered none, you'd be correct.

How many did the Germans execute?

If you answered, a hell of a lot more than none, you'd be correct.

Don't compare us to Nazis kid, it just belittles those who actually lived
through German occupation.

And you lived through it?

So now you have to live through something to comment on it?

You're not living in Iraq.

Got any other numbers you'd like to pull out of your ass?

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


Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
just not worth keeping figures!

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

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

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

Just because you found it two years later doesn't make it recent news kid.

Ricardo wrote:

:Johnny Bravo wrote:
: On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo wrote:
:
:
:The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
:is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
:French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
:indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
:this as a 'terrorist'.
:
:
: So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
: reprisal?
:
: If you answered none, you'd be correct.
:
: How many did the Germans execute?
:
: If you answered, a hell of a lot more than none, you'd be correct.
:
: Don't compare us to Nazis kid, it just belittles those who actually lived
: through German occupation.
:
:And you lived through it?

Reading not your strong suit? Where id he say that?

:Most recent news on the subject:
:
:http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle13637.htm

That's nice. You'll notice that we arrest them and try them when we
catch them at it. Three, seven million, no big difference to you,
right?

:Think what happened to the French, at the hands
:of their fellow countrymen who did collaborate with the Nazis of the
:1940s, when they got their country back!
:
:With over 250,000 Iraqi civilians dead it's small wonder that those with
:any guts have decided to fight the oppressor.
:
: Got any other numbers you'd like to pull out of your ass?
:
: In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
: in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
: somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
: narrow it down further.
:
:Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
:just not worth keeping figures!

Oh, sorry, you're a European - you can't count past 3 so there's no
difference in the numbers to you.

:We're nearly two years on now. Try this:
:
:http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11674.htm

The same bull****, which even The Lancet says are unfounded and
preposterously large numbers.

How's your German?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

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

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

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

If you answered none, you'd be correct.

That has yet to be determined. At present the accusation stands
around 27, with three of those deaths being prosecuted and the
other 24 still under invstigation.

Plus there were the two prioners beaten to death in Bagram
prison in Afghanistan. Men convicted for contributing to those
murders have been fined, reduced in rank and returned to duty.
This stands in stark contrast to the vigorous prosecutions of
persons involved in lesser crimes at Abu Ghraib which shows
that the sentence a man recieves is more influenced by the
publicity surrounding the crime than by its severity.

We're a whole lot better than Nazis, but less than perfect and
if we forget that, we'll become a whole lot more like the
Nazis.

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

Since you are not familiar with statistics, let me explain
a bit here, though an actuary or an epidemiologist coudl
explain better.

The Lancet study used the methods of epidemiology, the
statistical study of illness and death to test the hypothesis
that mortality in Iraq had imporved after the invasion.

The study addressed overall mortality without regard to cause of
death. It was not an estimate of deaths from direct US action.

Some of the data were gathered by interviews with persons to
determine date of death of immediate family members. This
may lead to overstimates due to exagerration, a tendency for
people to remember such events as being more recent
than the really are, and multiple counting of deaths of persons
with close ties to two or more families.

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

The numbers 6,000 to 194,000 were not estimated total deaths.
They were an estimate of deaths in excess of the number of deaths
in a similar period before the invasion. Thus the conclusion, was
that the hypothesis was false, with better than 95% confidence.

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

It is important to keep in mind that it is not possible for statistics
to answer a question. Statistics can only tell us the probablity
that a given answer is correct.

A lot of people don't like that, but that's just tough ****.

--

FF

wrote in message
oups.com...

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

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

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

If you answered none, you'd be correct.

That has yet to be determined. At present the accusation stands
around 27, with three of those deaths being prosecuted and the
other 24 still under invstigation.

You are either being willfully ignorant to due to your idiology, or you're
having a reading comprehension problem there.

What you seem to over look is "according to policy". If those 27 were
'according to policy" there woudln't be _ANY_ investigation. Just buisness
as normal.

We're a whole lot better than Nazis, but less than perfect and
if we forget that, we'll become a whole lot more like the
Nazis.

And Canadian peace keepers in Aftrica, and UN peace keepers in africa, etc.
No one is claming the troops are perfect. Whet they are claming is that
there isn't an institutal sweep-it-under-the-rug behavior - unlike the UN.

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


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

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

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

If you answered none, you'd be correct.

That has yet to be determined.

"According to policy"

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

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

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

Since you are not familiar with statistics,

That's an unwarranted assumption on your part.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leadfoot wrote:

Have you ever worked at a job where you had to clean up someone else's mess?
Someone who was paid by the same people as you to do it themselves?

What do you think George Bush is doing when he says the next President will
have to finish Iraq?

If the Iraqi's can't stand up and fight this for themselves by January 19,
2009 then they aren't worth saving.

Just to clarify I can see some forces staying after Bush leaves office if
the Iraqi's have proven themselves such as close air support, SOF, trainers.
logistics and intelligence but not any regular infantry.








Bush has several reasons.

First of all, there is a perception that in times of war, people are
more likely to vote Republican.

Second of all, he knows that the mission cannot possibly be completed,
so Rove will have a hard time spinning the line that a Republican
President didn't lose a war.

Most of all, by leaving US forces in Iraq, Rove can blame the Democrats,
who are likely to have a President in 2008.

John Mullen