Miss GW Yet?

[RRKore]

All of it.  Not quibbling over the exact number.  You just latched onto a false number that has been floating around the internet for years.  But don't let the facts get in the way of internet propaganda.  

False number?  That what they're telling you on Fox News?

I didn't "latch on" to any years-old number - I got that approximate number from this peer-reviewed study published in October 2013:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001533

[RRKore]

she won't have to answer that question.   no one asks.  no one cares to dredge up the fact that she was just as in favor of this war as GWB was because why? 

no one cares.  that's why.  all anyone cares about is gay marriage, abortion, and the liberal agenda.  they only PRETEND to care about the war in Iraq. 

if they actually did care about the war in Iraq and innocent Iraqi people dying they would be incensed at Clinton, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, etc and all of those people would be on the receiving end of the same venom that GWB is getting in this thread.  but no one says a word. 

look at your response.  it says it all.  you suspect Cheney and the Republicans were lying.  but you're JUST NOT SURE IF HILLARY WAS MISLED OR NOT.  and misled by who?  Republicans?  that's fucking bullshit.  you've been conditioned to think like that by the liberal media.     

all of the intelligence committees were bipartisan. if she had intelligence it came from committees of Republicans and Democrats.   

you're letting her off easy because she's a liberal.  period.  you're blatantly picking and choosing facts based upon convenience.  period.

these are the things that really get me pist off.  I can accept the belief that this was a bullshit war and that we did it for whatever nefarious reason we did it for.  i can honestly accept that. 

but you don't get to pick and choose who you want to demonize based on how you vote.  you should only be demonizing people based on all of the facts that we know. 

Dude, you're off-base here.  I'm no Hillary fan.  She may have been lying I just don't think it's reasonable to think she's as complicit in lying America into war as Cheney and the other folks who were close to GWB (because she was not the president at the time.)

[Dos Equis]

False number?  That what they're telling you on Fox News?

I didn't "latch on" to any years-old number - I got that approximate number from this peer-reviewed study published in October 2013:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001533

I was telling someone the other day that the internet is the greatest invention of my lifetime, but that it's also dangerous, because any idiot can call themselves an "expert."  This really proves my point. 

Yes, they surveyed a relative handful of households and projected numbers.  This isn't a reliable number.  They did not measure true collateral damage caused by American troops. 

But you've shown several times that you don't let the facts get in the way of whatever liberal lackey viewpoint you have. 

[RRKore]

I was telling someone the other day that the internet is the greatest invention of my lifetime, but that it's also dangerous, because any idiot can call themselves an "expert."  This really proves my point. 

Yes, they surveyed a relative handful of households and projected numbers.  This isn't a reliable number.  They did not measure true collateral damage caused by American troops. 

But you've shown several times that you don't let the facts get in the way of whatever liberal lackey viewpoint you have. 

Any idiot can claim to be an expert?  LOL. It's a peer-reviewed scientific study, ya flat-earther.

Tell me, are the folks at MIT idiots in your book, too?  Because here's an MIT article concerning the human cost of the shenanigans in Iraq that looks at quite a few different studies: http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/

Double lol at your statement that the study in question wasn't "reliable".  It may have gone over your head (esp. if you've never taken a statistics course) but the study contains confidence interval info that speaks to the "reliability" of the results.  (In other words, the results are presented as a range of values with statistically derived info about how likely the actual results are at a given place within that range.)

Triple lol at you complaining that I ignore "facts".  What facts have you presented here?  Seems to me that you've just presented your opinion that the results of a recent scientific study are years old and false and then made some vague comment that the numbers were debunked at one time (near the Niagra Falls area, no doubt) so that's what you believe.

As a older religious conservative, it does not surprise me that you are generally mistrustful and even fearful about the many subjects about which you are ignorant.  I still find it a little bit sad you'd often rather cling to your beliefs instead of making an effort to learn something new while engaging neglected critical thinking skills, though.

I have to add that I am glad that, due to science, folks like you represent an ever-receding pocket of ignorance which gets smaller and smaller as time goes on. (Smaller because scientific knowledge is growing while you ignorant folks are dying off.)

[Dos Equis]

Any idiot can claim to be an expert?  LOL. It's a peer-reviewed scientific study, ya flat-earther.

Tell me, are the folks at MIT idiots in your book, too?  Because here's an MIT article concerning the human cost of the shenanigans in Iraq that looks at quite a few different studies: http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/

Double lol at your statement that the study in question wasn't "reliable".  It may have gone over your head (esp. if you've never taken a statistics course) but the study contains confidence interval info that speaks to the "reliability" of the results.  (In other words, the results are presented as a range of values with statistically derived info about how likely the actual results are at a given place within that range.)

Triple lol at you complaining that I ignore "facts".  What facts have you presented here?  Seems to me that you've just presented your opinion that the results of a recent scientific study are years old and false and then made some vague comment that the numbers were debunked at one time (near the Niagra Falls area, no doubt) so that's what you believe.

As a older religious conservative, it does not surprise me that you are generally mistrustful and even fearful about the many subjects about which you are ignorant.  I still find it a little bit sad you'd often rather cling to your beliefs instead of making an effort to learn something new while engaging neglected critical thinking skills, though.

I have to add that I am glad that, due to science, folks like you represent an ever-receding pocket of ignorance which gets smaller and smaller as time goes on. (Smaller because scientific knowledge is growing while you ignorant folks are dying off.)

I try not assign labels to people on here, but good Lord you are a simpleton.  I doubt you read the link you provided.  None of them support your assertion that Americans killed 500,000 Iraqis.  It's sad that simpletons like you, who are also partisan lackeys, have an impact on our national politics.  It is simpletons like you that give us Obama x 2.  I hope you're proud of yourself. 

[RRKore]

I try not assign labels to people on here, but good Lord you are a simpleton.  I doubt you read the link you provided.  None of them support your assertion that Americans killed 500,000 Iraqis.  It's sad that simpletons like you, who are also partisan lackeys, have an impact on our national politics.  It is simpletons like you that give us Obama x 2.  I hope you're proud of yourself. 

"The link.." but "None of them"?  Speaking of not reading, it looks like you didn't even read your own post.  Past your bedtime or what?

I see a lot of insults but no facts from you.  Why is that? 

BTW, taking a step back, it's pretty pathetic that this whole song and dance is because you'd like to avoid discussing how immoral it is for the USA to be responsible for the needless deaths of a huge number of Iraqi people. 

That kind of thing seems so much worse when the person doing it is as old as you are.  Kind of sick, really.

[24KT]

well I think I'm possibly one of the few that called it correctly as BS from the beginning. 

[OzmO]

False number?  That what they're telling you on Fox News?

I didn't "latch on" to any years-old number - I got that approximate number from this peer-reviewed study published in October 2013:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001533

Did I read that right?   They are 95% certain that the excess deaths were between 48,000 and 700,000?

[Soul Crusher]

Did I read that right?   They are 95% certain that the excess deaths were between 48,000 and 700,000?

And how many were sectarian deaths among warring tribes - terrorists blowing up mosques etc?  A lot!

The numbers are always bogus from these groups and never account for deaths among the thugs each other. 

[OzmO]

How do I know the number is wrong?  For the same reason I know we didn't kill three million people.  Doesn't make any dang sense.  And I read an analysis a long time ago debunking that 500,000 number.  Pretty sure it has been posted on the board.  

No, I didn't count any bodies.

I wasn't commenting on whether the war was right or wrong (although you already know my views on the war), just pointing out the number is BS.

And no, North Korea isn't the same.  We beat that horse to death.

So you are just using bias opinion rather than doing any real research.  I see.  

In regards from "rescuing a people from an evil dictator"  north Korea a real reason, Iraq was a oil opportunity.  

[OzmO]

And how many were sectarian deaths among warring tribes - terrorists blowing up mosques etc?  A lot!

The numbers are always bogus from these groups and never account for deaths among the thugs each other. 

You'd actually have to research it to know how the study was done.  Otherwise you are just assuming. 

[RRKore]

Did I read that right?   They are 95% certain that the excess deaths were between 48,000 and 700,000?

Yes!  That's right.  

It's a huge spread but it makes sense --- When you're trying to assess how many folks have died in a place that's been attacked militarily for 8 to 10 years, it's difficult to know if the people missing were killed or if they just got the fuck out of there.

[OzmO]

Yes!  That's right.  

It's a huge spread but it makes sense --- When you're trying to assess how many folks have died in a place that's been attacked militarily for 8 to 10 years, it's difficult to know if the people missing were killed or if they just got the fuck out of there.

Then how is it a very accurate study?   How can anyone difinitiy say the number was 500k?

[bears]

Dude, you're off-base here.  I'm no Hillary fan.  She may have been lying I just don't think it's reasonable to think she's as complicit in lying America into war as Cheney and the other folks who were close to GWB (because she was not the president at the time.)

you're guessing.  and your guess errs in favor of the Democrats in office at that time.  even though everything she said proves that she believed the right thing to do was invade Iraq.  you believe in conspiracy theories.....as long as it doesn't shine a bad light on anyone in the Democratic machine. 

that's what i'm talking about when I say convenient beliefs.

I can accept some conspiracy theories.  I cant accept people blatantly putting blinders on because they've chosen up sides and refuse to look at anything objectively.

[RRKore]

Then how is it a very accurate study?   How can anyone difinitiy say the number was 500k?

Ah shit, I just wrote a long response to this but accidentally lost what I wrote by double-clicking in the preview pane.

Anyway, depends what you mean by an "accurate study".  The study is accurate in that it's very upfront about how sure (or not) one can be about its results.

No one can definitively say what the number (of Iraqi deaths attributable to the USA's invasion of Iraq) is and that's why the study's authors present its results as "460,000 deaths with a 95% confidence (or uncertainty) interval of a (whopping) 48,000 - 751,000 deaths".

(It's also important, btw, to understand what the study is talking about when it says "attributable" but they pretty clearly lay that out.)

So what's the value of this study?  Here's the money paragraph (for me):

What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings provide the most up-to-date estimates of the death toll of the Iraq war and subsequent conflict. However, given the difficult circumstances, the estimates are associated with substantial uncertainties. The researchers extrapolated from a small representative sample of households to estimate Iraq's national death toll. In addition, respondents were asked to recall events that occurred up to ten years prior, which can lead to inaccuracies. The researchers also had to rely on outdated census data (the last complete population census in Iraq dates back to 1987) for their overall population figures. Thus, to accompany their estimate of 460,000 excess deaths from March 2003 to mid-2011, the authors used statistical methods to determine the likely range of the true estimate. Based on the statistical methods, the researchers are 95% confident that the true number of excess deaths lies between 48,000 and 751,000—a large range. More than two years past the end of the period covered in this study, the conflict in Iraq is far from over and continues to cost lives at alarming rates. As discussed in an accompanying Perspective by Salman Rawaf, violence and lawlessness continue to the present day. In addition, post-war Iraq has limited capacity to re-establish and maintain its battered public health and safety infrastructure.

So while it seems that any study for the specific purpose of determining the actual number of Iraqi deaths attributable to the USA's invasion of Iraq will be of only limited value, the study IS valuable when trying to find the answer to the more important question, "Did the USA's invasion of Iraq destroy the lives of a huge number of Iraqi people?"

The answer, of course, is "Hell yes!"... and no American should be proud of that.

[RRKore]

you're guessing.  and your guess errs in favor of the Democrats in office at that time.  even though everything she said proves that she believed the right thing to do was invade Iraq.  you believe in conspiracy theories.....as long as it doesn't shine a bad light on anyone in the Democratic machine. 

that's what i'm talking about when I say convenient beliefs.

I can accept some conspiracy theories.  I cant accept people blatantly putting blinders on because they've chosen up sides and refuse to look at anything objectively.

We're both guessing, aren't we?  I'm just saying that the president and his bro's could reasonably be expected to be more likely to know the real deal than Hillary.  Do you not agree with that?

[Option D]

I don't miss GW, but compared to obama, there is no doubt that GW was more of a leader and inspired more fear and respect than what we have now. 

We are laughed at, disrespected, and not taken at all erious with Obama as POTUS.   As hard as it is to believe, obama has cheapened and degraded the office of POTUS so badly that even many nations must secretely wish for GWB to be back, even ifthey didnt like him.   

We went from bad to unthinkable in a very short period of time.   

Lol

[RRKore]

And how many were sectarian deaths among warring tribes - terrorists blowing up mosques etc?  A lot!

The numbers are always bogus from these groups and never account for deaths among the thugs each other. 

The numbers themselves aren't bogus as long as the authors of the studies clearly define what the numbers represent.

What is pretty much bogus is when other groups take the results and throw them around without bothering to explain what they really represent.  

(You can sort of understand why both sides would do this, though, most readers/viewers do not have the patience to sit through an explanation of what a "confidence interval" is.)

[Soul Crusher]

Lol

How correct I was.   

Obama is a universally mocked laughing stock and joke.  He is nothing but a piñata and fodder for late night comics.  F him. 

[blacken700]

How correct I was.   

Obama is a universally mocked laughing stock and joke.  He is nothing but a piñata and fodder for late night comics.  F him. 

and what are you on this board 

[blacken700]

[bears]

We're both guessing, aren't we?  I'm just saying that the president and his bro's could reasonably be expected to be more likely to know the real deal than Hillary.  Do you not agree with that?

NO.  I do not agree that there was a conspiracy going on with ONLY republicans.  that's what you're trying to make yourself believe.  and its completely silly.

 I can accept the fact that there was a conspiracy to invade Iraq for nefarious reasons but all of the intelligence that was gathered were headed up by BIPARTISAN committees.  if there was a conspiracy, leaders from both sides of the aisle were involved.  if you don't, believe that, you quite simply watch too many movies.  

also I do find it peculiar how liberals on here are the consummate conspiracy theorists from 2000-2008.  and then all of their conspiracy theories end at 2008.  I wonder why. 

[Dos Equis]

"The link.." but "None of them"?  Speaking of not reading, it looks like you didn't even read your own post.  Past your bedtime or what?

I see a lot of insults but no facts from you.  Why is that? 

BTW, taking a step back, it's pretty pathetic that this whole song and dance is because you'd like to avoid discussing how immoral it is for the USA to be responsible for the needless deaths of a huge number of Iraqi people. 

That kind of thing seems so much worse when the person doing it is as old as you are.  Kind of sick, really.

lol.  You posted two links Simpleton Simon.   

[Dos Equis]

Did I read that right?   They are 95% certain that the excess deaths were between 48,000 and 700,000?

Yes, you read it right.  And even that was based on the interview of a relative handful of people.  It wasn't a body count.  Completely unreliable. 

[Dos Equis]

So you are just using bias opinion rather than doing any real research.  I see.  

In regards from "rescuing a people from an evil dictator"  north Korea a real reason, Iraq was a oil opportunity.  

A biased opinion?  No.  Just an opinion.  And no, I'm not about to do any "real research," unless you're going to pay me?   

We didn't just rescue people from an "evil dictator."  Much more involved than that.  But not going rehash that discussion. 

I will say if it was an "oil opportunity," that certainly was a mission fail, no?