NationStates Jolt Archive

Earlier this week, on Bill Bennett's radio show, John McCain claimed that “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today." (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/27/ware-mccain-iraq/) He also suggested that General Petraeus goes out into Baghdad in an unarmored Humvee, a statement which was quickly rebutted .

Well, he was in Baghdad today, and he took a stroll through a Baghdad market. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/01/mccain-iraq-stroll/) And he's right--Americans can stroll through parts of Baghdad--as long as they're accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” And McCain was wearing a bulletproof vest as well. I wonder why he didn't head for those safe neighborhoods on his own, see how the situation on the ground really is?

Gotta love that straight talk.

Yeah. That's about standard politician, really. Nothing unique about it.

Yeah. That's about standard politician, really. Nothing unique about it.
I don't blame him for surrounding himself with the firepower--I'd certainly like the same if I were walking through Baghdad. But then again, I'm not the kind of person who would tell a national tv audience that things are going swimmingly either.

I don't blame him for surrounding himself with the firepower--I'd certainly like the same if I were walking through Baghdad. But then again, I'm not the kind of person who would tell a national tv audience that things are going swimmingly either.

If he wants to court the neocons maybe he should just go through the streets by himself toting a machine gun.

Nah. Real neocons wouldn't be caught dead with an actual machine gun in a war zone. That's beneath them. They're too valuable to be put in harm's way--they're the planners, you know. So they have to stay back where it's safe and keep coming up with plans so they can send the soldiers out there to execute their brilliant strategies. And then cut their benefits when they come back fucked up beyond repair.

Good point. What he should do is do what he did, except not be there. Just his escort.

If he wants to court the neocons maybe he should just go through the streets by himself toting a machine gun.

Nah. Real neocons wouldn't be caught dead with an actual machine gun in a war zone. That's beneath them. They're too valuable to be put in harm's way--they're the planners, you know. So they have to stay back where it's safe and keep coming up with plans so they can send the soldiers out there to execute their brilliant strategies. And then cut their benefits when they come back fucked up beyond repair.

Good point. What he should do is do what he did, except not be there. Just his escort.

Via satellite hookup. ;)

He's a pol, what do you expect?

Nah. Real neocons wouldn't be caught dead with an actual machine gun in a war zone. That's beneath them. They're too valuable to be put in harm's way--they're the planners, you know. So they have to stay back where it's safe and keep coming up with plans so they can send the soldiers out there to execute their brilliant strategies. And then cut their benefits when they come back fucked up beyond repair.

Ah, so I'm not a real neocon, because I've been there twice, carrying a bolt action rifle in a war zone...

Ah, so I'm not a real neocon, because I've been there twice, carrying a bolt action rifle in a war zone...

You're not a neocon politician.

In other words, you are not a pussy.

Ah, so I'm not a real neocon, because I've been there twice, carrying a bolt action rifle in a war zone...

If indeed you have been there in that situation, then you are not a neocon in the mold of William Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Dinesh D'Souza or Ann Coulter.

But then again, I'm not the kind of person who would tell a national tv audience that things are going swimmingly either.

'Course not. Now, if you were a Bushevik...

;)

Yeah. That's about standard politician, really. Nothing unique about it.

McCain is more horseshit than the standard politician due to trying to play to everyone while simultaneously brown-nosing the Bush Administration.

McCain is more horseshit than the standard politician due to trying to play to everyone while simultaneously brown-nosing the Bush Administration.

And the report from The Hill that he nearly switched parties (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html) in 2001 probably won't help with the base either. He's in free-fall right now, and might not even make the primaries.

He's in free-fall right now, and might not even make the primaries.

Hooray! :)

But...but he's a war hero!

Ah, so I'm not a real neocon, because I've been there twice, carrying a bolt action rifle in a war zone...

Not in the sense that these others are "real neocons." But you certainly are "neocon" in the sense that you most likely got a thrill out of killing Muslims.

Though I'm wondering why you care so much about being a "real neocon." Did someone question your neocon-ness lately?

Earlier this week, on Bill Bennett's radio show, John McCain claimed that “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today." (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/27/ware-mccain-iraq/) He also suggested that General Petraeus goes out into Baghdad in an unarmored Humvee, a statement which was quickly rebutted .

Well, he was in Baghdad today, and he took a stroll through a Baghdad market. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/01/mccain-iraq-stroll/) And he's right--Americans can stroll through parts of Baghdad--as long as they're accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” And McCain was wearing a bulletproof vest as well. I wonder why he didn't head for those safe neighborhoods on his own, see how the situation on the ground really is?

Gotta love that straight talk.

Yeah I don't know what happened to McCain but he went from being a war hero in Vietnam to another useless beureaucrat.

And the report from The Hill that he nearly switched parties (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html) in 2001 probably won't help with the base either. He's in free-fall right now, and might not even make the primaries.McCain never had the neocon base. They considered him a traitor for not kissing ass and touting party-line the last time, as well as McCain-Feingold, which just makes them froth.

And now his sucking up to Bush (as well as the flip-flop on torture) has lost any support from Dems as well. That horse ain't got no legs to run with, as they say.

100 Soldiers, 3 Blackhawks and 2 Apache Gunships just to give McCain a phot op.
One wonders how many Iraqis died during McCain's stroll because there weren't the US troops out on patrol in their areas.

One wonders how many Iraqis died during McCain's stroll because there weren't the US troops out on patrol in their areas.

Now if only we could trade said Iraqi civilian lives for US politicians lives. The US would come of even better for it I think.

What is he doing in Iraq? Shouldn't he be in the senate, you know, doing his job?

Now if only we could trade said Iraqi civilian lives for US politicians lives. The US would come of even better for it I think.

:D

If he wants to court the neocons maybe he should just go through the streets by himself toting a machine gun.

I am imagining the photoshop now, 'Stay the Course, Bitches!' with a gatling gun.

I am imagining the photoshop now, 'Stay the Course, Bitches!' with a gatling gun.

I was thinking shopping his face onto Leonidas' from the 300 poster :p

I am imagining the photoshop now, 'Stay the Course, Bitches!' with a gatling gun.

xD

What is he doing in Iraq? Shouldn't he be in the senate, you know, doing his job?

What is Pelosi doing in Syria? Shouldn't she be in the House, you know, doing her job?

What is Pelosi doing in Syria? Shouldn't she be in the House, you know, doing her job?

She has a legit reason to be there. Trying to bridge gaps, while McCain is doing photo ops and press meetings for his presidential bid. A little bit of a difference ;)

She has a legit reason to be there. Trying to bridge gaps, while McCain is doing photo ops and press meetings for his presidential bid. A little bit of a difference ;)

Funny, she has no standing as the foreign policy representative of the US.

Funny, she has no standing as the foreign policy representative of the US.

But no one in the Bush admin will meet with them as they say its a terrorist state. At least she is trying to make nice. You know, if you kick a dog, it'll bite you, but if you give it a bone, it'll be your best friend. :)

I was thinking shopping his face onto Leonidas' from the 300 poster :p

Do it. Do it now!

What is Pelosi doing in Syria? Shouldn't she be in the House, you know, doing her job?

Congress isn't in session right now, I believe. As far as what she's doing in Syria, you might ask Republican Rep. Hobson of Ohio. He's on the same trip. Maybe they got the same travel agent that Republican Reps. Aderholt and Wolf got.

But no one in the Bush admin will meet with them as they say its a terrorist state. At least she is trying to make nice. You know, if you kick a dog, it'll bite you, but if you give it a bone, it'll be your best friend. :)

Let's make nice with Hitler then, shall we? We all know where that got Chamberlain.

Congress isn't in session right now, I believe. As far as what she's doing in Syria, you might ask Republican Rep. Hobson of Ohio. He's on the same trip. Maybe they got the same travel agent that Republican Reps. Aderholt and Wolf got.

They are all doing this for political grandstanding. It's complete bullshit, and furthers nothing, and you know it.

Let's make nice with Hitler then, shall we? We all know where that got Chamberlain.

Godwin!! You get a cookie!

You know, not every regime in the world that the US declares as bad is comparable to the Nazis. How about something like, if we would have made nice with Saddam, then we wouldn't have a problem with Iran right now? :)

Let's make nice with Hitler then, shall we? We all know where that got Chamberlain.

So a tiny country in the middle east with practically no military to speak of is like the strongest combined economic and military power of the 1930s? What's wrong with this comparison, other than the sheer stupidity of it?

Godwin!! You get a cookie!

You know, not every regime in the world that the US declares as bad is comparable to the Nazis. How about something like, if we would have made nice with Saddam, then we wouldn't have a problem with Iran right now? :)

How about we accede to the basic demand of Syria and Iran -

that we take all the Jews (by force if necessary) out of Israel, and transplant them (by force if necessary) into Europe.

If necessary, push them into the sea.

How about that?

Not a lot of "middle ground" there, eh?

Let's make nice with Hitler then, shall we? We all know where that got Chamberlain.

Kind of like making nice and supplying weapons to bin Laden during the Cold War?

Or supporting Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War?

Or continuing to support the shithole that I hear some people refer to as "Saudi Arabia"?

Let's make nice with Hitler then, shall we? We all know where that got Chamberlain.

Seriously, DK, does someone give you a dollar or something every time you make a comparison to Chamberlain?

So a tiny country in the middle east with practically no military to speak of is like the strongest combined economic and military power of the 1930s? What's wrong with this comparison, other than the sheer stupidity of it?

The Godwin-y goodness.

Kind of like making nice and supplying weapons to bin Laden during the Cold War?

Or supporting Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War?

Or continuing to support the shithole that I hear some people refer to as "Saudi Arabia"?

And we all recognize those were mistakes, right?

How about we accede to the basic demand of Syria and Iran -

that we take all the Jews (by force if necessary) out of Israel, and transplant them (by force if necessary) into Europe.

If necessary, push them into the sea.

How about that?

Not a lot of "middle ground" there, eh?

Or how about we try to heals deep wounds by talking first? If they don't like that idea, then so be it. At least we can say we tried. But hell, just going this route of isolating everyone so that there will never be a dream of peace for anyone in the middle east. But I am sure that's what warmongers such as yourself would desire, no?

If we can show that we are willing to talk and partake in simple diplomacy, that leads us one step closer to ensuring peace for the people in that region. Think with your head instead of your ass for once, pal.

Seriously, DK, does someone give you a dollar or something every time you make a comparison to Chamberlain?

Seriously, do you get a nickel every time you call me something I'm not?

So a tiny country in the middle east with practically no military to speak of is like the strongest combined economic and military power of the 1930s? What's wrong with this comparison, other than the sheer stupidity of it?

Syria has no military to speak of?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You know, I never knew you could be that ignorant, Nazz. I had higher expectations of you.

Seriously, do you get a nickel every time you call me something I'm not?

Yes, but I'm yet to earn anything.

Or how about we try to heals deep wounds by talking first? If they don't like that idea, then so be it. At least we can say we tried. But hell, just going this route of isolating everyone so that there will never be a dream of peace for anyone in the middle east. But I am sure that's what warmongers such as yourself would desire, no?

If we can show that we are willing to talk and partake in simple diplomacy, that leads us one step closer to ensuring peace for the people in that region. Think with your head instead of your ass for once, pal.

I'm not a warmonger. Do you honestly think that Hitler could have been stopped with negotiation? Slowed, perhaps. But never stopped.

They have a goal that we can't accede to. Ever.

Tell me a way around that one when you get your head out of your ass.

Seriously, DK, does someone give you a dollar or something every time you make a comparison to Chamberlain?

DK- "Well, if I had a dollar for every time I could Godwin and use chamberlain, well I'd be a rich man"

Unsuspecting bastard that takes the bait, and bets him that he can't do it- 'You're on! No one can be that silly and use Chamberlain and Nazis in every argument ever, especially when referring to Muslims."

And we all recognize those were mistakes, right?

Yes, but one would imagine we might recognize them as mistakes and then, perhaps, actually learn something from them.

They have a goal that we can't accede to. Ever.

While you're looking into the future could you get me next weeks lottery numbers?

DK- "Well, if I had a dollar for every time I could Godwin and use chamberlain, well I'd be a rich man"

Unsuspecting bastard that takes the bait, and bets him that he can't do it- 'You're on! No one can be that silly and use Chamberlain and Nazis in every argument ever, especially when referring to Muslims."

Oh, so no one in history ever Godwins a thread.

Oh, so no one on the Internet ever thinks Chamberlain was stupid...

Please, go on with your illogical absurdity...

I'm not a warmonger. Do you honestly think that Hitler could have been stopped with negotiation? Slowed, perhaps. But never stopped.

They have a goal that we can't accede to. Ever.

Tell me a way around that one when you get your head out of your ass.

Well, what's one thing that we have, that they don't?

Money.. Can we not use that to our advantage? I'm sure letting them taste the luxuries of the West, in exchange for giving Israel peace would be a fair trade.

Syria has no military to speak of?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You know, I never knew you could be that ignorant, Nazz. I had higher expectations of you.

Ignorant, huh? At its height, the German war machine had control of most of Europe and large swathes of Africa and eastern Asia. Syria today could potentially invade and hold what? Lebanon? Maybe they could double the size of their country at best. So yes, comparatively speaking, Syria has no military to speak of.

Oh, so no one in history ever Godwins a thread.

Oh, so no one on the Internet ever thinks Chamberlain was stupid...

Please, go on with your illogical absurdity...

Everyone will at some point Godwin a thread. What matters is that they Godwin appropriately.

Plenty of people acknowledge that Chamberlain was an idiot for what he did. Repeated unfound comparisons between Chamberlain and any random situation related to Muslims is not an appropriate comparison.

Illogical absurdity is the meat and potatoes of NSG.

Oh, so no one in history ever Godwins a thread.

Oh, so no one on the Internet ever thinks Chamberlain was stupid...

Please, go on with your illogical absurdity...


SO every nation in the middle east wants to wipe Israel off the map?

So you don't use the Godwin in every thread you post in?

So you aren't really an Islamophobic bigot?

So you aren't really DK?


Please, go on with illogical absurdity.

Well, what's one thing that we have, that they don't?

Money.. Can we not use that to our advantage? I'm sure letting them taste the luxuries of the West, in exchange for giving Israel peace would be a fair trade.

No, that wouldn't work. It would be like continuing to feed the addiction of a crack addict. Eventually you'd have to deal with them, one way or another.

Do it. Do it now!

As skilled as a shopper I am, I no longer have the program :(

No, that wouldn't work. It would be like continuing to feed the addiction of a crack addict. Eventually you'd have to deal with them, one way or another.

Money can do wonders to change a society when you use it the right way.

Money can do wonders to change a society when you use it the right way.

Something tells me you think you can talk them out of destroying Israel and killing Jews.

It's simply not possible.

Something tells me you think you can talk them out of destroying Israel and killing Jews.

It's simply not possible.


And before Jimmy Carter was president, who would of thought that Egypt and Israel would sign peace treaties?

Sometimes what we think is impossible is really possible, but our judgment is clouded by preset prejudices against one side.

Something tells me you think you can talk them out of destroying Israel and killing Jews.

It's simply not possible.

*shrug* There was a time when Christianity was all over the "Let's persecute and kill the Jews" platform. Most of the sane ones got over it. So will the Muslims.

*shrug* There was a time when Christianity was all over the "Let's persecute and kill the Jews" platform. Most of the sane ones got over it. So will the Muslims.

Took hundreds of years, eh?

Took hundreds of years, eh?

Over a thousand actually.

As skilled as a shopper I am, I no longer have the program :(

:(

From what I've heard, McCain stated that he could theoretically walk around Baghdad without protection and only face a minimal risk of injury. This is a veracious statement; since the well-executed troop surge, violence in Baghdad has vastly decreased. However, McCain is not stupid; he opted to utilize the protection which he had at hand rather than irrationally allow it to stand idle. Consider the following example. Someone points a gun at your chest and tells you that he will pull the trigger, stating that there is a 1% chance of a successful fire. Now, there is a 99% chance that you won't be harmed at all. But if you were given the choice to wear body armor, would you do it? Of course; you'd be an idiot not to. A 100% chance of staying alive is better than a 99% chance. I don't understand how people can criticize McCain for not being a complete retard; it boggles the mind.

From what I've heard, McCain stated that he could theoretically walk around Baghdad without protection and only face a minimal risk of injury. This is a veracious statement; since the well-executed troop surge, violence in Baghdad has vastly decreased. However, McCain is not stupid; he opted to utilize the protection which he had at hand rather than irrationally allow it to stand idle. Consider the following example. Someone points a gun at your chest and tells you that he will pull the trigger, stating that there is a 1% chance of a successful fire. Now, there is a 99% chance that you won't be harmed at all. But if you were given the choice to wear body armor, would you do it? Of course; you'd be an idiot not to. A 100% chance of staying alive is better than a 99% chance. I don't understand how people can criticize McCain for not being a complete retard; it boggles the mind.

Are you saying that Mc Cain had a bullet proof vest, 100 American soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships 'at hand'?

Are you saying that Mc Cain had a bullet proof vest, 100 American soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships 'at hand'?

Yes, that would be what the media claimed. From the reports I have read, he was protected by all which you have mentioned. How can he be protected by something that he doesn't have?

You created a nuclear religious extremist white European colony in the middle of their land and you think that does not upset them?

How happy would you be if random religious fanatics moved into your house and claimed they had the right to slaughter your kind and enslave you because God told them to.

Look at Palestine, Iraq, etc.

Is it any surprise they dont like you? Exactly how do the Neocons perceive themselves as liberators?

Unless freedom has come to mean "puppet dictatorship" now a days and nobody told me about it. Do you really think the occupied people of Iraq and Afghanistan have anything to be gratefull about or any reason not to hate you with all their souls?

Mubarak, Musharraf, Hussein, the Taliban, were all American inventions to control the regions. It does not matter how bad you are as long as you play along with the states, do you think the people that live in those countries not notice this?

Even Iran is a western invention, do look up Mohammed Reza Pahlavi or the Sha, Itll give a bright glimpse of how "western freedom" turned a parlamentary democracy into well, what it is now, Its biggest sin being saying "enough is enough" and reaching for real freedom.

The neocons are blind and wrong in the head if they think they have any sort of justice or righteous cause.

In this era in which annihilating populations (see the Native Americans, etc) is no longer feasible, military power means nothing. You can destroy their armies but you can never truly win.

The end result of the stream of madness and idiocy is a police state.

Wanna talk about Hitler? Bush has done a lot more to get rid of freedom and equality, and well America, than Osama ever could. Unrequited wars based on flimsy excuses and lies that dont hold up and have been shown to be so time and again.

Its not the Arabs who are a danger to the world, Its the Neocons.

And America. And with all the things its supposed to stand for, its truly a shame.

John McCain's new theme song (http://www.monty-pythons.com/audio/songs/robinran.wav) :D

Yes, that would be what the media claimed. From the reports I have read, he was protected by all which you have mentioned. How can he be protected by something that he doesn't have?

that's not what "at hand" means. At hand means utilizing the materials and equipment that was there already.

At hand does NOT mean making special arrangements to make sure they are there. If those gunships, helecopters, soldiers, and bullet proof vest just happened to be in that area not doing anything else, one can say he utilized the equipment "at hand".

If someone made arrangement to ensure that they WOULD be there for McCain's visit, it is in no way "at hand".

I suspect the second.

I suspect the second.

The military offered him a substantial security detail. He intelligently accepted the offer. End of story. All this proves is that McCain is a reasonable man.

Ignorant, huh? At its height, the German war machine had control of most of Europe and large swathes of Africa and eastern Asia. Syria today could potentially invade and hold what? Lebanon? Maybe they could double the size of their country at best. So yes, comparatively speaking, Syria has no military to speak of.

Not to mention Israel could make mince meat out of them if they so chose to. Anyone been keeping the score, what is it now 4-0 Israel? Yeah, Syria is so like Nazi Germany :rolleyes:

The military offered him a substantial security detail. He intelligently accepted the offer. End of story. All this proves is that McCain is a reasonable man.


But he was trying to prove how safe it was for the common american to walk down the streets of Baghdad. So why did he waste tax payer money with thee helicopters and all that?

Let's make nice with Hitler then, shall we? We all know where that got Chamberlain.

Godwin.

Earlier this week, on Bill Bennett's radio show, John McCain claimed that “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today." (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/27/ware-mccain-iraq/) He also suggested that General Petraeus goes out into Baghdad in an unarmored Humvee, a statement which was quickly rebutted .

Well, he was in Baghdad today, and he took a stroll through a Baghdad market. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/01/mccain-iraq-stroll/) And he's right--Americans can stroll through parts of Baghdad--as long as they're accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” And McCain was wearing a bulletproof vest as well. I wonder why he didn't head for those safe neighborhoods on his own, see how the situation on the ground really is?

Gotta love that straight talk.

Lolz.

Lolz.

You should honestly answer with more than lols ;)

If you were to walk through Baghdad, would you rather do it with a bulletproof vest and a hundred bodyguards, or without?

If you were to walk through Baghdad, would you rather do it with a bulletproof vest and a hundred bodyguards, or without?

But if I chose to walk through the streets of Bagdad with a bulletproof vest and a hundred bodyguards, I wouldn't blather on about how safe it was. If I really wanted to make a point about safety, I would take that walk without any of those things. McCain is obviously not as convinced in the safety of Bagdad streets as he would lead us to believe. It would be like walking around in a Haz Mat suit on top of a nucklear waste disposal site and telling people "You know, the radiation levels are so low that you could walk over this place just like you would walk to work!"

I'm not a warmonger.

Then why are you always the first to demand military action, with a good helping of genocide when possible?

But he was trying to prove how safe it was for the common american to walk down the streets of Baghdad.

Just because something isn't particularly dangerous doesn't mean you should do it. I'm sure that San Francisco is a safe city. However, if I were Bush, I certainly wouldn't go strolling through a fanatically liberal city without a significant bodyguard detail. The same applies to McCain. For such important people, any chance of violent death is too big a chance.

Just because something isn't particularly dangerous doesn't mean you should do it. I'm sure that San Francisco is a safe city. However, if I were Bush, I certainly wouldn't go strolling through a fanatically liberal city without a significant bodyguard detail. The same applies to McCain. For such important people, any chance of violent death is too big a chance.

You're not understanding the inherant dishonesty of this. We're not saying it was a bad thing for him to walk through bagdad under heavy guard. We're saying it was a bad thing for him to do that and then use it as a photo op to show just how safe Bagdad is.

But...but he's a war hero!


Yeah, we thought Kerry was a hero too. Then we found out he shot Bambi's mother with a bazooka. Or whatever.

We're not saying it was a bad thing for him to walk through bagdad under heavy guard. We're saying it was a bad thing for him to do that and then use it as a photo op to show just how safe Bagdad is.

This was not a publicity stunt. He claimed that Baghdad was safe but nonetheless used precautionary measures -- it's kind of like using a condom. Chances are, you won't get an STD, but why take the risk? The usage of a condom does not imply that sex is inherently dangerous. However, you should not set out to have as much unprotected sex as possible in order to advocate for its safety. Sometimes, such an activity can be lethal; so, if possible, a condom should be worn. It is in no way dishonest or hypocritical to both disseminate the information that unprotected sex is in large part safe and to simultaneously use a condom. In fact, it's common sense. In this case, McCain is telling people that unprotected sex is fine, but is himself using a condom when engaging in such an act.

This was not a publicity stunt. He claimed that Baghdad was safe but nonetheless used precautionary measures -- it's kind of like using a condom. Chances are, you won't get an STD, but why take the risk? The usage of a condom does not imply that sex is inherently dangerous. However, you should not set out to have as much unprotected sex as possible in order to advocate for its safety. Sometimes, such an activity can be lethal; so, if possible, a condom should be worn. It is in no way dishonest or hypocritical to both disseminate the information that unprotected sex is in large part safe and to simultaneously use a condom. In fact, it's common sense. In this case, McCain is telling people that unprotected sex is fine, but is himself using a condom when engaging in such an act.

You are speaking as if there is NO CONNECTION AT ALL between Mccain's statement that Bagdad is safe and his stroll through the Bagdad's streets. This was obviously a publicity stunt. What was it if it was not a publicity stunt? Are you insinuating that McCain is getting some sexual pleasure out of walking through bagdad? he certainly has helped us fuck it without lube.

Yeah, we thought Kerry was a hero too. Then we found out he shot Bambi's mother with a bazooka. Or whatever.

I thought it was that he wanted to shoot Bambi's mother with a bazooka, but was too much of a coward, so he waited for Dubya to shoot her with a missile from his heroic fighter plane and then stole the credit in the after action report and nicked himself with a piece of shrapnel and nominated himself for the Congressional Medal of Honor.

You are speaking as if there is NO CONNECTION AT ALL between Mccain's statement that Bagdad is safe and his stroll through the Bagdad's streets.

There is no connection whatsoever and the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise. Baghdad is a relatively safe city; millions of people walk through that city every day, including McCain. There is no tangible correlation between these two facts. McCain could have driven through the city or rode a bicycle for all I care; however, he preferred to walk. Do you think that he should not have the right to assert that Baghdad is secure if he ever plans to walk around the city? Do you find it dishonest that a person who has been through the city (albeit with an armed guard) can render a decision regarding its condition? Or, to meet your requirements, must he have no armed guard and a huge "shoot me" bull's-eye on his back? That notion is ridiculous. I fully support McCain in his actions.

I thought it was that he wanted to shoot Bambi's mother with a bazooka, but was too much of a coward, so he waited for Dubya to shoot her with a missile from his heroic fighter plane and then stole the credit in the after action report and nicked himself with a piece of shrapnel and nominated himself for the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Ha! It's funny 'cause it's true.

There is no connection whatsoever and the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise. Baghdad is a relatively safe city; millions of people walk through that city every day, including McCain. There is no tangible correlation between these two facts. McCain could have driven through the city or rode a bicycle for all I care; however, he preferred to walk. Do you think that he should not have the right to assert that Baghdad is secure if he ever plans to walk around the city? Do you find it dishonest that a person who has been through the city (albeit with an armed guard) can render a decision regarding its condition? Or, to meet your requirements, must he have no armed guard and a huge "shoot me" bull's-eye on his back? That notion is ridiculous. I fully support McCain in his actions.
What about the fact that 30 minutes after McCain's little "stroll," Shi'ite insurgents fired mortars into the borders of the Green Zone? That city's safe all right--that's why dozens of people wind up dead every day and why Americans don't leave the Green Zone without armor and protection.

Something tells me you think you can talk them out of destroying Israel and killing Jews.

It's simply not possible.

Especially when the alternative is so much easier and more palatable:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/56637

Goof.

That city's safe all right--that's why dozens of people wind up dead every day and why Americans don't leave the Green Zone without armor and protection.

In California in 1993, an average of over 11 people were murdered daily. That statistic is comparable to Baghdad's current condition. Of course, Arab countries don't have as efficient crime-fighting techniques as the US, so this may also account for much of the difference. At any rate, violence in Baghdad has plummeted recently due to the expertly-planned troop surge. Of course, there is always the problem of newly-liberated people celebrating their liberty in an overly raucous manner which only compounds Iraq's difficulties. Although these considerations detract from the capital's safety, they do not render it unsafe. Also, I thought we settled the matter regarding the rationality of using body armor if you have it at your disposal. Did you not understand the condom metaphor?

Tell me--when you're eating Republican ass, do you ever let your tongue stray around north of the taint, get a little scrotum in there?

That is unnecessarily inflammatory. Please retract that ill-begotten comment.

This was not a publicity stunt.


It is. Saying otherwise is an exercise in denial or proof of naivety. He's a politician after all.


He claimed that Baghdad was safe but nonetheless used precautionary measures -- it's kind of like using a condom.


No, it's like saying you can have sex with an AIDs victim without protection and have the same amount of risk as if you had sex with anyone else. Then having sex with the AIDs victim while wearing a hazmat suit to prove how 'safe' it is. Or better yet, paying somebody else to have that sex.

Would you trust a restaurant that has a permanent crew with stomach pumps on standby? That speaks volumes about how much they trust their own cooking.

Or how about a used car salesman who promises you everything, but makes you sign a contract forbidding you from taking legal action if you were cheated by him?

Do you go to a hospital that has signs disclaiming all responsibility in the event of malpractice?

I bet you don't, but here, you're excusing it. So either you're thickheaded, or you're ignoring it because you know you've lost but keep it up anyway because you're just that stubborn.

Baghdad is a warzone, like it or not. In fact, why not we do this? I'll fund you a trip to Baghdad, all expenses paid with the following rules. No staying in the green zone, no guns and no bodyguards of any sort. See if you can say it's a safe city after that.

In California in 1993, an average of over 11 people were murdered daily. That statistic is comparable to Baghdad's current condition. Of course, Arab countries don't have as efficient crime-fighting techniques as the US, so this may also account for much of the difference. At any rate, violence in Baghdad has plummeted recently due to the expertly-planned troop surge. Of course, there is always the problem of newly-liberated people celebrating their liberty in an overly raucous manner which only compounds Iraq's difficulties. Although these considerations detract from the capital's safety, they do not render it unsafe. Also, I thought we settled the matter regarding the rationality of using body armor if you have it at your disposal. Did you not understand the condom metaphor?
It's not even remotely the same thing. For starters, there are more than 11 people a day dying in Iraq--11 is a good day just in Baghdad, and there's violence in other places. And while violence may be down currently, it certainly hasn't plummeted, and there's no guarantee that it will stay down. In fact, there's no expectation that it will.

And the fact that you're calling this violence "newly-liberated people celebrating their liberty in an overly raucous manner" reminds me of a troll who left recently, claiming he'd never return--MTAE, is that you? It's certainly of a piece of that kind of trollery.


That is unnecessarily inflammatory. Please retract that ill-begotten comment.
Already retracted before you posted. It was over the top, and I apologize.

It is. Saying otherwise is an exercise in denial or proof of naivety. He's a politician after all.

And as a politician, he was venturing to Iraq in order to impart a feel for the situation there in order to make more objective and better conceived decisions regarding its future. I'm not saying that he actively prevented cameras from following him during his excursion, but it was not a publicity stunt, either.

Do you go to a hospital that has signs disclaiming all responsibility in the event of malpractice?

Your examples are maliciously constructed in a transparent attempt to distort the truth. A more apt comparison would be one likening Baghdad to a quiet village with a small police force. Would you be scared of relocating to such a peaceful town simply because they have a police force, or would that simply offer an added element of security in an otherwise calm landscape? I submit that you would feel the latter is more veracious.

See if you can say it's a safe city after that.

I'm not saying that it's a prime vacationing spot, but I am saying that it's not as violent as the media would lead you to believe. It's not Luxembourg, but it's no Sri Lanka, either.

It's not even remotely the same thing. For starters, there are more than 11 people a day dying in Iraq--11 is a good day just in Baghdad, and there's violence in other places.

I admit: I made some assumptions here. First of all, I only considered the average amount of deaths per day in all of Iraq (41). Then, I divided this number by the percentage of the total Iraqi population which resides in Baghdad (17%). From this, I obtained a figure of 7 deaths per day in Baghdad, give or take. My method is certainly not scientifically solid, yet it gives a baseline estimate for the casualties in Baghdad.

And the fact that you're calling this violence "newly-liberated people celebrating their liberty in an overly raucous manner"

No, I'm simply stating that it is a component of the violence; there are certainly other causes (which are more grievous threats to Iraq's security, I might add), such as sectarian militias. However, you cannot deny that an abrupt transition between two diametrically opposed forms of government will lead to some strife.

MTAE, is that you?

Another user likened me to that individual earlier today. I searched for MTAE, but found no users matching that sobriquet. Is he some kind of urban myth around here or something?

Already retracted before you posted. It was over the top, and I apologize.

Thank you; no problem.

What do you expect? Hes republican... XD

I admit: I made some assumptions here. First of all, I only considered the average amount of deaths per day in all of Iraq (41). Then, I divided this number by the percentage of the total Iraqi population which resides in Baghdad (17%). From this, I obtained a figure of 7 deaths per day in Baghdad, give or take. My method is certainly not scientifically solid, yet it gives a baseline estimate for the casualties in Baghdad.
California has about twice the population of the entire nation of Iraq. Nice try, but we ain't buying it.

California has about twice the population of the entire nation of Iraq. Nice try, but we ain't buying it.

His "method" also presupposes the same amount of violence everywhere, when it is disproportionately violent in Baghdad, surge or not.

His "method" also presupposes the same amount of violence everywhere, when it is disproportionately violent in Baghdad, surge or not.

I was slightly wrong about population, but here's how it breaks down. California has a pop of about 33 million. Iraq has a pop of about 27 million. So Iraq has about 80% of california's population. That means that those 41 deaths in Iraq are the equivalent to about 50. So Iraq's death rate per capita is just under five times the death rate in california.

And as a politician, he was venturing to Iraq in order to impart a feel for the situation there in order to make more objective and better conceived decisions regarding its future.

What, you're a mind reader now? He goes there surrounded by hundreds of guards shortly after claiming how 'safe' Baghdad is to prove his point? If that's not a publicity stunt, nobody in Washington DC has ever pulled off one by comparison.


I'm not saying that he actively prevented cameras from following him during his excursion, but it was not a publicity stunt, either.


No, you're just saying that the only thing you use your head for is to deny inconvenient facts.


Your examples are maliciously constructed in a transparent attempt to distort the truth.


No, they are constructed to show exactly how much of a liar and hypocrite you are. Thank you for proving my point.


A more apt comparison would be one likening Baghdad to a quiet village with a small police force.


Baghdad is not a quiet village, nor is it small enough to be a village. And a small police force? That's laughable. A more apt comparison would be comparing Baghdad to some gang ridden slums with a corrupt and heavily armed police force not afraid to use more force than police.


Would you be scared of relocating to such a peaceful town simply because they have a police force, or would that simply offer an added element of security in an otherwise calm landscape? I submit that you would feel the latter is more veracious.

Your example is made of fail because it is about as apt as comparing brain surgery to plastering a cut.


I'm not saying that it's a prime vacationing spot, but I am saying that it's not as violent as the media would lead you to believe. It's not Luxembourg, but it's no Sri Lanka, either.

Either it's safe or its not. You can either go there with as much protection on your person as you would have in Washington DC or you can be shown to be a big fat liar who's put his foot in his mouth and can't extract it.

I'm betting big money on the latter.

Let me just knock this whole "it wasn't a publicity stunt" business right in the head (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/middleeast/03mccain.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print), and I do mean to club it like it was a baby seal.

BAGHDAD, April 2 — A day after members of an American Congressional delegation led by Senator John McCain pointed to their brief visit to Baghdad’s central market as evidence that the new security plan for the city was working, the merchants there were incredulous about the Americans’ conclusions.

“What are they talking about?” Ali Jassim Faiyad, the owner of an electrical appliances shop in the market, said Monday. “The security procedures were abnormal!”

The delegation arrived at the market, which is called Shorja, on Sunday with more than 100 soldiers in armored Humvees — the equivalent of an entire company — and attack helicopters circled overhead, a senior American military official in Baghdad said. The soldiers redirected traffic from the area and restricted access to the Americans, witnesses said, and sharpshooters were posted on the roofs. The congressmen wore bulletproof vests throughout their hourlong visit.

“They paralyzed the market when they came,” Mr. Faiyad said during an interview in his shop on Monday. “This was only for the media.”

He added, “This will not change anything.”

California has about twice the population of the entire nation of Iraq. Nice try, but we ain't buying it.

Let's compare the death rate of several countries, shall we (mind you, the following statistics are per 1000 residents)?

Sierra Leone: 23.03.
Zimbabwe: 21.84.
Romania: 11.77.
France: 9.14.
United States: 8.26.
Iraq: 5.37.

Earlier this week, on Bill Bennett's radio show, John McCain claimed that “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today." (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/27/ware-mccain-iraq/) He also suggested that General Petraeus goes out into Baghdad in an unarmored Humvee, a statement which was quickly rebutted .

Well, he was in Baghdad today, and he took a stroll through a Baghdad market. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/01/mccain-iraq-stroll/) And he's right--Americans can stroll through parts of Baghdad--as long as they're accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” And McCain was wearing a bulletproof vest as well. I wonder why he didn't head for those safe neighborhoods on his own, see how the situation on the ground really is?

Gotta love that straight talk.

It's all about the photo ops. After all this time, McCain still doesn't know what he wants to be when he grows up. No big surprise there.

OhmyGod. I just agreed with The Nazz.

Let me just knock this whole "it wasn't a publicity stunt" business right in the head (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/middleeast/03mccain.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print), and I do mean to club it like it was a baby seal.

Do you mean that Senator McCain actually cited first-hand experience in order to support his position on Iraq?! Simply because he did not take a vow of silence relating to his tour of Iraq does not equate that trip to a "publicity stunt." He has the right, if not the duty, to render his assessment of the situation in Iraq based on his complete knowledge of the region, including his recent excursion there. He should be, if anything, lauded for taking such a trip in order to gain a fuller understanding of Baghdad, and then drawing conclusions based upon this.

Do you mean that Senator McCain actually cited first-hand experience in order to support his position on Iraq?! Simply because he did not take a vow of silence relating to his tour of Iraq does not equate that trip to a "publicity stunt." He has the right, if not the duty, to render his assessment of the situation in Iraq based on his complete knowledge of the region, including his recent excursion there. He should be, if anything, lauded for taking such a trip in order to gain a fuller understanding of Baghdad, and then drawing conclusions based upon this.

First of all, his "first-hand experience" was a stage production, and second of all, he then lied about the fact that it was a stage production. What is so difficult to grasp here?

What is Pelosi doing in Syria? Shouldn't she be in the House, you know, doing her job?

Why is this an argument? They're both wrong. So how does that defend McCain?

This is unfortunate. McCain used to be one of the ones I liked. Then he comes out and says some dumb things like the tripe about safe neighborhoods, when he knows there is no way he would walk ANYWHERE alone in Iraq.

Syria has no military to speak of?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You know, I never knew you could be that ignorant, Nazz. I had higher expectations of you.
From CIA handbook:
Syria:
GDP (official exchange rate): $24.26 Billion
Military expenditures (% of GDP): 5.9
Total Military expenditure: $1.4 Billion

Israel:
GDP (official exchange rate): $140.3 billion
Military expenditures (% of GDP): 9.0
Total Military expenditure: $12.6 Billion


Yep. Syria is definitely a world threat, on par with Nazi Germany, circa 1939.

From CIA handbook:
Syria:
GDP (official exchange rate): $24.26 Billion
Military expenditures (% of GDP): 5.9
Total Military expenditure: $1.4 Billion

Israel:
GDP (official exchange rate): $140.3 billion
Military expenditures (% of GDP): 9.0
Total Military expenditure: $12.6 Billion


Yep. Syria is definitely a world threat, on par with Nazi Germany, circa 1939.

I think I'll have to try to not meet EO's expectations more often. ;)

From CIA handbook:
Syria:
GDP (official exchange rate): $24.26 Billion
Military expenditures (% of GDP): 5.9
Total Military expenditure: $1.4 Billion

Israel:
GDP (official exchange rate): $140.3 billion
Military expenditures (% of GDP): 9.0
Total Military expenditure: $12.6 Billion


Yep. Syria is definitely a world threat, on par with Nazi Germany, circa 1939.

Why do you hate freedom? :(



j/k

Let's compare the death rate of several countries, shall we (mind you, the following statistics are per 1000 residents)?

Sierra Leone: 23.03.
Zimbabwe: 21.84.
Romania: 11.77.
France: 9.14.
United States: 8.26.
Iraq: 5.37.

Um, you realize that a low death rate can mean a young population (meaning that most people don't make it to old age, no? Iraq has a relatively young population because the last six years has been so steadily bad for them. The death rate is a bit higher for an aging population like you have the US.

From the site you plagiarized.
This entry gives the average annual number of deaths during a year per 1,000 population at midyear; also known as crude death rate. The death rate, while only a rough indicator of the mortality situation in a country, accurately indicates the current mortality impact on population growth. This indicator is significantly affected by age distribution, and most countries will eventually show a rise in the overall death rate, in spite of continued decline in mortality at all ages, as declining fertility results in an aging population.

This is only a rough estimate of the mortality situation and in comparing to such different countries, you get an unclear picture.

Now if you want a more clear picture, Six months ago there had already been 655,000 Iraqi deaths in about three and a half years. And that's in comparison than the expected number of deaths had we not entered Iraq. Yeah, that's only just under 200,000 a year. Yeah, all roses and candy corn there in Iraq.

EDIT: By the way, it's been mentioned but the daily number of deaths as a result of the war to Iraqis is around 500 per DAY as compared to California at 11 per day at the height. Keep in mind that California is a slightly larger population that Iraq. If we had the daily death toll of young people equivalent to Iraq we would declare a state of emergency in the US and likely martial law. To pretend like Iraq is in a good state is just delusion.

Now if you want a more clear picture, Six months ago there had already been 655,000 Iraqi deaths in about three and a half years. And that's in comparison than the expected number of deaths had we not entered Iraq. Yeah, that's only just under 200,000 a year. Yeah, all roses and candy corn there in Iraq.
200,000 / 365 = 547. so a bit more than 500 per day. that's 50 times the california death rate. and i believe the 655,000 was as a direct result of war, wasn't it?

What is so difficult to grasp here?

The truth is apparently. Because if he did, his little world would collapse. This guy can't be for real. I'm willing to bet he's just doing it for shits and giggles. People that retarded are usually killed when they try crossing streets.

The truth is apparently. Because if he did, his little world would collapse. This guy can't be for real. I'm willing to bet he's just doing it for shits and giggles. People that retarded are usually killed when they try crossing streets.

So I'm not alone in being reminded of MTAE, then? :p

In California in 1993, an average of over 11 people were murdered daily. That statistic is comparable to Baghdad's current condition.
May I direct you to this site:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
That's 420 reported violent deaths in just one week - 60 a day. Quite a bit more than 11 a day.

This is also an interesting read:
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

200,000 / 365 = 547. so a bit more than 500 per day. that's 50 times the california death rate. and i believe the 655,000 was as a direct result of war, wasn't it?

It's the difference between us being there and if we'd not invaded. It's a bit speculatory, but even at half that it's horrendous.

Meanwhile, I edited and beat you in by a minue with the 500+ figure.

May I direct you to this site:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
That's 420 reported violent deaths in just one week - 60 a day. Quite a bit more than 11 a day.

This is also an interesting read:
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

And remember, Iraqbodycount only covers those deaths that have been reported. It's estimated only about 10% of deaths get reported.

And remember, Iraqbodycount only covers those deaths that have been reported. It's estimated only about 10% of deaths get reported.
reported violent deaths due to the war at that.
Read the page I linked to. None of the deaths could be classified as murder as in the 'CSI-jealous lover-husband trying to claim life insurance-blahblah' way. They're all from roadside bombs, mortar attacks, suicide bombers, torture etc etc.
Add in the violent deaths that usually occur within a population (a la 'CSI' type murders + manslaughter etc) and it'll be way over 60 /day.

So I'm not alone in being reminded of MTAE, then? :p

If by MTAE you mean the guy who confessed to wanting to give Cheney a fellatio, yeah, that guy.

http://mccainnoclass.ytmnd.com/

So I'm not alone in being reminded of MTAE, then? :p

In all seriousness, no.

It's too bad, too. This forum was relatively troll-free for a while.

In all seriousness, no.

It's too bad, too. This forum was relatively troll-free for a while.

By a while, you mean a few hours, right? :p

By a while, you mean a few hours, right? :p

Yes, but they were among the best few hours of my life... *heavy sigh*

Earlier this week, on Bill Bennett's radio show, John McCain claimed that “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today." (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/27/ware-mccain-iraq/) He also suggested that General Petraeus goes out into Baghdad in an unarmored Humvee, a statement which was quickly rebutted .

Well, he was in Baghdad today, and he took a stroll through a Baghdad market. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/01/mccain-iraq-stroll/) And he's right--Americans can stroll through parts of Baghdad--as long as they're accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” And McCain was wearing a bulletproof vest as well. I wonder why he didn't head for those safe neighborhoods on his own, see how the situation on the ground really is?

Gotta love that straight talk.

That's McCain's straight talk Express. Doesn't make any of those local stops at places like Explanation or Clarification. Just heads straight from Integrity to Bullshitland.

That's McCain's straight talk Express. Doesn't make any of those local stops at places like Explanation or Clarification. Just heads straight from Integrity to Bullshitland.


He starts off in Bullshitland and his train breaks down before it's time to leave.

Now if you want a more clear picture, Six months ago there had already been 655,000 Iraqi deaths in about three and a half years.

Nope. Actual civilian casualties are less than 10% of that. The 600k figure was based on a lot of bad math and horseshit.

Nope. Actual civilian casualties are less than 10% of that. The 600k figure was based on a lot of bad math and horseshit.

You mean the Lancet Medical journal? (http://www.epic-usa.org/Portals/1/Lancet_report_on_iraqi_mortality_before_and_after_2003.pdf)

The one that the British government was advised against publicly criticising, estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, by it's Defence ministry's chief scientific adviser, who stated that the journal was "close to best practise" and "robust"?

The Iraqi Health Ministry states casualties are 10% of the Lancet Report's estimates. And you don't think they might be even a bit biased? Or indeed do you believe they even have a capability to even attempt a robust, effective, far-reaching survey?

Nope. Actual civilian casualties are less than 10% of that. The 600k figure was based on a lot of bad math and horseshit.

You mean the Lancet Medical journal? (http://www.epic-usa.org/Portals/1/Lancet_report_on_iraqi_mortality_before_and_after_2003.pdf)

The one that the British government was advised against publicly criticising, estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, by it's Defence ministry's chief scientific adviser, who stated that the journal was "close to best practise" and "robust"?

The Iraqi Health Ministry states casualties are 10% of the Lancet Report's estimates. And you don't think they might be even a bit biased? Or indeed do you believe they even have a capability to even attempt a robust, effective, far-reaching survey?
But Michelle Malkin said it was bullshit, and she would never lie to me! :rolleyes:

Nope. Actual civilian casualties are less than 10% of that. The 600k figure was based on a lot of bad math and horseshit.

Actually, the people who came up with the figure it admit that it has a huge variance, from 400K to 900K. However, none of those figures paint a pretty picture. 400K is not 10% of course, but why get caught making a good argument and ruin our expectations?

Earlier this week, on Bill Bennett's radio show, John McCain claimed that “There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today." (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/27/ware-mccain-iraq/) He also suggested that General Petraeus goes out into Baghdad in an unarmored Humvee, a statement which was quickly rebutted .

Well, he was in Baghdad today, and he took a stroll through a Baghdad market. (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/01/mccain-iraq-stroll/) And he's right--Americans can stroll through parts of Baghdad--as long as they're accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” And McCain was wearing a bulletproof vest as well. I wonder why he didn't head for those safe neighborhoods on his own, see how the situation on the ground really is?

Gotta love that straight talk.

Oh, get serious. Like the US Army ISN'T going to do everything it can to prevent a US senator and prospective presidental candidate from being attacked? :rolleyes:

It's the difference between us being there and if we'd not invaded. It's a bit speculatory, but even at half that it's horrendous.

Meanwhile, I edited and beat you in by a minue with the 500+ figure.

I will respond to the dubious allegations of a questionable study. Although at first glance the figure may seem shocking, it is relatively tame by most standards. For example, in the US, 6500 people die each day. I don't consider this "horrendous"; it is simply part of the normal cycle of life. The same principle applies to Iraq.

I will respond to the dubious allegations of a questionable study. Although at first glance the figure may seem shocking, it is relatively tame by most standards. For example, in the US, 6500 people die each day. I don't consider this "horrendous"; it is simply part of the normal cycle of life. The same principle applies to Iraq.

Except the number is beyond who would die if we were there. However, if you have figures, please present them. For the sake of argument, I'll pretend like you're not taking a piss.

And how about you stop plagiarizing and start citing your sources.

However, if you have figures, please present them.

Here you go. 2.4 million Americans die each year; if you convert this figure into the number who die each day, you will obtain a result of over 6500.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Here you go. 2.4 million Americans die each year; if you convert this figure into the number who die each day, you will obtain a result of over 6500.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

And this is relevant, how? We're only talking about deaths that are attributable to the war in Iraq, so the comparison would be to only include deaths from poverty and murder in the US. And divide that number by 10 since the Iraqi population is less than a tenth of the US population. And you get a number around one tenth of the number in Iraq. Unless you're illogically claiming that the majority of deaths in the US are related to poverty and murder?

And this is relevant, how?

I'm just putting it in perspective; it is difficult to construct a valid comparison with another country. However, as callous as it may seem, an additional 500 deaths per day (if that figure is valid) is, well, child's play. In the US, 2.4 million people die each year. Let's say that that figure stands at 0.16 million for Iraq (according to that dubious study). Accounting for population differences, the death rate in the US is 135% higher than that in Iraq. That means that the additional violence in Iraq, which has been allegedly brought about by the war, has resulted in less deaths than the natural death rate of the US. By extension, that means that more people die each day from non-war-related causes than because of war-related causes. This is extremely relevant if you want to see the death toll being put in perspective.

I'm just putting it in perspective; it is difficult to construct a valid comparison with another country. However, as callous as it may seem, an additional 500 deaths per day (if that figure is valid) is, well, child's play. In the US, 2.4 million people die each year. Let's say that that figure stands at 0.16 million for Iraq (according to that dubious study). Accounting for population differences, the death rate in the US is 135% higher than that in Iraq. That means that the additional violence in Iraq, which has been allegedly brought about by the war, has resulted in less deaths than the natural death rate of the US. By extension, that means that more people die each day from non-war-related causes than because of war-related causes. This is extremely relevant if you want to see the death toll being put in perspective.



Iraq has a population of 26 million. The US has a population of 300 million. We have nearly 15 times the population and our per annum deaths are only 1.4 times what the Iraqis have? I don't think the math adds up.

By the way RuleCaucasia, did your "wife" ever pop out that kid?

Iraq has a population of 26 million. The US has a population of 300 million. We have nearly 15 times the population and our per annum deaths are only 1.4 times what the Iraqis have? I don't think the math adds up.

No, I accounted for the population differences. Without taking it into account, our death rate would 15 times higher than that of Iraq. However, it is only 135% higher when that modification is applied. Maybe I wasn't very clear before, so I'll rephrase.

US population: ~300 million.
Iraqi population: ~27 million.
US deaths/year: ~2.4 million.
Iraqi deaths/year: ~160,000 (650,000/4).
US population / US deaths per year: 125.
Iraq population / Iraq deaths per year: 168.25.
Percentage difference: 168.25 / 125 = 135%.

Since deaths were in the denominator, that means that the US death rate, when accounting for population differences, is 135% higher than what that dubious study revealed for Iraq. From that, we can infer the conclusion that the natural death rate in Iraq is greater than the war-related death rate.

I'm just putting it in perspective; it is difficult to construct a valid comparison with another country. However, as callous as it may seem, an additional 500 deaths per day (if that figure is valid) is, well, child's play. In the US, 2.4 million people die each year. Let's say that that figure stands at 0.16 million for Iraq (according to that dubious study). Accounting for population differences, the death rate in the US is 135% higher than that in Iraq. That means that the additional violence in Iraq, which has been allegedly brought about by the war, has resulted in less deaths than the natural death rate of the US. By extension, that means that more people die each day from non-war-related causes than because of war-related causes. This is extremely relevant if you want to see the death toll being put in perspective.

Math isn't your strong suit, is it?

First of all we're talking about additional deaths. Not all deaths. This is in addition to what we would expect to see absent the war.

Second, the study was from November, so it's at about .2 million addition deaths a year or just about .7 percent of the population is dying specifically because of the war.

Third, if we do the math, the rate you are citing in the use is about .7 percent as well.

Conclusion, if your math skills were up to par, is that the additional deaths due to the Iraq war are equivalent to the deaths in the US for ALL reasons. So even in your skewed world where you ignore causation for these deaths and treat death from old age like it's equivalent to being shot, you still fail at your claims.

That would make the death rate with consideration for population equal, not 135% higher. And once you incorporate all other deaths, rather than just a part of the deaths in Iraq, you get a number that is at least one order of magnitude higher. But you knew that. We're not telling you anything that's going to stop your dubious claims.

Meanwhile, even in your crazy mixed up world where it's okay for the deaths due to war to be equal to all other causes, are you claiming that if the US death rate suddenly became 5 million, that we wouldn't be calling for the heads of our politicians? That's ludicrous.

No, I accounted for the population differences. Without taking it into account, our death rate would 15 times higher than that of Iraq. However, it is only 135% higher when that modification is applied. Maybe I wasn't very clear before, so I'll rephrase.

US population: ~300 million.
Iraqi population: ~27 million.
US deaths/year: ~2.4 million.
Iraqi deaths/year: ~160,000 (650,000/4).
Um, this number is from November. So it's actually 3.5.

Iraqi deaths/year: ~185,000 (650,000/3.5)

US population / US deaths per year: 125.
Iraq population / Iraq deaths per year: 168.25.

You mean 148.

Percentage difference: 168.25 / 125 = 135%.

Again, not to good at the maths, are you? That's a 35% increase. 100% would be no increase. But, hey, don't let that get in the way of a good bout with nonsense.

And with the real numbers it's a 15-20% increase. Of course, that's ignoring that since Iraq also has normal deaths just like the US, they are experiencing a 100% increase in the number of deaths and the majority of those deaths are among young people. If this year 2.4 million additional 18-44 year olds die, do you think we'll just shrug and say, "Meh, no big deal. That's only equal to the total number of deaths last year. Why worry?"


Since deaths were in the denominator, that means that the US death rate, when accounting for population differences, is 135% higher than what that dubious study revealed for Iraq. From that, we can infer the conclusion that the natural death rate in Iraq is greater than the war-related death rate.

No, it means the US death rate even with your spurious numbers is 35% higher.

No, it means the US death rate even with your spurious numbers is 35% higher.

Oh, wow, way to play semantics. A 35% increase means that it's 135% of the original amount. What I meant is obvious. If you have to descend to such a low blow to continue arguing, I don't know why I'm debating you in the first place. The only thing spurious here is your elitism -- I didn't criticize every single spelling mistake you made and asserted that you weren't too good at English because of it. Hell, what you're doing verges on trolling.

Oh, wow, way to play semantics. A 35% increase means that it's 135% of the original amount. What I meant is obvious. If you have to descend to such a low blow to continue arguing, I don't know why I'm debating you in the first place. The only thing spurious here is your elitism -- I didn't criticize every single spelling mistake you made and asserted that you weren't too good at English because of it. Hell, what you're doing verges on trolling.

That's not semantics. An 135% increase is more than double. Just because you don't understand the difference doesn't mean that others don't. You made a severe math error and compounded it repeatedly.

Yes, it's a low blow. Well, unless an honest argument is important to you. Because if it is, you should thank me for correcting your mistake, not call it a low blow.

This isn't as simple as a spelling error. You suggested a small increase was really more than doubling in an already dubious calculation.

If I'm 32 and you're 28 and I say I'm more than double your age, would that just be a spelling error or would it perhaps be a grievous math mistake?

If I'm 32 and you're 28 and I say I'm more than double your age, would that just be a spelling error or would it perhaps be a grievous math mistake?

If you claimed to be 114% of my age, you'd be correct. That would not be a mathematical error. You're simply taking semantics to an astounding degree.

If you claimed to be 114% of my age, you'd be correct. That would not be a mathematical error.

Yes, but that's not what you said.

Give it up MTAE, your polish is cracking.

If you claimed to be 114% of my age, you'd be correct. That would not be a mathematical error. You're simply taking semantics to an astounding degree.

But if I claim my age is 114% increase on your age, I'd be grossly mistaken.

You were off by a factor of 4. And given there were other errors in your math, it was really more like a factor of 7.

Compound this with the fact that you're intentionally comparing apples to oranges, and you get a nonsensical answer to nonsensical equation that was arrived at by poor mathematical analysis.

I'm sorry that it upsets you that you don't see the difference between a 35% increase and a 135% increase, but any reasonable mathematician will tell you this is no little error.

I'm sorry that it upsets you that you don't see the difference between a 35% increase and a 135% increase, but any reasonable mathematician will tell you this is no little error.

I see the difference, but it's a small semantical point rather than a "grievous" error, to use your flowery language. That was the only mistake I committed in my analysis.

I see the difference, but it's a small semantical point rather than a "grievous" error, to use your flowery language. That was the only mistake I committed in my analysis.

it's not a "small semantical point" in the slightest. You made over a 4X error, well beyond any margin of error for your calculations.

A figure four times what your outcome should have been is not, in any sense, a small error. It is a serious mathematical flaw.

it's not a "small semantical point" in the slightest. You made over a 4X error, well beyond any margin of error for your calculations.

A figure four times what your outcome should have been is not, in any sense, a small error. It is a serious mathematical flaw.

Yeah, but this is the guy who said that Gingrich comment on bilingual education being "the language of the ghetto" was a "small semantical error."

I'm waiting for him to make a "let's bring back slavery" thread. Again.

I see the difference, but it's a small semantical point rather than a "grievous" error, to use your flowery language. That was the only mistake I committed in my analysis.

No, it wasn't. I pointed out others. Others you dropped from the debate as is your style. Of course, if you drop arguments rationally we can assume that you cannot rebutt them and until they are debunked they stand. So as it stands your argument has no merit. Now, if you'd like to go back and address these arguments, then perhaps we can engage in this thing called debate. Right now, you appear to be avoiding joining in a reasonable discussion.

Is it a small semantical error if I tell you my age is 132 instead of 32? Is it a small semantical error if I tell you I'm a congressman instead of consultant? Is it a small semantical error if I tell you I'm woman rather than a man? None of the statements in the questions are less wrong than you were.

No, it wasn't. I pointed out others. Others you dropped from the debate as is your style. Of course, if you drop arguments rationally we can assume that you cannot rebutt them and until they are debunked they stand. So as it stands your argument has no merit. Now, if you'd like to go back and address these arguments, then perhaps we can engage in this thing called debate. Right now, you appear to be avoiding joining in a reasonable discussion.


Surely that doesn't surprise you. MTAE and RC never really did the debate bit either.

Yeah, but this is the guy who said that Gingrich comment on bilingual education being "the language of the ghetto" was a "small semantical error."

I'm waiting for him to make a "let's bring back slavery" thread. Again.

I'm convinced that MeanstoaGlory is actually a rather smart person who is conducting an experiment.

I'm convinced that MeanstoaGlory is actually a rather smart person who is conducting an experiment.

AKA, a troll who is pissing all over the forum for shits and giggles.

Doesn't strike me as very smart.

You should honestly answer with more than lols ;)

Nothing else will suffice. :p