|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 13, 10:52 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Jan 13, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote: I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological issues surrounding this issue. He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping some of us to learn. What'cha been learning from this discussion thus far? I'd heard of the differing numbers in studies, but really hadn't ever looked into them. Who was behind what, how they come up with the numbers, that sort of thing. Although I'm not sure it really matters if it's 100,000 dead or 650,000. If it were a member of your own family that was dead, what difference would it make if it were even just that one person? And if you're detached enough that 100,000 doesn't bother you, how do you come up with a number that would? Fair questions, but I was asking about your statement that the discussion is helping you to learn about the technical or methodological issues. I hadn't seen any technical or methodological issues discussed. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
rechungREMOVETHIS wrote:
What'cha been learning from this discussion thus far? I learned that Soros posts to rbr and that he must be evil because he created Kunich. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
wrote in message
... On Jan 13, 10:52 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 13, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote: I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological issues surrounding this issue. He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping some of us to learn. What'cha been learning from this discussion thus far? I'd heard of the differing numbers in studies, but really hadn't ever looked into them. Who was behind what, how they come up with the numbers, that sort of thing. Although I'm not sure it really matters if it's 100,000 dead or 650,000. If it were a member of your own family that was dead, what difference would it make if it were even just that one person? And if you're detached enough that 100,000 doesn't bother you, how do you come up with a number that would? Fair questions, but I was asking about your statement that the discussion is helping you to learn about the technical or methodological issues. I hadn't seen any technical or methodological issues discussed. I was replying to someone else's remark, and probably not accurately. What I've learned so far is that neither study offers anything that would change my mind about the value and costs of going to war with Iraq, since both suggest numbers that are well above any sort of threshold I might wince at. I'm probably better off not replying at all to such discussions and keep to cycling conversations. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
In article
, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote: We need to be saved from the people who are saving us. Bill C I agree. And I agree with just about everything else you brought up. I just don't think *any* survey or scientific study should be taken seriously without looking at who's behind it. And invariably you will find opposing views looking to design a survey that supports their views. But not in ALL cases. That's not what I meant. Just that it shouldn't be in the least bit surprising to find biased methodologies coming from both sides of an issue, not just liberal, not just conservative. And that somehow the rest of us need to look at the surveys & studies to try and figure out what's behind them. Perhaps we should examine most critically the studies that support our point of view. -- Michael Press |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 13, 3:25*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html "A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros. snip Dumbass - The Iraq Study Group's data supported that figure. The problem with the methodology adopted by the US military was it only counted Iraqi casualties when they also involved US troops. If US troops weren't involved, the incident was ignored. Therefore, sectarian violence was included in US military figures. The problem with that is: the US invasion enabled the sectarian violence. Under Saddam, the Mukhbarat (secret police) kept that sort of thing under control. The Iraq Study Group found that only 1 in 12 deadly incidents involved US soldiers. US figures for Iraqi casualties at that time was in the upper 50 thousands. Multiply that by twelve and you get a similar figure to the Lancet Study. thanks, K. Gringioni. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:52:52 -0800, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote: Although I'm not sure it really matters if it's 100,000 dead or 650,000. Yeah. And many times the White House has refused to provide their own estimates. After the Lancet study came out Bush was asked about it and he said it was not credible but couldnt' say why he felt that way. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 13, 11:39*pm, wrote:
On Jan 13, 5:01 pm, Bill C wrote: Hey Mike *I think the point is that this study was trotted out as THE study. They attacked everyone else who had come to different figures brutally, claimed they were all biased due to who was doing/ commissioning them, and they claimed to be pure as driven snow. I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological issues surrounding this issue. We beat this to death. So I know mostly what you told me. Bill C |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
Bill C wrote:
We beat this to death. So I know mostly what you told me. But tenderized horse meat tastes good. Ask the mongols. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
OT Is anyone really surprised?
On Jan 14, 5:06*am, Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
On Jan 13, 3:25*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322417,00.html "A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros. snip Dumbass - The Iraq Study Group's data supported that figure. The problem with the methodology adopted by the US military was it only counted Iraqi casualties when they also involved US troops. If US troops weren't involved, the incident was ignored. Therefore, sectarian violence was included in US military figures. The problem with that is: the US invasion enabled the sectarian violence. Under Saddam, the Mukhbarat (secret police) kept that sort of thing under control. The Iraq Study Group found that only 1 in 12 deadly incidents involved US soldiers. US figures for Iraqi casualties at that time was in the upper 50 thousands. Multiply that by twelve and you get a similar figure to the Lancet Study. thanks, K. Gringioni. And when we pull everyone, for all practical purposes, out like we did in SE Asia who's gonna put a damper on the sectarian war we allowed to get started, and enabled? That is the plan of Obama and the far left from everything I've seen. There is NO sign of a plan to help stabilise Iraq. I don't consider leaving 30,000 troops scattered in desert outposts a useful plan. The Liberal view will be the same as for SE Asia, I'm sure. "Millions died", but hey we got our troops out of their so it's not our fault. Then when pressed blame the prior administrations which is accurate, but is accurate like the kid who threw buckets of gas on the burning house saying I didn't start the fire. Bill C |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who's Surprised? | [email protected] | Racing | 39 | October 22nd 07 05:38 PM |
I'm surprised... | MagillaGorilla | Racing | 3 | September 5th 06 03:50 AM |
Surprised it hasnt been said but... | [email protected] | Racing | 0 | February 19th 06 11:07 PM |
Surprised, not surprised | db. | Recumbent Biking | 0 | January 23rd 06 10:48 PM |
Surprised you people aren't talking about this | Lame Acer | Racing | 1 | August 20th 04 06:53 PM |