Freedom Is On The March

You are not an expert so don't even pretend. These guys however are professionals in the field:

Look familiar? That's because its from the article you linked to.

Of course in your own mind I'm sure you still believe you know better than a couple of Ph D's in the field.

 

You arguing with yourself again, trounced?

 

The NYT found people who disagreed with parts of the methodoology and the conclusion?
I'm stunned. It would have been irresponsible of them not to have done so. Have either of these guys worked in a war zone?
But this was nice.
"Doesn't fit their worldview"?
Must be that nasty Marine general who says Anbar is ungovernable, or the 16 members of the intelligence community who said it was a petri dish for terrorists, or the Iraqi politicians who are openly talking about partitioning the country in such a way that the Sunnis are largely powerless. (Yes, that will work).
These folks, unfortunately, were unavailable for comment.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15220072/
Of course, that kind of stuff happens in Philadelphia all the time.
Freedom is on the damn march, bitches!

 

I don't have the time to read this article. If it's indicating that the war in Iraq is a disaster, though, I can't imagine how anyone would need a study to convince them of that. As for the argument that has been raised by a few folks who clearly have a dog in the fight, I think we've all heard the truest words about these sorts of studies: "There are three types of lies — lies, damned lies and statistics."

I took a political science course my senior year in college that dealt with framing the argument. Essentially, the cup is half full for one side and half empty for the other. Folks generally can agree that both statements are equally accurate. But the political culture has two groups looking at the same issue/information with completely different viewpoints. That is to say that one guy says the cup is completely empty while the opposition says it's completely full. Both of them look ridiculous. In this case, I'll admit some of my fellow liberals may be jumping the gun to assert that the study's results are hard facts. But to cast the NY Times story aside as indicative of nothing does quite a disservice to the attempt to gather the truth.

 

How's about we split the difference?
The study, because of flaws in its methodology and the problems inherent in doing epidemiology in a war zone, is off by -- let's be generous here -- half.
300,000 deaths is OK?
Off by another half.
150,000 deaths is OK?

 

What kind of deaths? This "study" lumps everyone together, women and children along with combatants.

Unicef had a study before the war that said that 60,000 children under the age of 5 were dying every year due to the results of the UN trade sanctions. That's 180,000 children in 3 years. If you want to go with the 150,000 number then the lives of 30,000 children have been saved by us invading.

Of course the Unicef study was probably biased in order to help end the trade sanctions.

The Lancet study does have a plus/minus margin of error of 200,000 - so I guess it really doesn't matter what number we pick for this "scientific" study - does it?

 

Yes, by that reasoning many Americans are not free. It's true. We can't make people free here, but we were sure we could do it in Iraq.

 

Damn Democrats keeping the black man down.

 

CNN's reporting that the Iraqi parliament is going to vote on the "federal" partitioned solution. I'm sure the Turks are thrilled. The Sunnis, with no oil, will also rejoice. Of course, since we have brought them freedom, we will go along with their plan to create Belfast on the Euphrates.
And it is plain that some people over here are simply incapable of reading. Or they believe that demolishing the water supply in the desert from which people die is not something that should be laid at the feet of the people who did it.

 

Have you been to Belfast lately? It is very peaceful and the Irish economy is booming.

Try another metaphor

 

It's actually more of an analogy, E_B, but whatever. And I think Fen's referring to Belfast circa 1970, rather than today. Which, by your lights, means only another 36 years until Sadr City is a peaceful tourist destination. Perhaps they can incorporate the phrase " A Vacation Mecca!" into the Chamber of Commerce brochures. Until that time however - 2042 - I would urge such visitors as the place might attract to limit their use of the word "booming."

And a quick reminder as to whether or not Fen's abusing the "Freedom on the March" trope here - neither I, nor my elected representatives, were ever asked to vote on whether or not to "liberate" or "bring freedom" or "spread democracy" to, in, or across Iraq.

I was told we had forty-five minutes to prepare for an attack. I was told that Iraq represented an immediate danger to the United States. I was told that Saddam had a mountain of WMDs. I was told that the next smoking gun was going to be a mushroom cloud. I was lied to. And so were you.

You seem like a smart enough fella, E_B - so please stop with the tortured Orwellian revisionism.
150K dead? 250K dead? 650K dead? And you're arguing statistical methodologies?

In the shadow of the lies that led us there, does it truly matter? One would be too many.

And that you're parsing the arithmetic is chilling.

 

OK, so you're willing to go for 700 years of bloodcurdling violence in order to obtain...what, a 4.6 unemployment rate?
I guess we just better hope that, down the line a couple centuries, there are brave and honest American brokers like Bill Clinton and George Mitchell in order to make peace in Iraq.