Welder: (about Obama's spending)
Now we get to see hypocracy in action :) At least Bush got a liberated Iraq for our money.
Welduh'HO.... I guess we did get a liberated Iraq for the money Bush spent. But, my friend you should always check the label to find out what is really in the product.
Iraq at 6: Cost of war: 656 billion in funds allocated (National Priorities Project)
Documented civilian deaths: between 91,121 and 99,500 (IraqBodyCount.org).
Estimated Iraqi deaths due to the US invasion: 1,320,110 (JustForeignPolicy.org, based on data from Iraq Body Count and a 2006 Lancet study).
Iraqi civilians killed in February 2009: 346 (including 11 children)
US casualties: 4,259 deaths; 31,131 wounded in action.
US troops deployed to Iraq since 2003: 513,000; deployed more than once; 197,000; deployed tree or more times; 53,000.
US soldiers who committed suicide in January 2009; as many as 24 the highest monthly total since the Army started keeping those stats in 1980.
Iraqi unemployment rate: 18 percent; for men ages 15-29: 28 percent.
Iraqi female labor force participation: 17 percent.
Journalists killed in Iraq: 138
Estimated number of Iraqi's displaced since 2003: 5 million, nearly 20 percent of the population.
Iraqi prison population: 15,100 in US custody, 35,000 in Iraqi custody.
Average hours of electricity per day in Iraq: 13.3
Casualties in the latest car bombing in Bagdad: 16 and counting.
Re: 44 - And you Blu'HO, neglected to mentioned the millions that aren't being treated to rape rooms, torture chambers and mass graves. And here's some perspective to the scam site you referenced (they're making it up). All P'HO's (Welder's pet name for President Obama) getting us for doubling the national debt is a people's paradise for you neo-Marxists and assorted welfare slugs. At least we'll get some entertainment value out of it... initially :)
Weldonut, It is thee who is making it up. My bogus websites are better than your bogus websites.... Besides, you can't prove that any of the facts I've cited are false. I'll take websites that view the world through a window rather than websites that view the world through the distorted looking glass of ideology.
As to mass graves and torture chambers, I guess you like it that we've taken them over and have simply expanded them. I can only hope that you are correct regarding the rape rooms, tho... considering the hundreds of photos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, we can't be sure.
Re: 46 - The onus is on you, Blu'HO to prove that your scam site is accurate, I'm merely providing some equally persuasive counter perspective. The contention that the IBC scam site is objective is laughable on it's face, a major Shannon mini-me fail for you, Blu :) Here's a thing or two of which we can be sure...
But IBC is +not+ “a group that monitors Iraqi deaths”; it is a group that monitors media reports of Iraqi deaths. And IBC does not monitor “Iraqi deaths”; it monitors media reports of Iraqi +civilian+ deaths as a result of violence. IBC does not monitor reports of war-related deaths due to disease, lack of food, water and medicine, and so on. IBC also does not collect reports of Iraqi military deaths.
Because IBC’s “irrefutable baseline” figure refers only to violent deaths of civilians reported by the media, the Financial Times in effect challenged that baseline by asserting that 70,000 Iraqis - i.e., civilians and military - had died. Readers might well have construed that some of these “Iraqi deaths” must have been military deaths, for example, and therefore will have come away from the article believing that many less than 70,000 civilians had died from violence.
In other words, they're guessing.
And here's something else not made up.
Weldimmer, there is no onus on me, (brush, brush). My sites are exactly what they are. So are yours. Measuring media reports is but one method used to gather data. You've tried to cast doubt on just one, but have offered no proof OR data to support your blurred ideological viewpoint.
Data, Data, count 'em, measure 'em. Knock on doors, do the research. There are lots of numbers that I've provided that have been researched carefully and are indeed true and proven. Can you only offer perspective? and conjecture? Are you happy that you can whittle one of the numbers down to just 70,000?
What does your label look like? Show me your version of the true costs of war.
Re: 48 - BluRag, you cited the scam site initially, that's what puts the anus on you. And I didn't just cast doubt; I nuked your scam numbers.
The true cost of the war? We don't know how many Iraqis were murdered by the bad guys. We don't know how many were killed by the good guys. We don't know how many AQI members were killed, or how many Iranian insurgents met Allah at our hands or those of the Iraqi Army. What we do know is the number of American lives lost and the fact that their sacrifice freed millions. (But not in your name, of course) We know that we sustained no attacks on our soil since the Clinton facilitated horror of 9-11 because of our Bush's aggressive hunting of Al Qaeda. We also know that the Dems did everything they could to undermine the morale of the troops and prematurely declare the war lost. And we know that if we had followed the advice of P'HO the Accidental, we would have indeed left Iraq in defeat.
And we know the cost of turning a blind eye to evil.
WeldoragonBlueRager.... I cited some numbers, some measurable facts, all verified by assorted means of data gathering. You've gone all ideological on me and pretty much made the case that SOMETHING horrible was going on that stopped when we invaded Iraq, but not sure what, but here's what you've heard.... Hearsay, conjecture, guesswork is not very good research.
We know that lots of Iraqi's were displaced and died. I've stated my number based on research, knocking on doors and examining media reports "boots on the ground" you've called it. What's your number? Where's your proof that my numbers are wrong?
The anus reference is ... messy.... PEE YOO..... Nuked? Gee thanks.... Yelling really loud and blowing stuff up is just noisy, not a very good argument. You can do better.
Re: 50 - Your (or the scam site's) numbers are extrapolated so I guess there's as much possibility of them being right as there are of me winning tonight's lottery but point taken. Supply me with the number of Iraqi's murdered by Al Q and the verifiable evidence and we'll chat further. The scam site is self invalidating, so my work is simplicity itself. Extrapolation and guesswork might equal "measurable facts" in your world, but, not so much in mine.
The anus thing was a typo, my bad.
RE: 51 Actually the Lancet study was peer reviewed, boots on the ground, knocking on doors and asking specific questions to real people. The final numbers were extrapolated because a complete census wasn't possible in the climate of wartime. The same folks are now on the ground talking to some of those refugees in Syria gathering gathering measurable data.
"Extrapolation and guesswork might equal "measurable facts" in your world, but, not so much in mine."
Weldontcount, you surely recognize the value of extrapolation in the study of statistics. The numbers on your chart showing the projected spending on President Obama's 10-year plan were extrapolated. You've extrapolated your information concerning WMD = mustard gas AND all that BS about Clinton and 9/11 from "research" you've found. Heck, imaginative extrapolation is what conspiracy theorists DO!
As for the number of Iraqi's killed by Al Q... I'm pretty sure those dead folks were included in the overall numbers and must be counted as part of the cost of war.
A typo? whew! My faith in you is restored.
Welder: Re: 54 - Ah, post 55, particularly appropriate today as your nuking continues :)
Verifiable fact. (linked to the hidden report acknowledging the presence of mustard gas canisters of pre-world war II vintage)
Verifiable fact. (link to the Mintner theory that Clinton is responsible for 9/11)
Extrapolation based on Democrat numbers. (link to the chart above)
Ok. So if I'm nuked, how does that prove my numbers are incorrect? All of those are scam websites stretching reality, only proving MY point that your filter is an ideologue's looking glass. Perhaps you've found nuggets of truth, but you still haven't acknowledged the cost of the war and you still justify it by pointing to ...... mustard gas? That is what we got for our money? Remember, the numbers I've cited are a statistical picture of those "liberated" Iraqi's.
Democrat or Republican, extrapolation is HOW things are counted. As you say, extrapolation is the process of making stuff up. I prefer to call it the science of statistics. At least there's a chance of finding out what is really going on.
You are getting yourself wiggled into a little tiny foxhole there bro'. I can understand why you are trying to "nuke" the conversation.
***Here we leave the conversation.***
This pattern of discussion is typical of the liberal/conservative debate. The underlying dynamic at work here is the prime directive of the conservative wingnut, "Defeat and Destroy Democrats." They can get into some seriously wierd, logically tangled postions because they have the burden of twisting reality to fit their "truth."
A liberal suffers no such burden and is free to gather and ponder information from any and all sources. It's the difference between looking through Alice's Looking Glass, and looking through a picture window. This conversation with Welder is not finished and may never be. I'm publishing it here to shine light on the manner and style of political debate.
****The end of the conversation****
Re: 56 - We'll let the peeps decide; enjoy your glow :)
Happy Birthday to you! Happy Birthday to you!
Happy Birthday dear Welder!
Happy Birthday to you!
All the best bro'HO! :)