Counter of number of lives safed in Iraq each day
59 posts by 18 authors
 |
 |
Yaaawn.
Redbaiter rants against the left.....
"Redbaiter" <do...@email.me> wrote in message
news:3ffa4008$1@news.orcon.
> Berend de Boer says
> > The counter is in the upper left corner of the linked page, which is
> > mostly explanation of how the numbers were reached.
> >
> > http://198.30.156.67/000184.
> >
> > (via Instapundit)
> >
> >
> Thanks for that Berend, a good read. The guy has done a
> calculation of the amount of Iraqi citizens killed by Saddam
> Hussein's regime, and the rate per day of killings works out at
> a conservative 138.
>
> That means, since Saddam's removal from power by George Bush and
> the US forces on the 20th of March last year, the lives of 39744
> Iraqis have been saved by the liberation forces.
>
> The leftists on this newsgroup prefer not to look at things from
> this positive angle of course, they would still rather Bush had
> not succeeded, and a further 39744 Iraqis be dead.
>
> And they have the nerve to have their silly little body counts
> on their dumb leftist propaganda sites. Pathetic contemptible
> arseholes..
>
>
> --
> Redbaiter
> In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
>
> "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate,
> tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the
> minds of men." --Samuel Adams
news:3ffa4008$1@news.orcon.
> Berend de Boer says
> > The counter is in the upper left corner of the linked page, which is
> > mostly explanation of how the numbers were reached.
> >
> > http://198.30.156.67/000184.
> >
> > (via Instapundit)
> >
> >
> Thanks for that Berend, a good read. The guy has done a
> calculation of the amount of Iraqi citizens killed by Saddam
> Hussein's regime, and the rate per day of killings works out at
> a conservative 138.
>
> That means, since Saddam's removal from power by George Bush and
> the US forces on the 20th of March last year, the lives of 39744
> Iraqis have been saved by the liberation forces.
>
> The leftists on this newsgroup prefer not to look at things from
> this positive angle of course, they would still rather Bush had
> not succeeded, and a further 39744 Iraqis be dead.
>
> And they have the nerve to have their silly little body counts
> on their dumb leftist propaganda sites. Pathetic contemptible
> arseholes..
>
>
> --
> Redbaiter
> In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
>
> "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate,
> tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the
> minds of men." --Samuel Adams
Click here to Reply
|
>>>>> "Emmanuel" == Emmanuel Goldstein V <deli...@essene.org> writes:
Emmanuel> Yaaawn. Redbaiter rants against the left.....
rant? Or just asking the left to confront some hard issues?
you're pathetic...
--
Regards,
Regards,
Berend. (-:
|
Our good friend, resident chump and (would-be) Chomsky debunker Berend
de Boer <ber...@pobox.com> blithered in message
news:<uoetgv...@pobox.com>
> >>>>> "Emmanuel" == Emmanuel Goldstein V <deli...@essene.org> writes:
>
> Emmanuel> Yaaawn. Redbaiter rants against the left.....
>
> rant? Or just asking the left to confront some hard issues?
de Boer <ber...@pobox.com> blithered in message
news:<uoetgv...@pobox.com>
> >>>>> "Emmanuel" == Emmanuel Goldstein V <deli...@essene.org> writes:
>
> Emmanuel> Yaaawn. Redbaiter rants against the left.....
>
> rant? Or just asking the left to confront some hard issues?
What "hard issues"? Redbaiter's fantasy statistics?
Here's a real hard issue, as opposed to a fantasy hard issue, for you
though, Mr de Boer: when will U.S. troops stop killing Iraqi and
Afghani civilians, including women and children? Or is it all part of
their "liberation" and "democratization" strategy?
though, Mr de Boer: when will U.S. troops stop killing Iraqi and
Afghani civilians, including women and children? Or is it all part of
their "liberation" and "democratization" strategy?
>
> you're pathetic
> you're pathetic
Ha! Ironic indeed, coming from someone who wasa kicked to kingdom
come by all and sundry after his idiotic and illiterate attack on Noam
Chomsky. By the way, who's next for your withering analysis - Sir
Edmund Hillary? Galileo? Mother Theresa? (Oh sorry, she's already
been done over by another scourge of Chomsky, hasn't she?)
come by all and sundry after his idiotic and illiterate attack on Noam
Chomsky. By the way, who's next for your withering analysis - Sir
Edmund Hillary? Galileo? Mother Theresa? (Oh sorry, she's already
been done over by another scourge of Chomsky, hasn't she?)
|
"Berend de Boer" <ber...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:uoetgvq0q.fsf@pobox.com..
> >>>>> "Emmanuel" == Emmanuel Goldstein V <deli...@essene.org> writes:
>
> Emmanuel> Yaaawn. Redbaiter rants against the left.....
>
> rant? Or just asking the left to confront some hard issues?
>
> you're pathetic...
Boring.
Where's the WMD?
Bush Lied.
Bush is worse than Hitler
|
"Emmanuel Goldstein V" <deli...@essene.org> wrote in message
news:3ffb4fce$1@news.
- show quoted text -
Agreed. He's not the only one...
> Bush is worse than Hitler
Whoa, what was that! Oh, I think it was your credibility falling out the
window.
window.
Bush is a twat whose administration has an agenda roughly similiar to past
conservative powermongers, but there is absolutely no connection to Nazi
Germany.
conservative powermongers, but there is absolutely no connection to Nazi
Germany.
If you want to put it into perspective, do a rough headcount of innocent
people killed/tortured.
people killed/tortured.
-k.
|
"Kim Shepherd" <ki...@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:1073435448.603769@clint.
- show quoted text -
Bush is currently Hitler c.1939.....just wait and see
|
"Emmanuel Goldstein V" <bkin...@charlessturt.sa.gov.
news:3ffb551b@news.comindico.
>
> "Kim Shepherd" <ki...@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
> news:1073435448.603769@clint.
> >
> > "Emmanuel Goldstein V" <deli...@essene.org> wrote in message
> > news:3ffb4fce$1@news.
[snip]
> > > Bush is worse than Hitler
> >
> > Whoa, what was that! Oh, I think it was your credibility falling out the
> > window.
> >
> > Bush is a twat whose administration has an agenda roughly similiar to
past
> > conservative powermongers, but there is absolutely no connection to Nazi
> > Germany.
> >
> > If you want to put it into perspective, do a rough headcount of innocent
> > people killed/tortured.
>
> Bush is currently Hitler c.1939.....just wait and see
> >
> > Whoa, what was that! Oh, I think it was your credibility falling out the
> > window.
> >
> > Bush is a twat whose administration has an agenda roughly similiar to
past
> > conservative powermongers, but there is absolutely no connection to Nazi
> > Germany.
> >
> > If you want to put it into perspective, do a rough headcount of innocent
> > people killed/tortured.
>
> Bush is currently Hitler c.1939.....just wait and see
I thought he was worse?
Never mind - care to draw some real comparisons? Is Bush polling at about
95%? Is he organising anti-Islam riots in the streets? Are his rallies as
spectacular, populated, and organised? Where are the firing squads?
Never mind - care to draw some real comparisons? Is Bush polling at about
95%? Is he organising anti-Islam riots in the streets? Are his rallies as
spectacular, populated, and organised? Where are the firing squads?
Don't let emotion get you carried away when you protest the actions of the
Bush Administration. It needs stopping, but you'll lose a lot of listeners
when you concentrate more on hyperbole than on problems & solutions.
Bush Administration. It needs stopping, but you'll lose a lot of listeners
when you concentrate more on hyperbole than on problems & solutions.
-k.
|
- show quoted text -
Please don't waste time giving advise to a troll.
|
Morrissey Breen wrote:
> Our good friend, resident chump and (would-be) Chomsky debunker Berend
> de Boer <ber...@pobox.com> blithered in message
> news:<uoetgv...@pobox.com>
> > >>>>> "Emmanuel" == Emmanuel Goldstein V <deli...@essene.org> writes:
> >
> > Emmanuel> Yaaawn. Redbaiter rants against the left.....
> >
> > rant? Or just asking the left to confront some hard issues?
>
> What "hard issues"? Redbaiter's fantasy statistics?
>
> Here's a real hard issue, as opposed to a fantasy hard issue, for you
> though, Mr de Boer: when will U.S. troops stop killing Iraqi and
> Afghani civilians, including women and children? Or is it all part of
> their "liberation" and "democratization" strategy?
> de Boer <ber...@pobox.com> blithered in message
> news:<uoetgv...@pobox.com>
> > >>>>> "Emmanuel" == Emmanuel Goldstein V <deli...@essene.org> writes:
> >
> > Emmanuel> Yaaawn. Redbaiter rants against the left.....
> >
> > rant? Or just asking the left to confront some hard issues?
>
> What "hard issues"? Redbaiter's fantasy statistics?
>
> Here's a real hard issue, as opposed to a fantasy hard issue, for you
> though, Mr de Boer: when will U.S. troops stop killing Iraqi and
> Afghani civilians, including women and children? Or is it all part of
> their "liberation" and "democratization" strategy?
Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
(Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
(Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
Great isnt it!
JC
|
"Kim Shepherd" <ki...@waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
- show quoted text -
Actually Bush is a bit of decoy - it's really the activities of Ashcroft I'd
be worried about If I lived in the US - and the Neo-Cons control foreign
policy - the appeals to nationalism against enemy X are where the Hitler
comparisons are strongest.
|
"LAR" <kda...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:btfq8j$jud$1@lust.ihug.
- show quoted text -
you mean advice?
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FFB9CEA...@ihug.
>
> Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
>
> Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
> (Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
>
> Great isnt it!
>
> JC
>
> Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
>
> Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
> (Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
>
> Great isnt it!
>
> JC
Hey, Redbaiter! I've found someone who swallows your fantasy statistics!
|
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 18:45:14 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
wrote:
>
>Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
>
>Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
>(Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
>
>Great isnt it!
>Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
>
>Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
>(Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
>
>Great isnt it!
Nonsense, isn't it? A speculated death count...doesn't count. What
counts is the numbers of dead people, no matter who is responsible.
Tarla
****
"Bother," said Pooh, as he buried Piglet's mangled corpse.
counts is the numbers of dead people, no matter who is responsible.
Tarla
****
"Bother," said Pooh, as he buried Piglet's mangled corpse.
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
Morrissey Breen wrote:
- show quoted text -
Another 139 lives saved since yesterday. How's Iranbodycount going?
JC
|
ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 18:45:14 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
> >
> >Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
> >(Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
> >
> >Great isnt it!
>
> Nonsense, isn't it? A speculated death count...doesn't count. What
> counts is the numbers of dead people, no matter who is responsible.
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
> >
> >Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
> >(Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
> >
> >Great isnt it!
>
> Nonsense, isn't it? A speculated death count...doesn't count. What
> counts is the numbers of dead people, no matter who is responsible.
There are those who count the bodies in life, and those who count the living..
and the saved.
and the saved.
JC
>
> Tarla
> ****
> "Bother," said Pooh, as he buried Piglet's mangled corpse.
> Tarla
> ****
> "Bother," said Pooh, as he buried Piglet's mangled corpse.
|
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:46:45 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
You can't count a speculative number. Unless you have the names of
those that Saddam planned to kill, you have no evidence of anyone
being saved. You only have evidence of those who are dead.
wrote:
>ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 18:45:14 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
>> >
>> >Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
>> >(Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
>> >
>> >Great isnt it!
>>
>> Nonsense, isn't it? A speculated death count...doesn't count. What
>> counts is the numbers of dead people, no matter who is responsible.
>
>There are those who count the bodies in life, and those who count the living..
>and the saved.
\>
>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 18:45:14 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
>> >
>> >Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
>> >(Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
>> >
>> >Great isnt it!
>>
>> Nonsense, isn't it? A speculated death count...doesn't count. What
>> counts is the numbers of dead people, no matter who is responsible.
>
>There are those who count the bodies in life, and those who count the living..
>and the saved.
You can't count a speculative number. Unless you have the names of
those that Saddam planned to kill, you have no evidence of anyone
being saved. You only have evidence of those who are dead.
Tarla
****
Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a
relief denied even to prayer.
-Mark Twain
****
Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a
relief denied even to prayer.
-Mark Twain
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:29:18 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>Morrissey Breen wrote:
- show quoted text -
The Iraq body count, and the Iran bodycounts are real people who have
names. Your fantasy list has none because it is nothing more than a
fantasy.
>
>JC
names. Your fantasy list has none because it is nothing more than a
fantasy.
>
>JC
>
>
Tarla
****
Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a
relief denied even to prayer.
-Mark Twain
****
Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a
relief denied even to prayer.
-Mark Twain
|
ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 19:46:45 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 18:45:14 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
> >> >
> >> >Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
> >> >(Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
> >> >
> >> >Great isnt it!
> >>
> >> Nonsense, isn't it? A speculated death count...doesn't count. What
> >> counts is the numbers of dead people, no matter who is responsible.
> >
> >There are those who count the bodies in life, and those who count the living..
> >and the saved.
> \
> You can't count a speculative number. Unless you have the names of
> those that Saddam planned to kill, you have no evidence of anyone
> being saved.
> wrote:
>
> >ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 18:45:14 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
> >> >
> >> >Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
> >> >(Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
> >> >
> >> >Great isnt it!
> >>
> >> Nonsense, isn't it? A speculated death count...doesn't count. What
> >> counts is the numbers of dead people, no matter who is responsible.
> >
> >There are those who count the bodies in life, and those who count the living..
> >and the saved.
> \
> You can't count a speculative number. Unless you have the names of
> those that Saddam planned to kill, you have no evidence of anyone
> being saved.
That would mean that it's pointless to put out fire in an apartment, because the
effort required to save life is speculative and cannot be counted. OTOH, you should
put your effort into accurately counting the bodies.
effort required to save life is speculative and cannot be counted. OTOH, you should
put your effort into accurately counting the bodies.
Or, there is absolutely no point in rushing in supplies of food, clothing and
medicines to the survivors of the Bam earthquake, this is a speculative exercise
because no one can know how many people will be saved, and it takes resources away
from the more important activity of counting the dead.
medicines to the survivors of the Bam earthquake, this is a speculative exercise
because no one can know how many people will be saved, and it takes resources away
from the more important activity of counting the dead.
Or, the US spends US$50 billion on supplying money and food to starving peoples
around the world. This is a waste of money because no one can prove that a single
life has been saved. OTOH, if the US sends US$50 billion in arms to such people we
can actually count the bullet ridden bodies that result. This is a good thing
because accuracy is very important.
around the world. This is a waste of money because no one can prove that a single
life has been saved. OTOH, if the US sends US$50 billion in arms to such people we
can actually count the bullet ridden bodies that result. This is a good thing
because accuracy is very important.
> You only have evidence of those who are dead.
Indeed.
JC
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:29:18 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >Morrissey Breen wrote:
> >
> >> John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FFB9CEA...@ihug.
> >> >
> >> > Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
> >> >
> >> > Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
> >> > (Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
> >> >
> >> > Great isnt it!
> >> >
> >> > JC
> >>
> >> Hey, Redbaiter! I've found someone who swallows your fantasy statistics!
> >
> >Another 139 lives saved since yesterday. How's Iranbodycount going?
>
> The Iraq body count, and the Iran bodycounts are real people who have
> names. Your fantasy list has none because it is nothing more than a
> fantasy.
> wrote:
>
> >Morrissey Breen wrote:
> >
> >> John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FFB9CEA...@ihug.
> >> >
> >> > Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
> >> >
> >> > Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
> >> > (Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
> >> >
> >> > Great isnt it!
> >> >
> >> > JC
> >>
> >> Hey, Redbaiter! I've found someone who swallows your fantasy statistics!
> >
> >Another 139 lives saved since yesterday. How's Iranbodycount going?
>
> The Iraq body count, and the Iran bodycounts are real people who have
> names. Your fantasy list has none because it is nothing more than a
> fantasy.
"International Organizations Preventing Disease Through Vaccination
"More than 30 million children born annually - one in four - do not receive any immunizations.
Three million of these children will die at some point in their lives from a vaccine-preventable
disease. The lack of immunizations alone results in the death of about 8,000 children every
day... These are lives that can be saved now--and for just $30 a child. It's the world's best
value."
Three million of these children will die at some point in their lives from a vaccine-preventable
disease. The lack of immunizations alone results in the death of about 8,000 children every
day... These are lives that can be saved now--and for just $30 a child. It's the world's best
value."
The Vaccine Fund"
Fantasy?
JC
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FFCDC9E...@ihug.
> >
> > Hey, Redbaiter! I've found someone who swallows your fantasy statistics!
>
> Another 139 lives saved since yesterday. How's Iranbodycount going?
>
> JC
> >
> > Hey, Redbaiter! I've found someone who swallows your fantasy statistics!
>
> Another 139 lives saved since yesterday. How's Iranbodycount going?
>
> JC
Actually, Redbaiter, there's only ONE.
By the way, from whom did you learn this interesting new technique of
transforming mass murder and mayhem into such blithe positivity? The
Nazis?
transforming mass murder and mayhem into such blithe positivity? The
Nazis?
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
NZ's own "Idiotarian of the Year", would be murderer of public figures he disagrees with and
- show quoted text -
- show quoted text -
Still counting bodies, are we?
I see they have found another mass grave in Iraq. Best you get over there, lots of bodies to
count and blame on the US. Dont forget your Saddam beanie.. this is a passport to the love of
the Iraqi people.
count and blame on the US. Dont forget your Saddam beanie.. this is a passport to the love of
the Iraqi people.
JC
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
John Cawston wrote:
> NZ's own "Idiotarian of the Year",
Morrisy Breens posts are ususally full of good humour and they certainly do
not warrant this kind of abusive insulting language.
not warrant this kind of abusive insulting language.
Please desist John.
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 02:26:03 +1300, janice <janice_g_@_free.net.nz>
wrote:
>Morrisy Breens posts are ususally full of good humour and they certainly do
>not warrant this kind of abusive insulting language.
>
>Please desist John.
wrote:
>Morrisy Breens posts are ususally full of good humour and they certainly do
>not warrant this kind of abusive insulting language.
>
>Please desist John.
In fact you and Breen are card-carying members of the extreme
Humourless Left branch. Breen's only attempt at humour are his
drunken forays into prose in which he is his own leading character --
showing a lack of life's skills. He's bipolar and you are just
monotonous.
Humourless Left branch. Breen's only attempt at humour are his
drunken forays into prose in which he is his own leading character --
showing a lack of life's skills. He's bipolar and you are just
monotonous.
willy
|
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:11:53 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
>
>Or, there is absolutely no point in rushing in supplies of food, clothing and
>medicines to the survivors of the Bam earthquake, this is a speculative exercise
>because no one can know how many people will be saved, and it takes resources away
>from the more important activity of counting the dead.
wrote:
>ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>> >> Nonsense, isn't it? A speculated death count...doesn't count. What
>> >> counts is the numbers of dead people, no matter who is responsible.
>> >
>> >There are those who count the bodies in life, and those who count the living..
>> >and the saved.
>> \
>> You can't count a speculative number. Unless you have the names of
>> those that Saddam planned to kill, you have no evidence of anyone
>> being saved.
>
>That would mean that it's pointless to put out fire in an apartment, because the
>effort required to save life is speculative and cannot be counted. OTOH, you should
>put your effort into accurately counting the bodies.
>> >> counts is the numbers of dead people, no matter who is responsible.
>> >
>> >There are those who count the bodies in life, and those who count the living..
>> >and the saved.
>> \
>> You can't count a speculative number. Unless you have the names of
>> those that Saddam planned to kill, you have no evidence of anyone
>> being saved.
>
>That would mean that it's pointless to put out fire in an apartment, because the
>effort required to save life is speculative and cannot be counted. OTOH, you should
>put your effort into accurately counting the bodies.
You're being silly now. Firefighters are charged with protecting life
and PROPERTY.
and PROPERTY.
>
>Or, there is absolutely no point in rushing in supplies of food, clothing and
>medicines to the survivors of the Bam earthquake, this is a speculative exercise
>because no one can know how many people will be saved, and it takes resources away
>from the more important activity of counting the dead.
We know that there are living persons who need our help.
>
>Or, the US spends US$50 billion on supplying money and food to starving peoples
>around the world. This is a waste of money because no one can prove that a single
>life has been saved. OTOH, if the US sends US$50 billion in arms to such people we
>can actually count the bullet ridden bodies that result. This is a good thing
>because accuracy is very important.
>Or, the US spends US$50 billion on supplying money and food to starving peoples
>around the world. This is a waste of money because no one can prove that a single
>life has been saved. OTOH, if the US sends US$50 billion in arms to such people we
>can actually count the bullet ridden bodies that result. This is a good thing
>because accuracy is very important.
It's not a waste of money, but only a fool would estimate the numbers
of lives saved and say that it was evidence. We can guess at a
potential number that might die, but we cannot say that we have
actually saved that number. That doesn't mean that we should not try
to help those that are living continue to live.
of lives saved and say that it was evidence. We can guess at a
potential number that might die, but we cannot say that we have
actually saved that number. That doesn't mean that we should not try
to help those that are living continue to live.
Tarla
****
Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a
relief denied even to prayer.
-Mark Twain
****
Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a
relief denied even to prayer.
-Mark Twain
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:35:39 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
>"International Organizations Preventing Disease Through Vaccination
>
>"More than 30 million children born annually - one in four - do not receive any immunizations.
>Three million of these children will die at some point in their lives from a vaccine-preventable
>disease. The lack of immunizations alone results in the death of about 8,000 children every
>day... These are lives that can be saved now--and for just $30 a child. It's the world's best
>value."
>
>The Vaccine Fund"
Tarla
****
Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a
relief denied even to prayer.
-Mark Twain
wrote:
>
>"International Organizations Preventing Disease Through Vaccination
>
>"More than 30 million children born annually - one in four - do not receive any immunizations.
>Three million of these children will die at some point in their lives from a vaccine-preventable
>disease. The lack of immunizations alone results in the death of about 8,000 children every
>day... These are lives that can be saved now--and for just $30 a child. It's the world's best
>value."
>
>The Vaccine Fund"
Not at all. there are living children with names that can be saved.
Just because they might potentially die doesn't mean that we count a
number of children every day and say that they have been saved. We
count the dead ones and thank god we've saved the living ones.
Just because they might potentially die doesn't mean that we count a
number of children every day and say that they have been saved. We
count the dead ones and thank god we've saved the living ones.
Tarla
****
Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a
relief denied even to prayer.
-Mark Twain
|
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 18:45:14 +1300, John Cawston
<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>Morrissey Breen wrote:
>
>> Our good friend, resident chump and (would-be) Chomsky debunker Berend
>> de Boer <ber...@pobox.com> blithered in message
>> news:<uoetgv...@pobox.com>
>> > >>>>> "Emmanuel" == Emmanuel Goldstein V <deli...@essene.org> writes:
>> >
>> > Emmanuel> Yaaawn. Redbaiter rants against the left.....
>> >
>> > rant? Or just asking the left to confront some hard issues?
>>
>> What "hard issues"? Redbaiter's fantasy statistics?
>>
>> Here's a real hard issue, as opposed to a fantasy hard issue, for you
>> though, Mr de Boer: when will U.S. troops stop killing Iraqi and
>> Afghani civilians, including women and children? Or is it all part of
>> their "liberation" and "democratization" strategy?
>
>Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
>
>Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
>(Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
>
>Great isnt it!
>
>> Our good friend, resident chump and (would-be) Chomsky debunker Berend
>> de Boer <ber...@pobox.com> blithered in message
>> news:<uoetgv...@pobox.com>
>> > >>>>> "Emmanuel" == Emmanuel Goldstein V <deli...@essene.org> writes:
>> >
>> > Emmanuel> Yaaawn. Redbaiter rants against the left.....
>> >
>> > rant? Or just asking the left to confront some hard issues?
>>
>> What "hard issues"? Redbaiter's fantasy statistics?
>>
>> Here's a real hard issue, as opposed to a fantasy hard issue, for you
>> though, Mr de Boer: when will U.S. troops stop killing Iraqi and
>> Afghani civilians, including women and children? Or is it all part of
>> their "liberation" and "democratization" strategy?
>
>Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
>
>Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
>(Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
>
>Great isnt it!
What was the mortality rate over the last 5 and 10 years?
--
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
|
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<3FFD1ED9...@ihug.
>
> That would mean that it's pointless to put out fire in an apartment, because
> the effort required to save life is speculative and cannot be counted. OTOH,
> you should
>
> That would mean that it's pointless to put out fire in an apartment, because
> the effort required to save life is speculative and cannot be counted. OTOH,
> you should
False analogy. The U.S. is STARTING the fires. The U.S. is KILLING
the people in the apartment.
the people in the apartment.
Can you not see that? Or are you just utterly bloody-minded in your
feeble attempt to make fun of the Iraq Body Bount web site?
feeble attempt to make fun of the Iraq Body Bount web site?
|
ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> >
> >That would mean that it's pointless to put out fire in an apartment, because the
> >effort required to save life is speculative and cannot be counted. OTOH, you should
> >put your effort into accurately counting the bodies.
>
> You're being silly now. Firefighters are charged with protecting life
> and PROPERTY.
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:11:53 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>
> >> >> Nonsense, isn't it? A speculated death count...doesn't count. What
> >> >> counts is the numbers of dead people, no matter who is responsible.
> >> >
> >> >There are those who count the bodies in life, and those who count the living..
> >> >and the saved.
> >> \
> >> You can't count a speculative number. Unless you have the names of
> >> those that Saddam planned to kill, you have no evidence of anyone
> >> being saved.
> wrote:
>
> >ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>
> >> >> Nonsense, isn't it? A speculated death count...doesn't count. What
> >> >> counts is the numbers of dead people, no matter who is responsible.
> >> >
> >> >There are those who count the bodies in life, and those who count the living..
> >> >and the saved.
> >> \
> >> You can't count a speculative number. Unless you have the names of
> >> those that Saddam planned to kill, you have no evidence of anyone
> >> being saved.
> >
> >That would mean that it's pointless to put out fire in an apartment, because the
> >effort required to save life is speculative and cannot be counted. OTOH, you should
>
> You're being silly now. Firefighters are charged with protecting life
> and PROPERTY.
What for?
In Tarla speak any attempt to quantify lives saved is speculative. Only bodies count.
JC
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:35:39 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"International Organizations Preventing Disease Through Vaccination
> >
> >"More than 30 million children born annually - one in four - do not receive any immunizations.
> >Three million of these children will die at some point in their lives from a vaccine-preventable
> >disease. The lack of immunizations alone results in the death of about 8,000 children every
> >day... These are lives that can be saved now--and for just $30 a child. It's the world's best
> >value."
> >
> >The Vaccine Fund"
>
> Not at all. there are living children with names that can be saved.
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"International Organizations Preventing Disease Through Vaccination
> >
> >"More than 30 million children born annually - one in four - do not receive any immunizations.
> >Three million of these children will die at some point in their lives from a vaccine-preventable
> >disease. The lack of immunizations alone results in the death of about 8,000 children every
> >day... These are lives that can be saved now--and for just $30 a child. It's the world's best
> >value."
> >
> >The Vaccine Fund"
>
> Not at all. there are living children with names that can be saved.
If they can be saved, they can be counted. Literally no humanitarian project gets off the ground
without an estimate of the number of lives that can be saved or bettered.
without an estimate of the number of lives that can be saved or bettered.
Every action taken by the Govt. to save lives on the road comes with an estimate of the numbers,
based on some form of evidence.
based on some form of evidence.
>
> Just because they might potentially die doesn't mean that we count a
> number of children every day and say that they have been saved. We
> count the dead ones and thank god we've saved the living ones.
> Just because they might potentially die doesn't mean that we count a
> number of children every day and say that they have been saved. We
> count the dead ones and thank god we've saved the living ones.
This is just ridiculous. If we know (say) that children are dying for a variety of reasons that can
be abated or removed then we have the basis for an estimate.
be abated or removed then we have the basis for an estimate.
In the case of Iraq, we know that people were dying at the rate of 50,000 - 100,000 per year. Prior
to the occupation we were told plenty about that and the cause.. which was the sanctions.
to the occupation we were told plenty about that and the cause.. which was the sanctions.
The sanctions have gone. There are no fresh reports coming in of people dying because of sanctions,
ergo the Coalition is saving lives. Add in the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam no longer and
again the Coalition is responsible.
ergo the Coalition is saving lives. Add in the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam no longer and
again the Coalition is responsible.
You can make estimates of anything and we do, all the time.
JC
|
Brian Dooley wrote:
- show quoted text -
The same as it was the last 20 times you asked.
JC
|
Morrissey Breen wrote:
- show quoted text -
Your problem is your huge anger that anyone would dare to show a positive light to the
occupation. The ridiculous stance that one cannot postulate or estimate lives saved because
the occupation stopped the sanctions and injected massive aid to the country shows a defiance
of logic and normal budgeting thats breathtaking.
occupation. The ridiculous stance that one cannot postulate or estimate lives saved because
the occupation stopped the sanctions and injected massive aid to the country shows a defiance
of logic and normal budgeting thats breathtaking.
Iraqbodycount is a site run by unashamed activists who use media reports for their estimates
of deaths.
of deaths.
UNICEF credits the sanctions with the deaths of 500,000 children.
Did these organisations count bodies?
Not on your life. They made estimates.
So somebody comes up with a way of tallying lives saved, using similar methods as Human Rights
Watch, UNICEF and Iraqbodycount.
Watch, UNICEF and Iraqbodycount.
You and others opposed to saving WOGs are incensed. How dare anyone find any good to come of
deposing the murderer! The sanctions were doing their job with no threat to the west. Besides,
they were helpful in promoting anti Americanism.
deposing the murderer! The sanctions were doing their job with no threat to the west. Besides,
they were helpful in promoting anti Americanism.
Sorry. But Iraq is a circuit breaker in relationships with the Muslim world, with the UN and
its disgusting capture by the tyrants, by the growing formation of a democratic country bloc
and an alternative UN Security Council to monitor and control WMD.
its disgusting capture by the tyrants, by the growing formation of a democratic country bloc
and an alternative UN Security Council to monitor and control WMD.
JC
|
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:20:55 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
wrote:
>ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:11:53 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Nonsense, isn't it? A speculated death count...doesn't count. What
>> >> >> counts is the numbers of dead people, no matter who is responsible.
>> >> >
>> >> >There are those who count the bodies in life, and those who count the living..
>> >> >and the saved.
>> >> \
>> >> You can't count a speculative number. Unless you have the names of
>> >> those that Saddam planned to kill, you have no evidence of anyone
>> >> being saved.
>> >
>> >That would mean that it's pointless to put out fire in an apartment, because the
>> >effort required to save life is speculative and cannot be counted. OTOH, you should
>> >put your effort into accurately counting the bodies.
>>
>> You're being silly now. Firefighters are charged with protecting life
>> and PROPERTY.
>
>What for?
>
>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:11:53 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Nonsense, isn't it? A speculated death count...doesn't count. What
>> >> >> counts is the numbers of dead people, no matter who is responsible.
>> >> >
>> >> >There are those who count the bodies in life, and those who count the living..
>> >> >and the saved.
>> >> \
>> >> You can't count a speculative number. Unless you have the names of
>> >> those that Saddam planned to kill, you have no evidence of anyone
>> >> being saved.
>> >
>> >That would mean that it's pointless to put out fire in an apartment, because the
>> >effort required to save life is speculative and cannot be counted. OTOH, you should
>> >put your effort into accurately counting the bodies.
>>
>> You're being silly now. Firefighters are charged with protecting life
>> and PROPERTY.
>
>What for?
Inheritance.
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:25:50 +1300, John Cawston
<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
- show quoted text -
You're right there,John.
And they're all different, as a search on Iraq mortality rate
will show.
will show.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
|
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:41:06 +1300, John Cawston
<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
- show quoted text -
You don't know, do you?
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
|
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:05:10 +1300, Brian Dooley wrote:
>>Today, another 139 people's lives were saved by the Coalition in Iraq.
>>
>>Currently, a pessimistic view on the numbers killed is something over 8000
>>(Iraqbodycount) but the numbers saved is around 40,000 and growing.
>>
>>Great isnt it!
>
> What was the mortality rate over the last 5 and 10 years?
It seems loony to me that they count these numbers as if people were still
dying in the Iran-Iraq war. Hey it is too late to save any of those
people. I know that they are still digging them up, but they don't come
back to life.
dying in the Iran-Iraq war. Hey it is too late to save any of those
people. I know that they are still digging them up, but they don't come
back to life.
--
Barry Phease
Barry Phease
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
Brian Dooley wrote:
- show quoted text -
But there are authoritative surveys that confirm the figure for children
JC
|
Brian Dooley wrote:
- show quoted text -
You mean *you* dont know.
But to keep your nurse happy, here is UNICEF again.
JC
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:25:50 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
a count of the daily lives saved, because the circumstances around
which that estimate was originally made have changed.
>
>Every action taken by the Govt. to save lives on the road comes with an estimate of the numbers,
>based on some form of evidence.
.
>> Just because they might potentially die doesn't mean that we count a
>> number of children every day and say that they have been saved. We
>> count the dead ones and thank god we've saved the living ones.
>
>This is just ridiculous. If we know (say) that children are dying for a variety of reasons that can
>be abated or removed then we have the basis for an estimate.
>
>In the case of Iraq, we know that people were dying at the rate of 50,000 - 100,000 per year. Prior
>to the occupation we were told plenty about that and the cause.. which was the sanctions.
>
>The sanctions have gone. There are no fresh reports coming in of people dying because of sanctions,
>ergo the Coalition is saving lives. Add in the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam no longer and
>again the Coalition is responsible.
>
>You can make estimates of anything and we do, all the time.
wrote:
>ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:35:39 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"International Organizations Preventing Disease Through Vaccination
>> >
>> >"More than 30 million children born annually - one in four - do not receive any immunizations.
>> >Three million of these children will die at some point in their lives from a vaccine-preventable
>> >disease. The lack of immunizations alone results in the death of about 8,000 children every
>> >day... These are lives that can be saved now--and for just $30 a child. It's the world's best
>> >value."
>> >
>> >The Vaccine Fund"
>>
>> Not at all. there are living children with names that can be saved.
>
>If they can be saved, they can be counted. Literally no humanitarian project gets off the ground
>without an estimate of the number of lives that can be saved or bettered.
But that's an estimate. It cannot be logically extrapolated to become>
>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:35:39 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"International Organizations Preventing Disease Through Vaccination
>> >
>> >"More than 30 million children born annually - one in four - do not receive any immunizations.
>> >Three million of these children will die at some point in their lives from a vaccine-preventable
>> >disease. The lack of immunizations alone results in the death of about 8,000 children every
>> >day... These are lives that can be saved now--and for just $30 a child. It's the world's best
>> >value."
>> >
>> >The Vaccine Fund"
>>
>> Not at all. there are living children with names that can be saved.
>
>If they can be saved, they can be counted. Literally no humanitarian project gets off the ground
>without an estimate of the number of lives that can be saved or bettered.
a count of the daily lives saved, because the circumstances around
which that estimate was originally made have changed.
>
>Every action taken by the Govt. to save lives on the road comes with an estimate of the numbers,
>based on some form of evidence.
.
>> Just because they might potentially die doesn't mean that we count a
>> number of children every day and say that they have been saved. We
>> count the dead ones and thank god we've saved the living ones.
>
>This is just ridiculous. If we know (say) that children are dying for a variety of reasons that can
>be abated or removed then we have the basis for an estimate.
And as soon as the circumstances change, then the original numbers
must be thrown out and you have to start over using the new data.
must be thrown out and you have to start over using the new data.
>
>In the case of Iraq, we know that people were dying at the rate of 50,000 - 100,000 per year. Prior
>to the occupation we were told plenty about that and the cause.. which was the sanctions.
>
>The sanctions have gone. There are no fresh reports coming in of people dying because of sanctions,
>ergo the Coalition is saving lives. Add in the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam no longer and
>again the Coalition is responsible.
The Coalition if you want to call it that, is responsible for putting
those sanction in place. So now that they're not killing people
because of the sanctions that they imposed, they're supposedly saving
people? Shit. they're just killing few than they were a few months
ago.
those sanction in place. So now that they're not killing people
because of the sanctions that they imposed, they're supposedly saving
people? Shit. they're just killing few than they were a few months
ago.
>
>You can make estimates of anything and we do, all the time.
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
Tarla wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:25:50 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:35:39 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"International Organizations Preventing Disease Through Vaccination
> >> >
> >> >"More than 30 million children born annually - one in four - do not receive any immunizations.
> >> >Three million of these children will die at some point in their lives from a vaccine-preventable
> >> >disease. The lack of immunizations alone results in the death of about 8,000 children every
> >> >day... These are lives that can be saved now--and for just $30 a child. It's the world's best
> >> >value."
> >> >
> >> >The Vaccine Fund"
> >>
> >> Not at all. there are living children with names that can be saved.
> >
> >If they can be saved, they can be counted. Literally no humanitarian project gets off the ground
> >without an estimate of the number of lives that can be saved or bettered.
>
> But that's an estimate. It cannot be logically extrapolated to become
> a count of the daily lives saved, because the circumstances around
> which that estimate was originally made have changed.
> wrote:
>
> >ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:35:39 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"International Organizations Preventing Disease Through Vaccination
> >> >
> >> >"More than 30 million children born annually - one in four - do not receive any immunizations.
> >> >Three million of these children will die at some point in their lives from a vaccine-preventable
> >> >disease. The lack of immunizations alone results in the death of about 8,000 children every
> >> >day... These are lives that can be saved now--and for just $30 a child. It's the world's best
> >> >value."
> >> >
> >> >The Vaccine Fund"
> >>
> >> Not at all. there are living children with names that can be saved.
> >
> >If they can be saved, they can be counted. Literally no humanitarian project gets off the ground
> >without an estimate of the number of lives that can be saved or bettered.
>
> But that's an estimate. It cannot be logically extrapolated to become
> a count of the daily lives saved, because the circumstances around
> which that estimate was originally made have changed.
So you change your estimates. In some NZ businesses its called respreading. Every six months you take
note of your estimates against actuals and change them to recognise the actual situation (if you think
there really is a change).
note of your estimates against actuals and change them to recognise the actual situation (if you think
there really is a change).
>
> >
> >Every action taken by the Govt. to save lives on the road comes with an estimate of the numbers,
> >based on some form of evidence.
> .
> >> Just because they might potentially die doesn't mean that we count a
> >> number of children every day and say that they have been saved. We
> >> count the dead ones and thank god we've saved the living ones.
> >
> >This is just ridiculous. If we know (say) that children are dying for a variety of reasons that can
> >be abated or removed then we have the basis for an estimate.
>
> And as soon as the circumstances change, then the original numbers
> must be thrown out and you have to start over using the new data.
> >
> >Every action taken by the Govt. to save lives on the road comes with an estimate of the numbers,
> >based on some form of evidence.
> .
> >> Just because they might potentially die doesn't mean that we count a
> >> number of children every day and say that they have been saved. We
> >> count the dead ones and thank god we've saved the living ones.
> >
> >This is just ridiculous. If we know (say) that children are dying for a variety of reasons that can
> >be abated or removed then we have the basis for an estimate.
>
> And as soon as the circumstances change, then the original numbers
> must be thrown out and you have to start over using the new data.
Of course.
>
> >
> >In the case of Iraq, we know that people were dying at the rate of 50,000 - 100,000 per year. Prior
> >to the occupation we were told plenty about that and the cause.. which was the sanctions.
> >
> >The sanctions have gone. There are no fresh reports coming in of people dying because of sanctions,
> >ergo the Coalition is saving lives. Add in the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam no longer and
> >again the Coalition is responsible.
>
> The Coalition if you want to call it that, is responsible for putting
> those sanction in place. So now that they're not killing people
> because of the sanctions that they imposed, they're supposedly saving
> people? Shit. they're just killing few than they were a few months
> ago.
> >
> >In the case of Iraq, we know that people were dying at the rate of 50,000 - 100,000 per year. Prior
> >to the occupation we were told plenty about that and the cause.. which was the sanctions.
> >
> >The sanctions have gone. There are no fresh reports coming in of people dying because of sanctions,
> >ergo the Coalition is saving lives. Add in the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam no longer and
> >again the Coalition is responsible.
>
> The Coalition if you want to call it that, is responsible for putting
> those sanction in place. So now that they're not killing people
> because of the sanctions that they imposed, they're supposedly saving
> people? Shit. they're just killing few than they were a few months
> ago.
The sanctions were put in place by the UN by unanimous consent. That included Russia, France, China,
Germany, Belgium and all the rest. The same countries that imposed 17 resolutions on Iraq to come clean
over its WMD between 1990 and 2002.
Germany, Belgium and all the rest. The same countries that imposed 17 resolutions on Iraq to come clean
over its WMD between 1990 and 2002.
As you say, there are now fewer being killed. I've made it clear it's a lot fewer. Tens of thousands in
fact.
fact.
JC
|
"Emmanuel Goldstein V" <deli...@essene.org> wrote in message news:<3ffa388f$1...@news.
> Yaaawn.
>
> Redbaiter rants against the left.....
>
>
> "Redbaiter" <do...@email.me> wrote in message
> news:3ffa4008$1@news.orcon.
> > Berend de Boer says
> > > The counter is in the upper left corner of the linked page, which is
> > > mostly explanation of how the numbers were reached.
> > >
> > > http://198.30.156.67/000184.
> > >
> > > (via Instapundit)
> > >
> > >
> > Thanks for that Berend, a good read. The guy has done a
> > calculation of the amount of Iraqi citizens killed by Saddam
> > Hussein's regime, and the rate per day of killings works out at
> > a conservative 138.
> >
> > That means, since Saddam's removal from power by George Bush and
> > the US forces on the 20th of March last year, the lives of 39744
> > Iraqis have been saved by the liberation forces.
> Yaaawn.
>
> Redbaiter rants against the left.....
>
>
> news:3ffa4008$1@news.orcon.
> > Berend de Boer says
> > > The counter is in the upper left corner of the linked page, which is
> > > mostly explanation of how the numbers were reached.
> > >
> > > http://198.30.156.67/000184.
> > >
> > > (via Instapundit)
> > >
> > >
> > Thanks for that Berend, a good read. The guy has done a
> > calculation of the amount of Iraqi citizens killed by Saddam
> > Hussein's regime, and the rate per day of killings works out at
> > a conservative 138.
> >
> > That means, since Saddam's removal from power by George Bush and
> > the US forces on the 20th of March last year, the lives of 39744
> > Iraqis have been saved by the liberation forces.
Wow. This is some great logic. By using it we can discover that the
United States of America has murdered 100,000 Vietnamese civilians in
the year 2003. All you need is to use this handy method of
calculation. The Vietnam War began in roughly 1962, and led to
roughly 4 million Vietnamese deaths. If we average this over the last
40 years, that's about 100,000 dead Vietnamese killed by the US regime
each year. The US regime obviously then will kill 100,000 Vietnamese
in 2004 if someone doesn't stop them! Won't someone please invade the
US, overthrow the US government so that these 100,000 lives can be
saved?!?!
United States of America has murdered 100,000 Vietnamese civilians in
the year 2003. All you need is to use this handy method of
calculation. The Vietnam War began in roughly 1962, and led to
roughly 4 million Vietnamese deaths. If we average this over the last
40 years, that's about 100,000 dead Vietnamese killed by the US regime
each year. The US regime obviously then will kill 100,000 Vietnamese
in 2004 if someone doesn't stop them! Won't someone please invade the
US, overthrow the US government so that these 100,000 lives can be
saved?!?!
Geez!
If anyone was serious about trying to speculate about how many iraqis
would have been killed in 2003 if conditions had remained constant, it
would be reasonable to look at the rates for 2002, 2001..etc, and
speculate that they will most likely be similar. That would be far
more reasonable than going back 20 years, including everyone that died
in a major war that ended in 1988, or in an insurgency 12 years ago,
and then averaging it all up to today, as if this is going to tell you
anything. The number produced will be baseless for such a
speculation. It will tell you about as much about 2003 as it will
tell you about 1988, namely nothing.
would have been killed in 2003 if conditions had remained constant, it
would be reasonable to look at the rates for 2002, 2001..etc, and
speculate that they will most likely be similar. That would be far
more reasonable than going back 20 years, including everyone that died
in a major war that ended in 1988, or in an insurgency 12 years ago,
and then averaging it all up to today, as if this is going to tell you
anything. The number produced will be baseless for such a
speculation. It will tell you about as much about 2003 as it will
tell you about 1988, namely nothing.
Josh
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:59:51 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
wrote:
>Tarla wrote:
>
>
>> But that's an estimate. It cannot be logically extrapolated to become
>> a count of the daily lives saved, because the circumstances around
>> which that estimate was originally made have changed.
>
>So you change your estimates. In some NZ businesses its called respreading. Every six months you take
>note of your estimates against actuals and change them to recognise the actual situation (if you think
>there really is a change).
>
>>
>> >
>> >Every action taken by the Govt. to save lives on the road comes with an estimate of the numbers,
>> >based on some form of evidence.
>> .
>> >> Just because they might potentially die doesn't mean that we count a
>> >> number of children every day and say that they have been saved. We
>> >> count the dead ones and thank god we've saved the living ones.
>> >
>> >This is just ridiculous. If we know (say) that children are dying for a variety of reasons that can
>> >be abated or removed then we have the basis for an estimate.
>>
>> And as soon as the circumstances change, then the original numbers
>> must be thrown out and you have to start over using the new data.
>
>Of course.
>
>
>> But that's an estimate. It cannot be logically extrapolated to become
>> a count of the daily lives saved, because the circumstances around
>> which that estimate was originally made have changed.
>
>So you change your estimates. In some NZ businesses its called respreading. Every six months you take
>note of your estimates against actuals and change them to recognise the actual situation (if you think
>there really is a change).
>
>>
>> >
>> >Every action taken by the Govt. to save lives on the road comes with an estimate of the numbers,
>> >based on some form of evidence.
>> .
>> >> Just because they might potentially die doesn't mean that we count a
>> >> number of children every day and say that they have been saved. We
>> >> count the dead ones and thank god we've saved the living ones.
>> >
>> >This is just ridiculous. If we know (say) that children are dying for a variety of reasons that can
>> >be abated or removed then we have the basis for an estimate.
>>
>> And as soon as the circumstances change, then the original numbers
>> must be thrown out and you have to start over using the new data.
>
>Of course.
Then why are you using twenty year old figures to extrapolate?
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
Tarla wrote:
- show quoted text -
What 20 year old figures?
JC
|
Counter of number of lives saved in Iraq each day
In article <eee564bd.0401...@
jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote:
jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote:
>If anyone was serious about trying to speculate about how many iraqis
>would have been killed in 2003 if conditions had remained constant, it
>would be reasonable to look at the rates for 2002, 2001..etc, and
>speculate that they will most likely be similar.
>would have been killed in 2003 if conditions had remained constant, it
>would be reasonable to look at the rates for 2002, 2001..etc, and
>speculate that they will most likely be similar.
By the way, I just heard on RNZ World Watch earlier in the day that a
forensic pathologist in Baghdad reports that he's seeing 30 times as
many bodies as he did under Saddam's rule.
forensic pathologist in Baghdad reports that he's seeing 30 times as
many bodies as he did under Saddam's rule.
Conclusion: the civilian death rate has worsened somewhat since the US
invasion.
invasion.
|
Morons flock to endorse Redbaiter's Fantasy Body Count
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 19:58:29 +1300, John Cawston
<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>Brian Dooley wrote:
>
snip---
>
snip---
>> >You can make estimates of anything and we do, all the time.
>>
>> You're right there,John.
>>
>> And they're all different, as a search on Iraq mortality rate
>> will show.
>
>But there are authoritative surveys that confirm the figure for children
>>
>> You're right there,John.
>>
>> And they're all different, as a search on Iraq mortality rate
>> will show.
>
>But there are authoritative surveys that confirm the figure for children
Who are a minority and are the most at risk part of the
population, so what can they prove about the population at large?
population, so what can they prove about the population at large?
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
|
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 20:03:33 +1300, John Cawston
<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
- show quoted text -
But John, I showed it to my nurse and she said it actually
doesn't say anything like that at all.
doesn't say anything like that at all.
And she's right.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
|
On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:38:36 GMT, ta...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>You can't count a speculative number. Unless you have the names of
>those that Saddam planned to kill, you have no evidence of anyone
>being saved. You only have evidence of those who are dead.>those that Saddam planned to kill, you have no evidence of anyone
Yeah, after all, it is very likely that Saddam was about to give up
the whole murderous tyrant image and become a monk, dedicating his
life to peace.
the whole murderous tyrant image and become a monk, dedicating his
life to peace.
Craig
Remove * to email.
Remove * to email.
On usenet I speak only for myself.
|
Counter of number of lives saved in Iraq each day
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:39:33 +1300, Lawrence DąOliveiro
<ldo@geek-central.gen.new_
<ldo@geek-central.gen.new_
>By the way, I just heard on RNZ World Watch earlier in the day that a
>forensic pathologist in Baghdad reports that he's seeing 30 times as
>many bodies as he did under Saddam's rule.
>
>Conclusion: the civilian death rate has worsened somewhat since the US
>invasion.
>forensic pathologist in Baghdad reports that he's seeing 30 times as
>many bodies as he did under Saddam's rule.
>
>Conclusion: the civilian death rate has worsened somewhat since the US
>invasion.
Alternate conclusion: These days, dead bodies are taken to hospitals
for forensic pathologists to look at, rather than being bulldozed in
to mass graves out in the desert.
for forensic pathologists to look at, rather than being bulldozed in
to mass graves out in the desert.
David
|
On 11 Jan 2004 02:54:07 -0800, jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty)
wrote:
wrote:
>Wow. This is some great logic. By using it we can discover that the
>United States of America has murdered 100,000 Vietnamese civilians in
>the year 2003. All you need is to use this handy method of
>calculation. The Vietnam War began in roughly 1962, and led to
>roughly 4 million Vietnamese deaths. If we average this over the last
>40 years, that's about 100,000 dead Vietnamese killed by the US regime
>each year. The US regime obviously then will kill 100,000 Vietnamese
>in 2004 if someone doesn't stop them! Won't someone please invade the
>US, overthrow the US government so that these 100,000 lives can be
>saved?!?!
>
>Geez!
>United States of America has murdered 100,000 Vietnamese civilians in
>the year 2003. All you need is to use this handy method of
>calculation. The Vietnam War began in roughly 1962, and led to
>roughly 4 million Vietnamese deaths. If we average this over the last
>40 years, that's about 100,000 dead Vietnamese killed by the US regime
>each year. The US regime obviously then will kill 100,000 Vietnamese
>in 2004 if someone doesn't stop them! Won't someone please invade the
>US, overthrow the US government so that these 100,000 lives can be
>saved?!?!
>
>Geez!
This reasoning makes no sense. But, it would be valid to conclude that
the end of the Vietnam War has saved around 300,000 deaths each year.
the end of the Vietnam War has saved around 300,000 deaths each year.
Of course, going by the whacky logic used by some here, we shouldn't
count any of those still alive as being "saved" by the end of the war.
count any of those still alive as being "saved" by the end of the war.
David
|
Counter of number of lives saved in Iraq each day
"David Pears" <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote in message
news:
- show quoted text -
A rather sound alternative conclusion, IMHO.
|
Counter of number of lives saved in Iraq each day
"Lawrence DąOliveiro" wrote:
- show quoted text -
Goodness. Before the war, the Iraqi death rate was 50-240,000 per year.
So at 30 times that rate its between 1.5 and 7.2 million a year.
I wonder if the Iraqis have noticed this yet.
JC
|
Brian Dooley wrote:
- show quoted text -
Please yourself.
JC
>
> --
>
> Brian Dooley
>
> Wellington New Zealand
> --
>
> Brian Dooley
>
> Wellington New Zealand
|
David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote in message news:<kcc6009pbg5hgog5k4p1kdo9
> On 11 Jan 2004 02:54:07 -0800, jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty)
> wrote:
>
> >Wow. This is some great logic. By using it we can discover that the
> >United States of America has murdered 100,000 Vietnamese civilians in
> >the year 2003. All you need is to use this handy method of
> >calculation. The Vietnam War began in roughly 1962, and led to
> >roughly 4 million Vietnamese deaths. If we average this over the last
> >40 years, that's about 100,000 dead Vietnamese killed by the US regime
> >each year. The US regime obviously then will kill 100,000 Vietnamese
> >in 2004 if someone doesn't stop them! Won't someone please invade the
> >US, overthrow the US government so that these 100,000 lives can be
> >saved?!?!
> >
> >Geez!
>
> This reasoning makes no sense. But, it would be valid to conclude that
> the end of the Vietnam War has saved around 300,000 deaths each year.
> On 11 Jan 2004 02:54:07 -0800, jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty)
> wrote:
>
> >Wow. This is some great logic. By using it we can discover that the
> >United States of America has murdered 100,000 Vietnamese civilians in
> >the year 2003. All you need is to use this handy method of
> >calculation. The Vietnam War began in roughly 1962, and led to
> >roughly 4 million Vietnamese deaths. If we average this over the last
> >40 years, that's about 100,000 dead Vietnamese killed by the US regime
> >each year. The US regime obviously then will kill 100,000 Vietnamese
> >in 2004 if someone doesn't stop them! Won't someone please invade the
> >US, overthrow the US government so that these 100,000 lives can be
> >saved?!?!
> >
> >Geez!
>
> This reasoning makes no sense. But, it would be valid to conclude that
> the end of the Vietnam War has saved around 300,000 deaths each year.
I agree that the "lives saved" calculator for Iraq makes no sense
because it follows the reasoning that I've illustrated above, which
you agree makes no sense.
because it follows the reasoning that I've illustrated above, which
you agree makes no sense.
For instance, it takes the iran/iraq war, which ended in 1988 and
averages all the deaths of that war up to 2003. These numbers are
equally as a representation of 2003, 2002, 2001...etc, as those I
presented above. Namely, they are total nonsense.
averages all the deaths of that war up to 2003. These numbers are
equally as a representation of 2003, 2002, 2001...etc, as those I
presented above. Namely, they are total nonsense.
|
Counter of number of lives saved in Iraq each day
David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote in message news:<k9c6001jd19048nd1aaed6lb
- show quoted text -
That would be a more plausible conclusion if the stories showing all
these mass graves didn't all seem to stem from events in the 1980's
and 1991.
these mass graves didn't all seem to stem from events in the 1980's
and 1991.
When doctors say that they're seeing hundreds or thousands more bodies
coming into their morgues today than a few months ago, pointing to a
mass grave from 1988 doesn't provide much in the way of evidence to
counter Lawrence's conclusion.
coming into their morgues today than a few months ago, pointing to a
mass grave from 1988 doesn't provide much in the way of evidence to
counter Lawrence's conclusion.
|
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:44:41 +1300, John Cawston
<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
- show quoted text -
Just the facts, Ma'am.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
|
Counter of number of lives saved in Iraq each day
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 17:16:54 +1300, John Cawston
<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
<rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>"Lawrence DąOliveiro" wrote:
>
>> In article <eee564bd.0401...@
>> jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote:
>>
>> >If anyone was serious about trying to speculate about how many iraqis
>> >would have been killed in 2003 if conditions had remained constant, it
>> >would be reasonable to look at the rates for 2002, 2001..etc, and
>> >speculate that they will most likely be similar.
>>
>> By the way, I just heard on RNZ World Watch earlier in the day that a
>> forensic pathologist in Baghdad reports that he's seeing 30 times as
>> many bodies as he did under Saddam's rule.
>>
>> Conclusion: the civilian death rate has worsened somewhat since the US
>> invasion.
>
>Goodness. Before the war, the Iraqi death rate was 50-240,000 per year.
>
>> In article <eee564bd.0401...@
>> jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty) wrote:
>>
>> >If anyone was serious about trying to speculate about how many iraqis
>> >would have been killed in 2003 if conditions had remained constant, it
>> >would be reasonable to look at the rates for 2002, 2001..etc, and
>> >speculate that they will most likely be similar.
>>
>> By the way, I just heard on RNZ World Watch earlier in the day that a
>> forensic pathologist in Baghdad reports that he's seeing 30 times as
>> many bodies as he did under Saddam's rule.
>>
>> Conclusion: the civilian death rate has worsened somewhat since the US
>> invasion.
>
>Goodness. Before the war, the Iraqi death rate was 50-240,000 per year.
About 185k pre-war according to the Economist little book but
about 150k according to CIA in 2003.
about 150k according to CIA in 2003.
>
>So at 30 times that rate its between 1.5 and 7.2 million a year.
>
>I wonder if the Iraqis have noticed this yet.
Probably not, they're too interested in staying alive.
You can't trust anybody nowadays.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
|
Counter of number of lives saved in Iraq each day
On 13 Jan 2004 19:07:59 -0800, jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty)
wrote:
wrote:
>> >By the way, I just heard on RNZ World Watch earlier in the day that a
>> >forensic pathologist in Baghdad reports that he's seeing 30 times as
>> >many bodies as he did under Saddam's rule.
>> >
>> >Conclusion: the civilian death rate has worsened somewhat since the US
>> >invasion.
>>
>> Alternate conclusion: These days, dead bodies are taken to hospitals
>> for forensic pathologists to look at, rather than being bulldozed in
>> to mass graves out in the desert.
>
>> >forensic pathologist in Baghdad reports that he's seeing 30 times as
>> >many bodies as he did under Saddam's rule.
>> >
>> >Conclusion: the civilian death rate has worsened somewhat since the US
>> >invasion.
>>
>> Alternate conclusion: These days, dead bodies are taken to hospitals
>> for forensic pathologists to look at, rather than being bulldozed in
>> to mass graves out in the desert.
>
>That would be a more plausible conclusion if the stories showing all
>these mass graves didn't all seem to stem from events in the 1980's
>and 1991.
>
>When doctors say that they're seeing hundreds or thousands more bodies
>coming into their morgues today than a few months ago, pointing to a
>mass grave from 1988 doesn't provide much in the way of evidence to
>counter Lawrence's conclusion.
>these mass graves didn't all seem to stem from events in the 1980's
>and 1991.
>
>When doctors say that they're seeing hundreds or thousands more bodies
>coming into their morgues today than a few months ago, pointing to a
>mass grave from 1988 doesn't provide much in the way of evidence to
>counter Lawrence's conclusion.
What about the 50,000 children each year who the WHO have told us were
dieing due to the Iraqi unwillingness to comply with UN resolutions.
Which was happening up until this year. A figure 30 times as high
would imply a death rate around 1.5million a year, even if not a
single person was tortured to death in one of Saddam's prisons, was
shot dead by Uday at a party, or died because of sanctions as an
adult.
dieing due to the Iraqi unwillingness to comply with UN resolutions.
Which was happening up until this year. A figure 30 times as high
would imply a death rate around 1.5million a year, even if not a
single person was tortured to death in one of Saddam's prisons, was
shot dead by Uday at a party, or died because of sanctions as an
adult.
David
|
On 13 Jan 2004 16:48:12 -0800, jbd...@hotmail.com (Josh Dougherty)
wrote:
wrote:
- show quoted text -
I don't have any problem with including the Iran-Iraq war figures to
create the average. Saddam invaded Iran. Saddam invaded Kuwait. Saddam
invaded Saudi Arabia. Saddam shot missiles at Israel, and paid
terrorists there. Without containment, it was only a matter of time
before he embarked on some new aggression against one of his
neighbours. And the US and the UK were sick of providing that
containment... I never saw Germany or Russia helping out.
create the average. Saddam invaded Iran. Saddam invaded Kuwait. Saddam
invaded Saudi Arabia. Saddam shot missiles at Israel, and paid
terrorists there. Without containment, it was only a matter of time
before he embarked on some new aggression against one of his
neighbours. And the US and the UK were sick of providing that
containment... I never saw Germany or Russia helping out.
David
|
Counter of number of lives saved in Iraq each day
David Pears <dpears...@bigfoot.com.au> wrote in message news:<m3q9009atu68h98u5rrdk82d
- show quoted text -
Yes, large numbers of people have died as a result of US/UN imposed
sanctions on the population. These deaths could and should have been
avoided by us lifting them. This should have been done long ago
regardless of whether Iraq complied or not with the UN resolutions.
Though it turns out that they already had complied, since they didn't
have the weapons in question.
sanctions on the population. These deaths could and should have been
avoided by us lifting them. This should have been done long ago
regardless of whether Iraq complied or not with the UN resolutions.
Though it turns out that they already had complied, since they didn't
have the weapons in question.
However, I believe the bodies that this "forensic pathologist" is
talking about are deaths by violence, gunshot etc... Not deaths from
"natural causes" like malnourishment, lack of medicines..etc, which
don't regularly get taken away for forensic analysis.
talking about are deaths by violence, gunshot etc... Not deaths from
"natural causes" like malnourishment, lack of medicines..etc, which
don't regularly get taken away for forensic analysis.
What's been happening regarding public health, malnourishment...etc,
and whether there's been any changes, good or bad, is uncertain at
this point I think. The hospitals were largely destroyed or looted
bare during and after the war, so that certainly didn't help matters.
I assume conditions have improved some since then, but I'm not sure
how much.
and whether there's been any changes, good or bad, is uncertain at
this point I think. The hospitals were largely destroyed or looted
bare during and after the war, so that certainly didn't help matters.
I assume conditions have improved some since then, but I'm not sure
how much.
|
Counter of number of lives saved in Iraq each day
>What about the 50,000 children each year who the WHO have told us were
>dieing due to the Iraqi unwillingness to comply with UN resolutions.
>Which was happening up until this year. A figure 30 times as high
>would imply a death rate around 1.5million a year, even if not a
>single person was tortured to death in one of Saddam's prisons, was
>shot dead by Uday at a party, or died because of sanctions as an
>adult.
How about rolling your own for a change?
The CIA World Factbook has all the necessary numbers and must
surely be a trustworthy source. It even purports to have 2003
estimates.
surely be a trustworthy source. It even purports to have 2003
estimates.
All it takes is a bit of digging and a few keystrokes on a
calculator.
calculator.
--
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
No comments:
Post a Comment