Use of statistics in Iraq, can we trust them now? - Page 2

Roonie · 03-20-2007, 11:35 AM

Iraq 4 years later............

Iraq: Four Years Later, Polls: War Has Been Longer, Bloodier Than Americans Expected; Most Favor Troop Pullout - CBS News

Interesting figures as the US has spent $359 billion to date on the war. The number of Iraq's killed ranges from 30,000 - 600,000. The US has built 14 new hospitals and over 800 new schools. Although most doctors have fled since it is too unsafe to be there as over 2000 of them have been targeted and killed.

The oil revenue that was supposed to pay for the war is not since we are still way below pre-war production numbers.

And now the everyone including the Pentagon calls Iraq and all out civil war.

Our success in Iraq was polled and 53% said we will not likely succeed there. Also only 34% said somehwat likely to succeed in Iraq and 11% said very likely to succeed.

Time to get out!!

MTdream · 03-20-2007, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Oh yea, they would of died anyway, that makes it all better, context is great

did you read the post?

merely reading any journal across the nation, and you would think that we were seeing unprecedented levels of casualties...

point is simple...we are...unprecedentedly low casualties...

it is asimple fact for a president involved in a ilitary engagement...

the venom being spewed is not based upon the deaths...the anti war, is merely using the deaths for political sway...and unfortunately the conservative side of this administration is not showing the context....

this is beyond an impressively well fought (perspective of life preservation) war, and stating otherwise is ignoring thousands of years of military battles...

Scrum · 03-20-2007, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by MTdream

did you read the post?

merely reading any journal across the nation, and you would think that we were seeing unprecedented levels of casualties...

point is simple...we are...unprecedentedly low casualties...

it is asimple fact for a president involved in a ilitary engagement...

the venom being spewed is not based upon the deaths...the anti war, is merely using the deaths for political sway...and unfortunately the conservative side of this administration is not showing the context....

this is beyond an impressively well fought (perspective of life preservation) war, and stating otherwise is ignoring thousands of years of military battles...

One causality is too many for a war that does nothing to make us more secure.

Roonie · 03-20-2007, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by MTdream

did you read the post?

merely reading any journal across the nation, and you would think that we were seeing unprecedented levels of casualties...

point is simple...we are...unprecedentedly low casualties...

it is asimple fact for a president involved in a ilitary engagement...

the venom being spewed is not based upon the deaths...the anti war, is merely using the deaths for political sway...and unfortunately the conservative side of this administration is not showing the context....

this is beyond an impressively well fought (perspective of life preservation) war, and stating otherwise is ignoring thousands of years of military battles...

Asked in March 2003 how many U.S. troops they thought would die in the war, 66 percent of Americans said less than 1,000. Just 22 percent thought more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers would be killed.

Iraq: Four Years Later, Polls: War Has Been Longer, Bloodier Than Americans Expected; Most Favor Troop Pullout - CBS News

DosEquis · 03-20-2007, 12:09 PM

To me, generalizing deaths under presidencies is implying that some how they just get a free pass because they guy before him had some. Kind of like "well reagan lost 9000 so if GHWB sneaks under 8500 he is actually under budget".

The circumstances surrounding the deaths is far more important than how many. If we lost 40,000 soldiers actually defending our country it would be far more acceptable than losing 3,200 who are dying for PNAC's geopolitical agenda.

As far as non-combat related deaths, the military is a dangerous job even when they are not out fighting and being shot at. Sure Iraq is 10/10 dangerous, but the training that happens can be nearly just as dangerous in some cases.

That being said I don't really think your context is applicable.

MTdream · 03-20-2007, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Also, your not comparing apples to apples. That comparison implies those same troops or at least the same number of them would of died anyway from non-combat related accidents, which is suspect.

Not quite...it is direct apples to apples...a simple review of the spreadsheet I attached shows total deaths...accidental and hostile... (from a stastical perspective the number of accidental deaths under W. is dramatically lower than other Presidents)

So I am using the DOD data, for total deaths, that have happened...it does not get any more apples to apples...Your argument is speculative...but I would concede that the number would not be what it is if we had not engaged in iraq, afghan. etc. however, that is not reality...

All we can deal with is what we know...and, all I have data on is last 25 years....

Or you could take it to a deaths per 100k serving... or for discussion purposes...if we just take the number of deaths/year divided by the number of those actively serving (guard, and Full-time) then do an average over the years of each of the last four presidents...here are the numbers...

NOT minimizing death...death of a soldier is tragic regardless of cause, or time..they are serving you (for those in the states) and me...and I am indebted to them for such!!!

Carter 2392 (* not statistically accurate as I only have one year)
Reagan 2150
Bush Sr. 1556
Clinton 938
G.W. Bush 1570
These four averaged= 1553 (2150+1556+938+1570)/4

Here is formula used above for each president (total deaths/total Military FTE) then simple averaging for years of president...

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Just because a certain number died one year doesn't necessarily follow the same number will die the next, you acknowledge yourself that the numbers trend down thanks to advances in medical care and safer training. But it still doesn't account for the large number injured - and we are not talking about scrapes here.

I did not agree with bolded above...but is a logical conclusion...as to the number injured...I did not state that number either...but I am confident that the numbers would not be too dramatically out of line...as guys playing with machines that can literally mulch you, is not a safe..(grew up farming...have famiy that has been mulch with farm stuff)

Originally Posted by David Octavius

To me a valid comparison is that many of the troops fighting joined after the attacks of 2001, they were so moved that they joined the military - something they would not of done previously - to defend us. Record numbers joined, now after Iraq, they can't hit their recruiting goals and thats will lowering the numbers and standards, that says a lot about the support and what they feel about this war. The ones who joined wanted to fight the terrorists not build a nation that had nothing to do with the attacks, they are dieing for neo-con ideology, so any number is tragic because their patriotism is being used to try to prove out an ideological theory.

Hard to argue against conjecture and opinion...

However, the military has not had trouble meeting their recruiting goals...<---link

and as to your belief they are lowering their standards...link to study

Not only are they from wealthier families...they are higher educated...

here is some text from research summary...

...

The current findings show that the demographic characteristics of volunteers have continued to show signs of higher, not lower, quality. Quality is a difficult concept to apply to soldiers, or to human beings in any context, and it should be understood here in context. Regardless of the standards used to screen applicants, the average quality of the people accepted into any organization can be assessed only by using measurable criteria, which surely fail to account for intangible characteristics. In the military, it is especially questionable to claim that measurable characteristics accurately reflect what really matters: courage, honor, integrity, loyalty, and leadership.
Those who have been so quick to suggest that today’s wartime recruits represent lesser quality, lower standards, or lower class should be expected make an airtight case. Instead, they have cited selective evidence, which is balanced by a much clearer set of evidence showing improving troop quality.
...

In summary, the additional years of recruit data (2004–2005) support the previous finding that U.S. military recruits are more similar than dissimilar to the American youth population. The slight differences are that wartime U.S. military enlistees are better educated, wealthier, and more rural on average than their civilian peers.
Recruits have a higher percentage of high school graduates and representation from Southern and rural areas. No evidence indicates exploitation of racial minorities (either by race or by race-weighted ZIP code areas). Finally, the distribution of household income of recruits is noticeably higher than that of the entire youth population.
...
When comparing these wartime recruits (2003– 2005) to the resident population ages 18–24 (as recorded in Census 2000), areas with median household income levels between $35,000 and $79,999 were overrepresented, along with income categories between $85,000 and $94,999. (See Chart 2.) Though the mainstream media continue to portray the war in Iraq as unpopular, this evidence suggests that the United States is not sending the poor to die for the interests of the rich.

MTdream · 03-20-2007, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

One causality is too many for a war that does nothing to make us more secure.

pure conjecture, no foundation of fact...

MTdream · 03-20-2007, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

To me, generalizing deaths under presidencies is implying that some how they just get a free pass because they guy before him had some. Kind of like "well reagan lost 9000 so if GHWB sneaks under 8500 he is actually under budget".

The circumstances surrounding the deaths is far more important than how many. If we lost 40,000 soldiers actually defending our country it would be far more acceptable than losing 3,200 who are dying for PNAC's geopolitical agenda.

As far as non-combat related deaths, the military is a dangerous job even when they are not out fighting and being shot at. Sure Iraq is 10/10 dangerous, but the training that happens can be nearly just as dangerous in some cases.

That being said I don't really think your context is applicable.

facts are facts...sorry you dont like them...but the context and examples are point for point...

comparison to comparison...and data links provided...

your opinion is you dont support this mission, thus these are unnecessary/unjust deaths....however, your opinion does not, no matter how much you would like to, change the facts...

last I checked a death was a death...and these men/women knew what they were signing up for...and I for one am humbled they would do so for me!!! I have trained my son (5) to salute every soldier he sees and to thank him...

and I will remind you, that I have personally been hit by the loss of life of these soldiers...family, and friends...sodont bother wasting your time saying I dont care...or I dont have an interest in this...I personally am supporting (financial, and kind ear) families who have lost a famiy member...

I am not the one trying to gain leverage due to the death of a soldier...the media and the left are trying to make everyone frenzied over these losses of life...

Scrum · 03-20-2007, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by MTdream

pure conjecture, no foundation of fact...

It is a fact that Iraq was not an imminent threat to us.

And did you source the heritage foundation for those charts?

MTdream · 03-20-2007, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Roonie

Asked in March 2003 how many U.S. troops they thought would die in the war, 66 percent of Americans said less than 1,000. Just 22 percent thought more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers would be killed.

Iraq: Four Years Later, Polls: War Has Been Longer, Bloodier Than Americans Expected; Most Favor Troop Pullout - CBS News

CBS...now that is a bastion of great thought, and unbiased journalism...no agenda there right

facts are facts boys and girls...you cannot argue this is a worse situation than previous based upon the facts...especially when you factor in, the hostile engagement versus other similar events...

the stats I provided are stats of peacetime compared to current president who is actively engaged in a hostile military event (however you want to categorize this)

posting an opinion pole done by CBS, is similar to walking Jay Leno and the geniuses of the Jay Walking All Stars...

MTdream · 03-20-2007, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

It is a fact that Iraq was not an imminent threat to us.

And did you source the heritage foundation for those charts?

that is fun...mitigate based upon who compiles the data...there is some logic for you...especially when they site source...you know those cute little things at the bottom of the charts...go gather it for yourself...

Sorry the liberal media wont show this stuff in context...sorry you have been lied to, but facts are facts...

lets see the "real" data then...got better information?? share it...

Scrum · 03-20-2007, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by MTdream

that is fun...mitigate based upon who compiles the data...there is some logic for you...especially when they site source and input...

Sorry the liberal media wont show this stuff in context...sorry you have been lied to, but facts are facts...

lets see the "real" data then...got better information?? share it...

Originally Posted by MTdream

CBS...now that is a bastion of great thought, and unbiased journalism...no agenda there right

You bash the CBS poll and then defend the conservative think-tank.

Classic.

I love when you guys blame things on the liberal media. It makes your positions look even weaker.

Scrum · 03-20-2007, 01:55 PM

Next you need to post data showing how a soldier is actually lucky to be in Iraq because of all the auto accidents in the US.

tbone · 03-20-2007, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by MTdream

pure conjecture, no foundation of fact...

Please provide facts that we are more secure since invading Iraq, otherwise your statement is also pure conjecture.

MTdream · 03-20-2007, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

You bash the CBS poll and then defend the conservative think-tank.

Classic.

I love when you guys blame things on the liberal media. It makes your positions look even weaker.

yeah that is a cute re-interpretation of what I did...

check your facts...the data is ALL from the US military and the US census...the think tank compiled...think it is wrong...go compile it yourself...

MTdream · 03-20-2007, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by tbone

Please provide facts that we are more secure since invading Iraq, otherwise your statement is also pure conjecture.

Sorry, I made no such statement to defend....

besides this is off topic...and dont want to get any of those precious reputation points taken away...

MTdream · 03-20-2007, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Next you need to post data showing how a soldier is actually lucky to be in Iraq because of all the auto accidents in the US.

yeah, this post added value to the discussion about facts in Iraq...

DosEquis · 03-20-2007, 02:20 PM

There is a difference between dying for our freedom and dying for another agenda. Those dying in Iraq are dying for Iraqi freedom, not ours. They are dying for a geopolitical agenda, not our freedom. It is not black and white 3,200 dead = 3,200 dead. It is not a simple issue as you like to make it. While they have all paid the ultimate price for our military, there are some who died needlessly. The 3,200 in Iraq have died needlessly.

I have a friend there now who is an Army MP training Iraqi police. If he dies before he returns, he would not haved died for our freedom and would not have died defending our country. All american soldiers are equally valuable, but when you die for nothing it does not make the sacrifice worth it. It is the loss we need to analyze. When you lose a 100 bucks in a slot machine, its different than losing a 100 bucks to some medication that saves your ass.