Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld once dismissed questions about the level of combat-ready Iraqi troops by saying that numbers are only numbers and "misleading" as to the truth, but the Bush administration has supplied a steady stream of them. ... President Bush told the nation that an additional 21,500 U.S. ...
03-19-2007, 05:01 AM
| #1 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed  Progressive Philadelphia, PA 
| Use of statistics in Iraq, can we trust them now? Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld once dismissed questions about the level of combat-ready Iraqi troops by saying that numbers are only numbers and "misleading" as to the truth, but the Bush administration has supplied a steady stream of them. ... President Bush told the nation that an additional 21,500 U.S. troops were needed to quell escalating violence in Baghdad. As of Friday, that total had reached 28,700. ... In January 2005, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., then the top U.S. military officer in Iraq, estimated that U.S. and Iraqi forces had killed or captured 15,000 enemy fighters in 2004 -- three times as many as an estimate by Gen. John P. Abizaid, then-Centcom commander, of the total size of the insurgency about one year earlier. ... Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's office ordered the country's health ministry to stop providing figures to the United Nations. WP: Iraq war's statistics prove fleeting - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com The article lists more examples and problems...given all this, how can we trust numbers coming out of the WH or Iraqi government? | ||||
     |
|
03-19-2007, 09:24 AM
| #2 | ||||
| Banned  Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| This only means you and motivez can't use statistics (of deaths, attacks, etc) as proof of the state of Iraq. | ||||
| |
|
03-19-2007, 09:26 AM
| #3 | ||||
| Master Debator Election Moderator  Democrat Omaha, NE
| It is just like awhile back when they said 200,000 Iraqi troops were trained and ready to go. McCain pushed general casey in an meeting and asked how many were operational battalions actually are ready to go and Casey said 1. It just feels like this administration leaks and puts out misinformation every other week to cover its ass. | ||||
| |
|
03-19-2007, 12:21 PM
| #4 | ||||
| George W Bush, God's Tool  Independent ny
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz The statistics I care about:
over 3,200 US soldiers dead and over 23,000 wounded That doesn't say much for the state of Iraq
__________________
| ||||
| |
|
03-19-2007, 12:24 PM
| #5 | ||||
| One American Family at a Time.  Idealist The OC, California
| Originally Posted by David Octavius
__________________ "People are selfish. But they can also be compassionate and generous, and they care about the country. But not when they feel threatened. That's why this is such a crucial time. We can go in either direction. But if we don't make a choice soon, it will be too late to turn things around. I think people are willing to make the right choice. But they need leadership. They're hungry for leadership." BK/1968 | ||||
| |
|
03-19-2007, 01:16 PM
| #6 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by David Octavius Very low statistics for a war. You should care about that too. Why don't you?
If that was all you cared about, you should be thrilled by those stats. | ||||
| |
|
03-19-2007, 01:55 PM
| #7 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist North Carolina
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz That's okay since you discount them when they look bad for the state of Iraq anyway
 | ||||
| |
|
03-19-2007, 02:03 PM
| #8 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by motivez I don't consider statistics as a sole measure of success in any case
 | ||||
| |
|
03-19-2007, 02:07 PM
| #9 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| Neither do I  | ||||
| |
|
03-19-2007, 04:05 PM
| #10 | ||||
| Mission Accomplished NOT!  Independent MN
| Was just watching Fox news and they said only 32% approve of the war in Iraq currently from 72% in 2003. Interesting to see those statistics on Fox news. | ||||
| |
|
03-19-2007, 04:11 PM
| #11 | ||||
| George W Bush, God's Tool Independent ny
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz Why should I be thrilled? This was not a war we should of been in the first place, any rational person would acknowledged that. The reasons were suspect even then, our administration took advantage of a nation still reeling from the tragedy of 2001 to push through their neo-con agenda.
Our politicians lacked the backbone to question obviously flawed reasoning to go to war and now Americans are dieing needlessly. Just because now it is important in the ambiguous "war on terror" doesn't justify the reason going in, it just means it became important because of our Presidents actions. Imagine if that 100K plus of soldiers were in Afghanistan 4 years ago how different today would be. Its not good to wildly speculate but I think its reasonable to think the Taliban would not have a resurgence it is having now and that Al-Qaeda (the organization that actually attacked us) would be weaker not stronger as it is now. | ||||
| |
|
03-19-2007, 04:21 PM
| #12 | ||||
| Banned Conservative Government is another way to say Better Than You
| Originally Posted by David Octavius But you're bringing in a whole separate debate into this now.
As dicussed in the other thread, we're in this war, and we're there to win. Therefore, you should be happy that the stats are so low in this war, because it is indeed a war we're in. Whether or not you think the war itself is justified is up for debate when you think we're headed for another war, not when we're trying to win (and end) this one. | ||||
| |
|
03-19-2007, 06:18 PM
| #13 | ||||
| Lurker Independent
| Originally Posted by ballz2wallz I appreciate your position that you do not want to lose this war. Nobody does. But we have basicly " out-sourced " our foreign policy. We are practically saying to the Iraqi people that we will stick with them to the bitter end. Like you said before, this is not about how we got into the war, or what has gone wrong, but what we do from here on.
| ||||
| |
|
03-19-2007, 07:08 PM
| #14 | ||||
| Political Genius  Republican Yorba Linda Ca.
| As for troops numbers Bush has said time and time again that was a command decision, all they do is make general policy. So if the commanders in the field need more than the 21,500 and they get it what is the big beef? | ||||
| |
|
03-19-2007, 07:14 PM
| #15 | ||||
| Master Debator Election Moderator Democrat Omaha, NE
| Originally Posted by RMNIXON You know damn well that any general who has had a differing opinion than the administration regarding troop levels or any other policy regarding Iraq end up resigning or getting fired. It hasn't been as simple as "if they ask they shall receive"
| ||||
| |
|
03-19-2007, 07:34 PM
| #16 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| 55 iraqi civilians killed today...or were they? | ||||
| |
|
03-20-2007, 02:25 AM
| #17 | ||||
| Member  Conservative
| Originally Posted by David Octavius Yeah but dont you hate context...
of the 3200...2592 were KIA and 618 were killed in non-hostile involvement (car crashes, heart-attacks, loading accidents, etc.) During the 1950's, NON-COMBAT deaths averaged around 6,000 a year. This declined to 827 soldiers in 1998...We have been in Iraq for just over three years (but for your sake, I will use 3) 2592 combat deaths/3= 864/year (used combat deaths, and could have used total months, and total deaths, but was lazy and assumed averages would have offset, and besides now someone else will factor it and post it) But wait...lets look at the last few presidencies...little has changed...(just for kicks and grins...I only used first term for every president except George W) George W. Bush . . . . . 6968 (2001-March 19,2007) Bill Clinton . . . . . . . . . 4302 (1993-1996) (if we added his 2nd term...add another 3198 for a drum roll total of...7500) George H.W. Bush . . . . 6223 (1989-1992) Ronald Reagan . . . . . . 9163 (1981-1984) Final year of Carters administration the military lost 2392... Now all this being said...EVERY life is precious...and before any of you start bashing me for having not lost a loved one...I can assure you...you are sadly wrong This war has touched me and my family personally... However, you cannot discuss this without context... | ||||
| |
|
03-20-2007, 03:05 AM
| #18 | ||||
| Member Conservative
| and totals for each presidency... Reagan 10,652 div/years= 1331.5 Bush Sr. 3,487 div/years= 871.75 Clinton 7500 div/years= 937.5 W 6968 div/years= 1114.8 (using 6.25 years) Size of military under each admin...(ending year) Reagan 2.121 million Bush Sr. 1.773 Clinton 1.372 W 1.411 Last edited by MTdream; 03-20-2007 at 11:50 AM.. Reason: corrected years in service calculation, was tired of travelling made mistake... | ||||
| |
|
03-20-2007, 09:01 AM
| #19 | ||||
| George W Bush, God's Tool Independent ny
| Originally Posted by MTdream Oh yea, they would of died anyway, that makes it all better, context is great
 | ||||
| |
|
03-20-2007, 09:54 AM
| #20 | |
| George W Bush, God's Tool Independent ny
|
