I was just wondering?

Alan

xxx

I don't care much for Bush. I didn't care much for Clinton either. But the above is simply a cheap shot.

When you attack the President of the United States, you're attacking more than the current person who sits in the Oval Office.

How about this one?



Not so funny...is it.

-Mike

And history based on actions will be their judge, not me.

History has judged Hitler fairly (in my opinion)

History has judged Wallace fairly (in my opinion)

The very same will be done for Bush and Blair (the men not the position)

Was this a cheap shot at the oval or a president? No. If it was am I also saying every president was a tyrant? Clearly I am not saying that.

Was it a statement based on my own assesment of the facts? Yes.
Was it a statement based on the realities reported, written and photographed daily? Yes it was

Lets be honest here, this Iraq invasion as never a war built on fact after all do you remember any press statement being released saying "we have found the weapons of mass destruction"?

Am I to have no opinion on a world crisis that affects even myself?

For the record:

This was never a cheap shot at anyone in any office. This was a shot at abuse of world power, despotic tyrrants, unwielding frankenstein monster.

Do you agree or disagree (despite the facts) that's what they are?

When over 1 Million civillians have been slaughtered it's a hard number to ignore, is it not.

Was I wrong? If I was I am ready to listen to your factual reply based on witness testimony and facts.

In reply of free voice.

Alan

That figure, based on bogus studies published in The Lancet authored by antiwar academics and published by an antiwar editor, has thoroughly been debunked by Professor Michael Spagat, an economist from Royal Holloway College, University of London, and David Kane, Institute Fellow at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University.

Spagat contends the authors cherry-picked data to overestimate casualties. A good analogy would be to study the mortality rate of those who were at the World Trade Center on 9/11 and extrapolate the mortality rate for all of New York City based on what happened in those towers.

Kane contends that the authors miscalculated the confidence level. Had it been calculated correctly, there would be no basis to find a statistically significant increase in the Iraq civilian mortality rate.

A couple other things to note.

There were two studies. The first was released just before the 2004 U.S. presidential election with the claim of 100,000 civilian deaths in an attempt to sway the election results.

The second study was released in 2006 with the claim that 650,000 civilian deaths had occurred. To date, the authors refuse to release the underlying data so that the studies can be peer-reviewed. Yet Spagat and Kane were able to punch holes in the conclusions based on the published findings.

Your claim of 1,000,000 deaths? Can't wait to see the data that supports it.

BTW, you can't count the people who would have died of natural causes as an increase in the death rate. They'd have died of old age/disease/car accidents, etc. whether or not a war occurred. We're talking an increase in civilian deaths attributable to the war. Let's see the data.

-Mike

I've moved these posts to their own thread.

Just a reminder to read rule number 9 before posting to this thread.

Here's an excerpt:

Thanks guys.

Thanks, Stephen.

-Mike

Mike,
I know you and Alan are mature enough to handle a discussion such as this, but you never know who else might jump in and want to play.

Is Bush a dictator......hmmm

Most dictators or very intelligent. Need I say more

I believe that most Republicans will be happy to see this office in the rearview mirror.

I'll play. I don't think you are wondering. I think you've pretty much made your mind up.

I'm not sure how you could possibly compare the two. I know that I'm not afraid to go outside and yell out to the world that my president sucks. I'm pretty sure that if I did, the secret police WOULD NOT show up at my door and kill my family. That's not how it was in Iraq when we got there...

As copywriters, sometimes we see numbers that are WAY off kilter...and if they're good for our ad, we use them without a second thought.

"1,256,330 People Die of Obesity EVERY YEAR! -
Buy My Weight Loss Program Now!"

But this isn't copywriting. This is BS information...baseless claims meant to do the same thing our ads are supposed to do - pursuade people.

I'm just surprised you couldn't see that 1,000,000 for what it really is. I mean you're a wordmaster...you should know better.

Alan,
History is not written yet , Bush is not a dictator. He will be out of office in a year and a half . I am not a fan of bush . Great leaders fire people who can't do the job.

Every major country had information that saddam had weapons of mass destruction . it came from two main sourses . First was a high level iraqi defector who wanted Saddam removed . He gave the same info to all intel services. Second was most countrie still had the reciepts for the stuff sold to iraq in the 80's.

As for the 1 million casualty figure . It nice to see you believe the stuff writtne in the Anti bush media. Which it the entire mainstream media . So one really juicy negative about Bush. Will be repeated as fact by everyone in the media without question.

It's the iran backed insurgents. And the al Queda insurgents ,Causeing most of the deaths in Iraq.

I don't think history will be hard on bush because of iraq . Doing nothing about illegal immigration. Then this ethenol thing . an act the is driving up food prices in the U.S. Then adding huge amounts of debt . WIll be bigger factors in how the history is written .

Ken