Anti-War George Soros Funded Iraq Study

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Just my personal opinion here but once that number went above 10,000 or so did it really matter if it was 150K or 650K? That is a lot of fucking dead people.

I agree. In a perfect world, the number would be 0.

So how many deaths are acceptable Pabster?

Doesnt his answer pretty much answer that question? Or are you trolling?

I didn't ask you. Since you decided to answer for him, I'll ask you as well as him. How many deaths are acceptable?

PC Surgeon answer Blackangst1 question....

Doesnt his answer pretty much answer that question? Or are you trolling?

Do you have any substance to any posts , or do you just troll threads and randomly blurt out shit? I haven't seen you do any of the former so the latter must be true.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
No, if you had half a brain you could follow along with the conversation. Do you have some mental disability I should be aware of? Can you read? Follow points?
If I only had half a brain we'd be on equal footing. Too bad for you that I have a whole one.

You discredit yourself, fool. You TRIED to discredit her by way of insinuation, her being "anti-war". Anyone can see through that tactic. So what if it was made in 2006, she makes points that are fact. Those facts in which you said couldn't be provided. Again, follow along here.
Those "facts" from 2006 are NOT representative of what's happening in Iraq today. Does someone have to spell that out for you or do you really have to continue playing the fool about it?

No hole here, just your bastardization of the argument so you can cut and run, as usual.
You're just plain delusional.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Your opinion on the conditions in Iraq do not constitute fact. Stop trying to create a strawman of an argument. If you have proof that more than 2,500,000 have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion please present it. If not, stop trying to use vapidly poor rationalizations.

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

His opinion? Ok, how about the testimony of the lady in this video? Does that constitute "living conditions" for you?

As you see here my post was in response to living conditions, you said he had no facts, I provided them.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You mean this woman? Surely an anti-war activist would have no bias. :roll:

Then you try to discredit her because she is ant-war.

Originally posted by: PC SurgeonYeah, how could anyone not like having their country occupied by foreign invaders? I mean god, the audacity of that woman! We sure as hell would love to have china occupying the U.S. :roll:

Are you retarded?

Here's where I point out your stupidity in thinking and error in judgment. She is not just anyone, she is an Iraqi, speaking for them and their living conditions.


Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You constantly move around your argument. First it was death. Now it's occupation.

Actually I have made my case pretty clear that I followed the argument until you cut and run.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Go learn how to have a discussion without throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks. Then come back after you figure things out.

Thanks.

Actually, as shown above, it is you that needs to learn how to have a discussion and follow the topic. This is your tactic. Whenever you get pushed into a corner, you berate the person and run. Coward. What a sad little man you are.
He berates? LOL /wave kettle! Lets see, from this last few posts...

point out your stupidity in thinking and error in judgment
until you cut and run
This is your tactic.
Coward. What a sad little man you are.
if you had half a brain
Do you have some mental disability
Can you read? Follow points?


hahahaha what a tool
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
No, if you had half a brain you could follow along with the conversation. Do you have some mental disability I should be aware of? Can you read? Follow points?
If I only had half a brain we'd be on equal footing. Too bad for you that I have a whole one.

If I only had half a brain, and you have a full one, why is it I can follow the discussion and you can't?
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You discredit yourself, fool. You TRIED to discredit her by way of insinuation, her being "anti-war". Anyone can see through that tactic. So what if it was made in 2006, she makes points that are fact. Those facts in which you said couldn't be provided. Again, follow along here.
Those "facts" from 2006 are NOT representative of what's happening in Iraq today. Does someone have to spell that out for you or do you really have to continue playing the fool about it?

Those facts may not be the exact living conditions of Iraq today, I'll give you that. But it does show living conditions during the U.S. invasion. Your attempt at discrediting that lady shows you have no argument.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No hole here, just your bastardization of the argument so you can cut and run, as usual.
You're just plain delusional.

The feeling is mutual.

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
I don't give a shit about the number because the goal is to get out of that shithole, but I'm curious as to why one study is more reputible than the other (seriously)?

Why is any study that uses "estimates" considered "factual"?
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
I don't give a shit about the number because the goal is to get out of that shithole, but I'm curious as to why one study is more reputible than the other (seriously)?

Why is any study that uses "estimates" considered "factual"?

Well, thats some people's goal. Not everyone's. Especially not those who control the troops: the senate.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Your opinion on the conditions in Iraq do not constitute fact. Stop trying to create a strawman of an argument. If you have proof that more than 2,500,000 have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion please present it. If not, stop trying to use vapidly poor rationalizations.

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

His opinion? Ok, how about the testimony of the lady in this video? Does that constitute "living conditions" for you?

As you see here my post was in response to living conditions, you said he had no facts, I provided them.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

You mean this woman? Surely an anti-war activist would have no bias. :roll:

Then you try to discredit her because she is ant-war.

Originally posted by: PC SurgeonYeah, how could anyone not like having their country occupied by foreign invaders? I mean god, the audacity of that woman! We sure as hell would love to have china occupying the U.S. :roll:

Are you retarded?

Here's where I point out your stupidity in thinking and error in judgment. She is not just anyone, she is an Iraqi, speaking for them and their living conditions.


Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You constantly move around your argument. First it was death. Now it's occupation.

Actually I have made my case pretty clear that I followed the argument until you cut and run.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Go learn how to have a discussion without throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks. Then come back after you figure things out.

Thanks.

Actually, as shown above, it is you that needs to learn how to have a discussion and follow the topic. This is your tactic. Whenever you get pushed into a corner, you berate the person and run. Coward. What a sad little man you are.
He berates? LOL /wave kettle! Lets see, from this last few posts...

point out your stupidity in thinking and error in judgment
until you cut and run
This is your tactic.
Coward. What a sad little man you are.
if you had half a brain
Do you have some mental disability
Can you read? Follow points?


hahahaha what a tool

Laugh away. Laughing doesn't change the truth. Deal with it.

point out your stupidity in thinking and error in judgment

The "stupidity" word may have been uncalled for, granted.

until you cut and run

Not berating, thats the truth.

This is your tactic.

Neither is this. Truth.

Coward. What a sad little man you are.

Agreed, this is berating.

if you had half a brain

Agreed again.

Do you have some mental disability
Can you read? Follow points?

You left out the question mark on the first one. These are questions, not berating.



 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Engineer
I don't give a shit about the number because the goal is to get out of that shithole, but I'm curious as to why one study is more reputible than the other (seriously)?

Why is any study that uses "estimates" considered "factual"?

Well, thats some people's goal. Not everyone's. Especially not those who control the troops: the senate.

That's not the question. The ultimate goal is to leave Iraq, unless you're a neocon prick type (and I didn't say IMMEDIATELY either). The question was what makes one study more factual than the other?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: PC SurgeonIf I only had half a brain, and you have a full one, why is it I can follow the discussion and you can't?
If you had a whole brain you'd have figured that out already and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Thos facts may not be the exact living conditions of Iraq today, I'll give you that. But it does show living conditions during the U.S. invasion. Your attempt at discrediting that lady shows you have no argument.
Once again, I was not discrediting the lady, I was discrediting your argument. She had a point back in 2006. If it were 2006 you might even have a point. It's not. In case you haven't been informed...it's now 2008.

The feeling is mutual.
I understand. That's part of your delusion.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,925
2,908
136
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: GrGr
[Since the US deliberately is crushing the Iraqi people under it's boot it is genocide.

Proof?

The US invasion of Iraq.

That proves we are "crushing" the Iraqi people?

The proof is in the pudding.


There is no proof; you are full of shit.

The proof is obvious. The US is in Iraq killing Iraqis.

So I guess you are voting for either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich? If not, you are "supporting" this war just as much as Corbett is. Spouting a bunch of America hating bullshit and slandering our troops on a internet message board doesn't do a thing to stop the war right away.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC SurgeonIf I only had half a brain, and you have a full one, why is it I can follow the discussion and you can't?
If you had a whole brain you'd have figured that out already and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I did figure it out, you clearly have no argument.



Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Once again, I was not discrediting the lady, I was discrediting your argument. She had a point back in 2006. If it were 2006 you might even have a point. It's not. In case you haven't been informed...it's now 2008.

You insinuated that her case of living conditions in Iraq were not valid because she was an anti-war activist. Since the only facts that have been shown in this thread about living conditions in Iraq were in that video, how about you show facts as to how they are better? Do you have any facts of how they are living? Or just your statements alone?



 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I did figure it out, you clearly have no argument.
Says the guy using arguments from 2006.

You insinuated that her case of living conditions in Iraq were not valid because she was an anti-war activist. Since the only facts that have been shown in this thread about living conditions in Iraq were in that video, how about you show facts as to how they are better? Do you have any facts of how they are living? Or just your statements alone?
I already addressed this previously. I did not discredit her, only you. You yourself haven't presented any facts. You've only linked to a misleading Ron Paul video and have vainly tried to argue it it while getting severely thumped in the process.

Tend to your bruises and come back when you have something better to fling.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Engineer
I don't give a shit about the number because the goal is to get out of that shithole, but I'm curious as to why one study is more reputible than the other (seriously)?

Why is any study that uses "estimates" considered "factual"?

Well, thats some people's goal. Not everyone's. Especially not those who control the troops: the senate.

That's not the question. The ultimate goal is to leave Iraq, unless you're a neocon prick type (and I didn't say IMMEDIATELY either). The question was what makes one study more factual than the other?

I understand. AFAIK you can find a "study" from a "reputable" source for just about any opinion you have. It happens everywhere, including this board. On one subject, for example, a Fox poll is laughed off, while an MSNBC poll is touted as worthy. Or, one week, a CNN poll is gospel, the next CNN is full of shit.

As far as leaving Iraq...not for decades. Anyone who thinks otherwise is...well...a fool. Are we still in Japan? SE Asia?? Germany? Huh. Imagine that.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I did figure it out, you clearly have no argument.
Says the guy using arguments from 2006.

You insinuated that her case of living conditions in Iraq were not valid because she was an anti-war activist. Since the only facts that have been shown in this thread about living conditions in Iraq were in that video, how about you show facts as to how they are better? Do you have any facts of how they are living? Or just your statements alone?
I already addressed this previously. I did not discredit her, only you. You yourself haven't presented any facts. You've only linked to a misleading Ron Paul video and have vainly tried to argue it it while getting severely thumped in the process.
.

I provided the only facts as to what life is like in Iraq in this thread. Where are your facts regarding living conditions in Iraq? Do you have any facts? Or just your statements alone?


EDIT: And you did try to discredit her. You insinuated that her case of living conditions in Iraq were not valid because she was an anti-war activist.


 

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Slick5150
I'd like to see Pabster specifically address what has been pointed out here that the two studies are looking at two different things, and that the George Soros funded study is in no way proven wrong by the other.

I don't know whether the two studies were looking at different things. What I do know is that Soros funded the one claiming 650,000 deaths which is factually inaccurate. Let me cite the relevant passage from the article I linked:

Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros?s Open Society Institute.

I get tired of seeing all these fricking threads where somebody declares something an outrage, gets proven to be wrong about the basis for this outrage, and refuses to say a word in response. You made the statement, have the balls to back it up.

I did.

I didn't dispute that Soros paid for it which is what your "relevant passage" discusses. I disputed the fact that the other report contradicts it, which it doesn't. They are 2 different numbers from looking at 2 different things.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I did figure it out, you clearly have no argument.
Says the guy using arguments from 2006.

You insinuated that her case of living conditions in Iraq were not valid because she was an anti-war activist. Since the only facts that have been shown in this thread about living conditions in Iraq were in that video, how about you show facts as to how they are better? Do you have any facts of how they are living? Or just your statements alone?
I already addressed this previously. I did not discredit her, only you. You yourself haven't presented any facts. You've only linked to a misleading Ron Paul video and have vainly tried to argue it it while getting severely thumped in the process.
.

I provided the only facts as to what life is like in Iraq in this thread. Where are your facts regarding living conditions in Iraq? Do you have any facts? Or just your statements alone?


EDIT: And you did try to discredit her. You insinuated that her case of living conditions in Iraq were not valid because she was an anti-war activist.
You provided facts of what life in Iraq was like in 2006. Are you truly so ignorant that I have to explain that to you again, and again, and again in this thread?

Please quit before you show your ignorance any more.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I did figure it out, you clearly have no argument.
Says the guy using arguments from 2006.

You insinuated that her case of living conditions in Iraq were not valid because she was an anti-war activist. Since the only facts that have been shown in this thread about living conditions in Iraq were in that video, how about you show facts as to how they are better? Do you have any facts of how they are living? Or just your statements alone?
I already addressed this previously. I did not discredit her, only you. You yourself haven't presented any facts. You've only linked to a misleading Ron Paul video and have vainly tried to argue it it while getting severely thumped in the process.
.

I provided the only facts as to what life is like in Iraq in this thread. Where are your facts regarding living conditions in Iraq? Do you have any facts? Or just your statements alone?


EDIT: And you did try to discredit her. You insinuated that her case of living conditions in Iraq were not valid because she was an anti-war activist.
You provided facts of what life in Iraq was like in 2006. Are you truly so ignorant that I have to explain that to you again, and again, and again in this thread?

Please quit before you show your ignorance any more.

I have already conceded it was in 2006, so your the one who is ignorant. Those are the only facts we have to go off of at this time, until you give some facts to the contrary. Where are your facts regarding living conditions in Iraq? Do you have any facts? Or just your statements alone?
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I have already conceded it was in 2006, so your the one who is ignorant. Those are the only facts we have to go off of at this time, until you give some facts to the contrary. Where are your facts regarding living conditions in Iraq? Do you have any facts? Or just your statements alone?

Well if we were to go by your line of reasoning, couldnt we just post "facts" of Iraq being a safe country 50 years ago and claim that means Iraq is safe today?
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I have already conceded it was in 2006, so your the one who is ignorant. Those are the only facts we have to go off of at this time, until you give some facts to the contrary. Where are your facts regarding living conditions in Iraq? Do you have any facts? Or just your statements alone?

Well if we were to go by your line of reasoning, couldnt we just post "facts" of Iraq being a safe country 50 years ago and claim that means Iraq is safe today?

No, because my facts are more current. Nice try though. Lets stay on topic. Would you happen to have those elusive facts of the living conditions in Iraq?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I did figure it out, you clearly have no argument.
Says the guy using arguments from 2006.

You insinuated that her case of living conditions in Iraq were not valid because she was an anti-war activist. Since the only facts that have been shown in this thread about living conditions in Iraq were in that video, how about you show facts as to how they are better? Do you have any facts of how they are living? Or just your statements alone?
I already addressed this previously. I did not discredit her, only you. You yourself haven't presented any facts. You've only linked to a misleading Ron Paul video and have vainly tried to argue it it while getting severely thumped in the process.
.

I provided the only facts as to what life is like in Iraq in this thread. Where are your facts regarding living conditions in Iraq? Do you have any facts? Or just your statements alone?


EDIT: And you did try to discredit her. You insinuated that her case of living conditions in Iraq were not valid because she was an anti-war activist.
You provided facts of what life in Iraq was like in 2006. Are you truly so ignorant that I have to explain that to you again, and again, and again in this thread?

Please quit before you show your ignorance any more.

I have already conceded it was in 2006, so your the one who is ignorant. Those are the only facts we have to go off of at this time, until you give some facts to the contrary. Where are your facts regarding living conditions in Iraq? Do you have any facts? Or just your statements alone?
It's your contention that Iraq is just as bad as in 2006 according to the link you posted. Therefore you're the one required to provide the facts of the matter.

If you don't already know that the current conditions in Iraq have improved from 2006 then why are you even arguing this point in the first place? You should be reading instead.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I did figure it out, you clearly have no argument.
Says the guy using arguments from 2006.

You insinuated that her case of living conditions in Iraq were not valid because she was an anti-war activist. Since the only facts that have been shown in this thread about living conditions in Iraq were in that video, how about you show facts as to how they are better? Do you have any facts of how they are living? Or just your statements alone?
I already addressed this previously. I did not discredit her, only you. You yourself haven't presented any facts. You've only linked to a misleading Ron Paul video and have vainly tried to argue it it while getting severely thumped in the process.
.

I provided the only facts as to what life is like in Iraq in this thread. Where are your facts regarding living conditions in Iraq? Do you have any facts? Or just your statements alone?


EDIT: And you did try to discredit her. You insinuated that her case of living conditions in Iraq were not valid because she was an anti-war activist.
You provided facts of what life in Iraq was like in 2006. Are you truly so ignorant that I have to explain that to you again, and again, and again in this thread?

Please quit before you show your ignorance any more.

I have already conceded it was in 2006, so your the one who is ignorant. Those are the only facts we have to go off of at this time, until you give some facts to the contrary. Where are your facts regarding living conditions in Iraq? Do you have any facts? Or just your statements alone?
It's your contention that Iraq is just as bad as in 2006 according to the link you posted. Therefore you're the one required to provide the facts of the matter.

If you don't already know that the current conditions in Iraq have improved from 2006 then why are you even arguing this point in the first place? You should be reading instead.

Where are your facts regarding living conditions in Iraq? Do you have any facts? Or just your statements alone?
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
It's easy to count dead people, it only takes a finger and a piece of paper, or maybe some minor statistical cross section counting. It is immpossible to count the ones that you saved. That takes a little help from the media (good news), and a lot of faith. In this country, that doesn't sell.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
You mean we shouldn't believe it because of who funds it? Funny, I feel the same way about MSM, namely Rupert Murdoch and his PNAC buddies.

Would you believe a global warming report funded by Dick Cheney? :laugh:

And no, you shouldn't believe it, because it was proven false. The real figure was around 151,000 deaths, not 650,000.

Your study is bogus compairing violent deaths to excess deaths. 650,000 should be considered a conservative number.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
WOW! Just WOW!

OK people,

First off, living conditions (except in Baghdad) aren't worse off now than under Saddam. The Coalition didn't destroy major infrastructure. Medical services are just as good if not better in ALL the outlying provinces. In the Northern provinces, medical care is as good/better across the board, especially so in the outlying districts. Refugees and IDP's are moving back at an alarming rate for us, and that in itself is causing issues.

Additionally, power is present virtually everywhere as opposed to under Saddam power was primarily for govt. facilities and Baghdad. Since I arrived here (14 months ago and counting), we have worked on rebuilding places that were unused since the 70's! Apparently Saddam had an issue with education..... we have worked on myriads of
Schools taken over as Courts, police stations that were schools, Correctional facilities that were schools, and Army outposts that were...schools.

Hospitals that were empty and unused were fairly common to encounter. Crime Labs with skeleton crews and zero funding since the early 90's, and infrastructure projects poorly built and maintained. We've dealt with high stay at home rates from Police to sanitation workers not wanting to go to work (but still getting paid) for years on end.

I can go on, but first-hand accounts are worthless when most people are making up facts to suit their agenda.

Conditions are improving every year, and have been since 2003 according to the pass-down logs. Once again the pass-down logs list all failures successes and trends of the people before me from a first-hand account with data to back it, but that is irrelevant when internet sites and studies make up stuff for agendas.

You want to know exactly what's going on? Ask someone actually in theater (outside of Baghdad) that works for DOS, DOJ, USAID, any IZ PRT, the Dept of State, CPATT or MPRI and you'll get the skinny. Otherwise, can go to your favorite website and read crap.

Edited for my usually poor typing skills
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
When you go to war, regardless of reasons, you utilize every resource available. We should have thrown in a 1+ million troops, take advantage of the somewhat supportive allies to the highest degree (Israel, Britain, and France), and then completely destroy areas that pose threats that would otherwise take lengthy campaigns to subdue.

Then, you fix the all the problems. That's how war is won.

People try to apply ethics and morals and standards to combat, when it just isn't compatible. That's war, and it sucks. It sucks a lot.

Iraq would have gone a lot better had the United States followed these rules. Instead, they nickel and dimmed the soldiers, talked stupid and completely poisoned any support both native and international by asinine excuses and attempts to persuade citizen through mob mentalities.

Suspend consideration for the public eye, and get the job done. Black and white yes, but still true.


You can't win a war with semantics and poorly constructed speeches.