More people killed in Washington DC than Iraq, time to pull out of D.C!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: oLLie
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Where Ann Coulter goes for advice on how to present statistics.


Highly recommended.
The best part of that link was the part where it said liberals never twist the truth for their own purposes.

*thumbs up winston!*

*edit* for what it's worth, I don't think the analogy described in the initial post is valid, although I agree with the sentiment.
Polliticians and pundits love to use statistics to intentionally mislead. I read this book many many years ago and the truth of it hasnt changed. This is probably one of most widely read and worthwhile primers on statistical manipulation ever written. Coulters statistics and how they are presented by HS could be an example from that book.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
compare murdered civilian to murdered soldiers
so it doesn't bother you that Washington DC, our capitol, has had 262 murders so far this year?
dead washingtonians just don't worry you as much as dead soldiers?

i find it obscene that anyone can rant and rave about the deaths of americans on foreign soil for political gain, and
then glibly dismiss the deaths of americans in the capitol of our country.

where is the outrage about the job the local DC government is/isn't doing?
Go away you Galt wanna-be. Typical YABA, bleating dishonest statistics, dehumanizing the Iraqi people by dismissing their deaths, and unwilling to acknowledge the difference between random acts of individual violence and the wholesale, state-directed slaughter of thousands of innocent people -- justified by a campaign of lies, no less. Is there anything you won't say or do to try to distract from the outrages from the White House? Is there any limit to how low you will go?

Yes, the violence in D.C. is terrible. To suggest it compares in any way to our attack on Iraq is a callous exploitation of death for your own twisted, partisan propaganda. I don't know who you are, but no legitimate doctor would show such contempt for human life.
 

oLLie

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2001
5,203
1
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: oLLie
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Where Ann Coulter goes for advice on how to present statistics.


Highly recommended.
The best part of that link was the part where it said liberals never twist the truth for their own purposes.

*thumbs up winston!*

*edit* for what it's worth, I don't think the analogy described in the initial post is valid, although I agree with the sentiment.
Polliticians and pundits love to use statistics to intentionally mislead. I read this book many many years ago and the truth of it hasnt changed. This is probably one of most widely read and worthwhile primers on statistical manipulation ever written. Coulters statistics and how they are presented by HS could be an example from that book.
I understand that. What I'm saying is... what's your point? What is the purpose of pointing out the obvious: Statistics can be manipulated to further different agendas. Wow. Mindblowing. Please fill me in if there was a deeper point in your post, because I missed it.


Typical person reading only:
the wholesale, state-directed slaughter of thousands of innocent people --Bowfinger
would think: "Ah he must be talking about Saddam"...and yet you were actually talking about the U.S.
It surprises me that you seem to believe the U.S. actively targets innocent civilians.
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
i feel like everytime i make a good point in these threads people ignore it becuase it doesnt personally or ideologically attack anyone. :(
but seriously, i think that a lot of people feel that it would be a better idea to "fix" things at home before fixing the rest of the world. but, becuase we are currently in this situation....maybe we could try and do both at the same time...maybe?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: oLLie
Typical person reading only:
the wholesale, state-directed slaughter of thousands of innocent people --Bowfinger
would think: "Ah he must be talking about Saddam".
And yet you were actually talking about the U.S.
It surprises me that you seem to believe the U.S. actively targets innocent civilians.
It does NOT surprise me that you twisted that into something I neither said nor suggested. The deaths in D.C. were individual acts of violence. The deaths in Iraq were the direct result of an action taken by G.W. Bush. Though civilians were generally not the target per se, their deaths were predicatable and entirely due to Bush's actions. The people in D.C. were killed by unrelated individuals acting individually. The people in Iraq were killed by the United States of America.

 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
compare murdered civilian to murdered soldiers
so it doesn't bother you that Washington DC, our capitol, has had 262 murders so far this year?
dead washingtonians just don't worry you as much as dead soldiers?

i find it obscene that anyone can rant and rave about the deaths of americans on foreign soil for political gain, and
then glibly dismiss the deaths of americans in the capitol of our country.

where is the outrage about the job the local DC government is/isn't doing?
What is obscene is anyone who comes up with such idiotic argument justifying sending soldiers to their death on meaningless mission. My god, you actually believe that sending our brave man and woman to die for politic and big business is the same as everyday crime in a city.

And who is ranting and raving about the death of American on foreign soils? It's more like you right wingers try to ignore and trivialize the death of American soldiers in Iraq by stopping anyone from discussing the issue using idiotic argument like you are using.

Murder and crime happens everywhere, but it is different from getting into a hostile country where people shoots automatic weapon, RPG at you and setting off land minds and roadside bombs with intent to kill every single day. Nobody is dismissing the death of american in the capital in our country, those are just two totally different matter that people with any kind of logical thinking wouldn't compare one to the other.

 

oLLie

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2001
5,203
1
0
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
compare murdered civilian to murdered soldiers
so it doesn't bother you that Washington DC, our capitol, has had 262 murders so far this year?
dead washingtonians just don't worry you as much as dead soldiers?

i find it obscene that anyone can rant and rave about the deaths of americans on foreign soil for political gain, and
then glibly dismiss the deaths of americans in the capitol of our country.

where is the outrage about the job the local DC government is/isn't doing?
What is obscene is anyone who comes up with such idiotic argument justifying sending soldiers to their death on meaningless mission. My god, you actually believe that sending our brave man and woman to die for politic and big business is the same as everyday crime in a city.

And who is ranting and raving about the death of American on foreign soils? It's more like you right wingers try to ignore and trivialize the death of American soldiers in Iraq by stopping anyone from discussing the issue using idiotic argument like you are using.

Murder and crime happens everywhere, but it is different from getting into a hostile country where people shoots automatic weapon, RPG at you and setting off land minds and roadside bombs with intent to kill every single day. Nobody is dismissing the death of american in the capital in our country, those are just two totally different matter that people with any kind of logical thinking wouldn't compare one to the other.
Is this an accurate summary of your post:

"Better to die in America by American "everyday violence" than to die in Iraq while trying to help Iraqi's rebuild their country, and set up their own government."

?

If you disagree with the summary, please state where your original post differs (except for the attack on heartsurgeon's post).

It does NOT surprise me that you twisted that into something I neither said nor suggested.
I don't think I twisted anything you said. I never claimed to know your intent when you posted, which is specifically why I qualified my post by stating that it seemed you were suggesting that.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
I don't know who you are, but no legitimate doctor would show such contempt for human life.
ouch!

the only thing i have contempt for are liberals who keep chanting "quagmire" for political gain, and as a result
encourage Saddam's thugs to carry out more thuggery. I believe this was the "point" of Ms. Coulter's column, that
the liberals offer no realistic alternative (No Plan) other than to criticise.

I've also noted the rather uncivil tongue that many liberals possess, name calling, personal invective. Tisk, tisk. Can't you
criticise a post you disagree with, without a personal attack upon the poster?





 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
I don't know who you are, but no legitimate doctor would show such contempt for human life.
ouch!

the only thing i have contempt for are liberals who keep chanting "quagmire" for political gain, and as a result
encourage Saddam's thugs to carry out more thuggery. I believe this was the "point" of Ms. Coulter's column, that
the liberals offer no realistic alternative (No Plan) other than to criticise.

I've also noted the rather uncivil tongue that many liberals possess, name calling, personal invective. Tisk, tisk. Can't you
criticise a post you disagree with, without a personal attack upon the poster?
How about NOT invading Iraq. Hey, there's a plan. In fact, I think a lot of folks thought it was a pretty good plan, before this whole march to war business cooked up by the Bushies. Well, I'll just wait for you (or the other neo-con commanders) to tell me why that wasn't a realistic plan. Waiting...
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
Well, I'll just wait for you (or the other neo-con commanders) to tell me why that wasn't a realistic plan. Waiting...
I believe I cannot state it any better than Sen. J. Lieberman did on Oct 2, 2002:

Senator Lieberman: "There is no more fateful, important, or difficult responsibility that the Constitution gives members of Congress than to decide when, whether, and how to authorize the President as Commander-in-Chief to go to war. Mr. President, in your eloquent, powerful, and convincing statement this morning, you have reminded us, and I believe the American people, about why this is such a circumstance.

I have felt for more than a decade now that every additional day that Saddam Hussein is in power in Iraq is an additional day of danger for the Iraqi people, for his neighbors in the region, particularly for the people and military of the United States of America, and indeed for the people of the world. And that is why I am grateful for the opportunity to stand with my colleagues from both parties, and both Houses, and with you, Mr. President, in offering this resolution to authorize you to take military action to protect the region and the world from Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and to enforce the resolutions that are relevant of the United Nations.

There are those who say that this represents hurried or precipitous action, that we should give Saddam and the Iraqi government another chance. The record shows that for the last 10 years, we have tried -- the world has tried -- in just about every way -- diplomatic, economic and otherwise, except military, in the end -- to convince Saddam Hussein to live by the rules of international law and civilization. They've not worked.

The moment of truth has arrived. For Saddam Hussein, this is his last chance, and the best chance for the international community to come together behind the rule of law, and to show that resolutions of the United Nations are worth more than the paper that they are written on.

I am truly hopeful that the broad bipartisan support that I see here today behind you, Mr. President, as our Commander-in-Chief, will strengthen the work of your Secretary of State and your administration at the United Nations. I am convinced, as impressive as this group is here today, though there will be a serious debate ahead in both Houses of Congress, and amendments will certainly be offered in the Senate -- as is the right and responsibility of those who disagree with this amendment -- that in the end, those who disagree with this resolution -- in the end, this resolution will pass in the Senate with a very large, bipartisan majority.

And that, today, is the best hope for a stronger America and for a life for the American people that is safer."


linky to full text
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Well, I'll just wait for you (or the other neo-con commanders) to tell me why that wasn't a realistic plan. Waiting...
I believe I cannot state it any better than Sen. J. Lieberman did on Oct 2, 2002:

Senator Lieberman: "There is no more fateful, important, or difficult responsibility that the Constitution gives members of Congress than to decide when, whether, and how to authorize the President as Commander-in-Chief to go to war. Mr. President, in your eloquent, powerful, and convincing statement this morning, you have reminded us, and I believe the American people, about why this is such a circumstance.

I have felt for more than a decade now that every additional day that Saddam Hussein is in power in Iraq is an additional day of danger for the Iraqi people, for his neighbors in the region, particularly for the people and military of the United States of America, and indeed for the people of the world. And that is why I am grateful for the opportunity to stand with my colleagues from both parties, and both Houses, and with you, Mr. President, in offering this resolution to authorize you to take military action to protect the region and the world from Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and to enforce the resolutions that are relevant of the United Nations.

There are those who say that this represents hurried or precipitous action, that we should give Saddam and the Iraqi government another chance. The record shows that for the last 10 years, we have tried -- the world has tried -- in just about every way -- diplomatic, economic and otherwise, except military, in the end -- to convince Saddam Hussein to live by the rules of international law and civilization. They've not worked.

The moment of truth has arrived. For Saddam Hussein, this is his last chance, and the best chance for the international community to come together behind the rule of law, and to show that resolutions of the United Nations are worth more than the paper that they are written on.

I am truly hopeful that the broad bipartisan support that I see here today behind you, Mr. President, as our Commander-in-Chief, will strengthen the work of your Secretary of State and your administration at the United Nations. I am convinced, as impressive as this group is here today, though there will be a serious debate ahead in both Houses of Congress, and amendments will certainly be offered in the Senate -- as is the right and responsibility of those who disagree with this amendment -- that in the end, those who disagree with this resolution -- in the end, this resolution will pass in the Senate with a very large, bipartisan majority.

And that, today, is the best hope for a stronger America and for a life for the American people that is safer."


linky to full text
Looking at the date of that speech. That was when Saddam was a threat with those WMDs the Congress was told about. You know, the ones Bush and Co. KNEW about. This might have played out differently if the truth was known then.

Smokin' Joe is a Bush clone in many ways.

Sorry, but Joe was and is wrong.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Looking at the date of that speech. That was when Saddam was a threat with those WMDs the Congress was told about. You know, the ones Bush and Co. KNEW about. This might have played out differently if the truth was known then.

Smokin' Joe is a Bush clone in many ways.

Sorry, but Joe was and is wrong.
More specifically, that was immediately after Bush&Co. launched their full court press about Iraq's nuclear weapons, the "mushroom cloud" speech, aluminum tubes that were "only" suitable for use in a uranium centrifuge, etc. I agree Lieberman is a closet Republican. Many of his peers, however, said they would not have approved Bush's invasion if they'd known he was lying.

 

Nsofang

Junior Member
Nov 4, 2003
1
0
0
Going by the post topic,
"before u remove the speck of dust in your neighbours eye, 1st remove the log in yours"
or something like that.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
I don't know who you are, but no legitimate doctor would show such contempt for human life.
ouch!

the only thing i have contempt for are liberals who keep chanting "quagmire" for political gain, and as a result
encourage Saddam's thugs to carry out more thuggery. I believe this was the "point" of Ms. Coulter's column, that
the liberals offer no realistic alternative (No Plan) other than to criticise.

I've also noted the rather uncivil tongue that many liberals possess, name calling, personal invective. Tisk, tisk. Can't you
criticise a post you disagree with, without a personal attack upon the poster?
While you're busy playing the victim, I note that you neatly dodged any accoutability for the outrageous premise of your post. It's not just that your/Coulter's statistics are pure, partisan BS. It's not just your apparent inability to differentiate between the random acts of individuals and the organized, US-sponsored attack on Iraq. It is your callous dismissal of all of the Iraqis killed. Your post was just a new variant of JohnGalt's "10,000 deaths in France vs. 300 in Iraq" trolls. I find it morally reprehensible that you and Galt and Coulter all seem to feel Iraqis don't count as human beings.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Looking at the date of that speech. That was when Saddam was a threat with those WMDs the Congress was told about. You know, the ones Bush and Co. KNEW about. This might have played out differently if the truth was known then.

Smokin' Joe is a Bush clone in many ways.

Sorry, but Joe was and is wrong.
More specifically, that was immediately after Bush&Co. launched their full court press about Iraq's nuclear weapons, the "mushroom cloud" speech, aluminum tubes that were "only" suitable for use in a uranium centrifuge, etc. I agree Lieberman is a closet Republican. Many of his peers, however, said they would not have approved Bush's invasion if they'd known he was lying.
Don't forget they had Blair on the other side of Pond standing at the Posium telling the Britons that Iraq will be launching an attack on England in 45 minutes.

 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
huh? i thought lieberman was a democrat..

ok, well how about Senator John Kerry. Isn't he a Democrat?

"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice....[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation....[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise."
- Sen. John Kerry
Congressional Record 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Well, I'll just wait for you (or the other neo-con commanders) to tell me why that wasn't a realistic plan. Waiting...
I believe I cannot state it any better than Sen. J. Lieberman did on Oct 2, 2002:

Senator Lieberman: "There is no more fateful, important, or difficult responsibility that the Constitution gives members of Congress than to decide when, whether, and how to authorize the President as Commander-in-Chief to go to war. Mr. President, in your eloquent, powerful, and convincing statement this morning, you have reminded us, and I believe the American people, about why this is such a circumstance.

I have felt for more than a decade now that every additional day that Saddam Hussein is in power in Iraq is an additional day of danger for the Iraqi people, for his neighbors in the region, particularly for the people and military of the United States of America, and indeed for the people of the world. And that is why I am grateful for the opportunity to stand with my colleagues from both parties, and both Houses, and with you, Mr. President, in offering this resolution to authorize you to take military action to protect the region and the world from Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and to enforce the resolutions that are relevant of the United Nations.

There are those who say that this represents hurried or precipitous action, that we should give Saddam and the Iraqi government another chance. The record shows that for the last 10 years, we have tried -- the world has tried -- in just about every way -- diplomatic, economic and otherwise, except military, in the end -- to convince Saddam Hussein to live by the rules of international law and civilization. They've not worked.

The moment of truth has arrived. For Saddam Hussein, this is his last chance, and the best chance for the international community to come together behind the rule of law, and to show that resolutions of the United Nations are worth more than the paper that they are written on.

I am truly hopeful that the broad bipartisan support that I see here today behind you, Mr. President, as our Commander-in-Chief, will strengthen the work of your Secretary of State and your administration at the United Nations. I am convinced, as impressive as this group is here today, though there will be a serious debate ahead in both Houses of Congress, and amendments will certainly be offered in the Senate -- as is the right and responsibility of those who disagree with this amendment -- that in the end, those who disagree with this resolution -- in the end, this resolution will pass in the Senate with a very large, bipartisan majority.

And that, today, is the best hope for a stronger America and for a life for the American people that is safer."


linky to full text

Heh, Lieberman didn't know what we know now, including the claims for all those WMD were just crappy intelligence and exagerations and hence the statement at the time. And you sir who knows everything we now know and still supporting this war is just blind. You and your right winger's attempt to stop people talking about how much American is paying for this war is just pathetic and out right unpatriotic. You and your beloved President is hurting American more than ever, and I hope you sleep well at night because all the soldiers died in Iraq didn't died because of anti-Bush, anti-war sentiments, but people like you who support this President before the war, and even after everything we now know.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
perhaps you prefer what Rep. R. Gephardt said. After all, he helped draft the resolution giving Bush authority to invade Iraq.:

"Let me begin by saying that the most important issue the President and the Congress ever address is that of life and death. The first responsibility of our government is to protect the security of our nation and our citizens.

In our view, Iraq's use and continuing development of weapons of mass destruction, combined with efforts of terrorists to acquire such weapons, pose a unique and dangerous threat to our national security. Many of us believe that we need to deal with this threat diplomatically if we can, militarily if we must.

Every member of Congress must make their own decision on the level of threat posed by Iraq and what to do to respond to that threat. I've said many times to my caucus that each member should be guided by his or her own conscience, free from others trying to politicize the issue or questioning others' motives.

In response to the President's desire for congressional support and, in keeping with our constitutional responsibilities, I have worked to draft a resolution that reflects the views of a large bipartisan segment of Congress. My underlying goal in this process has been to ensure that Iraq is disarmed, and to lessen the likelihood that weapons of mass destruction can be passed to terrorists."

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
I don't know who you are, but no legitimate doctor would show such contempt for human life.
ouch!

the only thing i have contempt for are liberals who keep chanting "quagmire" for political gain, and as a result
encourage Saddam's thugs to carry out more thuggery. I believe this was the "point" of Ms. Coulter's column, that
the liberals offer no realistic alternative (No Plan) other than to criticise.

I've also noted the rather uncivil tongue that many liberals possess, name calling, personal invective. Tisk, tisk. Can't you
criticise a post you disagree with, without a personal attack upon the poster?
While you're busy playing the victim, I note that you neatly dodged any accoutability for the outrageous premise of your post. It's not just that your/Coulter's statistics are pure, partisan BS. It's not just your apparent inability to differentiate between the random acts of individuals and the organized, US-sponsored attack on Iraq. It is your callous dismissal of all of the Iraqis killed. Your post was just a new variant of JohnGalt's "10,000 deaths in France vs. 300 in Iraq" trolls. I find it morally reprehensible that you and Galt and Coulter all seem to feel Iraqis don't count as human beings.
Note that heartsturgeon continues to dodge and troll, avoiding accountability for his contemptible post.
 

Mardeth

Platinum Member
Jul 24, 2002
2,609
0
0
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Originally posted by: djNickb
Does anyone disagree with the thinking that we need to fix whats wrong at home before we 'try' to fix the rest of the world?
Most of the rest of the world agrees with you.
But 100% should :), djNickb, you are so right.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
When the Neo Cons came to power with the Election of Dub their main goal was to overthrow the Hussien Regime in Iraq. By a pure stroke of fate, the 9/11 attack on the WTC created an opportunity that they may never of had to fullfill this goal. Afghanistan was just a primer for them as Iraq has always been their main objective.

As Heartsurgeon demonstrated, the Democrats in Congress were totally blind to the Neo Cons ultimate motive and like most of the American Public were duped into believing the Lies and BS about Iraq being an imminent threat to our Home Security
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
When the Neo Cons came to power with the Election of Dub their main goal was to overthrow the Hussien Regime in Iraq. By a pure stroke of fate, the 9/11 attack on the WTC created an opportunity that they may never of had to fullfill this goal. Afghanistan was just a primer for them as Iraq has always been their main adjective.

As Heartsurgeon demonstrated, the Democrats in Congress were totally blind to the Neo Cons ultimate motive and like most of the American Public were duped into believing the Lies and BS about Iraq being an imminent threat to our Home Security
In my opinion, this was not limited to Democrats. Many Republicans fall into the same boat. Many on both sides were duped by the neo-facsist (aka neo-con) juggernaut to conquer Iraq.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY