Preemptive Nuclear War vs. Christianity

Oops. It's time for the 10-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 1:15 a.m. ET by one of the moderators, or whomever is up first.

LE

 

As you well know, you have neither seen nor heard from me a desire to kill anyone or support those who do.

I know it's tough for you to lose a debate so badly, but it's still amazing that all of this a result of your starting this thread with a lie as it's main premise.

 

They are not unnamed. They were named when I originally cited them and linked to them. I am not going to do it again. If you were that interested, you would have already had this truth. As it is, you are simply interesetd in furthering a political agenda.

 

No, not at all. I already did my research and made my argument. I am not going to take the time to do it again for you.

If you are truly interested, you can easily find the information. I suspect you aren't interested since you have numbers that fit your argument and to find others numbers would reveal that your argument is not sound. You have a vested interest in not finding out. I don't care either way. But I am not going to take the time to do what you should have already done.

 

Fine.

You should rather suspect that I have priorities that don't allow me to spend time chasing down easily attainable figures for someone predisposed against them. Your ignorance of this knowledge at this point in the argument tells me you have an extreme bias. If you were geniunely interested in the facts, you would already know this information because you would have compared it in choosing what you chose to believe. The fact that you don't know it tells us that you did not do your research in coming to a conclusion and that you don't care about the truth enough to do it now.

But my priorities don't really allow me to continue to do this research for you.

 

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A5039_0_2_0_C/

Playing Politics with the Dead
By Roger Aronoff | November 28, 2006

As to the study itself, several articles have done an excellent job in showing why this report should not be trusted, besides the politics lurking behind it.

In October a report was released in Lancet magazine to much fanfare that some 655,000 violent "excess deaths" in Iraq had occurred since the start of, and because of the war. The report, produced by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, is so far off of other estimates that it appears badly flawed on its face. But its timing made it even more suspect, as it came out just weeks before an important midterm election in the U.S., and could have had the impact of undermining the war effort. The same group had previously issued another report, this one just before the 2004 presidential election, which also had figures that were suspect.


SNIP

The problem, as Moore points out, is the number of clusters they use. In this case, it was 47, which he states is far too few to be reliable. He cites other surveys with far more clusters, and with radically different results, and concludes that the Johns Hopkins survey is "highly unlikely" to be representative of the Iraqi population. Moore was also surprised to find that the survey didn't ask any demographic questions. "Without demographic information to assure a representative sample," wrote Moore, "there is no way anyone can prove-or disprove-that the Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths is accurate."

SNIP

Lacey points out that the death rate in Iraq assumed by the Lancet study, before the war began in March of 2003, is 5.5 out of every 1,000. He says that number is almost certainly wrong. For one thing, they only looked at the 14 months preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, a period when Saddam Hussein was forced to be on his best behavior. And it is considerably lower than the death rate in U.S., and such death rates usually correlate with the wealth of a society. "If Iraq's GDP is used to provide a more realistic estimate of the pre-war death rate," writes Lacey, "600,000 of the study's estimated deaths are erased. The number left over is close to the number given by IBCP, whose estimate is looking more reliable all the time."

Furthermore, if one applies the World Health Organization's (WHO) pre-war child-mortality rate (130 per 1,000) and average life expectancy in Iraq (51 years), and compares it to today's statistics, in which child-mortality rate is at 35 in 1,000 while the average life expectancy has improved to 69 years, then it is very likely that the invasion—the liberation—of Iraq, has saved lives, perhaps as many as two million.

SNIP

But there's another important question: of the deaths in Iraq, how many were killed by the so-called insurgents, and how many of those killed were the insurgents themselves? The study, according to Lacey, doesn't make those distinctions.

 

Neocon.....Ronnie disciples even repeat his rhetoric.

 

Two can play that game.

I can perhaps find something else if you can find something to back up your claim of 655,000 besides a report like the Lancet study which was sponsored and performed by politically biased democrat party supporters.

I'll have a long wait, I'm sure, since the Lancet group is the only one that used such faulty methodology, cooked the numbers, and came up with such a ridiculous figure.

 

It doesnt offend me it doesnt even apply to me. If it did it still would mean little to nothing. I do not care who all in this world has the name ron. It was quite clear you knew who I was speaking of. Ronnie is about one thought short of a tinfoil hat. And if you want to be taught by him and repeat his rhetoric word for word then happy trails. And old ronnie is not conservative. Wanting to legalize drugs is far from that. His stance on the war falls short as well. But the shirt tail rider would be glad to pat him on the back for it.

 

Sorry, folks, this thread is closed per previous notice. Feel free to start thread #2 if you desire. Thanks.

Lady Eagle