Bad News for Liberals: Military Deaths Lower than some years of "Peace"

[glockmail]

No, I want honesty and integrity from both my government and the media. Is that too much to ask?



Immie

What part of the government report was dishonest, or even intentionally misleading?

All I want here is honesty from you.

[Immanuel]

What part of the government report was dishonest, or even intentionally misleading?

All I want here is honesty from you.

Obviously you have not read the thread or you wouldn't ask me to repeat something that I have said several times.

The whole thing is misleading. The numbers presented were done so with a deliberate attempt to mislead. They buried some numbers deep in the report but the data is laid out to mislead the casual reader. Maybe PMP is correct and this was done by Fox and not the government, but it was done none the less. The media is nothing less that a tool of the government nowdays anyway.

Now, you are welcomed to your opinion, whether it is right or wrong. I really don't care, but as I said earlier a good pollster knows how to manipulate data... he can interview Operation Rescue and come out with a poll that shows that 98% of America is for abortion on demand. That is what is being done here. Sprinkle a little bit of truth among lots of inaccurate or meaningless data tables and people will come away with an inaccurate and meaningless impression of the report.

Immie

[glockmail]

......

The whole thing is misleading. .....

Bullshit. The first sentence of the OP is quite clear to anyone with an 8th grade reading comprehension. I read all your posts about this and it is clear that you either misunderstood that sentence, are a conspiracy kook or Bush-Hater, or are intellectually dishonest. Take your pick.

[Immanuel]

Bullshit. The first sentence of the OP is quite clear to anyone with an 8th grade reading comprehension. I read all your posts about this and it is clear that you either misunderstood that sentence, are a conspiracy kook or Bush-Hater, or are intellectually dishonest. Take your pick.

D) You are a Republican Hack.

{edit}

Whether you like it or not that report is most definitely written to mislead. What don't you understand about that? It is as clear as the nose on your face. They gave two different sets of numbers that don't correlate in the slightest manner. Give me one good reason for doing this! Just one! It all boils down to trying to justify the number of dead by misleading the public into thinking they are safer in the Middle East than they are at home.

Deny it!

Immie

[darin]

Obviously you have not read the thread or you wouldn't ask me to repeat something that I have said several times.

The whole thing is misleading. The numbers presented were done so with a deliberate attempt to mislead. They buried some numbers deep in the report but the data is laid out to mislead the casual reader. Maybe PMP is correct and this was done by Fox and not the government, but it was done none the less. The media is nothing less that a tool of the government nowdays anyway.

Now, you are welcomed to your opinion, whether it is right or wrong. I really don't care, but as I said earlier a good pollster knows how to manipulate data... he can interview Operation Rescue and come out with a poll that shows that 98% of America is for abortion on demand. That is what is being done here. Sprinkle a little bit of truth among lots of inaccurate or meaningless data tables and people will come away with an inaccurate and meaningless impression of the report.

Immie

This is how I translate what you just wrote:

"I, Immie haven't read the report. I didn't read the OP very well either. While I know it's VERY Clear the numbers shown in the OP compare OVERALL deaths to 'Death caused by hostile Action" I'm going to continue beating the drum the "report is biased" and "Numbers are buried" because I don't like the message."


Immie - more than I, in this thread, OTHERS Have tried to get you to calm down and just read the OP. I ENCOURAGE YOU to read the report. NO numbers are buried. Open the PDF, search for 1992. The 2nd or 3rd hit brings you to the data i used.

[Immanuel]

This is how I translate what you just wrote:

"I, Immie haven't read the report. I didn't read the OP very well either. While I know it's VERY Clear the numbers shown in the OP compare OVERALL deaths to 'Death caused by hostile Action" I'm going to continue beating the drum the "report is biased" and "Numbers are buried" because I don't like the message."


Immie - more than I, in this thread, OTHERS Have tried to get you to calm down and just read the OP. I ENCOURAGE YOU to read the report. NO numbers are buried. Open the PDF, search for 1992. The 2nd or 3rd hit brings you to the data i used.

dmp,

Interpret it how you want. I'm sorry, but the facts that you laid out are clearly misleading. Now, either the government is trying to mislead, Fox is trying to mislead or you are trying to mislead. I prefer to believe it is the government over you.

I have no problem with the numbers. Either way, I would not say... "bring them home because, my God, too many are dieing". I do say redeploy them in a way to be more efficient, but that is besides the point. What I mean here is that the fact that 1,942 soldiers died in 2005 compared to any of the other numbers in the 90's would not bother me and would not get me clammering to bring them home because of this. But to claim that only 739 soldiers died in combat in 2005 and this is a good thing because in 1992 1293 died is just plain ridiculous. The two sets of numbers do not correlate.

{edit}
The fact is that 739 soldiers died is an amazingly low number and one that would help to gain my support, if I didn't fully believe that there was a better way to fight this war. But show numbers that actually correlate is all that I am asking. Make them mean something.
{/edit}

Soldiers die in war. We knew that before we went in and, believe it or not, I supported the initial phase of the war. I simply believe that now we must change our strategy.

I'm sorry, but, either present the report with numbers that do correlate or the report is meaningless and misleading. That is all I am saying.

Immie

[darin]

dmp,

Interpret it how you want. I'm sorry, but the facts that you laid out are clearly misleading. Now, either the government is trying to mislead, Fox is trying to mislead or you are trying to mislead. I prefer to believe it is the government over you.

Misleading in what way? If you honestly think clearly labeled numbers, from a clear available source are 'misleading' I can't fix you. My daughter understood the numbers when I read her the OP. She's 8 years old for what it's worth.

What I mean here is that the fact that 1,942 soldiers died in 2005 compared to any of the other numbers in the 90's would not bother me and would not get me clammering to bring them home because of this. But to claim that only 739 soldiers died in combat in 2005 and this is a good thing because in 1992 1293 died is just plain ridiculous. The two sets of numbers do not correlate.

1942 soldiers died from what, in 2005? You have SERIOUS trouble with comprehending what I'm writing and that troubles me.

If 739 soldiers died from COMBAT in 2005, yet 1300 soldiers died from ALL causes in 1992, doesn't that tell you "There are many ways for Military folk to die during service; it appears 'war' is not the primary way"?

{edit}
The fact is that 739 soldiers died is an amazingly low number and one that would help to gain my support, if I didn't fully believe that there was a better way to fight this war. But show numbers that actually correlate is all that I am asking. Make them mean something.
{/edit}

Why aren't you in the Army? I mean, you seem to have been blessed with Superior Military Strategy insights. You know better how to fight this war than, say, LTG Dubik, who now oversees training of the Iraqi forces?

Soldiers die in war. We knew that before we went in and, believe it or not, I supported the initial phase of the war. I simply believe that now we must change our strategy.

I'm sorry, but, either present the report with numbers that do correlate or the report is meaningless and misleading. That is all I am saying.

Immie

I can't say this ANY MORE CLEARLY. If somebody has another way, PLEASE help Immie.

ALL THE NUMBERS ARE IN THE REPORT. THE REPORT SHOWS ALL DEATHS BROKEN DOWN INTO CATEGORIES. PLEASE READ THE REPORT TO COMPARE ALL THE DATA. THE OP SHOWS TWO DATA POINTS - TOTAL DEATHS FROM 1992-1999, COMPARED TO DEATHS FROM HOSTILE ACTION FROM 2000-2006. THERE IS NOTHING SHADY GOING ON. NOTHING IS HIDDEN. IT IS A BASIC COMPARISON


In chinese:

所有数字是在报告。报告显示所有死亡为类别被划分。请读报告比较所有数据。操作展示二个数据点- 共计死亡从1992-1999, 与死亡比较从敌对行动从2000-2006 。有没什么遮荫继续。没什么掩藏。这是BASIC 比较

In dutch:

ALLE AANTALLEN ZIJN IN HET RAPPORT. HET RAPPORT TOONT ALLE STERFGEVALLEN DIE IN CATEGORIEËN WORDEN OPGESPLITST. GELIEVE TE LEZEN HET RAPPORT OM ALLE GEGEVENS TE VERGELIJKEN. OP TOONT TWEE PUNTEN VAN GEGEVENS - BEDRAAG STERFGEVALLEN VANAF 1992-1999, VERGELEKEN BIJ STERFGEVALLEN DOOR VIJANDIGE ACTIE VANAF 2000-2006. ER ZIJN NIETS HET SHADY GAAN. NIETS IS VERBORGEN. IT IS een VERGELIJKING van BASIC

In French:

TOUS LES NOMBRES SONT DANS LE RAPPORT. LE RAPPORT MONTRE TOUTES LES DÉCÈS DÉCOMPOSÉES EN CATÉGORIES. VEUILLEZ LIRE LE RAPPORT POUR COMPARER TOUTES LES DONNÉES. LES EXPOSITIONS OP DEUX POINTS DE REPÈRES - MONTEZ-VOUS AUX DÉCÈS DE 1992-1999, COMPARÉ AUX DÉCÈS DE L'ACTION HOSTILE DE 2000-2006. IL N'Y A RIEN CONTINUER OMBREUX. RIEN N'EST CACHÉ. C'EST Une COMPARAISON De BASIC WE SURRENDER

In German:

ALLE ZAHLEN SIND IM REPORT. DER REPORT ZEIGT ALLE TODESFÄLLE, DIE UNTEN IN KATEGORIEN GEBROCHEN SIND. LESEN SIE BITTE DEN REPORT, UM ALLE DATEN ZU VERGLEICHEN. HASSELHOF DIE OPERSCHEINEN ZWEI DATEN-PUNKTE - ZÄHLEN SIE TODESFÄLLE VON 1992-1999 ZUSAMMEN, VERGLICHEN MIT TODESFÄLLEN VON DER FEINDLICHEN TÄTIGKEIT VON 2000-2006. ES GIBT NICHTS SCHATTIGES WEITERGEHEN. NICHTS WIRD VERSTECKT. ES IST Ein BASIC VERGLEICH

In Greek:

ΟΛΟΙ ΟΙ ΑΡΙΘΜΟΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΘΕΣΗ. Η ΕΚΘΕΣΗ ΠΑΡΟΥΣΙΑΖΕΙ ΟΛΟΥΣ ΘΑΝΑΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΥ ΧΩΡΙΖΟΝΤΑΙ ΣΕ ΚΑΤΗΓΟΡΙΕΣ. ΠΑΡΑΚΑΛΩ ΔΙΑΒΑΣΤΕ ΤΗΝ ΕΚΘΕΣΗ ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΣΥΓΚΡΙΝΕΤΕ ΟΛΑ ΤΑ ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΑ. OCA KICKS ASS OP ΠΑΡΟΥΣΙΑΖΟΥΝ ΔΎΟ ΣΗΜΕΊΑ ΣΤΟΙΧΕΊΩΝ - ΣΥΜΠΛΗΡΏΣΤΕ ΣΥΝΟΛΙΚΑ ΤΟΥΣ ΘΑΝΑΤΟΥΣ ΑΠΌ ΤΟ 1992-1999, ΈΝΑΝΤΙ ΣΤΟΥΣ ΘΑΝΑΤΟΥΣ ΑΠΌ ΤΗΝ ΕΧΘΡΙΚΉ ΔΡΑΣΗ ΑΠΌ ΤΟ 2000-2006. ΔΕΝ ΥΠΑΡΧΕΙ ΤΙΠΟΤΑ ΣΚΙΕΡΗ ΣΥΝΕΧΙΣΗ. ΤΙΠΟΤΑ ΔΕΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΚΡΥΜΜΕΝΟ. Η ΤΠ ΕΊΝΑΙ μια ΣΎΓΚΡΙΣΗ BASIC


In Italian:

TUTTI I NUMERI SONO NEL RAPPORTO. IL RAPPORTO MOSTRA TUTTE LE MORTI SUDDIVISE NELLE CATEGORIE. LEGGA PREGO IL RAPPORTO PER CONFRONTARE TUTTI I DATI. LE ESPOSIZIONI OP DUE PUNTI DI RIFERIMENTI - AMMONTI ALLE MORTI DA 1992-1999, CONFRONTATO ALLE MORTI DA AZIONE OSTILE DA 2000-2006. DeCAPRIO SuCKS CI È NIENTE ACCENDERE OMBREGGIATO. NIENTE È NASCOSTO. È Un CONFRONTO Di BASIC

In Portuguese:

TODOS OS NÚMEROS ESTÃO NO RELATÓRIO. O RELATÓRIO MOSTRA TODAS AS MORTES QUEBRADAS PARA BAIXO EM CATEGORIAS. LEIA POR FAVOR O RELATÓRIO PARA COMPARAR TODOS OS DADOS. AS MOSTRAS OP DOIS PONTOS DE DADOS - TOTALIZE MORTES DE 1992-1999, COMPARADO ÀS MORTES DA AÇÃO HOSTIL DE 2000-2006. NÃO HÁ NADA IR SHADY SOBRE. NADA É ESCONDIDO. É Uma COMPARAÇÃO Do BASIC

In African Clicking Language:

Click-Cli-Click-Clackity-Click-cliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick-cluck-clack

[Immanuel]

This is how I translate what you just wrote:

"I, Immie haven't read the report. I didn't read the OP very well either. While I know it's VERY Clear the numbers shown in the OP compare OVERALL deaths to 'Death caused by hostile Action" I'm going to continue beating the drum the "report is biased" and "Numbers are buried" because I don't like the message."


Immie - more than I, in this thread, OTHERS Have tried to get you to calm down and just read the OP. I ENCOURAGE YOU to read the report. NO numbers are buried. Open the PDF, search for 1992. The 2nd or 3rd hit brings you to the data i used.

I read the opening post very carefully several times. I scanned the Fox report several times and what I can tell you is that both of those are misleading. I had not gone to the pdf report and I will recant what I said about the government being the misleaders and apologies to glock... but that only drops things in Fox and your lap. This is just one more reason not to trust the media or the net.

And I don't have to calm down. I'm not upset in the least. Never was.

So for the second time, since I came to this site, I will admit I am wrong... I guess that means I have admitted this twice more than anyone else here, right?

Immie

[darin]

I read the opening post very carefully several times. I scanned the Fox report several times and what I can tell you is that both of those are misleading. I had not gone to the pdf report and I will recant what I said about the government being the misleaders and apologies to glock... but that only drops things in Fox and your lap. This is just one more reason not to trust the media or the net.

And I don't have to calm down. I'm not upset in the least. Never was.

So for the second time, since I came to this site, I will admit I am wrong... I guess that means I have admitted this twice more than anyone else here, right?

Immie

What is misleading? The total numbers of Deaths in the 1990s compared to the deaths strictly from hostile action, in the 2000s? That's misleading somehow?

[Immanuel]

ALL THE NUMBERS ARE IN THE REPORT. THE REPORT SHOWS ALL DEATHS BROKEN DOWN INTO CATEGORIES. PLEASE READ THE REPORT TO COMPARE ALL THE DATA. THE OP SHOWS TWO DATA POINTS - TOTAL DEATHS FROM 1992-1999, COMPARED TO DEATHS FROM HOSTILE ACTION FROM 2000-2006. THERE IS NOTHING SHADY GOING ON. NOTHING IS HIDDEN. IT IS A BASIC COMPARISON

A basic comparison of numbers that do not correlate. A favorite tactic of pollsters.

Immie

[Immanuel]

What is misleading? The total numbers of Deaths in the 1990s compared to the deaths strictly from hostile action, in the 2000s? That's misleading somehow?

Why not show the full numbers from 2005?

Why are you trying to differentiate between the two?

Give me one good reason for breaking these out, please.

Immie

[darin]

Why not show the full numbers from 2005?

Why are you trying to differentiate between the two?

Give me one good reason for breaking these out, please.

Immie

Again - for the what? 5th time?

I pulled out those numbers to illustrate a point. That point is this:

"There are many causes of Death among those who serve in our Military. Death as the result of hostile action is one of many."

Our soldiers are NOT dropping like flies in Iraq, as MOST of the LMM would have our populace believe. In fact, there were MORE DEATHS, over-all, during the 1990s, than there has been in the 2000s due to this war. News organizations and liberals get all horny when an RPG kills our soldiers. Democrats and others rant and rave and blabber and foam at the mouth when talking about our soldiers being in "Harm's way"....yet there is NO EXPRESSED CONCERN over deaths in our Military, EXCEPT when it's a death from a War lead by a President they HATE. These numbers show ANY service to our nation puts a person in "Harm's way" - "Getting killed on the battlefield is one way that people in the military wind up dying, but it's not the main way."

[Immanuel]

Again - for the what? 5th time?

I pulled out those numbers to illustrate a point. That point is this:

"There are many causes of Death among those who serve in our Military. Death as the result of hostile action is one of many."

Our soldiers are NOT dropping like flies in Iraq, as MOST of the LMM would have our populace believe. In fact, there were MORE DEATHS, over-all, during the 1990s, than there has been in the 2000s due to this war. News organizations and liberals get all horny when an RPG kills our soldiers. Democrats and others rant and rave and blabber and foam at the mouth when talking about our soldiers being in "Harm's way"....yet there is NO EXPRESSED CONCERN over deaths in our Military, EXCEPT when it's a death from a War lead by a President they HATE. These numbers show ANY service to our nation puts a person in "Harm's way" - "Getting killed on the battlefield is one way that people in the military wind up dying, but it's not the main way."

Fine... I guess that is as good of a reason as I can ask for. I still believe that to be misleading, but maybe I don't understand your motives. I guess putting liberals in their place is the important thing here.

Why aren't you in the Army? I mean, you seem to have been blessed with Superior Military Strategy insights. You know better how to fight this war than, say, LTG Dubik, who now oversees training of the Iraqi forces?

A twelve year old would be able to command this war effort better than is being done. LTG Dubik inherited this mess. I don't believe he has all that many options that his superiors have given him and that falls not on the Joint Cheifs, it goes all the way to the top. LTG Dubik is simply making due with what has been given to him.

Immie

[darin]

Fine... I guess that is as good of a reason as I can ask for. I still believe that to be misleading, but maybe I don't understand your motives. I guess putting liberals in their place is the important thing here.

Misleading HOW?? It's NOT misleading unless I didn't include data labels.

A twelve year old would be able to command this war effort better than is being done. LTG Dubik inherited this mess. I don't believe he has all that many options that his superiors have given him and that falls not on the Joint Cheifs, it goes all the way to the top. LTG Dubik is simply making due with what has been given to him.

Immie

You are absolutely SILLY now. Face it - there are FEW people alive today with as much of an understanding of how to fight this war as our Generals in our Military. You are NOT smarter or more-insightful than these men and women.

[Immanuel]

You are absolutely SILLY now. Face it - there are FEW people alive today with as much of an understanding of how to fight this war as our Generals in our Military. You are NOT smarter or more-insightful than these men and women.

Maybe not the Generals but I'd say I am smarter than the people that are currently telling them what to do. The generals take orders and do as they are told and do a damned good job with what they have as well.

Immie