Bluesman

And the glorious day has finally arrived, sooner than I expected, not as soon as I had hoped.

WAB is blue skies and green grass again.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Dreadnought

More fan mail Sir? I think most people have already made their synapsis on this one.

"You're a hateful little carbuncle on the butt of the WAB, and I can't wait for the day when we finally see the back of you receding into the distance."

We seems to indicate he must have a mouse in his pocket because he surely isint one of us. WE dont forsee him being around much longer either.

Congrads Sir, splash another troll.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Bluesman

Nah, bro; that was ME talking about being glad to get rid of HIM, and the WAB choir sang 'Amen'.

HistoricalDavid

That's what I was looking for. He's a slightly more literate lulldapull.

Shek

S-2,

The academic field that is probably best equipped to handle questions about the survey are economists. Scientists in general don't have to know detailed statistics because they can most often run truly controlled experiments. Simple statistics can be used because you can determine if there was a difference between the treatment and control groups.

On the other hand, social scientists cannot. You must understand in-depth what you are trying to answer and then think about how to best control for things that can't truly be controlled. Economists tend to be the best because it is such an emperically laden field, hence, the development of the field of econometrics. Other social scientists study econometrics as well, but these fields tend to have more qualitative work associated with them and so, on average, they are not as strong at the econometric work.

My biggest problem with the Roberts et al studies is that they don't benchmark well against pre-war mortality rates (and in fact, they don't even attempt to do so), and they don't attempt to benchmark against anything real. I just read through the Kane paper for the first time tonight, and while I don't have access to the Roberts et al data to confirm Kane's findings (the fact that the Roberts et al data is widely available is a close second in why it is suspect work), if Kane's findings that there was sloppy data collection that doesn't conform to the survey design methodology hold true, then it is a fatal flaw IMO. If the sample data doesn't have reasonable integrity, then it holds that the extrapolation of the sample to the population cannot have reasonable integrity, either.

Once you move on past these issues, the write up shows a bias (removing a clear outlier such as Fallujah in the 2004 study cannot be referred to as a "conservative" move - to not do so would be a fatal flaw). The fact that they try to plant the seed throughout the report that the non-Fallujah inclusive numbers are probably just the tip of the iceberg because they had to drop Fallujah (which was an extreme outlier) is clearly manipulative.

Bottomline, I like they way you put things in your last sentence.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

The One

IF USA ATTACKED IRAN THEN PAKISTAN WOULD BE ONE OF ITS BASE.AFTER THIS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO I.P.I GAS PIPELINE WHICH IS VERY ESSENTIAL FOR INDIA, PAKISTAN AND IRAN.

Buu

What a peculiar comment, Mr. John.

If the vast and exalted military of the United States could not stabilize and control Baghdad through four years of occupation (with international assistance), then what makes you believe you can defeat a country three times Iraq in size within a few days?

Iran, unlike Saddam, has a strong technologized military presence, a patriotic and strong public, and is enhancing their nuclear technology by the day. The Americans would be facing a much graver crisis in Iraq, were the Shia/Sunni/Kurd interests all alike. In Iran, the public is unified and would uprise together against such intolerable acts of war against them. In short, if America can't handle a resistance compromised of old kalashnikovs, then what hope would they have for Iran?

Besides, Iran's power (or lack thereof) aside, the United States would be incapable of waging such a war properly due to finances. They are already in debt nine trillion dollars (or sixty trillion, depending on your definition of debt), so to add the factor of Iran into the equation will make the debt rise exponentially.

Just a thought.

Ray

If the USA is to attack Iran, would it not be correct that the IPI is the last thing that she should worry about?!

Iran is an impediment to US' national interest. So, why on earth should the US be concerned about India, Pakistan and Iran and the IPI?

And anyway, the IPI is more beneficial to Iran.Surely you don't expect the US to look after the economic interest of the country she is attacking!

As it is IPI is a non starter because the US does not want it to be implemented.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

JAD_333

It's a thought, but doesn't answer. The US, France, Germany--just to name a few--say they will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran--period. One can assume they would be prepared to act with the US and share the cost.

The essential question, therefore, is whether the sacrifice for letting Iran build nuclear weapons is greater than the sacrifice of stopping her? Economic cost factors and other downsides are realities inherent in every mission, but the most important consideration is always the value of the objective.

I am sure you know how a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to Europe, to her Gulf neighbors and to the national interests of more distant countries like the US. A balance of power is preferable in the Gulf region. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, its neighbors will want them also, to offset Iran's domination of the region. Also, the desired trend is an overall reduction in the number of nuclear weapons worldwide and their eventual elimination. N. Korea and Lybia have withdrawn from the nuclear stage; to now allow Iran to succeed where they failed, would open the door to further proliferation.

Hopefully Iran will cut a deal; if not it will wish it had.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Buu

Said nations also agreed that Iraq must disarm in '03, but settled with not participating in war. Besides, after such a disastrous scandal like the Iraq war, gaining attentive international support and promise for military engagement against Iran will be even more difficult, regardless of how imminent a threat may be.

Then one must question if the objectives of the ruling American elite truly have protection and security in mind, especially after malicious frauds like the Iraq war. Additionally, we must balance the legality of whether or not Iran's nuclear program is illegal. What legal observations must Iran meet that other nations have willfully obeyed in order to necessitate a genuine program? Are there other nations that currently possess nuclear power who haven't signed the compulsory nuclear non-proliferation treaty? If so, priorities must be balanced. If they are not, one can only suspect rapacious extracurricular intents on behalf of the rulers.

On what basis do you emphasize your fallacious argument on? Iran has shown no signs of unruly aggression, so to assume that the nation's intentions are malevolent is a juvenile approach to a much broader issue. Regarding the immediate region, one could argue that Israel's nuclear weapons have influenced and motivated Iran's decisions, which you promptly say will have a ripple effect without searching for the roots of the problem.

I suppose history will decide that.

Officer of Engineers

Depends on the objectives of any said war. If the US wishes to merely destroy the entire power grid and crash the cascades once and for all, Iran could do crap all about that.

Several 1000 miles renders any Iranian retaliation moot.

Again, define the objectives.

Not thought through.

__________________
Chimo

Julie

Why is Pakistan and India not members of the NPT, and Iran is, but Iran is yet our enemy?

Officer of Engineers

Iran is in direct violations of the NPT that she willingly signed and supposedly adhere to.

Julie

Then why don't they just withdraw since they are in violation of the Treaty anyway?

Officer of Engineers

That's what I'm asking.