When I read of this vote I started to think, 'I'm ashamed of my country', but the government isn't the country. They're two very different things and I'm NOT ashamed of my country, I am ashamed of the Congress. Not because some of them don't support the war in Iraq but for their manner of expressing it.

With friends like Congress, who needs enemas?

Linked.

The war was presented as taking down Saddam, and that happened obviously. No one in the administration talked about winning the peace, and evidently they didn't even plan for it. That part has been an unqualified fiasco. They expected a cakewalk, and Bush announced that he was done in 2003. You can come back and say he meant this that or the other, but you cannot deny, the mission is NOT accomplished. The death toll of our troops is holding steady. You say the press is concealing the good news, but there's certainly no shortage of bad news.

The administration has proved itself inept in so many ways. Lots of you all agree with this. So how can you also trust them to oversee this war? They've already made some tremendous mistakes, like disbanding the army. What better way to ensure that there are plenty of armed, angry young men roaming around? You all probably think we are acting too circumspectly in our execution of the war, but this runs contrary to established counterinsurgency operations.

Here on Pat Buchanan's website http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=669 you can read a whole series of questions by the French of all people which could not be more prescient about the war. My side feels betrayed and humiliated, and ready to wage the war on terror -- not to play peacemaker in a civil war.

As I quoted in another thread: "A Military Times poll released in December revealed that only 35 percent of military members approved of the president's handling of the war - despite the fact that 46 percent of them are self-identified Republicans (down from 60 percent in previous Military Times polls) while just 16 percent are Democrats. According to a recent Zogby survey of troops serving in Iraq, 72 percent want American forces home within a year." How can you accuse us of not supporting the troops? They increasingly see this as a mistake and no longer understand for what they are laying down their lives.

So I think you ought to be blaming Bush and his administration, not us. Bush got every single thing from congress for the first four years of the war. Most of the country is having second thoughts about the war, not just Congress. The first rule when you dig yourself into a hole is, stop digging.

but you cannot deny, the mission is NOT accomplished.

We still have troops in Germany and Japan. Is WWII not over yet?

I agree that WWII is over, but I'm confused about your implication. I guess you mean that Saddam's fall marked the accomplishment of Bush's mission. I don't think that's what he meant. Even if it was, the mission was not worth accomplishing. Our troops are dying as frequently as ever, we're spending money as quickly as ever, and it's all we can do to hold the civil war at bay. Polls show that the great majority of Iraqis want us to leave. Our troops want to leave. Iraqis are dying and fleeing at a frightening clip. The chance of democracy taking root there is nil, and thus there will be no particular time at which we will have won. The mission was accomplished only in terms of a meaninglessly restricted definition of the mission.

I guess you mean that Saddam's fall marked the accomplishment of Bush's mission.

Yea, I guess you did guess...and guessed wrongly.

Want to try again?

We still have troops in Germany and Japan. Is WWII not over yet?

You're so right. How can we forget about the daily stream of casualties coming out of war-torn... Frankfurt?

These fools. As I read about whats happening in The Middle East(hate MSM read all over)I see the powder keg that area is.Pull out could(99% sure)be the match to ignite it. Iran for one is a toothloss dog all snarl and no bite. They are at the stages of bankruptcy because they dont have the Tech. to get the oil out of the ground nor repair what well they have.The major lenders dont trust them and arent loaning to them.Since Iran went for the Saudi`s resolution for Palestine Syria is P.O. at them. The Sunni/Shiite split will blow the lid off Iraq and turn the whole Middle East into a brutal dog eat dog last man standing struggle. I dont agree with Pres. Bush`s handling of Iraq but Its working in ways the MSM wont tell us.And I want 1st choice at the Dems who voted for this crap because I have 40 acres to till and will need a few good mules when the oil dries up!!!

Without intending to be flippant, no, I don't wish to make further guesses about what your original post means.

I am embarrassed by Congress. I truly hate the left for this and will never forget what I call the treason that occurred today by not allowing more troops to support our interests and those soldiers that are both fighting there and have fallen there. Who wants to fight for a country that is hell on retreat? Move over France, there's a new Congress in town.

Never forget "the betrayal of 2-16-07" in 2008.

How can we forget about the daily stream of casualties

Why are they still there? BTW, there are casualties every year in Europe.

Why are they still there?

Legacy of the Cold War. The Germans prefer us there. Russia is still something of a threat. Lots of reasons to explain that one.

BTW, there are casualties every year in Europe.

Such sophistry. There aren't casualties in Europe from IEDs, snipers, or suicide bombers. Nor were there any significant numbers after the war ended, despite the utter bullshit analogies mouthed by Condi and Dumbsfeld comparing the Iraq insurgency to the Nazi "Werewolf" myth.

There aren't casualties in Europe from IEDs, snipers, or suicide bombers.

None the less our soldiers die there in statistically measurable numbers every year.

None the less our soldiers die there in statistically measurable numbers every year.

They die in statistically measurable numbers in the US, too. Therefore Bagdad is no less dangerous than being stationed at Ft. Lewis. Great respect you show for the men and women fighting your war of choice.

"None the less our soldiers die [in Europe] in statistically measurable numbers every year."

I'm more confused than ever. What on earth is that supposed to prove?

The American people no longer support the war in Iraq. In view of that how long should we make our soldiers and marines stay and die there?

"The American people no longer support the war in Iraq. In view of that how long should we make our soldiers and marines stay and die there?"

How about until there are no jihadis left to kill.

How about until there are no jihadis left to kill.

If you really believe we're in a fight to eradicate every jihadi in the ME and presumably beyond, then surely you are in favor of:

* Pre-1945 taxes on the wealthy to fund the effort.
* Reinstating the draft in order to garrison Iraq (and, increasingly, Afghanistan) with an adequate occupation force, ie, proportional to Iraq to the allied forces which subdued resistance in 1945 Germany.
* Nationalizing the defense industry to produce adequate war materiel.

C'mon, put on your big girl panties and get behind this.

Therefore Bagdad is no less dangerous than being stationed at Ft. Lewis.

Your words, not mine.

Purple Avenger --

"Therefore Bagdad is no less dangerous than being stationed at Ft. Lewis."

"Your words, not mine."

Even if this were true, it doesn't prove anything -- we are as a nation responsible for the deaths of soldiers in Iraq. We aren't responsible for the accidental deaths of troops who are not in combat.

Pennypacker -- come on man, the less gov't taxes the rich, the stronger the economy. Trust the Republicans, they're the party of fiscal responsibility. Paris Hilton should receive her inheritance tax free while you and I hand over a third or our income.

Lex,

Your last post shows your obvious lack of knowledge of who pays the most in taxes in our country. Turns out that the top 5% of income earners pay 50% of the taxes in this country. See here - date from Government Sources.But hey - who said you know anything beyond BDS.

As to the assertions that American Troops are dying in as big of numbers as the beginning - well, there have been ups and downs. But the trend is down. How do you explain that?

As to the "end of major military" actions, well, that was a phase also. Remember that tactical objectives change. Stop looking at things as a "point in time", but rather as a "continuum". Remember these problems we face in the middle east DID NOT START WITH BUSH II! You can look back at least as far as Carter and see the problems building. Have we made mistakes along the way? Of course - on both sides of the aisle. Major mistakes. But simply having BDS does not make your solutions correct. Sorry.

If you really believe we're in a fight to eradicate every jihadi in the ME and presumably beyond, then surely you are in favor of:

* Pre-1945 taxes on the wealthy to fund the effort.
* Reinstating the draft in order to garrison Iraq (and, increasingly, Afghanistan) with an adequate occupation force, ie, proportional to Iraq to the allied forces which subdued resistance in 1945 Germany.
* Nationalizing the defense industry to produce adequate war materiel.

C'mon, put on your big girl panties and get behind this.

Well, yes, we are in that fight, and we didn't start it.

If we need to raise taxes, then yes we should do so, although everyone should share the burden, not just the wealthy.

I actually think reinstituting the draft would send the right signal to our enemies (that we are serious) but the military leaders don't want one, they are very happy with their volunteer force, so I defer to their judgment.

Nationalizing industries is preposterous. I think it is adequately proven by history that communism doesn't work.

Regarding your panties remark, I have not been rude, please do not insult me again.

Specter:

"Your last post shows your obvious lack of knowledge of who pays the most in taxes in our country. Turns out that the top 5% of income earners pay 50% of the taxes in this country."

Warren Buffet has said on a number of occasions that he pays a lower tax rate than the people who work in his office. It also seems wrong to me that Paris Hilton will receive millions of dollars at a very low tax rate, whereas I pay tax on all the income I receive. Your figures don't even address that, much less disprove it. You're welcome to disagree with me, but you're not even addressing my argument.

"As to the assertions that American Troops are dying in as big of numbers as the beginning - well, there have been ups and downs. But the trend is down. How do you explain that?"

The figures bear me out, and prove that you are at best ill informed: http://icasualties.org/oif/

"As to the 'end of major military' actions, well, that was a phase also. Remember that tactical objectives change. Stop looking at things as a 'point in time', but rather as a 'continuum'...."

What a load. Just a like a defense lawyer without a compelling defense, you are trying to muddy the waters. This is not complicated. Bush has all our military might pinned down in a nation that had no capacity to harm us and no ties to Al Qaeda or 911. There is zero possible upside for the US, yet we are losing our finest and 8 billion dollars per month. Read Pat Buchanan or William Odom or Brent Scowcroft or Anthony Zinni or etc etc. You are the one who is deranged in your unwavering support for this slow motion disaster.

I actually think reinstituting the draft would send the right signal to our enemies

I think it would encourage them -- they know how to defeat conscript armies.

Lex,

Jut like all BDS'ers you refuse to recognize history. So I'll go along with you for satire's sake. Yep - everything is Bush's fault. Everything. Katrina, levees, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, strongest economy in 40 years, Foley, Jefferson, Chappaquidick, Reid's wonderful real estate deals, Hillary's future trading, the Iranian take over of our embassy, Operation Desert Fox, the Iraq Liberation Bill, everything. And the ME east problems all started the day that he took office. Yep. Real compelling evidence ya got there. Guffaw....

As for being misinformed about casualty rates and the trend lines, I think you should go back and study your data. There are two distinct phases - the liberation war and then the insurgency. And even though the last few months have been hard, the trend line has either stayed flat, or slightly declined during the insurgency phase. Losses were much lower during actual combat/war operations. Try mapping from the time the insurgency started ramping up. But since it involves historical fact, I assume that you will ignore it also.

Now - would you mind stating for the record where you came up with the "fact" that all of our military might is pinned down in Iraq? Give some evidence of that Lex. Bet you can't - other than wive's tales propagating through the 'sphere.

Bet you vote for Hillary....

I think it would encourage them -- they know how to defeat conscript armies.

Interesting thought. Do you mean the Soviets and how they got run out of Afghanistan? I would like to think that even a conscript U.S. force would perform better than that.

I remember at that time Soviet troops posted to outlying bases had a real chance of starving to death.

Or what did you mean?

Specter:

Here's what you said: "As to the assertions that American Troops are dying in as big of numbers as the beginning - well, there have been ups and downs. But the trend is down. How do you explain that?"

This is flatly, plainly, demonstrably wrong. The trend is not down in any sense: The past six months have each shown coalition death rates above the average of the war as a whole (2.73 per day).

At first you could at least claim you were ignorant; now you're demonstrating that you are not intelligent as well.

I made two mistakes in my last post: the last 5.5 months have shown above average casualty rates, not 6 months; also, the average deaths per day is 2.37, not 2.73.

Lex,

Do you know how to plot a trend line? Try it. You might find yourself educated. What a dipstick. You don't even have to use the the least squares method. BTW - the insurgency hasn't just been over the last 5.5 months. Try like two + years. Give it a shot - you might actually learn something outside of BDS.

I notice you didn't post any links to the rest of your BS. Why is that I wonder?

Specter: Below is the data so everyone can appreciate your analysis. In your last three posts you demonstrated ignorance, then a lack of intelligence, and finally clownhood. We await your next move with keen interest. I'm guessing you won't be able to top yourself yet again, but I'm hopeful. Why don't you use the least squares method?

Period Avg Deaths Days
============================
2-2007 3.06 18
1-2007 2.77 31
12-2006 3.71 31
11-2006 2.57 30
10-2006 3.55 31
9-2006 2.57 30
8-2006 2.13 31
7-2006 1.48 31
6-2006 2.1 30
5-2006 2.55 31
4-2006 2.73 30
3-2006 1.06 31
2-2006 2.07 28
1-2006 2.06 31
12-2005 2.19 31
11-2005 2.87 30
10-2005 3.19 31
9-2005 1.73 30
8-2005 2.74 31
7-2005 1.87 31
6-2005 2.77 30
5-2005 2.84 31
4-2005 1.73 30
3-2005 1.26 31
2-2005 2.14 28
1-2005 4.1 31
12-2004 2.45 31
11-2004 4.7 30
10-2004 2.16 31
9-2004 2.9 30
8-2004 2.42 31
7-2004 1.87 31
6-2004 1.67 30
5-2004 2.71 31
4-2004 4.67 30
3-2004 1.68 31
2-2004 0.79 29
1-2004 1.68 31
12-2003 1.55 31
11-2003 3.67 30
10-2003 1.52 31
9-2003 1.1 30
8-2003 1.39 31
7-2003 1.58 31
6-2003 1.2 30
5-2003 1.32 31
4-2003 2.67 30
3-2003 7.67 12
--------------------------
Total 2.37 1432

Being somewhat faceteous, it might be safer for our troops to stay in Iraq than to be returned home.

According to data at disastercenter,com, between 2003 and 2005, pick any group of US states whose population adds up to Iraq's and our non-terrorist, non-war, peaceful cities kill more Americans than we are losing in combat.

(All not counting 2006 numbers)

Washington D.C. - 642 murders
New York State - 2697 murders
New Jersey - 1215 murders
(3464 murders)

or

Michigan - 1871 murders
New York - 2697 murders
(4568 murders)

or

California - 7302 murders

(California is larger than Iraq, so if we scale it down proportionately, we come up with 5673 murders.)

My point is, as tragic as the losses we have suffered in Iraq are, just living in this country doesn't seem to be a guarantee to save any more lives. On the national news, we hear about every single soldier that dies. It would be only fair if the national news also report every single murder that occurs in our country - just to keep all of this in perspective.

ANY time we send our troops into harm's way, we should have NO OTHER objective than victory.

Regardless of who sends the troops into harm's way, once they are there, we should have NO OTHER objective than victory.

The Democrats have shown that they apparently have more important things to worry about than actually supporting our troops - in every way - while they are in harm's way.

There is no excuse. The country deserves better, the troops especially deserve better.

It's not our responsibility when soldiers who die in accidents here at home, but it is when they lay down their lives in combat.

The majority of Iraqis, US citizens, and US soldiers in Iraq want us to leave. No matter how many more troops die there ain't gonna be democracy in Iraq -- so they can't win. You're not supporting the troops, you're getting them killed for a neocon dream.

Lex,

Gee - thanks for actually cutting and pasting date you linked to earlier. Now plot it. I dare you. I did. Try taking it from two years plus back when the insurgency began to gain strength. You will find that the trend line is down, or flat, depending on where you begin. Try it. Don't criticize me when you obviously have not done the mathematical analysis.

First off - you can't use Feb, 07 data because it is not a full month. So using the 5 months previous is an average of 3.03 per day. But if you go back 12 months, the average drops to 2.44. If you go back 24 months, the average is 2.36. Seriously - go back and plot a trend line from where you consider the beginning of the insurgency and see what you come up with. You might be surprised.

You report that for the last 5.5 months, the deaths have been up. I did not even question that - Of course that covers the time frame of our national elections and you will note that Al Quaeda, Iran, and other terrorist sponsors congratulated the US for electing the Dims. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, that the terrorists (what you would term "freedom fighters") planned that to have a propaganda effect on the US? Look at the months the upsurge began. Don't just parrot information at me. Study it and analyze it. Are you even capable of that? Since you have just spewed the data back at me, I would guess that you are not. Here's a hint. Use MS Excel - it will plot the TREND LINE for you. Simple.

Where are those links to all of your other BS? Haven't seen them yet.

Lex,

Where is your proof that the majority of soldiers in Iraq want us to leave? Point to a specific. I know for a fact that you can't. It is simple conflation on your part.

I will grant that most Americans do not like the war in Iraq, but most do believe it is a top priority. But why is it that in the AP/IPSOS poll from November 17, 2007 (which is the last time the question was asked - I can give you a link, but it is subscribers only)showed that 56% of Americans believed that the Dims have NO PLAN for Iraq. None. Nada. It wasn't LEAVE Iraq. It was CHANGE DIRECTION. See - you keep posting wives tales (IOW - DU and KOS talking points) without any FACTS to back you up. Get a grip.

OOPs...that was November 14, 2006 not 2007.

BTW Lex - believe it or not, there is a Democracy in Iraq. They had elections and even have a Constitution. Imagine that. There already is a Democracy when you said:

there ain't gonna be democracy in Iraq

Wow. You were wrong. How could that happen?

Is it a stable Democracy? No. Is it moving that way? Yes. Will it be difficult? Yes. But let me ask you this oh intelligent one. How long after the American Revolution did we take to establish our current form of government? Do you know?

BTW - You were just smacked down oh great wonder (and I mean I really do wonder) of intelligence.

Specter: "So using the 5 months previous is an average of 3.03 per day. But if you go back 12 months, the average drops to 2.44. If you go back 24 months, the average is 2.36."

By god you pulled it off. You continue to amaze, and my hat is off. Unfortunately I don't have a title better than 'clown', but you are certainly owed it. You just demonstrated that the trailing five months were more deadly on average than the trailing twelve months, and similarly that the trailing 12 months were more deadly on average that the trailing 24 months. I'm sorry you can't understand this, you'll just have to take my word when I say that this is not a declining death toll. Keep your eyes on the prize: "As to the assertions that American Troops are dying in as big of numbers as the beginning - well, there have been ups and downs. But the trend is down."

Incidentally Excel trendlines do not qualify as 'mathematical analysis'. Try out the various types of trend lines that Excel can make. You can play a trend line like a guitar string.

I'm dying to see your next installment. Please, please, break out the least squares method! I've got a good feeling about this one.

Lex,

I actually have a degree in mathematics and physics, and design mathematics curricula. Can you say the same? You still ignore the fact that the TREND is down, or at worst flat. Have you mapped it yet? Bet not. And I notice you didn't answer any of my questions as to why we would see such an increase of activity over the last few months. Is that because you have no answers? I suspect so. I suspect that you have not thought beyond the bounds of your BDS to attempt to understand the real world. So be it.

But you keep attempting to conflate 5 months with the entire length of the insurgency. That is dishonest. Sorry - but it is clearly the symptom of someone affected by BDS. The insurgency did not start 5.5 months ago. Get a grip. The fact is that the numbers you post prove my point (even excepting the fact that you left out the raw data and used only the averages). I simply tried to point out that you are using a statistically invalid sample to prove your point about the deaths due to the insurgency. I could do the same thing by using the 5.5 lowest casualty months and show that you are wrong. But that would be dishonest like you are being. Remember when I told you that you should look at a continuum in time rather than a snap shot? Same principle applies here.

Where are all those links to proof of all the other BS you posted? We are all waiting anxiously for them. But I'm not holding my breath because I know you have nothing to back any of it up. Nothing. Nada. Empty Wind Bag.

That was a bit of a let down. You're more fun when you do 'mathematical analysis'. However in all fairness I had no right to expect you to hit the high notes time and time again. You wish to believe that an increase in average deaths per day constitutes a downward trend and I respect your decision.

You won't do your least squares method if I ask nicely will you?

BTW Lex,

Here is the data from a week old poll done by Investor Business Daily. I am not sure how the demographics of the poll were done - IOW if it was oversampled one way or another (as is done regularly by AP, IPSOS, CNN, Newsweak, etc - who all oversample Dims). You can read the article here.

How important is a U.S. victory in Iraq? Very important 42% Somewhat important 24% Not very important 17% Not at all important 13% Not sure 5% Refused 1%

Important By Party
Democrats 53%
Republicans 85%
Independent/other 63%

How hopeful are you that we will succeed?
Very hopeful 35%
Somewhat hopeful 23%
Not very hopeful 21%
Not at all hopeful 19%
Not sure 2%
Refused 1%

Hopeful by Party
Democrats 43%
Republicans 80%
Independent/other 53%

Seems to knock a big hole in your earlier arguments, doesn't it? I mean 66% of Americans believe that victory in Iraq is important. How does that comport with your assertion that the majority of Americans want to pull out? It doesn't. It more accurately reflects my statement that most Americans want us to change direction, not simply leave (remember I asked you to back up your statement and you didn't?).

Imagine that. And not only that, but 58% of Americans are hopeful that we will succeed in Iraq. Wow. Smacked down again.....

Lex,

Do the math. Are you able? Take the data you posted (or more aptly the actual monthly data) and create a trend line analysis on it. Whatever method you choose for the line. Then come back and tell me the trend is up. But back that up with your starting month and the reason you picked that month. Remember that it should roughly coincide with the beginning of the upsurge in the insurgency in Iraq. Be honest now. Other than one link you posted I have shown that you aren't - at least so far. But come on - do some analysis and then come back.

Gawwwd I love using FACTS on Dimwits. They can't find FACTS of their own to rebut my data, but they continue to say, "I'm right because I say I am." Kinda like Lex. LOL

You did the math for me, Specter: the last five months were deadlier on average than the previous twelve, and the previous twelve more deadly on average than the previous 24 months. You told me this yourself. To you that's a decrease, to me it's an increase. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I can't help that you find it 'dishonest' when I quote you, or that you believe I have cherry picked certain periods to prove my point. I mentioned 5.5 months simply because that is how long it has been since we had a month of below-average fatalities.

It is drivel when you say that certain events have temporarily skewed the trend. We are talking about reality in all its complexity, not your Excel Trend Line version of it.

Lex,

You truly do not know math do you. What I posted was that the average for 5 months was 3.03. For 12 months (which included the 5 months) it was 2.44. For 24 months (including the 5 months and the 12 months) it was 2.3. That is not trend. I just shows that the number of average deaths overall is lower than what you claim.

Truly - I know why you won't do the trend line analysis. It is because you know I am right. You're too afraid to be proved wrong. So be it. What a maroon....

Lex,

BTW - still waiting for all those links to the other crap you spewed forth. When do we get to see all of that?

Sorry, I'm not going to oblige you by changing the subject, though I understand why you want to. Your 'mathematical analysis' is a seemingly bottomless cup of joy.

"What I posted was that the average for 5 months was 3.03. For 12 months (which included the 5 months) it was 2.44. For 24 months (including the 5 months and the 12 months) it was 2.3."

Bang! Just when I was sure the tap had run dry.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what is your answer to the following conundrum. Since you 'design math curricula' I'll phrase it as a word problem:

During the last two years, Ms. Smith received an average of one apple per day. During the last year, Ms. Smith received an average of two apples per day. During the last six months, Ms. Smith received an average of 3 apples per day. Question: is the number of apples that Ms. Smith receives:
a) trending UPWARDS
b) trending DOWNWARDS
c) do not have adequate information to answer the question

At first I thought you would answer b), but now I'm thinking you are leaning towards c). So which is it?

Ah but Lex, you are missing the point. Let me see if I can be any more blunt about it. You picked 5 months of the insurgency to show that over that time frame the death rate has been increasing. Fine. But you still have not admitted that the insurgency did not start 5 months ago. It started over two years ago. All I am saying, and have said, is that you must take all of the other months into account when you claim that things are trending one way or another. IOW - your sample is statistically invalid. Why are you afraid to plot the data?

BTW - Not trying to change the subject JugHead. Simply continuing to ask for proof of all the things YOU BROUGHT UP AS PROOF OF YOUR POSITION. You are the one who posted all of the BS. I simply asked that you back it up. And it has been a part of every post to you since I started. You are trying to make it sound like out of the blue I just came up with that. Very, very dishonest JugHead. But what do I expect from BDSers. Nothing more than that. You are obviously as afraid of trying to prove all of your other assertions as you are of plotting the data.

"But you still have not admitted that the insurgency did not start 5 months ago."

Of course it didn't, but I never said anything like that. The only reason I mentioned 5.5 months is that's how long it's been since we had a below-average month of fatalities.

Is it a), b) or c)? Surely that's an easy question for a man with advanced degrees in math and physics.

Also, you demonstrated yourself that average fatalities have been on the increase over two years, or half the duration of the war. Surely you don't represent that as a downturn?

Lex said:

Pennypacker -- come on man, the less gov't taxes the rich, the stronger the economy. Trust the Republicans, they're the party of fiscal responsibility. Paris Hilton should receive her inheritance tax free while you and I hand over a third or our income.

I replied with:

our last post shows your obvious lack of knowledge of who pays the most in taxes in our country. Turns out that the top 5% of income earners pay 50% of the taxes in this country. See here - date from Government Sources.But hey - who said you know anything beyond BDS.

Specific proof that Lex could only counter with some other inane comment about Paris Hilton. Such strength in that argument.

Lex then said:

Bush has all our military might pinned down in a nation that had no capacity to harm us and no ties to Al Qaeda or 911.

This is a typical BDS talking point straight from KOS and DU. So I asked in the very next post:

Now - would you mind stating for the record where you came up with the "fact" that all of our military might is pinned down in Iraq? Give some evidence of that Lex. Bet you can't - other than wive's tales propagating through the 'sphere.

But Lex, as usual for a BDSer, ignored the question. JugHead stuck to his guns though. Even though he ignored all challenges to his other random rantings he came back with the average death per day for the entire engagement in Iraq (not broken into phases like I asked), and the rate for the last 5.5 months.

So I asked this:

BTW - the insurgency hasn't just been over the last 5.5 months. Try like two + years. Give it a shot - you might actually learn something outside of BDS.

I notice you didn't post any links to the rest of your BS. Why is that I wonder?

Note the talking points. 1. Why aren't you using all the data, and 2) where's the proof of your other misstatements.

Not to be outdone (as if that wasn't hard to do), Lex cut and pasted the data he had already linked to on the death rates. However, since he is obviously not up to the challenge of plotting the data he took the BDSer route of calling names:

In your last three posts you demonstrated ignorance, then a lack of intelligence, and finally clownhood.

CY - Wasn 't there another troll here a while back that called everybody clowns? It wasn't that long ago.

At any rate, JugHead decided to show us his intelligence level with this post:

The majority of Iraqis, US citizens, and US soldiers in Iraq want us to leave. No matter how many more troops die there ain't gonna be democracy in Iraq -- so they can't win.

In response to the above I asked:

Where are those links to all of your other BS? Haven't seen them yet.

And getting more specific I asked:

Where is your proof that the majority of soldiers in Iraq want us to leave? Point to a specific. I know for a fact that you can't.

In that post I pointed out that most Americans do not like the war, but did not vote to LEAVE Iraq, but to change direction. I also pointed to an AP/IPSOS poll that showed that 56% of Americans feel the Dims have NO PLAN for Iraq. Next I pointed this out:

BTW Lex - believe it or not, there is a Democracy in Iraq. They had elections and even have a Constitution. Imagine that. There already is a Democracy when you said:

there ain't gonna be democracy in Iraq

Wow. You were wrong. How could that happen?

But Lex didn't bother to back up any of his statements. He kept staying with just 5.5 months of death rates in Iraq and kept trying to call me incompetent because I use all the data instead of the cherry-picking he relies on. I even told him I had no problem seeing that the data from the last few months is up (tend from 2.8 to 3.2). I thought maybe he would understand that I admitted that. But no, he keeps gnawing on it like a dog on a pig's ear. I kept pointing out to him that the 5 months is a statistically invalid sample.

Next, in response to JugHead's blatant misstatement that most US citizens want us to leave Iraq (another BDS talking point) I linked to and posted data from a recent poll. It showed that 66% of Americans believe that victory in Iraq is important, and that 58% are hopeful for a victory. Real data that directly refuted JugHead's previous posts. But did he take up the challenge? No. Still gnawing on that ear.

Then I asked again for Lexxy to back up his statements:

BTW - still waiting for all those links to the other crap you spewed forth. When do we get to see all of that?

But rather than try, JugHead decided to suggest that I was trying to change the subject. How sad isn't it? I've only been asking him to back up the statement he made, and it seems he can't. Rather impotent for a forum dweller.

a, b, or c?

No Lex,

With the averages I demonstrated that if you take all of the data into question, the death rate is not over 3. It is not a trend analysis. Simple averages. But have you plotted the data yet. I would suggest as a starting point the month we captured Saddam. Try it. See what happens.

You're unwilling to answer a simple arithmetic question, yet I'm 'impotent' for not providing you with links. If you argue about your own arithmetic, there's no hope for you to read links with an unbiased mind. You're not so much fun any more with the "Mr. Indignant" bit. See you around, and thanks for the good times.

Lex,

Try reading this. It fits you to a tee.

I did the math Jughead. You didn't. I also asked you to back up your statements. You have just admitted you can't. Sorry to see you go...NOT! Troll!

a, b, or c? That IS your math, so why not answer the question?

"With the averages I demonstrated that if you take all of the data into question, the death rate is not over 3." Sure, that's what you meant.

Fascinating web page you linked to. I think I understand: Republicans are all truth and light, Democrats are evil and stupid. Such a bold philosophy!

I didn't admit anything of the kind. Anyway, why should I pollute such a beautiful thread?

Don't worry, I'm not going.

a, b, or c? Which is it?

Rules of Disinformation Lex. That is what you use. Plot the data Lex. Answer the questions Lex. C'mon - for someone who thinks they have such high intelligence you should be able to come up with one link that proves one of your rambling points. Just one? It's put up or shut up time Jughead.

So fascinating, this discussion (Zzzzzzzzzzzz).

I'm still waiting for Specter or Moon6 or anyone to explain, using their characteristic mathematical vigor, how 2-3 soldier deaths per day is typical for forces in Europe or, say, North Carolina. In fact, in honor of our host, feel free to take Ft Bragg and its ~30K population as our statistical model and adjust accordingly. Go to town.

For anyone who still cares, I graphed the averages by month (plotting the death totals by month doesn't make sense, as the lengths of months differ). It's interesting to see the timeline as compared to world events.

The trend over the last year is unmistakably up, as Specter inadvertently demonstrated with his average calculations. A child who looked at the graph of the last year would know that it's trending up, and that's a quarter of the war.

Go to the beginning of the insurgency dipstick. Try it. You got almost halfway there.

penny - the biggest post is the number of people killed in civil unrest (ie. murders) here in the US. It is far larger than the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq.

Where's all you other evidence for your other assertions Lex? C'mon oh brilliant one. You can do it. Just one.

Even better....Here is an article dated April 26, 2006. It states (emphasis mine):

A man believed to be al-Qaida's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, yesterday showed his face publicly for the first time since the insurgency began three years ago.

C'mon Lex...you are part way there. Take your numbers and put them back 3 years ago and take a trend. Then come back and apologize. All I said all along was that you need to take the issue as a whole, not a snapshot in time. You attempt to ridicule me for using proper analysis techniques. Get a grip.

OOPs...forgot to add my standard request for the data backing all of your other random BDS/KOS assertions. Where are they Lex? I'm not changing the subject - just asking for you to back up all your other BS. Got anything at all? Put up or shut up.....

Even more...Remember I suggested you start plotting from the time Hussein was captured. According to CNN the date was about 12/15/2003. Try plotting from there oh intelligent JugHead. You might be surprised.

See JugHead - actual proof of my assertions. Unlike a lot of your unbacked drivel. Links and all....Wow. Imagine being able to use facts (and I know you can only imagine it since you seem unable to actually do it) to prove a point. Incredible. It must seem like another world to a BDSer like you.

Specter: the insults of the people who don't understand arithmetic are especially hurtful.

The pronounced uptick over the last year is a trend to me. In all fairness, maybe I need to walk a mile in your big floppy shoes and round red nose before I can understand where you're coming from.

penny - the biggest post is the number of people killed in civil unrest (ie. murders) here in the US. It is far larger than the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq.

This response is almost incomprehensible.

Look, the statistical base for the whole US is 300 million people. Sure, the absolute number of violent deaths per day is, yeah, a lot bigger for that population than the number of violent deaths among US soldiers (140K) in Iraq.

Be honest -- you have to take the average per day violent death of an American base in the US or Europe. I'll just sit back here waiting for your results, listening to the tumbleweeds rolling by.

Pennypacker: are you sure you want to go into the statistics stuff? Your interlocutor said I was wrong about the US death toll in Iraq increasing, and to prove his point he said:

"So using the 5 months previous is an average of 3.03 per day. But if you go back 12 months, the average drops to 2.44. If you go back 24 months, the average is 2.36."

Either he doesn't understand the implication of this, or won't admit it, I'm not sure which. Instead he says I'm being dishonest to quote him, and that I have Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Speaking of BDS, Richard Mellon Scaife -- the guy who spent two million dollars of his own money investigating every facet of Bill Clinton's history -- is so disgusted with Bush that he's decided Clinton was not such a bad president. A Republican president who makes Scaife miss Clinton is an astonishment indeed.

Pennypacker: are you sure you want to go into the statistics stuff?

No, I'm not. Last time I asked for an even comparison, they conflated it to "the number of all deaths in the US is greater than..." We should pity them, these are the straws they cling to.

Re "these are the straws they cling to": here's as good a nutshell version of the pro-war argument as you're likely to find:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010765.php