More violence in Iraq

[riddler 0]

For everyone out there that thinks the "surge" is working. A reminder that war does not end violence:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/09/13/iraq.violence/index.html

Quote

Four members of an Iraqi TV crew were killed and a fifth wounded by gunmen in the northern city of Mosul on Saturday ...

At least five civilians were wounded when an explosive device attached to a car detonated in northern Baghdad Saturday afternoon ...

Earlier, a roadside bomb in central Baghdad killed at least four people and wounded 10 others ...

On Saturday morning, at least four Iraqi policemen were wounded when a roadside bomb struck their convoy in southern Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official said ...

In Diyala province north of Baghdad, a roadside blast killed at least six Kurdish Peshmerga troops and wounded two others, the official said ...

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

For everyone out there that thinks the "surge" is working. A reminder that war does not end violence:

What does one statment have to do with the other?

A. The surge did work.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-07-28-Petraeus_N.htm

B. What do you mean by war does not end violence? There will always be violence in every society for a variety of reasons. Nobody expects Iraq to be different than any other country.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

For everyone out there that thinks the "surge" is working. A reminder that war does not end violence:

What does one statment have to do with the other?

A. The surge did work.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-07-28-Petraeus_N.htm

Don't confuse correlation with causation. Lots of things happened to reduce violence, and the most significant was the Sunni leaders' turning against the terrorists which was quite independent of the "surge".

Remember, the incidence of rape increases as ice cream sales go up.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FallingOsh 0]

Right, so our troops had absolutely nothing to do with it.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Right, so our troops had absolutely nothing to do with it.

If you say so, but I didn't claim that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Right, so our troops had absolutely nothing to do with it.

If you say so, but I didn't claim that.

So the troops did have something to do with it?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Quote

For everyone out there that thinks the "surge" is working. A reminder that war does not end violence:

What does one statment have to do with the other?

A. The surge did work.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-07-28-Petraeus_N.htm

Don't confuse correlation with causation. Lots of things happened to reduce violence, and the most significant was the Sunni leaders' turning against the terrorists which was quite independent of the "surge".

Remember, the incidence of rape increases as ice cream sales go up.

You just can't stand to give credit where credit is due when it's something good about the war. Sure, alot of things happened...isn't it possible the surge made it easier for those other things to happen?

Sunni leaders' turning against the terrorists which was quite independent of the "surge".

It may be independent of the surge as you say, but it's not independent of the war, and the surge is part of the war. I think the light is finally coming on for the Sunni's.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[grimmie 186]

The light is finally coming on for the Sunnis because we are paying them boatloads of money.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Right, so our troops had absolutely nothing to do with it.

If you say so, but I didn't claim that.

So the troops did have something to do with it?

Why don't you read what I actually wrote, instead of imagining things that I didn't write?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Why don't you read what I actually wrote, instead of imagining things that I didn't write?

Quote

Don't confuse correlation with causation. Lots of things happened to reduce violence, and the most significant was the Sunni leaders' turning against the terrorists which was quite independent of the "surge".

Remember, the incidence of rape increases as ice cream sales go up

The incidence of rape increases as ice cream sales go up is an example of two things being completely unrelated. Rapes are higher in the summer months. So are ice cream sales. No relation between the two.

You used it as an example for the surge not being connected to the decline in violence. When I sarcastically replied that our troops had nothing to do with it you said, "I didn't say that," which you clearly did with the ice cream rape comparison.

You just argue for the sake of arguing. Then argue about your argument. Either the surge worked or it didn't. Violence has declined rapidly over the past months and of course there are other factors involved. You just refuse to admit that our troops are doing well.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Right, so our troops had absolutely nothing to do with it.

If you say so, but I didn't claim that.

So the troops did have something to do with it?

Why don't you read what I actually wrote, instead of imagining things that I didn't write?

Many on this have have to "imagine" because of the way to switch back and counter move it is very hard to have any idea of WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OR MEAN

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Why don't you read what I actually wrote, instead of imagining things that I didn't write?

Quote

Don't confuse correlation with causation. Lots of things happened to reduce violence, and the most significant was the Sunni leaders' turning against the terrorists which was quite independent of the "surge".

Remember, the incidence of rape increases as ice cream sales go up

The incidence of rape increases as ice cream sales go up is an example of two things being completely unrelated. Rapes are higher in the summer months. So are ice cream sales. No relation between the two.

You used it as an example for the surge not being connected to the decline in violence. When I sarcastically replied that our troops had nothing to do with it you said, "I didn't say that," which you clearly did with the ice cream rape comparison.

You just argue for the sake of arguing. Then argue about your argument. Either the surge worked or it didn't. Violence has declined rapidly over the past months and of course there are other factors involved. You just refuse to admit that our troops are doing well.

No, I warned against confusing correlation with causation and gave an illustrative example. Quite different. Any inference beyond that was simply assumption on your part.

Given the many factors which correlate with the reduction in violence, it is impossible to determine with any accuracy which, if any, was/were the cause and which was/were irrelevant.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Right, so our troops had absolutely nothing to do with it.

If you say so, but I didn't claim that.

So the troops did have something to do with it?

Why don't you read what I actually wrote, instead of imagining things that I didn't write?

Many on this have have to "imagine" because of the way to switch back and counter move it is very hard to have any idea of WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OR MEAN

If you bothered to read what I wrote before hitting "post", the meaning was crystal clear: DON'T CONFUSE CORRELATION WITH CAUSATION.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why don't you read what I actually wrote, instead of imagining things that I didn't write?

Quote

Don't confuse correlation with causation. Lots of things happened to reduce violence, and the most significant was the Sunni leaders' turning against the terrorists which was quite independent of the "surge".

Remember, the incidence of rape increases as ice cream sales go up

The incidence of rape increases as ice cream sales go up is an example of two things being completely unrelated. Rapes are higher in the summer months. So are ice cream sales. No relation between the two.

You used it as an example for the surge not being connected to the decline in violence. When I sarcastically replied that our troops had nothing to do with it you said, "I didn't say that," which you clearly did with the ice cream rape comparison.

You just argue for the sake of arguing. Then argue about your argument. Either the surge worked or it didn't. Violence has declined rapidly over the past months and of course there are other factors involved. You just refuse to admit that our troops are doing well.

No, I warned against confusing correlation with causation and gave an illustrative example. Quite different. Any inference beyond that was simply assumption on your part.

Given the many factors which correlate with the reduction in violence, it is impossible to determine with any accuracy which, if any, was/were the cause and which was/were irrelevant.

So, this is the same arguement that can be used when you claim our presense over there has increased terrorists numbers! Or made the world less safe, and on and on and on and ............

Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[MegaGoliath11 0]

I was in Iraq during the surge, during the surge the violence decreased in Baghdad and spread or squirted to other areas of Iraq. And of course we use soft terms like violence, but we all know what they represent. dead folks, good and bad, some recently married, some just poor farmers.... suffering that cannot be refined.

anyway as... far as the surge working I guess you could weigh it in several different methods.

Violence in Baghdad is down, so i think that of course the surge successfully suppressed the violence in Baghdad. (or course its far from what any sane person would except) But what else would happen when you send more troops into any one area? of course we'll secure the shit if given enough folks, but thats the central question isn't? How many of us have to continuously rotate over there before we all individually have 3-4-5 years in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is there an end? The surge is supposed to give room for Iraq to make lasting political reconciliation. I'm not sure if that has happened or not as I am not privy to that info. But I hear most people say no.

I can only speak for myself but I feel that the military specifically the Army and Marines are wondering what are we supposed to do? Someone created a huge mess and pretty much left it up to the us to figure out.

Don't get me wrong.. I am not against the mission but a more important discussion should be had by those who want to talk about the war. What exactly is America's strategic objective over there? I think the answer is a little more clear in Afghanistan.

But in closing I'll say that someone against the surge shouldn't be flamed. They are asking the same questions that many Soldiers want to know and as a Soldier myself I appreciate with the same sincerity any person who is for or against this conflict. sorry for the long post.

[billvon 2,997]

>For everyone out there that thinks the "surge" is working.

Now you shush. Anyone who does not think the surge is a 100% unqualified success is a filthy liberal troop-hating traitor. Remember - you're either with us or against us.

[MegaGoliath11 0]

btw, vote for SEN. Barack Obama and SEN. Joe Biden!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Given the many factors which correlate with the reduction in violence, it is impossible to determine with any accuracy which, if any, was/were the cause and which was/were irrelevant.

Oddly enough, you don't seem to have any problems with saying that the surge isn't working when violence rises - only when violence falls.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Given the many factors which correlate with the reduction in violence, it is impossible to determine with any accuracy which, if any, was/were the cause and which was/were irrelevant.

Oddly enough, you don't seem to have any problems with saying that the surge isn't working when violence rises - only when violence falls.

And I would like to say that domestic crime falls as we have more social programs, it makes sense, but I don't think the data supports that on a constant basis.

You can say that 50k troops = some peace, therefore 100,00 troops = more peace, and 150,000 troops = success. Management of these troops has a lot to do with it, but the intangible is that we need to reply on the reaction of the insurgents. Their supply, their agenda, their recruitment and many, many things control the amount of resistance, not just how many bodies we throw over there. The bottom line is that it's ridiculous to think we can scare Arab terrorist groups into submission, just plain pathetic and that's what Bush has tried.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

And I would like to say that domestic crime falls as we have more social programs, it makes sense, but I don't think the data supports that on a constant basis.

You would think it would make sense, but it doesn't and data seems to support the exact opposite (much more crime in large cities).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

Hi Mike,
That "feels" like it should be the case but is there more crime per capita in cities than in the country side - I've tried looking and can't actually find and stats either way.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Hi Mike,
That "feels" like it should be the case but is there more crime per capita in cities than in the country side - I've tried looking and can't actually find and stats either way.

Hey Tony -

Well, Table 2 of the UCR gives a pretty good look (2006 data):

USA (whole)  - Violent crime rate 473.5/100k


Metropolitan Statistical areas - Violent crime rate 514.6/100k


Cities outside metropolitan areas - Violent crime rate 382.4/100k


Nonmetropolitan counties - Violent crime rate 199.2/100k

According to the Census Bureau, an MSA has a core urban area of 50k people or more. A micropolitan area has a core urban area of 10k people or more. My guess is that the micropolitan areas correspond to the 'Cities outside metropolitan areas' in the UCR data.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

Good find - Thanks.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

And I would like to say that domestic crime falls as we have more social programs, it makes sense, but I don't think the data supports that on a constant basis.

You would think it would make sense, but it doesn't and data seems to support the exact opposite (much more crime in large cities).

And see, you not only misunderstand my point, but make the same fatal error in logic that I was stating I wouldn't.

I wasn't referring to geographic areas, as most crime is inner-city, I was referring to crime in general and it's relation to the amount of welfare programs available, that is, non-corporate welfare. During the Clinton admin it was very low, then it raised and lowered when Bush was in, then raised again. I don't have a crime rate chart and don't care to look one up, but in general, there is no constant correlation between crime rate and welfare programs. That's honest, I would like to say that there is a correlation that repeats itself, but just as I can't say there is, you cannot say there isn't. The physical geographical part of the city is irrelevant, I was talking overall crime rate and its correlation to welfare, so your assertion isn't in accord with my point. I would say that inner-city crime is higher than suburban crime on a constant basis as an assumption, but have never looked up the numbers.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And I would like to say that domestic crime falls as we have more social programs, it makes sense, but I don't think the data supports that on a constant basis.

You would think it would make sense, but it doesn't and data seems to support the exact opposite (much more crime in large cities).

And see, you not only misunderstand my point, but make the same fatal error in logic that I was stating I wouldn't.

I wasn't referring to geographic areas, as most crime is inner-city, I was referring to crime in general and it's relation to the amount of welfare programs available, that is, non-corporate welfare. During the Clinton admin it was very low, then it raised and lowered when Bush was in, then raised again. I don't have a crime rate chart and don't care to look one up, but in general, there is no constant correlation between crime rate and welfare programs. That's honest, I would like to say that there is a correlation that repeats itself, but just as I can't say there is, you cannot say there isn't. The physical geographical part of the city is irrelevant, I was talking overall crime rate and its correlation to welfare, so your assertion isn't in accord with my point. I would say that inner-city crime is higher than suburban crime on a constant basis as an assumption, but have never looked up the numbers.

I understood your point just fine, thank you.

There may have been a fatal error in logic, but it wasn't mine. Several studies have shown welfare concentration in inner-cities.

Quote

Through the use of maps and other data, several major studies have shown welfare recient's concentration in inner-city neighborhoods, far from job vacancies disproportionately located in the suburbs and poorly served by existing fixed-route, public transport (Allard and Danziger, 2000; Bania et al., 1999; Lacombe, 1998).

Source here.

I've also posted an article talking about corroboration between welfare recipients and crime.

Quoted from the article:

Quote

On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706