No WMD!

[Patroklos]

Wow, Self Pawnage.

Lets go over the USA Today poll first.

1. In the case of #3, in referance to when I told you to prove most Iraqis think they are worse off than before the war the percentage is 49 to 46 that Iraqis think the coalition has done more good or is the same than harm.

YOU LOSE

2. As for #4 and #5, those actual address the question you were asked to prove, and they both are against you as you stated. 59% think Iraq is not worse than before the war. 76% think their family is either not worse off or better than before the war.

3. #6 A, B, and C, are not consistant with your arguements which is probobly why you excluded them, but since they are not directly related to the challenge I gave you we can let them be.

As for ABC news, you only provide the number for those who think the country is better, which does not mean the rest think they are worse off. Pretty disengenuous.

Now maybe you didn't think I would check your source, but you did realize right at the beginning of the ABC article they have a table that says 70 percent of Iraqis think their life is good? Did you not see that? Did you also miss the text right above it saying income is up 60% from pre war levels?

Ted Striker

[Patroklos]

That could be said about both sides of the political fence

I am talking about peoples motives for supporting or not supporting the war.

Apparently, If I thought there were WMDs in Iraq then that was my sole motivation. If I try and talk about the plight of Iraqis or strategic resources it is just a cover up because the WMDs were not there.

See almost any Iraq thread on apolyton.

[Ted Striker]

That's the worst attempt at saving face I've ever seen.


Nice try though.


"Maybe you didn't think I would check your source."




That's why I posted the link so you wouldn't check it. Amateur.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Do you really believe that was ever intended as real justification? Just a little panic-mongering, frenzy-whooping up, etc.

I already said what the real justification long ago, the point is that the dumb ****s in charge of the US have been exposed as lying scum again and again and again ad infinitum...

But tell me, Pocket-rocket man, what the **** would you have done about Hussein in Iraq, continued sanctions, Iran and Syria?

Well I certainly wouldn't be flip-flopping around the issue like the first catch of the day like you...

It's not like the area was the****ing flower garden or the world and our dogs dug it up and shat in it. It was and still is a major geopolitical nightmare for the west.

So what would you have done instead?

Er hello...

Earth to MtG - at the time we decided to embark on this cluster**** we were supposed to be fighting the War on Terror (TM), not the War on Regime Change/Revenge my Dad/Grab Iraq's Oil/Enrich your Crony Friends at the expense of US grunts (TM)...

We needed to finish off Afghanistan and chase down Al Qaeda - there was no credible link between Saddam and 9/11...

In going after Saddam I believe we compromised our mission in tackling world terrorism and in fact encouraged it - hence the reason why Bin Laden is still free 4 years after 9/11...

Only a total moron would think to attack a totally unrelated and irrelevant target when they hadn't finished with the first one...

Are we to believe that you are a total moron, MtG?

[Patroklos]

Alright Ted, this is the point where you drop some cute "DONT GET IT TWISTED" line and disappear for a few days as usual.

I mean, as your performances go, this was pretty pathetic.

That's why I posted the link so you wouldn't check it.

Yeah, I agree it is weird, almost as weird as posting polls that say the exact opposite of what you think they do. Though not as funny.

[Ted Striker]

You remind me of this basketball team we used to play in pickup games where this dude used to just make up the score as we went along.

We'd be up by 10 points so he'd call out the score and just kinda add in a few points hoping we'd just kinda go along with it.

Those polls beat you down but unfortunatley you can't change the number though you can try and spin them but it's pretty pathetic last ditch effort.

Scoreboard is up and unfortunatley only the ref can change it this time son.

DONT GET IT TWISTED

[Patroklos]

You presented the numbers, not me. Sorry they explicity say the opposite of why you thought they did.

You know Ted, there is something to be said about a person capable of admitting they are wrong, or in this case admitting you couldn't find a poll.

Its not like you being unable to find a poll in 30 minutes somehow makes your position invalid, but considering the parameters of what I asked you to do, and since you tried to oblige, save a little face and say you couldn't find one.

As of right now you are acting very childish, and I think despite the clown/troll defense mechanism you pull out when you find your foot in your ass, you believe what you say. Such behavior doesn't help your position or those who share it, which are many around here.

[Ted Striker]

What's funny with your whole argument is you retreat to a very specific subpoint about the whole mess in Iraq about the whole, "worse off" line. It's just a subpoint of the whole picture. Even though you got own3d by the poll there too. But then you'll pull in other points to try and prove that subpoint but then you'll turn around and tell me any other subpoints I use are invalid. It's funny you try and fix some kind of "rules" totally in your favor except you're the only one playing by them and it's pretty easy to see right though them and they're pretty pathetic. Nice stacking attempt though. LOL!!!

It's pretty sad.

That reminds me further of my basketball story, where one time this idiot who kept changing the score brought his girlfriend to play with us. She brought the ball up the court. So we trapped her azz. At that point she said, "come on guys that's not fair!" You remind me of that girl too.

But the bottom line is the place is a mess but you think if you can just "will" yourself to try hard enough everything will turn out okay. It was those hippie cowards who lost the war in Vietnam right and you're never gonna let that happen again? That's exactly what you're thinking.

Bottom line:

Iraqis think the invasion did more harm than good, and they resent us being there. Their lives are no better than they were before we arrived. Using poll data AT BEST shows their lives are the same, but realisitically they are worse off. That's pretty much the opinion of every observer on the ground including, you know, the people themselves.


Dance around it all you want but you can't make a haystack out of a (flimsy) piece of straw.

But who am I talking to the master Strawman himself.

[Patroklos]

You are just so pathetic....

That reminds me further of my basketball story,

I realize you probably were not very cool in highschool and had very lousy friends to play basketball with. If you really need to cry about it start another thread.

What's funny with your whole argument is you retreat to a very specific subpoint about the whole mess in Iraq about the whole, "worse off" line.

You mean this lovely subpoint (odd since we were talking about this since the threads resurrection) said by you?

and [b]the average Iraqi person's life has gotten worse[b] since we "got dirty," so really what has been accomplished? NOTHING.

Your poll:

46 percent more harm.

33 percent more good.

16 percent the same.

Is the math math hard for you? What is 33 plus 16? What number is larger, 49 or 46?

And then, as if a flash of sanity hit you say yourself

#4 and #5 are inconclusive either way unless you factor in the Kurdish numbers which TOTALLY prop up the "more good" responses.

Why would you not include the Kurds Ted? And they are not at all inconclusive, unless you think inconclusive simlpy means contributes to your PAWNAGE.

And just a few more quotes from your ABC poll/article...

Surprising levels of optimism prevail in Iraq with living conditions improved, security more a national worry than a local one, and expectations for the future high.

That was the very first line...

An ABC News poll in Iraq, conducted with Time magazine and other media partners, includes some remarkable results: Despite the daily violence there, most living conditions are rated positively, seven in 10 Iraqis say their own lives are going well, and nearly two-thirds expect things to improve in the year ahead.

Average household incomes have soared by 60 percent in the last 20 months (to $263 a month), 70 percent of Iraqis rate their own economic situation positively, and consumer goods are sweeping the country.

So where does it say the average Iraqi's life is worse?

Stop being such a brat and take your spanking, or at least run away, seems more in your character.

Oh yeah, almost forgot, OMFG DON’T GTE IT TWISTED!!!!**#*$*#* *@*#*!*@#

[Ted Striker]

The Kurds don't count because they are a non issue because the real violence takes place in the center of the country.

They've been benefitting from our protection for over 10 years now and their way of life has been better the whole time. So they are a non issue and that's not where the problem is.

That's like analyzing crime statistics and taking Beverly Hills and aggregating them with the numbers from Compton. Oh look the murders in Beverly Hills are low crime is not an issue in the city!

The problem with your ABC News claim, is that that data only counts the last 20 months and not the data before the war. So basically we come in and destroy the place and unemployment skyrockets and income plummets. So it's gone from terrible to not good. Hey, that's good news but is it better and worse than before? Can't make a claim according to that poll as there wasn't one from prewar. Which is hilarious because you're trying to use it for your better or worse claim. Sad really that you try and make up rules.

So we have to go to how the Iraqis themselves feel about it. And they overwhelmingly think they coalition invading was a mistake. Which is indisputable.

Then we have that whole "innocent people getting blown up by car bombs every single day," thing, which never happened before.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Is the math hard for you? (...) What number is larger, 49 or 46?

Well, if you want to talk about the math, before you answer that question you should consider ...

The margin of sampling error for the poll is +/- 2 percentage points.

So according to this USAToday poll, after an invasion and 30,000 Iraqi deaths, about 45% of Iraqis feel they are worse off, and almost 60% said their situation is no better, or even worse.

Those are not terribly impressive results for all the US has spent in blood, gold, and credibility - which I believe is Ted Striker's main point.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Your poll:

46 percent more harm.

33 percent more good.

13 percent the same.

Is the math math hard for you? What is 33 plus 13? What number is larger, 49 or 46?

LOL! I just missed this one!

I like how you threw in that 13 % number to bolster your numbers. Nice try though but that was pretty lame even for you.

[Patroklos]

The Kurds don't count because they are a non issue because the real violence takes place in the center of the country.

So basically if any group in Iraq successfully rebuilds their lives after the last decade and half of hell, they are taken out of your calculation of sucess versus failure? I guess we should cut out the southern third of the country to. No wonder you come up with such a baseless, and taking your methodology into account, meaningless number.

The Kurds are Iraqis, there is no logical reason to exclude them when asking the question "are Iraqis better or worse off since the invasion." Well, there is a logical reason, which is to deliberatly alter numbers for an agenda.

They've been benefitting from our protection for over 10 years now and their way of life has been better the whole time. So they are a non issue and that's not where the problem is.

So perhaps the US hasn't failed so miserably everywhere in Iraq after all. Regardles, the Kurds live in Iraq, are citizens of Iraq, are a major political force in Iraq, and thus are an integral part of calculating any statistics on Iraq.

That's like analyzing crime statistics and taking Beverly Hills and aggregating them with the numbers from Compton. Oh look the murders in Beverly Hills are low crime is not an issue in the city!

So you are saying that if I want to calculate the crime rate for the Los Angeles area I should exclude areas because there are no/low crime in them? Are you serious. If I want the crime rate for the entire Los Angeles area I use the data from the entire Los Angeles area! This is really an enlightening look into the way you think

The problem with your ABC News claim,

It is your article.

is that that data only counts the last 20 months and not the data before the war. So basically we come in and destroy the place and unemployment skyrockets and income plummets. So it's gone from terrible to not good.

Alright, I think you've got it...

Hey, that's good news but is it better and worse than before?

And you lost it. If things were terrible before the war, and now they are just not so good, that is improvement, which means they are better off than before or at the very least not worse. Are you being serious?

Can't make a claim according to that poll as there wasn't one from prewar.

God, here we go again. Guess what, the people being polled were there before the war. The questions did not ask about what has changed in the last 20 months, they were...

3.) Taking everything into account, do you think the coalition invasion of Iraq has done more harm than good or more good than harm?

4.) Is Iraq much better off, somewhat better off, somewhat worse off or much worse off than before the U.S. invasion?

5.) Are you and your family much better off, somewhat better off, somewhat worse off or much worse off than before the US invasion?

Obviously you have no problem remembering and ranting about what you thought prior to the invasion, why do you think the Iraqi’s memory or judgment ability is suspect?

So we have to go to how the Iraqis themselves feel about it.

Which is a damn good measure, since their opinions are the ones that matter most.

Then we have that whole "innocent people getting blown up by car bombs every single day," thing, which never happened before.

Why don’t you try reading your own source, your ABC poll/article, and get back to me about what they thought about security.

[Patroklos]

So according to this USAToday poll, after an invasion and 30,000 Iraqi deaths, about 45% of Iraqis feel they are worse off, and almost 60% said their situation is no better, or even worse.

I am goint to assume the bolded is a typo, however that can also be the opposite with 60% feeling they are better off or the same, and 45% thinking they are worse off.

However, Ted defined the arguement with his statment...

and the average Iraqi person's life has gotten worse since we "got dirty," so really what has been accomplished? NOTHING.

He claims most Iraqis think they are worse off, which is false, most think they are either the same or better off.

Those are not terribly impressive results for all the US has spent in blood, gold, and credibility - which I believe is Ted Striker's main point.

However, they are better than before, and the Iraqis themselves think so according the Teds polls, though apparently it isn't important to Ted what Iraqis think.

And That is not Teds point, his point was that Iraqis are by and large worse off than before the invasion.

[Patroklos]

I like how you threw in that 13 % number to bolster your numbers

ahem...

and the average Iraqi person's life has gotten worse since we "got dirty," so really what has been accomplished? NOTHING.

I suggest thinking before typing. The "same" is not worse, so those numbers work against you.