The "surge" is a success?

[Kuciwalker]

Yup, I am so clueless, which is why my posts before this war even begun about what could be expected were so wrong.....

Stopped clocks and all that. Seriously, what does this have to do with anything again?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Yup, measuring the security in Iraq by the number of people getting killed is just wrong

No, measuring the absolute number of deaths during the period a specific security operation is in place is just wrong; you have to measure the change from before.

This should be blatantly obvious.

Thankfully you are going into the sciences, where treating statistics as pure numbers is okay, as opposed to realizing there are real world consequences to each and every single one of those deaths.

The first problem with your "obvious" statement is deciding which period is a worthwhile measurement. There is a reaso why I made the fever analogy previously. Yes, a treatment that took a fever down from 103 to 101 is a "success," though of course the patient remains terribly sick, and compared to the a non-fever the situation is dire.

So, should we measure the success of the "surge" only based on the couple of months immidiately before? Or should be measure it to violence pre-Samarra bombing? And is it only in Baghdad and Anbar, or everywhere? And what violence do we count? is inter-Shia fighting to be counted?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Stopped clocks and all that. Seriously, what does this have to do with anything again?

Well, lets see: you claim that your ability to analyse this issue (Iraq) is greater than mine. What best evidence is there to gauge this claim than to compare our previous analysis of this issue?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, lets see: you claim that your ability to analyse this issue (Iraq) is greater than mine. What best evidence is there to gauge this claim than to compare our previous analysis of this issue?

What an elementary fallacy.

[Kuciwalker]

GePap
Thankfully you are going into the sciences, where treating statistics as pure numbers is okay, as opposed to realizing there are real world consequences to each and every single one of those deaths.

me
Sigh. I can hear the sophistry a mile away. Don't embarrass yourself, GePap.

The first problem with your "obvious" statement is deciding which period is a worthwhile measurement. There is a reaso why I made the fever analogy previously. Yes, a treatment that took a fever down from 103 to 101 is a "success," though of course the patient remains terribly sick, and compared to the a non-fever the situation is dire.

So, should we measure the success of the "surge" only based on the couple of months immidiately before? Or should be measure it to violence pre-Samarra bombing? And is it only in Baghdad and Anbar, or everywhere? And what violence do we count? is inter-Shia fighting to be counted?

Every single one of those questions admits my original assertion is correct: by itself the absolute number of deaths is completely meaningless. There is no context whatsoever.

[Berzerker]

have violence and murder increased?

even if it has, that doesn't necessarily reflect on the surge. The result down the line will tell that tale...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
have violence and murder increased?

Well, with just the absolute number of deaths we have no idea, do we?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


What an elementary fallacy.

Sorry, but your "claim" in this case that you are better able to analyse the situation in Iraq. To say that your past analysis has been far worse than mine is no logical fallacy.

I see besides being wrong in the past, you seem incapable of dealing with multiple lines of debate.

[Berzerker]

why not? seems like a good indicator of a trend. I imagine during the surge violence would increase and slowly decrease upon success.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Sorry, but your "claim" in this case that you are better able to analyse the situation in Iraq.

Where?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
why not? seems like a good indicator of a trend. I imagine during the surge violence would increase and slowly decrease upon success.

Yes but without the numbers from other months you don't know what the trend is. Duh.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Well, with just the absolute number of deaths we have no idea, do we?

My god man, are you that ignorant of what has been happening in Iraq for the past four years? thiry seconds of searching on the web gives you all the numbers you need.

To make it easier on you: that many dead Iraqis is down from the height of the violence post the Samarra shrine bombing, but it remains higher than the average violence right before that bombing.

To put it simply, the violence in Iraq has stopped spiraling out of control, and is now just really bad.

[Kuciwalker]

My god man, are you that ignorant of what has been happening in Iraq for the past four years? thiry seconds of searching on the web gives you all the numbers you need.

Which is why I said that the number is meaningless alone. So you're saying, if you look up other numbers to compare it to, it's no longer meaningless. Thank you for conceding?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Every single one of those questions admits my original assertion is correct: by itself the absolute number of deaths is completely meaningless. There is no context whatsoever.

Actually, you asserted initially that the number of Iraqi civilian deaths was meaningless.

This is utterly stupid. At the least, the absolute number gives you an ability to guage whether the security situation is good or bad.

Obviously you need a range of numbers to figure out if the situation has improved or deteriorated from what it was at some point in the past.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, you asserted initially that the number of Iraqi civilian deaths was meaningless.

Wrong. Again.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
As an isolated number that's completely meaningless. WTG.