on facebook I saw an article that says isis claims it will behead obama and even showed a pitcher of obama being beheaded (pretty graffic) so why arnt we just out wipping thies assholes out ? it's time to stop being all P.C and start kicking some ass and close our friggin boarders.
Godfather.
A 'pitcher' of Obama?
Godfather... sorry to get off topic for a moment, but that's a classic!
you mean to tell me that (photo shopped) picture hase been around and I have missed it ?...ohhhhhh sucker punch hahhah, but I still stand behind my ideas.
on facebook I saw an article that says isis claims it will behead obama and even showed a pitcher of obama being beheaded (pretty graffic) so why arnt we just out wipping thies assholes out ? it's time to stop being all P.C and start kicking some ass and close our friggin boarders.
Godfather.
A 'pitcher' of Obama?
Godfather... sorry to get off topic for a moment, but that's a classic!
on facebook I saw an article that says isis claims it will behead obama and even showed a pitcher of obama being beheaded (pretty graffic) so why arnt we just out wipping thies assholes out ? it's time to stop being all P.C and start kicking some ass and close our friggin boarders.
Godfather.
A 'pitcher' of Obama?
Godfather... sorry to get off topic for a moment, but that's a classic!
on facebook I saw an article that says isis claims it will behead obama and even showed a pitcher of obama being beheaded (pretty graffic) so why arnt we just out wipping thies assholes out ? it's time to stop being all P.C and start kicking some ass and close our friggin boarders.
Godfather.
A 'pitcher' of Obama?
Godfather... sorry to get off topic for a moment, but that's a classic!
hahahahahaha! Awesome.
GF... I stand corrected.
HAHHAHHAHHAHHA guess I just got had pitcher...picture...what ever, nice catch ! HAHHAHHAHHA
And Ramadi falls. It was only a few months ago when the response to the burning of the Jordanian pilot was going to turn the tide. It is so sad.
Sure they'll allow you to join and fight ISIS.
In the US, conscription hasn't been in place since Vietnam (and not since WWII in Canada). All those in the military are there because they trust the leadership of their countries to do what is just, right, and necessary. Little as I agree with this blind acceptance based on the fact that I am faithless in my leadership making the right decisions, military personnel have sacrificed their voice to one they believe is a more intelligent one (that of government). Although I disagree with his premises and therefore don't share a vision of what will take place as a result of forces in the region, I don't question his right to feel that way, nor his right to push for a military presence.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Ben, come again? I understand your sentences individually but not your point.
My point is that as a citizen, just as I can criticize a president but not vie for his position, I can criticize a militaristic decision and not join the military. This shouldn't affect the clout of my opinion.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Ben, come again? I understand your sentences individually but not your point.
My point is that as a citizen, just as I can criticize a president but not vie for his position, I can criticize a militaristic decision and not join the military. This shouldn't affect the clout of my opinion.
Disagree, easy to send others kids into battle and spend others money. Sure you can have the opinion but it will be taken for what it's worth and should be challenged.
Ben, come again? I understand your sentences individually but not your point.
My point is that as a citizen, just as I can criticize a president but not vie for his position, I can criticize a militaristic decision and not join the military. This shouldn't affect the clout of my opinion.
Disagree, easy to send others kids into battle and spend others money. Sure you can have the opinion but it will be taken for what it's worth and should be challenged.
I guess people believe in civilian control of the military until they don't. Either way my position has now changed. The war is for the most part over and the US has lost. A great opportunity for victory has been squandered and by the time the next President takes charge it will certainly be too late. God help all those poor souls for the real horror show is about to begin.
Ben, come again? I understand your sentences individually but not your point.
My point is that as a citizen, just as I can criticize a president but not vie for his position, I can criticize a militaristic decision and not join the military. This shouldn't affect the clout of my opinion.
Disagree, easy to send others kids into battle and spend others money. Sure you can have the opinion but it will be taken for what it's worth and should be challenged.
I guess people believe in civilian control of the military until they don't. Either way my position has now changed. The war is for the most part over and the US has lost. A great opportunity for victory has been squandered and by the time the next President takes charge it will certainly be too late. God help all those poor souls for the real horror show is about to begin.
What a revisionist thing to say. You don't consider about a million deaths, untold displacements, and birth defect/cancer rates off the charts to be a "real horror show"? Of course not, because we secured our economic interests.
Ben, come again? I understand your sentences individually but not your point.
My point is that as a citizen, just as I can criticize a president but not vie for his position, I can criticize a militaristic decision and not join the military. This shouldn't affect the clout of my opinion.
Disagree, easy to send others kids into battle and spend others money. Sure you can have the opinion but it will be taken for what it's worth and should be challenged.
I guess people believe in civilian control of the military until they don't. Either way my position has now changed. The war is for the most part over and the US has lost. A great opportunity for victory has been squandered and by the time the next President takes charge it will certainly be too late. God help all those poor souls for the real horror show is about to begin.
What a revisionist thing to say. You don't consider about a million deaths, untold displacements, and birth defect/cancer rates off the charts to be a "real horror show"? Of course not, because we secured our economic interests.
Birth defect/cancer rates? What the hell are you talking about?
Ben, come again? I understand your sentences individually but not your point.
My point is that as a citizen, just as I can criticize a president but not vie for his position, I can criticize a militaristic decision and not join the military. This shouldn't affect the clout of my opinion.
Disagree, easy to send others kids into battle and spend others money. Sure you can have the opinion but it will be taken for what it's worth and should be challenged.
I guess people believe in civilian control of the military until they don't. Either way my position has now changed. The war is for the most part over and the US has lost. A great opportunity for victory has been squandered and by the time the next President takes charge it will certainly be too late. God help all those poor souls for the real horror show is about to begin.
What a revisionist thing to say. You don't consider about a million deaths, untold displacements, and birth defect/cancer rates off the charts to be a "real horror show"? Of course not, because we secured our economic interests.
Birth defect/cancer rates? What the hell are you talking about?
Talking about the effects of bombing use of depleted Uranium shells and white phosphorus used by the US and "coalition" on the population of Iraq. Here is a tidbit from the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology that focused on maternity hospitals in the cities of Basra and Fallujah: .Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 livebirths. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. By 2009, the maternity hospital witnessed a staggering 48 birth defects per 1,000 live births."
Ben, come again? I understand your sentences individually but not your point.
My point is that as a citizen, just as I can criticize a president but not vie for his position, I can criticize a militaristic decision and not join the military. This shouldn't affect the clout of my opinion.
Disagree, easy to send others kids into battle and spend others money. Sure you can have the opinion but it will be taken for what it's worth and should be challenged.
I guess people believe in civilian control of the military until they don't. Either way my position has now changed. The war is for the most part over and the US has lost. A great opportunity for victory has been squandered and by the time the next President takes charge it will certainly be too late. God help all those poor souls for the real horror show is about to begin.
What a revisionist thing to say. You don't consider about a million deaths, untold displacements, and birth defect/cancer rates off the charts to be a "real horror show"? Of course not, because we secured our economic interests.
Birth defect/cancer rates? What the hell are you talking about?
Ben, come again? I understand your sentences individually but not your point.
My point is that as a citizen, just as I can criticize a president but not vie for his position, I can criticize a militaristic decision and not join the military. This shouldn't affect the clout of my opinion.
Disagree, easy to send others kids into battle and spend others money. Sure you can have the opinion but it will be taken for what it's worth and should be challenged.
I guess people believe in civilian control of the military until they don't. Either way my position has now changed. The war is for the most part over and the US has lost. A great opportunity for victory has been squandered and by the time the next President takes charge it will certainly be too late. God help all those poor souls for the real horror show is about to begin.
What a revisionist thing to say. You don't consider about a million deaths, untold displacements, and birth defect/cancer rates off the charts to be a "real horror show"? Of course not, because we secured our economic interests.
Birth defect/cancer rates? What the hell are you talking about?
Talking about the effects of bombing use of depleted Uranium shells and white phosphorus used by the US and "coalition" on the population of Iraq. Here is a tidbit from the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology that focused on maternity hospitals in the cities of Basra and Fallujah: .Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 livebirths. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. By 2009, the maternity hospital witnessed a staggering 48 birth defects per 1,000 live births."
And in 2010 the number dropped back to 29 birth defects per 1,000 which isn't statistically significant from the 23 in the first year of study when the invasion began. People love stopping at the 2009 number when they quote that study cause it's sexy. Next time read beyond the abstract and dig into the numbers. As a professor that's what I have my MSc. student's do.
Also...your jump from uranium shells and white phosphorus is nowhere to be found in that study. The author does mention the possibility of lead and mercury contamination but can't make any definitive conclusion as to what caused the increase (if it really is even an increase at all as data is not verifiable/reliable...guess we just have to take their word for it). For all we know the defects could be related to the chemical weapon munitions that were also making American service people sick? Who knows?
Either way...assuming everything you say is true...a single future atrocity will not be prevented and it will actually get worse. Chemical weapons are being used in Syria, an ISIS/Shia war is about to burn through the region. The real genocide has only begun. This is the foreign policy you all want. You win. Enjoy.
Edit - to be a professor you need to be 4 days on faculty. With me being only 2 days at my peak my actual title was assistant professor. Now I'm down to guest appearances which makes me an associate professor.
Ben, come again? I understand your sentences individually but not your point.
My point is that as a citizen, just as I can criticize a president but not vie for his position, I can criticize a militaristic decision and not join the military. This shouldn't affect the clout of my opinion.
Disagree, easy to send others kids into battle and spend others money. Sure you can have the opinion but it will be taken for what it's worth and should be challenged.
I guess people believe in civilian control of the military until they don't. Either way my position has now changed. The war is for the most part over and the US has lost. A great opportunity for victory has been squandered and by the time the next President takes charge it will certainly be too late. God help all those poor souls for the real horror show is about to begin.
What a revisionist thing to say. You don't consider about a million deaths, untold displacements, and birth defect/cancer rates off the charts to be a "real horror show"? Of course not, because we secured our economic interests.
Birth defect/cancer rates? What the hell are you talking about?
Talking about the effects of bombing use of depleted Uranium shells and white phosphorus used by the US and "coalition" on the population of Iraq. Here is a tidbit from the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology that focused on maternity hospitals in the cities of Basra and Fallujah: .Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 livebirths. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. By 2009, the maternity hospital witnessed a staggering 48 birth defects per 1,000 live births."
And in 2010 the number dropped back to 29 birth defects per 1,000 which isn't statistically significant from the 23 in the first year of study when the invasion began. People love stopping at the 2009 number when they quote that study cause it's sexy. Next time read beyond the abstract and dig into the numbers. As a professor that's what I have my MSc. student's do.
Also...your jump from uranium shells and white phosphorus is nowhere to be found in that study. The author does mention the possibility of lead and mercury contamination but can't make any definitive conclusion as to what caused the increase (if it really is even an increase at all as data is not verifiable/reliable...guess we just have to take their word for it). For all we know the defects could be related to the chemical weapon munitions that were also making American service people sick? Who knows?
Either way...assuming everything you say is true...a single future atrocity will not be prevented and it will actually get worse. Chemical weapons are being used in Syria, an ISIS/Shia war is about to burn through the region. The real genocide has only begun. This is the foreign policy you all want. You win. Enjoy.
Edit - to be a professor you need to be 4 days on faculty. With me being only 2 days at my peak my actual title was assistant professor. Now I'm down to guest appearances which makes me an associate professor.
I don't know where to start...I won't bother, it's the same as the global warming issue. You are a real piece of work, your tactics are refined and dangerous, using distractions and trying to discredit universally credible sources to blur the discussion. You know the principles of reason, logic, and scientific method well enough to subvert them to suit your own obfuscations...such as suggesting that 23 out of 1,000 isn't significant because it is only slightly higher than the initial data. That initial data is post-invasion, and significantly above normative levels, not to mention much higher than a previous data set that is entirely relevant.. you know it, but you try to use a minor technicality to create doubt around an obvious conclusion. Levels falling as troops increased actually supports the conclusion that heavy bombing is the cause, as the initial bombing phase subsided with the ground troop increase.
Ben, come again? I understand your sentences individually but not your point.
My point is that as a citizen, just as I can criticize a president but not vie for his position, I can criticize a militaristic decision and not join the military. This shouldn't affect the clout of my opinion.
Disagree, easy to send others kids into battle and spend others money. Sure you can have the opinion but it will be taken for what it's worth and should be challenged.
I guess people believe in civilian control of the military until they don't. Either way my position has now changed. The war is for the most part over and the US has lost. A great opportunity for victory has been squandered and by the time the next President takes charge it will certainly be too late. God help all those poor souls for the real horror show is about to begin.
What a revisionist thing to say. You don't consider about a million deaths, untold displacements, and birth defect/cancer rates off the charts to be a "real horror show"? Of course not, because we secured our economic interests.
Birth defect/cancer rates? What the hell are you talking about?
Talking about the effects of bombing use of depleted Uranium shells and white phosphorus used by the US and "coalition" on the population of Iraq. Here is a tidbit from the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology that focused on maternity hospitals in the cities of Basra and Fallujah: .Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 livebirths. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. By 2009, the maternity hospital witnessed a staggering 48 birth defects per 1,000 live births."
And in 2010 the number dropped back to 29 birth defects per 1,000 which isn't statistically significant from the 23 in the first year of study when the invasion began. People love stopping at the 2009 number when they quote that study cause it's sexy. Next time read beyond the abstract and dig into the numbers. As a professor that's what I have my MSc. student's do.
Also...your jump from uranium shells and white phosphorus is nowhere to be found in that study. The author does mention the possibility of lead and mercury contamination but can't make any definitive conclusion as to what caused the increase (if it really is even an increase at all as data is not verifiable/reliable...guess we just have to take their word for it). For all we know the defects could be related to the chemical weapon munitions that were also making American service people sick? Who knows?
Either way...assuming everything you say is true...a single future atrocity will not be prevented and it will actually get worse. Chemical weapons are being used in Syria, an ISIS/Shia war is about to burn through the region. The real genocide has only begun. This is the foreign policy you all want. You win. Enjoy.
Edit - to be a professor you need to be 4 days on faculty. With me being only 2 days at my peak my actual title was assistant professor. Now I'm down to guest appearances which makes me an associate professor.
I don't know where to start...I won't bother, it's the same as the global warming issue. You are a real piece of work, your tactics are refined and dangerous, using distractions and trying to discredit universally credible sources to blur the discussion. You know the principles of reason, logic, and scientific method well enough to subvert them to suit your own obfuscations...such as suggesting that 23 out of 1,000 isn't significant because it is only slightly higher than the initial data. That initial data is post-invasion, and significantly above normative levels, not to mention much higher than a previous data set that is entirely relevant.. you know it, but you try to use a minor technicality to create doubt around an obvious conclusion. Levels falling as troops increased actually supports the conclusion that heavy bombing is the cause, as the initial bombing phase subsided with the ground troop increase.
Ben, come again? I understand your sentences individually but not your point.
My point is that as a citizen, just as I can criticize a president but not vie for his position, I can criticize a militaristic decision and not join the military. This shouldn't affect the clout of my opinion.
Disagree, easy to send others kids into battle and spend others money. Sure you can have the opinion but it will be taken for what it's worth and should be challenged.
I guess people believe in civilian control of the military until they don't. Either way my position has now changed. The war is for the most part over and the US has lost. A great opportunity for victory has been squandered and by the time the next President takes charge it will certainly be too late. God help all those poor souls for the real horror show is about to begin.
What a revisionist thing to say. You don't consider about a million deaths, untold displacements, and birth defect/cancer rates off the charts to be a "real horror show"? Of course not, because we secured our economic interests.
Birth defect/cancer rates? What the hell are you talking about?
Talking about the effects of bombing use of depleted Uranium shells and white phosphorus used by the US and "coalition" on the population of Iraq. Here is a tidbit from the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology that focused on maternity hospitals in the cities of Basra and Fallujah: .Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 livebirths. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. By 2009, the maternity hospital witnessed a staggering 48 birth defects per 1,000 live births."
And in 2010 the number dropped back to 29 birth defects per 1,000 which isn't statistically significant from the 23 in the first year of study when the invasion began. People love stopping at the 2009 number when they quote that study cause it's sexy. Next time read beyond the abstract and dig into the numbers. As a professor that's what I have my MSc. student's do.
Also...your jump from uranium shells and white phosphorus is nowhere to be found in that study. The author does mention the possibility of lead and mercury contamination but can't make any definitive conclusion as to what caused the increase (if it really is even an increase at all as data is not verifiable/reliable...guess we just have to take their word for it). For all we know the defects could be related to the chemical weapon munitions that were also making American service people sick? Who knows?
Either way...assuming everything you say is true...a single future atrocity will not be prevented and it will actually get worse. Chemical weapons are being used in Syria, an ISIS/Shia war is about to burn through the region. The real genocide has only begun. This is the foreign policy you all want. You win. Enjoy.
Edit - to be a professor you need to be 4 days on faculty. With me being only 2 days at my peak my actual title was assistant professor. Now I'm down to guest appearances which makes me an associate professor.
I don't know where to start...I won't bother, it's the same as the global warming issue. You are a real piece of work, your tactics are refined and dangerous, using distractions and trying to discredit universally credible sources to blur the discussion. You know the principles of reason, logic, and scientific method well enough to subvert them to suit your own obfuscations...such as suggesting that 23 out of 1,000 isn't significant because it is only slightly higher than the initial data. That initial data is post-invasion, and significantly above normative levels, not to mention much higher than a previous data set that is entirely relevant.. you know it, but you try to use a minor technicality to create doubt around an obvious conclusion. Levels falling as troops increased actually supports the conclusion that heavy bombing is the cause, as the initial bombing phase subsided with the ground troop increase.
You don't know where to start because you have not actually read the study or evaluated it from a scientific perspective. If you were in a thesis defense right now the committee would tear your postulations apart. Let's take your very last point for instance: Did you know the number of defects rose again in 2011 to 37? So as you say it was normal for the numbers to fall in 2010 because the US wasn't bombing anymore but then the number climbed again in 2011 at the height of the pacification? How do you explain that climb in defects again? There was very little bombing that year? Hmmm. Your theory is unsupported by the data. Again...do yourself a favour and do not post a scientific study where you have only read the abstract as it just makes you look silly. If you want to make a greater point about how war is evil then just make the damn point...you won't get an argument here.
Edit - probably good to mention as well that the birth defects they diagnosed were also primarily folate dependent. That means adequate access to folic acid during pregnancy might have prevented some of these defects. Sanctions and war probably reduced access so if not the bombs you still get to blame the US.
Ben, come again? I understand your sentences individually but not your point.
My point is that as a citizen, just as I can criticize a president but not vie for his position, I can criticize a militaristic decision and not join the military. This shouldn't affect the clout of my opinion.
Disagree, easy to send others kids into battle and spend others money. Sure you can have the opinion but it will be taken for what it's worth and should be challenged.
I guess people believe in civilian control of the military until they don't. Either way my position has now changed. The war is for the most part over and the US has lost. A great opportunity for victory has been squandered and by the time the next President takes charge it will certainly be too late. God help all those poor souls for the real horror show is about to begin.
What a revisionist thing to say. You don't consider about a million deaths, untold displacements, and birth defect/cancer rates off the charts to be a "real horror show"? Of course not, because we secured our economic interests.
Birth defect/cancer rates? What the hell are you talking about?
Talking about the effects of bombing use of depleted Uranium shells and white phosphorus used by the US and "coalition" on the population of Iraq. Here is a tidbit from the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology that focused on maternity hospitals in the cities of Basra and Fallujah: .Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 livebirths. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. By 2009, the maternity hospital witnessed a staggering 48 birth defects per 1,000 live births."
And in 2010 the number dropped back to 29 birth defects per 1,000 which isn't statistically significant from the 23 in the first year of study when the invasion began. People love stopping at the 2009 number when they quote that study cause it's sexy. Next time read beyond the abstract and dig into the numbers. As a professor that's what I have my MSc. student's do.
Also...your jump from uranium shells and white phosphorus is nowhere to be found in that study. The author does mention the possibility of lead and mercury contamination but can't make any definitive conclusion as to what caused the increase (if it really is even an increase at all as data is not verifiable/reliable...guess we just have to take their word for it). For all we know the defects could be related to the chemical weapon munitions that were also making American service people sick? Who knows?
Either way...assuming everything you say is true...a single future atrocity will not be prevented and it will actually get worse. Chemical weapons are being used in Syria, an ISIS/Shia war is about to burn through the region. The real genocide has only begun. This is the foreign policy you all want. You win. Enjoy.
Edit - to be a professor you need to be 4 days on faculty. With me being only 2 days at my peak my actual title was assistant professor. Now I'm down to guest appearances which makes me an associate professor.
Ben, come again? I understand your sentences individually but not your point.
My point is that as a citizen, just as I can criticize a president but not vie for his position, I can criticize a militaristic decision and not join the military. This shouldn't affect the clout of my opinion.
Disagree, easy to send others kids into battle and spend others money. Sure you can have the opinion but it will be taken for what it's worth and should be challenged.
I guess people believe in civilian control of the military until they don't. Either way my position has now changed. The war is for the most part over and the US has lost. A great opportunity for victory has been squandered and by the time the next President takes charge it will certainly be too late. God help all those poor souls for the real horror show is about to begin.
What a revisionist thing to say. You don't consider about a million deaths, untold displacements, and birth defect/cancer rates off the charts to be a "real horror show"? Of course not, because we secured our economic interests.
Birth defect/cancer rates? What the hell are you talking about?
Talking about the effects of bombing use of depleted Uranium shells and white phosphorus used by the US and "coalition" on the population of Iraq. Here is a tidbit from the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology that focused on maternity hospitals in the cities of Basra and Fallujah: .Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 livebirths. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. By 2009, the maternity hospital witnessed a staggering 48 birth defects per 1,000 live births."
And in 2010 the number dropped back to 29 birth defects per 1,000 which isn't statistically significant from the 23 in the first year of study when the invasion began. People love stopping at the 2009 number when they quote that study cause it's sexy. Next time read beyond the abstract and dig into the numbers. As a professor that's what I have my MSc. student's do.
Also...your jump from uranium shells and white phosphorus is nowhere to be found in that study. The author does mention the possibility of lead and mercury contamination but can't make any definitive conclusion as to what caused the increase (if it really is even an increase at all as data is not verifiable/reliable...guess we just have to take their word for it). For all we know the defects could be related to the chemical weapon munitions that were also making American service people sick? Who knows?
Either way...assuming everything you say is true...a single future atrocity will not be prevented and it will actually get worse. Chemical weapons are being used in Syria, an ISIS/Shia war is about to burn through the region. The real genocide has only begun. This is the foreign policy you all want. You win. Enjoy.
Edit - to be a professor you need to be 4 days on faculty. With me being only 2 days at my peak my actual title was assistant professor. Now I'm down to guest appearances which makes me an associate professor.
I don't know where to start...I won't bother, it's the same as the global warming issue. You are a real piece of work, your tactics are refined and dangerous, using distractions and trying to discredit universally credible sources to blur the discussion. You know the principles of reason, logic, and scientific method well enough to subvert them to suit your own obfuscations...such as suggesting that 23 out of 1,000 isn't significant because it is only slightly higher than the initial data. That initial data is post-invasion, and significantly above normative levels, not to mention much higher than a previous data set that is entirely relevant.. you know it, but you try to use a minor technicality to create doubt around an obvious conclusion. Levels falling as troops increased actually supports the conclusion that heavy bombing is the cause, as the initial bombing phase subsided with the ground troop increase.
You don't know where to start because you have not actually read the study or evaluated it from a scientific perspective. If you were in a thesis defense right now the committee would tear your postulations apart. Let's take your very last point for instance: Did you know the number of defects rose again in 2011 to 37? So as you say it was normal for the numbers to fall in 2010 because the US wasn't bombing anymore but then the number climbed again in 2011 at the height of the pacification? How do you explain that climb in defects again? There was very little bombing that year? Hmmm. Your theory is unsupported by the data. Again...do yourself a favour and do not post a scientific study where you have only read the abstract as it just makes you look silly. If you want to make a greater point about how war is evil then just make the damn point...you won't get an argument here.
Edit - probably good to mention as well that the birth defects they diagnosed were also primarily folate dependent. That means adequate access to folic acid during pregnancy might have prevented some of these defects. Sanctions and war probably reduced access so if not the bombs you still get to blame the US.
That illustrates the point I was making. This is the strongest burden of proof, and rightfully so, but it seems you only apply that standard to evidence you want to discredit because it is inconvenient to your view... Meanwhile you have no problem making unequivocal statements like "Iran will have the bomb" and "The real genocide has only begun" without any credible evidence, let alone the burden of proof of a thesis defense.
Anyways, back to the topic, where the real horror show is about to begin, I guess it is going to be pretty bad to top the fake one that we dropped on them for money. At least they are fighting over ideology instead of just money.
Ben, come again? I understand your sentences individually but not your point.
My point is that as a citizen, just as I can criticize a president but not vie for his position, I can criticize a militaristic decision and not join the military. This shouldn't affect the clout of my opinion.
Disagree, easy to send others kids into battle and spend others money. Sure you can have the opinion but it will be taken for what it's worth and should be challenged.
I guess people believe in civilian control of the military until they don't. Either way my position has now changed. The war is for the most part over and the US has lost. A great opportunity for victory has been squandered and by the time the next President takes charge it will certainly be too late. God help all those poor souls for the real horror show is about to begin.
What a revisionist thing to say. You don't consider about a million deaths, untold displacements, and birth defect/cancer rates off the charts to be a "real horror show"? Of course not, because we secured our economic interests.
Birth defect/cancer rates? What the hell are you talking about?
Talking about the effects of bombing use of depleted Uranium shells and white phosphorus used by the US and "coalition" on the population of Iraq. Here is a tidbit from the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology that focused on maternity hospitals in the cities of Basra and Fallujah: .Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 livebirths. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. By 2009, the maternity hospital witnessed a staggering 48 birth defects per 1,000 live births."
And in 2010 the number dropped back to 29 birth defects per 1,000 which isn't statistically significant from the 23 in the first year of study when the invasion began. People love stopping at the 2009 number when they quote that study cause it's sexy. Next time read beyond the abstract and dig into the numbers. As a professor that's what I have my MSc. student's do.
Also...your jump from uranium shells and white phosphorus is nowhere to be found in that study. The author does mention the possibility of lead and mercury contamination but can't make any definitive conclusion as to what caused the increase (if it really is even an increase at all as data is not verifiable/reliable...guess we just have to take their word for it). For all we know the defects could be related to the chemical weapon munitions that were also making American service people sick? Who knows?
Either way...assuming everything you say is true...a single future atrocity will not be prevented and it will actually get worse. Chemical weapons are being used in Syria, an ISIS/Shia war is about to burn through the region. The real genocide has only begun. This is the foreign policy you all want. You win. Enjoy.
Edit - to be a professor you need to be 4 days on faculty. With me being only 2 days at my peak my actual title was assistant professor. Now I'm down to guest appearances which makes me an associate professor.
I don't know where to start...I won't bother, it's the same as the global warming issue. You are a real piece of work, your tactics are refined and dangerous, using distractions and trying to discredit universally credible sources to blur the discussion. You know the principles of reason, logic, and scientific method well enough to subvert them to suit your own obfuscations...such as suggesting that 23 out of 1,000 isn't significant because it is only slightly higher than the initial data. That initial data is post-invasion, and significantly above normative levels, not to mention much higher than a previous data set that is entirely relevant.. you know it, but you try to use a minor technicality to create doubt around an obvious conclusion. Levels falling as troops increased actually supports the conclusion that heavy bombing is the cause, as the initial bombing phase subsided with the ground troop increase.
You don't know where to start because you have not actually read the study or evaluated it from a scientific perspective. If you were in a thesis defense right now the committee would tear your postulations apart. Let's take your very last point for instance: Did you know the number of defects rose again in 2011 to 37? So as you say it was normal for the numbers to fall in 2010 because the US wasn't bombing anymore but then the number climbed again in 2011 at the height of the pacification? How do you explain that climb in defects again? There was very little bombing that year? Hmmm. Your theory is unsupported by the data. Again...do yourself a favour and do not post a scientific study where you have only read the abstract as it just makes you look silly. If you want to make a greater point about how war is evil then just make the damn point...you won't get an argument here.
Edit - probably good to mention as well that the birth defects they diagnosed were also primarily folate dependent. That means adequate access to folic acid during pregnancy might have prevented some of these defects. Sanctions and war probably reduced access so if not the bombs you still get to blame the US.
That illustrates the point I was making. This is the strongest burden of proof, and rightfully so, but it seems you only apply that standard to evidence you want to discredit because it is inconvenient to your view... Meanwhile you have no problem making unequivocal statements like "Iran will have the bomb" and "The real genocide has only begun" without any credible evidence, let alone the burden of proof of a thesis defense.
Anyways, back to the topic, where the real horror show is about to begin, I guess it is going to be pretty bad to top the fake one that we dropped on them for money. At least they are fighting over ideology instead of just money.
The point you were trying to make is what right do I have to care about any atrocity that occurs from here on out as the only thing that matters is what happened between 2003 and 2009. That is called living in the past with blatant disregard for the atrocities that are occuring now....genocide in syria, yazidi women being sold into slavery, boat people fleeing libya and drowning in the sea, civil war in Yemen, the complete collapse of Iraq. Your right...who cares? They ain't my people. Let it burn. Like I said...I have conceded defeat. You win. This the world you want. Enjoy.
Comments
Why did you change it OP?
Godfather.
GF... I stand corrected.
HAHHAHHAHHAHHA guess I just got had pitcher...picture...what ever, nice catch ! HAHHAHHAHHA
Godfather.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
You don't consider about a million deaths, untold displacements, and birth defect/cancer rates off the charts to be a "real horror show"?
Of course not, because we secured our economic interests.
.Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 livebirths. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. By 2009, the maternity hospital witnessed a staggering 48 birth defects per 1,000 live births."
If not these, then what?
Also...your jump from uranium shells and white phosphorus is nowhere to be found in that study. The author does mention the possibility of lead and mercury contamination but can't make any definitive conclusion as to what caused the increase (if it really is even an increase at all as data is not verifiable/reliable...guess we just have to take their word for it). For all we know the defects could be related to the chemical weapon munitions that were also making American service people sick? Who knows?
Either way...assuming everything you say is true...a single future atrocity will not be prevented and it will actually get worse. Chemical weapons are being used in Syria, an ISIS/Shia war is about to burn through the region. The real genocide has only begun. This is the foreign policy you all want. You win. Enjoy.
Edit - to be a professor you need to be 4 days on faculty. With me being only 2 days at my peak my actual title was assistant professor. Now I'm down to guest appearances which makes me an associate professor.
You are a real piece of work, your tactics are refined and dangerous, using distractions and trying to discredit universally credible sources to blur the discussion. You know the principles of reason, logic, and scientific method well enough to subvert them to suit your own obfuscations...such as suggesting that 23 out of 1,000 isn't significant because it is only slightly higher than the initial data. That initial data is post-invasion, and significantly above normative levels, not to mention much higher than a previous data set that is entirely relevant.. you know it, but you try to use a minor technicality to create doubt around an obvious conclusion.
Levels falling as troops increased actually supports the conclusion that heavy bombing is the cause, as the initial bombing phase subsided with the ground troop increase.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Edit - probably good to mention as well that the birth defects they diagnosed were also primarily folate dependent. That means adequate access to folic acid during pregnancy might have prevented some of these defects. Sanctions and war probably reduced access so if not the bombs you still get to blame the US.
14 seconds in obviously
Anyways, back to the topic, where the real horror show is about to begin, I guess it is going to be pretty bad to top the fake one that we dropped on them for money. At least they are fighting over ideology instead of just money.