ST wrote:
> On 1/14/07 11:09 AM, in article [email protected], "Robert
> Chung" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/deathsbymonth.png
> >
> >
>
> Nice boxplot you got there......
> You do know what an outlier is don't you?
>
> Tell me any war or most other conflict involving this amount of troops where
> you can make a graph with a variable axis of 5 (daily deaths) as a max?
>
> More deaths than this in many major cities here in the US everyday.
Dumbass -
No it isn't.
It doesn't matter anyways because the "victory" (or failure) will be
measured by what replaces Saddam Hussein's government and the true
measure of how that is how many Iraqis are dying. The Lancet study put
the figure at anywhere from 350,000 to 950,000. The vast majority of it
is sectarian violence and with that sort of bloodshed going on between
the tribes, it's pretty much guaranteed that the government will not
succeed.
The Civil War, it's inevitable. The reason there are so many willing
suicide bombers is their culture dictates that slain relatives must be
avenged. So the suicide bomber kills more which engenders more
avengers. We can't stop it. Neither can they.
Bad, bad legacy for W. Bush in the long run. It amazes me that he still
cannot grasp the tribalistic nature of the region, thinking that adding
a few more troops will somehow solve it.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.