Destroy a Country

In my previous threads, "Key an SUV" and "Destroy a Bible", I was suggesting as a form of activism, that individuals engage in illegal activities, namely vandalism and petty theft, to combat overconsumption and religious zealotry. Now it's time to unveil my most heinous recommendation to date.

The next time you wish to depose a dictator and take control of vast quantities of oil, illegally invade the country and kill 100,000 of its citizens and sacrifice over 2000 of your own soldiers.

~Ulrika~

*yawn*

Hands down, best post of the day.

Exactly!

Make a post about scratching a car and people go insane. They use names like stupid, moron, illegal, coward, and so on. Make a post about destroying a bible and people go insane. They express indignation, outrage, and sadness.

But talk about the state-sponsored killing of 100,000 people and the middle class of the U.S. yawn.

~Ulrika~

You don't suppose your syllogism is a bit lop-sided, do you? And can it be that your contrarian role playing has completely desensitized the masses you wish to incite, or dare I say, stripped you of any real credibility in this forum?

LOL blame it on the person pointing out the facts.. so bloody typical..
Good use of the word syllogism though.. 10 points!

HI5

New around these parts, pardner?

www.iraqbodycount.com shows totals more like 30,000, not 100,000.

Consider also non-uniformed insurgents were pulled from the battlefield without guns and brought to hospitals, died, and counted as civilians.

Iraq is a mess, for sure, but no need to exagerrate.

We've gone over this before.

The website www.iraqbodycount.net only tallies casualties that are documented in the media. From their website they say, "casualty figures are derived solely from a comprehensive survey of online media reports." It is by definition a fraction of the total deaths. Therefore, one should state that the directly verifiable death toll using media sources is 30,000.

The figure of 100,000 was arrived upon one year ago using statistical extrapolation methods similar to those used in a census. This is the standard method for estimating casualties. Given that this estimate is over a year old, it is likely that the total deaths are between 150,000 and 200,000 now.

I know stating the smaller number of deaths helps reconcile ideology and conscience but it is erroneous to do so.

~Ulrika~

Yes, and I stated that 1000 people is far too small of a population sample to get an accurate measure. There's also no link to the testing methods - statistics can say just about anything you want them to.

The media does a pretty good job getting casualty counts, considering it includes a variety of sources. Consider that unless villages are systematically made victims of genocide, there will be a family or friend member left to report deaths. (And while one can argue that the military's taking of Iraq was fast and sloppy, calling it a deliberate act of genocide is just flat out not accurate.)

Quite the contrary. One can predict presidential elections in entire states with a sample that small. I highly recommend seeking out and reviewing the methodology used in the census yourself. What a good statistician should walk away from it with is, not whether or not the sample was too small, rather what the margin of error on the estimate is.

For instance, without reviewing the methodology and assuming the IBC number is factual, my first-order approximation of the total deaths right now is 100,000 +/- 50,000. Upon further inspection (and a little interpolation) a second order casualty number of 125,000 +/- 10,000 could be arrived upon. The point being, that sample size and methodology contribute to the margin of error, not the validity of the analysis.

That is the difference between punditry and statistics.

By IBC's statements, the reported deaths are only a subset of the total deaths. Even without their statement, it seems unreasonable to think that newspapers could publish 100% of all deaths in a war covering an entire country. If I were to estimate what percentage of deaths the news actually reported, as a first-order guess I might say 25%. This would imply a total body count on the order of 120,000.

In conclusion,

1. given that IBC itself specifically states it is reporting a fraction of the total deaths, it cannot be taken as a maximum;
   
2. sample size and methodology do not invalidate a statistical analysis rather it sets the margin of error; and
   
3. small random samples can estimate larger populations (think census).

~Ulrika~

The travesty here is that it is majorly the middle class who SERVE their country. I say bring back the draft and also to reiterate, *YAWN*.

Your three threads, and the varied reaction to them, are a brilliant demonstration of the faulty moral priorities at the heart of our western societies.

I salute you, Ulrika.

Two points more. We can't have it both ways. If Saddam was a vicious dictator who ruled his people through fear, then his soldiers must have been forced into that role against their will. They are therefore innocents too, and their dead should be added to the "innocent deaths" figure. Even harder to estimate, but I have seen the figure of 40,000 mentioned.

Lastly, always remember Madeleine Albright when discussing numbers of dead. She admitted on camera that 1,000,000 Iraqi children died as a result of sanctions, and said (on camera) that it was "worth it". Shall I post the link again ? We may like to forget this government statement, and these dead innocents, but I am sure the Iraqis haven't. How many are close relatives ?

Interesting to wonder what sort of international benefit we would have to offer Madeleine Albright to make her feel the deaths of 1,000,000 American children "worth it".

Ho hum. A form of activism. Some people might call it being obnoxious just to enjoy making others react.

And so you come to this thread - is it a) a swiftly-dreamed-up thread to make your previous posts look purposeful and innocent or b) a planned thread which follows planted threads causing suffering on the way to no better purpose than making yourself look clever?

Ach, enough! I've left Neualtenburg already so I'm not tarred with the same brush as you - now you may reside in my Ignore list.

I've realised how clever the title of this thread actually is. I think she is tired of NA and has decided to destroy it. A pity if you ask me, even though I haven't been involved with it for months and months (ok actually since less than a month after inception you may im me for details), I have sat back and watched it evolve with admiration. Now it would seem the founder wants to destroy her country. How quaint.

I endorse this post and all the statements contained in it.

If I didn't fear Jeska, I would post more dead Iraqi babies again so some will realize that these aren't numbers, but human beings.

There are 3 types of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

You don't have to post pictures of dead Iraqi babies or even wounded ones, how about those that are standing alone haunted, looking for some connection to family that they no longer have? (Edited to say that this child was wounded - lost both arms and sixteen members of his family).

You forget that Neualtenburg has TWO founders, and that I certainly have no desire to see the experiment that is N'burg come to an end. Neither for that matter does Ulrika.

If people are so naive to believe that N'burg is simply just Ulrika's playtoy to create or destroy at her whim, or that N'burg's diverse population is reflective of only Ulrika's (or my own's) opinions then they are wrong.

Neualtenburg is a diverse collection of citizens of all types of temper and poltical stripe.
Never confuse Ulrika's statements, or any single N'burger's statements to be reflective of some official N'burg policy or stance --unless it is presented as such.

But you would presumably concede that Ulrika is a strong enough force in connection with N'Burg that there are people out there who would be otherwise interested in N'burg but who don't get involved because of their direct dislike for Ulrika and her conduct?

Cuz I know several.

I didn't forget, but I think someone else has. It rather wanes in light of the current paintbrush being used though. I wish you well Kendra and would hope this would subside.

I believe that was the boy i decided NOT to post earlier in the censored thread. If the full body shot is of him filled with tubes in his visibly burned skin, and the puss leaked from the bandages covering where his limbs used to be, I commend your restraint in not showing the absolute horror of those left alive to suffer.

Some images cannot be wiped from ones mind once they are seen.

I only hope GWB eventually has the image tattoed inside his eyelids when he is tried for his war crimes.

actually, rereading your post, it must be another boy. The one I have seen has no arms or legs, just tubes and burned flesh, and sadder still, the courage to form a smile that shows an inner strength I can only aspire to achieve. And sad to say, these are far from isolated incidents and images

No doubt there are people who don't get involved in N'burg because of me as well. There isn't much that could be done about that. I might suggest, however, that anyone interested in N'burg but wary of Ulrika's (or my) personality think about the possibility of creating their own "Neualtenburg".

I for one would be very excited to see more self-governing communities emerge

I think he was yawning at your tired rhetoric, not the thought of what's wrong about invading a country.

I agree, the US has done some pretty fucked up stuff lately. Let's invade it! I'm right behind you, General ZugZug! You ARE leading the charge, right?

-Ghoti

[edited to correct stooopid spelling/typing errors]