Post by k***@hotmail.cominitial
would
20,000
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comPost by MichaelPost by MichaelPost by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comPost by MichaelPost by j***@bellsouth.net2) There was no indication of food and water problems
3) Were increased as the identified need was increased.
Compare this USA (both private and public) aid to
Indonesia et
come
and
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comPost by MichaelPost by Michaelmilitary
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comPost by Michaelaid such as the planes, helicopters and men,
I missed any such statement being made in any previous post.
i didn't.
Actually, you just plain lied. You are the only poster to make this
claim.
Post by MichaelTruth is not a democratic process, truth is often posted by only one,
what
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comMy point is that you lied about "a previous poster" saying that US aid
figures did not include private donations and distribution costs.
Post by MichaelPost by MichaelPost by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comwithout which, not much would
Post by Michaelbe happening in Indonesia right now,
The US military has , I suspect, significantly facilitated
delivery
if
the
would
always
in
happening
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comPost by MichaelPost by MichaelPost by Michaelbeyond a stockpile of undistributed supplies.
What does that have to do with your claim that the cost of
distribution
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comis
Post by MichaelPost by Michaelnot included in the value of aid?
Where did the figures posted say that they included the cost of
distribution? The figures posted don't tell us how they were
manufactured.
You are the one claiming that thay DID NOT include those costs. Are you
now
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comadmitting that you do not know?
Always did, there is no way to make a determination either way even to
agree with your unsupported assertions without the assumptions and
limiting conditions of how the numbers were generated. I can say with
certainty that the figures DO NOT include any of America's charity toward
tsunami victems, as the figures from the website were prepared long before
the tsunami and do not take that charity into any effect .
you
had
information
the
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comPost by MichaelPost by MichaelPost by Michaelassumptions and limiting conditions under which they were
accumumlated,
Post by MichaelPost by MichaelPost by Michaelwhich means that they wre merely spoited rethoric to begin with.
That's because the "limiting conditions" exist only in your fertile
brain. I
Post by MichaelPost by Michaelreposted his statistics.
But without knowing the undisclosed liminting conditions and
assumptions
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comPost by Michaelin his fertile brain, we have no way of knowing what his numbers mean,
nor
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comPost by Michaelhow acccurate they are.
On what basis do you claim that there _are_ "limiting conditions".
The original post suggested no such limiting conditions, and you have
still
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comprovided no evidence of such.
They have to have limiting conditions and assumptions, else how could one
compile the statistics, chosing what to include and what to exclude. Like
the inalienable rights that God provides all Americans, some truths is
self evident, particularly having prepared such complicated statistics.
Post by k***@hotmail.comYou claimed, back when there were only six posts in this thread, that
you
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.com"couldn't find" the original post in order to evaluste the statistics,
or
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comoffer counter statistics, so I reposted them for you. (It took me less
than
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.coma minuite to find them) Your only "evalustion" has been ,"well, they
might
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comnot be accurate", or there could be some kind of "limiting conditions".
Where are your better figures and why are they more reliable?
Not the point, the initial post lambasted America for a very specific lack
of charity in the tsunami
Which was the case at the time of the original post.
and then posted statistics for Official
Post by MichaelDevelopment Assistance. Official Development Assistance is like an apple
to an orange when tring to use the Official Development Assistance
statistics (however they were compiled) to make a judgement regarding
charity.
They were offered as evidence that the original lack of response by our
government was not a single instance of stinginess, but part of a pattern.
But the part offered, a small sliver of a particular scheme of
redistribution of wealth, has little to do with charity, and does does not
particularily have anything to do with charity at all.
Post by k***@hotmail.comWhether either part of the original poster's positions are accurate
(unwillingness to respond in a meaningful way to the tsunami until pressured
to do so, or a pattern of response which is weak in terms of our resources),
he at keast provided some evidence to support them. Your arguement against
them still consists of nothing stronger than, "Well, Oh Yeah!"
IOW, since the scant and specific statistics arrived at by unknown means
to a small sliver of a particular scheme to redistribute wealth which may
have nothing to do in the measurement of charity, it can be stretched to
support the bias of the user whether or not it is accurate or not? IOW,
the ends (anti-American bigotry) justify the means (irrespective of
whether the facts are relevant or even accurate)?
Post by k***@hotmail.comPost by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comMy original comment to you was that the original poster had offfered
evidence to support his poinion and you had offered only blather. Thank
you
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comcor continuing to illustrate my point.
actually he merely offered his opinion regarding charity to tsunami
victems
He gave dollar amounts.
and then used irrelevant statistics for Official Development
Post by MichaelAssistance, which ain't the same thing.s
He never said they were the "same thing"
If they are 'not the same thing' then they do not validate his prejudical
theory.
He said that a weak response to the
Post by k***@hotmail.comtsunami was not typical and offered as evidence of this,
What does he think a strong response should be? Almost 50% of Americans
have donated to tsunami relief half way around the world to people in
nations who are deciddedly anti-American bigoted and murder Christians
over and above any government aid, does that make America stingy? I think
not.
a comparison of our
Post by k***@hotmail.comdevelopmental assistance, in terms of our resources, compated to that of 22
other nations.
America's trade deficit does more to deveolpe other nations that all of
the wealth redistribution progrommes put together.
I'm still waiting for your statistics to show that we
Post by k***@hotmail.comregularly give a greater percentage of our Gross National Product to
international charitable causes than those other nations.
I am still waiting for the original poster to prove that they don't first,
and the assumptions and limiting conditions to the statistics he uses. So
far he has failed to support the thesis in any rational way, there is no
need for a rebuttal to a statement not yet sufficiently supported, for it
is prima fascia incorrect.
Post by k***@hotmail.comin
in SE
of
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.coma
Post by MichaelPost by MichaelPost by MichaelKurd, as Mastercard might say, that is priceless. BTW, mass
re-distribution is not aid either, and usually merely enabeling.
Invasion is still not aid.
It was for those who live today because Saddam was prevented from
murdering them.
Not for the 30,000 to 100,000 more that were murdered during the months
following the invasion than during the same period under Saddam.
How many did the Americans kill, and how many the terrorists, and how many
could have been spared if the terrorists acted civily?
More are dienig now than under Saddam. Do you think it matters all that much
to them or thier relatives left behind who is killing them?
More terrorists are dying and more innocent people are living? Is that a
bad thing?
Post by k***@hotmail.comPost by MichaelNot for the
Post by k***@hotmail.commillions who had water and electricity under Saddam and do not yet in
the
Post by MichaelI am not aware that anyone in Iraq today is without electricity or water,
am I wrong?
Either you or all news reports from Iraq which all still say that drinkable
water is in limited supply and rolling blackouts are normal.
You mean like in California?
Based on your
Post by k***@hotmail.compast record, I'm guessing you are wrong and the news is right.
I know people in the socalistic state of California, the rolling blackouts
are real and drinking water has become suspect.
Post by k***@hotmail.comIn fact, reports from returning soldiers tell quite a
Post by Michaeldifferent story.
About electricity and water? No, they do not.
Actually they do, as well as cite the opening of schools and polling
places for a democratic vote of the people, notwithstanding the desperate
attempt of the terrorists to overturn these events.
Post by k***@hotmail.comPost by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comPost by MichaelAlso, we are still killing more Iraquis thqn
Can't find that to be the case. We may be killing more Bahist and
terrorists than the terrorist Saddam was murdering, but that is their
choice to be a terrorist and not the fault of America.
So you do admit that we "nay b"e killing more Iraqis than Saddam.
No, my point was that we may be killing more terrorists than Saddam might
have murdered. Saddam liked terrorists and was one, it was the common
folks that he disliked.
He killed people suspected of trying to overthrow his government;
Tee hee hee, Hitler also killed people suspected of trying to overthrow
his government, are you saying that America was wrong to show charity to
the people Hitler was oppressing?
we kill
Post by k***@hotmail.compeople suspected of trying to overthrow the one we appointed.
No, although we may kill terrorists more than suspected in preventing the
Iraqi people from electing their own government.
We are killing
More terrorists are dying and more innocent people are living and being
given a change to vote democraticly for their government? Is that a bad
thing?
Post by k***@hotmail.comPost by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comPost by MichaelThe only question is whether it is the 100,000 more for the
By whom?
Study published in "The Lancet" estimated 100. 000 more deaths in, a
period
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comof, I believe 8 months following the Bush claim that the war was over
than
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comduring the same period under Saddam before the war began.
Deaths of whom? Terrorists or law abiding Iraqis?
The Lancet reported that the proportion of women and children killed after
the official end of the war was higher than before the invasion. The
alternate calculations did not challenge this statistic.
But killed by whom? How? and Why? Even if the raw statistic is correct,
it does not necessarily mean what you want to imply. Does it mean that
the terrorists are killing more women and children that Saddam did?
Post by k***@hotmail.comwe are still uncovering
Post by Michaelunmarked mass graves,
Do you have any documentation on how many dead in these graves and when or
how they died?
I haven't seen the count, accurate records were not kept of the killing in
the mass graves nor were they in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR nor
Mao's China nor Christophobiic murder in Indonesia or Christans being
enslaved in the Sudan, but the mass graves continue and probably will
continue to be found.
Post by k***@hotmail.comdid he take these into consideration, especially the
Post by Michaelones uncovered since he estimated a number using an unknown set of
assumptions and limiting conditions?
This was not a 'he" it was the British equivalent of the American Medical
Association; I don't remember it's proper title.
Granted, but the question remains the same; did the British equivalent of
the American Medical Association take these into consideration, especially
the ones uncovered since he estimated a number using an unknown set of
assumptions and limiting conditions?
Post by k***@hotmail.comPost by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comPost by MichaelPost by Michaelarrived at using standard statistical models
Using what assumptions and limiting conditions?
That would be coveved under the term "standard models".
A standard model is an estimate based upon specific assumptions and
limiting conditions, vital to understanding the validity of the standard
model.
Check the Lancet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4076993.stm
A study in a medical journal said nearly 100,000 died after the invasion.
Other groups put the figure at 15,000.
The point, what assumptions and limiting condditions did Lancet use to
arrive at 100,000 when other groups put the figure at 15,000? That is
quite a difference. Why should we believe Lancet and not the other
groups? Is Lancet stretching the numbers by statical impropriety?
Post by k***@hotmail.comPost by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comPost by Michael, or the 30,000
Post by Michaelmore estimated by Bush supporters using non-standard models.
All depends upon the assumptions and limiting conditions in the
fertile
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comPost by Michaelminds that prepared them, without which, no determination can be made
that
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comPost by Michaelany of the figures are correct or even believable.
The best Bush supporters were able to do was reduce their estimate to a
30,000 increase.
Depends upon their assumptions and limiting conditions, I suspect.
I suspect they used the assumptions and limitations which would give them
the smallest figure possible, since their intent was to challenge the
official estimate.
Others suspect that Lancet used the assumptions and limitations which
would give them the greatest figure possible, since their intent may have
been to challenge the lower estimates. BTW, both are estimates, and
without the assumptions and limiting conditions stated, the suspecion of
Lancet is as equally as valid as the suspecion of the 'others', am I
wrong?
Post by k***@hotmail.compaying
even
with
Florida
which
a
America is
Post by MichaelPost by k***@hotmail.comPost by Michael--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.