View Full Version : I'll wager after war UK and US come out smelling like roses!
Sabastian
26-Mar-2003, 17:59
I predict that when this war is over the Iraqi people will be liberated, have a democratic government in place, they will quickly realize the wealth that Sadam has been hording for himself, love the liberty they have gained and the US and Britain will come out smelling like roses.
The protestors are not supporting the people of Iraq with their opposition to the war they are against America no matter what they do. It all seems so silly when I see protestors on one channel and on another I see happy Iraq civilians shaking hands with US soldiers fighting Sadams terrorist government. Even the people of Iraq want Sadam gone!!
Further my government(Canadian) by not supporting the regime change in Iraq is looking rather silly and is leaving me with a sense of embarrassment. The best I have heard come from them is that "we hope sadam does not win".
I believe that the major opponents to the war have something to lose if their is a change in the leadership of the country.(Not Canada I think our leaders are just kin to ocean life that have no vertebra.) These countries that were not supportive of the American invasion of Iraq had something to lose and this garbage about them being worried about lives being lost is just rhetoric. In a rather short period of time the whole ordeal will be news .... on page 3 and the Americans and British will look smart and those whom opposed the action will look like the morons (particularly the hippy protestors) they are.
I predict you are wrong, b/c the US never smells like roses to the rest of the world.
Neutrality
26-Mar-2003, 18:19
Sabastian, couldnt agree more. :)
-Neutrality-
Sabastian
26-Mar-2003, 18:30
I predict you are wrong, b/c the US never smells like roses to the rest of the world.
Yeah thats just like the protestors... no matter what the US does they will try to find the devil in it. They focus on the negative and forget about the positive. BTW I think that is a mis-conception perpetuated by blinkered thinking. Anyhow I think you are wrong and I do think that there will be a lot of foolish feeling people in a matter of months.(Except for the brain washed Arabs who simply think that the US is the head of a snake of some sort.)
arjan de lumens
26-Mar-2003, 19:26
It will all depend critically on what kind of government the US/UK/allies put in place of the Saddam/Baath-party regime. If it is not some sort of representative democracy, US/UK will look like annoying hypocrites, and if it is, some measures still have to be taken to prevent the 3 major ethnic groups in Iraq from clashing and erupting into a Yugoslavia-like breakup.
As for the people cheering, I seem to remember reading that they were doing so not so much because they were 'liberated' from Saddam tyranny, but more out of tradition or even fear - once they were no longer in front of a camera lens, they express the same scepticism toward the invasion force as toward the Saddam regime. Presumably a case of "better the devil you know than the devil you don't". I suspect that if Saddam came back and re-"liberated" them, they would be cheering all over Iraqi TV and probably al-jazeera as well.
Yeah thats just like the protestors... no matter what the US does they will try to find the devil in it.
well that isn't too hard with the big inverted pentagram over the whitehouse. :wink:
http://www.worldsgreatestband.com/Pictures/pentagram.jpg
RussSchultz
26-Mar-2003, 19:53
Of course, if you turn the picture over, you find the white house is above a right side up pentagram.
PurplePigeon
26-Mar-2003, 19:54
I predict that when this war is over the Iraqi people will be liberated, have a democratic government in place, they will quickly realize the wealth that Sadam has been hording for himself, love the liberty they have gained and the US and Britain will come out smelling like roses.
Well, one can hope, but I for one have somewhat lowered expectations. There seem to be many factions in Iraq that may not necessarily get along that well once everything plays out. Establishing some law and order under a new government may take quite some time. I don't think anyone can confidently predict exactly how it well turn out.
The protestors are not supporting the people of Iraq with their opposition to the war they are against America no matter what they do. It all seems so silly when I see protestors on one channel and on another I see happy Iraq civilians shaking hands with US soldiers fighting Sadams terrorist government. Even the people of Iraq want Sadam gone!!
Agreed that some protestors seem, well... naive.
As for Iraqi citizens shaking hands with US soldiers... Well, there was an interesting article from a non-embedded reporter a couple of days ago (wish I could find it) who observed people cheering and waving at the US soldiers as they drove by... But as soon as they were out of sight, smiles turned to scowls and commented about their distrust of the Americans. I am paraphrasing from memory, so I could be wrong about the details, but the gist was that it might not be too surprising that when an overwhelmingly powerful armed force comes through, the average citizen will cheer them on despite what their true feelings may be. And consider the last paragraph of http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/26/international/worldspecial/26CND-URBAN.html?pagewanted=2 : "When Israel invaded here in 1982 we met them with showers of rice and roses," a spokesman for Lebanon's Hezbollah Shiite Muslim militia was quoted as saying. "One hundred days later we blew up their headquarters."
They may not like Saddam, but it doesn't necessarily follow that they will fully embrace the American plan.
(whoops, arjan de lumens just beat me to it...)
Further my government(Canadian) by not supporting the regime change in Iraq is looking rather silly and is leaving me with a sense of embarrassment. The best I have heard come from them is that "we hope sadam does not win".
Yes, the Canadian government's position has been rather wishy-washy. I do think that staying out of the war because of lack of endorsement from the UN has some justification, but it also has a certain bureaucratic ring to it.
I believe that the major opponents to the war have something to lose if their is a change in the leadership of the country.(Not Canada I think our leaders are just kin to ocean life that have no vertebra.) These countries that were not supportive of the American invasion of Iraq had something to lose and this garbage about them being worried about lives being lost is just rhetoric. In a rather short period of time the whole ordeal will be news .... on page 3 and the Americans and British will look smart and those whom opposed the action will look like the morons (particularly the hippy protestors) they are.
Well, in this gray world, I think the most realistic result will be somewhat more ambiguous.
Yes, the Canadian government's position has been rather wishy-washy. I do think that staying out of the war because of lack of endorsement from the UN has some justification, but it also has a certain bureaucratic ring to it.
The US has Canada in it's back pocket, if they wanted to punish us they could tighten up the border just a bit and that'd really hose our economy. Something like 75% of jobs in Canada depend on the US, it was far from cowardly not to endorse the US.
Sharkfood
26-Mar-2003, 21:14
observed people cheering and waving at the US soldiers as they drove by... But as soon as they were out of sight, smiles turned to scowls and commented about their distrust of the Americans.
I'd totally buy this account and also feel it's pretty well warranted.
A lot of these people were either around or had family around from the first Gulf war and remember the same kind of thing, but with the end result being the US pulling out and leaving Sadamm back in power.
Given this reality, I totally can emphathize with Iraqi citizens that are leary and distrust American soldiers.
I don't personally see this being possible this time around, but I also dont blame the Iraqi citizens for not having much faith since this will be the second time around for many of them.
MrsSkywalker
27-Mar-2003, 01:00
There is this piece of footage airing all around of a coalition troop handing out candy and water to Iraqi children. They rushed up to him and were waving as they walked off. Perhaps they won't ever have a reason to distrust the US.
PurplePigeon
27-Mar-2003, 01:24
There is this piece of footage airing all around of a coalition troop handing out candy and water to Iraqi children. They rushed up to him and were waving as they walked off. Perhaps they won't ever have a reason to distrust the US.
I recognize your optimism, but if I were to weigh the importance of the cultural environment versus candy received from strangers when formulating a world outlook, I'm afraid I would have to give the nod towards the cultural environment...
Yes, the Canadian government's position has been rather wishy-washy. I do think that staying out of the war because of lack of endorsement from the UN has some justification, but it also has a certain bureaucratic ring to it.
The US has Canada in it's back pocket, if they wanted to punish us they could tighten up the border just a bit and that'd really hose our economy. Something like 75% of jobs in Canada depend on the US, it was far from cowardly not to endorse the US.
Well we are dependant to a point... its actually about 40% of the economy thats based on exports and 87% of that is to the US. If no trade existed with the us we would have about 30% unemployment. However thats assuming we didnt develop other aspects of the economy to keep us busy. And letting that many people go unemployed is simply a worse case scenario. American interests own about 80% of our economy for a reason... they need what we have, and, as "socialist" as we are, Canada is a very profitable place to do business.
I'm not just talking about export, you have to factor in the fact that American companies hire Canadians in Canada.
Well being that 80% of firms in business in canada are owned by the US but if they suddenly stopped hiring or fired everyone they would be immediately replaced by another firm. Most US firms here who do business to sell products and services ot canadians as well as exports would be replaced in short order...
No firm will be so stupid as to stop doing business here. Unless we elected some faschist who then threatened the US with nukes or some stupid shit...
All Im saying is that incredible numbers that show catastrophic economic situations arent always believable.
DemoCoder
27-Mar-2003, 03:32
The US needs Canada for cheap labor. :)
Oh, and your comedians.
MrsSkywalker
27-Mar-2003, 03:34
I recognize your optimism, but if I were to weigh the importance of the cultural environment versus candy received from strangers when formulating a world outlook, I'm afraid I would have to give the nod towards the cultural environment...
I understand your POV, and I agree with it. I am just trying to say that to those kids who got the candy from that US soldier, he was like a hero. I just hope that we don't do anything to screw up that image.
I don't think that the older generations in Iraq will ever trust us completely, no matter what we do. And they have every reason not to...we did, after all, leave Hussein in charge when we should have whomped his ass. However, I hope we can build a trust with the children and the young adults, and I think that that will be a strong possibility. As meaningless as it may seem in the midst of a war, the image of the soldier who gave them candy will stick with them their whole lives. Sometimes it's the little things that leave the greatest impact.
The US needs Canada for cheap labor.
You mean cheap, highly educated labour who come with health plans?
chavvdarrr
27-Mar-2003, 07:57
I predict that when this war is over the Iraqi people will be liberated, have a democratic government in place, they will quickly realize the wealth that Sadam has been hording for himself, love the liberty they have gained and the US and Britain will come out smelling like roses.
Sounds great. And naive.
I believe that the major opponents to the war have something to lose if their is a change in the leadership of the country.(Not Canada I think our leaders are just kin to ocean life that have no vertebra.) These countries that were not supportive of the American invasion of Iraq had something to lose and this garbage about them being worried about lives being lost is just rhetoric. In a rather short period of time the whole ordeal will be news
Agree, most of the countries who are against the war will lose something.
But that goes both ways: those who support do believe they WILL RECEIVE something. (the dog wants a bone...)
.... on page 3 and the Americans and British will look smart and those whom opposed the action will look like the morons (particularly the hippy protestors) they are.
Of course. "Winners write the history". And people who said that Hitler is bad were "morons" and "hippy". In fact Charles Chaplin was named "comunist" for his anti-war films (eg "The great dictator"). And was expulsed from USA in 1939 or 40.
What some of war-supporters should understand that most people (IMHO) are against that war not cause they like Saddam. Nor cause they hate USA.
Or cause Bush is stupid (he is not).
But because we fear who'll be the next in charge. look at US presidents from last 30 years. What's your first thought when seeing their names?
Nickson ...
Karter ...
Raygan .... ( consulting with astrolgists)
Bush I (he was Ok imho)
Clinton ....
WHo'll come after Bush II ?
Remeber, Caesar was not a monster, Oktavian August was not a monster, but later there were Neron, Kaligula ....
DemoCoder
27-Mar-2003, 10:56
The US needs Canada for cheap labor.
You mean cheap, highly educated labour who come with health plans?
Yep, but at almost half the salary of a typical engineer in California, it's still a win. :)
Sabastian
27-Mar-2003, 13:42
The US needs Canada for cheap labor.
You mean cheap, highly educated labour who come with health plans?
Yep, but at almost half the salary of a typical engineer in California, it's still a win. :)
This isn't accurate really. While lower income jobs may in fact be somewhat cheeper, for example call center jobs, a position such as an enginer could never be cheaper. Consider that the Canadian employee pays so much more in taxes(average taxation in Canada is 50%) and that in order for these skilled people to remain in a job position in Canada they would have to be paid considerably more in Canadian to match a US counterpart. Further there are many whom are paid in US funds.(I can point out that this is definitly the case with ATIs ART X team, I know there are hockey players as well likely many other professionals accrossed the board also demand that they be paid in US funds.) To call Canadians "cheap" is rediculous because our min wage is $6.50 where in the US the min wage is much lower AFAIK and this may vary state to state. In the end there really isn't much in the way of benifit in terms of cost of labour between Canada and the US.
Neutrality
27-Mar-2003, 14:04
......our min wage is $6.50....
:shock:
Heh, thats pretty darn low.
Where I live the min wage is $12.
-Neutrality-
Sabastian
27-Mar-2003, 16:36
......our min wage is $6.50....
:shock:
Heh, thats pretty darn low.
Where I live the min wage is $12.
-Neutrality-
Heh, well that is in Canadian funds. $12 an hour here is not bad pay but not that great either. Your $ must trade pretty cheaply compared to the US $. Canadian $ = approx $0.67 US.
RussSchultz
27-Mar-2003, 17:19
Where I live (Austin), grocery sackers and fast food employees start at about $9US. (Even though statutory minimum wage is $5.75--I think).
(...) the US and Britain will come out smelling like roses.
I don't think so. (http://www.gavinsblog.com/injurediraqgirl.JPG)
(Warning: could be disturbing to some. But no more disturbing than the rampant jingoism of CNN and the like)
...our min wage is $6.50...
Are you quite sure about this? Maybe it's just BC, but the minimum wage is closer to $8per/hour. Or are you normalising it to US funds?
As for Canadian pros, I definately think you're off the ball. First of all, US companies don't need to pay employees in Canada that much, because said employees would otherwise move to the US and some of them do. They move to the US and get higher paying jobs. The ones in Canada, DON'T. Seems like stating the obvious, but it seems I need to. Think about it these are the people that for some reason or the other don't want to or can't move to the US, so they're restricted to this economy, which means lower pay.
I'm Paul DeMone at RWT could tell you a fair bit about from first hand knowledge.
BTW, the ARTx team is in the US, so why would they not pay them in USD?
So Russ you live in Austin aye? Well you must know where I live then :)
RussSchultz
27-Mar-2003, 19:05
I try to forget the year of weekends I spent in College Station visiting my wife.
Thankfully, that's a few years ago.
Neutrality
27-Mar-2003, 20:03
......our min wage is $6.50....
:shock:
Heh, thats pretty darn low.
Where I live the min wage is $12.
-Neutrality-
Heh, well that is in Canadian funds. $12 an hour here is not bad pay but not that great either. Your $ must trade pretty cheaply compared to the US $. Canadian $ = approx $0.67 US.
Its $12 US dollars. I live in Denmark and here the min wage is 85 DKK and with the current exchange rate thats a little over $12 US Dollars.
-Neutrality-
Himself
27-Mar-2003, 20:56
Well, how much you get paid only matters if everything costs the same. :)
RussSchultz
27-Mar-2003, 21:12
What!? I thought if we raised the minimum wage far enough, we'd solve the poverty problem.
(and no, I don't believe that)
-Neutrality-[/quote]
Heh, well that is in Canadian funds. $12 an hour here is not bad pay but not that great either. Your $ must trade pretty cheaply compared to the US $. Canadian $ = approx $0.67 US.[/quote]
Its $12 US dollars. I live in Denmark and here the min wage is 85 DKK and with the current exchange rate thats a little over $12 US Dollars.
-Neutrality-[/quote]
Holy crap im moving to denmark! Free university education and a reasonable minimum wage!... just one question how much is the pizza in your country and how much is the typical combo at rotten ronnies?... Knowing how profitable junk food outlets are im betting its not much more pricey then here...
Neutrality
27-Mar-2003, 22:20
Himself, RussSchultz : Lets just say that in Denmark there are NO poor people. So while we have very high taxes(second highest in the world) and goods usually are quite expensive its really a non issue since no one here has to worry about medical care, education(everything, including going to a university is paid for by the state, books excluded) etc.
With one of the lowest crime rates in the world, very liberal laws on alcohol, sex, etc. its not a bad place at all to live.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/da.html
-Neutrality-
Sabastian
28-Mar-2003, 02:15
(...) the US and Britain will come out smelling like roses.
I don't think so.
(Warning: could be disturbing to some. But no more disturbing than the rampant jingoism of CNN and the like)
Yeah lets just forget about the oppression of the Sadam and blame the US over that poor sole. Never mind he holds the country by use of terroristic tactics like this on the people he is ruling."Fight them Americans to your deaths..... if you don't we will kill your family." His regime has kept the Southern peoples of Iraq is third world poverty. Forget about the hundreds of thousands of people whom have died under his rule. Never mind he has used chemical warfare on the people of Iraq and neighboring countries. Forget about the fact that he trans terrists in his country. Forget about the fact that he attempted to take over Kuwait. Never mind that Saudi Arabia is fearful of Sadam. How many have died under his rule over the past 20 years? The numbers probably can easily be measured in the millions.
Kurdish victims...(warning the images may be disturbing.)
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
Never mind the media is massively controlled in Iraq and they portray America as an evil place ruled by evil people.(This will change.) Never mind Sadam is in his last days and the resistance to the collition forces is futile. The colition forces are not trying to kill civilians and I am sure that the people of Iraq are seeing that effort. The POWs that the colition are taking in are being treated well. There are no real good arguments against regime change in Iraq..... non. The people of Iraq are being controlled by a massive army that is unscrupulous in their tact and for the most part the people of Iraq want to see Sadam go.
Sadam will be ousted, leave no doubt about this the people of Iraq will come to know the US for what it really is after Sadams regime is removed and they will see that they have been missing out on in terms of liberty and wealth creation.
Iraq is a rich country supplying massive amounts of oil to the world market there will be an explosion of wealth in favour of the Iraqi people that they simply don't have because of Sadam.
It may take a couple of months to destroy Sadams military(at the most.) machine but after that there will be very small pockets of resistance. Shortly there after the people of Iraq will have a democratic election and will elect their new leader whom will be subject to the populations vote in the next election. Iraq will develop its own police force and the US and UK will exit leaving Iraq with a new lease on life.. With the freedom to speak out their own opinions and say what they will without fear of the state cutting their tongues out. The people of Iraq will be, I believe, grateful to the US and UK for this. In the end they will wonder why everyone opposed the Iraqi people from release of the Sadam government. Pacifist are really making asses of themselves on this because they are supporting an oppressive government that will not go without the use of force.
Sabastian
28-Mar-2003, 13:32
Iraqi militia fires on civilians.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/890574.asp?0cv=CB10
epicstruggle
28-Mar-2003, 13:54
With one of the lowest crime rates in the world, very liberal laws on alcohol, sex, etc. its not a bad place at all to live.
-Neutrality-
Sorry but most people dont catagorize how good a place to live based on how liberal the laws are on alcohol, sex, etc. (where i think etc is drugs).
Im curious about denmark:
-what is the minimum drinking age?
-what is the age of consent?
-is marij. il/legal there?
later,
Sabastian
28-Mar-2003, 14:14
Exactly.. hard to have crimes of possession illegal drugs, rape, prostitution etc if these things are not illegal.
Further I would also argue that their unemployment numbers are also skewed and those whom are on unemployment are reported as employed or not registered as unemployed because they have an income. Also what percent of the population is employed by the state? (artifical employment.)
These countries that have high tax rates must absolutely hide or not show the problems they have because the state is responsible and if they are doing poorly then it looks real bad on them. Even the people in these countries could not really say if they know their governments are being honest about these stats all they can do is regurgitate what they are told.
A high min wage is inflationary in that it devalues the dollar. It cost more to produce something that can be done else where for considerably less but really does not help anyone because everything costs more to buy because of the increase in cost to produce. The people are getting wage increases even though they are not being more productive.
Neutrality
28-Mar-2003, 14:25
-what is the minimum drinking age?
There is none. However you have to be 15 to buy alcohol at a store and 18 to buy it at bars etc.
-what is the age of consent?
Its 15.
-is marij. il/legal there?
Illegal, though that might change in the future.
-Neutrality-
chavvdarrr
28-Mar-2003, 14:27
Kurdish victims...(warning the images may be disturbing.)
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
But what about kurds killed by Turkey? Wait, Turkey is US friend... so they can kill freely...
Shortly there after the people of Iraq will have a democratic election and will elect their new leader whom will be subject to the populations vote in the next election. Iraq will develop its own police force and the US and UK will exit leaving Iraq with a new lease on life.. With the freedom to speak out their own opinions and say what they will without fear of the state cutting their tongues out. The people of Iraq will be, I believe, grateful to the US and UK for this. In the end they will wonder why everyone opposed the Iraqi people from release of the Sadam government. Pacifist are really making asses of themselves on this because they are supporting an oppressive government that will not go without the use of force.
You do believe there will be democratic elections? No massacre between kurds, shiits, sunits ?
Optimist. We can HOPE this will happen, reality usually is different
Sabastian
28-Mar-2003, 14:29
-what is the minimum drinking age?
There is none. However you have to be 15 to buy alcohol at a store and 18 to buy it at bars etc.
Hrm, I bet alcoholism is a serious problem, even if the government doesn't say it is.
chavvdarrr
28-Mar-2003, 14:36
has nothing to do with laws.
usualy laws address the weak points of the nation - eg setting minimum age for buying drink won't solve the problem. In USA drugs are forbidden yet USA are biggest "drug-user" in the world. In Holand "light" drugs are legal, but I never heard that this is big problem for them.
Sabastian
28-Mar-2003, 14:43
Kurdish victims...(warning the images may be disturbing.)
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
But what about kurds killed by Turkey? Wait, Turkey is US friend... so they can kill freely....
lol, Turkey has not let the US use their country for the northern front. The Turkish slaughter of Kurds has little to do with the US. Why not protest Turkey? "Turkey is US friend" = bad arguement and ignores the fact that Sadam is Iraqs government and it kills its own people using chemical weapons that are banned. What you have argued here is a poor argument at best.
You do believe there will be democratic elections? No massacre between kurds, shiits, sunits ?
Optimist. We can HOPE this will happen, reality usually is different
Hope is all there is ever. We could have hoped that Sadam would have settled internal problems without chemical weapons or intensional displacement of large portions of Iraq populus into third world poverty ... oh wait. We already tried that at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Gesh, they might as well have had a war.
I would suggest to you that the Iraqi peoples situation is considerably better with the US doing this action. Hope is something the people of Iraq have not had for 20 years under Sadam. Hope is definitly the word of the day for Iraq.
Neutrality
28-Mar-2003, 14:45
-what is the minimum drinking age?
There is none. However you have to be 15 to buy alcohol at a store and 18 to buy it at bars etc.
Hrm, I bet alcoholism is a serious problem, even if the government doesn't say it is.
Well, to tell you the truth the Danish teenagers have the world record when it comes to alcohol consumption but that changes as they get older. However, overall we dont really have a problem with alcoholism.
Ohh, and Sabastian could you please stop with your "the government hides it crap? The government cant really hide anything in my country. We have something thats called Denmark's Statistics. They have statistics for EVERYTHING(or almost) in our country. They are independent so the government cannot influence the numbers in anyway if it wanted to hide the truth.
-Neutrality-
Sabastian
28-Mar-2003, 14:51
has nothing to do with laws.
usualy laws address the weak points of the nation - eg setting minimum age for buying drink won't solve the problem. In USA drugs are forbidden yet USA are biggest "drug-user" in the world. In Holand "light" drugs are legal, but I never heard that this is big problem for them.
Crime rate have everything to do with what laws are in place.
The US has a drug problem no denying that but it doesn't pretend that there is no problem by making "light" drugs legal. Further the US has incredible wealth and 270 million person population so it isn't really surprising to hear that they have more money/people to buy drugs.
The left mentality is that drug use is not a problem. The new opiate of the masses today in left wing countries are drugs/porn.
Sabastian
28-Mar-2003, 15:01
Ohh, and Sabastian could you please stop with your "the government hides it crap? The government cant really hide anything in my country. We have something thats called Denmark's Statistics. They have statistics for EVERYTHING(or almost) in our country. They are independent so the government cannot influence the numbers in anyway if it wanted to hide the truth.
-Neutrality-
Statistics are easily manipulated. Who are the people taking the stats and what is their education/bias? I know how stats can be taken so that the bias wanted to be shown is shown. Whom pays the "third party" statistic organization? What kind of questions to they ask? To whom is the demographic statistics focused on. For instance I know a radical feminist whom was a "statistician" she openly admitted to influencing a pole that showed her bias. They can direct the pole in districts that are known to show particular bias where elsewhere that bias is not predominant.(eg. a downtown district as opposed to a suburban area or rural area.)
Neutrality
28-Mar-2003, 15:09
Ohh, and Sabastian could you please stop with your "the government hides it crap? The government cant really hide anything in my country. We have something thats called Denmark's Statistics. They have statistics for EVERYTHING(or almost) in our country. They are independent so the government cannot influence the numbers in anyway if it wanted to hide the truth.
-Neutrality-
Statistics are easily manipulated. Who are the people taking the stats and what is their education/bias? I know how stats can be taken so that the bias wanted to be shown is shown. Whom pays the "third party" statistic organization? What kind of questions to they ask? To whom is the demographic statistics focused on. For instance I know a radical feminist whom was a "statistician" she openly admitted to influencing a pole that showed her bias. They can direct the pole in districts that are known to show particular bias where elsewhere that bias is not predominant.(eg. a downtown district as opposed to a suburban area or rural area.)
Look, I dont expect you to believe me but the statistics by Denmark's Statistics are as unbiased as they can be. Although they are funded by the government its a PERMANENT expense on the budget no matter what the government is. There is NO bias.
However if you dont want to believe it so be it. I honestly dont care.
-Neutrality-
chavvdarrr
28-Mar-2003, 15:13
Crime rate have everything to do with what laws are in place.
wrong. crime rate depends on how the laws are enforced, not whats written in them.
And presumption that everything 'left-handed' is bad is.... naive to say the least.
As naive as saying that everything 'right-handed' is bad.
You don't wanna be compared with Mao&Stalin do you?
Sabastian
28-Mar-2003, 15:17
Look, I dont expect you to believe me but the statistics by Denmark's Statistics are as unbiased as they can be. Although they are funded by the government its a PERMANENT expense on the budget no matter what the government is. There is NO bias.
However if you dont want to believe it so be it. I honestly dont care.
-Neutrality-
Obviously statistics in Denmark are not a concern for me really. However it does seem as though you are fully willing to believe what this government payed organization wants to tell you. But to suggest that your country life standard is so much better then the US based on statistics provided by your own state is ... less then credable in my eyes. Other then that "I honestly don't care" either.
Sabastian
28-Mar-2003, 15:21
Crime rate have everything to do with what laws are in place.
wrong. crime rate depends on how the laws are enforced, not whats written in them.
And presumption that everything 'left-handed' is bad is.... naive to say the least.
As naive as saying that everything 'right-handed' is bad.
You don't wanna be compared with Mao&Stalin do you?
??????????? Wrong? WTF if you have less laws governing prostitution, drug use etc then it is a logical conclusion that there will be less prosectution in these areas. Further if the laws are not enforced then it will give you even lower crime rate stats. Obviously the laws are enforced in the US and their stats show it.
As for the rest of your argument .... you will have to be a little more clear on just what you are implying.
Neutrality
28-Mar-2003, 15:23
-Neutrality-
Neutrality
28-Mar-2003, 15:34
Look, I dont expect you to believe me but the statistics by Denmark's Statistics are as unbiased as they can be. Although they are funded by the government its a PERMANENT expense on the budget no matter what the government is. There is NO bias.
However if you dont want to believe it so be it. I honestly dont care.
-Neutrality-
However it does seem as though you are fully willing to believe what this government payed organization wants to tell you.
Sigh. Do I really have to spell it out for you? This government payed organisation has existed for decades now and has managed to stay independent and unbiased during several different governments. The government has no control over this organisation. The govenrment might choose to ignore certain statistics it doesnt like but since the opposition has access to the same damn statistics they will most certainly make the public aware of it.
-Neutrality-
RM. Andersson
28-Mar-2003, 15:35
Crime rate have everything to do with what laws are in place.
wrong. crime rate depends on how the laws are enforced, not whats written in them.
And presumption that everything 'left-handed' is bad is.... naive to say the least.
As naive as saying that everything 'right-handed' is bad.
You don't wanna be compared with Mao&Stalin do you?
It depends on the moral in society. You cant have police everywhere.
People in general must be able to feel and understand what is right and whats is wrong. If they cant that society/country will be in deep trouble.
Laws and police can help. But it will not be enough.
Sabastian
28-Mar-2003, 15:40
The government could pull funding on this organisation I am sure. But this won't happen because for the most part this organisation gives the sorts of statistics the government wants. On what stats do the government want to hide this organisations numbers? (EG.The rise of STDs in your country?) What is the governent trying to hide?
Sabastian
28-Mar-2003, 15:42
It depends on the moral in society. You cant have police everywhere.
People in general must be able to feel and understand what is right and whats is wrong. If they cant that society/country will be in deep trouble.
Laws and police can help. But it will not be enough.
I couldn't agree more. Which is why I dispise the moral relativism.
Neutrality
28-Mar-2003, 15:52
The government could pull funding on this organisation I am sure. But this won't happen because for the most part this organisation gives the sorts of statistics the government wants. On what stats do the government want to hide this organisations numbers? (EG.The rise of STDs in your country?) What is the governent trying to hide?
Nope, it doesnt give the statistics the government wants and it cant just pull the funding. Look, on most budgets in the majority of countries there are certain things that cannot be touched. When agreeing on a budget for the following year the money that gets shuffled around is peanuts in the grand scheme of things. The are some basic expenses that just cannot be touched.
Furthermore, the government doesnt try to hide things or atleast it rarely happens. Besides where did I say that they did? The govenrment MIGHT choose to ignore certain statistics it doesnt like but since the opposition has access to the same damn statistics they will most certainly make the public aware of it.
Emphasis mine. They dont because people would find out about it anyway. Hell, they dont even need the political opposition to do dig up the dirty truth. They could just go to the library and read the yearly book of statistics thats published every year.
-Neutrality-
Sabastian
28-Mar-2003, 16:00
Hey ... is it published online? I know what you are talking about when it comes to government funding. eg medicare. But the government is not absolutely obligated to fund the organization in question I am sure. It would have to be in the constitution or some other equally powerful document. What kinds of stats might the government not want to be seen?
Neutrality
28-Mar-2003, 16:20
Hey ... is it published online? I know what you are talking about when it comes to government funding. eg medicare. But the government is not absolutely obligated to fund the organization in question I am sure. It would have to be in the constitution or some other equally powerful document. What kinds of stats might the government not want to be seen?
Sure its not obligated to fund it but since the organisation also supplies the government with data that shows how things might evolve in the future all those statistics are a very important tool when it comes to deciding what the governemnt should decide in the future. Stopping the funding of this organisation would be detrimental to the government and future governments.
As for what the government might like to hide the prime candidates are stats that show that some things have been going the wrong way while the government has been in power. It cannot "hide" those stats since everyone has access to them but it could choose to ignore them. However doing that will most definately effect the peoples opinions of the government. It wouldnt be a wise move unless the government doesnt want to be re-elected. :)
Would the governemnt, any governemnt for that matter, hide certain statistics if they could? Hell yeah, but luckily ours cant.
-Neutrality-
Sabastian
28-Mar-2003, 16:28
The matter is that the government doesn't hide certain stats because they imply what the government wants them too. I do have a healthy sceptic perspective on most anything related with government as most people should IMO. Choosing to ignore is similair to hiding but not really. It is possible that the organization in question is legit. Could you direct me to an English version of the government branch that represents them? I am interested in the variety of stats they try to focus on.
Neutrality
28-Mar-2003, 19:01
Could you direct me to an English version of the government branch that represents them? I am interested in the variety of stats they try to focus on.
I wasnt entirely accurate when it came to the funding of the organisation.
While a large part of the funding comes from the governemnt they also get alot of revenue from businesses and different international activities.
Link to English version :
http://www.dst.dk/dst/dstframeset_1024_en.asp
Heres a little quote from the about statistics Denmark page :
Statistics Denmark
Statistics Denmark is Denmarks central statistical office and is responsible for the co-ordination of all official statistics concerning Denmark and Danish society. These statistics cover a broad spectrum of topics within the areas of population, business, industry, the environment and the economy.
Statistics has a long history in Denmark where the first population census was conducted in 1769. In 1850 Statistics Denmark was established as an institution, and the foundations of its present day activities are to be found in the Act on Statistics Denmark, which was adopted by Parliament in 1966. This Act gives an independent Board of Governors the responsibility to deĀ*termine the institutions work programme. One important proviĀ*sion in the act is that it allows Statistics Denmark access to data from all public adminiĀ*strative registers in Denmark. These have now become the instituĀ*tions principle data source.
Looks like the organisation is even older than I thought. :)
Centralised production of statistics
In comparison with many other countries the production of statistics in Denmark is highly centralised. There are however other national suppliers of statistics than Statistics Denmark, such as municipal authorities and other government departments. But Statistics Denmark is responsible for ensuring that the overall statistical picture is complete and coherent regardless of the source. The centralised organisation of official statistics means that most Danish government departments rely on Statistics Denmark for statistics relating to their particular sphere of competence.
Read the site if you want more info. :)
-Neutrality-
The government could pull funding on this organisation I am sure. But this won't happen because for the most part this organisation gives the sorts of statistics the government wants. On what stats do the government want to hide this organisations numbers? (EG.The rise of STDs in your country?) What is the governent trying to hide?
I would call this paranoia.
A small amount of scepticism is generally healthy, but I would trust this Danish statistics organisation without doubt. We have the same system in Sweden, a independent but government funded statistics bureau that keeps track all kinds of statistics. The track record of these organisations alone should be enough to trust them, plus the organisations has nothing to fear. Would the government pull the plug it would not pass unnoticed.
Sabastian
29-Mar-2003, 00:28
I would call this paranoia.
A small amount of scepticism is generally healthy, but I would trust this Danish statistics organisation without doubt. We have the same system in Sweden, a independent but government funded statistics bureau that keeps track all kinds of statistics. The track record of these organisations alone should be enough to trust them, plus the organisations has nothing to fear. Would the government pull the plug it would not pass unnoticed.
Regardless of what you would call it the matter is definitely something any intelligent human would question being a state funded organization. BTW I don't know their track record and was simply inquiring into the matter read other post after the one quoted. It would be foolhardy to never question the legitimacy of the statistics in question. In fact they ought to be scrutinized at all times to ensure that the organization is not being payed off by the government.(lol) Stats are used to create policy or is it policies need stats in order to be implemented?
Sabastian
09-Apr-2003, 17:39
Heh, too bad no one took me up on my wager.
Heh, too bad no one took me up on my wager.
But the UK and US haven't come out of it smelling like roses. ;)
Plus... not exactly over yet, is it?
MuFu.
Sabastian
09-Apr-2003, 17:47
Heh, too bad no one took me up on my wager.
But the UK and US haven't come out of it smelling like roses. ;)
MuFu.
While the matter is not over and I would still .... even more so wager that they do each day that passes seems to bring that likelyhood to an even greater reality. Wanna bet?
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.