Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (211535)	1/2/2007 12:04:42 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It's meant to lie. It uses two different sets of numbers. One, the entire military and the other deaths in Iraq. It didn't bother to use percentage of those in the military or include those in other services or serving elsewhere. The entire point of the graph is to lie and say that Iraq isn't really that dangerous. It's the same argument used by Hannity (it could have been Carlson, I don't remember) that said being in Iraq for US troops was about as dangerous as being in California. It's utter nonsense but it's meant to lie and, obviously, it works for their audience. It's, as Michael Crichton would say, garbage data. Consider this a peer review intervention. :)