From the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm 100,000 isn't a trivial number, it's a spectacular number. It's very close to 1 civilian death for every American soldier in Iraq. Never mind casualties. So, America has stormed into a country that never posed any credible threat to its national security, seized its economic resources, and killed 100,000 civilians (so far!). Were those 100,000 people terrorists? Of course not. Most were women and children. I don't know really what to say. No words of condemnation can really match the magnitude of this.
I know what ya mean! Not "fuck". Not even "überfuck"! They say we should support our troups. Yes, let's support them in killing innocent people every day. OMFG! Ya know, there is a thread at another board that is kinda related to this. Here it is.
You have Bush the so-called 'Peace President' and his staff of idiots to thank for it......... Atta Boy
Who do you think is gonna get the nobel price? bush or blair? http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/03nobel.htm :m:
I doubt the reality of Dr. Les Roberts study. The man has gone to many locations during his career, including in Rwanda. He is a man whos politics are extremely left, as determined by the speeches he generally gives. This is the first study that I have heard this high and I doubt its accuracy. One of the most obvious statements to political charging included "Violent deaths were mainly attributed to coalition forces - and most individuals reportedly killed were women and children." Considering that in a city like Fallujah, most of the woman and children have evacuated, I do not see how this is possible. Dr. Roberts based his study on a very small sample, and seems to be more interested in making a political statement. In Africa, he made the assertion that between 1.5 and 20 million died, and described his own work as "shoddy". That was a study of 2600 households. http://healtoronto.com/african_numbers.html All reports of Iraq I hear consider civilian casualties to be around 10-20 thousand, probably around 15. I am always surprised to see in this forum, that noone ever challenges any facts that criticizes the U.S., whether true or not true. I find this forum to be extremely one sided in this regard.
100,000 of dead seems high. My guess: 25,000-35,000 (troops, rebels and civilians). 10,000 of those killed during 1 month long "conquest". The rest after mission has been accomplished. However, how many "indirect" deaths has been caused by invasion and destruction of the meagre Iraqi infrastructure (hospitals, police, water supply, emergency responce, electricity, waste collection, etc.)? What was crime (with homicidal outcomes) level before, during and after the "mission"? It's hard to guess; but it wasn't negligible number. there are 600,000 or so of dwellers in Fallujah. At least 350,000 of them are women and children. It's damn too many people to "evacuate" and dissappear in the air without trace. Where did they go? What do they eat? Where do they live? Why no refugee camps have been created to handle an exodus?
I doubt the reality of Dr. Les Roberts study. And thats your spin on this atrocity is it? That article was peer reviewed and published by The Lancet. On the page titled Information for Authors they say.. Also appearing in the latest addition to the Lancet (Registration is required Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) we have Increasing viral safety in transplantation they conclude, "'Routine nucleic acid testing of organ and tissue donors might increase viral safety in transplantation" (no suprise there Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) they also have an article on Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) as well as "A randomised trial of chemotherapy directed by a tumour chemosensitivity assay versus physician's choice in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian adenocarcinoma" and the equally fascinating "Neonatal ventilation with INhaled Nitric Oxide versus Ventilatory support withOut inhaled nitric oxide for severe respiratory failure: a multicentre randomised controlled trial" Trust me when I tell you, anybody involved in "Neonatal ventilation" needs good science. The online version of the article "Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey " can be found here. It has five authors Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi and Gilbert Burnham Method Findings Interpretation Thats it. It does exactly what it says on the tin. We can all read it and make our own minds up. The survey may IMHO be from the spongy social sciences but it's the most rigorous study to date and should provide a far better estimate than all the reports of Iraq "you hear" Perhaps you could ask some of the science bods round abouts to look at the study and its methodology, don't just take my word for it. But if I had to choose between your position and the Lancets... Sorry Bub Dee Cee
I actually think that 100k does seem about right IF you count the Iraqi soldiers deaths also those 25k to 35k numbers we always see floating around are only civilian deaths...remember Iraq still had a massive army before the invasion....but remember how people were so upset after 9-11 when 3000 people were murdered? well that was outta about 300 million people.....now consider 100k deaths outta an Iraqi population of about 25million......Now you see why they hate anyone who is aligned with America or her allies
Are you saying that you disagree that this is correct, or are you saying how horrible it is? If you disagree that it is correct, why, and where do you get 1000 from? towards, I can't say for certain, but from what I understand he used the standard method of determining casualties. I'm hardly an expert, and am completely open to learning. If he isn't using the accepted method, do you know what he did wrong in this count? What may have happened in Africa means nothing to me or, as far as I'm concernerd, this discussion. What is the standard method, and what makes you think this count in particular is incorrect? As for people instantly accepting anything anti-American, I have a few things to say about that. First, can you really blame them? I think Americans have long held distrust for their government (and well deserved) pretty much since the Cold War started. They feel like their goverment can not be trusted and I see no valid reason to argue with that at all. Second, is what my whole problem is regarding this story... Yes, if it is true, it is a horrible tragedy, completely unsupportable and unforgivable, in my opion. The impact of it, if it's true, will be huge. Beyond that, it really doesn't matter if it's true, and that's what is most scary about the concept of Bush being elected to a second term. Americans are not the only ones that do not trust the American government. Bush's attack on Iraq and all the details surrounding it has completely detroyed the credibility of his administration in many countries (whether deserved or not, it is the impression they have that counts here). Because of that lack of trust, Europeans will believe this story whether it's true or not. That sentiment is spreading all over the world, most importantly throughout Europe (no, I don't get this from any Liberal news source, I get it from people I talk to from all over the world, you can see it yourself right here on this forum). If we lose the UK as an ally we are alone, and we are very close to losing the UK as an ally. If Bush gets back in office and he decides to go on a unilateral attack on ANYONE (which is a very real possibility) not only will Europe and the EU not support us, and we lose our allies, they could very well go on the offensive against us. If that happens Bush will certainly not back down from it, and it could very well spark another world war. Not to mention, if we don't have Europe behind us, Terrorist attacks will skyrocket! Bush may not go on another unilateral offensive, but it certainly is a very real risk, and it WILL NOT end up good if he does. It's just not worth the risk. If Bush gets back in, we risk losing all our allies and all credibility in the world. Regardless of the typical cavalier American attitude that we can take on the whole world and win; a world war will absolutely devistate our already floundering economy, and, of course, we wouldn't be able to count on foreign financial aid. Whether or not this story is true, it perfectly frames up the problem. Electing Bush is far too much of a risk.
A study from a partisan released just days before a US national election. Hmmmmmmmm. I think that's a smidge suspiscious. No way international influences would try to sway the election in America eh? It's just not possible. I can write up a whole bunch of shit about how I took a poll too DeeCee. Does the fact that I wrote it make it accurate? What if I'm a partisan liar?
Wes reread the post. If your still telling me "The Lancet is blah blah." Then go google and try to find some dirt on the lancet. Come back if you find anything out of hand. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Dee Cee
Do you have any valid argument against this particular study, wes? Simply claiming, "He's a Liberal!" just doesn't do it for me. I'm not saying it IS accurate, but you simply stating the obvious, does not do anything to convince anyone at all. What particularly, if anything, was wrong with his methodology?
Do you think one biased view does anything at all to discredit another supposedly biased view? Facts, please.
From what I understand, the 15 - 30k estimates are exactly THAT. This is the only actual study that has been done. If thet's not true (it may not be, it's just what I have heard on the news) please correct me because, unlike SOME, I'm not eager to accept one biased guesstimate's viewpoint's validity over the only apparently accepted study that has been done. Again... Facts, please.
LOL. The conditions of its release are enough to generate a large amount of skepticism. I do not claim it false, just incredibly suspicious. What would you say if for instance tomorrow, the bush campain release a huge story on how Kerry raped, killed and ate over 10,000 babies in Vietnam? Wouldn't you be uhm... pretty suspcious that at least the numbers had been bloated for partisan gain? Then you're a liberal too. If you were objective at all, you'd be incredibly suspicious of either side releasing crap like this just days before the election. If they didn't want it to seem suspicious, they would have done it weeks earlier or a week later right? I mean, look at the emotional reaction to the claim "mostly women and children". I can't say it isn't true, but it sounds like an intentionally gutwrenching partisan hack job. It should do something exactly to illuminate your degree of partisanship. Like I mentioned above, if you aren't highly skeptical of this information, you're a partisan. I have no idea if the methodology quoted in the article was actually used, or the distribution of violence as compared to the data. If for instance, he took numbers from cities that were particularly high in violence, his estimation of the total will be necessarily high.
wes, So, you have no valid reason to discount the accuracy of this report whatsoever. You know nothing of the methodology that was taken. You know nothing of methodology that is normally taken. You know nothing at all about this report other than it came out right before the election, and someone claimed that one of the people involved is a Liberal. Yeah, sounds convincing to me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But, of course, if I don't agree with your half-assed reasoning (though I haven't even argued that it IS correct) then it MUST be my Liberal bias! I'm asking for facts, on EITHER side, and you have no inclination to even hear, or obviously accept any facts, but I'M the biased one. I find it hard to accept that you actually believe any of this. What if Bush stated that there was 20K killed, would you accept it unquestioning, regardless of when the study actually surfaced? I think you would, and I think that's sad.
