This discussion should not be about Democrats or Republicans, Peacenics or Warmongers.
What matters here is that wether 50 000 or 650 000 Iraqis have died, that is still a huge number, especially when one considers that this war was started as indirect retaliation for a terrorist act that killed 5 000 in the US. Not just an eye for an eye, more like a head for an eye.
Any civilian death is one too many.
The count from this study sounds a little on the high side to me too, but the previous number (thirty ot forty thousand) sounded very low. It was generated by a true body count when in fact I’m sure many of the bodies never made it to the morge or hospital or whatever.
One last thing: this study had nothing to do with grieving women’s sons being “nice boys” or not, it had to do with them dying or not, by any cause including violence. This is important because part of what this study is getting at is that the quality of life, and health standards, there are a lot worse now.
paintedfeet - 09:10am on 10/11/2006
The previous study estimated 100,000 more deaths above a similar 14 month time period under Saddam. Critics jumped on the 95% confidence intervel which showed 8,000 and 194,000 and the fact that it lumped together all deaths. Frankly, Iraqis and most people couldn’t care what kind of deaths and by who.
The new study is more accurate by surveying more people. It is also not surprising with 100 people showing up executed or dead by torture in a day in Baghdad alone.
If there was a study that showed that 7 million more people died after we were invaded by China would you waste time argueing if it was by poor health conditions and rather it included those supporting as well as those opposing the Chinese? Would you argue it was meaning less because it was possible only 3 million or as many as 10 million extra people died?
elemming - 09:10am on 10/11/2006
7 million. Jesus! Those Commies! Lets kick their ass too. I know they sponsor terror. All we need now is for the White House to list it on their website and we’re friggin golden.
Sparkie Arbuckle - 09:10am on 10/11/2006
If the Lefties had a point they wouldn’t have to lie about the facts.
The Whistler - 09:10am on 10/11/2006
The new study is more accurate by surveying more people. It is also not surprising with 100 people showing up executed or dead by torture in a day in Baghdad alone.
Even if the 650,000 figure is accurate (and it isn’t), so what? How many of those deaths have been caused by the insurgency who won’t quit fighting against the representative government?
You guys are using this number to bash our invasion, but aren’t willing to criticize the people who are really causing all these deaths: the terrorists.
Rob - 09:10am on 10/11/2006
Sparkie, let’s put it this way. Objectively, I can’t prove that the CIA had nothing to do the ‘63 revolution, because you can’t prove a negative.
However, I can look at the assertion “the CIA aided the Ba’athist party in coming to power in order to increase US influence in Iraq” and look at what happened afterwards, as say, “WTF??? This doesn’t add up!” Which it doesn’t.
By 1967, things had degraded to the point that the United States broke off diplomatic ties (the Iraqi involvement in the Six Day War was the final straw). On the other hand, Soviet Union continued to provide military aid to the now-supposedly adversarial Ba’athist government just as they had done before.
Cause and effect don’t match here (putting it rather mildly), so absent credible evidence to the affirmative, I’m afraid I’ll have to reject the assertion. So yeah, “that’s rich!” certainly qualifies as a reasonable retort.
Spark:
No. I disagree. We were happy to help Iran and Iraq as long as they kept fighting each other - ask Michael Ledeen.
Follow the money.
Who was supplying money and resources? The Soviet Union. The US was a bit-player, providing primarily TOW missiles and satellite reconnoissance photos. Why did we do this? Because we judged that the fall of Iraq, and the likely annexation of the Shi’ite regions of Iraq to not be in our best interests. Probably a correct assessment. We did not have as a goal, a continued war between Iraq and Iran.
But sans that “gift” of TOW missiles (which helped the Iran-Iraq war shift to a stalemate), the Soviet Union had a 30+ year history of providing military and civilian aid 100’s of times in excess of what little tad bit of aid we supplied. The Soviet Union has this blood on their hands (along with much other), not the US.
Carrick - 09:10am on 10/11/2006
Even if the 650,000 figure is accurate (and it isn’t)
Based on what exactly do you say the study is flawed? Even the source for the WSJ called the methodology “excellent”. It is no longer and issue of why or whether we should have gone in to Iraq. It is a question of are there enough people applying pressure to ensure it is being prosecuted in the most humane and productive way possible. This administration ignored experts before the war that proved to be true. Trashed plans to do reconstruction in valid manner, and here we are with Bush still saying “let the next guy sort it out”. These researchers were on the ground risking there lives in the name of truth and public health. Why are you wanting to ignore the experts with base asssertions about motivation for the millionth time.
The best evidence is that without the troops there the bloodshed would increase exponentially. How does that justify the exploitation of 130,000 of our finest citizens just because noone is willing propose achange? Three tours? Four tours? Ten tours? Still better than admitting mistakes! Heck, they enlisted! How long with cowardly keyboardist keep ignoring reality?
I loathe the Democrats but the only Congressional hearing with the “commanders on the ground” was exclusively Democrats because the other side doesn’t want to hear it.
The only adaptation from the commander in chief has been the wildly un-successful crackdown of Bagdhad. Stop the false assertions are start doing your homework. Deal with the situation as it is not as it serves you miniscule world view.
Mouthbreather - 09:10am on 10/11/2006
that “gift” of TOW missiles (which helped the Iran-Iraq war shift to a stalemate)
You say ‘gift’ and I say military aid. Whatever. Also - I know goddamn well we taught those guys in Cairo how to torture people and, in addition, we put the Ba’athists in in 1963 - after we apparently didn’t give Saddam quite enough aid with his little assassination attempt in the late 1950s. Furthermore we provided a list of lefties for them to execute after they took over. You can think whatever you want and rationalize it all in a consequentialist manner if you feel better that way.
Sparkie Arbuckle - 09:10am on 10/11/2006
we taught those guys in Cairo how to torture people
hahahahahahahahahahahaha:
Those guys have been torturing people since before the Mayflower.
The lengths that these leftards will go to smear the US.
The Whistler - 10:10am on 10/11/2006
Mouthbreather, show me the bodies. spakle baby, we are still waiting for you to get serious about anything. Pointing. Laughing. At stupid ass sparkle baby.
This discussion should not be about Democrats or Republicans, Peacenics or Warmongers.
What matters here is that wether 50 000 or 650 000 Iraqis have died, that is still a huge number, especially when one considers that this war was started as indirect retaliation for a terrorist act that killed 5 000 in the US. Not just an eye for an eye, more like a head for an eye.
Any civilian death is one too many.
The count from this study sounds a little on the high side to me too, but the previous number (thirty ot forty thousand) sounded very low. It was generated by a true body count when in fact I’m sure many of the bodies never made it to the morge or hospital or whatever.
One last thing: this study had nothing to do with grieving women’s sons being “nice boys” or not, it had to do with them dying or not, by any cause including violence. This is important because part of what this study is getting at is that the quality of life, and health standards, there are a lot worse now.
The previous study estimated 100,000 more deaths above a similar 14 month time period under Saddam. Critics jumped on the 95% confidence intervel which showed 8,000 and 194,000 and the fact that it lumped together all deaths. Frankly, Iraqis and most people couldn’t care what kind of deaths and by who.
The new study is more accurate by surveying more people. It is also not surprising with 100 people showing up executed or dead by torture in a day in Baghdad alone.
If there was a study that showed that 7 million more people died after we were invaded by China would you waste time argueing if it was by poor health conditions and rather it included those supporting as well as those opposing the Chinese? Would you argue it was meaning less because it was possible only 3 million or as many as 10 million extra people died?
7 million. Jesus! Those Commies! Lets kick their ass too. I know they sponsor terror. All we need now is for the White House to list it on their website and we’re friggin golden.
If the Lefties had a point they wouldn’t have to lie about the facts.
Even if the 650,000 figure is accurate (and it isn’t), so what? How many of those deaths have been caused by the insurgency who won’t quit fighting against the representative government?
You guys are using this number to bash our invasion, but aren’t willing to criticize the people who are really causing all these deaths: the terrorists.
Sparkie, let’s put it this way. Objectively, I can’t prove that the CIA had nothing to do the ‘63 revolution, because you can’t prove a negative.
However, I can look at the assertion “the CIA aided the Ba’athist party in coming to power in order to increase US influence in Iraq” and look at what happened afterwards, as say, “WTF??? This doesn’t add up!” Which it doesn’t.
By 1967, things had degraded to the point that the United States broke off diplomatic ties (the Iraqi involvement in the Six Day War was the final straw). On the other hand, Soviet Union continued to provide military aid to the now-supposedly adversarial Ba’athist government just as they had done before.
Cause and effect don’t match here (putting it rather mildly), so absent credible evidence to the affirmative, I’m afraid I’ll have to reject the assertion. So yeah, “that’s rich!” certainly qualifies as a reasonable retort.
Spark:
Follow the money.
Who was supplying money and resources? The Soviet Union. The US was a bit-player, providing primarily TOW missiles and satellite reconnoissance photos. Why did we do this? Because we judged that the fall of Iraq, and the likely annexation of the Shi’ite regions of Iraq to not be in our best interests. Probably a correct assessment. We did not have as a goal, a continued war between Iraq and Iran.
But sans that “gift” of TOW missiles (which helped the Iran-Iraq war shift to a stalemate), the Soviet Union had a 30+ year history of providing military and civilian aid 100’s of times in excess of what little tad bit of aid we supplied. The Soviet Union has this blood on their hands (along with much other), not the US.
Even if the 650,000 figure is accurate (and it isn’t)
Based on what exactly do you say the study is flawed? Even the source for the WSJ called the methodology “excellent”. It is no longer and issue of why or whether we should have gone in to Iraq. It is a question of are there enough people applying pressure to ensure it is being prosecuted in the most humane and productive way possible. This administration ignored experts before the war that proved to be true. Trashed plans to do reconstruction in valid manner, and here we are with Bush still saying “let the next guy sort it out”. These researchers were on the ground risking there lives in the name of truth and public health. Why are you wanting to ignore the experts with base asssertions about motivation for the millionth time.
The best evidence is that without the troops there the bloodshed would increase exponentially. How does that justify the exploitation of 130,000 of our finest citizens just because noone is willing propose achange? Three tours? Four tours? Ten tours? Still better than admitting mistakes! Heck, they enlisted! How long with cowardly keyboardist keep ignoring reality?
I loathe the Democrats but the only Congressional hearing with the “commanders on the ground” was exclusively Democrats because the other side doesn’t want to hear it.
The only adaptation from the commander in chief has been the wildly un-successful crackdown of Bagdhad. Stop the false assertions are start doing your homework. Deal with the situation as it is not as it serves you miniscule world view.
You say ‘gift’ and I say military aid. Whatever. Also - I know goddamn well we taught those guys in Cairo how to torture people and, in addition, we put the Ba’athists in in 1963 - after we apparently didn’t give Saddam quite enough aid with his little assassination attempt in the late 1950s. Furthermore we provided a list of lefties for them to execute after they took over. You can think whatever you want and rationalize it all in a consequentialist manner if you feel better that way.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha:
Those guys have been torturing people since before the Mayflower.
The lengths that these leftards will go to smear the US.
Mouthbreather, show me the bodies. spakle baby, we are still waiting for you to get serious about anything. Pointing. Laughing. At stupid ass sparkle baby.