Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« I Can Be A Big Man, Too | Main | Stripper's Story Refuted - So What? »

October 12, 2006

Comments

PeterUK

"One would think that six years would have been enough time for Bush to purge the moonbats from State."

Apparently not.

Cecil Turner

I have a small problem with the fact that we've replaced Saddam with an Islamist terrorist.

To clarify: are you suggesting we should whack the elected PM of Iraq? Just curious.

This was at exactly the same time that Maliki was head of Dawa in Syria. That was also exactly eight days before Rumsfeld was photographed giving Saddam a nice warm handshake . . .

Shaking hands with heads of state? Horrors! And if you've got actual evidence of Maliki's involvement in terrorist attacks (more convincing than, say, the head of his bodyguard unit running a car bomb ring), please trot it out.

Cecil asserts that before anyone has a right to criticize our current policy, the critic has a responsibility to outline a better plan.

Not quite. I do suggest that those who can't proffer any plan at all are probably more concerned with politics than the war effort.

The reality is that this is so FUBARed that there simply is no simple solution . . .

Ah, another chorus of "any course, as long as my hand's on the helm." Why do I have a hard time taking this seriously?

If you want to pick a figure for the precise number of excess deaths . . .

Avoid politically motivated studies. The claim of 500 deaths per day is ludicrous on its face. Some other figures:

The Brooking Index, relying on the UN (which gets figures from the Iraqi health ministry) and the Iraq Body Count (IBC), estimates the civilian death toll at about 62,000.

Terrye

anon:

Well actually I have seen polls that put him much higher than that, but consdiering the fact that your average lefty does not bother to acknowledge the fact that the man is even a head of state I would say 58% is pretty good.

And yes, what Syl says is true, if the question is asked in such a way that makes it plain the Americans do not intend to steal wtheir oil and stay forever the Iraqis do not think that targetting them is ok. In fact their reaction is the opposite.

I wonder where the Iraqis would get the idea that the Bush administration just wants to steal their oil and never intends to leave?

I wonder who is feeding them that crap and why? Especially when the people feeding them this crap has to know it puts those soldiers in more danger?

Could it be the loyal oppostion wants Bush to fail because it works for them politically and to hell with the soldiers and the Iraqis?

I think so.

anon

syl

"When respondents were asked if the Americans were sure not to stay forever then they changed their minds about us leaving."

I see you like making things up. If you can find support for that statement in the article I cited, or anywhere else, you should tell us where it's hidden.

"Are you proud you might get a little power back because of propaganda, lies, and exaggeration?"

Speaking of making things up, we're still waiting for you to withdraw this piece of fiction, from earlier: "He has NEVER said Iraq would be quick." Pre-invasion, we heard from Rumsfeld, directly and indirectly, that most troops would leave within six months.

"For you, the world began in March 2003"

Uh, no. You folks are the ones who have no interest in what Maliki was doing with his time and energy twenty years ago. Or who we decided to be friends with even though he was gassing people.

Terrye

TT:

Anyone who actually uses the Lancet study as a source is either partisan to the point of insanity or just plain dumb.

No one, not Brookings, the UN, the Iraqis, Iraq Body Count, AP, UPI, BBC, any major network anywhere including AlJazeera has come up with any numbers even remotely like Lancet's. Every other October Lancet comes up with some crap like this and for the life of me I do not know why people believe it. It just makes them look stupid.

For instance, they say that 14% of the casualties have been caused by suicide bombers...that would be almost 92,000 people. Where and when were they killed and where are they buried? Are their death certificates?

If there is a car bomb in that country and it kills 10 people media from all over the world reports on it, but somehow they missed tens of thousands of people killed in spectacular suicide bombings on a daily basis?

Stupid.

Iraq Body Count says about 49,000 civilians have been killed. IN May, 2005 the UN put the number at about 29,000. Brookings says about 62,000. Lancet puts it at more than ten times that. And golly gee here we are about to have an election. Fancy that.

You know I think someone should do a study on how BDS kills brain cells.

Syl

Anon

Find where BUSH ever said Iraq would be quick or easy. Find it! I was referring to Bush.

And it's really cute you running off your mouth about maliki.

What was it you had against Chalabi again? Oh, nothing, really, he was just a convenient target at the time.

You guys have cried wolf so many times I've almost stopped listening. Suddenly there's a talking point out re maliki and boy you just have to spread it around like an undisputed fact.

Yes, I read that about the poll and no I don't remember where.

So sue me.

PeterUK

The casualties for WWII,Britain had some 357,000 casualties it what was a total war,this was on land sea and air across the globe.
650,000 casualties would equate to the death toll on the Russian front or the War in the Far East,really?

anon

terrye

"I have seen polls that put him much higher than that"

It would interest me greatly if you could document that claim (by showing any poll indicating Maliki has greater than 58% approval).

"what Syl says is true, if the question is asked in such a way that makes it plain the Americans do not intend to steal wtheir oil and stay forever the Iraqis do not think that targetting them is ok. In fact their reaction is the opposite."

Here's what the PIPA study says (pdf):

Support for attacks on US-led forces has grown to a majority position—now six in ten. Support appears to be related to widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the US government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq and would not withdraw its forces from Iraq even if the Iraqi government asked it to. If the US were to commit to withdraw, more than half of those who approve of attacks on US troops say that their support for attacks would diminish

This is what Syl said: "When respondents were asked if the Americans were sure not to stay forever then they changed their minds about us leaving."

Are all these concepts too hard for you too grasp? What the study says is not support for the claim Syl made.

"I wonder where the Iraqis would get the idea that the Bush administration just wants to steal their oil and never intends to leave?"

It might have something to do with the fact that we are building huge permanent facilities.

Geek, Esq.

How much ground combat took place on British soil?

France (810K dead)or Yugoslavia(1.7 Million dead) are better points for comparison.

boris

many on your side are refusing to recognize a disaster

My brother has been there twice with the Army Corps of Engineers working with US and local contractors. First time there the local contractors relied on manual labor and crummy obsolete equipment. Next time he was there local contractors were using the good stuff they had been keeping offline to avoid sabotage. The stronger the "safe" economy and infrastructure gets, the easier it will be to overwhelm the "bad neighborhoods".

That dynamic is not available to the "loyal opposition" relying on the "objective main stream media". So between my brother and blinkered idiots like you ... who to believe ???

No contest loser.

Geek, Esq.
So now the noble insurgency is a bunch of terrorists? Mighty flexible bunch. And I suspect they're better at figuring out which group of Sunni miscreants need killing than we are. (I'll admit open support would likely cause more problems down the road . . . though it has a certain appeal.) However, considering the activities of the Sunni groups, I think we could be a bit less energetic about clamping down on the Shiites.
>

So, you think the US approach should be to actively encourage civil war? Or should we just let the Shiites commit genocide and pacify the country? I guess we need to exterminate all of the brutes if we want to democratize the area.

Fortunately, Cecil isn't in a position to actually implement his ideas, 'cause then he'd belong in the company of people like Milosevic.

Geek, Esq.
That dynamic is not available to the "loyal opposition" relying on the "objective main stream media". So between my brother and blinkered idiots like you ... who to believe ???

I know. I mean, who cares about that whole civil war thing as long as the building supplies have sound structural integrity?

Syl

TT

I, for one, posted many times on this very board since our invasion that the internal divisions in Iraqi society were likely to tear Iraq apart and lead to Civil War.

How dare you take credit for something that did not have to happen. How dare you!

There was no, at least very little, civil strife AT ALL in Iraq until the bombing of the Golden Dome last spring BY ZARQAWI.

This outbreak of sectarian violence would not have happened.

How dare you assume it was inevitable!

How dare you blame Bush for it when it was ZARQAWI and al Qaeda!

How dare you claim you knew all along when you DID NOT.

How dare you claim it was inevitable and thus demean the Iraqi people.

This is just contemptible.

anon

cecil

"are you suggesting we should whack the elected PM of Iraq"

There is a very, very big difference between whacking him and spending enormous blood and treasure to prop him up. Surely you can imagine one or two options in-between.

Anyway, nice job ducking a very simple question. We've replaced a secular thug with an Islamist thug. How does this make us safer?

"if you've got actual evidence of Maliki's involvement in terrorist attacks"

Dawa is a radical fundamentalist group, a sister organization to Hezbollah. Dawa attacked the US embassy in Kuwait on 12/12/83. At that time, Maliki was head of Dawa in Syria. Dawa has also been implicated in other terrorist attacks.

Those are all facts. Let me know if you dispute any of them.

I call that "involvement." It certainly greatly exceeds the convoluted standard of "involvement" that has been applied to Saddam (e.g., regarding Atta and Prague).

TexasToast

Cecil

Avoid politically motivated studies.

Avoid ad hom arguments. You are essentially calling these statisticians liars.

The claim of 500 deaths per day is ludicrous on its face.

There were 547 deaths (300 from violence) in the sample households. That is a fact. You can argue that the sample is not representative, but the statisticians seem to have eviscerated that argument. IBC counts only deaths reported in the media, and are therefore almost certainly severely underreported.

You know, I don't want to sort of stoop to that level and start saying general slurs, but I just want to say that what we did, this cluster survey approach, is the standard way of measuring mortality in very poor countries where the government isn’t very functional or in times of war. And when UNICEF goes out and measures mortality in any developing country, this is what they do. When the U.S. government went at the end of the war in Kosovo or went at the end of the war in Afghanistan and the U.S. government measured the death rate, this is how they did it. And most ironically, the U.S. government has been spending millions of dollars per year, through something called the Smart Initiative, to train NGOs and UN workers to do cluster surveys to measure mortality in times of wars and disasters.
So, I think we used a very standard method. I think our results are couched appropriately in the relative imprecision of [inaudible]. It could conceivably be as few as 400,000 deaths. So we’re upfront about that. We don’t know the exact number. We just know the range, and we’re very, very confident about both the method and the results

Les Roberts

PeterUK

Geek,you are obviously too young to know,Britain's cities were bombed night after night after night.
GeeK smart arsed answers are not going to work. Have you any idea of the intensity of the fighting that took place in the TWO invasions of France,that there were major Armies of the worlds most powerful military nations fighting on French soil.
The Germans fought all the way to the English Channel and fought all the way back to Germany again
Note also the figure include those sent to the death camps,by the Germans and the Vichy French.
There is absolutely no comparison with Iraq and WWII.

boris

actively encourage civil war?

Wow geek, your reading comprehension really has deteriorated significantly.

in a position to actually implement

Others are.

boris

You are essentially calling these statisticians liars.

Essentially calling these statisticians WRONG. Calling you an idiot though.

Terrye

anon:

The numbers I heard for Maliki and his government were on the news, ABC I believe, so I do not have a link. I really do not give a rat's behind if you believe me or not. In fact I heard that most Iraqis do not support either the militias or the insurgents. Amazing as it may seem, most Iraqis just want to live a normal life.

As for Syl's point about support for attacks against Americans being lower if they thought we were going to leave:

From WPO . This is not a proAmerican outfit or a proAmerican poll.

The 61 percent who said they approved of attacks were asked: “If the United States made a commitment to withdraw from Iraq according to a timetable, would you feel less supportive of attacks against US-led forces or would it make no difference?” Most of these—36% (of the full sample)—said that they would feel less supportive, while 23 percent said it would make no difference. Those saying they would feel less supportive included 43 percent of the Shias and 42 percent of the Sunnis.

Non-military Forms of US Involvement

Majorities still approve of U.S. efforts to train Iraqi security forces and help with community development..........

Almost two-thirds (63%) continue to approve of the United States training Iraqi security forces, though most of these (41% of the full sample) think the United States is doing a poor job. Support is especially high among Shias (64%) and Kurds (93%) though only 19 percent of Shias say the United States is doing a good job, as compared to 50 percent of Kurds. Sixty-four percent of Sunnis are opposed to the United States being involved in this way.

Syl

anon

Okay. My bad. Iraqi's want us out, they just don't want to target our troops.

Better?

Hardly support for you.

I'm all for us leaving Iraq if and when the GOVERNMENT asks us to leave?

I'm not for leaving Iraq because the Democrats want us to.

Go that?

Geek, Esq.

I know that Britain's cities were bombed night after night. Remarkably few Britons (62,000) died from those bombing runs. Hell, the US killed more people than that in one night's bombing in Tokyo.

There was no fighting in France between 1942-June 1944. That makes about a total of one year's combat.

Syl

No question mark after 'leave'.

I'm all for us leaving Iraq if and when the Iraqi government asks us to leave.

Isn't that something we could all agree on??!!!?!??!??!?

anon

syl

"Find where BUSH ever said Iraq would be quick or easy. Find it! I was referring to Bush."

Bush is accountable for what his people say. This is especially true regarding Rumsfeld, since Rumsfeld still has a job. Rumsfeld said it would be quick.

I realize "accountability" is a word that's been purged from modern GOP vocabulary.

"Suddenly there's a talking point out re maliki and boy you just have to spread it around like an undisputed fact."

You're suggesting that something I've said about Maliki is disputed. I realize you have nothing substantive to back up that claim.

"Yes, I read that about the poll and no I don't remember where."

Probably on a thread on a righty blog, where lots of people like you contribute fiction.

PeterUK

"There were 547 deaths (300 from violence) in the sample households. That is a fact".

The households were in which areas exactly?

"You can argue that the sample is not representative, but the statisticians seem to have eviscerated that argument".

It is doubtful that there statisticians covered all areas of Iraq,as you say,the place is unsafe.

"IBC counts only deaths reported in the media, and are therefore almost certainly severely underreported".

If the figure came from the MSM,who also never get far out of the bar,let alone Green Zone,the numbers will certainly be double counted at the very least.

Syl

anon

I repeat. Bush never said Iraq would be either quick nor easy. Period.

All you have is one statement by Rumsfeld and you don't even give the context NOR THE DATE he made it.

So shove it.

I responded to the poll thing. Terrye showed you what I was referring to.

Terrye

Les Roberts is either a liar or a madman.

He took 547 deaths and extrapolated them into 655,000 deaths. That is more civilian deaths than the Germans suffered in years of Allied bombing. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden can not compare. The battle of Stalingrad saw those kinds of casualties but the sheer intensity of the fighting made it the mostly costly fight in that awful war.

So yes, I call Roberts a liar.

Geek, Esq.
If the figure came from the MSM,who also never get far out of the bar,let alone Green Zone,the numbers will certainly be double counted at the very least.

I would point out the inherent contradiction, but you're a denialist so there's really no point.

Geek, Esq.
He took 547 deaths and extrapolated them into 655,000 deaths. That is more civilian deaths than the Germans suffered in years of Allied bombing.
>

Germany had 3.6 Million civilians killed during WWII.

You should at least get your own stats right before launching into b.s. like this.

Syl

TT

Those figures are absurd. The U.N. using morgue and hospital records (and the New York Times explained why that is valid) came in with an average of just under 100/day. These figures are FIVE times that number.

The only figure in their report that is absolute is 547 and the number of families they asked.

Everything else is guessing, assumptions, and wild extrapolation.

Attempting to shove those figures down our throats doesn't help your case one bit. It only indicates hysteria and a willingness to exaggerate ::surprise:: for effect.

PeterUK

Ah Geek another number crunching ignoramous.You see the Lufwaffe were conducting terror raids,they were trying to kill civilians,this was your genuine "carpet bombing".Unlike modern precision bombing,bombers just unloaded on a large target area.
Now I want to thank you for making my point,if in the deliberate targeting of cities only( to use your rather callous metaphor) 62,000 were killed in a long sustained war,where there was no area bombing and no sustained land battles involving trens of thousands of troop,warfare was of a guerrilla or terrorist nature

Geek, Esq.
Ah Geek another number crunching ignoramous.You see the Lufwaffe were conducting terror raids,they were trying to kill civilians,this was your genuine "carpet bombing".Unlike modern precision bombing,bombers just unloaded on a large target area. Now I want to thank you for making my point,if in the deliberate targeting of cities only( to use your rather callous metaphor) 62,000 were killed in a long sustained war.

The Battle of Britain lasted less than a year, and was nowhere near the intensity of the Allied bombing runs on Germany and Japan.

Terrye

Roberts eviscerated the claims my behind. Roberts did nothing of the kind. If you want to completely destroy your credibility I can think of no better way than citing this silly ass survey.

It reminds me of the writer {Duranty}, who wrote up the artilces aboUT Joe Stalin and the Ukraine. He covered for Stalin because keeping the revolution alive was more important than the deaths of a few million Ukranians. Reality is optional to the left. Now we have some propagandist and his enablers trying once again to create a fantasy for their followers. Only this time they are making up dead people rather than pretending they do not exist.

This many dead people would be impossible to hide. How do you think Bush got the world media to go along with the scam? And what happened to the people? Did Bush wave his magic wand and make 80,000 metric tons of human remians vanish?

S.t.u.p.i.d.

But no doubt it will inspire some terrorist to strap a bomb to himself and kill some people or at the very least bring down Bush's poll numbers..so the truth be damned. We've got a war to lose here.

PeterUK

"You should at least get your own stats right before launching into b.s. like this."
You seem to relish mass deaths don't you Geek,much like the rest of the left.
So Germany,fight a war to the death on two front,admittedly most of the casualties were on the Russian Front and aerial decimation of the Fatherland.Oh course were must forget the Death Camps where the Germans mudered countless numbers of their own people.
Did you ever see Germany after the war Geek? Major cities just piles of rubble,the Siberian troops of the Red Army raped and murdered their way across Berlin.WWII saw the most destructive forces the human race has ever seen,yet Germany only had six times the casualties of Iraq.

Terrye

I was not talking about total deaths in Gemany. I was talking about deaths of civilians due to Allied bombing raids between 1940-45. Now let's compare that to this idiot survey. If 31% of the dead came from bombing that means the US killed more than 200,000 in air raids That puts into Hiroshima and Nagasaki territory. DUMB.

In fact if we consider all deaths in Germany it comes to more than 3.6 million. But that is not what I was talking about.

PeterUK

"The Battle of Britain lasted less than a year, and was nowhere near the intensity of the Allied bombing runs on Germany and Japan."

So what Geek? We are comparing it to Iraq and the phony casualty figures in the Lancet.
BTW Les Roberts shared a platform with George Galloway.

Syl

But no doubt it will inspire some terrorist to strap a bomb to himself and kill some people

The left decries the fact there are more terrorists now than a few years ago. Crap like this report are a major part of the reason why.

Years of Bush hate, Bush lied, no WMD, Iraq war WRONG and exaggerations out the kazoo have fed the Arab world's paranoia about occupation. You blame all the dead muslims on US instead of al Qaeda and other muslims. The Arab world is eager to agree!

You fan the flames with your rhetoric, then have the nerve to blame Bush.

And you think you DESERVE power?

PeterUK

Les Roberts keeps some interesting company

Semanticleo

"can't you proffer a counterproposal?"

Yeah, but I think first we should hear from you and yours about how stupid this venture was. Once that is aired we might be able to discuss a plan of action.

Terrye

From 1940 to 1945 Bomber Command dropped 955,044 tons of weaponry on Europe(some of this was mines and the land total on Germany is less than this figure).

It conducted 391,137 sorties.

The area bombing campaign was by today’s standards indiscriminate bombing of cities.

593,000 german civilians died (AJ Levine, The Strategic Bombing of Germany 1940-1945, Prager, 1992, p.190)

Terrye

anon:

I said it was not a proAmerican poll.

Terrye

Syl:

Deserve has nothing to do with it. They want power.

If you said them they had two choices:

1} Iraq becomes a stable country with a representative government and modern economy and Bush gets some credit for it.
OR
2} Iraq descends into chaos, hundreds of thousands die and the US is further demonized in the Muslim world and Bush gets the blame.

They would be doing their little snoopy dance for #2.

After Viet Nam I really thought I would never live to see a time when another American poltical class would long to see America defeated, but here we have it. For their own sake, for power. That is all they care about.

Semanticleo

1} Iraq becomes a stable country with a representative government and modern economy and Bush gets some credit for it.
OR
2} Iraq descends into chaos, hundreds of thousands die and the US is further demonized in the Muslim world and Bush gets the blame.

Not neccessarily in that order.

Which will come first the chicken or the egg?

Maybe they both come flying out of a pigs' arse simultaneously

PeterUK

"It is a year since a group of scientists from Al-Mustansirya University in Baghdad, and Columbia and Johns Hopkins Universities in the US, released a report in the medical journal The Lancet estimating that 100,000, and perhaps far more, Iraqis had died due to the US invasion. The issue of civilian deaths in Iraq and The Lancet report in particular were deemed by the group Project Censored as the second most under-reported story of 2005."

Al-Mustansirya University in Baghdad Interesting,desreves looking at.

boris

Which will come first the chicken or the egg?

The clown is always last.

PeterUK

"Yeah, but I think first we should hear from you and yours about how stupid this venture was."

Now come along Septic,you know the rules,you wear the cap with bell and wave the pigs bladder on a stick,you do stupid.

Cecil Turner

So, you think the US approach should be to actively encourage civil war?

Hmmm, dunno. When we support government troops against insurgents, are we actively encouraging civil war? If so, yes. I admit being a bit old-fashioned about warfare, and consider killing the enemy a plus . . . no matter who does the actual killing.

Fortunately, Cecil isn't in a position to actually implement his ideas, 'cause then he'd belong in the company of people like Milosevic.

Heh. I love the liberal approach, and the insistence on pure-as-driven-snow allies. The Northern Alliance warlords were as bad as any Shia militia, Stalin was far worse.

There is a very, very big difference between whacking him and spending enormous blood and treasure to prop him up.

Again, what do you suggest? Stop training Iraqi troops because they're directed by someone you don't like? Let the elected PM be deposed by Sunni insurgents? Make 'em hold another election because when we said "democracy" we really meant "someone we like"?

I call that "involvement."

By that standard, no Sunni group in Iraq could avoid prosecution as war criminals, and our De-Baathification process is woefully insufficient. Though after we get finished purging everyone in Iraq, it's a little hard to see where we get some folks to populate their government.

Avoid ad hom arguments. You are essentially calling these statisticians liars.

If their methodology matches their first study, they merely have a confidence interval that's ~200,000 wide, and touted the number in the middle that has no mathematical significance. That doesn't make 'em liars, merely uninformative. (However, the guy who calls the number in the middle an "estimate" is at least misleading, so the charge is somewhat fair.)

I would point out the inherent contradiction, but you're a denialist so there's really no point.

If we were unaware of the history of Marc Herold (the man who inspired IBC), that charge might seem fair. But even though they seem to've gotten rid of some of his more objectionable methodology, touting them as perennial undercounters is a bit of a stretch.

Once that is aired we might be able to discuss a plan of action.

Heh. Then again, you might not. Personally, I think plans ought to go before the action, but . . .

PeterUK

As Churchill said,
"There are Lies,Damned Lies and Statistics".

Terrye

Why apologize for this venture? What was the alternative? How is it that people who profess an almost abject worship of international law can just overlook the fact that Saddam tried to kill a president, he was in violation of more than a dozen UN mandatory resolutions and he had ignored a cease fire? How many ways could that end, in the real world?

Look at North Korea and that holocaust denying madman in Iran. These states are not a menace to the world because America acted, but because we did not.

BTW I picked this up at Pajamas:

The mortality rate in the EU is 10.10/1000.

The Mortality rate in the US is 8.5/1000.

The mortality rate in Hungary is 13/1000

The world average mortality rate is 8.5/1000 per year.

The Lancet study uses a "baseline" mortality rate of 5.5. Half the mortality rate of Europe.

Yep, just a happy land of kite flying children where no one died. Saddam's paradise.

Well except for the 550,000 children a Lancet study stated died from sanctions.

Like I said, they have no problem contradicting themselves.

Semanticleo

"Heh. Then again, you might not. Personally, I think plans ought to go before the action,"

Still loathe to admit the wrongheaded adventure known as Iraq, are you?

The plan is to get you into a program so the
action of intervention may be implemented.

You obviously have not hit bottom yet.

PeterUK

Les Roberts and the amazing rising casualty numbers

boris

You obviously have not hit bottom yet.

You should know.

Terrye

Peter:

That was interesting. If 655,000 died, I wonder how many millions would have to have been wounded? And where did they go for help? Is there any record of these kinds of injuries? No.

PeterUK

"The plan is to get you into a program so the
action of intervention may be implemented."

Septic,you are going all tautological on us again,the word "action" here is redundant,thus you don't need "the" or "of",try being concise Dear.

PeterUK

Terrye,
The wounded or missing in action seem to vary considerably.Much of it depends on variables like area bombing,artillery barrages,disease,starvation and weather conditions.But the primary condsideration is that if there were 655,000 dead,it would be impossible to miss,the would be vast cemetaries where the dead had to be bulldozed into pits.As with Saddam Hussein and the Nazis.Diseases like cholera would be rampant,there would be vast plagues of flies.Sorry to be so gruesome,but only the army would have the resources to deal with this,it would have been impossible to hide.

anon

cecil

"Shaking hands with heads of state? Horrors!"

When Rummy pressed Saddam's flesh twenty-three years ago, Saddam was not just any old head of state. He had the distinction of being a head of state who was gassing people. So you're right, "horrors!" is the right reaction.

Rumsfeld's behavior was not good for his moral credibility, or the moral credibility of the GOP administration which sent him, or the moral credibility of the USA which elected that administration.

syl

"there was no, at least very little, civil strife AT ALL in Iraq until the bombing of the Golden Dome last spring BY ZARQAWI."

As usual, you can be counted on to say all sorts of things that are pure baloney. Is this something else you read on a blog somewhere?

It's true that things are now worse than ever, but they got bad long before "last spring." In fact, things have been really bad since at least two years prior to last spring.

TexasToast

Cecil

If their methodology matches their first study, they merely have a confidence interval that's ~200,000 wide, and touted the number in the middle that has no mathematical significance. That doesn't make 'em liars, merely uninformative. (However, the guy who calls the number in the middle an "estimate" is at least misleading, so the charge is somewhat fair.)


Is that all you got?

So its a range between 400K and 800K civilian casualties. In either case, that is "no big deal"? The point is, the number, wherever it is in the range, far exceeds the number of victims of Saddam's tyranny. Things are going very very badly.

Everyone else's argument seems to be an ad hom-orama.

PS

The casualties in the bombing campaign against Germany or the Battle of Britain are stupendously irrelevant. I could easily point to the 22,700 casualties in one day at Antietam with as much relevance. This is an entirely different sort of conflict. Its not just us against them - its them against them.

Syl

anon

We've been discussing sectarian violence and your retort is simply proof you have NO idea what's going on in Iraq. The link you posted is about the insurgency. It's NOT sectarian violence.

Are you an idiot or do you just play one at JOM?

The insurgency, you know the ex-baathist and sunni dead enders who were fighting the occupation, and Zarqawi's goons were responsible for all the violence until late this spring when Zarqawi blew up the Golden Dome mosque. Then sectarian violence became a problem.

There had been a few incidents of sectarian violence prior to that time but were isolated. Many in the US with hands on cheeks and mouth opened wide were crying 'CIVIL WAR' but the Iraqis paid no heed--until the Golden Dome.

Syl

TT

Everyone else's argument seems to be an ad hom-orama.

Yeah, like mentining the UN figures.

anon

puk

"There is absolutely no comparison with Iraq and WWII"

Good point. Air power has increased considerably in the years since WWII. In other words, there is good reason to believe that war is now more deadly for civilians.

Consider this: the US dropped 6.7 million tons of bombs on Indochina. This compares with 2.7 million tons dropped on Germany during WWII [source].

How many tons have we dropped on Iraq? Here's one indication:

So far for OIF II, 3rd MAW has dropped more than 500,000 tons of ordnance ... this number is likely to be much higher by the end of operations

Here's an attempt to make a rough guess as to how many people might die when we drop "500,000 tons of ordnance." In Vietnam, the number of dead civilians was 2-4 million. Call it 3. That means that there is a rough correlation between two tons of bombs and one dead person. This suggests that "500,000 tons of ordnance" would lead to 250,000 deaths. Unless we are wasting tax dollars by dropping bombs on nothing but sand dunes and camels.

By the way, that killing ratio (two tons of bombs=1 dead person) is surprisingly consistent when comparing Vietnam and Germany. According to the source you provided, Germany had 780,000 dead civilians in WWII. The source I cited indicates that 2.7 million tons of bombs were dropped on Germany. That's a ratio of 3.5 to 1. Not too far from 2 to 1.

There are a lot of reasons why this is far from an exact analysis, but I think it's helpful to consider these sorts of comparative statistics.

Just considering the tons of bombs we've dropped (and completely putting aside lots of other things that are killing people), I think it's very implausible to suggest that less than 100,000 civilians have died.

By the way, when we deposit a large bomb on top of a building, or group of buildings, lots of excess labor is saved, because the effect is instant burial. No need to fuss with death certificates, funerals or cemeteries. Family members will know someone is gone, but there is little reason to believe there will be any official or journalistic record.

Syl

anon

There are a lot of reasons why this is far from an exact analysis

But ignore them anyway like the report did.

The New York Times explained that family members report the deaths for benefits and other matters. They don't just bury and walk away.

Now foreign jihadis are another matter.

Isn't it interesting that over 600,000 innocent Iraqi civilians were killed but no jihadis, no insurgents, no sunni dead-enders, no criminals, no militia revenge-takers?

Where are THEIR bodies?

Rick Ballard

A more recent episode of unpleasantness is the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict#_note-usaid> Israel Lebanon contretemp that lasted some 32 days with around 1,500 killed and around 5,000 injured. That's about 50 killed per day and 160 wounded.

So Iraq has been 10 times as dangerous as an actual war for two and one half years.

Sure.

Roberts and Burnham are liars - and damn poor ones at that.

PeterUK

"Good point. Air power has increased considerably in the years since WWII. In other words, there is good reason to believe that war is now more deadly for civilians".

The non sequitur as usual Anon,
Accuracy has improved immensely since the WWII "drop and forget" iron bomb,no laser guidance,no onboard micro-computers for targeting,no need for area bombing.Air Power has increased in terms of the aircraft sophistication and accuracy of weaponry,but in terms of bomb loads,except for the old B52,bomb loads are smaller.Why? Because with accurate bombs there is no need to area bomb indiscriminately.To that end concrete bomds without warheads were utilised in Iraq.
So no there isn't a good reason to think that war is more dangerous for civilians,when it comes to aerial bombardment.


"Consider this: the US dropped 6.7 million tons of bombs on Indochina. This compares with 2.7 million tons dropped on Germany during WWII"

Interesting analogy anon,sadly the technology of warfare has moved on since Vietnam,where the same strategy as WWII with bigger and better aircraft was used.
The principle difference being,Germany was an urbanised, industrial nation,thus providing more targets,Vietnam on the other hand was a mainly pre-undustrial peasant society,so on the one hand,in Germany it was cities which were bombed,in Vietnam it was jungle and paddy fields.
The last point being,what on earth have the bombing volumes of either WWII or Vietnam got to do with the plain fact that the same area bombing strategy was NOT used in Iraq?
You have noticed that Baghdad is still standing?

PeterUK

"By the way, when we deposit a large bomb on top of a building, or group of buildings, lots of excess labor is saved, because the effect is instant burial. No need to fuss with death certificates, funerals or cemeteries. Family members will know someone is gone, but there is little reason to believe there will be any official or journalistic record."

One can just imagine the folks at numbers 5 and 9 Saddam Hussein Parkway chatting to each,completely ignoring the mound of rubble that was number 7,"You know,I haven't seen the al Zarkawis since the night of the big bang".
Hell anon, that was the most racially supremacist remark I've read in a long time.

anon

terrye

"The numbers I heard for Maliki and his government were on the news, ABC I believe, so I do not have a link. I really do not give a rat's behind if you believe me or not"

I really don't give a rat's behind whether or not you give a rat's behind because you're proving something important, despite yourself: that threads like this are mostly filled with fiction and fantasy, written by people like you who don't give a rat's behind about getting their facts straight.

"As for Syl's point about support for attacks against Americans being lower if they thought we were going to leave"

I see you really do have trouble with simple concepts. What you're claiming Syl said is not what Syl said. This is what Syl said: "When respondents were asked if the Americans were sure not to stay forever then they changed their minds about us leaving."

Syl wasn't making a point about Iraqi support for attacks against us. Syl was making a point about Iraqi desire to see us go. Not the same thing. Is this really over your head?

Syl

Anon

Syl wasn't making a point about Iraqi support for attacks against us. Syl was making a point about Iraqi desire to see us go. Not the same thing. Is this really over your head?

FU

I already corrected my statement hours ago.

written by people like you who don't give a rat's behind about getting their facts straight.

No, it's filled by trolls who can't READ.


anon

syl

"Okay. My bad. Iraqi's want us out, they just don't want to target our troops."

I see you're still creating your own reality. That must be nice for you.

Where do you get "they just don't want to target our troops?" Most Iraqis do support attacks against us (pdf):

Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.

You're trying to inflate the following into something it's not:

There is also some evidence that if the US were to make a commitment to withdraw according to a timetable, support for attacks would diminish. The 61 percent who said they approved of attacks were asked: “If the US made a commitment to withdraw from Iraq according to a timetable, would you feel less supportive of attacks against US-led forces or would it make no difference?” Most of these—36% (of the full sample)—said that they would feel less supportive, while 23 percent said it would make no difference.

First of all, that's hypothetical. It's about what would happen if we managed to convince Iraqis we're not interested in creating permanent US bases there. 77% of Iraqis have that belief. Until or unless we convince them to change that belief, your statement ("they just don't want to target our troops") is meaningless.

Aside from that, you're overstating the effect. The survey tells us some Iraqis would be "less supportive" of attacks against us if they stopped believing we were planning permanent bases. But the survey doesn't tell us what "less supportive" means.

"I'm all for us leaving Iraq if and when the GOVERNMENT asks us to leave?"

We're keeping Maliki in power. This is what he gains by getting us to leave: nothing. Bush's wishes and Maliki's wishes are quite congruent, in this regard, at least for now.

"I'm not for leaving Iraq because the Democrats want us to."

Most Americans want us out. Most Iraqis want us out. I guess you must think most Americans and most Iraqis are Democrats.

As far as this country is concerned, you've correctly identified the current trend, so I won't argue with that part of your statement.

anon

syl

"I responded to the poll thing. Terrye showed you what I was referring to."

What you said and what Terrye said you said are two different things. The statement you made has no support in this poll (or in any other poll, as far as I can tell). The statement Terrye made has support in the poll I cited only if one can't tell the difference between what's hypothetical and what's real. I realize that's probably a good description of you.

"All you have is one statement by Rumsfeld"

Uh, no. There's a statement by Rumsfeld and there's a statement by another official referring to statements by Rumsfeld.

"you don't even give the context NOR THE DATE he made it"

I didn't realize you were google-impaired (but I should have guessed). All you have to do is ask. Rumsfeld spoke on 2/7/03.

And we didn't hear this only from him:

The Secretary of Defense has right along said that he thought that fighting was likely to last weeks, not months. And I've told you that we do foresee an end to the conflict within the six months, and the beginning of withdrawal of troops ... Six months, as I say, contemplates a conflict, a period of stabilization in Iraq, and the phased withdrawal of a large number of American forces within that six-month window. 3/24/03

I guess you're going to tell us that future D presidents should not expect to be held accountable for statements made by their SecDefs.

boris

fighting was likely to last weeks, not months

Combat with regular forces lasted about one week. So Rumsfeld was correct in that context.

And I've told you that we do foresee ...

You seem to believe this is a Rumsfeld quote. Now we realize you are reading-impaired

Rick Ballard

"the phased withdrawal of a large number of American forces within that six-month window."

Troop levels in March '03 were around 225,000. In September they were down to 140,000. A drawdown of 85,000 isn't tiny or small.

Syl

anon

You are so confused you should take a nap. I referred to wanting troops out, terrye posted about not wanting to target our soldiers.

I posted a 'my bad'..what more do you want?

What Terrye posted was EXACTLY what I had remembered reading--I remembered wrong.

I said 'my bad'.

Now get yourself a reading tutor. Are you old enough to vote?

SmokeVanThorn

Don: "I got two ex-wives. Shit from women I don't take."

That's bitchin', man.

Dale in Atlanta

Bin Laden Asked to Replace Al Qaeda Leader in Iraq
13 October 2006 | 15:58 | FOCUS News Agency

Baghdad. A man introducing himself as the ‘Jihad leader in Iraq’ called on Osama bin Laden to oust Abu Ayyub al-Masri who has been appointed the leader of the Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Dubai TV station Al Arabia reports.
Al Arabia showed footage of Abu Osama al-Mijahid in which he complains to bin Laden about unfair acts of violence on the part of the Iraqi unit of terrorist network Al Qaeda, whose leader is Abu Ayyub al-Masri.
“We insist that we are led by an Iraqi, just like in Afghanistan the leader is an Afghan,” Al-Mujahid underscored, cited by the TV station.


So, in the meantime, with more and more terrorists being captured and killed by US and Iraqi and Coalition forces every week; with Al Qaeda in internal disarray; with 16 of 21 Sunni Tribes sigining on to fight THE insurgents and Al Qaeda; Jim Baker, and cabal of quislings, seem hellbent on adopting the LEFISTS policy of cut-and-run-surrender-first, and to try and pull us out of Iraq!

In Vietnam, thanks to the weak-kneed and Leftist, we won ALL the Battles,and lost the War!

And now, because of the Leftocrats, and lack of Will of the supposed Republican "elites" like James Baker, we're going ot repeat history, having won ALL the battles, we'll lose the War nonetheless!

Here's an interesting piece of history: during the ENTIRE Vietnam War, the NVA/VC NEVER won a SINGLE Battle, involving a military unit the size of a Platoon (36 men) or higher! Company, Battalion, Regiment, Brigade, Division, etc.! That's incredible! And yet, we still "lost" the WAR somehow???

In Iraq, it's even WORSE than that!

In Iraq, the terrorists/insurgents, have had NO military victory, in ANY battle, at the SQUAD level (13 men!) or higher, all the way up to Combined/Joint Task Force!

Think about that, and tell me, why did we "lose" Vietnam, and why WILL we "lose" Iraq...............

ONE Word...................LEFTISTS......who HATE America....

PURE AND SIMPLE!

sam


10/13/06 DoD Identifies Marine Casualty
Sgt. Justin T. Walsh, 24

10/13/06 DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Capt. Shane T. Adcock, 27

10/13/06 wric: Mechanicsville Soldier Dies in Iraq

10/13/06 BBC: UK troops begin end game in Basra

10/13/06 AFP: 36 coprses found in Baghdad on Thursday

10/13/06 Reuters: Balad morgue receives corpses of seven men

10/13/06 Reuters: Two bodies found near Garma

10/13/06 AP: Gunmen kill 4 in Baquba

10/13/06 MNF: Task Force Lightning Soldier dies

10/13/06 Reuters: 6 peasants and 2 children killed in a rural area south of Baghdad

10/13/06 Reuters: Local head of a Shi'ite Muslim religious association gunned down

10/13/06 KUNA: Two British contractors killed in bombing south of Baghdad

10/13/06 AP: Coroner - U.S. unlawfully killed British war journalist

10/13/06 Reuters: Police find 14 bodies in orchard near Baghdad

10/13/06 RFE: Bomb Inside Iraqi Police Station Kills Six

anon

syl

"The link you posted is about the insurgency. It's NOT sectarian violence."

Try paying attention. The article I cited deals with both. In particular, the graph includes data for "attacks on civilians and government officials." Let me know if you have some magical criterion for defining those attacks as something other than "sectarian violence."

"There had been a few incidents of sectarian violence prior to that time but were isolated."

The graph I cited shows clearly that rampant attacks against civilians have been going on for close to three years. If you have some proof to back up your statement, you should show it. I don't think anyone will be holding their breath.

"I already corrected my statement hours ago"

Uh, no. What you did is pretend there was no difference between what you said and what Terrye said. You also said "they just don't want to target our troops," as if this reflected current opinion, when in fact it reflects hypothetical opinion based on circumstances that don't exist (and it's also an exaggeration of that hypothetical opinion).

sam

10/12/06 AFP: Iraq loses 25 police to violence each day - US trainer
Violence in Iraq forces the interior ministry to budget a loss of 25 police officers each day to death or permanent injury, a US security advisor said.

anon

puk

"Unlike modern precision bombing,bombers just unloaded on a large target area"

To a great extent, "modern precision bombing" means that we now have the ability to deposit a large explosive exactly where lots of people are. In other words, we have an enhanced ability to kill lots of people on purpose, rather than by accident. We've gotten more efficient.

"in terms of bomb loads,except for the old B52,bomb loads are smaller"

Then we have been delivering an exceptionally large number of "small" bomb loads. We know the total is 500,000 tons, at the very least. Since, as you claim, each load is small, there must be a large number of loads, which means a large number of targets. Please note that "target" is basically a euphemism for "place where there are a bunch of people we want to kill."

"You have noticed that Baghdad is still standing"

Then I guess a lot of taxpayer money was wasted dropping 500,000 tons (at the very least) of explosive that didn't accomplish much. Normally such an action would result in lots of flat buildings and lots of dead people (especially since, as you helpfully reminded us, modern weapons are so efficient).

Maybe those bombs were fake, and weren't really dropped, and it's just another scam to rip off taxpayers.

"racially supremacist remark"

The racial supremacism is all yours, because you are the one blithely assuming that people all over Iraq can afford to do what we did at ground zero: spend months sifting rubble to make sure no fingernail goes unfound.

terrye

"This many dead people would be impossible to hide ... what happened to the people?"

When a building falls down on top of people, it takes a great deal of special effort to find the pieces. We know this because we exerted exactly such an effort at ground zero.

"How do you think Bush got the world media to go along with the scam?"

"World media" hasn't been providing much coverage of Iraq, unless you think "Green Zone" and "Iraq" are synonyms.

"955,044 tons of weaponry ... 593,000 german civilians died"

It's interesting how this ratio (1.6 to 1) is similar to the ratios I observed in the various comparisons I cited above.

"I said it was not a proAmerican poll."

I have no idea what your point is.

"Iraq becomes a stable country with a representative government and modern economy"

For the moment, let's put aside how far we are from achieving such a thing. Here's something else you're missing: "a stable country with a representative government and modern economy" can also be a fundamentalist state which supports terrorism against Western interests. (I realize this contradicts Dubya's comic-book concept of good and evil, but that's the problem with comic books.)

Iran is proof of that, and so is Pakistan, to a great extent. And now Iraq is moving in that exact direction. Bush has done a heckuva job.

anon

cecil

"what do you suggest"

A good start would be recognizing the problem, which is this: we deposed a secular thug and replaced him with an Islamist thug.

You refuse to recognize the problem. This is a pretty solid indication that you're in no position to help solve the problem.

"I love the liberal approach, and the insistence on pure-as-driven-snow allies"

For some reason I remember this: "you are either with us or against us." Must have been some kind of liberal talking.

"By that standard, no Sunni group in Iraq could avoid prosecution as war criminals"

You should let us know which "Sunni group in Iraq" has a history of terrorism against Western civilian targets, similar to the history of Maliki's Dawa. If there is such a group, I would suggest that a leader of that group is not someone we should consider an ally. As you know, "you are either with us or against us."

"Though after we get finished purging everyone in Iraq, it's a little hard to see where we get some folks to populate their government."

If it's really true that every potential leader in Iraq is an Islamist terrorist like Maliki, then please explain how deposing Saddam made us safer.

"Personally, I think plans ought to go before the action"

Too bad Rumsfeld had a different philosophy.

anon

rick

"So Iraq has been 10 times as dangerous as an actual war"

Lots of people will be greatly relieved to hear that what's going on in Iraq is not "an actual war."

"Troop levels in March '03 were around 225,000."

Fictional statements show up here like clockwork.

MTP, 6/26/05:

RUSSERT: ... we had 148,000 from the beginning of the war. It went up to 150,000 after the war, during the elections in January of this year, still at 135,000. That is a much larger force than ever anticipated. SEC'Y RUMSFELD: It has not taken--and it sounds accurate to me--it has not taken a larger force, post- major combat operation, than it did during major combat operation. It sounds exactly correct. We got to a high of 160,000 during the elections. We're now at 138,000.

We went in with about 148,000. 42 months later we're at about 140,000. That does not remotely correspond with what was predicted: "the phased withdrawal of a large number of American forces within that six-month window."

Aside from that, Rumsfeld told us that all we would need after six months was a "residual number" of troops. 140,000 is no one's idea of a "residual number."

boris

"Combat with regular forces lasted about one week. So Rumsfeld was correct in that context."

Rumsfeld said most troops would leave in six months or less. Let us know if you're claiming that "Rumsfeld was correct in that context."

"You seem to believe this is a Rumsfeld quote. Now we realize you are reading-impaired"

The reading impairmant is all yours, since I described the second quote as follows: "a statement by another official referring to statements by Rumsfeld."

sam

Coming soon: Bush v International Criminal Court

sam

"Troop levels in March '03 were around 225,000."

Do you really think you can just make crap like this up!

JM Hanes

TexasToast

"I don’t know how one can describe 650,000 additional civilian deaths (per the Lancet study) as anything other than a humanitarian disaster."

I can describe it as a statistical fiasco. The ≈200K Cecil mentioned was the possible range for the first study, btw, which makes it even more outrageous. Roberts, who is not exactly non-partisan, can claim he was using a "the standard method" but his techniques have been thoroughly debunked by statisticians of nearly every ilk.

When your model produces a range of possible deaths that could be as low as 8,000 or as high as 194,000, you don't just say, what the hell, and split the difference. You go back to figure out where the hell you went so badly wrong. You certainly don't use the same model two years later, and then claim, as Roberts has, that your second survey confirms the accuracy of your first. This is unadulterated statistical bullshit.

The numbers (not to mention Robert's inintial assertion that most of the deaths were caused by coalition, not anti-coalition forces) don't even make superficial sense. The first Oct.'04 survey posited 98,000 excess deaths from the outbreak of hostilities. Spread over ≈18 mos., that would be a yearly rate of 65,333. Yet if you believe his new numbers, that rate soared to 276,000 in 2005 & 2006. On a monthly basis, that represents a change from 5,444 to an astronomical 23,000 per month. Bear in mind that's just an average, so slower months would have to have been offset by numbers even higher. It's absurd on its face, but once again, the anti-Bush crowd have proven easy adopters.

anon

syl

"I don't see you guys reading Iraqi bloggers"

Here's an Iraqi blogger that Allah likes. I don't know if you will, though.

anon

"It's absurd on its face"

I cited someone who is there who thinks you're wrong, and explains why.

sam

100,000 deaths, 600,000 deaths or 2,000,000 deaths?

sam

"the anti-Bush crowd have proven easy adopters."

What on earth does that phrase mean?

JM Hanes

anon:
"I cited someone who is there who thinks you're wrong, and explains why."

No, in fact, you didn't. Zeyad himself finds Robert's methodology troubling and, as Allah notes, offers as his best "guess" a range that cuts Robert's tally in half. Apparently, you also didn't notice that the BBC article you offered up earlier confirms my take on the numbers.

sam

Lets see. The reviewers of the Lancet article were not able to punch holes in the article but the dimwits here use their crystal balls to discern that the article is "ubsurd on its face". Tell us oh oracle in which prison will Bush be held.

JM Hanes

Easy adopter: If the numbers seem useful, why bother with a close examination of the sourcing or the footnotes?

Then there's my personal fav: Bring up a dramatic number, and then, when challenged, ask what's the difference when they're all dead? -- or even better, assault the challenger for reducing real people and real bodies to numbers.

sam

Oh I see. So this would be a good then wouldn't it. "Troop levels in March '03 were around 225,000." Or does that just fall in the making-crap-up category?

sam

Well enough then. Get your ouija board out and tell us how many have actually died in Iraq due to the violence we perpetrated or uncorked. The suspense is killing me!

anon

"But it's peer-reviewed! It's in The Lancet!"

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability -- not the validity -- of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. A recent editorial in Nature was right to conclude that an over-reliance on peer-reviewed publication "has disadvantages that should be countered by adequate provision of time and resources for independent assessment and, in the midst of controversies, publicly funded agencies providing comprehensive, reliable and prompt complementary information".

-- Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet (from an editorial he wrote for The Medical Journal of Australia)

anon

"This is a scientific study with no political agenda."

A mountain of violence and torture growing due to the arrogance and delusion of a governtment -- a LABOUR government -- that prefers to support the kiling of children instead of the building of hospitals and schools.
...

That tempest, that roar, has gathered here today in exceptional circumstances to create a new resistance against war, to say with confidence and resolution, Mr. Bush, Mr Blair, there is a limit to your deception, we are the new resistance, let that tempest start to roll, let that roar begin to grow, it's time to stop these wars.


-- Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet (from a YouTube excerpt of his Two Minutes Hate "Time to Go" tirade on 23 Sep 2006)

Terrye

anon:

It is early in the morning. I have come back on line and fond that you made a mess of the thread.

My dear, I have a life and I have no intention of sitting and reading all your crap. Learn to condense if you want to keep your audience.

The poll I linked to made several points and they often contradicted themselves. For instance the Iraqis want foreign troops out ASAP, no surprise there, but then again not before their own military is ready to take control of the country. Sort of a go away come hither kind of thing.

And there is no indication that the US has deliberately and for the sheer nasty fun of it buried hundreds of thousands of Iraqis under the rubble without anyone noticing. That is stupid.

YOur hatred of the president and the liberation of Iraq and your yearning to bring back the Butcher of Baghdad is so intense that is has destroyed your capacity for rational thought.

Note how few experts on statistics have actually come out and endorsed this study. In fact many of them consider public health people to be a joke, to be socalled professionals who use public health studies to promote public policies on everything from coffee causing cancer to second hand smoke.

So go ahead and make an ass of yourself, I am done with you. boring........

Terrye

A Professional's opinion on Lancet. Not good.

PeterUK

"To a great extent, "modern precision bombing" means that we now have the ability to deposit a large explosive exactly where lots of people are. In other words, we have an enhanced ability to kill lots of people on purpose, rather than by accident. We've gotten more efficient..

THE EXACT OPPOSITE IN FACT,IT IS MUCH EASIER TO ABIDE BY THE DOCTRINE OF ADEQUATE FORCE,THUS BEING ABLE TO OLACE THE RIGHT SIZED WARHEAD WHERE PEOPLE ARE NOT

"in terms of bomb loads,except for the old B52,bomb loads are smaller"

"Then we have been delivering an exceptionally large number of "small" bomb loads. We know the total is 500,000 tons, at the very least. Since, as you claim, each load is small, there must be a large number of loads, which means a large number of targets".

BY YOUR OWN FIGURES,"Consider this: the US dropped 6.7 million tons of bombs on Indochina. This compares with 2.7 million tons dropped on Germany during WWII",500,00 TONS IS A MUCH REDUCED USAGE OF ORDNANCE,THIS CONTRADICTS YOUR RATHER POOR SYLLOGISM IN RESPECT TO THE EXPONENTIAL GROWTH IN THE TONNAGE OF BOMBS DROPPED.THIS THEN LEADS US INESCAPABLY,BY YOUR OWN METRIC THAT THERE MUST BE FAR FEWER CASUALTIES.


Please note that "target" is basically a euphemism for "place where there are a bunch of people we want to kill."

PLEASE NOTE YOU A DECLAIMING VIA YOUR ANAL ORIFICE,"A TARGET CAN BE ANYTHING,ANIMATE OR INANIMATE.

"You have noticed that Baghdad is still standing"

"Then I guess a lot of taxpayer money was wasted dropping 500,000 tons (at the very least) of explosive that didn't accomplish much".

GUESS DROPPING 500,00 TONS OF BOMBS DIDN'T DO MUCH ANON? FROM THIS IT FOLLOWS THAT IF THE BUILDINGS,WHERE PEOPLE LIVE AND WORK,WERE NO HIT NEITHER WERE THE PEOPLE.
SO,WHAT HAPPENED,WERE YOU TENS OF THOUSANDS OF VICTIM COTACTED AN ADVANCE SO THAT THEY COULD LINE UP NEATLY IN THE DESERT IN EXPECTATION OF A BOMBING RUN?

"you are the one blithely assuming that people all over Iraq can afford to do what we did at ground zero: spend months sifting rubble to make sure no fingernail goes unfound."

BUT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT THE "GROUND ZEROS" ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN,SO THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO "spend months sifting rubble to make sure no fingernail goes unfound." AS YOU SO GHOULISHLY PUT IT.
YOUR RACIAL SUPREMACIST IGNORANCE IN BELIEVEING A HIGHLY DEVOUT CULTURE DOES NOT OR COULD NOT BURY ITS DEAD CONTRADICTS THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF HISTORY.tHE MIDDLE EAST IN GENERAL HAS ALWAYS HAD STRICT,OFTEN HIGHLY ELABORATE BURIAL RITES.YOU ARE WRONGLYIMPLYING THE IRAQIS ARE SO BACKWARD THEY CANNOT EVEN DO THE BASICS OF HUMAN NATURE.

lOOK ANON,I RESPECT THE FACT YOU ARE AN IGNORAMOUS,SOMEBODY HAS TO DO IT,BUT IT WOULD BE MORE INFORMATIVE IF YOUR STREAMS OF CONSCIOUSNESS WERE ATTACHED TO EACH OTHER BY LOGIC.THE INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS OF YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE A DISGRACE TO TROLLDOM,WHICH I SUPPOSE IS AN ACHIEVEMENT IN ITSELF.

Terrye

Here is some information on Lancet's history in regards to political activism. Horton is not exactly unbiased himself. Rather loud isn't he?

Terrye

sam:

In your dreams Bush will end in front of the ICC. It is interesting how the left has no desire to go after the Butcher of Baghdad. No..he is their hero. They will overlook and excuse and pretend not to notice his tens of thousands of documented crimes against humanity. Why? Well because he is Bush's enmey and that makes him either an ally or a victim.

It is also worth noting that in the past the kind of people the left has supported and defended, such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and even minor luminaries like Chavez and Castro can openly kill, maim, and slaughter without so much as a kiss my behind from the yammering left. These guys never face justice, not in this life anyway. But Bush??? Oh yeah, he and Cheney must pay. What a bunch of hypocrites.

In fact if one combines Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot the numbers of dead are at least 100 million and the reaction is oh well, what the hell no one is perfect.

But Bush? Well we make up stats without any kind of physical evidence to back them up and send him to the gallows. Lefty justice.

Terrye

Peter:

These morons really believe that coalition forces just fly around looking for heavily populated areas to drop bombs on for no particluar reason and the locals just ignore the stench of dead bodies and don't even bother to bury them.

How can anyone be that stupid?

PeterUK

Terrye,
This unfortunately is the crux of the matter,where we see political bias,the trolloidal mind sees a comrade in arms,they will never challenge the findings of one of their own especially if it confirms their biases.

It is instructive to note the connections between Respect,Stop the War Coalition,Socialist Workers Party and the Muslim Association of Britain the latter having connections to the Muslim Brotherhood,the SWP a revolutionary communist party.Horton's connections to these people ,let alone George Galloway raises serious questions.

Bob

TM I think we have a little sock puppetry going on here. Not sure if you banned the banal one known as anonymous, but it looks like sam is now taken over the idiotic commentary!

At least sam doesn't just repeat others comments... but then again sam doesn't seem to write anything worth reading either. Talk about making crap up.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame