See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit
Source:
The Independent
URL Source: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/118356
Published: Feb 14, 2007
Author: Les Roberts
Post Date: 2007-02-14 09:58:38 by leveller
Keywords: None
Views: 31533
Comments: 457
The US and Britain have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide 14 February 2007 On both sides of the Atlantic, a process of spinning science is preventing a serious discussion about the state of affairs in Iraq. The government in Iraq claimed last month that since the 2003 invasion between 40,000 and 50,000 violent deaths have occurred. Few have pointed out the absurdity of this statement. There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate. First, if it were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq. For those of us who have been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems simply ridiculous. Secondly, there have to be at least 120,000 and probably 140,000 deaths per year from natural causes in a country with the population of Iraq. The numerous stories we hear about overflowing morgues, the need for new cemeteries and new body collection brigades are not consistent with a 10 per cent rise in death rate above the baseline. And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10. There are several reasons why the governments involved in this conflict have been able to confuse the issue of Iraqi deaths. Our Lancet report involved sampling and statistical analysis, which is rather dry reading. Media reports always miss most deaths in times of war, so the estimate by the media-based monitoring system, http://Iraqbodycount.org (IBC) roughly corresponds with the Iraq government's figures. Repeated evaluations of deaths identified from sources independent of the press and the Ministry of Health show the IBC listing to be less than 10 per cent complete, but because it matches the reports of the governments involved, it is easily referenced. Several other estimates have placed the death toll far higher than the Iraqi government estimates, but those have received less press attention. When in 2005, a UN survey reported that 90 per cent of violent attacks in Scotland were not recorded by the police, no one, not even the police, disputed this finding. Representative surveys are the next best thing to a census for counting deaths, and nowhere but Iraq have partial tallies from morgues and hospitals been given such credence when representative survey results are available. The Pentagon will not release information about deaths induced or amounts of weaponry used in Iraq. On 9 January of this year, the embedded Fox News reporter Brit Hume went along for an air attack, and we learned that at least 25 targets were bombed that day with almost no reports of the damage appearing in the press. Saddam Hussein's surveillance network, which only captured one third of all deaths before the invasion, has certainly deteriorated even further. During last July, there were numerous televised clashes in Anbar, yet the system recorded exactly zero violent deaths from the province. The last Minister of Health to honestly assess the surveillance network, Dr Ala'din Alwan, admitted that it was not reporting from most of the country by August 2004. He was sacked months later after, among other things, reports appeared based on the limited government data suggesting that most violent deaths were associated with coalition forces. The consequences of downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq are profound for both the UK and the US. How can the Americans have a surge of troops to secure the population and promise success when the coalition cannot measure the level of security to within a factor of 10? How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of resentment in Iraq if they are not sure if, on average, one in 80 families have lost a household member, or one in seven, as our study suggests? If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide, and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will they credibly be able to criticise Sudan or Zimbabwe or the next government that kills thousands of its own people? For longer than the US has been a nation, Britain has pushed us at our worst of moments to do the right thing. That time has come again with regard to Iraq. It is wrong to be the junior partner in an endeavour rigged to deny the next death induced, and to have spokespeople effectively respond to that death with disinterest and denial. Our nations' leaders are collectively expressing belligerence at a time when the populace knows they should be expressing contrition. If that cannot be corrected, Britain should end its role in this deteriorating misadventure. It is unlikely that any historians will record the occupation of Iraq in a favourable light. Britain followed the Americans into this débâcle. Wouldn't it be better to let history record that Britain led them out? The writer is an Associate Professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2268067.ece
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-140) not displayed.
.
.
.
#141. To: BeAChooser (#139)
NewsMax isn't a source kook boy. It's a propaganda rag to manipulate gullible rubes such as yourself. Remember what I said last night. Try to think critically. Just because a kook posts someting on the internet doesn't mean it is true. By the way, what about Ron Brown?
.
With a falsehood like that, I can see why you are happy at FD4UM. ROTFLOL!
A very valid point which he never seems to address. However if Israel even feels threatened, to them that is a good reason to attack, nevermind they could blow anyone in the region away with their own nuclear and other weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION, though many Israeli citizens are just as horrified at all of this as much as we are, and realize this truth. Won't their leaders ever realize that hyper-paranoia will only lead to grave results for all involved, and deceptions will be found out in the end?
lol. Do you really think I'm helping the credibility of your other FD4UM posters? Would you like to take a stab at disputing the facts I listed in post #123? No? Why is that, Christine?
You think NewsMax, two man blogs and op ed pieces are reliable sources. That's what you've quoted above. And that's why you are a kook - you are gullible and you buy into that sort of crap. When you post someting from a reliable source I will listen. But I'm not going to waste my time with your utterly unsupported bullshit opinions. And that's all you have posted up to this point -- and you know it. Sorry. By the way, what was the conspiracy Ron Bronw was killed to hide?
.
As I said before, all you posted there was your utterly unsupported bullshit opinion. Thank you for sharing. Are you insulting Christine because your covers are being yanked and you need to bail?
.
And how about the huge numbers of wounded veterans, who are saved by modern medicine from life-threatening injuries that would have killed soldiers in bygone days?
Yeah, probably after they were tortured within inches of their lives and threatened with having the same done to their families. People in Baghdad never heard of Zarqawi. He was a made up boogie man and killed off by the media when he no longer served a purpose, probably because too many people were catching on to that fact that he didn't exist or was highly misrepresented.
Care to point out where I've insulted or called anyone here a name since joining FD4UM? Seems to me all I've posted are sourced facts that don't jibe with the GROUP THINK that seems to be prevalent at FD4UM. And the reaction of you folks has been fascinating. Dozens have bozo'd themselves rather than read those facts. Others are trying to goad me with silliness rather than respond to the sourced facts. Others are calling me names and insults. It must be disorienting. And I've only begun ...
Does that make us even? Are the lies of the commander-in-chief, which lead to the deaths of tens of thousands, excused by the lies of his opponents?
Sure, check out your whiney, childish, snotty tone in #144 above. Do a search on your posts to me last night. You didn't think your Ron Brown kookery was silliness over on LP. Why do you try to dis-own it here?
.
But do two wrongs make a right, Diana. Will abandoning Iraqis based on lies such as the claim that 655,000 have been killed help Iraqis? Or will it lead to even greater chaos and death as most people seem to think? Who would be to blame for that? You and your friends? Remember when John Kerry told the public that once we abandoned South Vietnam the killing would stop. At most a thousand or so would die. But that didn't happen, did it. Hundreds of thousands ... perhaps half a million South Vietnamese died ... AFTER we were gone. Do you think Kerry shares any blame for that, Diana?
You mean the war with Iran where the US totally backed Saddam and supplied him with large amounts of money and weapons?
The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday. US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link. Opposition Democrats are accusing the White House of deliberate deception. They say the revelation undermines the basis on which the US went to war in Iraq. The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the US president has again and again tried to connect the war, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation. The report comes as Mr Bush makes a series of speeches on the "war on terror" to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks. Requests rejected The report is the second part of the committee's analysis of pre-war intelligence. The first dealt with CIA failings in its assessment of Iraq's weapons programme. The committee concluded that the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s but that these did not add up to a formal relationship. It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates". It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart. "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said. The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings. It also deals with the role played by inaccurate information supplied by Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the war.
And now why don't you rant about Ron Brown for us kook boy.
.
I see you haven't actually read the John Hopkin's reports. I've not insulted Christine and I'm not planning to bail. Are you, ...?
I'll agree with you that the hatred between the 2 groups is one so deep and so strong that most of us can't fathom it, and it's causing a lot of problems for the whole world. I actually believe they should move all the Palestinians to the US (it's already a dumping ground for the poor from third world countries) if it would make a difference and make the Israelis less paranoid and not so eager to attack, if it would calm things down and prevent all these deaths.
You have sucessfully demolished whatever credibility you may have had. As for photos, the US media is one of the most censored around.
WOW ............ sounds like ..., better known as butt boy, got his feelings hurt, a whiney, childish, snotty tone, how dare you BAC.............. better back off, butt boy is gonna cry .............. butt boy is pretty much one way ...... although he may go both ways sometimes because he will not condemn sexual perversion from everyone, just those he disagrees with politically
Whoever wins a war gets to decide the official death tolls for both sides. The "Jews" did so in WW2 despite the fact the allies won the ground war, just goes to show you who really won WW2, and for that matter WW1. The official totals say aprox. 50,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the start of the war. The key word to remember there is "official" totals. Officially we invaded Iraq because Saddam would not destroy his WMD, but we found no WMD later on. Officially we invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban would not turn over Bin-Laden, but when we had him cornered we let him go. Officially 6 million Jews were killed during WW2, but the European population of Jews was greater after the war was over than when it started. Officially the "Jews" don't control America, but anyone that can think can see that is bunk.
God is always good! Prove that claim was made by anyone in the US administration. I bet you can't. Are you serious? Are you saying that was never said right before the war? Has it been wiped from the media records or something?
Well heck BAC, "Thrown shoes"??? Why didn't you say so before. Golly - these guys are serious!!!
I predicted this many months ago - Robin, we would be blamed for the utter fiasco that the spoiled frat boy got the US into.
The burden of 650G innocent Iraqi deaths has been lifted from our shoulders, to be replaced with the burden of only 50G or 60G innocent civilian deaths. It no longer matters that Bush launched an elective war of aggression, ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Leveller wrote the above, then you responded like this: ++++++++++++++++++++++ First of all, you haven't proven the 50,000 were innocent civilians.
The "facts" you posted in message #123 have all been discredited one way or another in the course of the past 4 years and most recently by the following gov't investigative report released on 09/08/06. It's 151 pages long and you can do word searches relating to your so called "facts" re: Syria and sarvin and nukes to your heart's content - in fact, knock yourself out why don't you - currently you are embaressing yourself by posting screed/propaganda from sites like National Review - I feel sorry for you - well, almost. Please do all of us and mostly importantly yourself a favor by updating your files with relevant new information that has come up since you fell into your Bot coma in 2003. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on Postwar Findings About Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and They Compare to Prewar Assessments together with Additional Views"
You mean the war with Iran where the US totally backed Saddam and supplied him with large amounts of money and weapons? Yep that's the one. Funnelled millions of $$$$ through the US Dept of Agriculture to BCCI, set up a munitions factory in Chile to fab anti personnal pop up mines that caused horrific casulties to the Iranians. They all knew exactly where these terrible weapons were comming from, and even today not one in a thousand Americans have any idea about why the Iranians consider the US Government to be the Great Satan.
Don't mischaracterize what I've said. I neither said or implied that. Do you have to resort to mischaracterizing my statements to win this debate? Why don't you, instead, try to challenge the specific facts I listed in post #123. The post I just made was in regards to the above. Okey I will look at your famous post #123.
Vikram Dodd, Nicholas Watt and Richard Norton Taylor Saturday August 16, 2003 The Guardian Tony Blair's headline-grabbing claim that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to do so was based on hearsay information, the Guardian has learned. The revelation that the controversial claim is even weaker than ministers and officials have been saying will embarrass No 10, already reeling after the first week of the Hutton inquiry into the death of weapons expert David Kelly. It came as the Hutton inquiry announced that Alastair Campbell, Downing Street's communications chief, will testify on Tuesday. Underlining the danger of the inquiry for the government, Lord Hutton has called virtually every member of the prime minister's inner circle. Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The government has been under fire for including the allegation in a September 2002 dossier used to justify the war against Iraq. The revelation that the 45 minute claim is second hand is contained in an internal Foreign Office document released by the Hutton inquiry. It had been thought the basis for the claim came from an Iraqi officer high in Saddam Hussein's command structure. In fact it came through an informant, who passed it on to MI6. The document says the 45 minute claim "came from a reliable and established source, quoting a well-placed senior officer" - described by intelligence sources as a senior Iraqi officer still in Iraq. The government has never admitted the key information was based on hearsay. On June 4, Tony Blair told the House of Commons: "It was alleged that the source for the 45 minute claim was an Iraqi defector of dubious reliability. He was not an Iraqi defector and he was an established and reliable source." Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, said of the claim on May 29: "That was said on the basis of security service information - a single source, it wasn't corroborated." The irony is that the government launched a furious attack on the BBC for broadcasting allegations that the dossier was "sexed up" based on a single, anonymous, uncorroborated source. That source was Dr Kelly. Mr Campbell told the foreign affairs select committee: "I find it incredible ... that people can report based on one single anonymous uncorroborated source." In fact, the foundation for the government's claim was even shakier, according to the document: a single anonymous uncorroborated source quoting another single anonymous uncorroborated source. The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Menzies Campbell, said the revelation damaged the government's credibility. He added: "This is classic hearsay. It provides an even thinner justification to go to war. If this is true, neither the prime minister nor the government have been entirely forthcoming." A Foreign Office spokesman said: "The joint intelligence committee made a judgment on the basis of knowing everything about the nature of the source and the context." Here's one where our pet poodle said it...
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Still not a speck worthwhile content. Just poorly worded and mindless personal insults, gay obscenity and defense of GOP child molesters. What's your purpose here? I mean, other than to disrupt the functioning of the board?
.
I was going to say where is the real proof that he really existed, but then I see there is a whole lot posted there! I have to say your tenacity is truly remarkable! I don't think anyone can dispute that.
Do you have any purpose other than to create mindless disruption? Is your sole reason for being here to tear down this discussion forum?
.
I just did a search on your posts. I have been unable to find a single instance where you have done anything except try to destroy this forum. As far as I can see, you have not posted a single idea or a single serious comment since you have been here. Everything you have done has been the sort of mindless, childish disruption that I see above. Can you show me a single case where you have done anything but try to hurt this forum?
.
Oh my head is reeling!! How do you come up with so much material in so little time, are there 20 of you or something? I scrolled through all that, all the "evidence" of the bad deeds of Zarqawi and his many cohorts, but it's known that torture has been used to get false confessions, and false stories have been planted as well. When all this first started in the spring of 2003, Rumsfeld admitted that some information would have to be doctored for the media, so some of these "facts" can be nearly impossible to verify.
the function I see displayed most often is to attack those you disagree with politically ........... many of the threads here are often anti-FR rants and anti-LP rants or threads that have sunk to back and forth attacks like yesterday ....... when in Rome, do as the Romans ............
Freedumb4um?
So the answer is no, you have never made a serious or worthwhile post here. That is what I see as well, although I haven't gone through all of your posts yet. So I assume your purpose here is purely destructive. You are only here to disrupt and destroy this forum. Why don't you look again and see if you can find one single post where you have participated in this forum with honest intentions.
.
Here's a link to a video wherein our own Dear Leader repeats that 45 minute lie. Fast forward the video past the introductions of the various experts to where the sound bites of Cheney, Rice, and GWB begin - about 1 minute into the start of the video. GWB is standing at a podium giving a speech, with a label "Homeland Security and Iraq" splashed across the bottom of the screen - it's a C-Span video clip with the day Thursday at the top right of the screen. And it's in that speech when GWB is behind the podium that's where he repeats the 45 minute lie. It's pretty shocking to hear once again ( knowing what we know now) all the bald faced lies that the WH told us sheeple - my oh my - it is amazing that Nancy Pelosi thinks it would be a "waste of time" to try to impeach GWB and Cheney. There's more than enough evidence that they fed us lies, over and over again. http://www.infor mationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War" By Robert Greenwald Description of the video's contents: An impressive roster of experts is assembled to provide a generally withering commentary on the quality of evidence and possible motivations of the Neo- conservatives who provided the momentum and muscle behind America's venture into preemptive war. Among them are veteran CIA analysts and operatives, military officers, diplomats, politicians, arms inspectors, and U.S. and British government officials. The fig leaf of the possibility of an honest mistake on the matter of WMDs is stripped away; what is left is the stark and disturbing anatomy of deliberate deceit.
There aren't photos or video of this supposed slaughter even in the foreign media. And Dahr Jamail is no friend of the US and not been censured. Nor has his access to insurgents been impeded. Plus, we know the insurgents are videotaping almost every IED attack they attempt. So why haven't they taken their cameras and recorded this supposed slaughter? I'm sure al-jazerra would be happy to broadcast them.
Well, I did a search on it's posts over at El Pee, and it's last post was around February 6th. Before that it was posting every day, all day. I think it got kicked off of El Pee (although judging from it's posts here, I'd say not for the patriotic reason some of us are in exile, voluntary or involuntary, that is our lack of support for wordwide Zionazism), and it has probably been feeling lonely. So it came over here to pick the same fights it picked over there.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Actually, the OFFICIAL totals do not say 50,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS have been killed. Also, many of the sources saying the number is much closer to 50,000 than 655,000 are not OFFICIAL. Surely you don't consider IBC to be part of the government.
Yes, I'm serious. Prove that US officials claimed Iraq could launch missiles to the US.
Comments (182 - 457) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#142. To: ..., ALL (#128)
Ping to #123. Bet you can't dispute a single fact I posted ...
You haven't posted any facts.
#143. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser (#78)
Also why was Saddam's brutality in particular our problem? Please don't get all holier than thou with me regarding Saddam's crimes. Let's face it, our gov't tolerates the same or worse violence against civilian peoples by other despots/regimes than what was perpetuated by Saddam - actually some of the most brutal regimes we even refer to as our dear allies and we prop up with financial aid.
#144. To: christine, ALL (#134)
ROTFLOL! your delusion is hilarious.
#145. To: BeAChooser (#142)
With a falsehood like that, I can see why you are happy at FD4UM. ROTFLOL!
#146. To: BeAChooser (#144)
(Edited)
Would you like to take a stab at disputing the facts I listed in post #123?
#147. To: RickyJ (#104)
What is the real death toll of our troops in Iraq? . . . . . the war wouldn't be so popular if more Americans were made aware of the real price of war.
#148. To: BeAChooser (#83)
The fact that the terrorists convicted in Jordan admitted they met with al-Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war is proof you are wrong.
#149. To: ..., ALL (#137)
If you would do some honest research, you also wouldn't have to resort to your childish tactic of insulting and name calling.
#150. To: BeAChooser (#111)
It proves for all their whining about "Bush lied", they are just as willing to lie.
#151. To: BeAChooser (#149)
(Edited)
Care to point out where I've insulted or called anyone here a name since joining FD4UM?
#152. To: Diana, ALL (#143)
Also why was Saddam's brutality in particular our problem? Please don't get all holier than thou with me regarding Saddam's crimes. Let's face it, our gov't tolerates the same or worse violence against civilian peoples by other despots/regimes than what was perpetuated by Saddam - actually some of the most brutal regimes we even refer to as our dear allies and we prop up with financial aid.
A very valid point which he never seems to address.
#153. To: BeAChooser (#83)
A million died in wars that Saddam started with his neighbors.
#154. To: Diana (#126)
Saddam wanted a secular Iraq, he did not want any competition with radical Islamic groups, and would have regarded them as a huge threat, but I suspect you already know that!
Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support,
Senate report Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader
#155. To: BeAChooser (#149)
#156. To: ..., Christine, ALL (#146)
Would you like to take a stab at disputing the facts I listed in post #123?
As I said before, all you posted there was your utterly unsupported bullshit opinion.
Are you insulting Christine because your covers are being yanked and you need to bail?
#157. To: BeAChooser (#83)
If it weren't Israel, it would be something else. You FUNDAMENTALLY don't understand what motivates islamofanatics.
#158. To: BeAChooser (#123)
There are no bodies. There are not photos of mountains of bodies
#159. To: ..., BeAChooser (#151)
whiney, childish, snotty tone
#160. To: BeAChooser (#123)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#161. To: BeAChooser (#129)
not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes,
#162. To: BeAChooser, diana (#139)
angry outburst by the defendants that included a death threat and thrown shoes, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, April 21).
#163. To: BeAChooser, diana, robin (#152)
Who would be to blame for that? You and your friends?
#164. To: BeAChooser (#8)
#165. To: BeAChooser, christine, robin, leveller, Burkeman1, Brian S, Diana, ..., bluedogtxn (#144)
Would you like to take a stab at disputing the facts I listed in post #123?
#166. To: Diana (#153)
A million died in wars that Saddam started with his neighbors.
#167. To: BeAChooser (#129)
and you appear to be implying that the "few" who really have died since the US invaded may not be innocent.
#168. To: Diana (#161)
45-minute claim on Iraq was hearsay
#169. To: It Is A Republic, Christine (#159)
(Edited)
AOTR Shill.
#170. To: BeAChooser (#139)
(Edited)
A suspect in a foiled plot to detonate a chemical weapon in Jordan met beforehand in Iraq with fellow defendant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to discuss the planned attacks, according to a videotaped confession played in court yesterday (see GSN, June 23).
#171. To: It Is A Republic, Christine (#159)
#172. To: It Is A Republic, Christine (#159)
(Edited)
#173. To: BeAChooser (#139)
#174. To: ... (#169)
other than to disrupt the functioning of the board?
#175. To: BeAChooser (#149)
Care to point out where I've insulted or called anyone here a name since joining FD4UM?
#176. To: It Is A Republic, Christine (#174)
#177. To: bluedogtxn, Diana, BeAChooser, christine, robin, leveller, Burkeman1, Brian S (#168)
#178. To: tom007, ALL (#158)
As for photos, the US media is one of the most censored around.
#179. To: ... (#171)
#180. To: RickyJ, ALL (#160)
The official totals say aprox. 50,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the start of the war.
#181. To: Diana, ALL (#161)
not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes,
Prove that claim was made by anyone in the US administration. I bet you can't.
Are you serious?
.
.
.