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: 37474
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 (1-1) not displayed.
.
.
.
#2. To: Burkeman1 (#1)
Bush coes not apear in this list, because he may be found in the list of Top Ten Worst Deciderers.
Let's bring a little rationality to a new topic here at FD4UM. This isn't the first report on Iraqi deaths by Les Roberts of John Hopkins to be published by the Lancet. The first one (in which Les was the lead author) claimed 100,000 excess deaths occurred in the first 18 months after the invasion began. This study was *peer reviewed* by the Lancet ... who editors apparently didn't read the report since they proceeded to advertise the first study as saying 100,000 CIVILIANS died during that time, when the study didn't say that at all. But their saying this led thousands of conspiracists and numerous leftist media reporters to claim 100,000 civilians had been murdered by Bush and the evil United States. In interviews that Les Roberts gave on that first report, he allowed the 100,000 civilian deaths perception to stand uncontested. For example,here (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/14/154251#transcript) is an interview he did with DemocracyNow, a far left media outlet (curious how he could never find time for an interview on a conservative outlet). In it, the interviewer (Gonzalez) says to Roberts "Last year, the prominent British medical journal, Lancet, published a study estimating that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians had died because of the war. The study determined that the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the U.S. invasion. We are joined in Washington by the lead researcher of that report, Dr. Les Roberts, who is an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.". Les Roberts response didn't correct the misinformation about the study in Gonzalez's statement. He let the assertion that the study concluded a 100,000 civilians died stand. I think he did that because Les Roberts is DISHONEST and has an anti-Bush/anti-war agenda. He has from day one, as you will see. His dishonesty in the above interview continued when discussing the methodology he used. For example, he said, regarding the interviews with Iraqis on which the study was based, "And at the end of the interview, if they had reported someone dead, on a sub-sample, we asked, can you show us the death certificate? And about 82% of the time, they could do that. And we found that the death rate after the invasion was far, far higher than before." He doesn't mention that only in 2 out of 30 homes claiming deaths did they even ask for a death certificate. Nor does he tell his listeners the reason stated in the report why they didn't ask (fear that they would be hurt by those they asked). And reading that transcript, you will notice that he doesn' t mention the fact that such organizations as WHO and the UN (hardly Bush advocate's) published pre-war mortality rates (a VERY important number in arriving at the estimated number of excess deaths) that were significantly different from what his study found. In fact, his report neither noted or attempted to explain why it's pre-war mortality estimate was so markedly different. The John Hopkin's researchers in the first report said 5 per 1000 per year. Well it turns out that the UN and WHO, in very large studies conducted before the invasion, said 7-8 per 1000 per year. By the way, the Lancet had previously blessed those WHO and UN estimates as correct ... perhaps because at the time doing THAT was hurt the US governments image. Now there are many more criticisms one can make about that first report. But let's move on to the second report ... the one claiming 655,000 excess deaths. That one has all the defects mentions above plus others. For example, the second report claims that 92% of those interviewed in their study who claimed deaths in their families (of any kind) since the beginning of the war were able to provide death certificates to prove it when asked. So if the John Hopkin's study methodology is statistically valid, one would expect death certificates from about 92% of 655,000 deaths should be available if someone goes looking for them. That is over 600,000 death certificates. Of the total number of deaths claimed, the John Hopkins report said "601,027 were due to violent causes. Non-violent deaths rose above the pre-invasion level only in 2006." So according to John Hopkin's, most of the death certificates should relate to violent causes. Now as far as I know, death certificates in Iraq are only issued by the hospitals and morgues. This is what the LATimes (not a friend of Bush or the war) seemed to indicate in June of 2006 when they reported (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-deathtoll25jun25,0,4970736.story?coll=la-home-headlines) that they made a comprehensive search for death certificates throughout Iraq. And you know what they found? Less than 50,000. Here's what they reported. "The Times attempted to reach a comprehensive figure by obtaining statistics from the Baghdad morgue and the Health Ministry and checking those numbers against a sampling of local health departments for possible undercounts." The article went on to say "the Health Ministry gathers numbers from hospitals in the capital and the outlying provinces. If a victim of violence dies at a hospital or arrives dead, medical officials issue a death certificate. Relatives claim the body directly from the hospital and arrange for a speedy burial in keeping with Muslim beliefs. If the morgue receives a body — usually those deemed suspicious deaths — officials there issue the death certificate. Health Ministry officials said that because death certificates are issued and counted separately, the two data sets are not overlapping. The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from "military clashes" and "terrorist attacks" from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137." So here's the question. Where are the missing death certificates? About 500,000, if one subtracts out the non-violent deaths. For that matter, where are the missing bodies? Where is ANY hard proof (photographic, video, eyewitness reports by journalists, ANYTHING) to prove over 600,000 people have died from violent causes as claimed? I'll tell you. Such proof doesn't exist because the John Hopkin's studies are BOGUS. It's the result of a group of researchers (some of whom have admitted they disliked Bush and the War) who hired people in Iraq (who they described as HATING Americans) to gather the data. I think this reviewer of Robert's study (From http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006694.php) summed it up best: "In contrast to the amiable persona Roberts projected to his sympathetic Chronicle interviewer, Roberts comes across here as committed to exposing the American government's moral culpability in invading Iraq. More than that, Roberts' contention that Americans are passionately hated by the Iraqis he met and worked with ought to raise a red flag. It was those same Iraqis, acting as interviewers and team managers, who recorded and conveyed the surveyed families' impressions of the identities of those who killed their close relatives." The results are tainted because they were reviewed and published in a journal that not only lied about the first study (claiming it showed 100,000 CIVILIANS died in the first 18 months of the war) but whose editors admit they fast tracked the peer review process so that it could be published before an election and negatively affect the outcome against Bush and the GOP. The methodology was tainted by expecting the sunnis who bore the brunt of the invasion and who hate Americans (because we freed the rest of Iraq from their tyranny) to tell the truth about casualties. And the study is still being tainted by proponents who willfully hide all these facts every time they cite the numbers in order to promote their agenda. In summary, I'd be very cautious about citing Les Roberts or the Lancet results to prove anything. You might end up only embarrassing yourself. How the Lancet Cooked the Numbers Another bogus body count from those who brought us the last bogus body count!
You have made me feel so much better. You have performed a public service, for which every American should feel grateful. 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, in the absence of any imminent critical threat to our national security. It no longer matters that Iraq had never attacked us and was not about to do so. It no longer matters that W's henchmen cooked the NIE to justify an illegal war. None of that metters, because 50G deaths don't count.
Excellent response. I've always been troubled by similar number crunching bean counters who miss the forest for the trees in their attempt tp rationalize our attack on a defenseless nation. Thank you leveller for giving me the short and sweet message I can use in the future. In the past I have been sucked into the actuarial game of trying to defend the 650,000 figure - you are so right - it matters not whether the figure is 650,000 or 1 - our gov't started a war of aggression and invaded another sovereign nation and killed and wounded and displaced that country's nationals. Our gov't leaders are war criminals and should be charged as such.
Same technique was used for 650K as the UN uses in wars and famines all over the globe. Indeed- the number is a low ball. Its more like a million.
The figure of 50-60,000 is bullshit. Pure-D, grade-A, double-dipped bullshit. We know this because the bodies are stacked in the morgues and there's no place to put them. We know this because people are burying their dead in their back yards. The Lancet study was peer reviewed. Is it gospel? No. But it is based on the same techniques that have proven reliable time and time again in other circumstances. The bias of the researchers is of no moment, because the peer review process is designed to weed out and expose any errors based on bias or poor sampling, whatever. The bottom line is that this is business as usual. The administration's apologists come running to play "discredit the source" whenever they don't like the news. Iraq isn't seeking Yellowcake? That's Joe Wilson's bias. There are no WMDs? That Hans Blix just has it in for the administration. On and on and on. We've been led into another Vietnam by an incompetent and dishonest collection of vile frauds and profiteers. There's little reason to respond to their apologists.
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.
First of all, you haven't proven the 50,000 were innocent civilians. Second, would you be as upset if only 10 "innocent" deaths had resulted from toppling Saddam and making sure Iraq couldn't be used with as a terrorists safe haven? At what number would you draw the line between doing that being a good thing versus a bad thing?
I would pose the same question to you. Would you be as upset if only 10 "innocent" deaths had resulted from toppling Saddam and making sure Iraq couldn't be used with as a terrorists safe haven? At what number would you draw the line between doing that being a good thing versus a bad thing? Or perhaps this is your answer. You would have left Saddam in place to murder tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis every single year, rather than toppling him at the cost of even 1. You would have left Iraq a safe haven for terrorists so they could plan and launch attacks like the one in Jordan where tens of thousands of dead were the goal, rather than invade even if the cost were only 1.
Funny how there are no pictures of these extra deaths. Or death certificates. Not very well and not by an impartial jury. Otherwise the glaring questions I pointed out would have been asked and addressed. But they weren't and the reason is apparent in the Lancet's own explanation for why they fast-tracked the article through the peer review process. True or not, you will not achieve anything better if the foundation of your better world is lies.
Number has nothing to do with it. It's obvious by now, to anyone who is not a Bushbot, that the Administration lied about Iraq being a "terrorist haven", lied about "weapons of mass destruction", lied about any connection between Iraq and 9-11 and lied about just about everything else surrounding our ill- concieved and piss-poorly planned invasion of Iraq. It was a war that we launched "preemptively", based on a bullshit fictional "threat". That's illegal. And in fact we (the US) are the ones who made it a crime when we actually stood on the side of the angels at Nuremburg! It was a "bad" thing from jump. As for making sure Iraq couldn't be used as a safe haven, what the fuck do you think it is now? It is not only a safe haven for terriers, it's a training ground and an ammo dump, conveniently equipped with targets. There hasn't been a single good thing accomplished here. Even the toppling of Saddam was, at best, a neutral acheivement. He was no threat to us, and had been a trusted and reliable ally of ours right up until the first Gulf War, when WE greenlighted his invasion of Kuwait. He would have remained an ally if we'd told him not to invade, because he wouldn't have done it. This is not to mention that he'd never have gotten past low-level apparatchik if our CIA hadn't backed him in his run for Iraqi leadership. Now that he's gone, what do we have in Iraq? We have an ineffectual puppet government that can do nothing, widespread death and misery, and we've given terriers all across the middle east another serious greivance to lay at our feet. Iraq is the terrier's recruiting poster. Young Saudis are catching rides to Iraq just so they can take a shot at a real-live US GI. So it's always been a bad thing, it never was a good thing; hell, it never even was a good IDEA. And any good that could have been done was fucked up by the presidiot and his dumbshit advisors.
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.
The irony of this sentiment coming from an Iraq War apologist is so thick I couldn't cut through it with a chainsaw. This whole war was founded on lies.
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.
so what? so does most of the world. an anti-Bush/anti-war agenda would actually be a pro-peace agenda, if expressed in positive terms. hardly a bad thing. the precise numbers are less important then the fact that there are numbers. and those numbers represent actual people whose lives were cut short for no good reason. the fact that we kill and don't even know who or how many is disgraceful.
The irony of this sentiment coming from an Iraq War apologist is so thick I couldn't cut through it with a chainsaw. You caught that too, huh? WOWSER man, that's off the deep end!
Why is this thing here? I thought this website reserved the right to keep the trash out? It won't be long before more of these lie spouting Bushbots start infecting the place. Debating with these amoral creeps is pointless. Christine, I'd respectfully represent that you'd be bettor off without this traitorous scum stinking the place up.
Caught it? Hell, it fell into my lap.
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.
Naw, let it speak. It's not like we aren't equipped to handle 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.
The Crystal Entity only wishes to absorb you for your energy. (Star Trek - The Next Generation)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Got any sources that don't come from kook wingnut sites? All this stuff is at the level of your Ron Brown/WMD drivel. And please, don't post the ancient WND article about the rusty artillery shell again. Use objective sources from this century.
.
Sudan was numero uno? You mean... no Stalin? No Mao? No Pol Pot? No Genghis Khan? No Hitler?
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Second, would you be as upset if only 10 "innocent" deaths had resulted from toppling Saddam and making sure Iraq couldn't be used with as a terrorists safe haven? At what number would you draw the line between doing that being a good thing versus a bad thing? Thank you for correcting me. There actually is no proof that those 50,000 dead civilians were innocent! Without you, BAC, to light the way, I might fall into the same trap as others, and assume that the burden rests upon the aggressor to prove the guilt of his victims. With your guidance, I am ready to adopt the much more convenient position that the burden is upon the dead to prove their innocence! Otherwise, what sense would it make to say, "Shoot first and ask questions later"? Why have such a motto if we cannot use it? If we are to defend this empire --oops, this Extended Homeland -- we cannot afford to wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom soup. It's 1938 all over again, and we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of Wilt Chamberlain. If you've forgotten where the number 50G came from, I will render you this much assistance. The first source that you cited in your post #3 above stated the following: "To compare this with other studies – the group Iraq Body Count only claims 49,000 civilian deaths, the Brookings Institution reports 62,000, and the Los Angeles Times has reported 50,000 civilian deaths since the liberation of Iraq." Silly me for assuming they were innocent.
They were talking about current dictators. Sudan's was number one (whatever his name is). North Korea was 2. And Iran was number three- they killed a gay last year it seems.
I draw the line at that precise number where the ends justify the means. When I find that number I'll let you know. Most reflective people will tell you that no such number exists.
And can you spare us the op eds in support of your opinion? Why the hell should we read some moron's unsupported opinion in support of your kookey unsupported opinion? 1. No partisan kook sites. 2. No opinion pieces. Those are not support for an argument. (But you know that don't you.)
.
Exactly, and besides, Saddam was grinding up atleast that many a day in his plastic shredder, so on balance Uncle Sam is doin' em a favor.
Christine, I'd respectfully represent that you'd be bettor off without this traitorous scum stinking the place up. The best aspect of this forum is that it is open. A free exchange of ideas, obnoxious or not, is the lifeblood of 4um. Exclusion of posters for content will only draw well-deserved comparisons to other censored forae, such as FR and Likud Post. Neither Loopy nor anyone else should be afraid of the advent of BAC or any other "amoral creeps." 4um would flourish with or without them, but not by excluding them.
LOL. Your choice of pronouns was exquisite.
I still think I got the winner up above with that whole foundation of lies thing, but this is close, I'll grant you.
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.
thank you, sir. I'm here all week...
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.
Exactly, and besides, Saddam was grinding up atleast that many a day in his plastic shredder, so on balance Uncle Sam is doin' em a favor. You know, since Saddam got the death penalty for a possibly fictitious gassing of a couple hundred Kurds, 50G deaths seems just as criminal as 650G.
2. No opinion pieces. Do you think he got the names confused and doesn't know he's not in Goldi's backyard today?
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.
One's enough to get you strapped in Ole Sparky in Alabama.
That's because those clever Iraqis took them to Syria (instead of using them on invading Americans?).
Saddam was crazy. But not crazy enough to use them on US troops. But still crazy enough to give them to terrorists so they could use them against the US. Plus, if he used the WMD on America he would have been executed . . . oh- never mind.
Danang me. I fergot about that! Well, okay, so that one wasn't a lie. But the rest of 'em fer dang sure was!
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.
That's because those clever Iraqis took them to Syria (instead of using them on invading Americans?). Saddam was crazy. But not crazy enough to use them on US troops. But still crazy enough to give them to terrorists so they could use them against the US. Plus, if he used the WMD on America he would have been executed . . . oh- never mind. lol.
Whatever the figure of dead and crippled; it's a huge figure, wrapped in the shame of the Bush Cabal War Crimes. There's the problem - ongoing; and liable to get worse, with Iran over the political horizon. The invasions and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are both War Crimes, from the beginning to this day. Judging by the 'advance party' of shills, Iran is reasonably assured to go down as another massive War Crime - intended to be "Perceived" as a defence of Whore Israel.
Sorry leveller, been there done that. I've seen this happen on two forums already. You accomplish nothing by dealing with BAC. Ask Burkeman1. He tried for years to reason with that thing. I'm not afraid of BAC in any sense. I'm just sick of toleration of these disgusting pigs who've turned my country into the shithole it now is. Samcgwire was right. And BTW, this forum her ewas set up with the express reservation that it WOULD censor these assholes.
And shame to the beasts who try to justify it.
But - BAC and his pack of political sluts are being so "nice," compared to other forums. Still it's a mistake to feed trools, such as his kind. AND - they can be fun, on occasion: Get BAC, get BAC Go home Get BAC, get BAC Sweet Goldi claimed to be a woman That’s BAC, it was BAC Now, go home She got BAC, got BAC Whoooo, Goldi! Get BAC, Goldi Get BAC, get BAC
i'm amused
Comments (42 - 457) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latesttop ten worst dictators
#3. To: leveller, ALL (#0)
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.
#4. To: BeAChooser, ALL (#3)
Where are the missing death certificates? About 500,000, if one subtracts out the non-violent deaths. For that matter, where are the missing bodies? Where is ANY hard proof (photographic, video, eyewitness reports by journalists, ANYTHING) to prove over 600,000 people have died from violent causes as claimed?
#5. To: leveller, robin, Burkeman1, Brian S, bluedogtxn (#4)
You have made me feel so much better. You have performed a public service, for which every American should feel grateful. 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, in the absence of any imminent critical threat to our national security. It no longer matters that Iraq had never attacked us and was not about to do so. It no longer matters that W's henchmen cooked the NIE to justify an illegal war. None of that metters, because 50G deaths don't count.
#6. To: scrapper2 (#5)
#7. To: leveller (#4)
You have made me feel so much better. You have performed a public service, for which every American should feel grateful. 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.
#8. To: leveller, all (#4)
You have made me feel so much better. You have performed a public service, for which every American should feel grateful. 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, in the absence of any imminent critical threat to our national security. It no longer matters that Iraq had never attacked us and was not about to do so. It no longer matters that W's henchmen cooked the NIE to justify an illegal war. None of that metters, because 50G deaths don't count.
#9. To: scrapper2, ALL (#5)
Excellent response. I've always been troubled by similar number crunching bean counters who miss the forest for the trees in their attempt tp rationalize our attack on a defenseless nation.
it matters not whether the figure is 650,000 or 1
#10. To: bluedogtxn, all (#7)
The figure of 50-60,000 is bullshit. Pure-D, grade-A, double-dipped bullshit. We know this because the bodies are stacked in the morgues and there's no place to put them. We know this because people are burying their dead in their back yards.
The Lancet study was peer reviewed.
We've been led into another Vietnam by an incompetent and dishonest collection of vile frauds and profiteers.
#11. To: BeAChooser (#8)
At what number would you draw the line between doing that being a good thing versus a bad thing?
#12. To: BeAChooser (#10)
True or not, you will not achieve anything better if the foundation of your better world is lies.
#13. To: BeAChooser (#3)
has an anti-Bush/anti-war agenda
#14. To: bluedogtxn (#12)
True or not, you will not achieve anything better if the foundation of your better world is lies.
#15. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#3)
#16. To: SmokinOPs (#14)
You caught that too, huh?
#17. To: Loopy (#15)
Christine, I'd respectfully represent that you'd be bettor off without this traitorous scum stinking the place up.
#18. To: kiki (#13)
the fact that we kill and don't even know who or how many is disgraceful.
#19. To: BeAChooser (#3)
(Edited)
#20. To: Burkeman1 (#1)
#21. To: BeAChooser, bluedogtxn, Burkeman1, scrapper2 who is scrapper1? (#8)
First of all, you haven't proven the 50,000 were innocent civilians.
#22. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#20)
#23. To: BeAChooser (#8)
At what number would you draw the line between doing that being a good thing versus a bad thing?
#24. To: BeAChooser (#3)
(Edited)
#25. To: leveller (#21)
There actually is no proof that those 50,000 dead civilians were innocent!
#26. To: Loopy, Christine (#15)
Why is this thing here? I thought this website reserved the right to keep the trash out? It won't be long before more of these lie spouting Bushbots start infecting the place. Debating with these amoral creeps is pointless.
#27. To: bluedogtxn (#17)
let it speak
#28. To: leveller (#21)
First of all, you haven't proven the 50,000 were innocent civilians.
#29. To: leveller (#27)
LOL
#30. To: SmokinOPs (#25)
There actually is no proof that those 50,000 dead civilians were innocent!
#31. To: ... (#24)
1. No partisan kook sites.
#32. To: leveller (#30)
You know, since Saddam got the death penalty for a possibly fictitious gassing of a couple hundred Kurds, 50G deaths seems just as criminal as 650G.
#33. To: bluedogtxn (#7)
There are no WMDs
#34. To: leveller (#33)
That's because those clever Iraqis took them to Syria (instead of using them on invading Americans?).
#35. To: leveller (#33)
That's because those clever Iraqis took them to Syria (instead of using them on invading Americans?).
#36. To: Burkeman1 (#34)
#37. To: leveller, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, All (#0)
#38. To: leveller (#26)
#39. To: SKYDRIFTER (#37)
Whatever the figure of dead and crippled; it's a huge figure, wrapped in the shame of the Bush Cabal War Crimes.
#40. To: Loopy, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#38)
BeOcho was no man
He claimed to be a loner
But it just couldn't last
BeOcho left his brain inside of a trash can
To become another raving ass
Get BAC to where his trash belongs
Get BAC, get BAC
Get BAC to where his trash belongs
Get back BeOcho
Back to where his trash belongs
Get BAC, get BAC
Back to where his trash belongs
Ooh, get back, BeOcho
But looked like an ugly man
All who knew her said she had it comin'
But she had her one true fan
But she got BAC to where his trash belongs
Get BAC, she got BAC
Slammed BAC to where his trash belongs
Get BAC, Goldi
Got BAC to where his trash belongs
Yeah she got BAC, she got BAC
Got BAC to where his trash belongs
You’re his mummy; he's waiting just for you
Wearing spiked heel shoes
And that low neck sweater
Get BAC to his home Goldi
Get BAC to where his trash belongs
Yeah get BAC, get BAC!
#41. To: leveller, scrapper2 (#21)
scrapper2 who is scrapper1?
.
.
.