See other World News Articles
Title: British Backtrack on Iraq death toll
Source:
Independent
URL Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2396031.ece
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Jill Lawless
Post Date: 2007-03-27 06:38:41 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 24598
Comments: 394
British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday. The Government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticised study had used sound methods. The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence. The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636. The conclusion, based on interviews and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the US and British governments. But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice". Another official said it was "a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-210) not displayed.
.
.
.
#211. To: SmokinOPs (#203)
Precisely. The delegee cannot delegate. Congress has limited enumerated powers, and among them is no power to delegate its powers. An extreme view, that I favor, is that no regulations promulgated by departments of the government other than Congress have the force of law.
First of all, at the time Jefferson ordered the fleet to the Med with orders to attack, he did not know that Tripoli had declared war. Communications then aren't what they are today. A founding father obviously didn't agree with your views, leveller. That must be sobering. Second, the targets in Afghanistan had most certainly declared war on the US. Bin Laden did it years earlier on a tape played on TV throughout the world. And surely you aren't claiming the Taliban were acting as honest brokers. Or that we shouldn't have done anything about Bin Laden just because the Taliban hadn't made a *formal* declaration of war (according you YOUR definition). As to Iraq, tapes of Saddam talking to his associates make it quite clear that they still thought they were at war with the US despite the cease fire agreement. And surely you aren't claiming that we had no right to push Saddam out of Kuwait because he hadn't formally declared war on us. And I have news for you, leveller. I doubt that Saddam's *constitution* or *laws* specified the form that a declaration of war had to take either. And statements by Tariq Aziz about the conflict make it quite clear that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean WAR with the US. And since Saddam broke the cease fire agreement, a good case can be made that that first war was not over when we invaded.
Their orders wer to protect shipping on the high seas, in accordance with the doctrine of the freedom of the seas, accepted by the Founders.
We had no right to invade Afghanistan to reach those targets. Those targets had committed a criminal offense within our borders. We have prosecuted some of them for domestic criminal offenses. When we demanded Bin Laden, Afghanistan quite rightly demanded proof. We incorrectly answered that we weren't obligated to provide it. (We probably had none) Rather than provide the proof, we invaded. If Bin Laden had had nationhood, his act of aggression would have created a state of war, and the President would have been authorized and duty-bound to respond against such a country.
The state of war that existed between the US and Iraq during most of the nineties was the result of the illegal US and British no-fly zone bombing after the cease-fire. April Glaspie gave Iraq the green light to invade, but this issue is beside the point. It hardly matters whether the first war was over when the second began, since the first one was illegal also. Congress has not declared war since WWII.
Where in the Constitution is it specified which form a Declaration of War from Tripoli shall take?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
EXACTLY!!!! 09/11 was a crime NOT an act of war (except to PNAC, of course).
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
No, the orders were NOT to "protect" shipping but to take out the pirates WHEREVER they might be hiding and to stop those helping them. Which is why Jefferson and Madison's Navy invaded A COUNTRY and DEPOSED a dictator. Did the founders believe in freedom for terrorists to attack US interests from the safety of a dictatorship? Obviously not. A lesson the left never learned.
Afghanistan lost any rights when it allowed terrorists to openly organize and train within it's borders. It is indisputable that they did. The family of the Taliban leader also married into the family of bin Laden, suggesting a far more than arms length association between the two. There's a lesson here that you on the left still haven't learned. We are playing by new rules now. No, they committed an act of war. A war they formally declared before 9/11. So we are legally helpless against terrorists. That's your message, lawyer? ROTFLOL!
Does that give us the right to invade Crawford, TX? Holy Cow but you are stupid.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
It's not just beside the point. It is outright FALSE. And you know it as we've discussed this before. Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting between Glaspie and Saddam, is on the record stating that NO green light was given, that Glaspie said nothing out of the ordinary, that the transcript on which you base this claim is "incomplete*, that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, and that they prepared accordingly. Show me in the Constitution or our laws where the form of a Declaration of War is defined. You can't.
Thank you. That only helps my case. Show me in the Constitution where it defines a Declaration of War by Iraq or the Taliban.
Except that bin Laden actually had formally declared war on the US.
Are you a typical 4um poster?
Jefferson's words will wake you from your reverie: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, 1 only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, & had permitted itself to denounce war on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but 1 answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean, with assurances to that power of our sincere desire to remain in peace, but with orders to protect our commerce against the threatened attack. The measure was seasonable & salutary. The Bey had already declared war. His cruisers were out. Two had arrived at Gibraltar. Our commerce in the Mediterranean was blockaded & that of the Atlantic in peril. The arrival of our squadron dispelled the danger. One of the Tripolitan cruisers having fallen in with & engaged the small schooner Enterprise, commanded by Lieutenant Sterret, which had gone as a tender to our larger vessels, was captured, after a heavy slaughter of her men, without the loss of a single 1 on our part. The bravery exhibited by our citizens on that element will, I trust, be a testimony to the world that it is not the want of that virtue which makes us seek their peace, but a conscientious desire to direct the energies of our nation to the multiplication of the human race, & not to its destruction. Unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense, the vessel, being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew." Thomas Jefferson 1st State of Union Washington, DC, 1801-12-08
You have no case, counselor. A peace treaty was signed with Tripoli by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the Senate, thus establishing a precedent to regard Tripoli as a recognised state. Your boy Bush conducted what is commonly known as "gang warfare", totally uncouth, not to mention illegal and unconstitutional.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Are you Jewish?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
It isn't defined because educated people of the time already knew what it was and what form it existed in. Just like Bill of Attainder, Bill of Credit, Letters of Marque, Oath, etc. aren't defined. They are specific articles that had been issued by the Crown and defined by custom and common law and diplomatic protocol for hundreds of years. They weren't expecting to have to define the form of everything for numbskulls like you.
Thank you. BAC strikes me as the sort of person would try to redefine "breathing" in a infanticide trial.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
The facts are these. They are not disputed by anything you posted. Jefferson deployed the navy, without consulting Congress, with permission to attack the pirates or any entity aiding the pirates, before any *formal* declaration of war had actually been received by the US. Now you can spin that any way you want, leveller, but Jefferson apparently didn't agree with your view about the legalities of war.
And when was this? AFTER Jefferson attacked them without consulting Congress? ROTFLOL!
with a fishy aroma that could level tacoma.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Jeferrson was acting in defense of US interests. Bush got a wild neocon hair up his ass.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Study your history, moron. Look up Adams presidency, note the years.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
shalom fish breath. still trying to poison the reputation of the republican party?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Well let's see ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli states it was signed in 1797. Jefferson sent his navy over in 1801. So I guess that peace treaty was as worthless as the paper it was on? Sort of like that cease fire agreement with Saddam? Eh?
you said wikipedia wasn't a legitimate source when you first came over here.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
is wikipedia a legitimate source for you but not for anyone else? that is a very republican position.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Israelis are deeply concerned about the possibility that Iran will soon have nuclear weapons. Americans should be no less concerned. Israeli Justice Minister Yosef Lapid said recently, "It is possible that Iran's first atomic bomb will fall on Tel Aviv, but then the second will fall on New York." The rest of the Western world has reason to be worried about this too. But the European powers are hard to convince of the need to act against the threat of a common foe, a reality that the United States learned two centuries ago. Then, the Barbary pirates were the adversaries. They were based in various parts of North Africa and operated with or without the approval of the nominal rulers of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli. In return for annual payments of protection money from European countries, the pirates promised that ships of those nations would not be attacked. The newly independent Americans joined the arrangement after eleven of their ships were seized by the pirates in 1793, and a ransom of almost one million dollars — borrowed from a Jew in Algiers — was paid for their release. President John Adams favored payments to the pirates and he even agreed to build and deliver two ships to them. Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, opposed Adams on this issue. He said that a single decisive war against the pirates would be more cost-effective than annual bribes in perpetuity. On becoming president in 1801, Jefferson acted independently. First, he refused to accede to pirate demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and annual payments of $25,000. Then he sent naval units and marines to North Africa to fight against the blackmailers, an episode recalled in the Marine Hymn ("to the shores of Tripoli"). Hostilities continued, on and off, for four years, until a temporary agreement was reached. Only after a second war in 1815 did American naval victories lead to treaties ending all tribute payments by the United States. European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s. The danger posed by the Barbary pirates was infinitely smaller than that stemming from Al Qaeda and other Islamists. This makes an international coalition more urgent in Bush's day than it was in Jefferson's. In Washington and Jerusalem this is self-evident. It is less obvious in many other places. One hopes that the leaders of the Western world will soon realize that the danger of car bombs, and, soon enough, nuclear bombs, threaten all of them. Where do you get your talking points, BAC?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
The country of bin Laden? Where's that? What is the capital of bin Laden? Did the citizens of bin Laden vote for the formal declaration of war or did bin Laden's Congress or the whatever legislative body thereof declare the formal war? Or did the president/leader of bin Laden declare war all by himself? When we defeat bin Laden in war, will there be an offical surrender ceremony on the deck of some US warship? Will we help rebuild bin Laden after the war? What if we never defeat bin Laden? How long will we be at war? How much money will it cost to defeat bin Laden? How many human wherever situate will die in the war? What if the American people don't want to fight bin Laden in a war? Instead of trying to invade, conquer and occupy bin Laden half way around the world, would it be better to station our troops along the border so bin Laden's military can't sneak in and attack us? Or at least, do both? Is Bush doing that now? Can our navy and air force stand up and defend America against bin Laden's forces? Are we spending enough money for our defense to stop bin Laden's attacks? Should we spend a lot more? If Bush hadn't attacked bin Laden, do you think bin Laden would have invaded, conquered and occupied all of America by now? WHEW!
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Show me in the Constitution or US law where it says we can only be declared war on by countries or can only declare war on countries. You folks still don't get it. It's a brand new world. Then they need only elect representatives that will surrender. Have there been attacks by al-Qaeda inside the US since 9/11? Apparently something is being done to prevent that. And I think you are wrong in thinking that lining up soldiers along our borders wall to wall would do that. And apparently most in charge must agree with me. Probably not. But a lot more American might now be dead than are dead.
You left out "order", Zionist.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Hey, and moving on, who did the Anthrax?
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Don't you think the US Air Force should have used B-52s to carpet bomb Pendleton, New York, by now? That's Timothy McVeigh's hometown.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Who placed the pre 09/11 stock options? Why hasn't there been a trial for those culprits?
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Good enough for me. And while you retards try and figure out how the gunmen could have shot a man moments before a plane crashed and got out no one investigate how the plane crashed into a mountain. Honey Pot Trap.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
We don't really know, do we. But we do know there are some interesting coincidences between the hijackers and the anthrax. Like the fact that the first case showed up within a few miles of where they stayed before 9/11. Like the fact that the wife of the editor of the magazine the first case worked for had contact with some of the hijackers. Like the fact that several hijackers were treated for skin problems. Like the fact that in hindsight those who treated them and doctors at John Hopkins say it was likely anthrax. Like the fact that Atta showed interest in crop dusters at a time when he was set to fly jets into buildings. Like the fact that Atta disappeared from the US for a week in April of that year. Like the fact that during that time a witness in Prague said he saw Atta meet an Iraq case officer. Like the fact that Iraq had manufactured anthrax weaponry. Like that fact that the ISG said Iraq had the technical capability to create the 9/11 anthrax. Like the fact that Iraq had tried to procure the 9/11 strain of anthrax on at least one occasion. But we don't really know, do we.
Didn't you read anything else I've posted, Destro? Because the photos of the wound and skull x-ray prove the skull was indeed perforated (and others who saw the wound confirmed this in statements I quoted). You can even go look at the photos yourself and confirm this. Gormley even admitted he was wrong about the skull not being perforated after being shown the photos. So why do you latch on to this bit of disinformation so desperately? And Gormley also admitted that he didn't look for an exit wound. And others confirm he did not. And all this has been pointed out to you with quotes from the individuals in question yet you go on repeating the same disinformation. One begins to wonder why. I'm not the one acting like a retard here, Destro. You clearly don't want to deal with what the photos, pathologists and photographer all say about the wound and what occurred at the examination. You keep latching onto statements that have already been proven to be lies. I really think you are showing a desperation that should make folks wonder why you are acting this way. Care to explain your behavior?
And you have a yellow, dog eared National Enquirer or NewsMax article to prove every point. Sometimes its actually shameful what the goob fooler press crams down the throats of gullible goobers like youself. Why doesn't Bush use the Prague meeting to justify his invasion? If its true, it would turn things around for him. Instead, this fiction is only used to excite paranoid and easily manipulated morons like yourself. It doesn't even appear int he higher level Republican propaganda. Everyone else realizes the story has been debunked for years. wise up and try to think critically. Just because a propaganda rag targeted at morons says something doesn't mean that you have to pattern your life around it.
.
Here you go again, making a false assertion. The points I listed about the hijackers, anthrax, atta and al-Ani don't come from Newsmax or the National Enquirer. But claiming that seems to be the only debating tactic you know. That tactic is rather pathetic, ... especially after I've already proven you wrong when you said the same thing in another case. But you are a typical 4um poster so I guess I shouldn't expect you to learn from your mistakes. ROTFLOL!
What does that mean 9/11 strain of anthrax? What is that?
Comments (252 - 394) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestdelegatvs non potest delegare
#212. To: leveller, ALL (#207)
"He felt that since Tripoli had already declared war"
Therein lies an important distinction between the Jeffersonian adventure in Tripoli and the AUMF.
The targets of AUMF, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, did not declare war.
#213. To: BeAChooser (#212)
First of all, at the time Jefferson ordered the fleet to the Med with orders to attack, he did not know that Tripoli had declared war.
#214. To: BeAChooser (#212)
the targets in Afghanistan had most certainly declared war on the US. Bin Laden did it years earlier on a tape played on TV throughout the world. And surely you aren't claiming the Taliban were acting as honest brokers. Or that we shouldn't have done anything about Bin Laden just because the Taliban hadn't made a *formal* declaration of war (according you YOUR definition).
#215. To: BeAChooser (#212)
As to Iraq, tapes of Saddam talking to his associates make it quite clear that they still thought they were at war with the US despite the cease fire agreement. And surely you aren't claiming that we had no right to push Saddam out of Kuwait because he hadn't formally declared war on us. And I have news for you, leveller. I doubt that Saddam's *constitution* or *laws* specified the form that a declaration of war had to take either. And statements by Tariq Aziz about the conflict make it quite clear that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean WAR with the US. And since Saddam broke the cease fire agreement, a good case can be made that that first war was not over when we invaded.
#216. To: BeAChooser (#212)
First of all, at the time Jefferson ordered the fleet to the Med with orders to attack, he did not know that Tripoli had declared war.
#217. To: leveller (#214)
Those targets had committed a criminal offense within our borders.
#218. To: leveller, ALL (#213)
Their orders wer to protect shipping on the high seas, in accordance with the doctrine of the freedom of the seas, accepted by the Founders.
#219. To: leveller, ALL (#214)
We had no right to invade Afghanistan to reach those targets.
Those targets had committed a criminal offense within our borders.
If Bin Laden had had nationhood, his act of aggression would have created a state of war, and the President would have been authorized and duty-bound to respond against such a country.
#220. To: BeAChooser (#219)
The family of the Taliban leader also married into the family of bin Laden, suggesting a far more than arms length association between the two.
#221. To: leveller, ALL (#215)
April Glaspie gave Iraq the green light to invade, but this issue is beside the point.
Congress has not declared war since WWII.
#222. To: Dakmar (#216)
Where in the Constitution is it specified which form a Declaration of War from Tripoli shall take?
#223. To: wbales, ALL (#217)
09/11 was a crime NOT an act of war
#224. To: Dakmar, ALL (#220)
Holy Cow but you are stupid.
#225. To: BeAChooser (#218)
No, the orders were NOT to "protect" shipping but to take out the pirates WHEREVER they might be hiding and to stop those helping them. Which is why Jefferson and Madison's Navy invaded A COUNTRY and DEPOSED a dictator.
#226. To: BeAChooser (#222)
#227. To: BeAChooser (#224)
Are you a typical 4um poster?
#228. To: BeAChooser, leveller, Dakmar (#221)
Show me in the Constitution or our laws where the form of a Declaration of War is defined.
#229. To: SmokinOPs, BeAChooser (#228)
It isn't defined because educated people of the time already knew what it was and what form it existed in. Just like Bill of Attainder, Bill of Credit, Letters of Marque, Oath, etc. aren't defined.
#230. To: leveller, ALL (#225)
Jefferson's words will wake you from your reverie:
#231. To: Dakmar, ALL (#226)
A peace treaty was signed with Tripoli by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the Senate, thus establishing a precedent to regard Tripoli as a recognised state.
#232. To: Dakmar (#227)
Are you Jewish?
#233. To: BeAChooser (#230)
#234. To: BeAChooser (#231)
#235. To: BeAChooser (#231)
#236. To: Dakmar, ALL (#234)
Study your history, moron. Look up Adams presidency, note the years.
#237. To: BeAChooser (#236)
#238. To: BeAChooser (#236)
#239. To: BeAChooser (#236)
Letter from Israel
The new Barbary pirates
By Nechemia Meyers
#240. To: BeAChooser (#223)
Except that bin Laden actually had formally declared war on the US.
#241. To: wbales, ALL (#240)
The country of bin Laden? Where's that? What is the capital of bin Laden?
What if the American people don't want to fight bin Laden in a war?
Instead of trying to invade, conquer and occupy bin Laden half way around the world, would it be better to station our troops along the border so bin Laden's military can't sneak in and attack us? Or at least, do both? Is Bush doing that now?
If Bush hadn't attacked bin Laden, do you think bin Laden would have invaded, conquered and occupied all of America by now?
#242. To: BeAChooser (#241)
It's a brand new world.
#243. To: BeAChooser (#241)
#244. To: BeAChooser (#241)
#245. To: BeAChooser (#241)
#246. To: BeAChooser (#204)
Asked recently about the head wound, Gormley told the Tribune-Review that it was a matter of concern because of its size and shape. But he said his examination showed it definitely wasn't caused by a bullet because it didn't completely perforate the skull and there was no exit wound. The institute's chief forensic scientist, who was present during the examination, says evidence at the crash site ruled out the possibility of a gunshot.
#247. To: wbales, ALL (#243)
Hey, and moving on, who did the Anthrax?
#248. To: Destro, ALL (#246)
"But he said his examination showed it definitely wasn't caused by a bullet because it didn't completely perforate the skull and there was no exit wound. The institute's chief forensic scientist, who was present during the examination, says evidence at the crash site ruled out the possibility of a gunshot."
Good enough for me.
And while you retards
#249. To: BeAChooser (#247)
#250. To: ..., ALL (#249)
And you have a yellow, dog eared National Enquirer or NewsMax article to prove every point.
#251. To: BeAChooser, wbales (#247)
Like the fact that Iraq had tried to procure the 9/11 strain of anthrax
.
.
.