See other Editorial Articles
Title: See What Bush Has 'Accomplished' In Iraq
Source:
Pantagraph Publishing
URL Source: http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/ ... /08/opinion/letters/125911.txt
Published: May 8, 2007
Author: Pantagraph Publishing
Post Date: 2007-05-08 11:19:50 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 606
Comments: 61
President Bush says there is still more to accomplish in Iraq so he has vetoed Congress. Let's review what we have accomplished so far: Over 2,000 physicians killed, 250 kidnapped and 18,000 fled. Over 300 academics assassinated and thousands fled. One hundred journalists and 37 support workers killed; a number higher than any other war on Earth. The destruction of monuments and archeological sites of the cradle of civilization and of history, in general. Sectarian strife, militias, introduced with the invasion, between peoples who had lived together for 1,000 years. Ongoing suicide bombings in a country where they were unheard of. Rigged elections, the results achieved by threats, bribery, threat of ration card confiscation. Abu Ghraib's torture, forever the U.S. Army's image in the Middle East. The disappeared in the thousands. Destruction of an entire civil society with damage to every institution, costing hundreds of billions of dollars to fix. Missing Iraqi aid in billions of dollars. The illegal rewriting of constitutions, both Iraqi and American. The installation of a quisling government with loyalties largely, to anywhere but Iraq, and an American government with loyalties largely to big business. Committing Nuremberg's ``supreme crime,'' a war of aggression, based on a pack of lies. Demands for impeachment increasing by the day. Destruction of America's and Britain's image for generations to come and the inability of their citizens to feel safe anywhere. A death toll heading toward 4,000 dead U.S troops - admitted to - and thousands horrifically injured. A trillion dollar debt. Near universal loathing of America. And President Bush wants to continue this war and occupation indefinitely. Possibly as many as 1 million Iraqi dead, 4 million fled or internally displaced.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
A trillion dollar debt. Do you recall how after 9/11, nearly every nation on earth, even traditionally unfriendly Arab, Asian, and Eastern European countries, offered their unconditional support in a (legitimate) offensive against the Taliban and Al Quaeda? Of course, neither Bush nor the neocons really cared about the Taliban or National Security (the CIA and the State Department practically had to twist the Bush administration's arms to make them budge on these). Instead, removing Saddam Hussein and making the Middle East safe for Israel were at the top of their agenda. It really takes a first rate idiot's foreign policy to turn near universal pro- American sympathy into near universal hatred in 5 years. And that universal hatred includes traditional US allies as well. As for the debt, well, in a phony "war on terror," I guess trumped-up GOP support for fiscal responsibility goes out the window as well. Thanks, Shrub.
Thanks, Shrub. Becaues of Shrub, the GOP will be going out the window soon also.
The poisoning of the planet with God-knows how many tons of DU illegally expended.
Let's just test the very first claim: NONSENSE.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Since when does one word editorializations by you constitute a test, bubba?
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
And for a long time. That makes them EXTREMELY dangerous. Even more dangerous than they were on 9/11. We the people are screwed royally. We either get a military government after the cabal perpetrates another phony terror event or we live under the marxist wing of the NWO. Either way, life is going to suck.
Are you saying the claim is nonsense, or is that just a reader's digest of what you normally post here: nonsense?
I'm saying that there is no physical evidence, whatsoever, to support the claim that a million Iraqis, or anything close to that number, have died since we invaded. It's sheer nonsense derived from highly flawed studies by researchers who were biased against the war to begin with and who revel in that bias. Researchers who employed people to do the leg work in Iraq who they admit HATED Americans and who published their study in a journal whose editors were equally biased (and therefore failed to adequately perform their peer-review responsibilities). It's a claim with no more substance than the claim that bombs brought down the WTC towers and Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. Is that clear enough to understand, Critter? Or are we talking about yet another eyesight problem?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Yeah. My dear ol Dad always told me: "If you are a man in this country and are not born rich, you will have to eat quite a large stack of shit sandwiches just to survive." Now I got the feeling they are going to really slather the shit deep on that bread.
Uh, why don't YOU go over there and find out for sure and come back and tell us. Johnny Mac says you won't even need a rifle or flack vest, so it should be a good trip for you. Keep in touch, write often, we'll be waiting to hear from you cupcake.
Life is like a shit sandwich, the more bread you have, the less shit you have to eat.
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
Dude, the people that hate Americans are a HUGE portion of western civilization. The only place you might find people that do not hate GWB and his war is at a Rudy Guliani campaign stop, and those would be biased the other way. So to say a report is biased is... well... obvious. Almost everyone in the world is heavily biased one way or the other on this war. I doubt that more than a handful could HONESTLY say they are on the fence. Now it is just a matter of whose bias do you want to believe? I generally go with people who have nothing personally to gain either way.
Advice worthy of its recipient.
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
Can you give me a number that denotes what you believe to be the true number of Iraqi fatalities?
********** http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr15.php Summary On every available indicator the year just ended (March 2006 – March 2007) has been by far the worst year for violence against civilians in Iraq since the invasion: * almost half (44%) of all violent civilian deaths after the initial invasion phase occurred in the just-ended fourth year of the conflict * mortar attacks that kill civilians have quadrupled in the last year (from 73 to 289) * massive bomb blasts that kill more than 50 people have nearly doubled in the last year (from 9 to 17) * fatal suicide bombs, car bombs, and roadside bombing attacks have doubled in the last year (from 712 to 1476) * one in 160 of Baghdad’s 6.5 million population has been violently killed since the beginning of the war, representing 64% of deaths recorded so far These are the stark headlines derived from Iraq Body Count’s ongoing compilation and analysis of media reports of civilian casualties in the Iraq conflict, which has documented 65,000 violent deaths to date. Trends since 2003. Following the six week “Shock and Awe” invasion phase (March 19 - May 1, 2003), which alone caused the deaths of some 7,400 civilians, the violent death toll has steadily risen year-on-year. There were 6,332 reported civilian deaths in the 10.5 months following the initial invasion in year one, or 20 per day; 11,312 in year two, 55% up on year one’s daily rate; 14,910 in year three (32% up on year two); and a staggering 26,540 in year four (78% up on year three, and averaging 74 per day). Not counting the 7,400 invasion-phase deaths, four times as many people were killed in the last year as in the first. And from the invasion to the present, at least 110,000 civilians have been wounded, 38,000 of them during year four. **************** Take that 65,000 number and double or triple it ... and you probably are in the right ball park. The million claim is simply nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
65,000 people. The other side says 1 million people. The actual truth lies somewhere in between. It always does. If I triple your number and use 1/3 of their number, we get pretty close. 195,000 to 333,000. Then I'll average it out: 264,000 Can we agree that this might be a close enough estimate?
You still haven't told us when you are leaving for your trip over there, sweetie pie. The Commander Guy needs another hero like you. HINT: watch the friendly fire.
More appropriate advice today!
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." ~George Washington
No. I see no reason to let you use the 1 million figure to calculate that number. The 1 million figure is based on a seriously flawed study. Heck, the authors of that study aren't even able (or willing) to answer certain questions about details concerning their study methodology. But at least you are coming to recognize that 1 million is MUCH to high and that starting with false premises and misinformation will get you nowhere.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Be A Chooser just wants attention. Nobody is that foolish anymore. The only folks that WANT to be in Iraq are those mercenaries drawing 100k a year plus and tax free.
That's about 16 too many! ;)
Tell you way, Sodie Pop ... instead of cheerleading, let's see if you can back up the million death claim. Because if you can't, why should one believe anything else the article claims? Sooner or later you folks are going to have to recognize that you can not find the truth on a foundation of lies and misinformation ... nor will you arrive at the proper course of action on such a foundation. Sooner or later you folks are going to have to recogize that the leaders of the anti-war movement, just like the leaders of the 9/11 truth movement, are not being honest. Ironic consider how much they complain about Bush lying.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Sooner or later you will realize that your condescending sidebar sniping at people to try to discredit them and blur the discussion to synically influence lurkers turns them off more then anything else. Sooner or later you will realize your political motivations to assume a black and white, 'all of the Truth Movement is wrong,' and carping at the peace movement are highly transparent to everyone here. You are a Bush/Cheney/NeoCon butt kisser, and you support their agenda. We don't give a rat's ass what you have to say, and you have zero credibility in here in light of this.
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
In other words, the truth doesn't matter. I'll keep that in mind the next time you complain about Bush (or anyone) lying. And by the way, I've never said that 'all of the Truth Movement is wrong'. What I've said is that the leaders of that movement and many of the more vocal proponents keep using disinformation and outright lies as arguments to support it. And in so doing, are discrediting the good questions that deserve answers. You won't find the truth on such a foundation of misinformation and lies. You are being ill served by the leaders of the movement, who persist in outrageous, unsupportable, and outright false claims. And if you can't recognize that and do something about it ... oh well.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Since (I think it was) Stalin who said (something like) it mattering not how people vote, only who counts the votes, then I have to disagree with you that we throw out the 1 million figure, inflated as it may be. People with an agenda are counting the bodies that make up your figure as well. If we keep your figure, we keep the other. But let me ask you this. You said I could double or triple your figure. Why would you say that, if you are sure your figure is correct, since your counters are supposedly more honest than the others?
Warped take on my words. Listen closer. Your all or nothing -- either all is true or all is false -- attitude about every damn thing the Truth Movement runs up the flag pole demonstrably shows you operate based solely on the agenda of your support of the contrived "War on Terror," and utter hatred of anything Democrat, liberal, or that attacks NeoCons and their beliefs and goals. If you were approaching this from the perspective of weighing things and deciding what is true to you and what isn't, you would not in anyway be black and white concerning this topic. You start with agenda based conclusions and build arguments to support them. I go by this, and your use of classic blur the issue/influence the lurker posting tactics and verbiage. I go by your lack of interest in participating in friendly give and take as you cast everyone you speak to as erroneous and posture condescending toward everyone you speak to. I go by your one track mind in only having interest in posting when and where it serves to promote NeoCon beliefs, goals and agendas. Remember I welcomed you to this forum and started with an open mind on you having not had paid much attention to you before when we both were on LP and FR. I've posted online in forums since the mid 1990s, and everything I've learned as a BBS/forum interlocutor screams out that you are not to be trusted and have hidden agendas. Oh well, you make your bed here, and you can damn well sleep in it.
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
BRAT!
Translation: He senses weakness and opportunity to pounce in your attempt to find middle ground. Note too he doesn't waver in the least in the overall condescending attitude toward you he relies on to try to influence lurkers toward doubt on Truth Movement and anti-war contentions. I expected as much. He is really quite predictable once you know him.
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
Learn Spanish and get a tan so you can blend in with the new rulers. If Bush gets his way we will indeed be El Norte de Mexico.
Actually, he senses weakness in his own position and knows I am leading him by the nose to a conclusion that he doesn't want to see displayed publicly on this thread.
But bodies can be counted. The million figure isn't based on counting bodies but counting some 500+ people who only REPORTEDLY CLAIMED a relative was killed. And there are reasons to doubt that. They also claimed that 92 percent could supply a death certificate. Yet nothing indicates anywhere near that number of death certificates were ever written. No, the number of death certificates known to have been written is closer to the IBC estimate. And like I said, there is NO physical evidence to support the claim of a million deaths ... no bodies, no graves, no eyewitnesses (other than the 500 claiming dead), no journalist coverage, no whistleblowers from amongst the nearly half million soldiers and other 3rd parties that have been in Iraq since almost day one, no photos ... NOTHING. Furthermore, a million dead is more than died, as a percentage of population, in Germany or Japan during WW2 . And then, most of the cities in both countries were carpet bombed or burned to the ground. That didn't happen in Iraq. Because not every death ends up in a news article. But the killing of 1000 or even 10,000 in a single day (which statistically had to have happened many times IF that 1 million figure is remotely true) is not something that would go unnoticed or unreported, especially when even the insurgents have cameras and videos and when it would be in their interest to document such attrocities. But they didn't, even though they are known to have videotaped nearly every IED attack they made. Like I said, critter, you have NO evidence to support the 1 million death claim. In fact, you don't have evidence to support half a million. Or even a quarter million. You have NOTHING but a flawed study claiming 655,000 died through July of last year. And here are just some of the flaws that have been pointed out about that study ... flaws mostly just ignored by your side in debating the subject: ********************* 1. The 655,000 estimate is many, many times larger than any other estimate out there (and there are about half a dozen others). Those other estimates were more like 50,000 (or less) at the time the John Hopkins study was published. Are they all wrong and only John Hopkins right? Even various anti-war groups such as Human Rights Watch and IraqBodyCount have indicated the John Hopkins' figures are outlandish. So why are 4umers so voraciously defending JH's estimates? 2. The report and the peer reviewer of the report (the Lancet) ignored a major discrepancy between the pre-war mortality estimate derived by the John Hopkins team and the estimates derived by other organizations such as the UN and WHO. The UN and WHO, in larger studies, came up with rates between 7-8 per 1000 per year compared to the John Hopkins' rate of 5-5.5 per 1000 per year. And these larger rates were estimates that the Lancet had previously endorsed as accurate. This pre-war mortality number is one of the key numbers used in determining excess deaths. If it were as high as the UN and WHO found, then the number of excess deaths would be far less, perhaps a tenth as much. 3. A recent UN Development Program study, http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/PDF/Analytical%20Report%20-%20English.pdf , states that there were 24,000 war-related deaths (18,000-29,000, with a 95% confidence level) during the time covered by the Hopkins report. This is approximately ONE-FOURTH the number of excess deaths that Les Roberts' 2004 John Hopkins study found. And the UN used similar techniques - clusters, etc. - but with a much larger data set than John Hopkins. Why is there no mention of this study in the lastest John Hopkin's report (which claims its results verify the first JH report)? Why was this discrepancy not addressed by the Lancet's *peer* reviewers? I think we know why. 4. According to the latest John Hopkins report, 87 percent of those who claimed deaths were asked to prove it by providing death certificates. According to the researchers, they just forgot to ask they other 13 percent. And of those 87 percent, 92 percent (501 out of 545) were able to provide death certificates. Therefore, if the study is statistically valid, there should be death certificates available for about 92 percent of the total 655,000 estimated dead. But investigations by media sources that are not friendly to the Bush administration or the war have not found evidence of anywhere near that number. The Los Angeles Times, for example, in a comprehensive investigation found less than 50,000 certificates. Even if that investigation were off a factor of two (and that's certainly possible), there is still a huge discrepancy. To take the Johns Hopkins' results seriously, you have to believe that the Iraqi government recorded deaths occurring since the invasion with an accuracy of 92 percent, but then suppressed the bulk of those deaths when releasing official figures, with no one blowing the whistle. And you have to believe that all those dead bodies went unnoticed by the mainstream media and everyone else trying to keep track of the war casualties. Alternatively, you have to believe that the Iraqi government only issues death certificates for a small percentage of deaths, but this random sample happened to get 92 percent by pure chance. 5. A principle author of both John Hopkins studies, Les Roberts, has publically stated he disliked Bush (not unexpected given that he is an active democRAT) and the war. He admitted that he released the first (2004) study when he did to negatively influence the election against Bush and the GOP. And he has admitted that most of those he hired to conduct the study in Iraq "HATE" (that was his word) the Americans. None of that is a good basis for conducting a non-partisan study. 6. Nor is the behavior of the Lancet. They've not only failed to ask important questions during their *peer* reviews, they admit they greatly abbreviated that peer review process for the 2004 report so the results could be published in time to influence the 2004 election. They also reported on their own website in 2004, that the deaths estimated by John Hopkins were comprised solely of civilians. But the study made no such claim. In fact, it clearly states that the investigators did not ask those interviewed if the dead were civilians, Saddam military or insurgents. Which leads one to wonder if the Lancet actually read the report they claimed to review. 7. When media interviewers of the lead researchers completely misrepresented the results (for example, calling all the dead "civilians"), those researchers (one being Les Robert) made no effort to correct those falsehoods. And they went on to lie, both directly and by omission, about the methodology they used. This is indisputable. For example, here is what another of the John Hopkins researchers, Richard Garfield, told an interviewer: "First of all, very few people refused or were unable to take part in the sample, to our surprise most people had death certificates and we were able to confirm most of the deaths we investigated." That is a LIE since the first study (which is what he was talking about) indicates they only confirmed 7% of the deaths. And Les Roberts did the exact same thing in another interview. 8. In the Garfield interview mentioned above, he stated "And here you see that deaths recorded in the Baghdad morgue were, for a long period, around 200 per month." Let me repeat that figure ... 200 A MONTH, in one of the most populated and most violent regions in the country during the time in question. And now Les Roberts is asking us to believe that 15,000 (on average) were dying each month in the country since the war began. How could Garfield not have questions about this new estimate given his previous statement? 9. Richard Garfield is another of those who advocated mortality statistics before the war that are widely divergent from those derived using the Les Roberts/John Hopkins interviews. In fact, Richard Garfield said the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. His *expert* opinion was that the rate in 2002 would was 9-10 percent. That is compared to the Les Robert's estimate of 2.9 percent. So why didn't Roberts or Garfield address this disparity in the report? And note that the Lancet blessed and championed the conclusions of Garfield back in 2002. So why did they ignore the discrepancy during their peer review of Les Roberts' study? 10. There is NO physical evidence whatsoever to support the claim that 655,000 Iraqis died from the beginning of the war to mid 2006. There are no killing fields filled with bodies or mass graves. There are no photos of these mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter or the funerals afterwords. There are no reporters, of ANY nationality, saying they saw these bodies or the slaughter. There are no US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. There is NO physical evidence. And how can that be in a country which has according to the researchers has seen 2.5 percent of its population killed (a percentage greater than the percentage of Germany's and Japan's population killed in World War 2 where there was plenty of physical evidence that such a slaughter had occurred). 11. Dahr Jamail is a viralently anti-American *journalist*. He has close ties to the insurgents and arabs. But look on his website ( http://dahrjamailiraq.com/) for any indication that 500, much less 100 Iraqis were dying every single day on average back in 2003 and 2004 (which was during the period covered by not only the second but the first John Hopkins study) when he first started reporting from Iraq. You won't find any indication. 12. Last year was arguably the most violent since the invasion. Yet even the Iraqis reported the number killed was on the order of 16,000 in that year ... an average of 45 a day. That certainly stands in sharp constrast to the John Hopkins researchers (and their proponents) who claim that more than 500 a day have died every day on average since the invasion began. 13. But the discrepancy is even worse than that. As noted in this source (http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066 ), "The claim is 654,965 excess deaths caused by the war from March 2003 through July 2006. That's 40 months, or 1200 days, so an average of 546 deaths per day. To get an average of 546 deaths per day means that there must have been either many hundreds of days with 1000 or more deaths per day (example: 200 days with 1000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1000 days with an average of 450 deaths), or tens of days with at least 10,000 or more deaths per day (example: 20 days with 10,000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1180 days with an average of 381 deaths). So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths?" Yes ... where are the news accounts of the many days that should have seen more than a 1000 or even 10,000 deaths? They just don't exist and it's not because reporters weren't in Iraq or had no interest in showing such slaughter. In your heart, you know the reason. 14. The number of dead the John Hopkins methodology gives in Fallujah is so staggering that even the John Hopkins researchers had to discard the data point. Yet in interviews, Les Roberts has responded as if the Fallujah data was accurate. For example, in an interview with Socialist Workers Online (note who he uses to get his message out), when asked why two thirds of all violent deaths were concentrated in this city, Les Roberts didn't respond "the data was wrong or atypical in Fallujah" as it states in his report. No, instead he answered the question as if he thought the data point was representative of what happened in Fallujah as a whole. He said "we think that our findings, if anything, underestimated the number of deaths because of the number of empty and destroyed houses." If true, then why didn't they stick to their guns and keep the Fallujah data point? 15. John Hopkins claims "We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 (392,979 - 942,636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 (426,369 - 793,663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gun fire." But as already mentioned, during World War II, the Allied air forces carpet bombed German cities, using high explosives and incendiaries, and according to The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report killed an estimated 305,000. So are we to believe that with gun fire (primarily) rather than bombs, twice as many Iraqis have been killed in the last 3 years as died in all Germany during WW2 due to strategic bombing of cities (which completely flattened cities)? Likewise, Japan had about 2 million citizens killed (about 2.7 percent of their population), both military and civilian. Many Japanese cities were firebombed during that war (for example, Tokyo had 100,000 people killed in just one raid). Two cities were attacked with nuclear weapons. And yet Les Roberts and his crew want us to believe that just as large a percentage have died in Iraq ... where the Coalition has gone out of its way to avoid civilian deaths? **************** And since I've cited IraqBodyCounts estimates, here is what IraqBodyCount has to say about the John Hopkins' study: **************** From http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that: 1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms; 2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment; 3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq; 4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued; 5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja. And this: If these assertions are true, they further imply: * incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began; * bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis; * the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas; * an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year. In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy. ************ Here are their detailed criticisms of the study: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/0.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/1.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/2.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/3.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/4.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/5.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/6.php ************ Sorry, critter, but the 1 million death claim is as bogus as claiming ... there were no sagging floors in the WTC towers, ... that material with concrete and rebar in it is slag from a pool of molten steel, ... the impact hole in the pentagon was only 16 to 20 feet wide, ... there were only 2 small isolated pockets of fire in the tower, ... there wasn't a large hole in the south side of WTC 7, ... the WTC 7 collapsed straight down in 6.5 seconds, ... the WTC towers took about 10 or 11 seconds to collapse, ... the WTC debris piles weren't high enough, ... the spire was made of perimeter sections, ... and that psychologists, philosophers, sub-atomic particle physicists and janitors are equal experts to structural engineers, demolition experts and macro-world physicists when it comes to the collapse of skyscrapers, But then you've done those things too. So why am I not surprised.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
I'm not defending the million claim. I don't know the exact count. But how many will it take, BAC, before we say enough is enough? What's the magic number? 200k? 300k? 500k? A million? If there is no magic number, then who gives a flying fuck if it's one million or 100k? What's the big deal with the number BAC?
Again you misrepresent my stated views. I've NEVER said that all the truth movement claims is false. On the contrary, I've said that some of the questions they ask are good ones that deserve an answer. Likewise, I've NEVER said that all that the government claims is true. On the contrary, I've pointed out instances where the government has been less than honest. For goodness sakes, I've even accused the Bush administration of helping cover up a possible mass murder (in the death of Ron Brown). What I've done is point out that you will not find the truth on a foundation of misinformation or lies. So if your truth movement leaders are being dishonest and not fairly representing the facts, the truth movement is in serious trouble. And they are distorting and misrepresenting the facts. I've proven this over and over. And when the primary accusation of the truth movement is that Bush and Cheney lied to us about 9/11 and the war, that's no small matter. It is hypocritical to say the least.
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
A desperate attempt to deflect attention away from what a failure the Iraq war is. Much like the Soviets in the wake of their humiliation in the 1939-1940 Winter War with Finland. "Offical" Soviet losses for the battle of Sumiomussomi and along the Ratta road were 350 dead. The Finns stopped counting the Russian dead they were piling in mass graves after hitting 20,000. Quite a difference in numbers. I'm sure in another life BAC was one of the pot bellied communist mouth peices screaming that the pictures of 100s of burned out Russian tanks and trucks and thousands of dead Soviet troops were all lies and fakes. Then when the cold war ended and the Soviet era records opened up, it was found that total Soviet losses exceeded 30,000. Of course the situation today is different. In Iraq, taking the bodies of dead family members to the police is signing their own death warrent when they write down their home address and ethnic affiliation and then hand that peice of paper over to the insurgent riddeled Iraqi government. I wouldn't be surprised if BAC still beleives the government when they say that A-Bomb tests are harmless and Agent orange is safe to use. After all, if FEDGOV declares it to be so, then it is so. "2 + 2 = 5 if the Furher says so." - Hermann Goering
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.
Then why try to use it as what is effectively your 95% confidence upper bound? Come up with a more reasonable number that you think the bulk of the evidence MIGHT support. And then try again. You might find I'm quite reasonable. A false logic. On what basis do you claim that by abandoning Iraq the number of Iraqis dying will go down? Both experts and word on the street suggests the number would go up dramatically. al-Qaeda isn't in Iraq because of our presence there. They are in Iraq because they cannot allow a freely elected, western friendly, terrorist unfriendly, democratic republic to be established in Iraq. It would significantly change the Middle Eastern equation to their detriment. It would seriously impact the plans of al-Qaeda and their state sponsors. There are good reasons to think that if we surrender in Iraq, the threat posed by al-Qaeda and its state sponsors will only be magnified. You may think you are trading Iraq for peace but you may get a million dead Americans or British in the bargain if al-Qaeda succeeds in destabilizing the country and turns it into a base of operations for its operations against the West. If the truth movement can't be honest about the little things, it won't be honest about the big things. Lying about a number like that isn't a good way to find *The Truth* or the right course of action. Why is this hard for *truthers* and *anti-warriors* to understand?
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
I'm done with you for the night shill. thanks.
But you do not support ANY of their answers, and you support much of the official set of lies quite openly. This loincloth of a minor plausible denial stance by you is expectable from someone with your agenda, and is carefully framed to keep you from having to support a single finding or position of the Truth Movement. Which serves your deep hatred of all things Clinton and Democrat. 'For goodness sake,' saying you are a brother in arms against governmental lies when your Ron Brown stance serves the purpose of showing you deeply in bed with Bush policies including the "War on Terror" and NeoCon group think is deeply disingenuous and deceptive. The Truth Movement is doing an incredibly good job with available evidence of piecing and trampling the official government lies of 9-11. The False Flag operations succeeded in using the confusion and cover of the el Qaeda attacks to accomplish the demolition of buildings and destruction of much the evidence, but uncontrollable aspects of the operations have revealed things were not as claimed. The way the commission was run like a snake oil medicine show and grudgingly formed -- much like the discredited Warren Commission report on the Kennedy Murder by high government officials -- is also telling. I see you with a NeoCon agenda such as undying support for the deceptive and erroneous "War on Terror" dying to debunk what you feel hurts the agenda behind it and the attack on our freedoms and way of life it represents the "War on Terror" actually is. You are no fact finder or debunker, you are a shill with an agenda, and you start all your points of order with a conclusion and work up an argument to try to blunt and blur the effort to get the truth out the Truth Movement is doing. I rest my case. You lay bare here that you are primarily concerned with the continuation of these illegal wars meant to further the NeoCon agenda and desire to end the rough patches and bumps in the road the Truth Movement creates as it lays bare what actually happened on 9-11 and why. I know you know you will influence nobody here who has good reasoning skills, and has gone to the trouble of examining both sides of the story and know that 9-11 was a false flag operation. Your mission is to blur things for people not so sure and who lurk to stall momentum this virtual community has in getting the truth of 9-11 out. This is something being done in many Internet Venues, and in any organization, business, school or other real time aspect of people's lives to keep them away from the truth. Kids are being referred to mental health experts and stigmatized as troublemakers if they surf Truth Movement sites, search engines like Google warn that Truth Movement sites, "might endanger your computer if you go there" and a myriad of other small separately but cumulatively large efforts to kill the Truth Movement. This is precisely why you need to go bub. Your game is obvious, and your fuckwitting around to do your small part in destroying the Truth Movement does not belong here.
Thesis: Official 9/11 story is an unproven conspiracy theory. http://911truth.org http://Justicefor911.org http://summeroftruth.org Probable-cause standards have been met for an unlimited investigation of unsolved crimes relating to the events of Sept. 11, including allegations of criminal negligence, cover-up, complicity or commission of the attacks by US officials and assets of intel services.
Not so much misrepresent as parodied, I thought. Professionals do it all the time, it's what we get paid for. Oh, and actually fixing stuff.
''the messianic side of Americans can be tiresome.'' - Nicolas Sarkozy
Stimpy, you idiot! BeAChooser isn't real, he's a.......puppet!
''the messianic side of Americans can be tiresome.'' - Nicolas Sarkozy
... that material with concrete and rebar in it is slag from a pool of molten steel, ... the impact hole in the pentagon was only 16 to 20 feet wide, ... there were only 2 small isolated pockets of fire in the tower, ... there wasn't a large hole in the south side of WTC 7, ... the WTC 7 collapsed straight down in 6.5 seconds, No, you're not a hired shill, are you?
''the messianic side of Americans can be tiresome.'' - Nicolas Sarkozy
You show me a mass grave of that magnitude in Iraq ... one that was created since we invaded. Then show me a whole bunch more because you will need all of them to even begin to prove the slaughter of a million Iraqis. The truth is that you can't point to hard evidence like that. And one more thing. At the Battle of Suomussalmi (NOT Sumiomussomi), the Finns had hard evidence they'd destroyed the Soviet force. Not just pictures of the dead, but captured military supplies they could show the world, including over 40 tanks, 70 field-guns, 260 trucks, a thousand horses and 29 anti-tank guns. So let's see your hard evidence that a million Iraqis or anywhere near that number have been slaughtered in that last 4 years. My, my ... that's an effective debating tactic. ROTFLOL!
--------------------------------------------------------- Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
Comments (42 - 61) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNear universal loathing of America
#2. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#1)
guess trumped-up GOP support for fiscal responsibility goes out the window as well.
#3. To: Brian S. everyone here (#0)
Don't forget -
#4. To: Brian S, ALL (#0)
Possibly as many as 1 million Iraqi dead
#5. To: BeAChooser (#4)
#6. To: Sodie Pop (#2)
Becaues of Shrub, the GOP will be going out the window soon also.
Enemies of the Republic
#7. To: BeAChooser (#4)
NONSENSE.
Enemies of the Republic
#8. To: Critter, ALL (#7)
Are you saying the claim is nonsense,
#9. To: Critter (#6)
Either way, life is going to suck.
#10. To: BeAChooser (#8)
I'm saying that there is no physical evidence, whatsoever, to support the claim that a million Iraqis, or anything close to that number, have died since we invaded.
#11. To: Sodie Pop (#9)
#12. To: BeAChooser (#8)
Researchers who employed people to do the leg work in Iraq who they admit HATED Americans and who published their study in a journal whose editors were equally biased (and therefore failed to adequately perform their peer-review responsibilities).
Enemies of the Republic
#13. To: Sodie Pop (#10)
#14. To: BeAChooser (#8)
Enemies of the Republic
#15. To: Critter, ALL (#14)
#16. To: BeAChooser (#15)
Enemies of the Republic
#17. To: BeAChooser (#15)
#18. To: Sodie Pop (#17)
#19. To: Critter, ALL (#16)
Can we agree that this might be a close enough estimate?
#20. To: robin (#18)
#21. To: BeAChooser (#19)
Aren't you lucky. You get to receive one of the 15 posts I'm allowed each day.
#22. To: Sodie Pop, robin, ALL (#20)
#23. To: BeAChooser (#22)
"Sooner or later you folks are going to have to recogize that the leaders of the anti-war movement, just like the leaders of the 9/11 truth movement, are not being honest. Ironic consider how much they complain about Bush lying."
#24. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#23)
We don't give a rat's ass what you have to say
#25. To: BeAChooser (#19)
No. I see no reason to let you use the 1 million figure to calculate that number. The 1 million figure is based on a seriously flawed study.
Enemies of the Republic
#26. To: BeAChooser (#24)
(Edited)
"In other words, the truth doesn't matter."
#27. To: BeAChooser (#19)
#28. To: Critter, BeAChooser (#16)
No. I see no reason to let you use the 1 million figure to calculate that number. The 1 million figure is based on a seriously flawed study. Heck, the authors of that study aren't even able (or willing) to answer certain questions about details concerning their study methodology. But at least you are coming to recognize that 1 million is MUCH to high and that starting with false premises and misinformation will get you nowhere.
#29. To: Critter (#6)
#30. To: Ferret Mike (#28)
He senses weakness and opportunity to pounce in your attempt to find middle ground.
Enemies of the Republic
#31. To: Critter, ALL (#25)
People with an agenda are counting the bodies that make up your figure as well.
Why would you say that, if you are sure your figure is correct, since your counters are supposedly more honest than the others?
#32. To: BeAChooser (#31)
Enemies of the Republic
#33. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#26)
Your all or nothing -- either all is true or all is false -- attitude
#34. To: Critter (#32)
What's the big deal with the number BAC?
#35. To: Critter, ALL (#32)
I'm not defending the million claim.
But how many will it take, BAC, before we say enough is enough?
What's the big deal with the number BAC?
#36. To: BeAChooser (#35)
Enemies of the Republic
#37. To: BeAChooser (#33)
"I've NEVER said that all the truth movement claims is false. On the contrary, I've said that some of the questions they ask are good ones that deserve an answer."
"Likewise, I've NEVER said that all that the government claims is true. On the contrary, I've pointed out instances where the government has been less than honest. For goodness sakes, I've even accused the Bush administration of helping cover up a possible mass murder (in the death of Ron Brown)."
"What I've done is point out that you will not find the truth on a foundation of misinformation or lies. So if your truth movement leaders are being dishonest and not fairly representing the facts, the truth movement is in serious trouble."
"And they are distorting and misrepresenting the facts. I've proven this over and over. And when the primary accusation of the truth movement is that Bush and Cheney lied to us about 9/11 and the war, that's no small matter. It is hypocritical to say the least."
#38. To: BeAChooser, Ferret Mike (#33)
Again you misrepresent my stated views.
#39. To: Ferret Mike (#26)
Remember I welcomed you to this forum and started with an open mind on you having not had paid much attention to you before when we both were on LP and FR.
#40. To: BeAChooser (#31)
... there were no sagging floors in the WTC towers,
#41. To: Pissed Off Janitor, all (#34)
"Offical" Soviet losses for the battle of Sumiomussomi and along the Ratta road were 350 dead. The Finns stopped counting the Russian dead they were piling in mass graves after hitting 20,000. Quite a difference in numbers.
I'm sure in another life BAC was one of the pot bellied communist mouth peices screaming that the pictures of 100s of burned out Russian tanks and trucks and thousands of dead Soviet troops were all lies and fakes.
.
.
.