Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Iraqi war death toll 'at 655,000'

Iraqi war death toll 'at 655,000'
Thread Tools
Sayf-Allah
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2006, 08:36 AM
 
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraqi war death toll 'at 655,000'

Peer reviewed article about to be published in the Lancet.

Pretty shocking find that will, as usual, be discredited by the right-wingers.

"Learn to swim"
     
marden
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2006, 08:50 AM
 
If the good people of Iraq had been able to overthrow Saddam and were fighting Baathist forces for control of the country and were trying to establish a moderate representative government and their efforts were compounded by radislamic jihadists who wanted to prevent this moderate government and instead wanted install a radical government and so they started sectarian killings, and if the US had come in to help the moderate forces, how many would have died?

Surprise!

Probably around the same number.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2006, 08:52 AM
 



Although...I think this applies to coalition casualties...still relevant
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2006, 09:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by marden
If the good people of Iraq had been able to overthrow Saddam and were fighting Baathist forces for control of the country and were trying to establish a moderate representative government and their efforts were compounded by radislamic jihadists who wanted to prevent this moderate government and instead wanted install a radical government and so they started sectarian killings, and if the US had come in to help the moderate forces, how many would have died?
Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dead due to economic sanctions. The peaceful alternative.
ebuddy
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2006, 09:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dead due to economic sanctions. The peaceful alternative.

Are you suggesting that the US invaded Iraq to save the civilians? I mean come on, when was that ever a reason?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2006, 09:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko
Are you suggesting that the US invaded Iraq to save the civilians? I mean come on, when was that ever a reason?
No, actually I was suggesting the US invaded Iraq because it was clear that the peaceful alternatives to invasion were not working for them or us.
ebuddy
     
marden
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2006, 09:54 AM
 
If you criticize the decision to invade Iraq please don't do so without:

-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's.
-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.
-Regard to any possible danger to Israel.
-Regard to any possible impact on world peace.
-Knowing how our oil access would be affected.
-Knowing how global leaders would react to our actions.
-Regard to Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.
-Recognizing that the containment was crumbling.
-Recognizing that the US was committed to regime change (see: The US Iraq Liberation Act).
-Regard to the multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.
-Appreciating the need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.
-Understanding the need for a convenient battle ground other than America or Afghanistan.
-Appreciating the need for stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.
-Acknowledging the cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.
-Being aware of Saddam's history of attacking the US forces
     
spindler
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Beverly Hills
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2006, 11:09 PM
 
Marden, I think your logic is backwards. You don't invade a country because some unknowns MIGHT be a problem later.

Before you start a war, you need to be sure there will be a large return on investment, which means you have to have a 75% chance that you will end up at a good outcome.

You can't say "We had to invade. We didn't have any intelligence data, so we just had to assume."

Right now at this moment, there are ABSOLUTELY NO GAINS from this war. Yeah, yeah, Saddam was a bad guy. Do you think what is in there now is any better? With Saddam, you could keep your eye on one person. Any plan Saddam could have done, a group of terrorists currently in Iraq could do. But since Saddam was one person with one operation, he was probably easier to track.
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2006, 11:55 PM
 
This "study" didn't use body counts, but rather relied on interviews with people. If 17 bodies were found after a bombing, this study instead recorded what some schmoe on the street said: "at least 200".

Gotta love the +60,000 for increased heart disease and cancer deaths.

I'll stick with the body counts. Thanks.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 12:00 AM
 
This is the same group of folks that released their last inflated 'death toll' just before the 2005 elections.

Whatever the Republicans are doing it must be effective against liberals worldwide. I've never seen 'em more scared.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 12:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
Whatever the Republicans are doing it must be effective against liberals worldwide. I've never seen 'em more scared.
As opposed to abe's paranoid lunatic ramblings? Scared, all right.



greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 12:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler
Marden, I think your logic is backwards. You don't invade a country because some unknowns MIGHT be a problem later.
Funny, a lot of people seems to think Bush should do that or should have already done that with NK.

I mean, who cares if they have the bomb, it doesn't mean they will actually USE it! History shows that just because a country HAS the bomb doesn't mean they will USE it.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 12:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler
But since Saddam was one person with one operation, he was probably easier to track.
What the invasion has show is that Saddam didn't have the control over his country that he thought he had. So tracking HIS actions wasn't the problem. There was a lot stuff going on that neither he nor us knew about.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
marden
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 01:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by spindler
Marden, I think your logic is backwards. You don't invade a country because some unknowns MIGHT be a problem later.

Before you start a war, you need to be sure there will be a large return on investment, which means you have to have a 75% chance that you will end up at a good outcome.

You can't say "We had to invade. We didn't have any intelligence data, so we just had to assume."

Right now at this moment, there are ABSOLUTELY NO GAINS from this war. Yeah, yeah, Saddam was a bad guy. Do you think what is in there now is any better? With Saddam, you could keep your eye on one person. Any plan Saddam could have done, a group of terrorists currently in Iraq could do. But since Saddam was one person with one operation, he was probably easier to track.
It isn't that cut and dried. It was a tortured process and very much deliberated and I believe it could have gone either way but there was just too much at risk and the possible gains undeniable to those who look at all the factors involved in making the decision.

It wasn't JUST because some unknowns might have caused a global nuclear war.
It wasn't simply a matter of, 'let's go to war because our intelligence is faulty.' That is the way of looking at the decision to invade that the biggest Bush bashers seem to employ.

There ARE some absolute gains from this war aside form Saddam being a bad guy who killed hundreds of thousands, many with WMD's. If you are going to gauge anything in an unreasonable amount of time it will ALWAYS look bad.

Think about a human pregnancy.
For the first few months she is getting fat and cranky then she makes you go out and buy strange food which she throws up. She refuses you sex or MAKES you do her til you can't stand up. Then she begins eating you out of house and home. And begins to look like a cow.

Where's the exit strategy?

Then she does nothing but complain and make you cater to her whims. You have to buy all kinds of clothes and equipment and you have no idea when the end will come.

And then she starts to yell and scream. Her water breaks and it's a mess.

HOW CAN THIS BE ANY GOOD TO ANYONE????

She's in pain and acting crazy and making sounds like a demon.

Then a horrible looking bloody little monster emerges from within her and she is screaming and the little monster starts screaming and there's God knows what all kinds of fluids coming from her depths and it's like she's going to drain all out and the monster was the only thing keeping her innards in her.

And if you haven't fainted or run panic stricken from the room you sure want to.

And then she's sewn up and everyone is cleaned up and quiets down and it's the greatest day of your life and all the pain and torture and blood and sacrifice will be worth it.

Although there is no set amount of time for a new nation to be born, what the Iraqi people are going through is the gestation of their new nation. What many of us want to do is to force a premature delivery. If Iraq can survive without our help, then fine. But if they can't and Iraq becomes nothing more than a new Iran the millions of Iraqis who voted for the first time will have learned a bitter lesson about what America really is all about.

If Saddam had cut off America's oil flows and sold it instead to China what do you think our lives would be like today? If Iraq had used WMD's to attack Israel and the Zionist state of Israel had responded by counter-attacking the friend of Palestinian martyrdom, Saddam Hussein don't you think there would have resulted a general Arab-wide & Iraq & Iranian attack on Israel?

And if all of those nations declared war on Israel don't you believe the USA would have intervened militarily? And if both the Great and the little Satans were attacking those Arab and Muslim nations in defense of ISRAEL??? A call to jihad and a fatwa such as we've never seen could have been the result. And because many (among them Ahmadinejad) Muslim leaders eagerly look forward to the end of the world and the return of the Mahdi that will only come back to life amongst great chaos, don't you think this would be just what they would be hoping for...the end of the world?

We have no oil shortage and our goods and services and production and the national and international economy that exists only because of oil is still intact.

THAT is what the invasion assured us. It's easy to take things for granted if no one ever goes beyond damning the President.

We should say a prayer for him and thank God he did what he did, every day.

Things could have been MUCH different. MUCH WORSE.
     
marden
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 01:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
As opposed to abe's paranoid lunatic ramblings? Scared, all right.



greg
Why don't you go and flail about at the Abe Shrine you must have in your home.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 02:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by marden
Think about a human pregnancy.
For the first few months she is getting fat and cranky then she makes you go out and buy strange food which she throws up. She refuses you sex or MAKES you do her til you can't stand up. Then she begins eating you out of house and home. And begins to look like a cow.
Ironically the comparison assumes your life gets better when the baby is born.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 04:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush
What the invasion has show is that Saddam didn't have the control over his country that he thought he had. So tracking HIS actions wasn't the problem. There was a lot stuff going on that neither he nor us knew about.

Thats a new theory. Care to elaborate?
     
marden
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 04:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
Ironically the comparison assumes your life gets better when the baby is born.
Once the jihadists stop their killing we'll have a chance to see how things turn out, won't we? Then is the time to judge whether it was all worth it. Iraq is still in the process of delivery.
( Last edited by marden; Oct 12, 2006 at 05:05 AM. )
     
Sayf-Allah  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 06:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by spacefreak
This "study" didn't use body counts, but rather relied on interviews with people. If 17 bodies were found after a bombing, this study instead recorded what some schmoe on the street said: "at least 200".
Wrong. Read up on it.
Gotta love the +60,000 for increased heart disease and cancer deaths.
Worse conditions following war tends to do that. But then, you wouldn't know.
I'll stick with the body counts. Thanks.
Of course. It's more important to use the lowest possible figure which will underestimate the numbers to a significant degree rather than try to find out the truth.

Especially when the US "doesn't do body counts"........

"Learn to swim"
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 06:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko
Are you suggesting that the US invaded Iraq to save the civilians? I mean come on, when was that ever a reason?
Oh jeesh not this tired old argument again.
It was one of the reasons from the start. WE have a big long flame-fest thread about this, and it was indeed pointed out. Of course when said naysayers were proven wrong, the ad-hominems came out. I think it turned into a Christian bashing thread.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 06:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by spacefreak
This "study" didn't use body counts, but rather relied on interviews with people. If 17 bodies were found after a bombing, this study instead recorded what some schmoe on the street said: "at least 200".

Gotta love the +60,000 for increased heart disease and cancer deaths.

I'll stick with the body counts. Thanks.
AHhahah you are kidding me?

I wonder why "Logic" didn't read this part. And if he did, why did he even post it?

     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 06:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko
Thats a new theory. Care to elaborate?
A new theory that Saddam didn't have control over his country? Whaa?

Either he had control and full knowledge of the training camps in his country, or he had no control over them and no part of them.

Can't have both excuses.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 09:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
A new theory that Saddam didn't have control over his country? Whaa?

Either he had control and full knowledge of the training camps in his country, or he had no control over them and no part of them.

Can't have both excuses.
Actually, Saddam truly thought he had WMDs because his henchmen wanted him to believe he was a formidable opponent to Iran. The emperor has no clothes. Saddam would not hear the truth.

The death toll in Iraq is horrific no matter what the number. That number will be manipulated by anyone + or - contingent upon their political leanings. This should not come as a surprise.

Those who cite the numbers of dead are repeatedly saying the action is not worth the cost. The Iraqi leadership is repeatedly saying it is worth the cost. The Iraqi people have indicated time and again that they are happy Saddam is gone (couldn't have happened any other way) and continue to show at polling places en masse. The Iraqi people want us out and we will leave just as soon as they are capable of managing crime on their own. The Iraqi leadership will help make this decision and as it stands today, they want our presence to remain.
ebuddy
     
Monique
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: back home
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 11:00 AM
 
That number is probably inflated. Yes war cost lives. I have an idea, why don't the people who put bombs everywhere stop doing it. To the so-called freedom fighters in Iraq, (the Iraqi) put down your bombs everywhere and throw out the Americans peacefully. You do not need to do this anymore.

There were 8000,000 Rwawandis that were murdered in 3 months.

What is your point, the American soldiers are not responsible here, only the people that put bombs, you can stop this.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by marden
Once the jihadists stop their killing we'll have a chance to see how things turn out, won't we? Then is the time to judge whether it was all worth it. Iraq is still in the process of delivery.
http://kabobfest.blogspot.com/2006/0...rth-pangs.html
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Actually, Saddam truly thought he had WMDs because his henchmen wanted him to believe he was a formidable opponent to Iran. The emperor has no clothes. Saddam would not hear the truth.
The article I read made a distinct separation between WMDs and Saddam's "Special Weapons Program".

Saddam ordered the destruction of his WMD program and his WMDs. He did it in such a way as to intentionally keep everyone in the dark about it. The article said Saddam and maybe one or two other people actually knew for a fact that Saddam didn't have WMDs. Though he comprehended that having WMDs in face of international pressure was a bad idea, he refused to give up his the status he had among other ME countries as a possessor of WMDs.

What you are talking about is his "Special Weapons Program", which you describe accurately. As his minions would suffer pain of death for failure, they were promising Saddam that they had (conventional) "super-weapons" they could field against the Americans. IIRC, Saddam was expecting them to show up even as the Baghdad was falling.

It's important to note however, that the supposed "Special Weapons Program" was strictly conventional.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 01:21 PM
 
All I have to say on the actual subject of this thread is that I know someone who was in Naval Intelligence during Desert Storm and that he saw with his own eyes how when there would be an attack there would be two different civilian death toll numbers: the real ones and the ones they actually report.

So while I think that this 655,000 number is absurd, I have little doubt that it is far greater than the government admits.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
AHhahah you are kidding me?

I wonder why "Logic" didn't read this part. And if he did, why did he even post it?
Yup. That BBC article does a good job of avoiding the study's details. Here's another article...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/10/D8KM6GL80.html

In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer.

An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000.

For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July.
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah
Wrong. Read up on it.
I did, though it seems you didn't which is a shamesince it is your thread.

Read the article I posted above.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by spacefreak
An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000.
See, I don't know if I believe the 650,00 estimate either, but honestly, think about it: does 50,000 seem plausible to you?! Honestly? Considering the number of people killed weekly in Baghdad alone...man. 50,000 in well over 3 years seems waaaaay too low.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
See, I don't know if I believe the 650,00 estimate either, but honestly, think about it: does 50,000 seem plausible to you?! Honestly? Considering the number of people killed weekly in Baghdad alone...man. 50,000 in well over 3 years seems waaaaay too low.

greg
I would believe the 150,000 number that has thrown around before, but yeah 50,000 seems a little low to me too.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 07:31 PM
 
I have to point out that this 650,000 number is NOT an actual count of bodies. It's a statistical estimate, based on sampling in areas all over Iraq. And there is little concrete basis for the claims it makes: even when the deaths have been substantiated by death certificates, how legitimate are those documents? In some areas, the populace is deep in the hold of radical groups, so would the coroner there be an exception? EVERYBODY in Iraq has a political agenda, and however well intentioned this study was, it just went straight into the pool of agendas and scooped up lots of wrath. Unless someone goes out and counts every corpse, and can find out what ACTUALLY killed the person, then it's all speculation, no matter how good the statistical tools, how thorough the surveys, and how earnest the questioners are.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 07:55 PM
 
Is no one suspicious that this survey was announced around election time? Just like the last study from this publication was also announced around election time?

Does that raise no skepticism for you?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks
Is no one suspicious that this survey was announced around election time? Just like the last study from this publication was also announced around election time?

Does that raise no skepticism for you?
none whatsoever. If there was nothing like this around election time... beware!
ebuddy
     
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2006, 06:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by spacefreak
This "study" didn't use body counts, but rather relied on interviews with people. If 17 bodies were found after a bombing, this study instead recorded what some schmoe on the street said: "at least 200".

Gotta love the +60,000 for increased heart disease and cancer deaths.

I'll stick with the body counts. Thanks.
You are completely wrong:

1. The studies were made by interviewing households and asking them how many family-members died, most of them verified their answers with death-certificates. Of course it is impossible to ask and investigate every single house-hold, so the researchers had to use the same true and tested method of representative, statistical selection and projection, that was used for any wars of the recent past.

2. There are no official body-counts! What you mean and what is often called iraq-body count is merely the counting of deadly casualties that are reported in the media!

3. I wouldn't laugh about heart-diseases and cancer-related deaths, the rise in them can be attributed to the situation of Iraq after invasion due to a worsening in medical treatment, more stress, and more radioactive pollution due to uranium depleted ammunition.

Taliesin
     
marden
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2006, 08:37 AM
 
Ladies and Gents,

There is not a pure Iraq VS America war going on in Iraq, as you might think.

There are hard core islamofascists groups trying to hijack Iraq. We are trying to help the Iraqi people keep them from doing so. No one FORCED the people of Iraq to head out from their apartments and houses and villages and farms to vote in the first free election in their lives. THEY WERE PROUD TO DO IT. What we all wish the moderate Muslims the world over would do...stand up to the islamofascists who are trying to hijack them and their religion, is exactly what we are helping the moderates do in Iraq.

We HAVE to encourage and support moderate Islam and Muslims who will stand up to the violent, terrorist, jihadist, islamofascists. President Bush has NEVER advocated or even suggested anything except that the evil doers are the ones we are at war with. We can not and must not look at all Muslims as the enemy even though all of the evil doers we have seen come from Islamic backgrounds. This is why the war is so difficult in Iraq. We are there to help MODERATE MUSLIMS to defeat and resist JIHADIST MUSLIMS. The jihadist Muslims want the world, especially the U.S. liberal world, to believe we are against ALL Muslims.

That is not the case.

We are risking thousands of our fighting men and spending billions of dollars to help the Iraqi people create a MODERATE MUSLIM nation. If we are unsuccessful it will become an ISLAMOFASCIST nation. In addition to that being bad for western civilization it would mean the death of most of our strongest allies in Iraq. Those who are bravely combatting islamofascists and their death squads would be left defenseless. And anytime in the future if America needs a friend in another land those would-be friends will think about how America leaves it's friends to die and they will refuse. We are helping Muslim civilization to make the change that will prevent a global Holy War that would surely ruin your day.

Those who oppose a moderate Islam also oppose the war.

SUPPORT MODERATE ISLAM.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2006, 07:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Taliesin
You are completely wrong:

1. The studies were made by interviewing households and asking them how many family-members died, most of them verified their answers with death-certificates. Of course it is impossible to ask and investigate every single house-hold, so the researchers had to use the same true and tested method of representative, statistical selection and projection, that was used for any wars of the recent past.

2. There are no official body-counts! What you mean and what is often called iraq-body count is merely the counting of deadly casualties that are reported in the media!

3. I wouldn't laugh about heart-diseases and cancer-related deaths, the rise in them can be attributed to the situation of Iraq after invasion due to a worsening in medical treatment, more stress, and more radioactive pollution due to uranium depleted ammunition.

Taliesin
You still can't trust either death certificates, or family's accounts for how many died, how they died, etc. Too many agendas, too many axes to grind. See my post above.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2006, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by marden
Ladies and Gents,
...[gab]...
SUPPORT MODERATE ISLAM.
WTF?!?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2006, 04:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dead due to economic sanctions. The peaceful alternative.
Actually, I heard it was millions. If not billions. I'll try to find the link for you guys. The "cut-and-run"/terrorists/liberals unfortunately seem to care about American lives more than Iraqi lives.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2006, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie
If not billions.
Good luck finding support for this claim. 1 billion people is the entire population of Iraq 40 times over.

Yes, the economic sanctions on Iraq have wiped out 1/6th of the entire planet.

     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2006, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
No, actually I was suggesting the US invaded Iraq because it was clear that the peaceful alternatives to invasion were not working for them or us.
That, and there's a sh*t load of money to be had if everything had went well. Mostly the money.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 14, 2006, 09:16 PM
 
The sanctions didn't hurt anyone. The way Sadam managed what went on in Iraq is what killed so many people. Remember "oil for food?" Remember how much of that money went into Sadam's pocket? Think now about who DIDN'T get that money-the people who starved, died for lack of medicines, etc. The sanctions were also so porous that the ONLY people who suffered were people Sadam wanted to suffer.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2006, 02:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
Saddam ordered the destruction of his WMD program and his WMDs. He did it in such a way as to intentionally keep everyone in the dark about it.
Well then he went against the UN by doing so. He was told not only to get rid of them, but show proof he did.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2006, 03:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Well then he went against the UN by doing so. He was told not only to get rid of them, but show proof he did.
Yup. Big time.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2006, 06:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
That, and there's a sh*t load of money to be had if everything had went well. Mostly the money.
What are you talking about?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2006, 06:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
The sanctions didn't hurt anyone. The way Sadam managed what went on in Iraq is what killed so many people. Remember "oil for food?" Remember how much of that money went into Sadam's pocket? Think now about who DIDN'T get that money-the people who starved, died for lack of medicines, etc. The sanctions were also so porous that the ONLY people who suffered were people Sadam wanted to suffer.
My point was that sanctions didn't help anyone. Regardless of how dollars are distributed, if there are less dollars you can bet the strain will not affect the tyrant near as much as his people. IMO, the negative impact of economic sanctions on civilians is without question. I'll let the numerous humans rights organizations banter about whether it's 500,000 dead or 1.2 million dead. Suffice it to say, they were ineffective against Saddam Hussein.
ebuddy
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2006, 06:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
That, and there's a sh*t load of money to be had if everything had went well. Mostly the money.
Please explain. Because what you claim doesn't make the least bit of sense.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2006, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
Please explain. Because what you claim doesn't make the least bit of sense.
I think what he's saying is that had the military side of things gone closer to plan, it would have left open great potential for much war profiteering.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2006, 07:01 PM
 
But I thought Haliburton made billions of dollars anyway.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2006, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
But I thought Haliburton made billions of dollars anyway.
****. I don't know. Either way, I can't see things not going to plan eliminating war profiteering altogether.

Aren't the currently insane profits seen by the oil industry mainly because of China anyways?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:12 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,