Well, I'm poor, white and southern but I'm not a redneck....so I think it goes back to the 'dumb' thing as I stated before.
Now that you mention it, I'm sure you're right . . .
But then, I don't put a lot of stock in my in-laws' interpretation of smart and dumb.
"Things will just get better and better even though it
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
im not going to sit back and agree the 650,000 people are dead based on a survey of 1849 households
So you're an expert on surveys are you? You possess a more advanced understanding of surveys than the John Hopkins school of Public Health, whose findings are relied upon and trusted for a number of studies, medical, or otherwise? The bottom line is that you believe what you feel is convenient to believe. Your comment is meaningless.
Roberts has been puzzled and disturbed by this response to his work, which stands in sharp contrast to the way the same governments responded to a similar study he led in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2000. In that case, he reported that about 1.7 million people had died during 22 months of war and, as he says, “Tony Blair and Colin Powell quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity.” In fact the UN Security Council promptly called for the withdrawal of foreign armies from the Congo and the U.S. State Department cited his study in announcing a grant of $10 million for humanitarian aid.
Roberts conducted a follow-up study in the Congo that raised the fatality estimate to three million and Tony Blair cited that figure in his address to the 2001 Labor Party conference. In December 2004 Blair dismissed the epidemiological team’s work in Iraq, claiming, “Figures from the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which are a survey from the hospitals there, are in our view the most accurate survey there is.”
Michael O’Toole, the director of the Center for International Health in Australia, says: “That’s a classical sample size. I just don’t see any evidence of significant exaggeration…. If anything, the deaths may have been higher because what they are unable to do is survey families where everyone has died.”
Roberts has also compared his work in Iraq to other epidemiological studies: “In 1993, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control randomly called 613 households in Milwaukee and concluded that 403,000 people had developed Cryptosporidium in the largest outbreak ever recorded in the developed world, no one said that 613 households was not a big enough sample. It is odd that the logic of epidemiology embraced by the press every day regarding new drugs or health risks somehow changes when the mechanism of death is their armed forces.”
The campaign to discredit Roberts, the Johns Hopkins team, and the Lancet used the same methods that the U.S. and British governments have employed consistently to protect their monopoly on “responsible” storytelling about the war. By dismissing the study’s findings out of hand, U.S. and British officials created the illusion that the authors were suspect or politically motivated and discouraged the media from taking them seriously. This worked disturbingly well. Even opponents of the war continue to cite much lower figures for civilian casualties and innocently attribute the bulk of them to Iraqi resistance forces or “terrorists.”
So you're an expert on surveys are you? You possess a more advanced understanding of surveys than the John Hopkins school of Public Health, whose findings are relied upon and trusted for a number of studies, medical, or otherwise? The bottom line is that you believe what you feel is convenient to believe. Your comment is meaningless.
several experts believe the number to be exsessive. it might surprise you, but im not the only one who believes that. do you have any idea how many bodies 655,000 actually is? where are the bodies? its an estimate based on 1849 homes. how can you say its a FACT that 655,000 people have died? i'll quote someone who posts here alot that applies directly to you. "The bottom line is that you believe what you feel is convenient to believe. your comment is meaningless."
there is a research group in Iraq doing an actual count of bodies. their figures, backed up actual documentation, is under 50,000.
if you want to tell me, as a result of Bush's actions in Iraq close to 50,000 iraqis have died, I would agree and say its equally as terrible.
1,634,564 people didnt die on 9/11. its was 2,973.
there is a research group in Iraq doing an actual count of bodies. their figures, backed up actual documentation, is under 50,000.
1,634,564 people didnt die on 9/11. its was 2,973.
An actual count of bodies? And they have access to all bodies do they? What about those thousands of bodies that have been incinerated? Who exactly is this 'research group'? How are they managing to survive traveling the length and breadth of the country counting bodies? When heavy munitions are dropped on a house, or a group of people, there are no bodies to be counted, just a pile of rubble and ashes. Sounds like bollocks to me. Sounds like the same useless survey being carried out by 'Iraq body count' who rely solely on the deaths reported by the media for their results.
As for the last sentence about 9/11, it is utterly meaningless. In case you don't know, 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.
Here's an excerpt from a recent Matt Good article:
"Beyond arguing over outrageous death tolls, no matter which way you look at it, what are we to say about the 300,000 Iraqis that have fled Baghdad, or the almost 1 million Iraqi refugees that are currently in Jordan? How about the fact in September alone the Iraqi Health Ministry estimates that 2,660 civilians were killed? What are we to say about the fact that torture in Iraq is more rampant now than during the Saddam era, or that the Iraqi infrastructure is still in complete disarray three years after the country was invaded? What are we to say about the fact that the Iraqi government and US military leadership have to be barricaded inside a safe zone in the capital, or that the head of the United Kingdom’s Armed Forces has claimed that the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq “exacerbates the security problems”.
The regime of Saddam Hussein, once allied with Washington, had no ties to al-Qaeda or the attacks of September 11th, nor did it possess WMD’s, not to mention a nuclear program since the very early 90’s according to accounts by American-Iraqis approached by the CIA prior to the invasion to travel back to Iraq because they had family still residing in the country that had been involved in the program when it did exist (information that was, for some bizarre reason, withheld from pre-war intelligence portfolios). And in the midst of all of the deceit and death, people are actually arguing over accurate body counts as if it made all the difference in the world.
In short, does it matter whether 30,000 or 600,000 innocent people are dead because of a lie?
An actual count of bodies? And they have access to all bodies do they? What about those thousands of bodies that have been incinerated? Who exactly is this 'research group'? How are they managing to survive traveling the length and breadth of the country counting bodies? When heavy munitions are dropped on a house, or a group of people, there are no bodies to be counted, just a pile of rubble and ashes. Sounds like bollocks to me. Sounds like the same useless survey being carried out by 'Iraq body count' who rely solely on the deaths reported by the media for their results.
As for the last sentence about 9/11, it is utterly meaningless. In case you don't know, 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.
I'm not going to say 655,000 people have died based on a survey of 1849 homes. you can choose to believe whatever you want. its not based on fact, so dont try and tell me i'm wrong.
the 9/11 reference was used as an example. not to link iraq and 9/11 together. sorry you couldnt figure that out.
I dont believe that number. how ever many bodies they have found is the number I believe. which is in the 10s of thousands.
Whatever gets you through the day. But I will repeat myself: In war there are as often as not no bodies available to count, especially with todays modern weapons being used.
I admit, after doing some of my own research I was wrong. even tony blair said that number was an exaggeration. they are still in the process of digging up the graves which will take years, and many more will be found. there have been 10s of thousands of people found so far. many more to come.
maybe try debating like a normal human being, although it may be very difiicult for you
Whatever gets you through the day. But I will repeat myself: In war there are as often as not no bodies available to count, especially with todays modern weapons being used.
I dont disagree with you. but i'm not going to say 655,000 people have died. thats just a number you and others use as fact to get across your point that bush is the biggest mass murderist in the history of the world. i'm much more realistic about it.
the 9/11 reference was used as an example. not to link iraq and 9/11 together. sorry you couldnt figure that out.
So then you could just as easily have quoted the death toll from the U.S invasion of Panama instead, or the U.S bombing of the Sudanese medical facility, for example? But you chose 9/11. Interesting. Anyone would think that 9/11 is the only crime in history worth mentioning.
So then you could just as easily have quoted the death toll from the U.S invasion of Panama instead, or the U.S bombing of the Sudanese medical facility, for example? But you chose 9/11. Interesting. Anyone would think that 9/11 is the only crime in history worth mentioning.
like I said, im sorry you couldnt figure out it was just an example.
So then you could just as easily have quoted the death toll from the U.S invasion of Panama instead, or the U.S bombing of the Sudanese medical facility, for example? But you chose 9/11. Interesting. Anyone would think that 9/11 is the only crime in history worth mentioning.
Didn't you know Byrnzie, that the genesis of all thats wrong with this world was 9/11. That's when the clock started.
Didn't you know Byrnzie, that the genesis of all thats wrong with this world was 9/11. That's when the clock started.
It's certainly when some people started paying attention... :rolleyes:
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
In other news, I see that Augusto Pinochet is about to be formally arrested for crimes he committed in the 1970's after he was basically installed by the Americans at the time. To paraphrase one article I read recently, it's unlikely he would ever have been put in power were it not for the support of the U.S. gov't. Lets see, how many people did he torture or kill......I wanna make sure I get this perfectly correct. You know people and their numbers......
In other news, I see that Augusto Pinochet is about to be formally arrested for crimes he committed in the 1970's after he was basically installed by the Americans at the time. To paraphrase one article I read recently, it's unlikely he would ever have been put in power were it not for the support of the U.S. gov't. Lets see, how many people did he torture or kill......I wanna make sure I get this perfectly correct. You know people and their numbers......
america is responsible for all the death and toture in the world, no matter what decade it was.
america is responsible for all the death and toture in the world, no matter what decade it was.
careful, don't approach... we have a case of extreme irony...
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
I dont disagree with you. but i'm not going to say 655,000 people have died. thats just a number you and others use as fact to get across your point that bush is the biggest mass murderist in the history of the world. i'm much more realistic about it.
I never said that bush is the biggest mass murderist in the history of the world, I said he was the biggest mass murderer in America since his Dad.
Comments
But then, I don't put a lot of stock in my in-laws' interpretation of smart and dumb.
doesn't feel that way right now. That's the hopeful
idea . . . Hope didn't get much applause . . .
Hope! Hope is the underdog!"
-- EV, Live at the Showbox
Are you blind to the realities of war...
...that you would believe politicians before highly reputable scientists using reliable survey techniques.
no im not. reality of war, is people die, even civillians.
im not going to sit back and agree the 650,000 people are dead based on a survey of 1849 households
So you're an expert on surveys are you? You possess a more advanced understanding of surveys than the John Hopkins school of Public Health, whose findings are relied upon and trusted for a number of studies, medical, or otherwise? The bottom line is that you believe what you feel is convenient to believe. Your comment is meaningless.
http://www.zmag.org/ZMagSite/Images/0206dav1.gif
Roberts has been puzzled and disturbed by this response to his work, which stands in sharp contrast to the way the same governments responded to a similar study he led in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2000. In that case, he reported that about 1.7 million people had died during 22 months of war and, as he says, “Tony Blair and Colin Powell quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity.” In fact the UN Security Council promptly called for the withdrawal of foreign armies from the Congo and the U.S. State Department cited his study in announcing a grant of $10 million for humanitarian aid.
Roberts conducted a follow-up study in the Congo that raised the fatality estimate to three million and Tony Blair cited that figure in his address to the 2001 Labor Party conference. In December 2004 Blair dismissed the epidemiological team’s work in Iraq, claiming, “Figures from the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which are a survey from the hospitals there, are in our view the most accurate survey there is.”
Michael O’Toole, the director of the Center for International Health in Australia, says: “That’s a classical sample size. I just don’t see any evidence of significant exaggeration…. If anything, the deaths may have been higher because what they are unable to do is survey families where everyone has died.”
Roberts has also compared his work in Iraq to other epidemiological studies: “In 1993, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control randomly called 613 households in Milwaukee and concluded that 403,000 people had developed Cryptosporidium in the largest outbreak ever recorded in the developed world, no one said that 613 households was not a big enough sample. It is odd that the logic of epidemiology embraced by the press every day regarding new drugs or health risks somehow changes when the mechanism of death is their armed forces.”
The campaign to discredit Roberts, the Johns Hopkins team, and the Lancet used the same methods that the U.S. and British governments have employed consistently to protect their monopoly on “responsible” storytelling about the war. By dismissing the study’s findings out of hand, U.S. and British officials created the illusion that the authors were suspect or politically motivated and discouraged the media from taking them seriously. This worked disturbingly well. Even opponents of the war continue to cite much lower figures for civilian casualties and innocently attribute the bulk of them to Iraqi resistance forces or “terrorists.”
several experts believe the number to be exsessive. it might surprise you, but im not the only one who believes that. do you have any idea how many bodies 655,000 actually is? where are the bodies? its an estimate based on 1849 homes. how can you say its a FACT that 655,000 people have died? i'll quote someone who posts here alot that applies directly to you. "The bottom line is that you believe what you feel is convenient to believe. your comment is meaningless."
there is a research group in Iraq doing an actual count of bodies. their figures, backed up actual documentation, is under 50,000.
if you want to tell me, as a result of Bush's actions in Iraq close to 50,000 iraqis have died, I would agree and say its equally as terrible.
1,634,564 people didnt die on 9/11. its was 2,973.
An actual count of bodies? And they have access to all bodies do they? What about those thousands of bodies that have been incinerated? Who exactly is this 'research group'? How are they managing to survive traveling the length and breadth of the country counting bodies? When heavy munitions are dropped on a house, or a group of people, there are no bodies to be counted, just a pile of rubble and ashes. Sounds like bollocks to me. Sounds like the same useless survey being carried out by 'Iraq body count' who rely solely on the deaths reported by the media for their results.
As for the last sentence about 9/11, it is utterly meaningless. In case you don't know, 9/11 had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.
"Beyond arguing over outrageous death tolls, no matter which way you look at it, what are we to say about the 300,000 Iraqis that have fled Baghdad, or the almost 1 million Iraqi refugees that are currently in Jordan? How about the fact in September alone the Iraqi Health Ministry estimates that 2,660 civilians were killed? What are we to say about the fact that torture in Iraq is more rampant now than during the Saddam era, or that the Iraqi infrastructure is still in complete disarray three years after the country was invaded? What are we to say about the fact that the Iraqi government and US military leadership have to be barricaded inside a safe zone in the capital, or that the head of the United Kingdom’s Armed Forces has claimed that the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq “exacerbates the security problems”.
The regime of Saddam Hussein, once allied with Washington, had no ties to al-Qaeda or the attacks of September 11th, nor did it possess WMD’s, not to mention a nuclear program since the very early 90’s according to accounts by American-Iraqis approached by the CIA prior to the invasion to travel back to Iraq because they had family still residing in the country that had been involved in the program when it did exist (information that was, for some bizarre reason, withheld from pre-war intelligence portfolios). And in the midst of all of the deceit and death, people are actually arguing over accurate body counts as if it made all the difference in the world.
In short, does it matter whether 30,000 or 600,000 innocent people are dead because of a lie?
Only to liars."
thanks slick. I dont believe that number. how ever many bodies they have found is the number I believe. which is in the 10s of thousands.
read, you might find it interesting.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
I'm not going to say 655,000 people have died based on a survey of 1849 homes. you can choose to believe whatever you want. its not based on fact, so dont try and tell me i'm wrong.
the 9/11 reference was used as an example. not to link iraq and 9/11 together. sorry you couldnt figure that out.
Whatever gets you through the day. But I will repeat myself: In war there are as often as not no bodies available to count, especially with todays modern weapons being used.
I admit, after doing some of my own research I was wrong. even tony blair said that number was an exaggeration. they are still in the process of digging up the graves which will take years, and many more will be found. there have been 10s of thousands of people found so far. many more to come.
maybe try debating like a normal human being, although it may be very difiicult for you
I dont disagree with you. but i'm not going to say 655,000 people have died. thats just a number you and others use as fact to get across your point that bush is the biggest mass murderist in the history of the world. i'm much more realistic about it.
So then you could just as easily have quoted the death toll from the U.S invasion of Panama instead, or the U.S bombing of the Sudanese medical facility, for example? But you chose 9/11. Interesting. Anyone would think that 9/11 is the only crime in history worth mentioning.
like I said, im sorry you couldnt figure out it was just an example.
Didn't you know Byrnzie, that the genesis of all thats wrong with this world was 9/11. That's when the clock started.
It's certainly when some people started paying attention... :rolleyes:
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
9/11 was just another day. we dumb americans should just got over it and move on.
america is responsible for all the death and toture in the world, no matter what decade it was.
careful, don't approach... we have a case of extreme irony...
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
No, but some accountability about what it IS responsible for would be a good start.
I never said that bush is the biggest mass murderist in the history of the world, I said he was the biggest mass murderer in America since his Dad.
It certainly seems that more than a few people believe this. Like 9/11 occured out of a vacuum in history.