those nice statistics you posted are not correct or proven.
We need to remmeber that no cares about the losers, or bothers to count the bodies, but...
Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll conducted August 12-19, 2007 estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths.
The Lancet study's figure of 654,965 excess deaths through the end of June 2006 is based on household survey data
Concerning war-related deaths (civilian and non-civilian), and deaths from criminal gangs, Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari said that since the March 2003 invasion between 100,000-150,000 Iraqis had been killed.[11] "Al-Shemari said on Thursday [Nov. 9, 2006] that he based his figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals – though such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total."[12]
We need to remmeber that no cares about the losers, or bothers to count the bodies, but...
Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll conducted August 12-19, 2007 estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths.
The Lancet study's figure of 654,965 excess deaths through the end of June 2006 is based on household survey data
Concerning war-related deaths (civilian and non-civilian), and deaths from criminal gangs, Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari said that since the March 2003 invasion between 100,000-150,000 Iraqis had been killed.[11] "Al-Shemari said on Thursday [Nov. 9, 2006] that he based his figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals – though such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total."[12]
Anyway you look at it its not good.
none of its good I agree. but there is a big difference from 130,000 to 1,200,000 one is much worse then the other right?
We need to remmeber that no cares about the losers, or bothers to count the bodies, but...
Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll conducted August 12-19, 2007 estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths.
The Lancet study's figure of 654,965 excess deaths through the end of June 2006 is based on household survey data
Concerning war-related deaths (civilian and non-civilian), and deaths from criminal gangs, Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari said that since the March 2003 invasion between 100,000-150,000 Iraqis had been killed.[11] "Al-Shemari said on Thursday [Nov. 9, 2006] that he based his figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals – though such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total."[12]
Anyway you look at it its not good.
And how many bodies haven't been brought to morgues or hospitals.
In fact, how many 'bodies' does a 250, 500, or 1000 pound bomb leave in it's wake?
With the full support of the West, which supplied him chemical weapons with which to gas Kurds both before and after the most notorious massacre of Kurds at Halabja in 1988.
He would have continued to starve his nation's children and deny them medicine while he spends money on lavish palaces.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-12/19pilger.cfm
2007 - "The mortality of children in Basra has increased by nearly 30% compared to the Saddam Hussein era," says Dr Haydar Salah, a paediatrician at Basra children's hospital. In January nearly 100 leading British doctors wrote to Hilary Benn, then international development secretary, describing how children were dying because Britain had not fulfilled its obligations under UN security resolution 1483. He refused to see them.'
I also think that in the long run the US has actually saved more lives than it has taken... would anybody care to challenge that?
Yeah, I'd like to challenge that. I think it's utter guff.
Sadaam could have been overthrown from within with some long and careful planning and usual C.I.A interference and provocation. The issues between differing religious factions may also have been considered and addressed beforehand in order to prevent the kind of civil war we are seeing now.
Alternatively, the U.S and it's poodle Britain, could have just stayed the fuck out and minded their own business.
With the full support of the West, which supplied him chemical weapons with which to gas Kurds both before and after the most notorious massacre of Kurds at Halabja in 1988.
Simple. Another member of the Baath party - probably a relative - would have taken over.
,
He didn't pitt Sunnis against Shias. There was relative stability in the country before the U.S tore it apart.
With the full support of the West, which supplied him chemical weapons with which to gas Kurds both before and after the most notorious massacre of Kurds at Halabja in 1988.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-12/19pilger.cfm
2007 - "The mortality of children in Basra has increased by nearly 30% compared to the Saddam Hussein era," says Dr Haydar Salah, a paediatrician at Basra children's hospital. In January nearly 100 leading British doctors wrote to Hilary Benn, then international development secretary, describing how children were dying because Britain had not fulfilled its obligations under UN security resolution 1483. He refused to see them.'
Yeah, I'd like to challenge that. I think it's utter guff.
Sadaam could have been overthrown from within with some long and careful planning and usual C.I.A interference and provocation. The issues between differing religious factions may also have been considered and addressed beforehand in order to prevent the kind of civil war we are seeing now.
Alternatively, the U.S and it's poodle Britain, could have just stayed the fuck out and minded their own business.
I don't claim to know everything about Iraq and the Middle East, but I'm pretty informed and welcome anybody to challenge any of my opinions or statements about it.
But if you don't think Saddam opressed the Shia in Iraq and pitted them against the Sunni minority for decades - then you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
It's pretty revealing that you have such engrained opinions, yet you lack a basic understanding of Iraqi history.
You need to watch a Frontline show or do some readying or something. Saddam was a brutal, brutal dictator and he held on to his power the same way all brutal dictators do - with the use of deadly "security" forces and fear tactics that would make Bush/Cheney look like saints.
Even your logic is so flawed that it makes me laugh in front of my computer. You think the fact that there was stability in Iraq is evidence that Saddam didn't oppress one religious sect?
Are we really supposed to take you serious, or your views with that kind of elementary thinking?
There was "stability" in Iraq becuase Saddam had internal security and police forces that would kidnap, torture and kill anybody that even appeared to be a threat to the government. Pretty soon, the fear of these forces alone was enough to keep people in check.
That is a huge reason there has been so much bloodletting among Iraqi's after the US overthrow. These tensions have been brewing for many decades.
Has the US fucked up in Iraq, you bet. Do we have other motives for going there besides the well being of IRaqi's - absolutely. But are we helping the country recover from a 20 year Saddam nightmare - it can't be denyed.
i've been waitng for someone to step up to the plate about the successful surge - no threads about iraq for a while...why?
not much to bitch about - is it perfect? nope.
go back and read some ny times stories after ww2...exact same headlines..bottom line is, these things take time.
in this day and time, instant gratification is all that matters. not many want to go through the ups and downs that life brings, much less wait 4 or 5 years for something.
it has the dems flip flopping yet again - i think it's funny as hell.
it was a big change over there, it's gonna take time...right now at least, it looks like things are going in the right direction.
this country has supported regime change since the early 90's...it's stupid to put it all at bush's feet. he just had the balls to do what bill was too chickenshit to do
oh yeah, now i'm waiting for those who will come a bashing
Really? How?
How about backing your empty flatulance up with some source material/facts for once, or is it that your simply incapable of doing so?
sorry I shouldn't need to cut and paste articles for you to understand that saddam brutally oppressed shittes. or anyone who didnt swear complete obedience.
But if you don't think Saddam opressed the Shia in Iraq and pitted them against the Sunni minority for decades - then you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
You need to watch a Frontline show or do some readying or something. Saddam was a brutal, brutal dictator and he held on to his power the same way all brutal dictators do - with the use of deadly "security" forces and fear tactics that would make Bush/Cheney look like saints.
You think the fact that there was stability in Iraq is evidence that Saddam didn't oppress one religious sect?
Are we really supposed to take you serious, or your views with that kind of elementary thinking?
Well, that's a lot of words for someone who tells me I need to watch more t.v, or do some readying.
But in answer to your rant, the Baath party in Iraq were a secular Arab nationalist political party. They weren't affiliated with either the Sunni's or Shias.
There was "stability" in Iraq becuase Saddam had internal security and police forces that would kidnap, torture and kill anybody that even appeared to be a threat to the government. Pretty soon, the fear of these forces alone was enough to keep people in check.
That is a huge reason there has been so much bloodletting among Iraqi's after the US overthrow. These tensions have been brewing for many decades.
are we helping the country recover from a 20 year Saddam nightmare - it can't be denyed.
As far as nightmares go, you've replaced one nightmare with an even bigger one. I don't see any reason why you feel the Bush Administration should be applauded for this.
sorry I shouldn't need to cut and paste articles for you to understand that saddam brutally oppressed shittes. or anyone who didnt swear complete obedience.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/countries/bl_IraqIndex.htm 'Iraq is roughly composed of 60% Shia and 40% Sunni Muslims, but most political and economic power typically rested with the Sunnis. On the other hand, the war with Iran provided an excellent reason for the secular regime to better integrate Shia Muslims in the government and society. Nearly 75% of the lower ranks of the army were Shia, but even during major setbacks in the war with Shia Iran there was never a major sectarian insurrection. The secular government united Sunni and Shia Muslims under a banner of general religious piety, nationalism, and ethnicity.'
Most of the repression of the Shias came after the 1991 uprising when - after being guaranteed support by the U.S military who were then still on the ground - the Shias were abandoned by the U.S and left to be massacred in their thousands.
guess what. you will find violence in this country for the next hundred years. violence happens in all countries. imagine how murders occur in the US daily. like someone else said, its humans being humans.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/countries/bl_IraqIndex.htm 'Iraq is roughly composed of 60% Shia and 40% Sunni Muslims, but most political and economic power typically rested with the Sunnis. On the other hand, the war with Iran provided an excellent reason for the secular regime to better integrate Shia Muslims in the government and society. Nearly 75% of the lower ranks of the army were Shia, but even during major setbacks in the war with Shia Iran there was never a major sectarian insurrection. The secular government united Sunni and Shia Muslims under a banner of general religious piety, nationalism, and ethnicity.'
Most of the repression of the Shias came after the 1991 uprising when - after being guaranteed support by the U.S military who were then still on the ground - the Shias were abandoned by the U.S and left to be massacred in their thousands.
wow again you blame the US for something Saddam did. amazing
guess what. you will find violence in this country for the next hundred years. violence happens in all countries. imagine how murders occur in the US daily. like someone else said, its humans being humans.
not sure how applies to my comment. but thanks for stopping by
Myth: There have been steps toward religious and political reconciliation in Iraq in 2007.
Fact: The government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has for the moment lost the support of the Sunni Arabs in parliament.
Myth: The US troop surge stopped the civil war that had been raging between Sunni Arabs and Shiites in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.
Fact: The civil war in Baghdad escalated during the US troop escalation.
Myth: Iran was supplying explosively formed projectiles (a deadly form of roadside bomb) to Salafi Jihadi (radical Sunni) guerrilla groups in Iraq.
Fact: Iran has not been proved to have sent weapons to any Iraqi guerrillas at all.
Myth: The US overthrow of the Baath regime and military occupation of Iraq has helped liberate Iraqi women.
Fact: Iraqi women have suffered significant reversals of status, ability to circulate freely, and economic situation under the Bush administration.
Myth: The Sunni Arab "Awakening Councils," who are on the US payroll, are reconciling with the Shiite government of PM Nuri al-Maliki even as they take on al-Qaeda remnants.
Fact: In interviews with the Western press, Awakening Council tribesmen often speak of attacking the Shiites after they have polished off al-Qaeda.
Myth: The Iraqi north is relatively quiet and a site of economic growth.
Fact: The subterranean battle among Kurds, Turkmen and Arabs for control of the oil-rich Kirkuk province makes the Iraqi north a political mine field.
Myth: Iraq has been "calm" in fall of 2007 and the Iraqi public, despite some grumbling, is not eager for the US to depart.
Fact: in the past 6 weeks, there have been an average of 600 attacks a month, or 20 a day, which has held steady since the beginning of November.
Myth: There have been steps toward religious and political reconciliation in Iraq in 2007.
Fact: The government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has for the moment lost the support of the Sunni Arabs in parliament.
Myth: The US troop surge stopped the civil war that had been raging between Sunni Arabs and Shiites in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.
Fact: The civil war in Baghdad escalated during the US troop escalation.
Myth: Iran was supplying explosively formed projectiles (a deadly form of roadside bomb) to Salafi Jihadi (radical Sunni) guerrilla groups in Iraq.
Fact: Iran has not been proved to have sent weapons to any Iraqi guerrillas at all.
Myth: The US overthrow of the Baath regime and military occupation of Iraq has helped liberate Iraqi women.
Fact: Iraqi women have suffered significant reversals of status, ability to circulate freely, and economic situation under the Bush administration.
Myth: The Sunni Arab "Awakening Councils," who are on the US payroll, are reconciling with the Shiite government of PM Nuri al-Maliki even as they take on al-Qaeda remnants.
Fact: In interviews with the Western press, Awakening Council tribesmen often speak of attacking the Shiites after they have polished off al-Qaeda.
Myth: The Iraqi north is relatively quiet and a site of economic growth.
Fact: The subterranean battle among Kurds, Turkmen and Arabs for control of the oil-rich Kirkuk province makes the Iraqi north a political mine field.
Myth: Iraq has been "calm" in fall of 2007 and the Iraqi public, despite some grumbling, is not eager for the US to depart.
Fact: in the past 6 weeks, there have been an average of 600 attacks a month, or 20 a day, which has held steady since the beginning of November.
Comments
those nice statistics you posted are not correct or proven.
We need to remmeber that no cares about the losers, or bothers to count the bodies, but...
Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll conducted August 12-19, 2007 estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths.
The Lancet study's figure of 654,965 excess deaths through the end of June 2006 is based on household survey data
Concerning war-related deaths (civilian and non-civilian), and deaths from criminal gangs, Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari said that since the March 2003 invasion between 100,000-150,000 Iraqis had been killed.[11] "Al-Shemari said on Thursday [Nov. 9, 2006] that he based his figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals – though such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total."[12]
Anyway you look at it its not good.
none of its good I agree. but there is a big difference from 130,000 to 1,200,000 one is much worse then the other right?
And how many bodies haven't been brought to morgues or hospitals.
In fact, how many 'bodies' does a 250, 500, or 1000 pound bomb leave in it's wake?
Simple. Another member of the Baath party - probably a relative - would have taken over.
,
He didn't pitt Sunnis against Shias. There was relative stability in the country before the U.S tore it apart.
With the full support of the West, which supplied him chemical weapons with which to gas Kurds both before and after the most notorious massacre of Kurds at Halabja in 1988.
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-12/19pilger.cfm
2007 - "The mortality of children in Basra has increased by nearly 30% compared to the Saddam Hussein era," says Dr Haydar Salah, a paediatrician at Basra children's hospital. In January nearly 100 leading British doctors wrote to Hilary Benn, then international development secretary, describing how children were dying because Britain had not fulfilled its obligations under UN security resolution 1483. He refused to see them.'
Yeah, I'd like to challenge that. I think it's utter guff.
Sadaam could have been overthrown from within with some long and careful planning and usual C.I.A interference and provocation. The issues between differing religious factions may also have been considered and addressed beforehand in order to prevent the kind of civil war we are seeing now.
Alternatively, the U.S and it's poodle Britain, could have just stayed the fuck out and minded their own business.
holy shit your ignorance is frighting. no, he didnt start the feud between sunnis and shitts but he certainly made it worse.
I guess if you completely oppress, torture, rape, and kill one whole sect of people in order to bring "stability" you find that perfectly ok.
so saddam holds no fault in this?
I don't claim to know everything about Iraq and the Middle East, but I'm pretty informed and welcome anybody to challenge any of my opinions or statements about it.
But if you don't think Saddam opressed the Shia in Iraq and pitted them against the Sunni minority for decades - then you clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
It's pretty revealing that you have such engrained opinions, yet you lack a basic understanding of Iraqi history.
You need to watch a Frontline show or do some readying or something. Saddam was a brutal, brutal dictator and he held on to his power the same way all brutal dictators do - with the use of deadly "security" forces and fear tactics that would make Bush/Cheney look like saints.
Even your logic is so flawed that it makes me laugh in front of my computer. You think the fact that there was stability in Iraq is evidence that Saddam didn't oppress one religious sect?
Are we really supposed to take you serious, or your views with that kind of elementary thinking?
There was "stability" in Iraq becuase Saddam had internal security and police forces that would kidnap, torture and kill anybody that even appeared to be a threat to the government. Pretty soon, the fear of these forces alone was enough to keep people in check.
That is a huge reason there has been so much bloodletting among Iraqi's after the US overthrow. These tensions have been brewing for many decades.
Has the US fucked up in Iraq, you bet. Do we have other motives for going there besides the well being of IRaqi's - absolutely. But are we helping the country recover from a 20 year Saddam nightmare - it can't be denyed.
So you think the 'end' justifies the means?
Really? How?
How about backing your empty flatulance up with some source material/facts for once, or is it that your simply incapable of doing so?
Because that's what I said, right?
yes, thats exactly what you said. you said Iraq was a stable place. which couldnt be further from the truth.
and you also choose to blame the "west" for something Saddam did. completely ignoring the fact that he pulled the trigger.
Well, that's a lot of words for someone who tells me I need to watch more t.v, or do some readying.
But in answer to your rant, the Baath party in Iraq were a secular Arab nationalist political party. They weren't affiliated with either the Sunni's or Shias.
This much is true.
As far as nightmares go, you've replaced one nightmare with an even bigger one. I don't see any reason why you feel the Bush Administration should be applauded for this.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/countries/bl_IraqIndex.htm
'Iraq is roughly composed of 60% Shia and 40% Sunni Muslims, but most political and economic power typically rested with the Sunnis. On the other hand, the war with Iran provided an excellent reason for the secular regime to better integrate Shia Muslims in the government and society. Nearly 75% of the lower ranks of the army were Shia, but even during major setbacks in the war with Shia Iran there was never a major sectarian insurrection. The secular government united Sunni and Shia Muslims under a banner of general religious piety, nationalism, and ethnicity.'
Most of the repression of the Shias came after the 1991 uprising when - after being guaranteed support by the U.S military who were then still on the ground - the Shias were abandoned by the U.S and left to be massacred in their thousands.
...
wow again you blame the US for something Saddam did. amazing
not sure how applies to my comment. but thanks for stopping by
of course you're not
of course im not what?
Fact: The government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has for the moment lost the support of the Sunni Arabs in parliament.
Myth: The US troop surge stopped the civil war that had been raging between Sunni Arabs and Shiites in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.
Fact: The civil war in Baghdad escalated during the US troop escalation.
Myth: Iran was supplying explosively formed projectiles (a deadly form of roadside bomb) to Salafi Jihadi (radical Sunni) guerrilla groups in Iraq.
Fact: Iran has not been proved to have sent weapons to any Iraqi guerrillas at all.
Myth: The US overthrow of the Baath regime and military occupation of Iraq has helped liberate Iraqi women.
Fact: Iraqi women have suffered significant reversals of status, ability to circulate freely, and economic situation under the Bush administration.
Myth: The Sunni Arab "Awakening Councils," who are on the US payroll, are reconciling with the Shiite government of PM Nuri al-Maliki even as they take on al-Qaeda remnants.
Fact: In interviews with the Western press, Awakening Council tribesmen often speak of attacking the Shiites after they have polished off al-Qaeda.
Myth: The Iraqi north is relatively quiet and a site of economic growth.
Fact: The subterranean battle among Kurds, Turkmen and Arabs for control of the oil-rich Kirkuk province makes the Iraqi north a political mine field.
Myth: Iraq has been "calm" in fall of 2007 and the Iraqi public, despite some grumbling, is not eager for the US to depart.
Fact: in the past 6 weeks, there have been an average of 600 attacks a month, or 20 a day, which has held steady since the beginning of November.
so these are all facts because you say so?
These are known by people who read newspapers.
If I were to criticize that post I would point out the straw man "myths". But the facts are reported.