Iraq - The Best Story of the Year

Byrnzie

re: the 2005 survey

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html
'A second feature of the epidemiologists’ findings that has not been sufficiently explored is the one suggested above by Michael O’Toole. Since their report establishes that aerial assault and bombardment is the leading cause of violent death in Iraq and, since a direct hit by a 500 pound Mark 82 bomb will render most houses uninhabitable, any survey that disregards damaged, uninhabited houses is sure to underreport deaths. This should be taken into account by any follow-up studies.

Thanks to Roberts, his international team, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and the editorial board of the Lancet, we have a clearer picture of the violence taking place in Iraq than that presented by “mainstream” media. Allowing for 16 months of the air war and other deaths since the completion of the survey, we have to estimate that somewhere between 185,000 and 700,000 people have died as a direct result of the war. Coalition forces have killed anywhere from 70,000 to 500,000 of them, including 30,000 to 275,000 children under the age of 15.'

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

re: the 2005 survey

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html
'A second feature of the epidemiologists’ findings that has not been sufficiently explored is the one suggested above by Michael O’Toole. Since their report establishes that aerial assault and bombardment is the leading cause of violent death in Iraq and, since a direct hit by a 500 pound Mark 82 bomb will render most houses uninhabitable, any survey that disregards damaged, uninhabited houses is sure to underreport deaths. This should be taken into account by any follow-up studies.

Thanks to Roberts, his international team, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and the editorial board of the Lancet, we have a clearer picture of the violence taking place in Iraq than that presented by “mainstream” media. Allowing for 16 months of the air war and other deaths since the completion of the survey, we have to estimate that somewhere between 185,000 and 700,000 people have died as a direct result of the war. Coalition forces have killed anywhere from 70,000 to 500,000 of them, including 30,000 to 275,000 children under the age of 15.'

one with common sense would realize how inaccurate it is based on the wide range of deaths. translation: they have no idea of the real figures.

but its probably somewhere in the range of 1 and 10,000,000,000

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

one with common sense would realize how inaccurate it is based on the wide range of deaths. translation: they have no idea of the real figures.

but its probably somewhere in the range of 1 and 10,000,000,000

The authors admit that they have no idea of the 'real figures', but after a few of these surveys have now been conducted - by different organizations - and seeing as they largely corroborate one another, I think we can safely place a conservative estimate at around the 1,000,000 mark.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

The authors admit that they have no idea of the 'real figures', but after a few of these surveys have now been conducted - by different organizations - and seeing as they largely corroborate one another, I think we can safely place a conservative estimate at around the 1,000,000 mark.

well we have both presented evidence, I guess we'll agree to disagree and live to lock horns another day. cheers

jlew24asu

NCfan wrote:

What's bullshit is all the people who deny that for the first time in 35 years, there is actually hope and the true possibility for a better future in Iraq. That trumps by far all the Abu Grhaib, Guantanamo, blood for oil, false war whinning.

Ya'll are so hung up on the US being there in the first place that you cannot contemplate that Iraq may actually turn out okay.

Don't listen to the media. Don't listen to the Bush admin. Read history and use common sense.

Iraq is not going to turn around in a year, five years, ten years - and it never was. It can be lost in that amount of time, and almost has been. But it will take generational turnover to see true, lasting results in Iraq. We're going to be there until that happens, so get ready.

The fact that so many actually hope the US loses to prove their point or to feel vindicated about false intelegence makes me sick. What a bunch of hypocrite assholes, who want to talk about Bush killing innocents and being a war-monger or not caring about the plight of Iraqi's - when people bash what the US is trying to accomplish there because they didn't agree with it to start with.

Your arguements are null and void at this point. It's like a surgeon who decides to walk away from a heart transplant after it's underway, because he lied to the patient and told him he needed a new heart, when he really didn't.

We're trying to help Iraq damnit!

I agree with this. the reasons for war were wrong but we are there. that can not be changed.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

I agree with this. the reasons for war were wrong but we are there. that can not be changed.

Actually it can be changed and should be changed

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

Actually it can be changed and should be changed

how can you go back and change history? we invaded, it happened. I would love for all of our troops to come home too. but we have a mess to clean up. after billions of dollars and tragic loss of life, conditions are actually starting to improve. deaths are significantly down. Iraqis are returning home and starting to feel a sense of normalcy

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

how can you go back and change history? we invaded, it happened. I would love for all of our troops to come home too. but we have a mess to clean up. after billions of dollars and tragic loss of life, conditions are actually starting to improve. deaths are significantly down. Iraqis are returning home and starting to feel a sense of normalcy

You said we are there now and can't change that..but we can change that. Can't change the past of brutality of murder no, but we can leave these people in peace, and should.

WE have taken over a foriegn country...the idea that it is settling down is really no surprise...this is the most advanced military on the planet, people can't resist long under that force. And with the violence dished out over the past few years I'm surprised its taken this long. But their will always be resistance, these people have more to fight for. Better to get out now and save lives.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

You said we are there now and can't change that..but we can change that. Can't change the past of brutality of murder no, but we can leave these people in peace, and should.

sorry, you are right I did say that, but what I meant is that we invaded (hence putting us there "now"). and you and I want the same thing. "that these people can live in peace"

Commy wrote:

WE have taken over a foriegn country...the idea that it is settling down is really no surprise...this is the most advanced military on the planet, people can't resist long under that force. And with the violence dished out over the past few years I'm surprised its taken this long. But their will always be resistance, these people have more to fight for. Better to get out now and save lives.

but Iraqis are starting to not see america as the enemy. we are working together. sunni and shittes fighting each other that has also been a huge problem. I dont know if that is getting better or not, only someone who has been there can answer that imo.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21387023/

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21387023/

I read about this too. and its actually having a positive effect. the more Iraqis come home, the more life starts to return to normal. businesses open, schools open, maybe some even mend bitter relationships with rival sects.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

I read about this too. and its actually having a positive effect. the more Iraqis come home, the more life starts to return to normal. businesses open, schools open, maybe some even mend bitter relationships with rival sects.

Sounds like a forced suffering plan to me. The MIC has been tearing this country apart for a long time.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/18/iraq-electricity/

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Sounds like a forced suffering plan to me. The MIC has been tearing this country apart for a long time.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/18/iraq-electricity/

well Iraqis need to go home at some point. it's their country right? I'm sure once many of them were "forced" they were glad to be home.

and that article you posted is over a year old. but im sure you knew that.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

well Iraqis need to go home at some point. it's their country right? I'm sure once many of them were "forced" they were glad to be home.

and that article you posted is over a year old. but im sure you knew that.

Glad to be in an occupied war torn country with a decimated infrastructure. I wonder if there is a person alive that has ever said that.

So you think forcing more people into an area with an already apparent shortage of resources is a good thing?

As of early 2007, Baghdad gets around 4-8 hours a day of electricity, the rest get 8-12hrs.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Glad to be in an occupied war torn country with a decimated infrastructure. I wonder if there is a person alive that has ever said that.

So you think forcing more people into an area with an already apparent shortage of resources is a good thing?

As of early 2007, Baghdad gets around 4-8 hours a day of electricity, the rest get 8-12hrs.

yes, I'm willing to be bet there are many Iraqis eager to go home to their homeland. a place where they have lived for hundreds of years. should they never return? hopefully those returning Iraqis can get jobs and help repair the countries infrastructure..

kinda sucks having such a dim outlook on life eh?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

yes, I'm willing to be bet there are many Iraqis eager to go home to their homeland. a place where they have lived for hundreds of years. should they never return? hopefully those returning Iraqis can get jobs and help repair the countries infrastructure..

kinda sucks having such a dim outlook on life eh?

Eager under the right circumstances. The rest was static noise...

NCfan

Will somebody please address what would have happened in Iraq when Saddam eventually died had the US not invaded? I image another 20 or so years of Saddam oppressing his people, pitting Sunnis against Shias, murdering Kurds and keeping his power with brutal tactics - torture and murder. He would have continued to starve his nation's children and deny them medicine while he spends money on lavish palaces. I wonder how many more women Uday and Qusay would have taken to their rape rooms.

When Saddam eventually died, Iraq would have erupted like a freakin powder keg - and without a major and far suprior force in country like the US military - the violence and bloodletting would have known no end.

I agree that the war was initiated on false intelegence, and that Bush and Cheney are lying bastards who use fear to achieve thier agendas. But 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?

.

jlew24asu

NCfan wrote:

Will somebody please address what would have happened in Iraq when Saddam eventually died had the US not invaded? I image another 20 or so years of Saddam oppressing his people, pitting Sunnis against Shias, murdering Kurds and keeping his power with brutal tactics - torture and murder. He would have continued to starve his nation's children and deny them medicine while he spends money on lavish palaces. I wonder how many more women Uday and Qusay would have taken to their rape rooms.

When Saddam eventually died, Iraq would have erupted like a freakin powder keg - and without a major and far suprior force in country like the US military - the violence and bloodletting would have known no end.

I agree that the war was initiated on false intelegence, and that Bush and Cheney are lying bastards who use fear to achieve thier agendas. But 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?

.

Uday and Qusay would have taken over. then I'm sure the real fun would have begun. along with 40 more years of similar division, rape, torture, and death, only on a grander scale.

Abuskedti

NCfan wrote:

Will somebody please address what would have happened in Iraq when Saddam eventually died had the US not invaded? I image another 20 or so years of Saddam oppressing his people, pitting Sunnis against Shias, murdering Kurds and keeping his power with brutal tactics - torture and murder. He would have continued to starve his nation's children and deny them medicine while he spends money on lavish palaces. I wonder how many more women Uday and Qusay would have taken to their rape rooms.

When Saddam eventually died, Iraq would have erupted like a freakin powder keg - and without a major and far suprior force in country like the US military - the violence and bloodletting would have known no end.

I agree that the war was initiated on false intelegence, and that Bush and Cheney are lying bastards who use fear to achieve thier agendas. But 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?

.

since we have stolen responsibility - 200,000 dead per year for five years..

what stats u using for Saddam?

were there other alternatives ?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Have people ever assembled and overthrown governments before, or maybe middle east dictators are destined to be immortal and have their entire family lineage rule forever unabated for millenia? hmmm

Seems to me the terrorist scenario has rendered the US military quite a workload. Is it somehow ineffective all the sudden?