Iraq - The worst story of the decade

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Commy wrote:

Why would you assume the US isn't trying to conquer Iraq? That's what they do-invade, plan a coup, or steal elections. Its worked well in south aMerica and central...they install a gov't friendly to US interests-namely big business-and move on. History has dozens of examples.

And there were no radical jihadists in IRaq before the US showed up--meaning they are there because the US is there. THere is animosity between groups with in Iraq true, but if that's why were are in Iraq-to settle centuries old religious disputes between fanatics then US foreign policiy needs an overhaul.

I believe Bush just signed an act pertaining exactly to US involvement in with every economic area in Iraq with regards to contracts, new business development, etc... It was last September or Oct I believe....can't remember the name of it, but many are claiming it essentially makes Iraq the 51'st state in no uncertain terms.

Commy

jlew24asu wrote:

yea I agree. we are there (and invaded) for fucked up reasons. no question about it. we went to "conquer" saddam not Iraq. that took all of 2 weeks.

now we are there to kill the foreign element (that doesnt give a flying fuck about Iraq, only to kill americans) and to help fix the mess we created. after almost 5 years, there is enough positive momentum building to start bringing troops home. thats hard to do when there is no army or security.

but the major problem still remains with the infighting. that will go on when we leave too. and it happened before we got there too only one side had all the power at that time. its up to Iraqis and muslims to fix that.

The "foreign element" in Iraq is basically what canadians would be if the US were ever invaded. Of course the canadians would come down and fight a guerilla war-same thing is happening in Iraq. Neighbors coming to resist an ocupation.

jlew24asu

Commy wrote:

The "foreign element" in Iraq is basically what canadians would be if the US were ever invaded. Of course the canadians would come down and fight a guerilla war-same thing is happening in Iraq. Neighbors coming to resist an ocupation.

canadian sissies wouldn't fight.

look, I'm not disagreeing with you much. I would like the troops to come home, I know we went in with false information, I dont believe Iraq is the best story of the year. much closer to the worst for the simple fact that its war.

its my personal opinion that Iraq can and will succeed. I think its actually possible for sunnis and shittes to stop fighting. once they can learn to get along and Iraq has a sufficient security/army force, america will leave and Iraq will prosper. I look forward to the day when I can go visit

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

canadian sissies wouldn't fight.

How many terms did you serve in Iraq?

Byrnzie

Commy wrote:

Successs for the invading army rarely means success for the conquered people.

Well said.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

yea I agree. we are there (and invaded) for fucked up reasons. no question about it. we went to "conquer" saddam not Iraq. that took all of 2 weeks.

now we are there to kill the foreign element (that doesnt give a flying fuck about Iraq, only to kill americans) and to help fix the mess we created. after almost 5 years, there is enough positive momentum building to start bringing troops home. thats hard to do when there is no army or security.

but the major problem still remains with the infighting. that will go on when we leave too. and it happened before we got there too only one side had all the power at that time. its up to Iraqis and muslims to fix that.

So you're saying that there is no Iraqi insurgency against the U.S occupiers?

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

Well said.

you guys just dont get it huh

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

the major problem in Iraq isn't the US occupiers, its the hatred between muslims themselves. (sunni/shitte)

If only things really were as simple, and as black-and-white, as American t.v tells you they are. :rolleyes:

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

If only things really were as simple, and as black-and-white, as American t.v tells you they are. :rolleyes:

now you're going to tell me there is no divide among sunnis and shittes? the nice links you posted about Iraqi death in the other threat was all Iraqi on Iraqi killing.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

canadian sissies wouldn't fight.

look, I'm not disagreeing with you much. I would like the troops to come home, I know we went in with false information, I dont believe Iraq is the best story of the year. much closer to the worst for the simple fact that its war.

its my personal opinion that Iraq can and will succeed. I think its actually possible for sunnis and shittes to stop fighting. once they can learn to get along and Iraq has a sufficient security/army force, america will leave and Iraq will prosper. I look forward to the day when I can go visit

So what Jlew is saying is that any and all problems in Iraq are being caused soley by the Iraqi's themselves and by foriegn elements who are hostile to the U.S. The Iraqis themselves would love to live like Americans do but they are unfortunatelty so backward that they are insisting on clinging onto some outdated religious hostilities. If, and when, the Iraqis can civilize themselves and stop killing each other, then the kind and benevolent U.S policeman can go back home to America, and the Iraqis will then be forever grateful that the U.S army invaded, ransacked, plundered and secured the country's oil fields, and triggered - and was directly involved in - the deaths of over 1 million people.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

So what Jlew is saying is that any and all problems in Iraq are being caused soley by the Iraqi's themselves and by foriegn elements who are hostile to the U.S. The Iraqis themselves would love to live like Americans do but they are unfortunatelty so backward that they are insisting on clinging onto some outdated religious hostilities. If, and when, the Iraqis can civilize themselves and stop killing each other, then the kind and benevolent U.S policeman can go back home to America,

solely?? no thats not what I'm saying. but for the most part this is true. what is wrong about this?

Byrnzie wrote:

and the Iraqis will then be forever grateful that the U.S army invaded, ransacked, plundered and secured the country's oil fields, and triggered - and was directly involved in - the deaths of over 1 million people.

some will be grateful yes. and we've been over this. stop making up numbers of the amount dead.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

you guys just dont get it huh

Apparently not. Maybe spell it out in excruciating detail.

I think it goes something like the brown people must die, but I could be mistaken.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

solely?? no thats not what I'm saying. but for the most part this is true. what is wrong about this?



some will be grateful yes. and we've been over this. stop making up numbers of the amount dead.

I'm not making up numbers. These figures come from respected and trusted institutions and are the most accurate figures available to us.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170237,00.html

The 1.2 million figure is actually an underestimation.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/orb-s15.shtml
'For security reasons, no interviews were conducted in Al Anbar or Karbala provinces, or in the province of Irbil, where Kurdish authorities refused to allow field interviews. Since Anbar and Karbala are among the bloodiest battlefields of the war, and Irbil among the quietest, the exclusion of the three provinces would more likely to lead to an underestimation of the death toll than an exaggeration.'

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Apparently not. Maybe spell it out in excruciating detail.

I think it goes something like the brown people must die, but I could be mistaken.

I already did spell it out in previous posts. and it requires zero loss of life.

and when did everyone become so racist around here?

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

I'm not making up numbers. These figures come from respected and trusted institutions and are the most accurate figures available to us.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170237,00.html

The 1.2 million figure is actually an underestimation.

stop with this bullshit already.

extrapolated from a sample of 1,461 adults = 1,200,000 dead. ??? no

RolandTD20Kdrummer

jlew24asu wrote:

I already did spell it out in previous posts. and it requires zero loss of life.

and when did everyone become so racist around here?

Racist? I'm against killing people for resources and empire building...aka the Iraq debacle.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

solely?? no thats not what I'm saying. but for the most part this is true. what is wrong about this?

Please explain which part of what I said is, for the most part, true. I'm glued to my seat in anticipation.

jlew24asu

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Racist? I'm against killing people for resources and empire building...aka the Iraq debacle.

so am I. and I didnt even need to call them brown people.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

stop with this bullshit already.

extrapolated from a sample of 1,461 adults = 1,200,000 dead. ??? no

Please explain to me when you became an expert on statistical analysis?

Meanwhile...

LANCET REPORT CO-AUTHOR RESPONDS TO QUESTIONS
http://medialens.org/alerts/06/061031_lancet_co_author.php


'6. As an analyst myself I would like to know how reliable the method itself actually is.
Les Roberts and his colleagues claim to have used the same method to estimate deaths in Iraq as is used to estimate deaths in natural disasters. Is there any evidence that the method is accurate? By this I mean a comparison of the number actual deaths after a natural disaster with estimates of the number of deaths.
Rickard Loe, Stockholm, Sweden

LR: That is a good question. There is a little evidence of which I am aware. Note that the 2004 and 2006 studies found similar results for the pre- and initial post-invasion period which at least implies reproducibility. I led a 30 cluster mortality survey in Kalima in the DRC in 2001. The relief organization Merlin did a nutritional survey and measured mortality in the same area and with a recall period that covered part of our survey. Both were cluster surveys, Merlin used a different technique to select houses and we obtained statistically identical results. In a couple of refugee settings, cluster surveys have produced similar estimates to grave monitoring.

In 1999, in Katana Health Zone in the Congo, I led a mortality survey where we walked a grid over the health zone and interviewed 41 clusters of 5 houses at 1km. spacings. In that survey, we estimated that 1,600 children had died of measles in the preceding half year. A couple of weeks later we did a standard immunization coverage survey (30 clusters of 7 children but selected totally proportional to population) that asked about measles deaths and we found an identical result.

I suspect that Demographic Health Surveys or the UNICEF MICS surveys (which are both retrospective cluster mortality approaches) have been calibrated against census data but I do not know when or where.'

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

Please explain which part of what I said is, for the most part, true. I'm glued to my seat in anticipation.

-some, not all problems in Iraq are being caused by the Iraqi's themselves (hatred among sunnis/shittes)....and by foriegn elements who are hostile to the U.S

-hey are unfortunatelty backward that they are insisting on clinging onto some outdated religious hostilities.

-If, and when, the Iraqis can civilize themselves and stop killing each other, then the kind and benevolent U.S policeman can go back home to America



I even left in your wonderful spelling skills.