Truth: What neo cons dont want America to know

[drkaje]

JB,

A lot of it must be mixed as you suggest. As far as S. Africa goes, it doesn't really make the news too much in America. Politically it wouldn't be goodfor anyone to assert whites had the right to be there considering how long the "good neighbour" was in tact.

[Dos Equis]

I guessed they would have atleast killed another 45K within a year. Can't really see why the death number would matter that much, no one cares.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/

I wouldn't say no one cares. 

Here is how they arrived at the numbers:

The survey, to be published today in the British medical journal Lancet, reached its estimate based on 12,801 interviews in May and June at 1,849 households in 47 randomly selected ``clusters" of homes throughout Iraq.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/10/12/disputed_study_says_600000_iraqis_killed_during_war/

[drkaje]

I wouldn't say no one cares. 

Here is how they arrived at the numbers:

The survey, to be published today in the British medical journal Lancet, reached its estimate based on 12,801 interviews in May and June at 1,849 households in 47 randomly selected ``clusters" of homes throughout Iraq.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/10/12/disputed_study_says_600000_iraqis_killed_during_war/

Numbers get manipulated all the time when a bunch of people get killed. Maybe next time we'll keep better records.

[Dos Equis]

Numbers get manipulated all the time when a bunch of people get killed. Maybe next time we'll keep better records.

Yes numbers get manipulated all the time, but "we" didn't come up with these numbers.  I don't know what the government's official number is. 

[drkaje]

Yes numbers get manipulated all the time, but "we" didn't come up with these numbers.  I don't know what the government's official number is. 

We both have a better chance of winning the powerball than finding out the real numbers, LOL!

With a small leap of logic, I guess they could all be classified as potential suicide bombers, if they all went ballistic at the same time it would cause mass destruction.. maybe Bush was right.

[Dos Equis]

We both have a better chance of winning the powerball than finding out the real numbers, LOL!

True.   

[240 is Back]

to get accurate numbers would put our troops in harms way.  Plus with the refugee crisises, you have folks coming and going quietly and in large groups.  Very hard to estimate population loss, much less find exacts.  Plus, when you throw in the fact that BOTH sides are motivaed to lie, well that doesn't help either.

Is it true that a US Solldier wounded in Baghdad who makes it over the Iraqi border (to germany, kuwit, or wherever) before dying, DOES NOT count as an Iraqi war casualty?  I heard that and was shocked. 

[24KT]

Numbers get manipulated all the time when a bunch of people get killed. Maybe next time we'll keep better records.

The actual numbers don't matter for the purposes of this discussion.
Anyone quibbling over those at this point is simply looking to derail the topic.

The point is any nation that claims to be democratic, yet invades a sovereign state posing no threat to itself, and deposes it's legitimate head-of-state in order to seize control of it's resources, disembowels habeas corpus at home, endorses warrantless wiretaps & spying against it's own citizens, engages in indefinite seizure and imprisonment without charges, engages in the practice of "rendition", (a euphemism for illegal kidnapping and trans national human trafficking for the purposes of torture) has no business condemning anyone for their less than stellar human rights record.

[drkaje]

The actual numbers don't matter for the purposes of this discussion.
Anyone quibbling over those at this point is simply looking to derail the topic.

The point is any nation that claims to be democratic, yet invades a sovereign state posing no threat to itself, and deposes it's legitimate head-of-state in order to seize control of it's resources, disembowels habeas corpus at home, endorses warrantless wiretaps & spying against it's own citizens, engages in indefinite seizure and imprisonment without charges, engages in the practice of "rendition", (a euphemism for illegal kidnapping and trans national human trafficking for the purposes of torture) has no business condemning anyone for their less than stellar human rights record.

Judi,

Mark Twain wrote something to the effect: There are two kinds of democracy in America. The one we export and the one we practice at home.

He also wrote: There are three kinds if lies. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

[Hedgehog]

Hey Jag...we've gone down this road about how wonderful the Rags are before..guess what alll revisionist Bullshit. Imaragheadijad should go die in a fire..who cares at this point if he said what he said....he hates us, he sits on a shit ton of oil..and can't play nicely with the rest nof us....he needs to go.

HH6, we really don't need that racist shit here.

We really don't.

Take that stuff somewhere else. Calling middle-eastern people rags is fcuked up.

Basically, I agree that their culture is inferior in several ways.

But that doesn't give us any right to plunder their natural resources, to treat them like anything less than equals.

We are the better men, the enlightened ones. It's time to act like it.

Democracy? Women's rights? Hell yeah. I definitely support these movements in any totalitarian regime.

edit: The use of racial slurs against these groups of people directly hurt any kind of sound critisism. That's why I think it's contra-productive, and actually helps the anti-democratic groups these regions raise support for their cause.

Culti-hugging apologists will jump at every given chance to group legit critisism together with the racial slurs.

[Eyeball Chambers]

Basically, I agree that their culture is inferior in several ways.

But that doesn't give us any right to plunder their natural resources, to treat them like anything less than equals.

We are the better men, the enlightened ones. It's time to act like it.

Democracy? Women's rights? Hell yeah. I definitely support these movements in any totalitarian regime.

Very nice post!

[Decker]

Noooo.  Not this again.       Where are you getting this number?  From what I recall, we established on here many months ago that the half million number that some advocacy group came up with was completely unreliable.  It was based on interviews with a small number of people and then estimates were made based on those interviews.  At least that's what I remember. 

No.  That was a survey by The Johns Hopkins Center for Refugee and Disaster Response.  The number of Iraqis dead was 654,965.  That shows all deaths in Iraq by all circumstances.  That number is up over the 143,000 iraqi deaths pre-invasion. 

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html

Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates

Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods

[headhuntersix]

Sorry hedge I disagree completely...but to make u happy I'll watch how I say it. It won't change the absolute lothing I have for them.

[Dos Equis]

No.  That was a survey by The Johns Hopkins Center for Refugee and Disaster Response.  The number of Iraqis dead was 654,965.  That shows all deaths in Iraq by all circumstances.  That number is up over the 143,000 iraqi deaths pre-invasion. 

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html

Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates

Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods

Thanks.  The number is completely unreliable. 

[Decker]

Thanks.  The number is completely unreliable. 

Why?

[Dos Equis]

Why?

Because of what I posted earlier:

The survey, to be published today in the British medical journal Lancet, reached its estimate based on 12,801 interviews in May and June at 1,849 households in 47 randomly selected ``clusters" of homes throughout Iraq.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/10/12/disputed_study_says_600000_iraqis_killed_during_war/

They didn't do a body count, or anything remotely close to a body count.  Interviewing a small number of people in "clusters" does not give you an accurate number and certainly cannot link over 600,000 deaths to the war.     

[Decker]

Because of what I posted earlier:

The survey, to be published today in the British medical journal Lancet, reached its estimate based on 12,801 interviews in May and June at 1,849 households in 47 randomly selected ``clusters" of homes throughout Iraq.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/10/12/disputed_study_says_600000_iraqis_killed_during_war/

They didn't do a body count, or anything remotely close to a body count.  Interviewing a small number of people in "clusters" does not give you an accurate number and certainly cannot link over 600,000 deaths to the war.     

So you are discounting a strict methodical survey and its results b/c George W. Bush disagreed with the
results?

Did you read the rest of the article?

"Paul Bolton, a researcher at the Boston University School of Public Health who has conducted surveys throughout the world, also said the methodology appears sound. ``The president mainly relies on figures that come from passive surveillance, where you have institutions like hospitals that collect data as bodies are brought to them," Bolton said. ``When the president says these studies are different, they are different. But the passive method is the flawed one.""

The way I read the survey was that 143,000 of the 600,000 were regular deaths.  The others were related to the invasion--whether from tainted drinking water from our bombing their purification infrastructure (a war crime) or from the use of depleted uranium in US shells.

[Dos Equis]

So you are discounting a strict methodical survey and its results b/c George W. Bush disagreed with the
results?

Did you read the rest of the article?

"Paul Bolton, a researcher at the Boston University School of Public Health who has conducted surveys throughout the world, also said the methodology appears sound. ``The president mainly relies on figures that come from passive surveillance, where you have institutions like hospitals that collect data as bodies are brought to them," Bolton said. ``When the president says these studies are different, they are different. But the passive method is the flawed one.""

The way I read the survey was that 143,000 of the 600,000 were regular deaths.  The others were related to the invasion--whether from tainted drinking water from our bombing their purification infrastructure (a war crime) or from the use of depleted uranium in US shells.

I didn't say anything about Bush and my opinion isn't based on what Bush had to say about this--although he is right about the numbers being unreliable.

I give as much credence to Bush's opinion as I do "Paul Bolton."  Neither interviewing clusters nor "passive surveillance" provide accurate numbers.  I don't think anyone really knows the number.  I don't believe the number is anywhere near 600,000.

Do you know how many deaths are attributable to insurgents blowing people up?  (I don't.)   


 

[Decker]

I didn't say anything about Bush and my opinion isn't based on what Bush had to say about this--although he is right about the numbers being unreliable.

I give as much credence to Bush's opinion as I do "Paul Bolton."  Neither interviewing clusters nor "passive surveillance" provide accurate numbers.  I don't think anyone really knows the number.  I don't believe the number is anywhere near 600,000.

Do you know how many deaths are attributable to insurgents blowing people up?  (I don't.)   

I believe the number dead in Iraq due to the invasion is somewhere between 74,431 (no. of documented civilian deaths--NGO, media and other official sources) to 590,000 (round number from survey subtracting the usual annual death from those estimated by the Johns Hopkins Study).

Either number represents a crime against humanity. 

The range is not really relevant when the baseline number of deaths equals the population of Evanston, Illinois and the highest estimate is that of the population of the City of Milwaukee.

That is the moral outrage of our time.

[Dos Equis]

I believe the number dead in Iraq due to the invasion is somewhere between 74,431 (no. of documented civilian deaths--NGO, media and other official sources) to 590,000 (round number from survey subtracting the usual annual death from those estimated by the Johns Hopkins Study).

Either number represents a crime against humanity. 

The range is not really relevant when the baseline number of deaths equals the population of Evanston, Illinois and the highest estimate is that of the population of the City of Milwaukee.

That is the moral outrage of our time.

I know you believe the war is illegal, but what about the insurgents blowing up innocent civilians?  Aren't those crimes against humanity and morally outrageous? 

Assuming the range is 74,431 to 590,000, I think a significant number have been were killed by their own people.   

[Decker]

I know you believe the war is illegal, but what about the insurgents blowing up innocent civilians?  Aren't those crimes against humanity and morally outrageous? 

Assuming the range is 74,431 to 590,000, I think a significant number have been were killed by their own people.   

Yes that is a horrible phenomenon but there would be no insurgency if there were no US forces in Iraq.

But for the invasion, many of those 74,431 to 590,000 people would still be living.

[drkaje]

I know you believe the war is illegal, but what about the insurgents blowing up innocent civilians?  Aren't those crimes against humanity and morally outrageous? 

Assuming the range is 74,431 to 590,000, I think a significant number have been were killed by their own people.   

BB,

Have two wrongs ever made a right?

[Dos Equis]

BB,

Have two wrongs ever made a right?

Ever?  I could probably think of a few examples.  First one that comes to mind is the murder of Jeffrey Dahmer by a fellow inmate in prison (Michigan doesn't have the death penalty).  Those two wrongs made a right in my book, although you still have to punish the guy who killed Dahmer.   

But generally, I say "no." 

I'm not suggesting the murder of innocent men, women, and children by insurgents justifies the war.  I don't believe the war is illegal.  I was mainly talking about the inflated collateral damage numbers.   

[drkaje]

Ever?  I could probably think of a few examples.  First one that comes to mind is the murder of Jeffrey Dahmer by a fellow inmate in prison (Michigan doesn't have the death penalty).  Those two wrongs made a right in my book, although you still have to punish the guy who killed Dahmer.   

But generally, I say "no." 

I'm not suggesting the murder of innocent men, women, and children by insurgents justifies the war.  I don't believe the war is illegal.  I was mainly talking about the inflated collateral damage numbers.   

Legality is determined by whoever is in power.

[Dos Equis]

Legality is determined by whoever is in power.

This is news?  Those in power make the rules.  That's what we elect them to do.