War Crimes Update: Over One Million Dead In Iraq - Page 7 - PhillyBlog

frankdialogue · #61 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zete_374

How many more are there? I say kill them all and take the oil. I need oil.

You need oil...you need to repent before God for your foolhardy words and ignorance...has the price of your oil gone down since this war started?...what conclusion do you draw from the fact that the price is going up and up?...th Prophet Jeremiah said 'My people perish from a lack of knowledge and understanding.'

Dissident74 · #62 (**permalink**) 03-27-2008, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankdialogue

'My people perish from a lack of knowledge and understanding.'

Sounds like Jeremiahs "people" were bible readers.

Ezra · #63 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 06:25 AM

How many of Jeremiah's people do you think were literate?

--

One Million-Plus Violent Iraqi Deaths (So Far)

Data from the respected British marketing research firm Opinion Research Business, indicate that as many as 1,220,580 Iraqis have died as a result of the war and occupation of Iraq since March 2003.

A representative sample of 1,461 adults 18 or older answered this question:

"Q: How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (i.e, as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof."

Results:

None - 78%
One - 16%
Two - 5%
Three - 1%
Four or more - 0.002%

Quote:

My back of the envelope calculation puts the 95% confidence interval at 1.1-1.3 million. This seems consistent with the second Lancet study giving 600,000 violent deaths when you take into account the amount of time that has passed since then. The surveyors in this study did not verify the deaths by asking to see dath certificates, so this could bias the results upwards, but the experience in the two Lancet studies suggests that the great majority of people who report a death can verify with a death certificate. The number of households in Iraq has dropped by maybe 5-10% since 2005 because of all the people that have fled the country, so 1.2 million may be a little high, but it's likely that the number is now one million dead and another million injured as a result of the war.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007...th_to.php#more

Tannhauser · #64 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 01:09 PM

Unfortunately, the methodology used in the above survey as well as the similar one in the Lancet has consistently been found to have no scientific standing when held up for peer review.

But you keep trying to convince yourself what you'd like to believe.

Tannhauser · #65 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 01:19 PM

By the way, where were the protests over this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8
In case you're having trouble placing it, that's Leslie Stahl interviewing Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State in 1996 about sanctions against Saddam.

Ezra · #66 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

Unfortunately, the methodology used in the above survey as well as the similar one in the Lancet has consistently been found to have no scientific standing when held up for peer review.

But you keep trying to convince yourself what you'd like to believe.

Same goes for you Puddin'.

Much better the US military way... "we know you're wrong but we're not telling you whats right."

Ezra · #67 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tannhauser

By the way, where were the protests over this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8
In case you're having trouble placing it, that's Leslie Stahl interviewing Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State in 1996 about sanctions against Saddam.

LOL!!! You disappoint and delight me. The very first and the very last pathetic tactic of the Right. "It's Clinton's fault." (trademark)

Bush is telling us to forget the we got into the war on false pretenses and to focus on the present situation at hand... yet you have no problem in jumping back in time to the halcyon Clinton Era.

Ezra · #68 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 03:41 PM

Tann, I have my opinion of you and I want to run this past you to see if I am correct or off base.

I think you see the world in black and white. Ex: radical Islamic extremist insurgent terrorists are Evil. We are fighting Evil. Therefore we are Good.

Is it that simple?

Second question if you don't mind humoring me... we've been in Iraq/Afghanistan for 5 years now... without question some of the people we've killed were out to get us. Do you think it's possible that in the last 5 years some men and women who previously were apolitical and/or areligious (did I make that word up?) are now enemy combatants only because they suffered some loss during the invasion? Is it possible that over time a majority of the Enemy will have been forged in a fire of our making? And that the more Enemies we kill, the more we create.

Tannhauser · #69 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezra

Tann, I have my opinion of you and I want to run this past you to see if I am correct or off base.

I think you see the world in black and white. Ex: radical Islamic extremist insurgent terrorists are Evil. We are fighting Evil. Therefore we are Good.

Is it that simple?

Second question if you don't mind humoring me... we've been in Iraq/Afghanistan for 5 years now... without question some of the people we've killed were out to get us. Do you think it's possible that in the last 5 years some men and women who previously were apolitical and/or areligious (did I make that word up?) are now enemy combatants only because they suffered some loss during the invasion? Is it possible that over time a majority of the Enemy will have been forged in a fire of our making? And that the more Enemies we kill, the more we create.

I'll answer that, but I'd like a response from you on the Albright quote. My point wasn't "This is all Clinton's fault" it was that there's selective outrage on the left.

I think all people have good and evil in them, just not in equal proportions. Also, fighting evil doesn't in and of itself make you good (see Iran v. Iraq, Stalin v. Hitler). Your actions and motivations are what make up your composition of good or evil.

I'm sure some apolitical people turned against us, however I think it's a much smaller group than those that have chosen to stand with us. Example: The Iraqi Security Force has about half a million members. Compare that to Mookie's Mahdi Army, which has about 10% as many members (and soon to be significantly less).
As to creating more enemies by killing our enemies, people, especially in the arab world, like the "strong horse", and unless we surrender, we're the strong horse. That's one of the reasons al Queda has been having such a hard time recruiting new members, if the late Abu Musab al Zarqawi is to be believed.
The other reason is that on some level, even the Suicidal Sons of the Desert don't want to be killed.

Ezra · #70 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 06:19 PM

I think the sanctions are somewhat on par with the attack certainly in terms of a disastrous effect. Though somewhat less awful simply because there was a plan to end it. If the sanctions were happening now I would have the same outrage as I generally express. Though to be honest... I wasn't so politically concerned at the time so I wasn't outraged. Which is why I like the bumpersticker wisdom of "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention." That was true for me.

The sanctions were a major F-up and they didn't end soon enough. The deaths caused by playing "strong horse" to borrow your phrase are unforgivable. Interestingly enough... the number you quote of deaths due to sanctions... you likely heard that number from the Lancet people.

Quote:

A May 25, 2000 BBC article[14] reported that before Iraq sanctions were imposed by the UN in 1990, infant mortality had "fallen to 47 per 1,000 live births between 1984 and 1989. This compares to approximately 7 per 1,000 in the UK." The BBC article was reporting from a study of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, titled "Sanctions and childhood mortality in Iraq", that was published in the May 2000 Lancet medical journal.[15][16]

The study concluded that in southern and central Iraq, infant mortality rate between 1994 and 1999 had risen to 108 per 1,000. Child mortality rate, which refers to children between the age of one and five years, also drastically inclined from 56 to 131 per 1,000.[14] In the autonomous northern region during the same period, infant mortality declined from 64 to 59 per 1000 and under-5 mortality fell from 80 to 72 per 1000, which was attributed to better food and resource allocation.

The Lancet publication was the result of two separate surveys by UNICEF between February and May 1999 in partnership with the local authorities and with technical support by the WHO. "The large sample sizes - nearly 24,000 households randomly selected from all governorates in the south and center of Iraq and 16,000 from the north - helped to ensure that the margin of error for child mortality in both surveys was low," UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said. She also noted that "if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998."[17]

Did you question their research then?

Albright then sounds exactly like Cheney now in that interview.

The irony is that Cheney sounded like a Liberal or Democrat in 1994 on this issue. I assume you know the quagmire clip I mean.

Bush I f'ed up in Iraq. He supported Saddam before he attacked Saddam. Both were a mistake. I do think something had to be done but what was done wasn't it. Clinton made a horrifying screw up in the ME. Bush II ... well... you know.

I've read the opposite on AQ recruitment... that recruitment is "booming" and that AQ is gaining in strength.

You are absolutely right to say there is selective outrage. And that faults of Hero's of the Left are ignored or downplayed by Liberals. I won't argue that point. I wish Clinton was without error but that's not the case. He (and his wife) did a lot of things wrong both major and minor. But they are the past and not relevant anymore (or at least I hope so). I get to be outraged now because I'm paying attention now. Here is an interview on FOX with Clinton that is appropriate for the present: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PFMHGBM6eq0