REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The war on Iraq has made moral cowards of us all

POSTED BY: GHOULMAN
UPDATED: Saturday, April 29, 2023 14:51
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9133
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 9:54 AM

GHOULMAN


Shame on the USA. Shame on us all.

More than 100,000 Iraqis have died - and where is our shame and rage?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1340562,00.html

Scott Ritter
· Scott Ritter was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 and is the author of Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America

WSRitter@aol.com

Monday November 1, 2004
The Guardian


The full scale of the human cost already paid for the war on Iraq is only now becoming clear. Last week's estimate by investigators, using credible methodology, that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them women and children - have died since the US-led invasion is a profound moral indictment of our countries. The US and British governments quickly moved to cast doubt on the Lancet medical journal findings, citing other studies. These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.

Civilian deaths have always been a tragic reality of modern war. But the conflict in Iraq was supposed to be different - US and British forces were dispatched to liberate the Iraqi people, not impose their own tyranny of violence.

Reading accounts of the US-led invasion, one is struck by the constant, almost casual, reference to civilian deaths. Soldiers and marines speak of destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles that turned out to be crammed with civilians. US marines acknowledged in the aftermath of the early, bloody battle for Nassiriya that their artillery and air power had pounded civilian areas in a blind effort to suppress insurgents thought to be holed up in the city. The infamous "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad produced hundreds of deaths, as did the 3rd Infantry Division's "Thunder Run", an armoured thrust in Baghdad that slaughtered everyone in its path.

It is true that, with only a few exceptions, civilians who died as a result of ground combat were not deliberately targeted, but were caught up in the machinery of modern warfare. But when the same claim is made about civilians killed in aerial attacks (the Lancet study estimates that most of civilian deaths were the result of air attacks), the comparison quickly falls apart. Helicopter engagements apart, most aerial bombardment is deliberate and pre-planned. US and British military officials like to brag about the accuracy of the "precision" munitions used in these strikes, claiming this makes the kind of modern warfare practised by the coalition in Iraq the most humanitarian in history.

But there is nothing humanitarian about explosives once they detonate near civilians, or about a bomb guided to the wrong target. Dozens of civilians were killed during the vain effort to eliminate Saddam Hussein with "pinpoint" air strikes, and hundreds have perished in the campaign to eliminate alleged terrorist targets in Falluja. A "smart bomb" is only as good as the data used to direct it. And the abysmal quality of the intelligence used has made the smartest of bombs just as dumb and indiscriminate as those, for example, dropped during the second world war.

The fact that most bombing missions in Iraq today are pre-planned, with targets allegedly carefully vetted, further indicts those who wage this war in the name of freedom. If these targets are so precise, then those selecting them cannot escape the fact that they are deliberately targeting innocent civilians at the same time as they seek to destroy their intended foe. Some would dismiss these civilians as "collateral damage". But we must keep in mind that the British and US governments made a deliberate decision to enter into a conflict of their choosing, not one that was thrust upon them. We invaded Iraq to free Iraqis from a dictator who, by some accounts, oversaw the killing of about 300,000 of his subjects - although no one has been able to verify more than a small fraction of the figure. If it is correct, it took Saddam decades to reach such a horrific statistic. The US and UK have, it seems, reached a third of that total in just 18 months.

Meanwhile, the latest scandal over missing nuclear-related high explosives in Iraq (traced and controlled under the UN inspections regime) only underscores the utter deceitfulness of the Bush-Blair argument for the war. Having claimed the uncertainty surrounding Iraq's WMD capability constituted a threat that could not go unchallenged in a post-9/11 world, one would have expected the two leaders to insist on a military course of action that brought under immediate coalition control any aspect of potential WMD capability, especially relating to any possible nuclear threat. That the US military did not have a dedicated force to locate and neutralise these explosives underscores the fact that both Bush and Blair knew that there was no threat from Iraq, nuclear or otherwise.

Of course, the US and Britain have a history of turning a blind eye to Iraqi suffering when it suits their political purposes. During the 1990s, hundreds of thousands are estimated by the UN to have died as a result of sanctions. Throughout that time, the US and the UK maintained the fiction that this was the fault of Saddam Hussein, who refused to give up his WMD. We now know that Saddam had disarmed and those deaths were the responsibility of the US and Britain, which refused to lift sanctions.

There are many culpable individuals and organisations history will hold to account for the war - from deceitful politicians and journalists to acquiescent military professionals and silent citizens of the world's democracies. As the evidence has piled up confirming what I and others had reported - that Iraq was already disarmed by the late 1990s - my personal vote for one of the most culpable individuals would go to Hans Blix, who headed the UN weapons inspection team in the run-up to war. He had the power if not to prevent, at least to forestall a war with Iraq. Blix knew that Iraq was disarmed, but in his mealy-mouthed testimony to the UN security council helped provide fodder for war. His failure to stand up to the lies used by Bush and Blair to sell the Iraq war must brand him a moral and intellectual coward.

But we all are moral cowards when it comes to Iraq. Our collective inability to summon the requisite shame and rage when confronted by an estimate of 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians in the prosecution of an illegal and unjust war not only condemns us, but adds credibility to those who oppose us. The fact that a criminal such as Osama bin Laden can broadcast a videotape on the eve of the US presidential election in which his message is viewed by many around the world as a sober argument in support of his cause is the harshest indictment of the failure of the US and Britain to implement sound policy in the aftermath of 9/11. The death of 3,000 civilians on that horrible day represented a tragedy of huge proportions. Our continued indifference to a war that has slaughtered so many Iraqi civilians, and will continue to kill more, is in many ways an even greater tragedy: not only in terms of scale, but also because these deaths were inflicted by our own hand in the course of an action that has no defence.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 10:22 AM

JAYNEZTOWN


very sad

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 3:26 PM

DARKJESTER


OK, maybe no-one has actually said it, but the Administration's callousness seems to be an echo from thirty years ago. Is the new mantra going to be "We had to kill the Iraqis to liberate them"?



MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 5:26 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Oh, but killing 100,000 people is OK because we're the good guys.

Quote:
These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.


Actually, the CPA stopped the Iraqi interim government from tracking civilians deaths.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 6:57 AM

LISSA


i don't really know enough about this topic to contribute anything useful, so i'll just contribute my extreme horror and sadness.

with everything that's going on, i'm seriously on the verge of tears right now.

~lissa, spwhore

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:29 AM

HERO


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, but killing 100,000 people is OK because we're the good guys.


Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up.

We invaded Iraq, routed their Army, and removed Saddam Hussein from power.

Did you really expect we could do this without hurting anyone?

I suppose we could have issued our soldiers flowers and candy and seduced our way into Baghdad. Or we could have surrendered our way to victory like a certain European country seems to prefer.

Maybe 100,000 was to many. But with 1000 dead Americans in the balence, I'd say it wasn't enough. Sure thats a cruel statement, but with estimates putting insurgents at 10-20,000, I'd say we came in about 10-20,000 short.

And just for the record. The killing is not ok because we are the good guys. Its because we are the good guys that the killing is not ok. (wow, that damn right poetical).

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Did you read the article? The vast majority of dead are women and children, and they were bombed (deliberately targeted using "smart bomb" technology). If you're willing to accept "collateral damage" of this magnitude, what makes you better than a terrorist? (Other than the fact that we're the "good guys".)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:51 AM

PLACIDITY


Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, but killing 100,000 people is OK because we're the good guys.


Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up.

We invaded Iraq, routed their Army, and removed Saddam Hussein from power.

Did you really expect we could do this without hurting anyone?

I suppose we could have issued our soldiers flowers and candy and seduced our way into Baghdad. Or we could have surrendered our way to victory like a certain European country seems to prefer.

Maybe 100,000 was to many. But with 1000 dead Americans in the balence, I'd say it wasn't enough. Sure thats a cruel statement, but with estimates putting insurgents at 10-20,000, I'd say we came in about 10-20,000 short.

And just for the record. The killing is not ok because we are the good guys. Its because we are the good guys that the killing is not ok. (wow, that damn right poetical).

H


its funny how people tend to view certain subjects with a narrow focus. sure civilians have died, regardless of the number - 1 death is a tragedy.

however, if 100,000 have died - think about this....how many would have died under saddam's reign in the coming months? if we had removed him the first time how many would still be alive?

Please remember the the media and political campaigns use spinmeisters to push news onto the public. Whether a conformist or idealist you must look beyond the black and white of todays media and think outside the box!

fox
firefly playa-haters

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:00 AM

JASONZZZ



I would also submit that *without* the horror and human tragedies in war - when one day we can wage war and terror on each other without any actual physical death or harm. The cost of war - that is in real human trauma - will become absolutely acceptable and will be going on every single moment of our lives. We will be waging continual war on each other since it doesn't cost us anything.

As law as there are nasty people and evil around us, there will be war. No matter how nice "we" become and how much "we" want to rise above it all and how much "we" spent time on dealing in peace and talking it through - there will always be times when all of the maneuvering and hang-wringing will inevitably end up with human violence - simply because there will always be people who can barely climb out of the primordial soup and all they will ever understand is when their personal wealth and survival is threatened.

To say that we can completely abandon our willingness for human violence is to say...

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, but killing 100,000 people is OK because we're the good guys.


Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up.

We invaded Iraq, routed their Army, and removed Saddam Hussein from power.

Did you really expect we could do this without hurting anyone?

I suppose we could have issued our soldiers flowers and candy and seduced our way into Baghdad. Or we could have surrendered our way to victory like a certain European country seems to prefer.

Maybe 100,000 was to many. But with 1000 dead Americans in the balence, I'd say it wasn't enough. Sure thats a cruel statement, but with estimates putting insurgents at 10-20,000, I'd say we came in about 10-20,000 short.

And just for the record. The killing is not ok because we are the good guys. Its because we are the good guys that the killing is not ok. (wow, that damn right poetical).

H




Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:04 AM

JASONZZZ



The CPA stopped the tracking b/c no matter which way and who they went to get the numbers, it was getting skewed. The hospitals were giving skewed numbers b/c the insurgents were harassing them and getting them to inflat the numbers. I'm sure there are other parties who might be interested in having lower numbers too.

A 3rd party like UN or humanitarian org should be doing it, but these damn fool insurgents keep killing them off.


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, but killing 100,000 people is OK because we're the good guys.

Quote:
These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.


Actually, the CPA stopped the Iraqi interim government from tracking civilians deaths.




Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:09 AM

ZARK1976


I've been wondering, what makes the US the good guys? OK, so maybe we had the moral high ground with Afghanistan, returning some personal freedoms and taking down Saddam Hussein who was almost as heinous as Stalin was. But who appointed us the crusaders. Why are we going into so many other countries and telling them how to live?

Maybe I missed the meeting where everyone agreed that we should be the ones who are right. How is it that our way of life is the most valid on this planet? When did we stop the killings in our own streets, the illegal drug use, the child endangerment, the homeless, the hungry, the pollution, drinking and driving, child pornography, social inequality, and prejudice? When did we become the warm moral center the rest of the world should huddle around? Just because we have 2 TVs in every household and a car in every garage, we're right? Just because we're more concerned that no child gets left behind than that our children are brought up to know something. Just because we make people coming into this country take a test to prove their worthiness to be citizens, but let any idiot born here have the capacity to vote, whether they know anything of the history of the politics in this country or not.

How can we determine what is right when we have so many voices disagreeing about it?

I love my family, I love my friends, I love my community, I like the opportunities that I have, but I think that our attitude towards the rest of the world is what causes so many people hate the U.S.



"Could be he's harboring some resentment at us for putting his man through our engine."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:10 AM

JASONZZZ


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Did you read the article? The vast majority of dead are women and children, and they were bombed (deliberately targeted using "smart bomb" technology). If you're willing to accept "collateral damage" of this magnitude, what makes you better than a terrorist? (Other than the fact that we're the "good guys".)


And the alternative would be to go back to "dumb" bombs and kill about 100 times more people? What are you saying? Maybe back to swords and polearms with knights on horses? Oh, but no the knights will have to march on their own since no horses should be harmed in the course of waging a war.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:13 AM

LISSA


Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up.



um, can i just say, NO DUH.

i'm aware that we're at war (wait, wasn't that supposed to be over a while ago?), but that doesn't make it ok that all of these people, not to mention the soldiers, reporters, etc., are dead. i'm sad for these people. unlike you, i can't just say "oh, but that's what war is, so it's all ok."

~lissa, spwhore

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:17 AM

JASONZZZ



No, we are not the police of the planet - at least, we shouldn't be. But being the biggest economic power in the world (currently) has some responsibility that goes with it. Call it leadership, or call it responsibility, what you will. I hope that we are not telling other people how to live. I hope that we are not exporting our brand of democracy, or our brand of capitalism... I truly hope that we are freeing these people from a horrible tyrant and then letting the people choose what they want to do with their lives.

Yeah, maybe some day we will be able to solve all of our own problems too. But we shouldn't have to all be Jesus to start figuring out that the guy next door beating his wife and children is doing something wrong.

Also, remember last time (okay, about 3 or 4 times ago) someone named Hitler decided that blond hair and blue eyes were the perfect human specimen and we sat on our collective asses while he gased and burned a whole bunch of people (Jewish folks mostly, but many many others who didn't fit the mold either).



Quote:
Originally posted by zark1976:
I've been wondering, what makes the US the good guys? OK, so maybe we had the moral high ground with Afghanistan, returning some personal freedoms and taking down Saddam Hussein who was almost as heinous as Stalin was. But who appointed us the crusaders. Why are we going into so many other countries and telling them how to live?

Maybe I missed the meeting where everyone agreed that we should be the ones who are right. How is it that our way of life is the most valid on this planet? When did we stop the killings in our own streets, the illegal drug use, the child endangerment, the homeless, the hungry, the pollution, drinking and driving, child pornography, social inequality, and prejudice? When did we become the warm moral center the rest of the world should huddle around? Just because we have 2 TVs in every household and a car in every garage, we're right? Just because we're more concerned that no child gets left behind than that our children are brought up to know something. Just because we make people coming into this country take a test to prove their worthiness to be citizens, but let any idiot born here have the capacity to vote, whether they know anything of the history of the politics in this country or not.

How can we determine what is right when we have so many voices disagreeing about it?

I love my family, I love my friends, I love my community, I like the opportunities that I have, but I think that our attitude towards the rest of the world is what causes so many people hate the U.S.



"Could be he's harboring some resentment at us for putting his man through our engine."




Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:28 AM

JASONZZZ




I don't think that's exactly what Hero said. It's not ok to kill people in general, even in war. Every single death is a tragedy. But if you are going to have a war, you will have to expect that people will be killed. That is the horror of war. If war was easy and no one got hurt, it wouldn't be such a difficult decision to make. We, as a people, would not hesitate to constantly wage terror on each other.

Every single live is at stake here. If you have to do a comparison, think of all of the other people that would be killed if the tyrants of the world continue to operate the way that they do - indiscriminantly killing and gassing their own citizens, their neighbors. Think of all of the other people who would be killed and maimed if all we had were imprecise technology and civil war era medicine practices.

What is going on right now is tragic. But while tragic, I think it's the best that can be done and I hope that it will open up a new door to a better world.


Quote:
Originally posted by lissa:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up.



um, can i just say, NO DUH.

i'm aware that we're at war (wait, wasn't that supposed to be over a while ago?), but that doesn't make it ok that all of these people, not to mention the soldiers, reporters, etc., are dead. i'm sad for these people. unlike you, i can't just say "oh, but that's what war is, so it's all ok."

~lissa, spwhore




Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I'm saying that if you have to kill that many civilians in order to win, maybe you're on the wrong track.

Are you old enough to remember Vietnam? We had to destroy villages in order to save them,.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 9:11 AM

JASONZZZ


to win what? to win freedom for the other 24Million people who live there? No, no amount of human lives is acceptable, but if one more child (any child in the world, not just Iraqi - but especially so nevertheless) can grow up in this world knowing that one more tyrant is disposed so that he/she can no longer thoughtly torture or maim someone else. Then we should always do what is right - and war & killing people & destroying property should be the last resort.

Vietnam, while you kosherly watched it on TV from the comfort of your living room couch with your detached sense of reality and vague academic understanding. I lived it. But why bring that up now, the circumstances and motivation are completely different? The Vietnamese people were clearly screwed by the French government twice within the last century and their colonistic aims. Vietnamese people wanted a break and they would have gone to anyone to get a better deal and they did. I don't agree with what happened there since the people there should have decided, but there at least 6 different Viet communist parties on the ground all being ran by the same people under different guises. But what did they really want? All vieing for the same thing. Freedom.

No such thing is going on in Iraq. Don't you dare use Vietnam as your own personal byline and twist it as a side issue merely for your own gain.


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm saying that if you have to kill that many civilians in order to win, maybe you're on the wrong track.

Are you old enough to remember Vietnam? We had to destroy villages in order to save them,.




Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 10:00 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, but killing 100,000 people is OK because we're the good guys.

Quote:
These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.


Actually, the CPA stopped the Iraqi interim government from tracking civilians deaths.


the folks at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/
,who surely wouldn't undercount, figure 14000 to 16000 civilian casualties from all causes. Their methodology seems sound, from the description on their site.

Analyzing their spreadsheet, I get 2900 to 3500 civilians I can identify as killed by Coalition action (cluster bomb, airstrike, running roadblock, etc.), 2200 to 2300 civilians killed by by insurgents (roadside bomb, attack on police station, assassination, etc), and 9000 to 10000 either not determined (gunfire, violent death reports from hospitals, etc) or killed in crossfires (shared responsibility?).

Still a lot of people, but quite a bit less than 100,000.

General reading of reports in the news and on Globalsecurity.org also leads me to believe that the Coalition does try much harder than the insurgency to minimize 'collateral damage'. If the insurgents wouldn't do their fighting from heavily populated areas, there'd be even less. I realize that classic insurgency doctrine calls for maximizing civilian casualties, so I don't expect this to happen.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 10:28 AM

GHOULMAN


There are no insurgents... only Iraqi citizens.

They are defending thier country from an invading Nation that is forcing it's ideology onto the people. People who desire an Islamic-state.

Quote:
Originally posted by lissa:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up.



um, can i just say, NO DUH.

i'm aware that we're at war (wait, wasn't that supposed to be over a while ago?), but that doesn't make it ok that all of these people, not to mention the soldiers, reporters, etc., are dead. i'm sad for these people. unlike you, i can't just say "oh, but that's what war is, so it's all ok."

~lissa, spwhore

Get used to these statements Lissa, it's the sort of bullplop from a neofascist who thinks it's possible to justify 100000 dead. He is about ignoring facts and rationalizing death, suffering, and pain.

Facts like 100000 can only indicate the crime that is the American invasion of Iraq... oh I'm sorry, the invasion that's "Mission Accomplished" and not a war... oh but it's a War on Terror now... shit. Saddam would be so proud, America is well on it's way to equaling Saddams numbers during the Iran/Iraq War. Of course, the USA helped then too. And it's a little different as the 100000 dead are mostly civilians not soldiers... not that this matters to neofascists.

Neofascists are what's wrong with America - ignorance, lies, and antipathy.

The election was illegally stolen by the neofascists. Because they couldn't win the election on the merits of thier performance they have to stage a Wag the Dog event, presented with payola by the Networks, CNN, and FOX (with the glee of a Nazi propogandist), so they can continue to steal Oil and murder the citizens of Iraq without fear of prosecution.

Fascism. It's a trend.

BTW, I called Bush the "winner" a month ago. Never doubt the Ghoulman!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 11:08 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
to win what? to win freedom for the other 24Million people who live there? No, no amount of human lives is acceptable, but if one more child (any child in the world, not just Iraqi - but especially so nevertheless) can grow up in this world knowing that one more tyrant is disposed so that he/she can no longer thoughtly torture or maim someone else.


You're such a hero. Wow, gee we are all so impressed with your commitment to the disposing of tyrants.

Considering Saddam Hussein was a tyrant propped up by the Bush Junta all through the 80s for the Iran/Iraq War (where do you think Saddam got the Sarin and Antrax gas?), any American claim to the disposing of tyrants can't be taken as anything but utter bullshit.

Besides, Saddam was left in Bagdadh after the Gulf War by the first Bush to "stabalize the region", remember?

Quote:
Then we should always do what is right - and war & killing people & destroying property should be the last resort.


Destroying property in a wild attack was the first thing America did - Operation Rolling Thunder drove right into Bagdadh, guns a blazing! The article above talks about this. Go read it!

Quote:
Vietnam, while you kosherly watched it on TV from the comfort of your living room couch with your detached sense of reality and vague academic understanding. I lived it.


You What? You were alive when the Vietnam Conflict was on? Suuuuuuure.

Quote:
But why bring that up now,


Then why the frell did ya?

Quote:
the circumstances and motivation are completely different? The Vietnamese people were clearly screwed by the French government twice within the last century and their colonistic aims.


??? Why did you even mention this?

Quote:
Vietnamese people wanted a break and they would have gone to anyone to get a better deal and they did.


The Vietnamese, who you state you know as one of your own, wanted to be free of an Empire that controled thier lives.

Iraqies feel the same thing.

Quote:
I don't agree with what happened there since the people there should have decided, but there at least 6 different Viet communist parties on the ground all being ran by the same people under different guises. But what did they really want? All vieing for the same thing. Freedom.


Oh. Well, you finally got to the point at least.

Quote:
No such thing is going on in Iraq.


The very same thing is going on in Iraq. The Empire wants Democratic Rule but the people want an Islamic State. It's just like Vietnam - they wanted a Communist State but the Empire wanted to impose Democratic Rule.

It's always that Democracy bullplop. Trust me, it's a dodge to fool the people. America never gave democracy to any nation or people and in fact has a very long record of setting up murdering tyrants across the globe while murdering anyone who interfers with American Business Interests (that's the so called "Democracy" part).

Same shit, different pile. The USA isn't doing anything original or new in Iraq... we have seen this crap from America before. In Vietnam for example.

Quote:
Don't you dare use Vietnam as your own personal byline and twist it as a side issue merely for your own gain.


We gain something?

The comparisons between the Iraq Occupation and the Vietnam Conflict are valid. Many journalists have done so already, and as well the circumstances and facts around both conflicts have lots of paralells.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm saying that if you have to kill that many civilians in order to win, maybe you're on the wrong track.

Are you old enough to remember Vietnam? We had to destroy villages in order to save them.


Your the best SignyM.

Yes, everyday American soldiers went out on what were called "Search and Destroy". Something Kerry actually took part in just as all soldiers did. And that's the tragedy for the soldier - US soldiers are being ordered to murder women and children. It's not like they have a choice. Of course, if you point these facts out to the world the neofascists will just accuse you of "not supporting the troops".

In Vietnam US soldiers murdered civilians on a daily basis. They weren't mad killers but after the "conditioning" and the fear they fell into a dark world of death, blood, and flies. You don't want to know. Worse, they sometimes came to realize that the enemy wasn't the "Commie Pinko" monsters thier Commanders told them the VC were - the Vietnam Soldier was a Freedom Fighter. The realization that your government dropped you into a conflict where you are the oppressor was supposed to be a lesson America only had to learn once.

Now there is Iraq.

Shame on America.

Worse, those soldiers who voted against the Iraq Occupation (and thus Bush) had thier votes "cancelled". Sad but true.

Fascism - it has it's cheerleaders.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 11:21 AM

JASONZZZ


Did you catch that fumble?


Michael Moore sez

"Stop whining and Move on, you el-Grande Loser"


Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
There are no insurgents... only Iraqi citizens.

They are defending thier country from an invading Nation that is forcing it's ideology onto the people. People who desire an Islamic-state.

Quote:
Originally posted by lissa:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up.



um, can i just say, NO DUH.

i'm aware that we're at war (wait, wasn't that supposed to be over a while ago?), but that doesn't make it ok that all of these people, not to mention the soldiers, reporters, etc., are dead. i'm sad for these people. unlike you, i can't just say "oh, but that's what war is, so it's all ok."

~lissa, spwhore

Get used to these statements Lissa, it's the sort of bullplop from a neofascist who thinks it's possible to justify 100000 dead. He is about ignoring facts and rationalizing death, suffering, and pain.

Facts like 100000 can only indicate the crime that is the American invasion of Iraq... oh I'm sorry, the invasion that's "Mission Accomplished" and not a war... oh but it's a War on Terror now... shit. Saddam would be so proud, America is well on it's way to equaling Saddams numbers during the Iran/Iraq War. Of course, the USA helped then too. And it's a little different as the 100000 dead are mostly civilians not soldiers... not that this matters to neofascists.

Neofascists are what's wrong with America - ignorance, lies, and antipathy.

The election was illegally stolen by the neofascists. Because they couldn't win the election on the merits of thier performance they have to stage a Wag the Dog event, presented with payola by the Networks, CNN, and FOX (with the glee of a Nazi propogandist), so they can continue to steal Oil and murder the citizens of Iraq without fear of prosecution.

Fascism. It's a trend.

BTW, I called Bush the "winner" a month ago. Never doubt the Ghoulman!




Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 11:29 AM

JASONZZZ


Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
There are no insurgents... only Iraqi citizens.

They are defending thier country from an invading Nation that is forcing it's ideology onto the people. People who desire an Islamic-state.

Quote:
Originally posted by lissa:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up.



um, can i just say, NO DUH.

i'm aware that we're at war (wait, wasn't that supposed to be over a while ago?), but that doesn't make it ok that all of these people, not to mention the soldiers, reporters, etc., are dead. i'm sad for these people. unlike you, i can't just say "oh, but that's what war is, so it's all ok."

~lissa, spwhore

Get used to these statements Lissa, it's the sort of bullplop from a neofascist who thinks it's possible to justify 100000 dead. He is about ignoring facts and rationalizing death, suffering, and pain.

Facts like 100000 can only indicate the crime that is the American invasion of Iraq... oh I'm sorry, the invasion that's "Mission Accomplished" and not a war... oh but it's a War on Terror now... shit. Saddam would be so proud, America is well on it's way to equaling Saddams numbers during the Iran/Iraq War. Of course, the USA helped then too. And it's a little different as the 100000 dead are mostly civilians not soldiers... not that this matters to neofascists.


100000 is a number and a big fat lie used in this context. You would be very happy to let things be and rationalize your own way that it's okay for people like Saddam to kill 10x, 100x more people in a sadistic fashion. How's the Saddam underwear fitting you?

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:


Neofascists are what's wrong with America - ignorance, lies, and antipathy.

The election was illegally stolen by the neofascists. Because they couldn't win the election on the merits of thier performance they have to stage a Wag the Dog event, presented with payola by the Networks, CNN, and FOX (with the glee of a Nazi propogandist), so they can continue to steal Oil and murder the citizens of Iraq without fear of prosecution.

Fascism. It's a trend.

BTW, I called Bush the "winner" a month ago. Never doubt the Ghoulman!


Wow! did you see the way the Kerry puppet made that concession speech! Stunning resemblance to the real thing.

You know what, you are infinitely correct about the entire Wag the Dog thing. I'm surprised that you fell for the entire deal where they *staged* the killing of innocent civilians so that the country can be torn apart just spinnning endlessly about it.

Thanks to *you* Ghirlman, we can now feel best about ourselves knowing that not one person or kitten was harmed during this entire Iraq thing. Since it's all staged. In fact, there's no such thing as Iraq. It's just a fake country that some Republican guy inserted into the internet for our amusement.

Woohoo!





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 11:34 AM

JASONZZZ


Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
to win what? to win freedom for the other 24Million people who live there? No, no amount of human lives is acceptable, but if one more child (any child in the world, not just Iraqi - but especially so nevertheless) can grow up in this world knowing that one more tyrant is disposed so that he/she can no longer thoughtly torture or maim someone else.


You're such a hero. Wow, gee we are all so impressed with your commitment to the disposing of tyrants.

Considering Saddam Hussein was a tyrant propped up by the Bush Junta all through the 80s for the Iran/Iraq War (where do you think Saddam got the Sarin and Antrax gas?), any American claim to the disposing of tyrants can't be taken as anything but utter bullshit.

Besides, Saddam was left in Bagdadh after the Gulf War by the first Bush to "stabalize the region", remember?



blah blah blah blah blah.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:


Quote:
Then we should always do what is right - and war & killing people & destroying property should be the last resort.


Destroying property in a wild attack was the first thing America did - Operation Rolling Thunder drove right into Bagdadh, guns a blazing! The article above talks about this. Go read it!


blah blah blah blah blah.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Quote:
Vietnam, while you kosherly watched it on TV from the comfort of your living room couch with your detached sense of reality and vague academic understanding. I lived it.


You What? You were alive when the Vietnam Conflict was on? Suuuuuuure.


blah blah blah blah blah.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:


Quote:
But why bring that up now,


Then why the frell did ya?


blah blah blah blah blah.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Quote:
the circumstances and motivation are completely different? The Vietnamese people were clearly screwed by the French government twice within the last century and their colonistic aims.


??? Why did you even mention this?


blah blah blah blah blah.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:


Quote:
Vietnamese people wanted a break and they would have gone to anyone to get a better deal and they did.


The Vietnamese, who you state you know as one of your own, wanted to be free of an Empire that controled thier lives.

Iraqies feel the same thing.


blah blah blah blah blah.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:


Quote:
I don't agree with what happened there since the people there should have decided, but there at least 6 different Viet communist parties on the ground all being ran by the same people under different guises. But what did they really want? All vieing for the same thing. Freedom.


Oh. Well, you finally got to the point at least.


blah blah blah blah blah.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:


Quote:
No such thing is going on in Iraq.


The very same thing is going on in Iraq. The Empire wants Democratic Rule but the people want an Islamic State. It's just like Vietnam - they wanted a Communist State but the Empire wanted to impose Democratic Rule.

It's always that Democracy bullplop. Trust me, it's a dodge to fool the people. America never gave democracy to any nation or people and in fact has a very long record of setting up murdering tyrants across the globe while murdering anyone who interfers with American Business Interests (that's the so called "Democracy" part).

Same shit, different pile. The USA isn't doing anything original or new in Iraq... we have seen this crap from America before. In Vietnam for example.


blah blah blah blah blah.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:


Quote:
Don't you dare use Vietnam as your own personal byline and twist it as a side issue merely for your own gain.


We gain something?

The comparisons between the Iraq Occupation and the Vietnam Conflict are valid. Many journalists have done so already, and as well the circumstances and facts around both conflicts have lots of paralells.


blah blah blah blah blah.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm saying that if you have to kill that many civilians in order to win, maybe you're on the wrong track.

Are you old enough to remember Vietnam? We had to destroy villages in order to save them.


Your the best SignyM.

Yes, everyday American soldiers went out on what were called "Search and Destroy". Something Kerry actually took part in just as all soldiers did. And that's the tragedy for the soldier - US soldiers are being ordered to murder women and children. It's not like they have a choice. Of course, if you point these facts out to the world the neofascists will just accuse you of "not supporting the troops".

In Vietnam US soldiers murdered civilians on a daily basis. They weren't mad killers but after the "conditioning" and the fear they fell into a dark world of death, blood, and flies. You don't want to know. Worse, they sometimes came to realize that the enemy wasn't the "Commie Pinko" monsters thier Commanders told them the VC were - the Vietnam Soldier was a Freedom Fighter. The realization that your government dropped you into a conflict where you are the oppressor was supposed to be a lesson America only had to learn once.

Now there is Iraq.

Shame on America.

Worse, those soldiers who voted against the Iraq Occupation (and thus Bush) had thier votes "cancelled". Sad but true.

Fascism - it has it's cheerleaders.



Oh pardon me! I just burped thru all of that human excrement that you've managed to pooty up.




Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 12:12 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer- Did you read the methodology of the Lancet article? Now, if anyone knows how to estimate population mortality rates, it's gotta be doctors!

Both sites claim to be looking at the same thing:
deaths due to military action, violence and crime, lack of sanitation and so forth during the occupation- but iraqbodycount uses media reports and the Lancet medical journal used a large survey (backed up by death certificates where possible).

Aside from the fact that most media reports come directly from US military statements (General Blotz reported that ex number of insurgents were killed during a bombing raid on Zee City) and is filtered just a tad, the media in general seriously under-reports deaths in underdeveloped countries because poor people seldom take their sick or wounded (or dead) to hospital or morgue. For example, the full scope of the accident at Bhopal was not reflected by the number of people at hospital or in morgue, but by the number of coffins that were ordered... then factor in that many poor women or children were buried without coffins at all. (There was a serious under-representation of child-sized coffins in the surge of orders.) The difference between the reports (hospital admissions/ reported deaths versus 'excess' coffin orders) was a factor of 20, if I remember correctly.

All in all, I think I'd go with the Lancet estimate, based on their expertise in this sort of thing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 12:18 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Jasonzz- if you don't have anything to say besides blah blah blah... and apparently you don't... would you mind not cluttering what might otherwise be an intelligent discussion?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 2:20 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- Did you read the methodology of the Lancet article? Now, if anyone knows how to estimate population mortality rates, it's gotta be doctors.

Both sites claim to be looking at the same things deaths due to military action, violence and crime, lack of sanitation and so forth during the occupation- but iraqbodycount uses media reports and the Lancet medical journal used a large survey.

Aside from the fact that most media reports come directly from US military statements (General Blotz reported that ex number of insurgents were killed during a bombing raid on Zee City) and is filtered just a tad, the media in general seriously under-reports deaths in underdeveloped countries because poor people seldom take their sick or wounded (or dead) to hospital or morgue. For example, the full scope of the accident at Bhopal was not reflected by the number of people at hospital or in morgue, but by the number of coffins that were ordered... then factor in that many poor women or children were buried without coffins at all. (There was a serious under-representation of child-sized coffins in the surge of orders.) The difference between the reports (hospital admissions/ reported deaths versus 'excess' coffin orders) was a factor of 20, if I remember correctly.

All in all, I think I'd go with the Lancet estimate, based on their expertise in this sort of thing.


I find more criticism of the methodology in the Lancet study than of the Iraq Body Count.

This one from Slate is typical.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/#ContinueArticle

I also question the objectivity of the editor of the Lancet, after admittedly fast-tracking the report to come out prior to the election, and making quotes such as this:

Quote:
“The invasion of Iraq, the displacement of a cruel dictator, and the attempt to impose a liberal democracy by force have, by themselves, been insufficient to bring peace and security to the civilian population. Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths, not fewer,” writes Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet in a commentary accompanying the paper.


I've looked at the original Lancet article and the IBC site and I'll stick with the IBC estimate. Their database is also more useful for comparing casualties over time.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 2:34 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Oh, and one other thing. Even if you accept the Lancet's figures, the characterization of 100,000 "civilian" deaths is brought into question way in the bottom of the Lancet article itself.

Quote:
Many of the Iraqis reportedly killed by US forces could have been combatants. 28 of 61 killings (46%) attributed to US forces involved men age 15–60 years, 28 (46%) were children younger than 15 years, four (7%) were women, and one was an elderly man. It is not clear if the
greater number of male deaths was attributable to
legitimate targeting of combatants who may have been disproportionately male, or if this was because men are more often in public and more likely to be exposed to danger. For example, seven of 12 (58%) vehicle accident related
fatalities involved men between 15 and 60 years.
Quote:


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 3:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


28 children under 15
4 women
1 elderly male
-----
33 (54%) clearly civilian deaths due to US hostilties

Categorising all of the remainder as "insurgents" because they happen to be males between 15- 60 years old is an egregiously inaccurate generalization. That's like saying all USA males between 15-60 are criminals because they make up the vast majority of the criminal population. But I'm sure you understand that generalization doesn't work. It's generally thought by military insurgency experts that it only takes 15% support in a population to support an successful insurgency, so insurgent deaths may be as low as 15% of 46%, or 7% of the total.

But let's assume that you are correct in generlizing that every single male between the ages of 15-60 was an insurgent. What does that say about our popular support in Iraq??

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


One more comment... According to Iraq Body COunt (IBC) they tally all deaths due to American hostilites, breakdown of law and order, diseases due to lack of sanitation and so forth. But when I look at their database, they only seem to be counting deaths due hostilities (car bombs, air strikes etc.) reported in the WESTERN press, and not including things like murder/kidnapping, murder/ robbery, disease, etc. so the two aren't really comparing the same thing.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:22 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I looked at the full Lancet article. Despite some objections, the statistics appear to be quite robust. For example, in the reporting period before the invasion, one person died of violence in about 7400 people, while in a (slightly longer) reporting period, 21 people died of violence in about 7800 people. This EXCLUDES Falujah, where an additional 51 people died. (Falujah was excluded because it is a statistical anomaly on shouldn't be projected onto Iraq as a whole). Now, I don't care how you cut those stats... pre-invasion violence stats may have been slightly under-reported, but you could quadruple reported pre-invasion violence deaths and still come up with a 500% increase in deaths due to violence since the invasion.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:40 PM

JASONZZZ



The problem is that with that confidence interval they projected. The figure since beginning of invasion could be anywhere from 8000 to 194000. You can't just pick the median in there and say that's it. The real number is even odds somewhere in there, anywhere.



Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I looked at the full Lancet article. Despite some objections, the statistics appear to be quite robust. For example, in the reporting period before the invasion, one person died of violence in about 7400 people, while in a (slightly longer) reporting period, 21 people died of violence in about 7800 people. This EXCLUDES Falujah, where an additional 51 people died. (Falujah was excluded because it is a statistical anomaly on shouldn't be projected onto Iraq as a whole). Now, I don't care how you cut those stats... pre-invasion violence stats may have been slightly under-reported, but you could quadruple reported pre-invasion violence deaths and still come up with a 500% increase in deaths due to violence since the invasion.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:14 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But let's assume that you are correct in generlizing that every single male between the ages of 15-60 was an insurgent. What does that say about our popular support in Iraq??


I did not categorize all males 15-60 as insurgents, nor did the Lancet article. I was just pointing out that categorizing all casualties as civilian (as in the Guardian article) is incorrect based on the very research about which they were writing.

Also note that the Lancet used the word "combatant" rather than "insurgent". Combatants would be anyone fighting, which could include members of the former regime's military and paramilitary, and also members of the interum government's military and police forces.

It is interesting how "100,000 deaths" has morphed into "100,000 civilian deaths", and how that morphed again to "100,000 civilians killed by Coalition forces", and then to "The vast majority of dead are women and children, and they were bombed (deliberately targeted using "smart bomb" technology)". I can't find support for any of this in the Lancet article. As an example(analyzing figures from their Table 2), excluding Falluja, the breakdown for violent deaths (from all causes, not just bombing) is men=61%, women/children=29%, elderly=10%. Including Falluja, where urban fighting and bombing have been much more prevelant than the norm (again as noted by the report), its men=52%, women/children=45%, elderly=3%. I'd rather it be 0% across the board, but neither 29% or 45% is a "vast majority".



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:54 AM

FIREFLOOZYSUZIE


(General comment on this thread)

I appreciate that we're addressing the very
real horrors of war, and the real maiming
and deaths (oh, wait - are we counting maiming and
severe bodily damage? We should be!)

So thank you for putting this information
where folks can see it. Important reality check.

Now. That being said...
Oh oh BABY -- all this
methodology talk!

Sexy stuff ;-)

I'm so proud of our brainiac browncoats :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 4:03 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by firefloozysuzie:
(oh, wait - are we counting maiming and
severe bodily damage? We should be!)



Just deaths. IBC project states that they decided the information available on injuries wasn't detailed enough to accurately determine how many were severe. The Lancet study only looked at deaths, probably also because of the difficulty in quantifying severe vs. non-severe injury based on interviews.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 6:31 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:
Originally posted by firefloozysuzie:
Oh oh BABY -- all this
methodology talk!

Sexy stuff ;-)

I'm so proud of our brainiac browncoats :)

100000 is a number from those who's job it is to monitor then give as accurate a figure as possible. This comes from those who have no American agenda.

Disputing figures from the most accurate source possible is an exercise only Americans think is acceptable.

It isn't. In fact, all American sources of information are tainted and considered untrustworthy.

The job of the Neofascists is to "spin" whatever truth about the Bush Junta and thier insanely murderous War against Islam into anything but what is plainly stated - like 100000 dead women and children.

See how the bozos in this thread completely avoid talking about the shame and rage that is missing from our twisted neofascist culture to just shit on what are accurate facts?

The American media, owned by three monster corporations who support the Bush neofascist movement, spins all facts just like the bozos here do. It's a sickness that has spread into every American home. CNN and FOX never define facts and present them but simply repeat over, and over, and over, the spin from the neofascists. A spin that has nothing to do with the facts.

Facts like 100000 dead women and children.

Well, I'm here to express my shame.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:48 AM

JASONZZZ


100000 is a number.

It's a number being thrown around b/c of faulty assumptions, leading to faulty sampling methodology, and together with shady interpretations made for really really horrible bad "science".

The real number based on their non-random and ridiculously small sample sizes is something in between 8000 - 194000. But they opted for taking the median and just inflating that figure. The dumbasses in the media who doesn't understand the basic statistics in those figures (let alone the horribly mangled sampling experiment) just regurgitated it for their own aim.

This isn't spin, this is basic statistics and failure of "scientists" to conduct basic sampling and research. This is the kind of stuff that we all hate if it were to be done in something like drug trials. This is manipulation of the results to further your own person aim.

BTW, while the publication is in the Lancet in England; The research is done by a team of Johns Hopkins University in Maryland and led by Les Roberts of -> USA.

Is this no agenda, or non-American agenda?
Quote:

Lancet editor Richard Horton said: "Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths, not fewer. This political and military failure continues to cause scores of casualties among non-combatants."





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:53 AM

DAIKATH


This does have something to do with the thread but not necisarily(sp?) with the immediate discussion.

It can't be denied that the media is bias, CNN only came out with the slitghest report of civilian casualties once the war was 'over'. This might not sound as too dramatic but just look at it and you can see the selfcensorship.

However my main point here is something else.

I do think it's possible that a 100,000 poeple were killed during and after the invasion of Iraq. But if Saddam and his sons and whomever after that was allowed to rule would (with about 95% certainty) have killed just as much poeple.

We all know the story of the young boy who's house got hit by a stray bomb and lost his limbs and family in the process. But then again if you look on the internet you can find videoclips of Saddams 'traitors' being executed by having explosives detonate in their anus.

My point is that if we didnt go into Iraq we would have allowed a whole lot of suffering and now we went into Iraq we caused a whole lot of suffering.

I hope I will never be in a position wherein I have to choose between either, but in the meantime I hope to see the true picture and pray for forgiveness if my inaction has caused suffering along the way.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 8:51 AM

FIREFLOOZYSUZIE


Apparently *someone* would rather believe that a
compliment paid recently was meant to be some sort of insult. Apparently *someone* must have had one of those
nightmarish childhoods where every compliment was a criticism about to happen.

The point of my post:

Back-and-forth debate about methodology is dry and difficult to
follow for anyone who has not studied methodology and statistics.

I applaud you both for trying to
explain the strengths and limitations of these Iraqi casualty estimates to the rest of us.

I am impressed.

The BOTTOM LINE is that:
Too many Iraqis were killed.
Too many Iraqis were maimed.
Too MANY men, women and children died... because America stormed in to
(how did Bush express it at his press conference this morning?)

Oh...right: "Spread freedom"



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:21 AM

JASONZZZ


Here's what a sort of layperson's explanation of what Lancet claims to be the result of their study - which the media at large unthinkingly just republish. No, the Lancet article did not purposely distort the truth. The numbers are all right there, their basic methodology is all right there. It's just that the publishers never bothered to examine it or even to look at it carefully. Shame on them.

Here it is:

let say you walk by a bakery and fancies a particular delectable piece of pastry thru the store front, but the price is nowhere to be seen. You send your buddy in to investigate. Your buddy sets up this rather ridiculous experiment to "sample" the customers that happen to be in the store to get their "opinion" on what the price for that piece of pastry is. He comes back and reports that. Well, the price is exactly $250,000.15 (CI: $3.25 - $500,000.00). And you say:

"Holy cow!, $250,000.15"

Then you look at the little thing with in between the parenthesis and you say. "Oh, so you weren't exactly sure from your sampling that it was $250,000.15". It's really something in between $3.25 and $500,000.00.

Then you ask your buddy. "Why d'ya pick $250,000.15?"

"I don't know, I trusted the people who told me the prices close to $250,000.15 more. They just looked more honest, and it is about in the middle"

But you wonder, since there is about 2% chance that it could be any single number in that range.
And why that ridiculous range in the first place?
How can I use this kind of results when it's all over the place?

The answer is, you can't. Any good scientist who get result like this would fail to conclude either way and cannot affirm the original hypothesis.

The answer is, the only good thing that came out from that study is a perfect illustration of why good intentions but cast in flawed studies will result in a failed experiment. This should be a text book case study for a beginning statistics class.

To put it another way, would you give weight to a drug trial where the fatal rate was 0.1% (CI: 0.015% - 20%) That's as high as 1 out of 5, but for some reason they just decided to go with 1 out of 1000. Shrug, it's within the range.





Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:30 AM

FIREFLOOZYSUZIE


THANK YOU!

That actually helped a lot.

Made me crave pastries as an unfortunate
side-effect (LOL) but really, now I don't feel
as confused. Mucho gracias.

Susiefloozy
Semi-Informed Layperson


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 15, 2004 9:42 AM

GHOULMAN


Just to interject...

From the first paragraph of the article.

The US and British governments quickly moved to cast doubt on the Lancet medical journal findings, citing other studies. These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.

I've noticed the Right Wingers here are refuting this finding.

But this report is completely above board and cannot be refuted. It has not been refuted yet. Certainly it cannot be refuted by the goofs in this forum. Even today someone told me I was a liar because I mentioned 100000 dead Iraq women and children.

Well, if even this rock solid report from one of the medical worlds most respected sources isn't good enough for others here I can only think someone is lieing... someone is trying to lie very hard.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 15, 2004 10:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Jasonnz, your capacity to rationalize the facts never cease to amaze me.

I looked at the table. I did my own stats on violent death, discounting the non-violent death toll and its "baseline" subtraction. No matter how you twist the statistics, it comes out to a f*ck of a lot of deaths... a lot more than had to pass through the filter of FIRST being reported in the Western Press and THEN needing a certificate of death. You would rather pick an obviously low-ball number? Fine. What you choose to tell yourself doesn't change reality, and the Iraqis certainly know which end is up even if you don't. But don't go around wondering why they don't see us as "liberators" and asking yourself "Why do they hate us so much?"


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 15, 2004 10:19 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Just to interject...


But this report is completely above board and cannot be refuted. It has not been refuted yet. Certainly it cannot be refuted by the goofs in this forum. Even today someone told me I was a liar because I mentioned 100000 dead Iraq women and children.



I asked you to provide cites from the Lancet article to support your '100,000 women and children killed by US bombing' claim. Well?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:28 AM

GHOULMAN


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Just to interject...


But this report is completely above board and cannot be refuted. It has not been refuted yet. Certainly it cannot be refuted by the goofs in this forum. Even today someone told me I was a liar because I mentioned 100000 dead Iraq women and children.



I asked you to provide cites from the Lancet article to support your '100,000 women and children killed by US bombing' claim. Well?


Gotta say... a website run by what are effectively bloggers, though bloggers with research cred, can't really compare to a national insitution like the Lancet. Sure, the Lancet is estimating but that doesn't invalidate the report any more than any other scientific method.

Remember, the dead don't report thier death. The Lancet's method was the only way to get an accurate number of deaths and I applaud the people on the ground who risked thier lives to provide accurate results for The Lancet.

I've included a recent article by iraqbodycount.net that talks about the Lancet findings. Give it a read.

Lancet Article (which is mysteriously down !?!?!)
http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9446/early_online_publicati
on

IRAQ BODY COUNT Press Releases
PR10: Monday 7th November 2004
IBC response to the Lancet study estimating "100,000" Iraqi deaths
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/
Some people have asked us why we have not increased our count to 100,000 in the light of the multiple media reports of the recent Lancet study [link] which claims this as a probable and conservative estimate of Iraqi casualties.

Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths.


The Lancet study's headline figure of "100,000" excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the entire Iraqi population. Only those actual, war-related deaths could be included in our count. Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion", [link] the authors clearly state that "many" of the dead in their sample may have been combatants [P.7]). Iraq Body Count only includes reports where there are feasible methods of distinguishing military from civilian deaths (most of the uncertainty that remains in our own count - the difference between our reported Minimum and Maximum - arises from this issue). Our count is purely a civilian count.


One frequently cited misapprehension is that IBC "only can count deaths where journalists are present."[link] This is incorrect, and appears to arise from unfamiliarity with the variety of sources which the media may report and IBC has used. These sources include hospital and morgue officials giving totals for specific incidents or time periods, totals which in turn have sometimes been integrated into overall tolls of deaths and injuries for entire regions of Iraq as collated by central agencies such as the Iraqi Health Ministry (see KRT 25th September 2004 [link]); these are all carefully separated from more "direct" as well as duplicate media reporting before being added to IBC's database. The Lancet's survey data was itself gathered without journalists being present, and yet is widely reported in the press. Were the Lancet study a count and not a projection, it too could after appropriate analysis become part of the IBC database. Little-known but impeccably reported death tolls in fact constitute the larger part of IBC's numbers (as can be seen by sorting IBC's database by size of entry). We believe that such counts - when freely conducted and without official interference - have the potential to far exceed the accuracy and comprehensiveness even of local press reporting. It is after all the job of morgues and hospitals to maintain such records, and not the media's, who simply report their findings.


We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording. It is no part of our practice, at least as far as our published totals are concerned, to make any prediction or projection about what the "unseen" number of deaths might have been. This total can only be established to our satisfaction by a comprehensive count carried out by the Iraqi government, or other organisation with national or transnational authority.


Others have asked us to comment on whether the Lancet report's headline figure of 100,000 is a credible estimate. At present our resources are focused on our own ongoing work, not assessing the work of others. At an earlier stage, we did indeed provide an assessment of other counting projects [link], to provide what clarity we could for better public understanding of the issues involved. In that instance the projects under review were similar to ours, in that they attempted to amass data on actual deaths (and some of their findings have subsequently been integrated into our own count). Nonetheless, the Lancet's estimate of 100,000 deaths - which is on the scale of the death toll from Hiroshima - has, if it is accurate, such serious implications that we may return to the subject in greater detail in the near future. As of this writing we are more concerned with renewed air and ground attacks on Falluja, which last April left over 800 Iraqis dead, some 600 of them civilians (see previous IBC press release below).


It may already be noted, however, that Iraq Body Count, like the Lancet study, doesn't simply report all deaths in Iraq (people obviously die from various causes all the time) but excess deaths that can be associated directly with the military intervention and occupation of the country. In doing this, and via different paths, both studies have arrived at one conclusion which is not up for serious debate: the number of deaths from violence has skyrocketed since the war was launched (see IBC Press Release September 23rd 2003 [link]; also AP 24th May 2004 [graphic chart]).


We also recognise the bravery of the investigators who carried out the Lancet survey on the ground, and support the call for larger and more authoritative investigations with the full support of the coalition and other official bodies.


Finally, we reject any attempt, by pro-war governments and others, to minimise the seriousness of deaths so far recorded by comparing them to higher figures, be they of deaths under Saddam's regime, or in other much larger-scale wars. Amnesty International, which criticized and drew attention to the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime long before the governments which launched the 2003 attack on Iraq, estimated that violent deaths attributable to Saddam's government numbered at most in the hundreds during the years immediately leading up to 2003. Those wishing to make the "more lives ultimately saved" argument will need to make their comparisons with the number of civilians likely to have been killed had Saddam Hussein's reign continued into 2003-2004, not in comparison to the number of deaths for which he was responsible in the 1980s and early 1990s, or to casualty figures during WWII.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Ghoul.

You can quote the Lancet study if you want. I have no problem with that. It is one of many estimates of casualties. The problem I have is when people categorize it as "100,000 civilians" or "100,000 women and children". As IBC's article states:
Quote:
(despite the Lancet website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion", the authors clearly state that "many" of the dead in their sample may have been combatants [P.7]).


I just don't want you to be accused of 'spinning' the truth.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:10 AM

MIKECHANCE


You all do realise that nothing you say to anyone on an internet venue like this ever sways anyone with a brain?

You are all wasting your breath and pissing each other off because you just KNOW your right... because all your sources are "direct from the horse's mouth" when, in reality, none of you actually have real sources with perfect facts.


You have your liberal/democrat or your conservative/republican propaganda and you get all pissy over it. And when the other side has exact opposite numbers(so opposite it's impossible the other can be right) no one listens!

You all need to realise that YOU ARE ALL WRONG.
NONE OF YOUR SOURCES ARE CORRECT.
The Democrats and Republicans like to keep the populace busy fighting itself so that they can get away with almost anything they want.

Don't be a puppet of the government any longer.
Think for yourselves. Don't listen to what CBS/CNN/ABC/FOX/MSNBC/NBC/BBC/(etcetera) say. They want ratings and they will LIE to get them. You want real numbers? Talk to 2 or more people that actually were in Iraq in the same general area but not in the same platoon/squad or hospital. And do this for several different areas of Iraq.

Then you'll have an idea what it's like.

That ain't no shepard...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:22 AM

GHOULMAN


^^^ great post!

I totally agree, I've been advocating my opinion over links but these trolls always love to start little "link pissing matches"... it fills up a thread they don't like. They do it every time I post any thread. They never start thier own threads, just troll my threads.

It's gotten to be completely boring. They have hacked my email account, lied about what I said and posted, inserted giant pictures in my threads, it goes on and on.

Today, I was accused of being a troll.

I can't tell you what little cock sucking pussies these guys are. They consistantly attack people instead of the opinion, they avoid opinions with all thier might. I believe that's called fascism.

This BBS is the most disgusting example of ignorant trolls I've ever seen in all my 10 years online. To tell you the truth, I often point this site out to friends who are amazed at the ignorance and childishness. It's almost as bad as CrossFire on CNN!

It's a terrific example of American discourse.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 3:50 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Taken from the Lancet study:

Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in ... Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1•5-fold (1•1–2•3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98 000 more deaths than expected (8000–194 000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included.

Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children (and one old man, for a total of 54% non-combatant deaths - SEE BELOW Rue).

In the absence of any surveys, however, they have relied on Ministry of Health records. ... but because only a third of all deaths happen in hospitals, these data might not accurately represent trends. No surveys or census-based estimates of crude mortality have been undertaken in Iraq in more than a decade ...

When deaths occurred, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. When violent deaths were attributed to a faction in the conflict or to criminal forces, no further investigation into the death was made to respect the privacy of the family and for the safety of the interviewers.

Many of the Iraqis reportedly killed by US forces could have been combatants. * 28 of 61 killings (46%) attributed to US forces involved men age 15–60 years, 28 (46%) were children younger than 15 years, four (7%) were
women, and one was an elderly man. (54% were clearly non-combatants Rue) It is not clear if the greater number of male deaths was attributable to legitimate targeting ... or if this was because men are more often in public... For example, seven of 12 (58%) vehicle accident related fatalities involved men between 15 and 60 years of age.

* For this to be true, you have to accept the US concept that ANY male between 15 and 60, armed or not, IS a combatant.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 24, 2004 4:52 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
This BBS is the most disgusting example of ignorant trolls I've ever seen in all my 10 years online. To tell you the truth, I often point this site out to friends who are amazed at the ignorance and childishness. It's almost as bad as CrossFire on CNN!

It's a terrific example of American discourse.


Hey, Ghoulman, what's going on over there? When did this happen? I've tried a lot of BBS's and I keep coming back to li'l old FFF 'cause the vast majority of people who post here, post regularly and respectfully. I can't find that anywhere else. The right-leaning posters here are by far the most articulate and consistently engaging right-leaning people I have ever encountered. What I like about you Ghoulman is that you don't argue your points. You don't get caught up in minutia. You keep your eye on the big picture. You simply state what you know to be true and stick to it.

There's an ill wind of relativism out there today. The fascist spirit wants everyone to believe that there is no way of knowing the truth, that all communication is propaganda. If that spirit were to prevail, then history would be irrelevant and George Orwell's prophecy would come true. Ghoulman, don't let the bastards grind you down. And don't take too much of the irrelevant flack you get here seriously.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:19 AM

MIKECHANCE


DANG YOU HKCavalier!

Once again my plans to become supreme ruler of the world by undermining all governments everywhere are foiled in thier infancy by other smart people!

STOP HELPING THEM.
WHEN I RULE, THE WORLD WILL BE BETTER(cause it won't remember what it was like before).


really... I promise...
*evil grin*
you can trust me...

That ain't no shepard...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 21, 2024 17:56 - 4749 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 21, 2024 17:52 - 7472 posts
Biden admin quietly loosening immigration policies before Trump takes office — including letting migrants skip ICE check-ins in NYC
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:47 - 1 posts
Hip-Hop Artist Lauryn Hill Blames Slavery for Tax Evasion
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:36 - 12 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:28 - 941 posts
LOL @ Women's U.S. Soccer Team
Thu, November 21, 2024 16:20 - 119 posts
Sir Jimmy Savile Knight of the BBC Empire raped children in Satanic rituals in hospitals with LOT'S of dead bodies
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:19 - 7 posts
Matt Gaetz, typical Republican
Thu, November 21, 2024 13:13 - 143 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:45 - 112 posts
Fauci gives the vaccinated permission to enjoy Thanksgiving
Thu, November 21, 2024 12:38 - 4 posts
English Common Law legalizes pedophilia in USA
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:42 - 8 posts
The parallel internet is coming
Thu, November 21, 2024 11:28 - 178 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL