Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 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.

---