57% of Iraqis: Attacks on US Troops Acceptable

[Taco John]

Poll: Iraqis Say US Troops Not Helping

ALAN FRAM | September 10, 2007 03:36 PM EST |

WASHINGTON — Overwhelming numbers of Iraqis say the U.S. troop buildup has worsened security and the prospects for economic and political progress in their country, according to a poll released Monday that provides a strikingly bleak appraisal of the war.

Forty-seven percent want American forces and their coalition allies to leave the country immediately, the survey showed, 12 points more than said so in a March poll as the troop increase was beginning. And 57 percent _ including nearly all Sunnis and half of Shiites _ said they consider attacks on coalition forces acceptable, a slight increase over the past half year.

The poll, conducted by ABC News, Britain's BBC, and Japan's public broadcaster NHK, was released at the start of a critical week in the fight by Democrats trying to force President Bush to begin a withdrawal.

Seventy percent in the survey said they believe security has worsened where the added forces were sent, with another 11 percent saying the buildup has had no effect. Similar numbers said security in other parts of the country has deteriorated and that overall economic and political conditions have declined.

Only a quarter said their own communities have become safer in the past half year. Every person interviewed in Baghdad and Anbar province, a Sunni-dominated area where Bush recently visited and cited progress, said the troop increase has worsened security.

Countrywide, a fourth reported nearby car bombs or suicide attacks in the past six months, with as many or slightly fewer saying they have seen snipers, sectarian fighting, kidnappings and unnecessary violence by coalition forces against citizens.

Just 39 percent said their lives were going well, while only a fifth said they think things in the country are going well. Minorities said they approve of the job being done by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki or have confidence in U.S. and British forces.

Despite their pessimistic views of their lives, virtually all said that separating Iraqis along sectarian lines is bad for the country. Six in 10 said they wanted a unified country ruled by a central government in Baghdad.

Some interviewers conducting the survey reported encountering military operations or suicide attacks, and some were detained by government or militia forces, but all completed their work safely. A handful of interviewing locations had to be changed for security reasons.

The poll was conducted August 17 to 24 and involved face-to-face interviews in Arabic or Kurdish with 2,212 randomly chosen adult Iraqis from across the country. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points, and was conducted by D3 Systems of Vienna, Va., and KA Research Limited of Istanbul.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070910/iraq-security-poll/

[Rohirrim]

Works for me. The people have spoken. Let's get the hell out of there.

[Orange_Beard]

Who finds this surprising?

[RMT]

yep, those iraqis sure are grateful now, aren't they?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

yep, those iraqis sure are grateful now, aren't they?

They should be greeting the troops with flowers anytime now....

http://www.bartcop.com/war-good-for-business.jpg

[El Guapo]

this just in: 90% of statistics tend to be 100% false.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

this just in: 90% of statistics tend to be 100% false.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/774/snakeoilme8.jpg

[Bronco Bob]

Bush doesn't listen to the American people. Why would Bush care what the Iraqis have to say about it?

[gunns]

this just in: 90% of statistics tend to be 100% false.

Well I've been saying this for 3 years based on what I've heard from my brother, a co-worker who worked for a year there as a translator, and now my son. They aren't statistics, thank heavens.

[ant1999e]

They should be greeting the troops with flowers anytime now....

http://www.bartcop.com/war-good-for-business.jpg

I remember when we "liberated' them from Sadam, they were pretty happy.

[TheDave]

Works for me. The people have spoken. Let's get the hell out of there.

Ditto

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I remember when we "liberated' them from Sadam, they were pretty happy.

Taking a walk down memory lane, are we?

I guess that's all a Bush water carrier can do these days.

In the meantime, the court-appointed fraud has brought more death and destruction to Iraq than Saddam ever dreamed possible.

[Bronco Bob]

I remember when we "liberated' them from Sadam, they were pretty happy.

Poland was pretty happy when the Soviets liberated them from the Nazis.

[W*GS]

In the meantime, the court-appointed fraud has brought more death and destruction to Iraq than Saddam ever dreamed possible.

Bush has turned Iraq into a cluster****, to be sure - but there's no need for this sort of rhetorical excess.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

tsk tsk

There goes W*GS denying and minimizing reality for Dubya again like a good little Bush water carrier.

George Bush has killed more Iraqis than Saddam

According to a Lancet study, 655,000 Iraqis have died as the result of our invasion which is (by all informed accounts) more than Saddam has killed in his 40 years as Iraq's leader. The war is the most colossal mistake in US history, and was lost before it was begun--because there was, in fact, no valid pretext for invading.

The UN Charter, to which the US is signatory, forbids military action against another country unless provoked by "armed attack". The framers of this document in the wake of WWII wisely included this exact wording to attempt to prevent debacles like the one in which we are now entrenched.

We should have heeded their warning.

http://www.nysun.com/comments/12575

Iraqi Death Toll Exceeds 600,000, Study Estimates

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116052896787288831-8l5AMVpCdg07M3w6XdmTXoPuzno_20061109.html?mod=tff_ main_tff_top

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 11, 2006; Page A12

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html?nav=rss_world/mideast

Which brings us to Iraq. The chaos and mayhem there has reached (or surpassed) a point when it may not be unsound to say that Iraqis were better off under Saddam Hussein. Think of it this way: in the years since George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. The most recent statistics are staggering. In May and June, according to the United Nations, six thousand Iraqis were slain. Recently, the health ministry noted that 1,850 Baghdad residents were killed in July alone and 3,438 civilians were killed throughout the country. That is, in a three-month period, about 10,000 Iraqis have lost their lives in the troubles the invasion—and the poorly planned occupation—gave birth to. Yet despite these harrowing numbers, President Bush, according to The New York Times, is befuddled by the lack of public support among Iraqis for the American mission in their country.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/08/16/better_saddam_than_dead.php

Iraq: More Hellish Now Than Under Saddam

The tragedy unleashed by the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq defies description.

According to the most recent findings of the Lancet medical journal, the number of "excess deaths" in Iraq since the U.S. invasion is more than 650,000. "Iraq is the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world," according to Refugee International: nearly two million Iraqis have fled the country entirely, while at least another 500,000 are internally displaced.

Basic foods and necessities are beyond the reach of ordinary Iraqis because of massive inflation. "A gallon of gasoline cost as little as 4 cents in November. Now, after the International Monetary Fund pushed the Oil Ministry to cut its subsidies, the official price is about 67 cents," the New York Times notes. "The spike has come as a shock to Iraqis, who make only about $150 a month on average -- if they have jobs," an important proviso, since unemployment is roughly 60-70 percent nationally.

October 2006 proved to be the bloodiest month of the entire occupation, with more than six thousand civilians killed in Iraq, most in Baghdad, where thousands of additional U.S. troops have been sent since August with the claim they would restore order and stability in the city, but instead only sparked more violence. United Nations special investigator Manfred Nowak notes that torture "is totally out of hand" in Iraq. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein." The number of U.S. soldiers dead is now more than 2,900, with more than 21,000 wounded, many severely.

The underlying trend is clear: Each day the occupation continues, life gets worse for most Iraqis. Rather than stemming civil war or sectarian conflict, the occupation is spurring it. Rather than being a source of stability, the occupation is the major source of instability and chaos.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/45699/

[ant1999e]

Taking a walk down memory lane, are we?

I guess that's all a Bush water carrier can do these days.

In the meantime, the court-appointed fraud has brought more death and destruction to Iraq than Saddam ever dreamed possible.

You brought the subject up, I was just refreshing your memory. I won't deny that the post war planning was a cluster **** and has put us in the mess we are in right now.

[jhat01]

What a mess. The way I see it is, there are only two options:

1. Pull everyone out now. But what happens when we do that? Does Iran fill the void? Red China/Russia? China is hungry for oil right? Will there be another couple hundred thousand killed in civil war?


2. And this is going to go over like a 300lb canary: Increase our troops in Iraq by another 100,000 or so and completely occupy the country. In my eyes, thats the only way we're going to provide the security for those poor bastards to fix the infrastructure. I don't know if that would even be enough troops.

[The Lone Bolt]

Works for me. The people have spoken. Let's get the hell out of there.

I'm not sure that this or any other poll means that "the people have spoken." I say hold a national referendum in Iraq. If the people vote for us to leave immediately then by all means we should.

[Bronco Bob]

What a mess. The way I see it is, there are only two options:

1. Pull everyone out now. But what happens when we do that? Does Iran fill the void? Red China/Russia? China is hungry for oil right? Will there be another couple hundred thousand killed in civil war?

So basically the purpose of the US military in Iraq is to be a cork in the bottle?


2. And this is going to go over like a 300lb canary: Increase our troops in Iraq by another 100,000 or so and completely occupy the country. In my eyes, thats the only way we're going to provide the security for those poor bastards to fix the infrastructure. I don't know if that would even be enough troops.

And short of a draft where exactly is this 100,000 going to come from?
You think the generals didn't consider this already?
You know why the surge consisted of adding 30,000 to Iraq?
That's all the Army and Marines had to spare.

[ant1999e]

I'm not sure that this or any other poll means that "the people have spoken." I say hold a national referendum in Iraq. If the people vote for us to leave immediately then by all means we should.

Sounds like a good plan.:thumbsup:

[Bronco Bob]

I'm not sure that this or any other poll means that "the people have spoken." I say hold a national referendum in Iraq. If the people vote for us to leave immediately then by all means we should.

Again I ask, if Bush doesn't listen to the American people, what makes you
think Bush is going to listen to the Iraqi people?
Who exactly is going to force Bush to get us to leave immediately.
The Democrats don't have the votes to end the war or the guts
to cut off funding the war, and the Republicans are still marching
lock-strep behind Bush. So likely the war is going to go on at
least until 1-20-2009, no matter how many people want the US
out of Iraq.

[The Lone Bolt]

Again I ask, if Bush doesn't listen to the American people, what makes you
think Bush is going to listen to the Iraqi people?
Who exactly is going to force Bush to get us to leave immediately.
The Democrats don't have the votes to end the war or the guts
to cut off funding the war, and the Republicans are still marching
lock-strep behind Bush. So likely the war is going to go on at
least until 1-20-2009, no matter how many people want the US
out of Iraq.


I think that a referendum in Iraq would give Bush the political cover for a withdrawal. If he pulls troops out now he will get slammed for "cutting and running." If on the other hand the Iraqi people vote us out he can always say "well I think we should stay but we have to respect the will of the Iraqi people." (Whether you think he means it or not is irrelevant. It's all politics)

I think an Iraqi referendum would settle the issue.

[Rohirrim]

I'm not sure that this or any other poll means that "the people have spoken." I say hold a national referendum in Iraq. If the people vote for us to leave immediately then by all means we should.

From what Petreaus said today, it will take somewhere in the vicinity of five more years. Maybe more. The price? Somewhere between 50 to 100 American lives per month, who knows how many wounded, or how many dead civilians, and $9 billion per month. Maybe we should just exercise our own judgment.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Once again, I think anyone who believes we're going to be leaving Iraq anytime in the foreseeable future is simply being naive.

There might be some reductions in the number of troops in the future, but the Bush/Cheney/PNAC cartel didn't build the world's largest U.S. embassy and all those permanent bases in Iraq just for sh*ts and giggles.

We'll be in Iraq as long as the people who profit - or anticipate future profit - from the war (read: the people who pull Bush's strings, i.e., Big Oil, Big Arms, et al) want us to stay.

[Taco John]

I think that a referendum in Iraq would give Bush the political cover for a withdrawal. If he pulls troops out now he will get slammed for "cutting and running." If on the other hand the Iraqi people vote us out he can always say "well I think we should stay but we have to respect the will of the Iraqi people." (Whether you think he means it or not is irrelevant. It's all politics)

I think an Iraqi referendum would settle the issue.


They wouldn't even be able to agree on that. The situation is much more politically complicated than what you are suggesting. They may hate us, but we have power, and they can use us.

This, my friend, is what they call "entangling alliances."

[ant1999e]

Once again, I think anyone who believes we're going to be leaving Iraq anytime in the foreseeable future is simply being naive.

There might be some reductions in the number of troops in the future, but the Bush/Cheney/PNAC cartel didn't build the world's largest U.S. embassy and all those permanent bases in Iraq just for sh*ts and giggles.

We'll be in Iraq as long as the people who profit - or anticipate future profit - from the war (read: the people who pull Bush's strings, i.e., Big Oil, Big Arms, et al) want us to stay.

And if your people win the white house?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And if your people win the white house?

My people?

Who might those be?

[ant1999e]

My people?

Who might those be?

Whoever you post your B.S. political propaganda for on sites like the Mane.

"Once again, I think anyone who believes we're going to be leaving Iraq anytime in the foreseeable future is simply being naive.

There might be some reductions in the number of troops in the future, but the Bush/Cheney/PNAC cartel didn't build the world's largest U.S. embassy and all those permanent bases in Iraq just for sh*ts and giggles.

We'll be in Iraq as long as the people who profit - or anticipate future profit - from the war (read: the people who pull Bush's strings, i.e., Big Oil, Big Arms, et al) want us to stay."

So, if your people win the white house, will they also be puppets to big oil and arms or will they have a plan to get us out? I bet not. All politicians are the same. Crooks regardles of which side of the aisle they sit.

[Meck77]

We'll be in Iraq as long as the people who profit - or anticipate future profit - from the war (read: the people who pull Bush's strings, i.e., Big Oil, Big Arms, et al) want us to stay.

You forgot to mention our allies in the region. They are as much to blame for this mess as anyone but that is an unpopular subject that our media will not talk about.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Whoever you post your B.S. political propaganda for on sites like the Mane.

It must be rough being a Bush cheerleader these days:

Everyday you have to wake up and find a way to spin 90% of the news headlines as "leftist propaganda" just to make it through the day without your head exploding.

:rofl:


So, if you're(sic) people win the white house...

???

What "people" are you talking about?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You forgot to mention our allies in the region. They are as much to blame for this mess as anyone but that is an unpopular subject that our media will not talk about.
Uh, please explain how our allies are to blame for the Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq (the Neocon's war)?

[Meck77]

It goes back to Gulf War I. Who did Saddam attack? They could have defended themselves instead they drug us into their war when they could have handled it themselves. It just so happens they gave us plenty of false reports over the years about Saddams WMD also.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

It goes back to Gulf War I. Who did Saddam attack? They could have defended themselves instead they drug us into their war when they could have handled it themselves. It just so happens they gave us plenty of false reports over the years about Saddams WMD also.Uh, Bush had the correct intel and withheld it from Congress (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=60315). Trying to blame Bush's war on anyone else is just dishonest.

[The Lone Bolt]

100,000 Dead—or 8,000 How many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 6:49 PM ET

The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.

The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.

Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday's election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling.

The problem is, ultimately, not with the scholars who conducted the study; they did the best they could under the circumstances. The problem is the circumstances. It's hard to conduct reliable, random surveys—and to extrapolate meaningful data from the results of those surveys—in the chaotic, restrictive environment of war.

However, these scholars are responsible for the hype surrounding the study. Gilbert Burnham, one of the co-authors, told the International Herald Tribune (for a story reprinted in today's New York Times), "We're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate." Yet the text of the study reveals this is simply untrue. Burnham should have said, "We're not quite sure what our estimate means. Assuming our model is accurate, the actual death toll might be 100,000, or it might be somewhere between 92,000 lower and 94,000 higher than that number."

Not a meaty headline, but truer to the findings of his own study.

Here's how the Johns Hopkins team—which, for the record, was led by Dr. Les Roberts of the university's Bloomberg School of Public Health—went about its work. They randomly selected 33 neighborhoods across Iraq—equal-sized population "clusters"—and, this past September, set out to interview 30 households in each. They asked how many people in each household died, of what causes, during the 14 months before the U.S. invasion—and how many died, of what, in the 17 months since the war began. They then took the results of their random sample and extrapolated them to the entire country, assuming that their 33 clusters were perfectly representative of all Iraq.

This is a time-honored technique for many epidemiological studies, but those conducting them have to take great care that the way they select the neighborhoods is truly random (which, as most poll-watchers of any sort know, is difficult under the easiest of circumstances). There's a further complication when studying the results of war, especially a war fought mainly by precision bombs dropped from the air: The damage is not randomly distributed; it's very heavily concentrated in a few areas.

The Johns Hopkins team had to confront this problem. One of the 33 clusters they selected happened to be in Fallujah, one of the most heavily bombed and shelled cities in all Iraq. Was it legitimate to extrapolate from a sample that included such an extreme case? More awkward yet, it turned out, two-thirds of all the violent deaths that the team recorded took place in the Fallujah cluster. They settled the dilemma by issuing two sets of figures—one with Fallujah, the other without. The estimate of 98,000 deaths is the extrapolation from the set that does not include Fallujah. What's the extrapolation for the set that does include Fallujah? They don't exactly say. Fallujah was nearly unique; it's impossible to figure out how to extrapolate from it. A question does arise, though: Is this difficulty a result of some peculiarity about the fighting in Fallujah? Or is it a result of some peculiarity in the survey's methodology?

There were other problems. The survey team simply could not visit some of the randomly chosen clusters; the roads were blocked off, in some cases by coalition checkpoints. So the team picked other, more accessible areas that had received similar amounts of damage. But it's unclear how they made this calculation. In any case, the detour destroyed the survey's randomness; the results are inherently tainted. In other cases, the team didn't find enough people in a cluster to interview, so they expanded the survey to an adjoining cluster. Again, at that point, the survey was no longer random, and so the results are suspect.

Beth Osborne Daponte, senior research scholar at Yale University's Institution for Social and Policy Studies, put the point diplomatically after reading the Lancet article this morning and discussing it with me in a phone conversation: "It attests to the difficulty of doing this sort of survey work during a war. … No one can come up with any credible estimates yet, at least not through the sorts of methods used here."

The study, though, does have a fundamental flaw that has nothing to do with the limits imposed by wartime—and this flaw suggests that, within the study's wide range of possible casualty estimates, the real number tends more toward the lower end of the scale. In order to gauge the risk of death brought on by the war, the researchers first had to measure the risk of death in Iraq before the war. Based on their survey of how many people in the sampled households died before the war, they calculated that the mortality rate in prewar Iraq was 5 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The mortality rate after the war started—not including Fallujah—was 7.9 deaths per 1,000 people per year. In short, the risk of death in Iraq since the war is 58 percent higher (7.9 divided by 5 = 1.58) than it was before the war.

But there are two problems with this calculation. First, Daponte (who has studied Iraqi population figures for many years) questions the finding that prewar mortality was 5 deaths per 1,000. According to quite comprehensive data collected by the United Nations, Iraq's mortality rate from 1980-85 was 8.1 per 1,000. From 1985-90, the years leading up to the 1991 Gulf War, the rate declined to 6.8 per 1,000. After '91, the numbers are murkier, but clearly they went up. Whatever they were in 2002, they were almost certainly higher than 5 per 1,000. In other words, the wartime mortality rate—if it is 7.9 per 1,000—probably does not exceed the peacetime rate by as much as the Johns Hopkins team assumes.

The second problem with the calculation goes back to the problem cited at the top of this article—the margin of error. Here is the relevant passage from the study: "The risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1 – 2.3) higher after the invasion." Those mysterious numbers in the parentheses mean the authors are 95 percent confident that the risk of death now is between 1.1 and 2.3 times higher than it was before the invasion—in other words, as little as 10 percent higher or as much as 130 percent higher. Again, the math is too vague to be useful.

eThere is one group out there counting civilian casualties in a way that's tangible, specific, and very useful—a team of mainly British researchers, led by Hamit Dardagan and John Sloboda, called Iraq Body Count. They have kept a running total of civilian deaths, derived entirely from press reports. Their count is triple fact-checked; their database is itemized and fastidiously sourced; and they take great pains to separate civilian from combatant casualties (for instance, last Tuesday, the group released a report estimating that, of the 800 Iraqis killed in last April's siege of Fallujah, 572 to 616 of them were civilians, at least 308 of them women and children).

The IBC estimates that between 14,181 and 16,312 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war—about half of them since the battlefield phase of the war ended last May. The group also notes that these figures are probably on the low side, since some deaths must have taken place outside the media's purview.

So, let's call it 15,000 or—allowing for deaths that the press didn't report—20,000 or 25,000, maybe 30,000 Iraqi civilians killed in a pre-emptive war waged (according to the latest rationale) on their behalf. That's a number more solidly rooted in reality than the Hopkins figure—and, given that fact, no less shocking.

[ant1999e]

[QUOTE=L.A. BRONCOS FAN;1708677
What "people" are you talking about?[/QUOTE]

The idiots you want in the white house. What is so hard to understand about that? The ****ing democrats I assume.

Will they be typical corrupt politicians, puppets to big business?

[ant1999e]

It must be rough being a Bush cheerleader these days:

Everyday you have to wake up and find 90% of my news headlines as "leftist propaganda.


Yeah, it gets a little silly.;)

I'm not a bush cheerleader, I just think your an idiot.:kiss:

[The Lone Bolt]

http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/cflancet.jpg

[Bronco_Beerslug]

100,000 Dead—or 8,000 How many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 6:49 PM ET
What's the point posting an article that is 3 years old?

And we know there has been at least 1500 - 2000 Iraqi deaths per month over the last 30 months or so (probably MANY more).

-----------------------------------------------------------
Documented civilian deaths from violence (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)
71,720 – 78,296

Latest incidents Latest identified

Son of dead man
Male Details
Recent events
Monday 10 September: 45 dead

Baghdad: car bomb, Atifiya; mortars, Karkh; young mother and two daughters killed in US/Iraqi raid, Sadr City; 10 bodies.

Tal Marag: truck bomb kills 10.

Yusufiya: bombing kills 3.

Mosul: 3 policemen killed in clashes.

Samarra: 2 women killed by US fire during raid.

Tikrit: 2 truck drivers killed by US fire during raid; car mechanic shot dead by US troops near his workplace.

Mahmudiya: 3 bodies.

[TheDave]

I'm not sure that this or any other poll means that "the people have spoken." I say hold a national referendum in Iraq. If the people vote for us to leave immediately then by all means we should.

To the best of my knowledge the iraqi parliment already did this...



http://www.alternet.org/story/51624/

Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation

On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.

It's a hugely significant development. Lawmakers demanding an end to the occupation now have the upper hand in the Iraqi legislature for the first time; previous attempts at a similar resolution fell just short of the 138 votes needed to pass (there are 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, but many have fled the country's civil conflict, and at times it's been difficult to arrive at a quorum).

Reached by phone in Baghdad on Tuesday, Al-Rubaie said that he would present the petition, which is nonbinding, to the speaker of the Iraqi parliament and demand that a binding measure be put to a vote.

[The Lone Bolt]

http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/kanelancet1.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/kanelancet002.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/kanelancet003.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/kanelancet004.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/kanelancet005.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/kanelancet006.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/kanelancet007.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/kanelancet008.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/kanelancet009.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/kanelancet010.jpg

[The Lone Bolt]

http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/kanelancet011.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/kanelancet012.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/kanelancet013.jpg
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/kanelancet014.jpg

[The Lone Bolt]

What's the point posting an article that is 3 years old?

The point is that the Lancet study results are cited by LABF and other as if they are indesputable fact. The results of that study are in fact very debatable.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The point is that the Lancet study results are cited by LABF and other as if they are indesputable fact. The results of that study are in fact very debatable.The point is 10s of thousands of Iraqis (probably hundreds of thousands) have been killed in Bush's war.

-------------------------------------------------------
U.S. invasion responsible deaths of over 250,000 civilians in Iraq (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm)

by John Stokes

New studies make the Bush administration's "liberation" argument for a 'pre-emptive' war against Iraq seem questionable.

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by U.S.-led coalition forces has been responsible for the death of at least 150,000 civilians (not including certain of Iraq), reveals a compilitation of scientific studies and corroborated eyewitness testimonies.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/images/zzxIrak_war.gif


The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, documents a well-researched study, that had been released by The Lancet Medical Journal.

The report in the British journal is based on the work of teams from the Johns Hopkins University and Columbia University in the U.S., and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad.

A similar methodology was used in the late 1990's to calculate the number of deaths from the war in Kosovo, put at 10,000.

The information was obtained as Iraqi interviewers surveyed 808 families, consisting of 7,868 people, in 33 different "clusters" or neighbourhoods spread across the country.

In each case, they asked how many births and deaths there had been in the home since January 2002.

That information was then compared with the death rates in each neighbourhood in the 15 months before the invasion that toppled president Saddam Hussein, adjusted for the different time frames, and extrapolated to cover the entire 24.4 million population of Iraq.

The most common cause of death is as a direct result of a worsening 'culture of violence', mostly caused by indiscriminate U.S. co-ordinated air strikes, and related military interventions, reveals the study of almost 1000 households scattered across Iraq. And the risk of violent death just after the invasion was 58 times greater than before the war. The overall risk of death was 1.5 times more after the invasion than before.

The on-going American Occupation has also created worsened civil strife as well as mass environmental destructions and related public health problems that is associated with American bomb-related released radioactive and other life-threatening pollutions. The American Occupation has also prevailed over the neglect to the repairing of vital public services-related infrastructure, which include U.S.-led destructions of water systems.

The figure of 100,000 had been based on somewhat "conservative assumptions", notes Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, U.S., who led the study.

That estimate excludes Falluja, a hotspot for violence. If the data from this town is included, the compiled studies point to about 250,000 excess deaths since the outbreak of the U.S.-led war.

Many Americans have complained that more than $200 billion U.S. tax dollars have been diverted from vitally needed public services in the United States, into apparently reckless activities. These activities are resulting in inflicted mass-casualities against totally innocent civilians, which have worsened conditions for political extremism, and ensuing "terrorism".

It is well documented that such activities are being viewed by many Iraqis, and other peoples internationally, to undermine a popular feeling of international security in general. Indeed, polls suggest that Americans felt much more secure under the former political ledership of U.S. President Bill Clinton, as compared to the militaristic strategies which are being pursued by the George W. Bush administration.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates (http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html)

Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods

As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions, according to a survey conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The deaths from all causes—violent and non-violent—are over and above the estimated 143,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion.

The estimates were derived from a nationwide household survey of 1,849 households throughout Iraq conducted between May and July 2006. The results are consistent with the findings of an October 2004 study of Iraq mortality conducted by the Hopkins researchers. Also, the findings closely reflect the increased mortality trends reported by other organizations that utilized passive methods of counting mortality, such as counting bodies in morgues or deaths reported by the news media. The study is published in the October 14, 2006, edition of the peer-reviewed scientific journal, The Lancet.

“As we found with our previous survey, the majority of deaths in Iraq are due to violence—although we also saw a small increase in deaths from non-violent causes, such as heart disease, cancer and chronic illness. Gunshots were the primary cause of violent deaths. To put these numbers in context, deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003,” said Gilbert Burnham, MD, PhD, lead author of the study and co-director of the Bloomberg School’s Center for Refugee and Disaster Response. “Our total estimate is much higher than other mortality estimates because we used a population-based, active method for collecting mortality information rather than passive methods that depend on counting bodies or tabulated media reports of violent deaths. Though the numbers differ, the trend in increasing numbers of deaths closely follows that measured by the U.S. Defense Department and the Iraq Body Count group.”

Key points of the study include:

• Estimated 654,965 additional deaths in Iraq between March 2003 and July 2006

• Majority of the additional deaths (91.8 percent) caused by violence

• Males aged 15-44 years accounted for 59 percent of post-invasion violent deaths

• About half of the households surveyed were uncertain who was responsible for the death of a household member

• The proportion of deaths attributed to coalition forces diminished in 2006 to 26 percent. Between March 2003 and July 2006, households attributed 31 percent of deaths to the coalition

• Mortality data from the 2006 study reaffirms 2004 estimates by Hopkins researchers and mirrors upward trends measured by other organizations
CONT.

[The Lone Bolt]

The point is 10s of thousands of Iraqis (probably hundreds of thousands) have been killed in Bush's war.

But the anti-war crowd are clinging to the highest numbers in order to make the case that the Iraqi people would have been far better off if they had instead lived another 2 decades under a ruthless, brutal dictator who mecilessly tortured, raped, and slaughtered his own people and lanched reckless and unjustified wars on his neighbors.

Not to mention an indefinite period after that under one of Saddam's sadistic thug progeny.

IMO a pretty ludicrous argument.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

But the anti-war crowd are clinging to the highest numbers in order to make the case that the Iraqi people would have been far better off if they had instead lived another 2 decades under a ruthless, brutal dictator who mecilessly tortured, raped, and slaughtered his own people and lanched reckless and unjustified wars on his neighbors.

Not to mention an indefinite period after that under one of Saddam's sadistic thug progeny.

IMO a pretty ludicrous argument.How can you make that statement considering that Iraq is now a theocracy with the factions hating each other and killing each other every day?

[The Lone Bolt]

How can you make that statement considering that Iraq is now a theocracy with the factions hating each other and killing each other every day?

So you believe they were better off living another two or more decades under the Butcher of Baghdad? How about the Iranians? Would they be better off too? How about the Kuwaitis? Why doesn't the Lancet study and the anti-war crowd include the hundreds of thousands of estimated deaths of Iranians and Kuwaitis from wars that Saddam started? Saddam will now never wage war on either of those nations again -- guaranteed!

You really wish that Saddam was still in charge in Iraq? Really? You believe that the Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis also would be better off? That the ME region would be better off?

I admit that things are pretty bad in Iraq right now. But to say that things are actually worse than under Saddam is just not rational. And there is a chance now that things could get better. Under Saddam there was no chance at all.

[Rohirrim]

But the anti-war crowd are clinging to the highest numbers in order to make the case that the Iraqi people would have been far better off if they had instead lived another 2 decades under a ruthless, brutal dictator who mecilessly tortured, raped, and slaughtered his own people and lanched reckless and unjustified wars on his neighbors.

Not to mention an indefinite period after that under one of Saddam's sadistic thug progeny.

IMO a pretty ludicrous argument.

You're also playing fast an loose with the facts.

Fact #1: Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi people had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks on the WTC on 911.

Fact #2: There are plenty of regimes similar to, or worse than Saddam's in countries without oil who we completely ignore.

Fact #3: The people of the United States do not want our country to be the policeman of the world and have said so time after time. (Dubya even ran on this platform).

Fact #4: Ten times (or more) innocent lives (men, women and children) have been wiped out in our scatter-shot efforts at revenge for 911, while Bin Laden and Zawahiri, the masterminds of 911, are still alive and taunting us.

Fact #5: Every success the Western world has enjoyed against the terrorists has been produced by some form of law enforcement, NOT BY THE MILITARY. Anti-terrorism is not a military problem. Just because you have a hammer doesn't make every problem a nail.

Fact #6: The military/industrial complex (including Halliburton, Raytheon, Bendex, etc.) are getting rich off of the War on Terror. Since the war in Iraq was started, Exxon Mobil has broken every record for corporate profit in the history of mankind.

Fact #7: Saving the Iraqi people from Saddam was not the reason we invaded Iraq. It was added as an ancillary reason once the previous 4 or 5 reasons proved false (ie. WMDs, "mushroom clouds," Saddam/Al Queda link, "yellow cake," etc.)

Fact #8: The war in Iraq is costing us approx. $9 billion dollars PER MONTH. We are losing from 70 to 100 of our soldiers every month, with countless others injured and/or maimed for life. Our leaders, including General Petraeus cannot guarantee that our efforts in Iraq are leading to success this year, next year, or five years from now. We have been in Iraq longer than we fought WWII and the government of Iraq has yet to come up with even the simplest political reconciliation between factions.

Fact #9: Though our leaders are willing to scare us with the threat of some kind of cataclysm if we pull out of Iraq, they refuse to guarantee that if we stay in Iraq another year, or five, or ten, that the same result will not take place regardless. In other words, we are like a cop who stops a domestic fight. How long after the cop leaves does the fight resume and we get another call?

Fact #10: Our military has been crippled by the war in Iraq. Our ability to carry out our responsibilities in the world grows more tenuous day by day. In the meantime, China is building the largest military force on earth.

Fact #11: According to George Bush, and those who believe in him, Iraq is a keystone in the war on terror. According to Bin Laden, the U.S. has done exactly what he intended us to do when he ordered the 911 attacks; We are bogged down in a war in a ME country where we can be attacked over and over by guerillas and suicide bombers thereby weakening our forces and destroying our economy. (Also, refer to Fact #4)

So it really doesn't matter one whit if we know the exact number of Iraqi civilians killed. We know it constitutes more than the entire membership of Al Queda. We know they are all people killed for no reason whatsover. We know they never threatened us. We know they had nothing to do with 911.

[ant1999e]

There should be no doubt Iraq is a mess.

[The Lone Bolt]

Well Ro, we've been over all of those issues endlessly on other threads so I'll not go down that rabbit hole again. The only point I'd like to make for now is that the estimates of Iraqi civillain deaths offered by the Lancet and Johns Hopkins are highly debatable and IMO probably not even close to accurate. Furthemore the Iraqi people and Saddam's other victims the Iranians and Kuwaitis would certainly NOT be better off with Saddam still in power.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So you believe they were better off living another two or more decades under the Butcher of Baghdad? How about the Iranians? Would they be better off too? How about the Kuwaitis? Why doesn't the Lancet study and the anti-war crowd include the hundreds of thousands of estimated deaths of Iranians and Kuwaitis from wars that Saddam started? Saddam will now never wage war on either of those nations again -- guaranteed!

You really wish that Saddam was still in charge in Iraq? Really? You believe that the Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis also would be better off? That the ME region would be better off?

I admit that things are pretty bad in Iraq right now. But to say that things are actually worse than under Saddam is just not rational. And there is a chance now that things could get better. Under Saddam there was no chance at all.What's all this ranting about? I said how can you make the statement Iraqis are better off now than they were before Bush invaded and occupied them?

[mosca]

I think that a referendum in Iraq would give Bush the political cover for a withdrawal. If he pulls troops out now he will get slammed for "cutting and running." If on the other hand the Iraqi people vote us out he can always say "well I think we should stay but we have to respect the will of the Iraqi people." (Whether you think he means it or not is irrelevant. It's all politics)

I think an Iraqi referendum would settle the issue.
While we're at it, go ahead and include a "Should Iraq be trifurcated into autonomous Sunni, Shia, and Kurd regions?" vote on the referendum. Only a strongman like Saddam will be able to hold together an artifically created country like Iraq. If, on their own, the people there cannot form a stable, united country, they may as well partition it into regions where that is more easily possible. The Kurds are fine up north. Let the U.N. or any other intl. organization help the Sunni and Shia split up the rest of the damn country.

[The Lone Bolt]

What's all this ranting about? I said how can you make the statement Iraqis are better off now than they were before Bush invaded and occupied them?

Well imagine living in a country where you have no right to free speech or any civil rights whatsoever. A country with an unelected thug in charge with absolute power, and one in which you and your sons, friend, neighbors, etc are forced to fight in brutal wars to satisfy the dictator's lust for power, or face execution (along with your entire family).

Imagine living in a country where you are subject to torture by government officials at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all. Where you could also be treated to the spectacle of watching your wife or daughter raped in front of you or your child tortured simply for suggesting that the dictator is not such a nice guy.

And now imagine that there is no end in sight. The dictator has an iron grip on power and nobody dares oppose him. Anyone who even suggests disloyalty could end up being fed feet first through a meat grinder and his entire family executed, and ANYBODY could be a spy for the government.

Things are bad in Iraq now, but they are not that bad. There is hope that thing will improve, whereas under Saddam there was NO HOPE AT ALL. That alone is enough to make the argument that things are better (although granted, not by a wide margin).

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Well imagine living in a country where you have no right to free speech or any civil rights whatsoever. A country with an unelected thug in charge with absolute power, and one in which you and your sons, friend, neighbors, etc are forced to fight in brutal wars to satisfy the dictator's lust for power, or face execution (along with your entire family).

Imagine living in a country where you are subject to torture by government officials at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all. Where you could also be treated to the spectacle of watching your wife or daughter raped in front of you or your child tortured simply for suggesting that the dictator is not such a nice guy.

And now imagine that there is no end in sight. The dictator has an iron grip on power and nobody dares oppose him. Anyone who even suggests disloyalty could end up being fed feet first through a meat grinder and his entire family executed, and ANYBODY could be a spy for the government.

Things are bad in Iraq now, but they are not that bad. There is hope that thing will improve, whereas under Saddam there was NO HOPE AT ALL. That alone is enough to make the argument that things are better (although granted, not by a wide margin).

What makes you think Iraq will suddenly develop into some kind of functioning democracy where everyone is treated equally? How come people don't understand we just kicked out one version of murdering animals and setup the other in power? And to top it off, the ones in power now are aligned with Iran.

[Taco John]

Iraq is building an army before building a political infrastructure to control that army. It shouldn't take too much imagination to guess where such an endeavor will go.

[The Lone Bolt]

What makes you think Iraq will suddenly develop into some kind of functioning democracy where everyone is treated equally? How come people don't understand we just kicked out one version of murdering animals and setup the other in power? And to top it off, the ones in power now are aligned with Iran.

So the new Iraqi PM is a "murdering animal"? Al-Maliki is just as brutal and murderous a thug as Saddam and enjoys Saddam's absolute iron grip on power? What do you base this on?

And how do you know he is aligned with Iran and by how much?

Or are you referring to the religious radicals like Muktada al-Sadr? Is Muktada in control of the entire nation of Iraq?

I'm a little confused by your statement.

And I don't know that Iraq will develop into a functioning democracy. But it is certainly possible that Iraq will develop into a reasonably democratic country with substantially greater human rights than in the past, and one which exist in peace with it's neighbors. Under Saddam there was no possibility that would happen.

[Rohirrim]

Well imagine living in a country where you have no right to free speech or any civil rights whatsoever. A country with an unelected thug in charge with absolute power, and one in which you and your sons, friend, neighbors, etc are forced to fight in brutal wars to satisfy the dictator's lust for power, or face execution (along with your entire family).

Imagine living in a country where you are subject to torture by government officials at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all. Where you could also be treated to the spectacle of watching your wife or daughter raped in front of you or your child tortured simply for suggesting that the dictator is not such a nice guy.

And now imagine that there is no end in sight. The dictator has an iron grip on power and nobody dares oppose him. Anyone who even suggests disloyalty could end up being fed feet first through a meat grinder and his entire family executed, and ANYBODY could be a spy for the government.

Things are bad in Iraq now, but they are not that bad. There is hope that thing will improve, whereas under Saddam there was NO HOPE AT ALL. That alone is enough to make the argument that things are better (although granted, not by a wide margin).

And shall we review the list of regimes that fit the description above that America has backed and supported over the years, including Saddam, WHO WE HELPED CREATE? We overthrew an elected leader in Iran, Mossadeq, and replaced him with the Shah who was even more brutal than Saddam. We're paying for that now. How about Nasser? There are many who believe that 911 was actually born in the prisons of Egypt. Prisons we helped build, staffed with brutal guards that our CIA helped train. How about Pinochet? It is the height of hypocrisy. So for years we wear the black hat, and now suddenly we ride in wearing our white hat and nobody is supposed to see through it?

[Rohirrim]

BTW, here's an excellent piece by Ted Koppel on why this whole Petraeus dog and pony show is a complete sham, and how Dubya, in his infinite wisdom, has jammed us up in Iraq for years to come.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14330122

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So the new Iraqi PM is a "murdering animal"? Al-Maliki is just as brutal and murderous a thug as Saddam and enjoys Saddam's absolute iron grip on power? What do you base this on?

And how do you know he is aligned with Iran and by how much?

Or are you referring to the religious radicals like Muktada al-Sadr? Is Muktada in control of the entire nation of Iraq?

I'm a little confused by your statement.

And I don't know that Iraq will develop into a functioning democracy. But it is certainly possible that Iraq will develop into a reasonably democratic country with substantially greater human rights than in the past, and one which exist in peace with it's neighbors. Under Saddam there was no possibility that would happen.You don't actually think Al-Maliki is control of that country? Where once the Sunnis were in control the Shiites now are (and they are exacting their revenge for years of brutal treatment) . They continue to kill each other to the tune of hundreds or thousands every month.

Al Qaeda is firmly entrenched in that country now because of Bush playing "nation-builder". Most of those people there hate only Americans more than they hate each other.

[The Lone Bolt]

And shall we review the list of regimes that fit the description above that America has backed and supported over the years, including Saddam, WHO WE HELPED CREATE? We overthrew an elected leader in Iran, Mossadeq, and replaced him with the Shah who was even more brutal than Saddam. We're paying for that now. How about Nasser? There are many who believe that 911 was actually born in the prisons of Egypt. Prisons we helped build, staffed with brutal guards that our CIA helped train. How about Pinochet? It is the height of hypocrisy. So for years we wear the black hat, and now suddenly we ride in wearing our white hat and nobody is supposed to see through it?

No doubt about it, the USA has made some terrible foriegn policy decisions, especially during the cold war. However, does that change the fact that now the Iraqis have at least a chance at a better future whereas under Saddam they did not? I don't see how.

[The Lone Bolt]

You don't actually think Al-Maliki is control of that country? Where once the Sunnis were in control the Shiites now are (and they are exacting their revenge for years of brutal treatment) . They continue to kill each other to the tune of hundreds or thousands every month.

"Hundreds of thousands" every month? You have evidence to support this claim?

Edit: oops I see you said "or" not "of". My bad.

Al Qaeda is firmly entrenched in that country now because of Bush playing "nation-builder". Most of those people there hate only Americans more than they hate each other.

So al-Maliki has no power and al-Qaeda is controlling all of Iraq (in your words we "set them up in power")? What do you base this on? It's true that the gov't has not yet provided adequate security, but aren't you exaggerating a mite when you say they have no power at all?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

"Hundreds of thousands" every month? You have evidence to support this claim?I said or not of (depending on the month).

So al-Maliki has no power and al-Qaeda is controlling all of Iraq (in your words we "set them up in power")? What do you base this on? It's true that the gov't has not yet provided adequate security, but aren't you exaggerating a mite when you say they have no power at all?
Your reading comprehension seems to be lacking here. Try rereading what I posted again.

[The Lone Bolt]

I said or not of (depending on the month).

Yeah I caught that.

Your reading comprehension seems to be lacking here. Try rereading what I posted again.

Here is what you said:

. . . we just kicked out one version of murdering animals and setup the other in power?

Then you went on to say:

You don't actually think Al-Maliki is control of that country?

Assuming "control" means "power" you are implying that al-Maliki is not in power and al-Qaeda or someone else is. Now you are apparently denying that's what you meant.

So once again what are you saying? Who are the "murdering animals" that we "set up in power"? How about a little clarification?

[Rohirrim]

No doubt about it, the USA has made some terrible foriegn policy decisions, especially during the cold war. However, does that change the fact that now the Iraqis have at least a chance at a better future whereas under Saddam they did not? I don't see how.

At the cost of our future. Frankly, I couldn't give two ****s about the Iraqi future. If they wanted a democratic future, they should fight for it the way we did. Why should we fight for their future? Why should we send our children to die for them? Why should we mortgage the future of our grandchildren for them. The truth is, Dubya has **** all over the future of America, and now somebody else has to clean it up.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Yeah I caught that.

Assuming "control" means "power" you are implying that al-Maliki is not in power and al-Qaeda or someone else is. Now you are apparently denying that's what you meant.

So once again what are you saying? Who are the "murdering animals" that we "set up in power"? How about a little clarification?Uh, there is NO ONE in control over there, do you not understand this?

Once again, for those a little slow on the uptake, These different religious factions hate each other there and murder each other because of what sect each proclaims to be.

I don't know how much clearer it has to be for you. The people that are put in charge of security ARE part of these waring sects. Common sense dictates you don't create armies and security before a working government or.......... what will happen? That's right, the strongest sect will use that power against the other (see Saddam).

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...I just think your(sic) an idiot.

:rofl:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What's the point posting an article that is 3 years old?

And we know there has been at least 1500 - 2000 Iraqi deaths per month over the last 30 months or so (probably MANY more).


The point is Lone Bolt trying to cover for Dubya, as usual. :oyvey:

[The Lone Bolt]

The point is Lone Bolt trying to cover for Dubya, as usual. :oyvey:

To use your own logic, did you actually read the articles?

[The Lone Bolt]

OK, first you say:

How come people don't understand we just kicked out one version of murdering animals and setup the other in power?

Then you say:

there is NO ONE in control over there

So first we put one "version of murdering animals" in "power" but now you say "NO ONE" is in power?

You want to make up your mind here? Either they're in power or they're not. Which is it?

And how do you know that NO ONE is in control? We have crime here in the US too. Does that mean that everything is chaos and no one is in control? The Iraqis are experiencing a high rate of terrorist acts it's true, but that doesn't mean the central gov't has no power at all or that "no one" is in control.

I think you're exaggerating.

[TailgateNut]

OK, first you say:



Then you say:



So first we put one "version of murdering animals" in "power" but now you say "NO ONE" is in power?

You want to make up your mind here? Either they're in power or they're not. Which is it?

And how do you know that NO ONE is in control? We have crime here in the US too. Does that mean that everything is chaos and no one is in control? The Iraqis are experiencing a high rate of terrorist acts it's true, but that doesn't mean the central gov't has no power at all or that "no one" is in control.

I think you're exaggerating.


Comparing the crime in the US to the "crime" in Iraq is assinine at best. Have you ever been able to pry your lips from Bushs' a$$ or is it a permanent affliction?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

OK, first you say:
Then you say:
So first we put one "version of murdering animals" in "power" but now you say "NO ONE" is in power?

You want to make up your mind here? Either they're in power or they're not. Which is it?

And how do you know that NO ONE is in control? We have crime here in the US too. Does that mean that everything is chaos and no one is in control? The Iraqis are experiencing a high rate of terrorist acts it's true, but that doesn't mean the central gov't has no power at all or that "no one" is in control.

I think you're exaggerating.I think you have a limited understanding of what is happening there. NO ONE is in control of that country. Bush removed the Sunnis from running that country and put the Shiites in charge of running the country.

The Iraqi "government" isn't a government at all considering the Sunnis aren't participating and there is no evidence of any laws or legislation governing that country (see Saddam era).

This doesn't take rocket science to understand this.

[The Lone Bolt]

I think you have a limited understanding of what is happening there. NO ONE is in control of that country. Bush removed the Sunnis from running that country and put the Shiites in charge of running the country.

The Iraqi "government" isn't a government at all considering the Sunnis aren't participating and there is no evidence of any laws or legislation governing that country (see Saddam era).

This doesn't take rocket science to understand this.

No I think you are the one with the limited understanding. The Iraqi gov't has not passed some key legislation, true. There is insurgent and sectarian violence, true. That does NOT mean that there are no laws at all (e.g. "no evidence of any laws or legislation governing that country"). You are WILDLY exaggerating the insurgent attacks to complete chaos and lawlessness. You are being completely absurd.

Sunnis have acted like drama queens and dropped out of the gov't. So have some of the Shia. Not ALL Sunnis have dropped out of the gov't, and of the one faction that did, a representative had this to say:

Earlier, the Accordance Front's leader, Adnan al-Dulaimi, confirmed that was the case. "Withdrawing from the government doesn't mean that we will abandon the whole political process. We will continue our participation … through the parliament and we will contact other parliamentary blocs to achieve our demands," al-Dulaimi told the Associated Press.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-08-01-sunni-government_N.htm

Read that statement as many times as necessary for it to sink in. The Sunnis are just maneuvering politically to put pressure on the al-Maliki administration. Eventually they will work out a compromise and then this Sunni block will return. It's all politics. This too is not "rocket science." Once again you are WILDLY exaggerating based on your misunderstanding of the situation.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No I think you are the one with the limited understanding. The Iraqi gov't has not passed some key legislation, true. There is insurgent and sectarian violence, true. That does NOT mean the there are no laws at all (e.g. "no evidence of any laws or legislation governing that country"). You are WILDLY exaggerating the insurgent attacks to complete chaos and lawlessness. You are being completely absurd. I'm not exaggerating anything, you on the other hand are most certainly not acknowledging the current situation there and continue to try and sugarcoat the waring factions as some kind of temporary phase or something.


Sunnis have acted like drama queens and dropped out of the gov't. So have some of the Shia. Not ALL Sunnis have dropped out of the gov't, and of the one faction that did, a representative had this to say:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-08-01-sunni-government_N.htm

Read that statement as many times as necessary for it to sink in. The Sunnis are just maneuvering politically to put pressure on the al-Maliki administration. Eventually they will work out a compromise and then this Sunni block will return. It's all politics. This too is not "rocket science." Once again you are WILDLY exaggerating based on your misunderstanding of the situation.It's quite obvious you have no clear understanding of the problems there. the Shiites will never turnover more than a percentage of oil control to the Sunnis and the Sunnis will never accept anything less than their perceived share. The only possible way to appease everyone there to some degree is to divide the country which will result in border wars for years to come I'm sure.

You Bush backers that continually try and minimize the Iraq cluster**** that Bush created really need to try to either break out of your cocoon or bury yourselves back in the ground somewhere.

[Bronco Bob]

I think you have a limited understanding of what is happening there. NO ONE is in control of that country. Bush removed the Sunnis from running that country and put the Shiites in charge of running the country.

The Iraqi "government" isn't a government at all considering the Sunnis aren't participating and there is no evidence of any laws or legislation governing that country (see Saddam era).

This doesn't take rocket science to understand this.

What gets even nuttier is the US is now arming the Sunnis and the US army is fighting the Shiites.

[The Lone Bolt]

I'm not exaggerating anything, you on the other hand are most certainly not acknowledging the current situation there and continue to try and sugarcoat the waring factions as some kind of temporary phase or something.

It's quite obvious you have no clear understanding of the problems there. the Shiites will never turnover more than a percentage of oil control to the Sunnis and the Sunnis will never accept anything less than their perceived share. The only possible way to appease everyone there to some degree is to divide the country which will result in border wars for years to come I'm sure.

You Bush backers that continually try and minimize the Iraq cluster**** that Bush created really need to try to either break out of your cocoon or bury yourselves back in the ground somewhere.

No you are in fact exaggerating and even making stuff up and convincing yourself of your own BS.

Sugarcoating my ass. You clearly don't have a clue about politics or the situation in Iraq. Once again, READ THE PARAGRAPH I PROVIDED. It presents the proper perspective on the situation, not your wild fantasies.

I think I'm done here.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No you are in fact exaggerating and even making stuff up and convincing yourself of your own BS.
Sugarcoating my ass. You clearly don't have a clue about politics or the situation in Iraq. Once again, READ THE PARAGRAPH I PROVIDED. It presents the proper perspective on the situation, not your wild fantasies.
I think I'm done here.Coming from a Bush apologist this is all anyone can really expect I guess.

And of course you're done here, there isn't anyone here buying into your fantasy world of Bush's Iraq.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

To use your own logic, did you actually read the articles?

Yes, but the real question here is whether you did or not.

Once again, it appears you have chosen to reach for the BushCo Kool-Aid rather than acknowledge inconvenient facts.

tsk tsk :oyvey:

[The Lone Bolt]

Yes, but the real question here is whether you did or not.

Once again, it appears you have chosen to reach for the BushCo Kool-Aid rather than acknowledge inconvenient facts.

tsk tsk :oyvey:

Seems to me you're the one ignoring the inconvenient facts. What about the article did you find factually incorrect?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Seems to me you're the one ignoring the inconvenient facts. What about the article did you find factually incorrect?

You mean the article you posted that claimed only 8K Iraqis had been killed in Dim Son's invasion/occupation?

:giggle:

[Orange_Beard]

Every time I see the head line of this thread my thought is "ONLY"

[The Lone Bolt]

You mean the article you posted that claimed only 8K Iraqis had been killed in Dim Son's invasion/occupation?

:giggle:


So you didn't read it. That's not what the article says. Try reading it and then get back to me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So you didn't read it. That's not what the article says. Try reading it and then get back to me.

Oh, I read the right-wing propaganda piece you posted.

(I wonder if it was written by Armstrong Williams? ROFL! )

To make matters worse for you, the piece you posted is not even up to date with respect to the most recent Johns Hopkins study...

October 11, 2006

Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates

Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods

As many as 654,965 more Iraqis may have died since hostilities began in Iraq in March 2003 than would have been expected under pre-war conditions, according to a survey conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The deaths from all causes—violent and non-violent—are over and above the estimated 143,000 deaths per year that occurred from all causes prior to the March 2003 invasion.

The estimates were derived from a nationwide household survey of 1,849 households throughout Iraq conducted between May and July 2006. The results are consistent with the findings of an October 2004 study of Iraq mortality conducted by the Hopkins researchers. Also, the findings closely reflect the increased mortality trends reported by other organizations that utilized passive methods of counting mortality, such as counting bodies in morgues or deaths reported by the news media. The study is published in the October 14, 2006, edition of the peer-reviewed scientific journal, The Lancet.

“As we found with our previous survey, the majority of deaths in Iraq are due to violence—although we also saw a small increase in deaths from non-violent causes, such as heart disease, cancer and chronic illness. Gunshots were the primary cause of violent deaths. To put these numbers in context, deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003,” said Gilbert Burnham, MD, PhD, lead author of the study and co-director of the Bloomberg School’s Center for Refugee and Disaster Response. “Our total estimate is much higher than other mortality estimates because we used a population-based, active method for collecting mortality information rather than passive methods that depend on counting bodies or tabulated media reports of violent deaths. Though the numbers differ, the trend in increasing numbers of deaths closely follows that measured by the U.S. Defense Department and the Iraq Body Count group.”

Key points of the study include:

• Estimated 654,965 additional deaths in Iraq between March 2003 and July 2006

• Majority of the additional deaths (91.8 percent) caused by violence

• Males aged 15-44 years accounted for 59 percent of post-invasion violent deaths

• About half of the households surveyed were uncertain who was responsible for the death of a household member

• The proportion of deaths attributed to coalition forces diminished in 2006 to 26 percent. Between March 2003 and July 2006, households attributed 31 percent of deaths to the coalition

• Mortality data from the 2006 study reaffirms 2004 estimates by Hopkins researchers and mirrors upward trends measured by other organizations

• Researchers recommend establishment of an international body to calculate mortality and monitor health of people living in all regions affected by conflict

The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations. These same survey methods were used to measure mortality during conflicts in the Congo, Kosovo, Sudan and other regions. For the Iraq study, data were collected from 47 randomly selected clusters of 40 households each. At each household selected, trained Iraqi surveyors collected data on the number of births and deaths that occurred in the household between January 1, 2002, and June 30, 2006. To be considered a household member, the deceased had to have lived in the home at least three months prior to death. When interviewers asked to see a death certificate at households reporting a death, it was presented in 92 percent of instances. The survey recorded 1,474 births and 629 deaths among 12,801 people surveyed. The data were then applied to the 26.1 million Iraqis living in the survey area.

While the survey collected information on the manner of death, the study did not examine the circumstances of the death, such as whether the deceased was actively involved in armed combat, terrorism, criminal activity or caught in the middle of the conflict. The study outlines other limitations of the survey method, including the hazards of collecting data during a conflict.

The results from the new study closely match the finding of the group’s October 2004 mortality survey. The earlier study, also published in The Lancet, estimated over 100,000 additional deaths from all causes had occurred in Iraq from March 2003 to August 2004. When data from the new study were examined, it estimated 112,000 deaths for the same time period of the 2004 study. The new survey also found that the number of deaths attributed to coalition forces had declined in 2006, though overall households attributed 31 percent of deaths to the coalition. Responsibility could not be attributed in 45 percent of the violent deaths.

Ed. note: Here's the relevant passage:

According to the researchers, the overall rate of mortality in Iraq since March 2003 is 13.3 deaths per 1,000 persons per year compared to 5.5 deaths per 1,000 persons per year prior to March 2003. This amounts to about 2.5 percent of Iraqi’s population having died as a consequence of the war. To put the 654,000 deaths in context with other conflicts, the authors note that during the Vietnam War an estimated 3 million civilians died overall; the Congo conflict was responsible for 3.8 million deaths; and recent estimates are that 200,000 have died in Darfur over the past 31 months.

“Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey” was written by Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy and Les Roberts.

Funding for the study was provided by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Johns Hopkins Center for Refugee and Disaster Response.

Public Affairs media contacts for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: Tim Parsons or Kenna Lowe at 410-955-6878 or paffairs@jhsph.edu.

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

[Rohirrim]

I always come back to the same point in these discussions: Iraq had nothing to do with 911. It's amazing really. We were attacked by a bunch of Saudis, under the command of another Saudi who had previously attacked our embassies and one of our ships. Then, we have this moron president who uses 911 to invade some other country that he and his neofascist buddies have wanted another shot at since 1991. And now, our teat is in the wringer. We're stuck like the rabbit in the briar patch. And what do we do? Do we impeach this POS meglomaniac president and his cabal of incompetents and liars? No. We act as though there is some kind of twisted logic at work here and we play along by arguing with him as if he and his Right Wing stooges might have some kind of point. They don't. This whole entire thing in Iraq has been a complete, boneheaded, idiotic, moronic fiasco from the get-go. This ahole lied the United States into a disastrous war and now what's he going to do? He's going to drop it in the lap of the next president. He's going to walk away smelling like a rose. He's riding off into a sunset of $10 million dollar lectures. Our country will be bankrupt. Our military will be devastated. Osama Bin Laden will still be alive. And we'll be arguing over what constitutes an Iraqi dead body.

I swear, sometimes you feel like Alice in Wonderland arguing with the Mad Hatter. All logic has disappeared but the tea party goes on. A very merry unbirthday to you.

Rant over. :puff:

[The Lone Bolt]

I see. So your response LABF is not to address the facts brought up in the article that I posted, but to just dismiss it as "right-wing propaganda" and then repost the same claims and studies you did before as if reposting them makes them more valid.

Uh . . . yeah.Uhh

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I see. So your response LABF is not to address the facts brought up in the article that I posted, but to just dismiss it as "right-wing propaganda" and then repost the same claims and studies you did before as if reposting them makes them more valid.

Uh . . . yeah.Uhh

Wrong.

1) The facts presented in the article I just posted refute your propaganda piece.

2) I didn't "repost" anything - the article I just posted references a more recent study than the study your article purports to invalidate.

[The Lone Bolt]

Wrong.

1) The facts presented in the article I just posted refute your propaganda piece.

2) I didn't "repost" anything - the article I just posted references a more recent study than the study your article purports to invalidate.

The article you post above does absolutely nothing to address the point of the article I posted, which is that the range of possible deaths included in the confidence interval of the Lancet study is so broad as to be meaningless. What the Lancet study essentially says is that they are 95% confident that between 8,000 and 95,000 Iraqis died as a result of the invasion. That's like saying you're 95% sure it'll either rain today or it'll be sunny.

But if you want something more recent (and about the Johns Hopkins study) . . .

655,000 War Dead?
A bogus study on Iraq casualties.

BY STEVEN E. MOORE
Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

After doing survey research in Iraq for nearly two years, I was surprised to read that a study by a group from Johns Hopkins University claims that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. Don't get me wrong, there have been far too many deaths in Iraq by anyone's measure; some of them have been friends of mine. But the Johns Hopkins tally is wildly at odds with any numbers I have seen in that country. Survey results frequently have a margin of error of plus or minus 3% or 5%--not 1200%.Hilarious!

The group--associated with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health--employed cluster sampling for in-person interviews, which is the methodology that I and most researchers use in developing countries. Here, in the U.S., opinion surveys often use telephone polls, selecting individuals at random. But for a country lacking in telephone penetration, door-to-door interviews are required: Neighborhoods are selected at random, and then individuals are selected at random in "clusters" within each neighborhood for door-to-door interviews. Without cluster sampling, the expense and time associated with travel would make in-person interviewing virtually impossible.

However, the key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough cluster points. In their 2006 report, "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional sample survey," the Johns Hopkins team says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing: I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points.

Neither would anyone else. For its 2004 survey of Iraq, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) used 2,200 cluster points of 10 interviews each for a total sample of 21,688. True, interviews are expensive and not everyone has the U.N.'s bank account. However, even for a similarly sized sample, that is an extraordinarily small number of cluster points. A 2005 survey conducted by ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel used 135 cluster points with a sample size of 1,711--almost three times that of the Johns Hopkins team for 93% of the sample size.

What happens when you don't use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP's survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths--four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points.

The 2004 survey by the Johns Hopkins group was itself methodologically suspect--and the one they just published even more so.

Curious about the kind of people who would have the chutzpah to claim to a national audience that this kind of research was methodologically sound, I contacted Johns Hopkins University and was referred to Les Roberts, one of the primary authors of the study. Dr. Roberts defended his 47 cluster points, saying that this was standard. I'm not sure whose standards these are.Hilarious! Hilarious!

Appendix A of the Johns Hopkins survey, for example, cites several other studies of mortality in war zones, and uses the citations to validate the group's use of cluster sampling. One study is by the International Rescue Committee in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which used 750 cluster points. Harvard's School of Public Health, in a 1992 survey of Iraq, used 271 cluster points. Another study in Kosovo cites the use of 50 cluster points, but this was for a population of just 1.6 million, compared to Iraq's 27 million.

When I pointed out these numbers to Dr. Roberts, he said that the appendices were written by a student and should be ignored. Which led me to wonder what other sections of the survey should be ignored.Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

With so few cluster points, it is highly unlikely the Johns Hopkins survey is representative of the population in Iraq. However, there is a definitive method of establishing if it is. Recording the gender, age, education and other demographic characteristics of the respondents allows a researcher to compare his survey results to a known demographic instrument, such as a census.

Dr. Roberts said that his team's surveyors did not ask demographic questions. I was so surprised to hear this that I emailed him later in the day to ask a second time if his team asked demographic questions and compared the results to the 1997 Iraqi census. Dr. Roberts replied that he had not even looked at the Iraqi census.

And so, while the gender and the age of the deceased were recorded in the 2006 Johns Hopkins study, nobody, according to Dr. Roberts, recorded demographic information for the living survey respondents. This would be the first survey I have looked at in my 15 years of looking that did not ask demographic questions of its respondents. But don't take my word for it--try using Google to find a survey that does not ask demographic questions.

Without demographic information to assure a representative sample, there is no way anyone can prove--or disprove--that the Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths is accurate.

Public-policy decisions based on this survey will impact millions of Iraqis and hundreds of thousands of Americans. It's important that voters and policy makers have accurate information. When the question matters this much, it is worth taking the time to get the answer right.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108


Oh wait . . . lemme guess . . . you'll just refuse to address any of this author's points either and just dismiss his entire article as "right-wing propaganda", right? Then you'll repost that Johns Hopkins findings without any context and say "SO THERE!"ROFL!

[The Lone Bolt]

Here's more from Iraq Body Count. Surely they aren't right-wing propagandists?

Exchange of letters with Iraq Body Count on Johns Hopkins study estimating 650,000 Iraqi war dead
6 April 2007


The following letter was sent to the World Socialist Web Site by the British-based Iraq Body Count Project in response to the editorial posted by the WSWS on March 20, entitled “The human costs of four years of war: The US invasion has caused nearly three-quarter million Iraqi deaths.” The letter is followed by a reply by Bill Van Auken of the WSWS editorial board.

We found your editorial, “The human costs of four years of war,” of 20 March 2007, generally well constructed and inspiring. Your editorial shows very clearly how Bush and Blair, with a toxic mixture of hubris and misplaced religious certainty, have undermined human life and the complex institutional framework of Iraq and turned this country into a nightmare in such a short period of time. On the topic of Iraqi civilian casualties, however, your editorial badly misinterprets the figures used by various media. While criticising press reports, you continuously refer to the figure 60,000 casualties as “unattributed estimates of 60,000 dead,” and [write that] “the source of these estimates...is not explained.” On the other hand, you seem to accept 655,000 as a “meticulous epidemiological study” without really explaining why this is the case.

As you know, the source of an estimated 60,000 is the research undertaken by Iraq Body Count (minimum 59,326 and maximum 65,160 to date). IBC is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 US-led military intervention. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g., insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion. Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. This method is also used to deal with any outstanding uncertainty about the civilian or non-combatant status of the dead. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.

The figure 655,000, which you seem to have accepted without explaining why, is taken from the Lancet medical journal in October 2006. This, in our view, is quite problematic and there is considerable cause for scepticism regarding these estimates. Firstly, the data presented do not distinguish between civilian and combatant deaths. IBC’s work is confined to violent civilian deaths. Secondly, the Lancet researchers visited 47 neighbourhoods and conducted interviews in 40 adjoining households in each neighbourhood. Only about 1,800 households containing 12,000 Iraqis were surveyed. These households reported a total of 302 violent deaths, each of which has been multiplied by two thousand to provide an estimate of how many of Iraq’s estimated 26 million population would have died if this proportion of deaths were representative of the country as a whole.

The study’s central estimate of over 600,000 violent deaths seems exceptionally high. Even its lower bound 95 percent confidence interval of 426,000 violent deaths is shockingly high. It is very unlikely that incidents of this scale would be so consistently discounted by the various media in Iraq. Although IBC technically requires only two sources for every corroborated death in its database, we actually collect, archive and scrutinize every single report we can find about each incident before it is added to our database. For larger incidents, the number of reports can run into the dozens, including news published in English, in the original, and others, mostly the Iraqi press, published in translation. In IBC’s news archive for August 2006, the average-size attack leaving 5 civilians killed has a median number of 6 reports on it.

We would hope that, before accepting such extreme figures, serious consideration is given to the possibility that the population estimates derived from the Lancet study may be flawed. The most likely source of such a flaw is some bias in the sampling methodology such that violent deaths were vastly over-represented in the sample. The precise potential nature of such bias is not clear at this point. But to dismiss the possibility of such bias out of hand is surely both hasty and irresponsible.

The Lancet researchers documented only 300 violent deaths. Iraq has reached such a sorry state that IBC records 300 deaths every few days. Do the American people need to believe that 600,000 Iraqis have been killed before they say “enough is enough”? The number of certain civilian deaths that has been documented to a basic standard of corroboration by “passive surveillance methods” surely already provides all the necessary evidence to consider this invasion and occupation an utter catastrophe at all levels.

Lily Hamourtziadou (IBC Assistant Researcher)

Bulent Gokay (IBC Research Consultant)

[TheDave]

Since i do not have much of an opinion on the validity of this study, and honestely don't feel like reading 3 pages worth of a pissing match... Just one question.

Lone Bolt, What do you think the traqi death toll is?

[The Lone Bolt]

Since i do not have much of an opinion on the validity of this study, and honestely don't feel like reading 3 pages worth of a pissing match... Just one question.

Lone Bolt, What do you think the traqi death toll is?

I suspect it's much closer to Iraq Body Count's numbers, but there's no way to know for sure.

[The Lone Bolt]

No one knows how many Iraqis have died in war
DENNIS W.BRANDT
Article Last Updated: 05/23/2007 10:56:17 AM EDT

May 20, 2007 — Again the Sunday News Viewpoints section has borne the weighty words of York's folkie spirit, John Terlazzo, a man trapped in a time warp that denies him passage beyond 1970. He is free to write what pleases for one reason: Thousands of Americans gave their lives that he might bash his country.

"Violence is our creed," says he. "Our system denies cooperation and kindness." His sour image stems from what he and his fellow flower children created years ago when they decided that they must protest discipline out of existence. Our entertainment is violent and overly sexual because he and his spoiled-brat flower pals insisted they must do it if it feels good. Unconditional free speech, he and his flower buds demanded. Now he rues it. Most flower children grew up, but some became lawyers and made it so easy to sue ourselves into submission that everyone is scared to cooperate and be kind.

When it comes to war, though, Terlazzo stumbles into his timeless cloud-cuckoo land. Again he has showered us with anti-American statistical misinformation like a child splashing bath water without caring who gets wet. "We have now killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis," he says, "more than half of them women and children."
Advertisement
His babble does not come closer to truth with repetition. No one should believe anyone who tells you they know how many Iraqis have died. No one will ever know.

According to the Iraq Body Count Web site, 63,373 to 69,418 have died, probably low because not all bodies get counted. When a Johns Hopkins University group published a death toll of 655,000, the America haters threatened serious water damage drooling over it. Why investigate?

I have. Dr. Gilbert Burnham headed the Johns Hopkins effort. He and I have discussed his research, and he has several interviews available on the Internet. His researchers were analytical and apparently lacked political motives, but their data is questionable. Data collectors visited 1,849 randomly selected Iraqi households and asked residents how many in their household had died since the war began. The team extrapolated those results to all of Iraq and compared it to the pre-war death rate, deriving 400,000 to 900,000 more deaths than before the war. Blogs popularized the average count of 655,000.

Burnham's numbers don't pass the smell test. A 500,000 margin of error is itself indicative of error. Most critically, he used a pre-war Iraqi death rate of 5.5 deaths per 1,000 residents, which makes no sense. UNICEF's Web site reports an Iraqi pre-war death rate of 8 per 1,000, which, if true, means Burnham's numbers are 216,000 deaths too high even if his formula is correct. Again according to UNICEF, a 5.5 death rate is lower than in the United States (8), England (10), France (9), and Germany (10). You must believe, therefore, that you would have lived longer on average in Saddam's embargoed Iraq than in the United States and Western Europe. hmmm... Moreover, according to UNICEF and the Centers for Disease Control, Americans lived 18 years longer than Iraqis did before the war. How could Americans live longer but, according to Burnham's and UNICEF's death tolls, die at a higher rate?

The United Nations uses the same statistical data gathering techniques but collects much larger samples. Burn- ham admits his sample is small but remains satisfied with the results. But we must also ask how well interview-based statistical analysis works in a nation whose population has no experience sharing information freely and who remain justifiably fearful in doing so. Burnham necessarily used Iraqi data collectors for safety reasons. Since none of his core team was in the field, he lacked control of that operation. Garbage in, garbage out.

One last point: Burnham found that 75 percent of Iraqi deaths come by the hand of another Iraqi, not an American. GIs certainly are not killing thousands of Iraqi children, as Terlazzo insultingly and baselessly accuses them.

You don't like the war, Mr. Terlazzo? Fine. Your right. But sometimes put down your guitar and do some research. And visit us here in 2007. Dennis W. Brandt lives in Red Lion.

http://www.ydr.com/op-ed/ci_5939770

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No one knows how many Iraqis have died in warYour continued attempts at defending Bush's war here is pretty tiresome.

Here's the bottom line of the Neocon regime change in Iraq...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq bombing (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070914/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070914155859;_ylt=Al4N2CBwruhD.rZz9I__iXsE1vA I)

By DAVID RISING, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD - Mourners vowed revenge and perseverance Friday at the funeral of the leader of the Sunni Arab revolt against al-Qaida militants who was assassinated just 10 days after meeting with President Bush in Iraq's Anbar province.

In eastern Diyala provice, meanwhile, a bomb exploded near a U.S. military vehicle on Friday, killing four American soldiers in, the U.S. command said. They were the first American deaths reported in Iraq since Monday.


http://drinkingliberally.org/blogs/louisville/archives/flag_draped_coffins_2.jpg


More than 1,500 mourners marched along the highway near the home of Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, who was killed along with two bodyguards and a driver Thursday by a bomb hidden near his house, just west of Ramadi.

Scores of Iraqi police and U.S. military vehicles lined the route to protect the procession as it followed the black SUV carrying the sheik's Iraqi-flag draped coffin.

"We will take our revenge," the mourners chanted along the 10 kilometer (6 mile) route to Risha's family cemetery, many of them crying. "We will continue the march of Abu Risha."

Abu Risha was buried one year after the goateed, charismatic, chain-smoking young sheik organized 25 Sunni Arab clans under the umbrella of the Anbar Awakening Council, an alliance against al-Qaida in Iraq, to drive terrorists from sanctuaries where they had flourished after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

No group claimed responsibility for the assassination, but it was widely assumed to have been carried out by al-Qaida, which already had killed four of Abu Risha's brothers and six other relatives for working with the U.S. military.

U.S. officials credit Abu Risha and allied sheiks with a dramatic improvement in security in such Anbar flashpoints as Fallujah and Ramadi after years of American failure to subdue the extremists. U.S. officials now talk of using the Anbar model to organize tribal fighters elsewhere in Iraq.

Bush hailed Abu Risha's courage during his short Sept. 3 visit to al-Asad Air Base, and vowed in his nationally televised address Thursday night to help others carry on his work.

"Earlier today, one of the brave tribal sheiks who helped lead the revolt against al-Qaida was murdered," Bush said. "In response, a fellow Sunni leader declared: "We are determined to strike back and continue our work." And as they do, they can count on the continued support of the United States."

Many high-ranking officials were on hand for the funeral, including Iraq's interior and defense ministers and National Security Adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie.

"We condemn the killing of Abu Risha, but this will not deter us from helping the people of Anbar — we will support them more than before," al-Rubaie declared. "It is a national disaster and a great loss for the Iraqi people — Abu Risha was the only person to confront al-Qaida in Anbar."

But in open-air Friday prayers in the streets of Baghdad's Shiite slum Sadr City, a stronghold of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, imam Muhanned al-Gharawi told thousands of worshippers that the assassination was an example of the government's inability to provide security for Iraq.

"The Iraqi people have lost trust with this government and killings are still going on — the latest is the assassination of the Anbar Awakening Council leader," he said. "Everyone is threatened with death in this country as long as the American Black House is still giving the orders."

In scattered violence around Iraq on Friday, a suicide truck bomb hit a police checkpoint near Beiji, 155 miles north of Baghdad, killing four policemen, a Beiji police officer said.

South of Baghdad, unidentified gunmen killed three farmers who were taking their turn guarding a village, police said.

Farther south in the city of Hillah, gunmen attacked the home of Col. Hussein Ali Hassoon al Khafaji, an Iraqi army battalion commander, killing a guard and wounding another, police said.

In a helicopter assault mission west of Baghdad, three suspected insurgents were killed and three American soldiers were injured, the U.S. command said.

Iraqi soldiers led the raid Thursday on a mosque in Karmah, a town in Iraq's western Anbar province some 50 miles west of the capital, the U.S. military said in a statement. The target was a high-ranking al-Qaida in Iraq leader, believed to be responsible for orchestrating murders, sniper attacks and the planting of roadside bombs.

During the operation, people fleeing the mosque fired at American troops — wounding three of them with non-life threatening injuries. U.S. and Iraqi forces retaliated with ground fire and close air support, killing three suspected insurgents, the military said.

The military statement did not say whether the targeted al-Qaida figure was among the dead.

Troops also discovered four rockets, roadside bomb-making materials and 50-caliber ammunition rounds inside the mosque, the statement said.

The U.S. command also released more details on the deadly Sept. 10 accident in Baghdad that killed seven soldiers, including two sergeants who helped write a New York Times op-ed article sharply critical of the Pentagon's assessment of the Iraq war.

Sgt. Omar Mora and Sgt. Yance T. Gray were among seven NCOs who wrote the Aug. 19 piece entitled "The War As We Saw It" expressing doubts about American gains in Iraq.

Another co-author, Staff Sgt. Jeremy Murphy, was shot in the head while the article was being written. The Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader flown to a military hospital in the United States and expected to survive.

The U.S. command said the accident occurred in the Baghdad suburb of Shula when soldiers from the 1st Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade were in an armored transport truck on their way back from a raid in which they had captured three insurgents suspected of attacks on U.S. and Iraqi soldiers.

"The unit was returning to base after the raid when their vehicle apparently lost control and fell approximately 50 feet from a highway overpass," the military said in a statement.

[The Lone Bolt]

The only thing I'm disputing on this thread Beerslug is the extremely high estimates of Iraqi civillian deaths since the invasion by some studies and the argument that Iraqis were much better off living under the Butcher of Baghdad. I'm not denying that things are bad in Iraq or that people are dying.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The only thing I'm disputing on this thread Beerslug is the extremely high estimates of Iraqi civillian deaths since the invasion by some studies and the argument that Iraqis were much better off living under the Butcher of Baghdad. I'm not denying that things are bad in Iraq or that people are dying.Well, you presented a 3 year old article that said only 12,000 Iraqis had died as a result of Bush's war so it's hard to tell that you are not trying to defend him.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The article you post above does absolutely nothing to address the point of the article I posted, which is that the range of possible deaths included in the confidence interval of the Lancet study is so broad as to be meaningless. What the Lancet study essentially says is that they are 95% confident that between 8,000 and 95,000 Iraqis died as a result of the invasion. That's like saying you're 95% sure it'll either rain today or it'll be sunny.

But if you want something more recent (and about the Johns Hopkins study) . . .


If you had actually read the last article I posted, you would see that the aforementioned analysis of the study and its methods is completely invalid.

In any case, it seems you have somehow lost sight of the original point, i.e., that Bush's illegal invasion/occupation has made things worse for the Iraqi people than they were under Saddam...

According to the researchers, the overall rate of mortality in Iraq since March 2003 is 13.3 deaths per 1,000 persons per year compared to 5.5 deaths per 1,000 persons per year prior to March 2003. This amounts to about 2.5 percent of Iraqi’s population having died as a consequence of the war.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well, you presented a 3 year old article that said only 12,000 Iraqis had died as a result of Bush's war so it's hard to tell that you are not trying to defend him.

Yep.

If Lone Bolt isn't minimizing Bush's misuse of pre-war intelligence and/or denying Bush's lies about the "threat" posed by Iraq, then he's denying and minimizing the disastrous consequences of the war.

And he wonders why people on this board "mistake" him for a Bush shill?