[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
He also said that the extra US troops have worked very successfully toward securing the country.
He can say all he wants, it won’t change the staggering number of dead Iraqis that’s at its highest since the invasion. One wonders what he means by “securing the country”.[/quote]
Hey lixy.
They appear to be willing to accept an essential graveyard-equivalent as “victory”.
Like Vietnam, they had to destroy the country to save it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Within taking a right or left stance, we have to be careful that recent events are not just changing the numbers.
It may however mean that the numbers are no longer counted – because the US won’t be reporting the losses of local groups.
On a different note, I am wondering how many decades it will be before the new proposed arms sales are simply making a future enemy stronger. I don’t suppose anybody has seen this type of thing happen in the past, anywhere?
Keep your eyes open - the same old shit is brewing up once again.[/quote]
The people who orchestrate these wars are the essential children of the second world war. They refused to stand down at the end of that war, are consummately cynical and devote all their energies to re-creating the conditions that made their super-funding in the second world war necessary.
In line with those thoughts, they doubtless consider the future toppling of Saudi Arabia to be a piece of cake, and the arms sales themselves to be actually of trivial significance.
The happy boys are doubtless the Israelis with the aid increases promised them. We shall see how extensive that becomes.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Staggering? Please quantify that figure. 100K? 200K? Another hypocritical post from one the euro-bitchmeister. [/quote]
Well, last October the Lancet report said 655K. The whole world (including your closest allies: The Brits!) believes the figure was legit’. From October, corpses were in boatloads. There wasn’t a single day without deaths. It culminated in hundreds daily this year.
Forgive me for caring about the lives of innocent people, none of whom would have been likely to die had you not invaded. Sometimes, I’m clearly out-of-line for thinking their lives are worth anything to you guys…
[quote]vroom wrote:
It may however mean that the numbers are no longer counted – because the US won’t be reporting the losses of local groups. [/quote]
The US reporting losses? Were you under a rock for the last four years?
“We don’t do body counts” – General Tommy Franks
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
To understand the importance, you need to understand that you’re dealing with someone (JTF, for clarification) who thinks the Protocols of the Elders of Zion makes legitimate points.[/quote]
Oh good, the lawyer. Maybe you can clarify – what exactly is “Jewish Law”?
Jewish Law Comes to D.C.
What does the Talmud have to say about legal and moral controversies in modern America?
Plenty, according to the creators of the new Washington-based National Institute for Judaic Law, which opened with a lavish Supreme Court dinner last month…
“It will be an eye opener for judges, scholars and law students,” he told The Jewish Week. “Before you know where you’re going, you have to know where you came from. And Jewish law is the basis of our legal system in America.”
Gurary said that the idea for the institute came in an exchange of letters in which Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative Justices, expressed his “fascination with Jewish law…”
http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/jlsa/jewish_law_dc.htm
Jewish Law Institute :: Touro Law Center
The Institute acts as a center for the study and teaching of Jewish law throughout the United States, bringing together leading scholars, teachers, and lawyers and acting as a clearinghouse for new ideas and independent research. Its major goal is to make the Jewish legal tradition an active force in legal scholarship.
http://www.tourolaw.edu/academic_programs/institutes/jewish_law_institute.asp
[i]PROTOCOL No. 12
The word “freedom,” which can be interpreted in various ways, is defined by us as follows -
Freedom is the right to do what which the law allows. This interpretation of the word will at the proper time be of service to us, because all freedom will thus be in our hands, since the laws will abolish or create only that which is desirable for us according to the aforesaid program…[/i]
The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Staggering? Please quantify that figure. 100K? 200K? Another hypocritical post from one the euro-bitchmeister.
Well, last October the Lancet report said 655K. The whole world (including your closest allies: The Brits!) believes the figure was legit’. From October, corpses were in boatloads. There wasn’t a single day without deaths. It culminated in hundreds daily this year.
Forgive me for caring about the lives of innocent people, none of whom would have been likely to die had you not invaded. Sometimes, I’m clearly out-of-line for thinking their lives are worth anything to you guys…[/quote]
Great response to this and their “methods.” Not mention the lancet’s aims.
Also check out the discussion below.
By the way, lixy, I think you are cute in a fundamentalist sort of way.
JeffR
[quote]lixy wrote:
The US reporting losses? Were you under a rock for the last four years?
“We don’t do body counts” – General Tommy Franks[/quote]
Obviously, I’m talking about US soldier counts… which have the potential to decline due to this tactic. As long as this is a long term strategy that has been thought out and not simply a short term political strategy then it may be a positive path.
I’m cautiously optimistic in the short term. It might help allow the US to get the hell out of dodge.
[quote]lixy wrote:
vroom wrote:
It may however mean that the numbers are no longer counted – because the US won’t be reporting the losses of local groups.
The US reporting losses? Were you under a rock for the last four years?
“We don’t do body counts” – General Tommy Franks[/quote]
I just want to use an old eighties term we had when communism was big" KILL EM ALL LET GOD SORT EM OUT!"
[quote]lixy wrote:
Forgive me for caring about the lives of innocent people, none of whom would have been likely to die had you not invaded. Sometimes, I’m clearly out-of-line for thinking their lives are worth anything to you guys…[/quote]
None of them? Seems to me that the overstated death toll includes all deaths. So - I’m pretty sure a significant number of them would be just as dead now, as they would have been without a U.S. presence.
Life is cheap to the terrorists. I would say they are responsible for more Iraqi deaths than the US is.
But that doesn’t fit with your euro-bitching platform.
It is sad to see people like you salivate over high death tolls. How do you reconcile this supposed “care for innocents” with your barely veiled glee over grossly overstated death tolls?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Great response to this and their “methods.” Not mention the lancet’s aims.
Also check out the discussion below.
[/quote]
Maybe you missed the news on March that the British government (which was still under the poodle!) finally acknowledged that the report was “robust” and their methods “tried and tested”.
I can understand why your approach might seem convenient. Think about it: You don’t count the dead, and you make sure to discredit anyone who does. Seriously, who do you think you’re fooling with that?
Did I mention 140 people died in Iraq attacks on Wednesday?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
None of them? Seems to me that the overstated death toll includes all deaths. So - I’m pretty sure a significant number of them would be just as dead now, as they would have been without a U.S. presence. [/quote]
You don’t have a clue, now do you? You clearly haven’t read the Lancet report. Discussing it is therefore futile.
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Great response to this and their “methods.” Not mention the lancet’s aims.
Also check out the discussion below.
Maybe you missed the news on March that the British government (which was still under the poodle!) finally acknowledged that the report was “robust” and their methods “tried and tested”.
I can understand why your approach might seem convenient. Think about it: You don’t count the dead, and you make sure to discredit anyone who does. Seriously, who do you think you’re fooling with that?
Did I mention 140 people died in Iraq attacks on Wednesday?[/quote]
Brutal. Why don’t you start a thread enouncing the terrorists that are doing these horrible things?
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
None of them? Seems to me that the overstated death toll includes all deaths. So - I’m pretty sure a significant number of them would be just as dead now, as they would have been without a U.S. presence.
You don’t have a clue, now do you? You clearly haven’t read the Lancet report. Discussing it is therefore futile.
[/quote]
You clearly do not understand Rainjack’s post. Reread it before you say he doesn’t have a clue.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
None of them? Seems to me that the overstated death toll includes all deaths. So - I’m pretty sure a significant number of them would be just as dead now, as they would have been without a U.S. presence.[/quote]
Well, according to the CIA World Factbook, Iraq had a death rate of 5.26/1000 in 2007. That’s pretty much in line with neighboring countries that aren’t at war, so I’m guessing it’s “natural” deaths.
The population is given at 27.5 million, which would mean that each year, 144,650 Iraqis discover that there is no Allah.
Over 3 years (the report is from 2006), we get 443,950 dead. Subtracted from 655,000 we’re left with 221,050 dead, an entirely, I’m sure you’ll agree, acceptable number.
221,000 extra deaths is nothing to get excited about, especially over tree years. It’s barely over seventy times the toll of 9/11, so I don’t see what the anti-war loonies are complaining about.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You clearly do not understand Rainjack’s post. Reread it before you say he doesn’t have a clue. [/quote]
“The studies estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.).”
Geez, did any of you even bother reading the original report?
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
Fox works miracles.
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Great response to this and their “methods.” Not mention the lancet’s aims.
Also check out the discussion below.
Maybe you missed the news on March that the British government (which was still under the poodle!) finally acknowledged that the report was “robust” and their methods “tried and tested”.
I can understand why your approach might seem convenient. Think about it: You don’t count the dead, and you make sure to discredit anyone who does. Seriously, who do you think you’re fooling with that?
Did I mention 140 people died in Iraq attacks on Wednesday?[/quote]
lixy,
You are a turdball.
Here is where lixy is getting this.
The article says that the METHODS were tried and tested.
However, they soundly and roundly reject the figures.
HERE IS THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT STATEMENT FROM THIS ARTICLE:
The methodology has been used in other conflict situations, notably the Democratic republic of Congo.
"However, the Lancet figures are much higher than statistics from other sources, which only goes to show how estimates can vary enormously according to the method of collection.
“There is considerable debate amongst the scientific community over the accuracy of the figures.”
They go on to add:
"In fact some of the British government criticism of the Lancet report post-dated Sir Roy’s comments.
Speaking six days after Sir Roy praised the study’s methods, British foreign office minister Lord Triesman said: “The way in which data are extrapolated from samples to a general outcome is a matter of deep concern…”
Therefore, you are probably vomiting this tripe onto this board hoping not to be called on the carpet.
Let me be clear: THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT DID NOT AND HAS NOT ACCEPTED THESE FIGURES!!!
As usual, you need to read less fundamentalist propaganda and read more pro-U.S. literature.
JeffR
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
None of them? Seems to me that the overstated death toll includes all deaths. So - I’m pretty sure a significant number of them would be just as dead now, as they would have been without a U.S. presence.
Well, according to the CIA World Factbook, Iraq had a death rate of 5.26/1000 in 2007. That’s pretty much in line with neighboring countries that aren’t at war, so I’m guessing it’s “natural” deaths.
The population is given at 27.5 million, which would mean that each year, 144,650 Iraqis discover that there is no Allah.
Over 3 years (the report is from 2006), we get 443,950 dead. Subtracted from 655,000 we’re left with 221,050 dead, an entirely, I’m sure you’ll agree, acceptable number.
221,000 extra deaths is nothing to get excited about, especially over tree years. It’s barely over seventy times the toll of 9/11, so I don’t see what the anti-war loonies are complaining about.
[/quote]
If you divide the 221,050 by 3 years and 365 days per year
we get 202 war deaths per day. Lixy commented that Iraq had 140 dead on Wed. so it looks like a slow day according to these already greatly reduced numbers.
The Lancet report is garbage.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You clearly do not understand Rainjack’s post. Reread it before you say he doesn’t have a clue.
“The studies estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.).”
Geez, did any of you even bother reading the original report?
…[/quote]
Yes I read it. Poor methodology, ridiculous numbers and suspicious political timing.
Jeffy, yet from the same source you forgot to indicate that:
“a memo by the MoD’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, on 13 October, states: “The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to “best practice” in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq.””
Now, how do you reconcile accepting the methods but rejecting the figures? I can understand why they wouldn’t like being accomplices in what amounted to a catastrophe. But please, if you have any theories concerning that paradox, I’ll be happy to hear it.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
None of them? Seems to me that the overstated death toll includes all deaths. So - I’m pretty sure a significant number of them would be just as dead now, as they would have been without a U.S. presence.
Well, according to the CIA World Factbook, Iraq had a death rate of 5.26/1000 in 2007. That’s pretty much in line with neighboring countries that aren’t at war, so I’m guessing it’s “natural” deaths.
The population is given at 27.5 million, which would mean that each year, 144,650 Iraqis discover that there is no Allah.
Over 3 years (the report is from 2006), we get 443,950 dead. Subtracted from 655,000 we’re left with 221,050 dead, an entirely, I’m sure you’ll agree, acceptable number.
221,000 extra deaths is nothing to get excited about, especially over tree years. It’s barely over seventy times the toll of 9/11, so I don’t see what the anti-war loonies are complaining about.
If you divide the 221,050 by 3 years and 365 days per year
we get 202 war deaths per day. Lixy commented that Iraq had 140 dead on Wed. so it looks like a slow day according to these already greatly reduced numbers.
The Lancet report is garbage.
[/quote]
Well the report says it includes “direct and related” deaths. Those 140 are from the major attacks, car bombings and such. There are probably other deaths from various skirmishes, plus the “related” deaths from the injured who’ll succumb later or from some grandma left on the porch in the hot sun who’s son won’t be back to wheel her in.
But hey, if you’re making war without killing anyone, maybe that’s why you’re failing so spectacularly.