# operation iraqi freedom?



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

100,000 Iraqi civilians estimated killed
Experts dispute method employed to arrive at tally
By ROB STEIN
Washington Post

RESOURCES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current time in Baghdad: 4:23 p.m. Sunday

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON - One of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion.

The analysis, an extrapolation based on a relatively small number of actual documented deaths, indicated that many of the excess deaths have occurred due to aerial attacks by coalition forces, with women and children being frequent victims, wrote the international team of public health researchers who made the calculations.

Pentagon officials say they do not keep tallies of civilian casualties, and a spokesman said Thursday there is no way to validate estimates by others. Previous independent estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq have been far lower, never exceeding 16,000, and other experts immediately challenged the new estimate, saying the small number of actual documented deaths upon which it was based made the conclusions suspect.

"The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to over-counting," said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch. "These numbers seem to be inflated."

The estimate is based on a door-to-door survey conducted in September of 988 Iraqi households containing 7,868 people in 33 neighborhoods. Two survey teams gathered detailed information about the date, cause and circumstances of any deaths in the 14.6 months before the invasion and the 17.8 months after it, documenting the fatalities with death certificates in most cases.

The project was designed by Les Roberts and Gilbert Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York; and Riyadh Lafta and Jamal Kudhairi of the Al-Mustansiriya University College of Medicine in Baghdad.

Based on the number of Iraqi fatalities recorded by the survey teams, the researchers calculated that the death rate had increased from 5 percent annually to 7.9 percent since the invasion. That works out to an excess of about 100,000 deaths since the war, the researchers reported in a paper released early by the Lancet, a British medical journal.

"We are quite confident that there's been somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths, but it could be much higher," Roberts said.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

I dont what they are calling Bushs' clusterfuck anymore but wasnt it called operation, "Iraqi freedom"?. What is he freeing them from? Their oil? Their life on earth?


----------



## *Alex (Sep 27, 2004)

Very interested in seeing some responses to this post.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Ive read that 100,000 is just sort of an average. Some think it could go as high 200,000. What makes it worse is that most are civilians..women and children. Ive also read that they estimate that Saddam killed as many as 300,000 people in his 24 years in power. Theres no doubt this guy was a very evil human being, but if the estimates are right and bush has killed 100,000, hes on track to blow saddam out of the water.


----------



## *Alex (Sep 27, 2004)

I am really surprised no one has reacted to this post, what is it? surely you guys must have an opinion on the mass slaughter of innocent people, I see opinions and healthy debates going on in all other threads, political or otherwise.

Would you rather ignore the reality of what is going on over there? don't you like to think about it? do you not care? what is it? Does it not agree you?

Keeping Janines little post about not attacking groups on this website in mind, I'll hold back as much as possible. Bush people especially, what do these atrocities mean to you?, interested in if you care,how you feel if at all. The ballot paper you slipped into the big cardboard box is far away from the slaughter in Iraq and Fallujah, its not as if you have blood on your hands...............is it???? Do you think its unavoidable? Do you feel any guilt? Do you feel/think there would of been no difference in Iraq regardless which candidate won? Or are you happy about it because it boosts your economy? How do you feel about aquiring two new states...Iraq & Afghanistan.

I would really love to have someone justify this disgusting shameless killing to me. I DONT UNDERSTAND.

I hope this post doesnt get wiped, if it doesnt feel free to ignore it.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

*Alex said:


> Would you rather ignore the reality of what is going on over there? don't you like to think about it? do you not care? what is it? Does it not agree you?
> .


Enough of the preaching. I for one hate Bush, predicted this outcome while they were still debating going to war, and have had more arguments with Bush advocates than i could count on a centipedes' finger (if they had fingers, that is). It's futile. It really is. Bush supporters come in three categories:

1. The ignorant. They fall for all the propoganda that Karl Rove can muster, hook, line, and sinker. They're small people in small worlds who live in backwater towns where "cross fires" and turkey shooting are still in vogue. This represents Bush's base.

2. The ignorant who think they know a lot because they read an article once in some right wing smear rag which mentioned a lot of buzz words like "freedom", "liberty", and "constitution" enough times in connection with words like "Bush", "Cheney", and "Republican", that it triggered a Plavovian response which caused them to vote Bush.

3. The obstinately intelligent. These people are shockingly intelligent people in almost every other aspect of their lives, but for some reason they insist on voting Bush. It defies logic, i know...but these people do exist. Some of them even put forth convincing arguments (i would classify most of the Bush supporters on this board in this category), but if one were to go the distance with them in a debate on this, their arguments would either collapse like a deck of cards, or they would contradict themselves in specific arguments they made (ie. "I believe in equal rights for everybody, but i don't think gays should be able to do this, that, and the other thing." or "I believe in international justice, as long as we americans can't be held accountable...and meanwhile let's pick and choose which laws we will agree to at any given time.")

(I know this sounds like i'm grouping people together, but i'm really not...i mean, i could say humanity comes in two groups...Men and Women...that's a sweeping generalization as well, isn't it...but it's also true...(hermaphrodites and bi-sexual siamese twins (bi-sexual in the true sense that is) excepted)). Besides, how can this post be censored if this is all done tongue-in-cheek...see, look...who can resist this little fella... :wink:

Anyway, my point is...the election is over. Bush won. Us anti-Bushites really have to start dealing with this fact. I'm just happy he's coming up to canada in two weeks so i can stand outside in the cold like an idiot with a protest sign that he'll never even see.

I hate posting political on this board because it's such a touchy subject and i don't want to offend people who i genuinely respect as intelligent and thoughtful people. There are better places to go for a subject matter such as this...where you'll get more soldiers on both sides.

s.


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2004)

Oh, I think debate (as this thread is) is fine. Totally fine.

Interesting idea I heard on PBS recently (cannot remember who said it, unfortunately) but....re the "ProLife" Right Wing who are convinced that every single loss of a fetus is an unforgiveable sin: surely there were some pregnant Iraqui women who were slaughtered over the past year. What would your God have to say?

Just for the record, I am NOT anti-war (as a general position). I'm just anti-hypocrite.

Now I'm going to take Sebastian's very shrewd advice and toss in the talisman for "highly charged posts" :wink:


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Theres alot of talk recently about the US marine that just blew the brains out of a dying, defenseless Iraqi soldier. The pictures made me sick. I hope they nail his ass to the wall. Ive had several discussions with people about this incident. One person said it was justified because its "war". What people forget is that its "war" because the US made it that way. They inflicted it and now they want to use this sickening excuse to murder human beings and think they are justified in doing so? Im ashamed of what my country is doing.


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2004)

I sometimes get ashamed of it too Joe. But it's a lose lose. If we don't go in there then Saddam continues to slaughter a countless number of civilians. We go in there and there is some benefit, but the chaos continues. You just cannot win with the middle east.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

This is something that is difficult for the most educated politically savvy person to discuss. If you read many newspapers, listen to many points of view, you still can't keep abreast of all international activity. Few people have time to do that. They are working, raising their families, putting bread on the table. They are hopefully focusing on thier own careers -- what they do for a living.

Who of any of us can claim to be an expert in foreign relations? Life is reduced down to sound-bites, and ridiculous headlines.

Why has everyone forgotten the international politics is as complicated as the brain? That no, you can't make sweeping generalizations without finding exceptions to the rule -- ANYWHERE.

Why has everyone forgotten that Hollywood, and yes the media, is full of some of the *wealthiest* people in the world, and yet they are Democrats? It's a fact. I've worked in the entertainment industry in Hollywood. Extremely wealthy democrats. Why? The explanation would take 17 posts.

Los Angeles and New York are the largest most diverse cities and they are both democratic... that's just how it is -- for many historical/cultural/sociological reasons, besides being so "hip" to how stupid George Bush is.

For example:
*Many immigrants live in California. EDIT: A BLUE STATE/DEMOCRATIC Hispanics make up a huge percentage of the vote -- and will soon be the majority in that state. Yes, caucasians are becoming a MINORITY in that state. Hispanics are concerned about issues at home. The war in Iraq is the least of their worries. And they are Catholic. So shall we start Hispanic bashing now? Their votes were for for morality and social services, not against the war in Iraq. So were they stupid? Selfish? Ignorant? Let's pick a blanket term for them and make huge stereotypical assumtions. But wait! They were Catholic, voted AGAINST Bush and, yet they voted locally AGAINST stem-cell research, gay civil unions, abortions.... they don't fit into a stereotype!*

How do I know?
I lived for 12 years in an Hispanic neighborhood in L.A. Solano Canyon. Volunteered in the planning and building of a community garden. We worked with local political officials one on one. My husband was the Treasurer of the project. So yes, I have been involved in grassroots political activity in Downtown Los Angeles. Right next to Chinatown, another growing majority in California -- Asians.

*The primary concerns in that community were a need for State money to improve the schools, the streets, the environment (we were right next to the Pasadena freeway), to help with crime (gangs), fund the police. Their issues had NOTHING to do with Iraq.*

*The same is true of New York, an international city. To applaud all New Yorkers and Californians for having "sense" to vote AGAINST George Bush and other states for being idiots is a ridiculous oversimplification.*

It isn't some damned conspiracy. Oh my word.

Why has everyone forgotten that Saddam Hussein committed genocide, used *b*illions BILLIONS of dollars in the Oil-for-Food program to build his own palaces and buy military supplies from many countries in Europe? He allowed his own people to starve, live without an infrastructure of clean water, reliable electricity, jobs, transportation? He advocates terrorism, murder, beheadings. Shoot anyone who disagrees with you. But any Republican President is evil. OK, whatever you say.

*The U.N. itself is under investigation for nods, winks, and turning in the other direction re: dictators such as Saddam, Arafat, etc., etc., etc.*

Why are Americans attacked as a whole, and lumped into one category when we have a huge variety of beliefs, needs, hopes, fears, just like any other human being in the world?

*Why has everyone forgotten what happened on 9/11, that changed the face of American foreign policy forever? I'm curious what people think of Tony Blair? Why aren't we talking about him? Isn't he an idiot? Last I heard he was called "Bush's poodle."*

What about the career military men, men who enlisted and feel they are doing right by their country. Will this be like Vietnam where we crucify our military when they come home?

There are no easy answers.

This is a futile discussion, especially on the internet. Very sad.

*With hopes of Peace,* but often in reading this board, I only see closed minds. I try not to have one. If I do, I feel terrible for it. I try to be as educated as possible, and make as an informed choice as possible.

Best,
Dreamer

*OK, fire away at me. That's always the best to do. Attack. I hear attacks here. And I thought we were against war? Thank GOD, my State of Michigan had the sense to vote for Kerry, or you all might beat me to death for living in the Detroit area! I'm safe. I'm in a "BLUE STATE" -- let's reduce the states and American people to two colors -- Blue and Red. My that's constructive.*


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Pure Narcotic said:


> I sometimes get ashamed of it too Joe. But it's a lose lose. If we don't go in there then Saddam continues to slaughter a countless number of civilians. We go in there and there is some benefit, but the chaos continues. You just cannot win with the middle east.


I'll go with Narcotic on this one. I defy any of you to come up with a plan for Peace in the Middle East. Even with the recent death of Yasser Arafat who had us all on a string for 40 YEARS. He was head of the PLO for 40 YEARS. No elections for the Palestinians.

And now what? Noone knows. The most intelligent pundits have no clue what is going to happen.

Good writer: Thomas Friedmann *From Beirut to Jerusalem* and *The Lexus and the Olive Tree*. I don't understand 1/5th of what I'm reading, but it's worth trying to understand.


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2004)

Dreamer,
I think that is an excellent post. Spot on.

However, problem is this: it's two different discussions. Your position is geared towards open mindedness in search of finding some common truths, or acknowledging common areas of confusion and/or helplessness.

The other argument is about emotion - it feels cathartic to people to hate. Some people hate other countries and pronounce them the axis of evil. Others hate those who hate those countries. It's all rage. And basically scratches the same aggressive human itch. One is just masked under compassion.

We humans are very very aggressive, and the folks who hate war are pretty violent about it.

We're conundrums, we humans. And if there are no easy answers, people will just choose SOME answer and rant about it in the name of right.

Your cross to bear, Ms. Hairball, is that you keep striving to be highly logical and fair in an unfair and childlishly-emotional world.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> Your cross to bear, Ms. Hairball,


God Bless you Janine, LOL.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Dreamer,

As usual I disagree with 100% of what you have to say. A plan for peace!! That actually made me laugh. Who the hell do you think we are. Who are we to think we have to come up with a plan for peace and then force it down the throat of other countries. Who are we to say what government a country should have. Their peace should be none of our business. I think weve made it our business for other reasons than peace. Were nothing but a big bully and we all know what eventually happens to a bully. "Peace cannot be achieved by force, it can only be achieved by understanding"-Albert Einstein

Neal,

Your missing my point. As bad as Saddam was, the US is on track to kill many more people than he ever did. There is alot more people dying now daily than when Saddam was in power. There is no way there is ever going to be a resolution as long as we are occupying their country. If this mess drags on for 10 years can you imagine how many people are going to die? Its not a lose-lose situation for the US because we inflicted it and whatever happens to us, we deserve. Its a lose-lose situation for the Iragis. They went from Saddam to the US turning their country into a living nightmare.

Joe


----------



## Guest (Nov 17, 2004)

Well, I am totally anti- bush, but reading about saddam makes me throw up everything.

I remember a documentary on tv, and they showed the sort of rooms
where they executed all the inmates. I think most or a lot were prisoners of conscience.

The executioner was interviewed, and he reported that the executions took place on wednesdays and fridays, and there were so many doomed that they had to build rows next to the gallow.

The helpers of the executioner sometimes had to pull down hanging inmates because they did not die immediately.

That was incredibly perverse.

But the ultimate perversion was displayed when the interviewer asked the executioner why he had been so cruel and if he does not regret the mass murder.

And he, the executioner, while keeping a totally straight face, said that he feels sorry for it, moaning about his nightmares he has now as if he has been the victim of the system, arguing that he had to kill them all because he had to support his family. As if he deserved every compassion in the world.

This person was so disgusting that I wondered why the interviewer did not kill him right away.

Seeing the executioner talk so emotionlessly about the mass murder he is guilty of was even more shocking than seeing the war scenes on tv.

There are no words that describe the perversion of these hangmen.

If I had to choose between bush and the government in Iraq with all the executives that make up the saddam regime , I would go for bush.

However, the best would be to just keep out of of the mess.
It's really none of our business. It's only bush's business.


----------



## = n (Nov 17, 2004)

First id like to say that this off topic forum is very interesting, it makes me very happy talking about international relations/events and real life with other DP/R people. Ive had lots of 'net arguments/debates about such things before but i never thought id get a chance to have such conversations (knowingly) with people who have my problems.

I-


> Well, I am totally anti- bush, but reading about saddam makes me throw up everything


Thats perfectly understandable, i cant think of anyone i know against the war who i spoke to who was actually somehow _in favour _of Saddam Hussein, the mans actions are well known (those who were can reasonably be discounted as extremists).

But look at the unfolding of events from another perspective. Imagine you are not American but from some other country (or even Iraq). The US military go in supposedly to depose Saddam and rid the world of his dangerous WMD. These weapons have not been found and appear not to exist (there were also some utterly inexcusable and transparent attempts to link Saddam to Al-Qaida which still seem to have some veracity in the eyes of some Americans). Then cleverly the focus is shifted to the 'liberation' of the Iraqi people.

Freedom! Democracy! Human Rights! These were the shouts that went up from the new occupiers of Iraq.

And what do we get? Abu Ghraib, sexual degredation and torture. There is frankly no compelling reason for a cynical non american not to believe that that was a deliberate covert experiment in new interrogation techniques (perhaps for use especially against professed muslims in this War on Terror). Rumsfelds 'few bad apples' theory seems no more plausible to me (the 'apples' in question barely seemed bright enough to come up with such convoluted culturally sensitive humiliations).

Now we have at least two pieces of footage of apparent executions of badly wounded and unarmed Iraqis by US marines in Fallujah (by unarmed i mean not brandishing weapons or being in any state to use them in other words non combatants). These are only the incidents we have film footage of, it seems reasonable to suppose that they were not the only such incidents. There has also been overwhelming bombardent of civilian areas needless to say, massive violence and whole cities in chaos. All of these things are being beamed around the world and across arabic satellite channels.

Iraq was not a part of the war against terrorist organisations posing a threat to the western world. Now it is. Some have argued unbelievably (and in hindsight) that this was somehow the plan all along, to 'take the heat' off the US mainland and distract or lure Islamist terrorists into Iraq. I wont even dignify such idiocy with a responce. This war WILL create more distrust, dislike and hatred of America across the world and especially the M.E. Now that Bush has been voted back into office it will also be easier for extremists to argue that US citizens are legitimate targets.

I think Blair played a part in such a great emphasis being placed on WMD. Without that 'imminent threat' hed never have got the necessary support for such a 'pre-emptive' war of choice. Paul Wolfowitz has publicly admitted it was only one of many reasons as far as he was concerned. The neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration have been gunning for Iraq since well before Sept. 11. They appear to have used the current climate of fear and hysteria (including a curbing of civil liberties) created by that attack to get what they already wanted . They want to transform the world via American force and if necessary military intervention and i think its important that everyone is aquainted with the views of these influential figures and the project for a new american century is a good place to start - http://www.newamericancentury.org/

America is becoming more and more an empire but this is (or was) by no means an inevitability. It seems to me very far removed from the ideals of the founding fathers of America. I find it hard to imagine what they would make of all this. It also seems strange to recall a time before the WTC attacks when the Bush Administration was on an isolationist footing internationally and talked of America as 'a humble nation but strong'. Very different to the neo-conservative forceful restructuring of the world which 
seems to be the order of the day now (and it is traditional libertarian conservatism that is adrift).

JanineBaker-


> The other argument is about emotion - it feels cathartic to people to hate. Some people hate other countries and pronounce them the axis of evil. Others hate those who hate those countries. It's all rage. And basically scratches the same aggressive human itch. One is just masked under compassion.


Yes but the difference is that one kind of rage leads to a jingoistic support for a war in which approx 100,000 people may have died (or lets be hopeful and go with a lower figure and say 15-20,000 -still equal to sept.11 many times over) and the other, doesnt.

If all of the 'rogue states' were full of such people with a hatred of war, violence and xenophobia then i cant see that there would be any problem.

I was against this Iraq war but in a very cautious way (i talked about the 'timing and circumstances' being wrong). Yet I thought it might just possibly work in transforming the middle east but even _if_ it now does, i see it more and more as a result of dangerous and reckless policy. America thinks a vote for Bush is for stability and 'more of the same' internationally ? How can you be so wrong? Neo-conservatism is all about risk taking, gambling with the fate of the world and the strength of America. 
Well i just hope the dice have something nice in store 

Enough ranting for one post i think.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Excellent ranting! I think everything you have to say is spot on. Your post was like a breath of fresh air for me.

Joe


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Wow! I'm sorry I missed out on this post for a while.

Let me first say that:

Sebastian, that is the stupidest and most ignorant post I've read on this board in a while. Why don't I go ahead and characterize all Kerry supporters as:

A: Poor minorities on the streets who want the rich to pay for all their misfortunes.

B. Tree hugging hippie environmentalists, homosexuals, animal rights activists, atheist hedonists, etc...

C. Really intelligent people who feel that science has refuted God and who believe that the natural course of history is to advance to a more socialist state where the rich surrender their successes to the underpriveleged poor, and that is the only way to reach a unified state and more peaceful and equitable society.

See how stupid that sounds.

OK, to the topic of the post. It's hard for any of us to to really know what the civilian death toll has been in Iraq since the government doesn't like to release that kind of information and it's just hard to know. But, in my NON-PARTISAN opinion (may be hard for some of you to stomach), let me say that I highly doubt the civilian death toll is 100,000 people. That could possibly be the total death toll. Even then, I'm not too sure. We went into Iraq, in what, March of 2003. So, that is about 20 months. Somehwere around 600 days or so. That's about 140 people a day. From what I've seen, the media isn't reporting those kind of numbers (civilian and insurgents) that I see daily in the news. Every now and then we may see those numbers but that is usually in more major strikes. But, again, how much do we really know.

Let me also add, that many of the civilian casualties have been caused by suicide bombers, car bombs, bombings of buildings, and random firings that come from Iraqis, insurgents and terrorists who come into Iraq from other countries.

I really believe that our forces do their best to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. Without this caution, our ability to recruit Iraqi troops and police forces, and our ability to ever help the Iraqis establish their own government, would be near impossible. I realize, that in many of the major airstrikes, civilian casualties are unavoidable. The initial strike on Baghdad yielded the most casualties of all the air strikes, and from what we know, they were very precise in just targeting buildings that were centerpoints of Sadaam and his regime. I think the estimated death count there was around 3 or 4 thousand, but how much of that were civilians, people not associated with the Iraqi National Guard and Baathist party, i do not know.

As far as the other major strikes in Fallujah, Tikrit, and Mosul, which were slower and more methodical, have targeted insurgent strongholds. Once again, we really don't know the numbers but a civilian death count of 100,000 does seem highly inflated to me.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Gimpy,

I guess well never know now will we? Ive read we are killing so many, that they are burying them faster than they can be counted. If you think Bushs' war is so wonderful, why are you in your nice little safe house, typing on a computer? Youre a young guy, right? Why arent you over in Iraq helping to make peace?

Joe


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

I forgot to add, all the suicide bombings, car bombs etc. which you talk about all began after we forcefully occupied THEIR country, so the way I see it, its still instigated by the US. They didnt have that before we came there or at least not near what its like now. Most of the terrorists causing the terrorist acts, that have flooded into Iraq, are only there because of our presence also. Now matter how you look at it, we have caused alot of death.

Joe


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

I'll agree that we have created a bad situation in which a lot of death has been caused. But, for the record, I never said Bush's war was wonderful. In fact, I recall saying it was a mistake. But, I do think we have to "stay the course." We must finish the job. You're naive if you think otherwise.

I support the war now that we are there, but I don't think we should have gone. First of all, I'm not sure they would let me in to the Armen Forces due to my health. But, if I was drafted and somehow survived boot camp or whatever, I would go, not gladly, but I would go.

I seriously think those statistics are way, way inflated. Previous statistics never exceeded 16,000 and somehow you jump to 100,000. That's pretty dubious as is. You say the death rate prior to invasion was 5% and is now 7.9%. Well, if you count all the people who die naturally or to disease and other non-war related accidents, the civilian death count probably is 100,000 or higher considering 23 million people live in Iraq. That's a nice way to manipulate statistics.

And I hate to use "liberal media" again, but there are plenty of journalists out there who would jump at any opportunity to knock this administration and the war.

Even though I think it is bullshit that the Bush admistration now uses the excuse for going to war that we had to remove Saddaam from power rather than their original reason to find WMDs, this whole oil-for-food scandal is helping Bush's cause. And I think we've only scratched the surface with that. So, for all the Michael Moore's out there who described Iraq as a Muslim oasis before the war, you're in for a rough ride.


----------



## danny (Sep 2, 2004)

> Let me also add, that many of the civilian casualties have been caused by suic*** bombers, car bombs, bombings of buildings, and random firings that come from Iraqis, insurgents and terrorists who come into Iraq from other countries.


just like to point you to the times two weeks ago (the UK times that is) that about 90% of the civilian deaths have NOT been killed by the insurgents but by the american strikes.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

gimpy,

Stay the course? What course? I didnt know the US had a plan? Seems to me we are sort of making it up as we go. Finish the job? Do you actually think theres going to be an end any time soon? I think all weve done so far is stirred up a hornets nest and this thing is just getting started. I didnt come up with the figure of 100,000. If you bother reading the news youll find out there are several articles(like the one I posted) that point to 100,000 deaths or even more. As stated above, most of the articles I read point to our bombing as the cause for the vast majority of deaths.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Danny, I can easily believe that 90% statistic if the civilian death toll was lower. If the civilian death toll was 16,000, if according to Joe's article, was what most estimates suggested, I can EASILY believe we have killed 14 some thousand civilians.

Maybe since I live in backwards ass Tennessee and read the Nashville newspaper, I can see how I am completely out of the loop on this 100,000 civilians killed statistic. Not to mention the fact that my internet home page is CNN.com, which I go through a few times a day is based in Atlanta. Time to join the big boys up in D.C. and NYC.

Am I the only one who finds this statistic very inflated? I know I have few Republican friends on this board, but come on. I would think that statistic, if it holds any credibility, would be all over the news.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Here is the most recent stuff out of the UK:

UK rejects report of 100,000 Iraq civilian deaths

LONDON: British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw rejected on Wednesday estimates by US researchers that 100,000 Iraqi civilians had died as a result of the US-led invasion of Iraq.

He said that the estimate, published on the eve of the US presidential elections, by the British medical journal The Lancet, was based on ?imprecise data?.

Mr Straw said that London supported an estimate from Iraq?s Ministry of Health that 3,853 civilians had been killed and 15,517 injured between April and October of this year, adding that these figures may include insurgent fatalities.

He went on to say that while Britain recognised the bravery and professionalism of those conducting the Lancet study, the government did not accept its central conclusion. He stressed the government continued to believe that the most reliable casualty figures were those provided by Iraqi hospitals to the Iraqi Ministry of Health.

The Iraq Body Count (IBC) - an Anglo-American research group tracking civilian deaths via media and other sources - puts the civilian death toll between 14,000 and 16,500 from March 2003 to the present. Mr Straw said that London did not regard the IBC count as reliable since it was based on media reports of deaths. The foreign secretary blamed military and civilian casualties in Iraq directly on the action of insurgents. He said that if the insurgents were to give up their terror campaign, the violence in Iraq would cease. reuters

I'll go with Jack Straw AND/OR the IBC over some report released the night before the election.


----------



## dalailama15 (Aug 13, 2004)

Let's invade China and Free Tibet.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Make Trade Fair


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Gimpy,

Like I said before, theres no way to really know an exact figure and there probably never will be. I certainly wouldnt put too much trust in the article you have posted either. Even if it is 16,000 its still a shit pot of dead people. With things growing only worse in Iraq, theres no doubt theres going to be a lot more.

Joe


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

dakotajo said:


> Dreamer,
> 
> As usual I disagree with 100% of what you have to say. A plan for peace!! That actually made me laugh. Who the hell do you think we are. Who are we to think we have to come up with a plan for peace and then force it down the throat of other countries.
> Joe


Joe, LOL,
Why I would never have known! We never agree, and that's unfortunate, but so it goes. I'm a junky too, LOL! :shock:

I don't think you heard I was being sarcastic. *I'm the first to admit, I have no clue how to solve the problems we have in this world ... particularly in the Middle East, I'm talking about problems that you could say go back to Biblical times. But at minimum the Israelis and the Palestinians, Iraq/Iran, so many of these countries have been at war at one time or another, long before George Bush came on the scene.*

I'm not excusing Bush for anything, and I'm not happy we are in this war, I'm just saying, OK folks, poking each other's eyes out, offer a solution, here ... *I WAS J-O-K-I-N-G meaning, even the brightest thinkers cannot find common ground on all of this. And I feel very frustrated and hopeless about this.*

You miss the point, lumping conservatives in one pile and liberals in another. There is diversity within each party. For me, being conservative simply means "less government intervention".

I am fully for pro-choice, gay civil-unions, gay rights, stem cell research etc., even though embryonic research sort of gives me chills. And I'm not pleased if a woman has an abortion, but I would rather have that happen than bring an unwanted or abused child into the world. I have also voted for a democrati or two in my day -- at various levels of government! OMG! :shock: I've violated another sterotype! I'm some sort of odd hybrid or something!

*I don't believe people who voted for Bush, voted FOR the war in Iraq. The average person has no goal to "stuff democracy down someone's throat".*

Democracy is a goal of an integrated, global economy -- that's what we are, we have moved in that direction and there is no turning back. Economics are involved here that the average American doesn't even consider. It seems from polls that oddly enough Bush was voted in on:

1. Morals
2. Economy
3. War in Iraq

*And the concern re: the war in Iraq had to do with a fear of more terrorism of the 9/11 type. NOT with making Iraq a democracy!*

And as the saying goes, Democrats raise taxes, Republicans borrow money. I'm not thrilled with the deficit that Bush has created. There's no free lunch. In a socialist or communist economy, the money comes from somewhere, not out of thin air.

But again, surprising as it may sound, each individual voted for different reasons. AGAINST Kerry vs. FOR Bush. Or AGAINST Bush to vote FOR Kerry. I know you understand this. But you are so enraged. I wouldn't like to meet you in a dark alley, or a lit one!

And re: the death toll. We can't know these things now. It's pure, gruesome, sad speculation. No one wants deaths. And we all fear terrorist activities. 4 airplanes, 3,000 civilians at work in New York, The Pentagon... that was OK then? And the 1993 "practice" bombing of the WTC... lovely.

This isn't war, it's guerilla warfare against an enemy we can't see. It isn't against any one country per se, but an unseen horror.

And I suppose I could chide you. Why didn't you campaign more vigorously to make your State a Blue State. Mine is Blue. What's wrong with you Joe! 8)

I'll try not to comment further,
As always, I wish these things could be discussed in person.
No weapons though! :shock: 
Dona Nobis Pacem
D


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

agreed


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

I think Joe said he actually lives in Wisconsin, but right near the North (or South?) Dakota border. Excuse me, he lives in Minnesota which borders the Dakotas. Where has my 7th grade geography gone? I agree that Dakota Joe has a better ring. Minnesota Joe ain't bad , though. You got Minnesota Fats. I guess that wouldn't be original.

Tennessee Williams is stealing my thunder.

My state was red, however, my county was blue. I'm torn.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

PS -- when I say as a conservative I believe in less government intervention, I mean internally, in the lives of AMERICANS. I.E. I don't want the Federal government making personal decisions for me.

The government was created to handle the mint, provide military protection, and make judicial decisions. Executive, Judical, Legislative branches of governemnt -- checks and balances.

I'm not even thinking about war for God's sake. I don't want the government to tell me what religion I should practice, or tell me I can't vote because I'm black, or can't marry because I'm gay, etc., etc.

OK, time for bed.
Nite.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

gimpy34 said:


> I think Joe said he actually lives in Wisconsin, but right near the North (or South?) Dakota border. Excuse me, he lives in Minnesota which borders the Dakotas. Where has my 7th grade geography gone? I agree that Dakota Joe has a better ring. Minnesota Joe ain't bad , though. You got Minnesota Fats. I guess that wouldn't be original.
> 
> Tennessee Williams is stealing my thunder.
> 
> My state was red, however, my county was blue. I'm torn.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
Needed that.


----------



## *Alex (Sep 27, 2004)

Wow, that got a few responses, yet no one has answered ANY of my questions from my original post. Interesting.

Firstly sebatian, you say enough preaching, I say I aint preaching enough, judging by the complete lack of empathy in some of these posts, but it is a dp site so point taken.

You could say i'm a little angry at the moment so read on if you dare.

What I m talking about is human rights, humanity. I could of went and read the futile debates about republicans and democrats, Bush & Kerry in other threads.The only significance being is a vote for Bush meant more death......looking at some posts on this thread it is obvious some here are so de-sensitized that they dont know/cant grasp the concept of death. The death you see in the movies is a little different to watching your husband being shot in the head for no reason or rumaging through ruble looking for your children in the pitch black night and only finding body parts. you guys are posting crap like "oh i dont think that many innocents were slaughtered" and "3000 innocents died in NY" like its a fucken competition. It doesnt make a difference....VOTING BUSH MEANT MORE DEATH. Not just in Iraq, all over the world, brace yourselves peolpe terrorisim is now coming to your place, enough hatred has been incited to make sure of that ....for decades. GOOD JOB.

By the way let me clear something up for some of you, this is not a war, so dont refer to it as a war.

Maybe you guys have been watching CNN your whole lives and havent figured out that your source of information is a crock of shit. Yes, be scared of the little brown men who strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up and kill others, they are crazy...maybe we should nuke em. I obviously dont condown this, but do you really think these people take these decisions lightly, they have families, they are human beings, and in most cases they feel that is the only way left to defend their country from invading forces...that or they could maybe throw rocks at the tanks as they roll past on their way to kill their families.

So i ask the question ,,Why is this happening in Iraq, young Americans fighting and dying for reasons unknown, they dont understand. Civilians or not they are all innocent. Sent by BUISNESSMEN to fight and die.

Why is Allawi an American? Who is profeting from all of this? who got the contracts? Who got the oil?

Please re-read my original post.........i would like to actually get some opinions/answers, on SLAUGHTERING human beings in the name of money.

I want to get a grasp of the psyc behind Bush voters, DO YOU KNOW WHAT MASS SLAUGHTER IS? Please explain why you would vote for any party which would directly cause more death? Maybe I'm stupid. Please educate me. RE - READ MY FIRST POST

I'm going to go and find a cave to live in now, and hope SOCIETY doesnt find me.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Alex,
It seems to me you didn't read any of *my* posts, particularly the last two.

I just reread your post which simply implies that any American who voted for Bush is a war monger and doesn't care what happens in the world, if people are killed in war, etc., etc.

That is again, another gross misunderstanding of what the vote here was about.

At minumum, those who voted for Bush, I'll say it again, astoundingly voted FIRST for moral issues at home. SECONDLY for economic difficulties at home. THIRDLY re: the war in Iraq. I say RE: as the war is already underway.

And the "war vote" it seems to me, was to not "change horses in mid-stream" which is common during times of war. The reason:

Fear of another 9/11. A first for the U.S. Some hope that we will be "safer" under a more hawkish President... the reason people voted for Reagan during the Cold War. There have been problems in years of diplomacy that often bringing despots to the peace keeping table is fruitless. This was the case with Saddam, with Arafat, and many other despots.

And as noted, the biggest concern here (to my surprise) was re: MORALITY.

Call most Americans selfish and ignorant. Perhaps we are then. We voted for issues at home. (I don't agree with the concerns re: morality myself).

And for the hundredth time, we aren't after oil in the Middle East. The whole world needs oil unfortunately. This is a global economy now, and we all need to work together. This is not working in the Middle East. The French and the Russians have been caught with their pants down making some nasty deals -- oil for weapons w/Iraq. The U.N. oil for food program was completely corrupted by Saddam.

There is no more explaining I could do. Reread my posts.

Unfortunately, we will never come to an agreement, which is illustrative of the world at large. Disagreements on this board are nothing compared to the massive rift between the West and the Middle East, and as I see now, the secular humanism of Europe vs. the more Religious leanings of the U.S. I now understand Martin's anti-religious posts. I didn't know how different the U.S. and Europe are. I learned something new.

I think the average US voter feels helpless about the war in Iraq. We got in, and now what? The country was divided nearly 50/50 and the reasons for each vote were complex and had to do with matters at home vs. International Relations. Many were concerned with our health care system, jobless rates, morality (which still astonishes me) and finally, a fear of 9/11 and hopes for tough protection against terrorism in the US.

Unfortunately I'm guess I should get of this conversation now, though I find it fascinating. I have some understanding but not enough. This is so complicated, and has become so simplified here. As I said, the most informed scholars of international relations are stumped re: what is the next best step to make.

There is a NEWSWEEK magazine issue (11/15) analyzing why Bush won as well. It seems to indicate the Morality issue swayed the vote significantly. Again a vote that has to do with issues at home, not with Iraq. Apparently the Kerry campaign was not as effective as the Bush campaign for numerous reasons. Jimmy Carter noted that vicious ad campaigns swayed the vote tremendously as well. THAT is very unfortunate and that he never saw such things before -- from both candidates.

Yes, I guess many, as in many other countries, are more concerned with making it from paycheck to paycheck with some decent healthcare and less informed/interested in foreign relations. I'm not excusing that, but it is not unusual.

Spain was terrorized into voting out of fear recently. That is unnacceptable. Al-quaida actually influenced the vote of a European country. That is terrorism, and that is what the world has to deal with. Osama bin Laden has been around a long time.

Best,
Dreamer
The rift on the board here is only a microcosm for the rifts in the world. We have a long way to go. And generalizations and stereotypes don't help with diplomacy.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Let me first say that I'm not happy all the innocent civilans dying in Iraq. I don't think you can find a person who is (yes even George Bush.) Innocent civilian casualties are ALWAYS a travesty.

Now that we are in Iraq, I don't think who we had elected president would have made much of a difference in Iraq, at least for the near future. It's a mess over there, and it would be irresponsible for us to pull out before the country is more secure from insurgents and terrorists. Kerry made campaign promises to bring the troops back faster, bring in more international cooperation to help secure the country. And I'm sure he would try to hold true to those promises, but it's hard to say how effective his diplomacy and policy would have been. So, there would have been plenty more death had Kerry been elected. But, right now, our military has elevated strikes in Fallujah and soon to be elsewhere in Iraq in order to hold elections in January. So, our government is showing some sense of urgency in expediency in getting this thing over with.

I know people love to demonize Bush, and although he helped start this war and is the commander-in-chief and makes the final decision to go to war or not, he was not alone, in the U.S. and around the world, to think we should have invaded Iraq. President Clinton was making threats of military action against Iraq if they wouldn't cooperate with weapons inspections and UN sanctions. I DO think Bush pushed the agenda more than Kerry ever would have. But, it takes a vote through the Congress for us to go to war, even though that vote was based on bad intelligence. Contrary to what some foreigners may think, an American President does not have power to start wars at his whim. Although he pushed the agenda to go to war for which he is responsible, it takes hundreds of federally elected officials for war to be possible.

To say this was purely a war for oil and a decision made by businessmen is naive. The whole world does have an interest in the Middle East because of its rich oil reserves. So,yes, I think some of our interest in this war had to do with oil. It also had to do with a ruthless dictator who had been uncooperative with the U.N., who had a past history of hating the U.S., and was believed to have WMDs to use against us, most likely through aiding terrorists, and we were suspicious for good reasons. Well, some of the intelligence we based our decision on turned out to be bogus. Personally, and I may be alone on this one here, do think Iraq definitely had chemical weapons which were shipped out of Iraq, perhaps into Syria, before our invasion and around the time weapons inspectors came around. Still, whether it was a reason to go to war is dubious.

Read up on this oil-for-food scandal which is now unfolding and you can see who was reaping the most benefit of Saddaam being in power. The Russians and French, had received up to $10 and $2 billion in oil vouchers from the Iraqis for helping participate in the oil-for-food scandal. And possibly a few U.S. oil companies, too, were in on this. Saddaam was paying families of suicide bombers in Palestine 25,000 for their family member's sacrificing their life to attack Israelis. So, he was using this money to support terrorism, although not Al-Qaeda, at least from what we know so far.

And this oil-for-food dilemma is undermining the legitimacy of the U.N. and revealing corruption within the U.N., while also showing that Saddaam was still up to no good, depriving his country of humanitarian aid and essentially holding his country hostage in the process...add that on to the mass graves, the genocide, and you got one pretty terrible mo'fo.

Although many Iraqi civilians or dying, we HOPE their deaths are not in vein and are for the cause of a future peaceful, democratic Iraq, which in turn, could lead to a more peaceful Middle East. Whether this will happen will not be determined in a matter of months or years but probably decades. Stuff like this doesn't happen overnight.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> Although many Iraqi civilians or dying, we HOPE their deaths are not in vein and are for the cause of a future peaceful, democratic Iraq, which in turn, could lead to a more peaceful Middle East. Whether this will happen will not be determined in a matter of months or years but probably decades. Stuff like this doesn't happen overnight.


Yup, I'll buy all of what Gimpy said as well. He brought up other points I left out.

No one wants the death of innocent civilians or the death of soldiers. Of course there are people in the US who are equally extreme in their beliefs, but I don't believe they represent the overall POV of Americans.

It is useless to try to convince someone otherwise if this is what you truly believe -- that Americans are ruthless war mongers. I simply don't believe that. So, call me an idiot. I'm certainly not a war monger.
D


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Alex,

Excellent post. I agree with everything you say 100%. I dont consider bushs' clusterfuck a war either. It makes me happy to know there are a few human beings that have a concience. In my opinion, anybody that rules out oil as a partial objective is naive. Yep, the Americans have turned into war mongers and thats how they are viewed all over the world wether we like it not. I guess our reputation is well deserved. To me, our "war on terror" seems so ironic, because As far as Im concerned we have become nothing but a bunch of terrorists. If we think what we are doing is going to stop terrorism, then we have a very rude awakening. As Ive stated numerous times, all weve done is stirred up a hornets nest and were now very soon going to see terrorism worse than we could have ever imagined.

Joe

P.S. I think gimpy and dreamer should get the job of counting corpses over in Iraq...maybe their attitude would change.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Joe, I have stated my position several times now that I thought the war was a mistake.

I just want to ask you one question: Do you want the troops pulled out right now?

Everything I've read from you points to that.

And if you think that, then I don't know why I bother reading your posts. There are getting to be as pointless as your incessant benzo bashing.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

gimpy,

A simple solution is for you to just ignore my posts and only read the ones that agree with your pov. Dont worry, it wont hurt my feelings.

Joe


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> I think gimpy and dreamer should get the job of counting corpses over in Iraq...maybe their attitude would change.


The rage Joe. I don't understand it. It's over the top. You literally feel this way of any person in the US who voted for Bush? You then hate close to half of American citizens.

As Gimpy noted, I would be happy as I could be if there were no wars. If there was no terrorism. If there was no genocide.

It is difficult to ignore your posts as they are so vicious, they goad and provoke.

I'm certain you will never get a position as a diplomat, neither Liberals nor Conservatives would hire you. They'd fear you'd start WWIII.

OK, I'm out of this thread as it is a fruitless discussion. It isn't a debate. It is as full as as much mudslinging as the campaign, and it also seems some here neither read other people's posts nor read books or newspapers or watch intelligent talking heads about this to keep informed.

I try, and find politics incredibly difficult to follow. Good grief watch an episode of *"The West Wing"* -- Martin Sheen plays a Democratic President so you'll enjoy it. I find THAT show difficult to follow, though very well done. It illustrates conflicts within one administration that aren't easily solved.

Rage is a dangerous thing Joe. It is extremism.

Best,
D


----------



## *Alex (Sep 27, 2004)

Dreamer, I did read your posts, and I am informed, well informed. I am simply posing some real questions here. I dont believe everyone who voted Bush is a war monger, i'm intrigued on how you came to that conlcusion after reading my first post. Maybe its implications to Bush voters doesnt quite agree with you. I am not mudslinging.

If it appears I am not well informed, it is because most of this rep vs dem debate is of no importance to me, and I'm quite aware of Sadams actions since he first ruled Iraq. LIVES come first to me, nothing should be higher on anyones list, not domestic policy or economic policy. I simply want to know how peope feel about the death of innocent people, esp the ones who voted Bush....its not a complicated question.

Gimpy, I think pulling the troops out would be as disasterous as invading in the first place. If you guys were given an option i.e kerry was willing to work closer with the international community to clean up the mess,instead of Bush's "lets isolate America even further from the rest of the world" why would you not go for the one who "MAY" help the casualty count to be lower.

MORALITY......that is almost amusing.

I'm not here to attack you, I'm simply posing questions,looking for answers on how peolple think/justify things.

Dreamer you right about one thing, i am on the extreme side on this subject, this is usually a bad thing (close mindedness etc) But i can tell you there are worse things to feel passionate about than Human rights.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

It's hard to say if Kerry could have lowered the body count or not. I think most countries have made it pretty clear where they stand, if they'll help in Iraq or not. I think Bush wants the main say in what goes on in Iraq since 90% of the troops there have been ours. But, I also think that this administration would want all the international support they can get.

But, I will add that one problem with mixing troops from a bunch of different countries is delegating authority. Each country probably has a different idea of what they want to be done. It was a problem in World War II between the U.S., Great Britain, and France.

Kerry wanted more cooperation with the U.N. and a "more sensitive war on terror." It's possible this could slow progress (if you want to call it that) in Iraq. In being more "sensitive"- it's hard to say exactly what that means but it could perhaps mean taking more time to gather more precise intelligence and avoiding major airstrikes, which could drag things out longer and allow more time for the enemy to regroup. The harder and faster we come down on insurgents in Iraq, the sooner we can secure the country and borders. It could mean more lives in a shorter time span but less lives in the long run. Timing can sometimes be more valuable than 100% accurate intelligence.

But, really, this all speculation. I could have no idea what I'm talking about.


----------



## *Alex (Sep 27, 2004)

Gimpy, I think i'll end this post now, I was angry and needed some answers, i guess your answer is you feel bad but you also feel like you made the right decision. I dont agree , but we dont have to agree, we are all entitled to our own beliefs/opinions.

Sometimes I think we all have blood on our hands, we should never allow governments to do such things (Idealistic...I know)

Alex


----------

