A Sobering Statistic

[MonstaThrilla]

120%

 

[sMiLeYz]

funneh but true

 

[Mrburns2007]

How lame....

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
funneh but true

As usual for Ted Rall, not funny and not true. (Remember when cartoonists were funny and could draw? Now neither is necessary.)

Rall concludes Saddam killed 300,000 so his numbers work out. Human Rights Watch gives a MINIMUM of 350,000 - 100,000 Kurds and 250,000 Shiites. This doesn't include the Iranians and Kuwaitis he killed when he invaded those countries. Realistic estimates go well over 500,000 - well over 1 million when you include the Iraqi soldiers killed in the wars Saddam started - which is important as will be explained in a moment.

Given that slight bias, you have to look at the statistics Rall is using. Rall referenced Robert Dobbs. I checked Dobbs website but couldn't find his numbers except for a statement that he got his info from the Iraq Body Count website. Since I couldn't see his numbers, I had to go to the source which gives numbers similar (but perhaps a bit lower than his):
Iraq Body Count

What you immediately find is that this database DOES NOT count civilian deaths. It counts all Iraqi deaths reported in the press, regardless of the source. It makes no pretense otherwise. In fact, when you go to the database, it details the victims in many cases. This site is a human rights anti-war site, but they seem to be quite honest about the data. You will find the database includes a large number of entries such as:

Iraqi Soldiers
Iraqi Resistance Fighters
Bank Robbers
Fleeing Attackers
Grenade Thrower
Deaths from mortars "likely meant for US troops"
Policeman killed defusing bomb meant to kill US troops

Here is the basis for the database:

In the current occupation phase this database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.

But remember, Rall's cartoon said civilians killed by Bush.

But I guess it's OK to lie since it's all Bush's fault.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It's amazing how often Bushies cite Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the UN . . . when they didn't give a flying squirrel's worth of concern for these organizations during the first decade of Saddam's reign. I guess I should welcome sinners that have found religion.

If you blame Saddam (justifiably so) for the deaths of Iraqi soldiers . . . maybe you should blame enablers that provided weaponry or intelligence to Saddam's regime? Considering the US provided gear and intelligence to Saddam's regime . . . AND weapons to Iran (which presumably would be used to kill Iraqis) maybe Saddam's toll should be shared.

sobering and inaccurate predictions

"I can't say if the use of force would last five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," Rumsfeld said. "It won't be a World War III."
"We know that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons, and we know he has an active program for development of nuclear weapons," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld recalled meeting with Saddam in 1983, when he was President Reagan's Middle East envoy and the United States backed Iraq in its war with Iran. The United States gave Iraq intelligence information that helped it fight Iran to a standstill in that war, Rumsfeld said.

Hmm, so we gave Iraq intelligence so they could repel the Iranian aggressor . . .

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: KenGr

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
funneh but true

As usual for Ted Rall, not funny and not true. (Remember when cartoonists were funny and could draw? Now neither is necessary.)

Rall concludes Saddam killed 300,000 so his numbers work out. Human Rights Watch gives a MINIMUM of 350,000 - 100,000 Kurds and 250,000 Shiites. This doesn't include the Iranians and Kuwaitis he killed when he invaded those countries. Realistic estimates go well over 500,000 - well over 1 million when you include the Iraqi soldiers killed in the wars Saddam started - which is important as will be explained in a moment.

Given that slight bias, you have to look at the statistics Rall is using. Rall referenced Robert Dobbs. I checked Dobbs website but couldn't find his numbers except for a statement that he got his info from the Iraq Body Count website. Since I couldn't see his numbers, I had to go to the source which gives numbers similar (but perhaps a bit lower than his):
Iraq Body Count

What you immediately find is that this database DOES NOT count civilian deaths. It counts all Iraqi deaths reported in the press, regardless of the source. It makes no pretense otherwise. In fact, when you go to the database, it details the victims in many cases. This site is a human rights anti-war site, but they seem to be quite honest about the data. You will find the database includes a large number of entries such as:

Iraqi Soldiers
Iraqi Resistance Fighters
Bank Robbers
Fleeing Attackers
Grenade Thrower
Deaths from mortars "likely meant for US troops"
Policeman killed defusing bomb meant to kill US troops

Here is the basis for the database:

In the current occupation phase this database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.

But remember, Rall's cartoon said civilians killed by Bush.

But I guess it's OK to lie since it's all Bush's fault.

You're as guilty of double standards as Rall is. I'm not going to dispute with you what the total amount of civilians Hussein killed was since I don't know.

But your explanation about the Iraq Body Count site is totally misleading. It is supposed to be a count of civilian deaths. It says so right on the mainpage. How you can not think this just shows how biased you are. You listed all those extraneous circumstances with 'Iraqi soldiers', 'resistance fighters', etc, but did you actually bother to count how many of were actually killed under that category? About max 20 out of max 9729. You say its ridiculous to claim that Bush killed these people. Well he did order the war to overthrow Saddam which caused these deaths, just like Saddam ordered hundreds of thousands to their deaths during his reign. Saddam is personally responsible for the deaths his orders caused but not Bush? I thought the Republican party was the party of personal responsibility? I guess that doesn't apply to Republican Presidents starting wars, only to all those "welfare queens" living in the projects...

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla<br


You're as guilty of double standards as Rall is. I'm not going to dispute with you what the total amount of civilians Hussein killed was since I don't know.

But your explanation about the Iraq Body Count site is totally misleading. It is supposed to be a count of civilian deaths. It says so right on the mainpage. How you can not think this just shows how biased you are. You listed all those extraneous circumstances with 'Iraqi soldiers', 'resistance fighters', etc, but did you actually bother to count how many of were actually killed under that category? About max 20 out of max 9729. You say its ridiculous to claim that Bush killed these people. Well he did order the war to overthrow Saddam which caused these deaths, just like Saddam ordered hundreds of thousands to their deaths during his reign. Saddam is personally responsible for the deaths his orders caused but not Bush? I thought the Republican party was the party of personal responsibility? I guess that doesn't apply to Republican Presidents starting wars, only to all those "welfare queens" living in the projects...

No, my explanation is not misleading. The first page of the Body Count page says it has a count of civilians. But it claims that count is 1500, not 9729. This would result in Rall's number not being 44 per day but more like 7 per day and ruin his statistics. And did you look at the table? Max 20? Most are not categorized to the extent you can identify the exact circumstances, but in looking at the columns I can identify hundreds that are from Iraqi military operations during the war or insurgent activity. There are also thousands listed just as number of deaths reported in the Baghdad morgue with no cause.

And even the Body Clount claims only that the occupier is responsible to try to minimize civilian deaths, not responsible for the deaths. I think there is a big difference.

Please read the table.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: KenGr

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla<br


You're as guilty of double standards as Rall is. I'm not going to dispute with you what the total amount of civilians Hussein killed was since I don't know.

But your explanation about the Iraq Body Count site is totally misleading. It is supposed to be a count of civilian deaths. It says so right on the mainpage. How you can not think this just shows how biased you are. You listed all those extraneous circumstances with 'Iraqi soldiers', 'resistance fighters', etc, but did you actually bother to count how many of were actually killed under that category? About max 20 out of max 9729. You say its ridiculous to claim that Bush killed these people. Well he did order the war to overthrow Saddam which caused these deaths, just like Saddam ordered hundreds of thousands to their deaths during his reign. Saddam is personally responsible for the deaths his orders caused but not Bush? I thought the Republican party was the party of personal responsibility? I guess that doesn't apply to Republican Presidents starting wars, only to all those "welfare queens" living in the projects...

No, my explanation is not misleading. The first page of the Body Count page says it has a count of civilians. But it claims that count is 1500, not 9729. This would result in Rall's number not being 44 per day but more like 7 per day and ruin his statistics. And did you look at the table? Max 20? Most are not categorized to the extent you can identify the exact circumstances, but in looking at the columns I can identify hundreds that are from Iraqi military operations during the war or insurgent activity. There are also thousands listed just as number of deaths reported in the Baghdad morgue with no cause.

And even the Body Clount claims only that the occupier is responsible to try to minimize civilian deaths, not responsible for the deaths. I think there is a big difference.

Please read the table.

The page for all to see

I've never seen such an impressive display of selective reading. First off, you say the count is 1500, not 9729. The 1500 number comes from the following headline and the first few paragraphs:

Over 1,500 violent civilian deaths in occupied Baghdad.

The first definitive total of violent civilian deaths in Baghdad since mid April has been published by Iraq Body Count (IBC), an Anglo-American research group tracking media-reported civilian deaths occuring as a consequence of the US/UK military intervention in Iraq.

From April 14th to 31st August, 2,846 violent deaths were recorded by the Baghdad city morgue. When corrected for pre-war death rates in the city a total of at least 1,519 excess violent deaths in Baghdad emerges from reports based on the morgue's records.

A few points: A) Not all Iraqis live in Baghdad. B) Not all Iraqis killed by our invasion died in Baghdad from April 14 to August 31. C) Why would they create a table listing the "Reported Civilian Deaths" in minimum and maximum if they did not intend those to be as factual and accurate of a count as they could tally?

Secondly, if you really look at the table, you'll see that the vast majority of deaths resulted from the "hot war" which occurred from mid-March to mid-April. If you can't accept that these deaths were caused by our President's decision I don't know how else to convince you.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

The page for all to see

The title of their table reads "Reported civilian deaths resulting from the US-led military intervention in Iraq." That's VERY misleading, considering they are including the victims of terror attacks and assasinations by locals.

 

[mastertech01]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
It's amazing how often Bushies cite Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the UN . . . when they didn't give a flying squirrel's worth of concern for these organizations during the first decade of Saddam's reign. I guess I should welcome sinners that have found religion.

If you blame Saddam (justifiably so) for the deaths of Iraqi soldiers . . . maybe you should blame enablers that provided weaponry or intelligence to Saddam's regime? Considering the US provided gear and intelligence to Saddam's regime . . . AND weapons to Iran (which presumably would be used to kill Iraqis) maybe Saddam's toll should be shared.

sobering and inaccurate predictions

"I can't say if the use of force would last five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," Rumsfeld said. "It won't be a World War III."
"We know that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons, and we know he has an active program for development of nuclear weapons," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld recalled meeting with Saddam in 1983, when he was President Reagan's Middle East envoy and the United States backed Iraq in its war with Iran. The United States gave Iraq intelligence information that helped it fight Iran to a standstill in that war, Rumsfeld said.

Hmm, so we gave Iraq intelligence so they could repel the Iranian aggressor . . .

Well you can see the quality of our intelligence agencies' information from the events of the past year. And we are 20 years more advanced than we were back then. I guess I wouldnt be braggin or taking credit for much.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

I thought it was funny and not only because I think Bush is a POS. I found the "Iraq is not another Vietnam" one the funniest.