Enough of the Iraqi body count threads

[JD50]

This is great, if American money is involved in any way, shape, or form, we are to blame for anyone that dies. Let's just keep giving those doing the actual killing a free pass.

 

[blackangst1]

As a side note, and directly related to the OP instead arguing who killed how many, if we eliminated threads or comments about body counts...Harvey wouldnt be able to post anymore. Not trying to slam him, but it is what it is.

 

[SoundTheSurrender]

There are more deaths then reported on the news. You have to be slightly challenged to not understand that.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
...sprinkle a little common sense on top and then you can have your truth.

this is P&N , a "common sense and truth free zone"

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
As a side note, and directly related to the OP instead arguing who killed how many, if we eliminated threads or comments about body counts...Harvey wouldnt be able to post anymore. Not trying to slam him, but it is what it is.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We keep an accurate count of how many US troops have died but we will forever debate about the number of Iraqi who have died violently because no such accurate counts exists for inconsequential Iraqis. So we must rely on various means of estimation that yield wildly conflicting numbers.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Nope, there has not been enough threads about how many have died and injured because of the US's invasion of Iraq.

As a reality check, we should erect billboards on Times Square, and across from the White House and Capitol building that keep an accurate count of how many people have died or been injuried by this war.

Or we could just continue to make threads in P&N. But only if you use common sense.

My common sense tells me that because we are the US does not mean we are always the good guys or that the US is above criticism. And as US citizens we need to take responsibility for our foreign policy mistakes.


What does your common sense tell you?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: blackangst1
As a side note, and directly related to the OP instead arguing who killed how many, if we eliminated threads or comments about body counts...Harvey wouldnt be able to post anymore. Not trying to slam him, but it is what it is.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We keep an accurate count of how many US troops have died but we will forever debate about the number of Iraqi who have died violently because no such accurate counts exists for inconsequential Iraqis. So we must rely on various means of estimation that yield wildly conflicting numbers.

And we have an accurate count of how many have died under Saddam's hand?

lol

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BucsMAN3K

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The question is and remains. Who has caused the deaths of more Iraqi civilians, Saddam Hussein or GWB?

Are you fucking kidding?

No one is going to even come close to the real number of Iraqi deaths as a result of this war, and to even suggest that Saddam Hussein is not the answer to that question is fucking asinine.

Are you trying to say that Saddam accounted for more Iraqi deaths then our occupation? By the time we're done there that is exceedingly unlikely. Iraqis are currently dying at a rate HUGELY in excess of the death rate during Saddam's reign. Depending on what estimates you choose for deaths attributable to Saddam, etc, we may have already passed him. (and in only 6 years! Eat that Saddam!) Now I guess you can argue about how many of these deaths were really caused by 'ol George, but he certainly created the situation in which they happened... so there's an argument for it.

If you want to count deaths in the Iran-Iraq war to him then of course we've still got a long way to go, but I don't know if that's exactly fair.

Its just as fair as all the morons counting every single Iraqi dead and saying "the US killed them".

The United States is complicit in the deaths of more than one million Iraqis.

You are welcome to 'spin' and 'deny' in any fashion if that makes you feel good about yourself.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Nope, there has not been enough threads about how many have died and injured because of the US's invasion of Iraq.

As a reality check, we should erect billboards on Times Square, and across from the White House and Capitol building that keep an accurate count of how many people have died or been injuried by this war.

Or we could just continue to make threads in P&N. But only if you use common sense.

My common sense tells me that because we are the US does not mean we are always the good guys or that the US is above criticism. And as US citizens we need to take responsibility for our foreign policy mistakes.


What does your common sense tell you?

Exactly what yours does.

 

[Lemon law]

In terms of asking the what does common sense tell you question when applied to Iraqi deaths due to the US occupation, sadly it just gives a broad partisan license to spin the number all kinds of ways depending on the desires of the spinner. Even if its now as low as 200,000 or so, compared to 4000 US troop deaths, its hugely disproportionate.

It sadly screams we protect our troops but not the Iraqi people.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In terms of asking the what does common sense tell you question when applied to Iraqi deaths due to the US occupation, sadly it just gives a broad partisan license to spin the number all kinds of ways depending on the desires of the spinner. Even if its now as low as 200,000 or so, compared to 4000 US troop deaths, its hugely disproportionate.

It sadly screams we protect our troops but not the Iraqi people.

Umm, no not really.

It screams that there are 27 million Iraqis in the country vs. 130,000 or so American troops.

It also screams the simple fact that the people in that area trying to create the civil war know that the most efficient way to do so is to kill civilians and not American troops.

But once again, these simple truths require a little common sense and reasoning to realize.

 

[Lemon law]

As Deadalus manages to convince himself---Umm, no not really.

It screams that there are 27 million Iraqis in the country vs. 130,000 or so American troops.

It also screams the simple fact that the people in that area trying to create the civil war know that the most efficient way to do so is to kill civilians and not American troops.

But once again, these simple truths require a little common sense and reasoning to realize.

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

Its reassuring to see you have managed to spin think your way out of that dilemma, the real question is will the rest of the Arab world or the rest of the world agree with your reasoning?

Somehow, I doubt it. The USA may well catch even more than its fair share of the blame as the bulk of the worlds 1.4 billion Muslims believe GWB has declared war on Islam despite GWB's statements of denial. Actions after all, speak louder than words.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: gentobu
I also think the numbers from this latest study are exaggerated. Here is my post from the other thread.

The main question on the survey was:

"How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (ie as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof."

The results were:
None: 78%
One: 16%
Two: 5%
Three: 1%
Four or more: .002%

Also,

ORB reported that "48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance."

Wikipedia article
The actual numbers from ORB. (PDF)

I'm sure the math checks out, but I'm still a little skeptical about the 1 million+ deaths though. I looked into the civilian death counts for WW2 and found that Japan had 580,000 civilian deaths after having 68 cities bombed, and Germany had about 1.6 million civilian casualties. According to the survey 48% of the people listed died as a result of gunshot wounds; so thats 480,000 deaths from gunshots alone, which is almost as much as all of Japan's civilian casualties after having been fire bombed, carpet bombed, and nuked. That's also more than the 416,000 US troops who died during WW2!

Wikipedia WW2 casualty breakdown
Wikipedia Strategic Bombing during WW2

If the survey results are accurate, that means .3 Iraqis killed/household. That's 300,000 deaths per million Iraqi households.

So, how many households are there in Iraq?

 

[blackangst1]

and how do we get an accurate count of how many have died under Saddam's hand for comparison?

Right. We cant. So we automatically say we've "killed"😕 more

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BucsMAN3K

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The question is and remains. Who has caused the deaths of more Iraqi civilians, Saddam Hussein or GWB?

Are you fucking kidding?

No one is going to even come close to the real number of Iraqi deaths as a result of this war, and to even suggest that Saddam Hussein is not the answer to that question is fucking asinine.

Are you trying to say that Saddam accounted for more Iraqi deaths then our occupation? By the time we're done there that is exceedingly unlikely. Iraqis are currently dying at a rate HUGELY in excess of the death rate during Saddam's reign. Depending on what estimates you choose for deaths attributable to Saddam, etc, we may have already passed him. (and in only 6 years! Eat that Saddam!) Now I guess you can argue about how many of these deaths were really caused by 'ol George, but he certainly created the situation in which they happened... so there's an argument for it.

If you want to count deaths in the Iran-Iraq war to him then of course we've still got a long way to go, but I don't know if that's exactly fair.

Its just as fair as all the morons counting every single Iraqi dead and saying "the US killed them".

The United States is complicit in the deaths of more than one million Iraqis.

You are welcome to 'spin' and 'deny' in any fashion if that makes you feel good about yourself.

I'm not even going to address your bullshit, but I will say one thing. I'll be doing my part by voting for the only candidate that is promising to end this war immediately, that is what makes me feel good about myself, not spouting a bunch of America hating bullshit on a message board. I take you are also voting for Ron Paul? I'd hope so, otherwise YOU will be complicit in any deaths (using your logic) that take place in Iraq once GWB is out of office. But at least you will still be able to come here and spout off ridiculous numbers about dead Iraqi's. I guess thats what makes YOU feel good about yourself.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In terms of asking the what does common sense tell you question when applied to Iraqi deaths due to the US occupation, sadly it just gives a broad partisan license to spin the number all kinds of ways depending on the desires of the spinner. Even if its now as low as 200,000 or so, compared to 4000 US troop deaths, its hugely disproportionate.

It sadly screams we protect our troops but not the Iraqi people.

Umm, no not really.

It screams that there are 27 million Iraqis in the country vs. 130,000 or so American troops.

It also screams the simple fact that the people in that area trying to create the civil war know that the most efficient way to do so is to kill civilians and not American troops.

But once again, these simple truths require a little common sense and reasoning to realize.

Bingo!

 

[Gaard]

I thought we automatically said Saddam "killed" 😕 more?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
The United States is complicit in the deaths of more than one million Iraqis.

You are welcome to 'spin' and 'deny' in any fashion if that makes you feel good about yourself.

You're complicit in the death of fact, reason, and logic.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: Lemon law
In terms of asking the what does common sense tell you question when applied to Iraqi deaths due to the US occupation, sadly it just gives a broad partisan license to spin the number all kinds of ways depending on the desires of the spinner. Even if its now as low as 200,000 or so, compared to 4000 US troop deaths, its hugely disproportionate.

It sadly screams we protect our troops but not the Iraqi people.

Umm, no not really.

It screams that there are 27 million Iraqis in the country vs. 130,000 or so American troops.

It also screams the simple fact that the people in that area trying to create the civil war know that the most efficient way to do so is to kill civilians and not American troops.

But once again, these simple truths require a little common sense and reasoning to realize.

Bingo!

The civilian death toll has almost nothing to do with the tactics of those trying to start a civil war. The actual deaths caused by those people are a tiny fraction of the total. The rest is actually caused by the civil war.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BucsMAN3K

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The question is and remains. Who has caused the deaths of more Iraqi civilians, Saddam Hussein or GWB?

Are you fucking kidding?

No one is going to even come close to the real number of Iraqi deaths as a result of this war, and to even suggest that Saddam Hussein is not the answer to that question is fucking asinine.

Are you trying to say that Saddam accounted for more Iraqi deaths then our occupation? By the time we're done there that is exceedingly unlikely. Iraqis are currently dying at a rate HUGELY in excess of the death rate during Saddam's reign. Depending on what estimates you choose for deaths attributable to Saddam, etc, we may have already passed him. (and in only 6 years! Eat that Saddam!) Now I guess you can argue about how many of these deaths were really caused by 'ol George, but he certainly created the situation in which they happened... so there's an argument for it.

If you want to count deaths in the Iran-Iraq war to him then of course we've still got a long way to go, but I don't know if that's exactly fair.

Its just as fair as all the morons counting every single Iraqi dead and saying "the US killed them".

The United States is complicit in the deaths of more than one million Iraqis.

You are welcome to 'spin' and 'deny' in any fashion if that makes you feel good about yourself.

I'm not even going to address your bullshit, but I will say one thing. I'll be doing my part by voting for the only candidate that is promising to end this war immediately, that is what makes me feel good about myself, not spouting a bunch of America hating bullshit on a message board. I take you are also voting for Ron Paul? I'd hope so, otherwise YOU will be complicit in any deaths (using your logic) that take place in Iraq once GWB is out of office. But at least you will still be able to come here and spout off ridiculous numbers about dead Iraqi's. I guess thats what makes YOU feel good about yourself.

"say" is the key word. So youre voting for a candidate who fluffs the public? Isnt brutal honestly better than fairy tale feel good words?

 

[gentobu]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: gentobu
I also think the numbers from this latest study are exaggerated. Here is my post from the other thread.

The main question on the survey was:

"How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (ie as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof."

The results were:
None: 78%
One: 16%
Two: 5%
Three: 1%
Four or more: .002%

Also,

ORB reported that "48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance."

Wikipedia article
The actual numbers from ORB. (PDF)

I'm sure the math checks out, but I'm still a little skeptical about the 1 million+ deaths though. I looked into the civilian death counts for WW2 and found that Japan had 580,000 civilian deaths after having 68 cities bombed, and Germany had about 1.6 million civilian casualties. According to the survey 48% of the people listed died as a result of gunshot wounds; so thats 480,000 deaths from gunshots alone, which is almost as much as all of Japan's civilian casualties after having been fire bombed, carpet bombed, and nuked. That's also more than the 416,000 US troops who died during WW2!

Wikipedia WW2 casualty breakdown
Wikipedia Strategic Bombing during WW2

If the survey results are accurate, that means .3 Iraqis killed/household. That's 300,000 deaths per million Iraqi households.

So, how many households are there in Iraq?

I don't know. People in this thread are saying there are 27 million Iraqis, so if we assume 5 people per house, then there are about 5.4 million households. That comes out to 1.6 million killed, which is more than the survey indicates and is about the same number as German civilians killed during WW2.

 

[Lemon law]

Its time to bring out math man and heavy sarcasm to bear on this problem. Face the facts, we had to kill them to save them. And now that Saddam is dead, we must kill them to save them from the ghost of Saddam and Al-Quida. And if we assume Iraq had a population of 27 million people, its taken damn near five years to kill one million Iraqis and to exile another two million more. Getting Iraq down to 24 million population. And palehorse74 is then about on the money, at that rate its going to take another 40 years at that progress rate to get Iraqi down to zero population. And then all that lovely Iraqi oil will be ours, all ours.

But sadly, math man can't address the Iraqi birthrate so we must institute a program of birth control. And then we can hang a portrait of GWB in every empty Iraqi maternity ward.

But if we accept the figure that its taken 1 trillion dollars to kill one million Iraqis, 10 to the 12
dollars divided by 10 to the sixth dead bodies yields a worth of each and every Iraqi dead body at a cool one million bucks. Don't like the one million Iraqis dead boopsie, and you really think the real figure is 151,000, then we spent on the order of 6.62 million bucks to kill each Iraqi. Giving new meaning to cheaper by the dozen.

Math man Math man Math man Mad man.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its time to bring out math man and heavy sarcasm to bear on this problem. Face the facts, we had to kill them to save them. And now that Saddam is dead, we must kill them to save them from the ghost of Saddam and Al-Quida. And if we assume Iraq had a population of 27 million people, its taken damn near five years to kill one million Iraqis and to exile another two million more. Getting Iraq down to 24 million population. And palehorse74 is then about on the money, at that rate its going to take another 40 years at that progress rate to get Iraqi down to zero population. And then all that lovely Iraqi oil will be ours, all ours.

But sadly, math man can't address the Iraqi birthrate so we must institute a program of birth control. And then we can hang a portrait of GWB in every empty Iraqi maternity ward.

But if we accept the figure that its taken 1 trillion dollars to kill one million Iraqis, 10 to the 12
dollars divided by 10 to the sixth dead bodies yields a worth of each and every Iraqi dead body at a cool one million bucks. Don't like the one million Iraqis dead boopsie, and you really think the real figure is 151,000, then we spent on the order of 6.62 million bucks to kill each Iraqi. Giving new meaning to cheaper by the dozen.

Math man Math man Math man Mad man.

You need to take some time off...go hiking. You're about one BDS notch away from Macro, and there's no turning back once that happens. For your own well being, please, get help.

Chuck

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: chucky2
You need to take some time off...go hiking. You're about one BDS notch away from Macro, and there's no turning back once that happens. For your own well being, please, get help.

I actually think he's surpassed Macro.

 

[Lemon law]

To Chuckie2 who sez---You need to take some time off...go hiking. You're about one BDS notch away from Macro, and there's no turning back once that happens. For your own well being, please, get help.

Chuck
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry Chuck if the truth hurts but its the truth. This is what the USA bought when we allowed GWB to be an optional war time President. I don't deny reality because those figures are sadly very very real. If it gives you a nightmare tonight, welcome to my world. I did not vote for GWB, did you?

Maybe some Rush Limbaugh happy pills might help alleviate your denial.