Iraq 6-3-07:14 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq

[Pens1566]

Most experts say that the violence in Iraq is not al-qaeda, but Shiite/Sunni locals killing each other. Now if these locals are joining up with al-qaeda, they sure weren't before we invaded and that is our fault.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
In the end, Iraq is a failure. We can't win because the people don't want to unite. We have a dividing Presidency and one without the brains to acknowledge mistakes and correct for them. We need to make a staggered pull out of Iraq, force a timetable, if we leave and it isn't done, then what else is there to do?

So you want to throw up a white flag, cut and run, and leave it at that. Sounds an awful lot like the cowards in a certain political party here. Or the propaganda being spewn from the mainstream media. Coincidence?

So again, I ask, when did an iraqi become worth less than an American? Did God somehow ordaine the US as the *ONLY* worthwhile people on the planet? Did he suddenly decree that the rest of his creation is worth 1/13 or 1/200th of an American? Since when did we become so cowardly that we can't make war without killing somebody else not associated with the war in the process?

Who has said that? And I don't believe this new "study" to be credible in the least. Of course liberals will jump all over anything with a nice figure on it to suit their political agenda, but I prefer to stay in reality. And I'm wondering ... name me a war where "somebody else not associated with the war" hasn't been killed? Innocents have always been killed in conflict.

Who are the real cowards? I say it's the people who are so chicken as to have to create proxy fights to maintain their safety.

The "real" cowards are those who would sacrifice everything this country stands for, everything we've accomplished, if it meant suiting their political agenda.

 

[ProfJohn]

To say some typing I'll just post what I said about this study from another thread:


The 655,000 dead study seems WAY off base with any sense of reality. That number is based on going around and asking people how many of their friends etc have died.

Researchers randomly selected 1,849 households across Iraq and asked questions about births and deaths and migration for the study led by Gilbert Burnham of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland.

To get to that high of a number it would take 500! deaths a day, and yet the recent headlines shouted that 2,600 civilians died in Sept, if the 655,00 figure was true the number of deaths in Sept would be more like 15,000.
Two years ago (right before another election, amazing how these types of number pop up before an election) this same group said the toll was 100,000. Now it's 655,000? Over 500,000 have died in the past 2 years? 275,000 a year? I find that hard to believe, if this was true how come there is not one other study or report that puts the number any where near that high?

One last thing, pre war Iraq was thought to have a population of 26 million, if the 655,000 figure is right then 1 out of every 50 Iraqis had died in 3 years? I doubt it.

 

[Genx87]

Is this another one of those reports where they estimate it between 300 and 7 million and go with the median?

Ill stick with what most people have determined through news reports and on the ground accounts. About 30-50K.

 

[ProfJohn]

Isn't it amazing that this group only seems to release study figure right before US elections. What are they doing in off election years?
Last study by them came out DAYS before the 2004 election. I guess we can call this an October surprise.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Ill stick with what most people have determined through news reports and on the ground accounts. About 30-50K.

Translation: I beleive everything my leaders tell me.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Pabster
So you want to throw up a white flag, cut and run, and leave it at that. Sounds an awful lot like the cowards in a certain political party here. Or the propaganda being spewn from the mainstream media. Coincidence?

Who has said that? And I don't believe this new "study" to be credible in the least. Of course liberals will jump all over anything with a nice figure on it to suit their political agenda, but I prefer to stay in reality. And I'm wondering ... name me a war where "somebody else not associated with the war" hasn't been killed? Innocents have always been killed in conflict.

The "real" cowards are those who would sacrifice everything this country stands for, everything we've accomplished, if it meant suiting their political agenda.

What other options are there? With 100 Iraqi's dying per day, a decent number of soldiers and billions wasted and nothing is improving, where is the incremental benefit? I am using analytical skills to determine whether this venture is a total loss or not. From that perspective, we should just consider everything else before this point a sunk cost and move on. It's sad to say, but throwing good money/lives after wasted money gets you nowhere.

I don't care if you consider the new study credible or not. Even if 60,000 have died, thats 1 American for every 20 Iraqis. Within the next month we will have had 3,000 Iraqis die, the same number of deaths as 9/11. Great job! Yes, innocents have always been killed in conflict, but that doesn't mean we should consider it a righteous thing, or something to say "well, they are dying and we aren't, so its A O.K. for them to die.

What does this country stand for? Freedom through fighting for your own rights. Freedom through compromise. Freedom of religion, speech, privacy. Freedom of equal protection under the law. Freedom that was fought for, taken from a monarchy, and is now being squandered. What America stands for is the antithesis of what we have done in Iraq. We have thrust our way of life upon another society, justifying it through lies and deceit. We have caused anarchy to another people and now lack the will to do what is neccessary to fix it.

People like you couldn't care less about what this country stand for. You beg like mewling kittens for the teet of security, suckling and crying for more. You vote party lines like a whipped dog and fail to acknowledge that your masters could be incorrect. You lack the mental fortitude to even question what has happened and whether we have the correct people in place to do what is right.

You sit, muted, docile, and whipped, saying that you have nothing to hide and only want to be safe, dragging everybody else with you. It's sad really, because you think you know history but you know only of what the revisionists want to you know. You think might makes right and security means freedom.

You are confused.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Genx87

Ill stick with what most people have determined through news reports and on the ground accounts. About 30-50K.

Translation: I beleive everything my leaders tell me.

Yes, because iraqibodycount.org is my leader dumbass.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Genx87

Ill stick with what most people have determined through news reports and on the ground accounts. About 30-50K.

Translation: I beleive everything my leaders tell me.

Yes, because iraqibodycount.org is my leader dumbass.

Website not found. Don't you realize your stupidity by beleiving the same news sources and government statements that said Saddam had WMDs?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Genx87

Ill stick with what most people have determined through news reports and on the ground accounts. About 30-50K.

Translation: I beleive everything my leaders tell me.

Yes, because iraqibodycount.org is my leader dumbass.

Website not found. Don't you realize your stupidity by beleiving the same news sources and government statements that said Saddam had WMDs?

I see the label I gave you is proving itself again.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

That was totally difficult to find. There is this thing called google, try it some time.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Isn't it amazing that this group only seems to release study figure right before US elections. What are they doing in off election years?
Last study by them came out DAYS before the 2004 election. I guess we can call this an October surprise.

SAounds like a good time to release it so the American Public can see how bad Bush and Co have been fopr America and the World in General.

Frankly I think the world would be a better place today if Bushes Mother had aborted him. There'd be a lot more people alive if she had!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Genx87

Ill stick with what most people have determined through news reports and on the ground accounts. About 30-50K.

Translation: I beleive everything my leaders tell me.

Yes, because iraqibodycount.org is my leader dumbass.

Website not found. Don't you realize your stupidity by beleiving the same news sources and government statements that said Saddam had WMDs?

Green... the web site is www.iraqbodycount.net and it is run by a British group. Go to www.antiwar.com and you will see they linked to this site as well. So I guess even some of the anti-war crowd trusts them.

So much for this being a government news source.

Personally, I would not be surprised to hear the number is around 100,000 but the 655,000 seems just WAY to high. 1 out of every 50 people in Iraq dead, there is no way that would not be noticed by every one who is there or has been there, and I see no stories about that.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Isn't it amazing that this group only seems to release study figure right before US elections. What are they doing in off election years?
Last study by them came out DAYS before the 2004 election. I guess we can call this an October surprise.

Not every single bad piece of news is politically motivated. The sooner you stop viewing every single fact, every item, through you rpolitics, the better off you will be as a human being.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Genx87

Ill stick with what most people have determined through news reports and on the ground accounts. About 30-50K.

Translation: I beleive everything my leaders tell me.

Yes, because iraqibodycount.org is my leader dumbass.

Website not found. Don't you realize your stupidity by beleiving the same news sources and government statements that said Saddam had WMDs?

Green... the web site is www.iraqbodycount.net and it is run by a British group. Go to www.antiwar.com and you will see they linked to this site as well. So I guess even some of the anti-war crowd trusts them.

So much for this being a government news source.

Personally, I would not be surprised to hear the number is around 100,000 but the 655,000 seems just WAY to high. 1 out of every 50 people in Iraq dead, there is no way that would not be noticed by every one who is there or has been there, and I see no stories about that.

Ever seen stories about China's and NK's atrocities?

The 655,000 is not just the dead from murder.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Genx87

Ill stick with what most people have determined through news reports and on the ground accounts. About 30-50K.

Translation: I beleive everything my leaders tell me.

Yes, because iraqibodycount.org is my leader dumbass.

Website not found. Don't you realize your stupidity by beleiving the same news sources and government statements that said Saddam had WMDs?

Green... the web site is www.iraqbodycount.net and it is run by a British group. Go to www.antiwar.com and you will see they linked to this site as well. So I guess even some of the anti-war crowd trusts them.

So much for this being a government news source.

Personally, I would not be surprised to hear the number is around 100,000 but the 655,000 seems just WAY to high. 1 out of every 50 people in Iraq dead, there is no way that would not be noticed by every one who is there or has been there, and I see no stories about that.

I even agree that ~660k is way over. From reports it is ~100/day. Considering we have been there about 3.5yr, that equates to about 100-122k. Even if to take a swag that we might not see 100%, but maybe 80% of all casualties, then the number would be ~160,000.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Genx87

Ill stick with what most people have determined through news reports and on the ground accounts. About 30-50K.

Translation: I beleive everything my leaders tell me.

Yes, because iraqibodycount.org is my leader dumbass.

Website not found. Don't you realize your stupidity by beleiving the same news sources and government statements that said Saddam had WMDs?

Green... the web site is www.iraqbodycount.net and it is run by a British group. Go to www.antiwar.com and you will see they linked to this site as well. So I guess even some of the anti-war crowd trusts them.

So much for this being a government news source.

Personally, I would not be surprised to hear the number is around 100,000 but the 655,000 seems just WAY to high. 1 out of every 50 people in Iraq dead, there is no way that would not be noticed by every one who is there or has been there, and I see no stories about that.

I even agree that ~660k is way over. From reports it is ~100/day. Considering we have been there about 3.5yr, that equates to about 100-122k. Even if to take a swag that we might not see 100%, but maybe 80% of all casualties, then the number would be ~160,000.

Well Bush lied about Saddam and his WMDs which actually led to the war. I don't see why it would be hard for him the lie about the casualties even by such a margin.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Isn't it amazing that this group only seems to release study figure right before US elections. What are they doing in off election years?
Last study by them came out DAYS before the 2004 election. I guess we can call this an October surprise.

SAounds like a good time to release it so the American Public can see how bad Bush and Co have been fopr America and the World in General.

Frankly I think the world would be a better place today if Bushes Mother had aborted him. There'd be a lot more people alive if she had!

Nice... were you one of the people complaining when William Bennett said that if we just aborted all black babies there would be less crime?
Here I'll just post what you said about Bennett's comment:

You have to admit it was a very foolish thing of him to say.

I agree, and what you said is foolish as well.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Well Bush lied about Saddam and his WMDs which actually led to the war. I don't see why it would be hard for him the lie about the casualties even by such a margin.

HELLO!!!! Bush isn't making statements about the number of dead. At most he is repeating what others are saying in their reports!!

When Bush or another member of the government comes out and says "This many people have died" then let me know.

EDIT: Oh I forgot... Bush did not LIE about WMD here is an example Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying great site to debunk the "he lied" stories you seem to be passing along as fact.

 

[misle]

I did not read through this entire thread, so forgive me if this was already mentioned:

War started March 20th, 2003. So it has been going on for 3 years and 7 months. Roughly estimating, that's 1305 days.
655,000/1305 = 501.92 Iraqi's dying every day

That seems absurdly high.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Isn't it amazing that this group only seems to release study figure right before US elections. What are they doing in off election years?
Last study by them came out DAYS before the 2004 election. I guess we can call this an October surprise.

SAounds like a good time to release it so the American Public can see how bad Bush and Co have been fopr America and the World in General.

Frankly I think the world would be a better place today if Bushes Mother had aborted him. There'd be a lot more people alive if she had!

Nice... were you one of the people complaining when William Bennett said that if we just aborted all black babies there would be less crime?
Here I'll just post what you said about Bennett's comment:

You have to admit it was a very foolish thing of him to say.

I agree, and what you said is foolish as well.

How would you know what I said about Bennett's comment, you weren't a member here then....or were you???

Busted!

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Isn't it amazing that this group only seems to release study figure right before US elections. What are they doing in off election years?
Last study by them came out DAYS before the 2004 election. I guess we can call this an October surprise.

SAounds like a good time to release it so the American Public can see how bad Bush and Co have been fopr America and the World in General.

Frankly I think the world would be a better place today if Bushes Mother had aborted him. There'd be a lot more people alive if she had!

Nice... were you one of the people complaining when William Bennett said that if we just aborted all black babies there would be less crime?
Here I'll just post what you said about Bennett's comment:

You have to admit it was a very foolish thing of him to say.

I agree, and what you said is foolish as well.

How would you know what I said about Bennett's comment, you weren't a member here then....or were you???

Busted!

Where's that mod from the other day who wanted evidence?

 

[Harvey]

It doesn't matter which numbers, or any in between, are correct. Even if the higher numbers are wildly inflated, the Bushwhacko "reasons" for starting their war was based entirely on lies, and they've created such a fuster cluck of a hell hole that the real numbers, their lies, and the further treason and grievous offenses they've committed against the U.S. Constitution and the American people in the name of those lies still condemn them to the sh8heap of history. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
In fact, I voted for Bush on 2000. Here are some other facts.

1. Yellowcake was a farce, Bush mis-attributed the "intelligence" to the US when in fact it was UK. We didn't corroborate it but took it as sworn word from a known liar. We cherry picked.

2. Alumimum tubes was a farce. Bush had ample evidence that they were rocket tubes and no evidence they were centrifuge materials, but he dismissed all evidence and went with what could justify a war.

3. Bush tried to link OBL to Saddam but came up flat, even now they utter the two in the same sentance even though neither had anything to do with eachother.

4. Analyst reports to the contrary of all above information were summarily dismissed, altered, or buried. Intelligence information released to Congress has to go through the bureaucracy, politically appointed by Bush, and then is filter-released to Congress, so oversight is measured and filtered. So your excuse of "Congress got the same info" is BS. They got altered, cherry picked, and pro-war info. The conclusion was predestined.

5. Bush bypassed the Fadayeen to go after a symbolic target (Baghdad), ignoring military doctrine and the history of the past 100 years.

6. Bush allowed what was left of the Iraqi military to dissolve and go over to the insurgency. We should have paid to keep them.

7. Bush ignored military doctrine of overwhelming force and dictated a smaller force (Rummy by proxy) and then stretched the military thin.

8. Only politically reliable companies or people were targeted to rebuild Iraq. They didn't send the best for the job, they sent the best for their own interests.

9. The federal debt has gone from 6 TRILLION to 9 TRILLION in 6 years, 50% increase under one President. We see record trade and budget deficits.

10. The biggest crackdown and abuse of rights in history.


All of that was built upon the mantle of religious and moral conservatism, intending to usurp others rights while waving the flag of righteousness to froth the wrong type of conservatives. He and the "Republican" party has used wedge issues to blind the country to the real issues facing us. He and those who are power have used fear to intimidate us.

This President, eventually, will be known as the most tyrranical and ruinous President in history. Fools will still support him, saying he is/was ordained by God, because thats what he wants them to think. It's sad really, considering that these morons have no idea what this country means.

Do me a favor Corbett. Next time you are in DC and walking the memorials, shoot me a PM. I want to go there with you and have you read some of the famous quotes of men far better than your King/President and you, I want to see what you think of the warnings, the fears, and the hopes of people who actually stood up for their rights and shouted that fear, tyrrany, and absolute power should not rule.

I don't know how anybody can walk through those monuments, read the quotes, understand the people, can still come out the other side thinking that this country is doing the right thing.

If youw ant to think Bush lied to us then that is your problem. I see no reason for him to lie to us in order to invade Iraq. What was the point? Oil? Global takeover? Halliburton? What was the reason?

You are missing the big picture here. Knowing what we know now, I doubt we would have made the same decision to invade Iraq. But that doesnt mean we just leave Iraq in the state it is in. We have not had an attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 and that is the bottom line.

Let me ask you a question. Where is Al-Queda focussed right now? IRAQ! Reguardless of our reasons for entering Iraq, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 ARE THERE NOW! Nobody can deny that. So shouldnt we stay there until we eliminate each and every one of them? Thats what I believe.

Yes, hind-sight is 20/20, bu the argument that GWB lied to go to Iraq is now moot because they are there now and we are slowly taking them out. I'd rather have our brave troops fighting terrorists in Iraq rather then our civilian loved ones killed by them here in America.

The question of whether or not gwb lied is not moot, since it is critical in determining whether or not you want a president and congress reelected.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
In the end, Iraq is a failure. We can't win because the people don't want to unite. We have a dividing Presidency and one without the brains to acknowledge mistakes and correct for them. We need to make a staggered pull out of Iraq, force a timetable, if we leave and it isn't done, then what else is there to do?

So you want to throw up a white flag, cut and run, and leave it at that. Sounds an awful lot like the cowards in a certain political party here. Or the propaganda being spewn from the mainstream media. Coincidence?

I would rather be a "coward" than a fool such as yourself.

Innocents have always been killed in conflict.

and thats supposed to make it right?

Who are the real cowards? I say it's the people who are so chicken as to have to create proxy fights to maintain their safety.

The "real" cowards are those who would sacrifice everything this country stands for, everything we've accomplished, if it meant suiting their political agenda.

so then, you are the coward, eh?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
To say some typing I'll just post what I said about this study from another thread:


The 655,000 dead study seems WAY off base with any sense of reality. That number is based on going around and asking people how many of their friends etc have died.

Researchers randomly selected 1,849 households across Iraq and asked questions about births and deaths and migration for the study led by Gilbert Burnham of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland.

To get to that high of a number it would take 500! deaths a day, and yet the recent headlines shouted that 2,600 civilians died in Sept, if the 655,00 figure was true the number of deaths in Sept would be more like 15,000.
Two years ago (right before another election, amazing how these types of number pop up before an election) this same group said the toll was 100,000. Now it's 655,000? Over 500,000 have died in the past 2 years? 275,000 a year? I find that hard to believe, if this was true how come there is not one other study or report that puts the number any where near that high?

One last thing, pre war Iraq was thought to have a population of 26 million, if the 655,000 figure is right then 1 out of every 50 Iraqis had died in 3 years? I doubt it.

This is not a study of how many people were killed by hostile fire, its a survey of the number of deaths caused by any factor associated with the war, which includes disease, starvation, and many other causes. That said, I find it to be resonable considering that definition.