-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Iraq Conflict Has Killed A Million Iraqis
Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Lemon law
Lifer
==========================================================
To explain it to you Corn, much of this type of killing is driven by Shia ethnic cleansing. And the simple metric is that if some Sunni family reports to the Iraqi police that a member of their family has been killed by ethnic cleansing, the Iraqi police who are now dominated by the same Shia insurgents that killed their relative now simply informs the people that killed their original family member that the rest of the family needs to be killed also.
If you don't think that is what is often happening in Iraq, its you who are talking out of your ass.
Corn
Diamond Member
89% of the 1 million deaths reported in the ORB study are the direct result of violent acts. That would leave at most 110,000 killed by disease or other medical maladies. Certainly not enough to increase the body count by a factor of 7.
Also found on the wiki link:
Quite a swing in the range I'd say, further evidence to the unreliability of this survey.
Lemon law
Lifer
Now TLC comes back with the claim---------I have the WHO study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. They have double the sampling of your study too.
MY STUDY KICKS THE CRAP OUT OF YOUR STUDY BECAUSE IT'S TWICE AS BIG AND IT HAS MORE CACHE.
So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will concede that the New England Journal of Medicine is scientifically credible---------but would you please show a link to the study YOU CLAIM TO HAVE PUBLISHED THEIRIN.
Or are you simply citing more fiction and there is no such work making you into even a bigger liar.
Put up or shut up. The lancet study does indeed exist.
MY STUDY KICKS THE CRAP OUT OF YOUR STUDY BECAUSE IT'S TWICE AS BIG AND IT HAS MORE CACHE.
So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will concede that the New England Journal of Medicine is scientifically credible---------but would you please show a link to the study YOU CLAIM TO HAVE PUBLISHED THEIRIN.
Or are you simply citing more fiction and there is no such work making you into even a bigger liar.
Put up or shut up. The lancet study does indeed exist.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
Are you claiming the study I am citing does not exist?
Or did you not actually bother reading through this entire thread?
My guess, and it's not really a guess, would be the latter and not the former.
Corn
Diamond Member
You're telling me the act of reporting a murder will invite another murder. Why exactly?.......will the murdering Shia police then know where some more cockroach Sunnis live because they reported the murder....but wait, didn't they just murder a known Sunni? Why spare the the rest of the family, becuase they won't report the murder?
Bullshit.
[edit]
Now I'm not claiming that some murders don't go unreported, but to expect me to believe that 90-95% aren't reported is absurd to the extreme. But then again, absurdity is your middle name.
Lemon law
Lifer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I took a very look at the study. First of all its very dated cutting off in 6/2006, second it cited security reasons for not actually surveying the most violence prone regions, and third it conflicts with two other highly regarded studies. Methodologies and not raw sample size are the gold standards. Even if one accepts it as accurate and assumes violent death rates as constant, their 151,000 estimate would translate into about 215,000 today.
I can't believe people don't actually run the numbers on these things to think for themselves.
What a said and pathetic lot you fools are.
Do the simple math, we have been in Iraq for somewhere around 1750 days.
If you divide 1 million deaths by 1750 days then that comes to 570 deaths per day due to violence.
Now I know ever the most brainwashed of anti-war libs can realize that 570 deaths is an outrageous number that is virtually impossible to be believable.
So basically you have to take the bloodiest day since the war began and then triple it and have it happen everyday for the past 5 years to reach 1 million deaths.
Use your heads people.......
What a said and pathetic lot you fools are.
Do the simple math, we have been in Iraq for somewhere around 1750 days.
If you divide 1 million deaths by 1750 days then that comes to 570 deaths per day due to violence.
Now I know ever the most brainwashed of anti-war libs can realize that 570 deaths is an outrageous number that is virtually impossible to be believable.
So basically you have to take the bloodiest day since the war began and then triple it and have it happen everyday for the past 5 years to reach 1 million deaths.
Use your heads people.......
Lemon law
Lifer
The Deadalus delusion is------So basically you have to take the bloodiest day since the war began.
But those are just the big bombings while the US troops try to patrol a small fraction of the streets during the day time hours.
Its the NIGHTS that belong to the ethnic cleansing death squads. While all the good US troops are tucked snug in their beds.
And they take one here, and two there, and they find their dead bodies next morning. Iraq is a very big place. Lots of busy death squads, lots of nights, with any police protection worse than useless because many of the Iraqi police are the death squads or in bed with them.
But those are just the big bombings while the US troops try to patrol a small fraction of the streets during the day time hours.
Its the NIGHTS that belong to the ethnic cleansing death squads. While all the good US troops are tucked snug in their beds.
And they take one here, and two there, and they find their dead bodies next morning. Iraq is a very big place. Lots of busy death squads, lots of nights, with any police protection worse than useless because many of the Iraqi police are the death squads or in bed with them.
Corn
Diamond Member
Excuse me, but the ORB study also didn't visit some areas because of security concerns (amongst others):
From the horse's (that would be ORB) mouth. Click me.
I also don't assume the death rate is constant, not by a long shot. If I remember correctly, a wild bunch of lefties claim the recent "success" of the surge in reducing violent attacks resulted from a good portion of the the country being ethnically cleansed. You wouldn't have been one of those lefties that stated such a thing would you? Please tell me you would not be so intellectually dishonest to acknowledge a lower rate in violence a couple months ago yet today are assuming the death rate as constant........would you? Oh wait, I guess you would.
Try again.
Agreeing to disagree is fine, especially in light of no one really knows what the overall end goals are from the top...and how they will be taken forward by the next POTUS...and then there's always the Iraqi's who have the final say. No one knows, the best anyone can do is theory...
First, again, most of that money is going back into our economy. It doesn't matter if it's into defence contractor pockets, all that money is taxed, all that money is re-invested, etc. Yes it's sh1tloads of money, Yes it's way more than it should have been (namely because the Iraqi's decided they wanted to vent, which is where the number being debated in this thread came about), and Yes some of it would have been better spent elsewhere. I say some because only the most rabid Socialists we have in Congress would have signed up to spend anywhere close to the money that's been spent on Iraq for Domestic use. So saying all the money that's been allocated to Iraq would have been spent on Domestic programs is just a complete fallacy - it would have never happened in the first place.
Yep, oil sure has gone up, no doubt about that. Has it added hundreds of Billions of cost to our economy? I seriously think not. While you're still searching for your solidiers kill/maim/steal/rape Iraqi's link, can you find a link to that too? Not from anti-war.org, like, a credible source. Thanks.
This I don't disagree with you on. Going into Iraq we should never have taken our eyes off Afghanistan and Pakistan, Period. Very wierd logic you have here: You want US to be interventionist, but you use Afghanistan as a great example...were we did the exact same thing there as what we did in Iraq. Only difference? The people there didn't decide to tear themselves apart.
Maybe the Iraqi's could use that as an example as well...
Chuck
Lemon law
Lifer
To Corn who notes---I also don't assume the death rate is constant, not by a long shot. If I remember correctly, a wild bunch of lefties claim the recent "success" of the surge in reducing violent attacks resulted from a good portion of the the country being ethnically cleansed.
In terms of Iraqi violence, the period from the end NEJ study in 6/2006 to present saw a great increase in violence from 6/2006 until about 6/2007. Followed by a lowering of violence that has lasted some six months and counting. But there has indeed been a great increase in Iraqis fleeing Iraq in early 2007.
But you still misread my post, I said IF we assume the death rates are constant then 151,000 then would translate into 215,000 today. The facts are that believers in the NEJ study can probably assume the 215,000 number was achieved well before 6/2007 when violence started decreasing.
In terms of Iraqi violence, the period from the end NEJ study in 6/2006 to present saw a great increase in violence from 6/2006 until about 6/2007. Followed by a lowering of violence that has lasted some six months and counting. But there has indeed been a great increase in Iraqis fleeing Iraq in early 2007.
But you still misread my post, I said IF we assume the death rates are constant then 151,000 then would translate into 215,000 today. The facts are that believers in the NEJ study can probably assume the 215,000 number was achieved well before 6/2007 when violence started decreasing.
First of all, we will get no discounted oil. Oil is a global commodity. Secondly saying that staying in Iraq is somehow preventing terrorist attacks in the US is extremely dubious reasoning. If anything our invasion of Iraq has increased the numbers and resources of people wishing to do us harm here in America. (yes, in America, not in Iraq although that's now a whole ton of people too). The 'we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here' argument relies on specious reasoning, and has no basis in fact or analysis.
In Pakistan the reason Musharraf doesn't attack the Taliban/AQ in his northeast is because he can't. His troops come from a lot of the tribes in those areas and they simply won't fight those people a lot of the time. To launch a large scale operation there would almost certainly lead to the overthrow of his government. A threatened US attack would not change this, but would just further galvanize the opposition. In short, using our military to threaten these countries is the absolute worst thing we could possibly do. Doing nothing is vastly preferable. Not only is it cheaper, but using our military actively damages our cause.
I think your perception of Iraq as compared to Vietnam, Algeria, Panama, etc. is naive. Hell, we claimed we were there to help Panama too. Countries on imperialist ventures always say this. It's almost like it's required on the invasion checklist. Last time I was in Panama city I saw a group of about 20 homeless people living in a burned out house right across from the (heavily guarded, fortress like) presidential palace. Changing a country for the better through invasion has an atrocious historical record. There is no reason to believe that Iraq will buck this trend. If anything the first few years of occupation indicate that it will be even worse then normal.
Corn
Diamond Member
Fair enough, but you still haven't given a legitimate reason why the NEJ study is deficient when compared to the ORB study. My opinion is that any survey where the results are based on unverified answers from a sample of .01% of the population nets a bogus result, at best a guess. You might as well put numbers on a dart board and blindfold the player.
If Iraq continues to improve, and there isn't a mass radicalizing of the government there (cough, Iran, cough), you can bet we'll be getting discounted oil, global commodity or not. And I never said it was magically preventing terrorist attacks today, my point all along is that Iraq is a long term benefit - if handled right.
If Musharraf isn't willing to go after these loony POS's, then that's fine - but there's no reason to prevent our SF types from going in there and cleaning them out. The opposition is already the opposition there, you ain't going to be doing much more damage by going in. Taking a head in the sand approach up there has already made the job that needs to be done there that much tougher.
The last time you were in Japan, or N. Korea, or the Philipeans, did you see the same thing? Wierdly, when the US wants to make it happen, and the people there band together to make it happen too, we've got a pretty decent track record. The Iraqi's are getting decades of hate, frustration, and repression out of their system...for us the only bad part of that is we get caught up in that, either directly or indirectly. Whether it's because areas have formed along religious lines and/or because they're getting it out of their systems is not totally clear (and most likely it's a mixture of both), but the fact is things are improving in Iraq. What's the next excuse from the America is an Imperialistic POS crowd when in 7-10 years Iraq is years ahead of where it ever was, has no brutal repressive dictator to worry about (and neither does the rest of the world), is a model of something good in the ME, and a source of gain for us (reduced ((from what they would be)) oil costs, oil availabiity, intelligence, etc)? Is the excuse then going to be that that all would have happened naturally had we not gone in..that the people would have overthrown Saddam themselves?
Again, if not going into Iraq to start affecting real change for long term benefit in the ME, what is the solution to changing the whole mindset over there of The West? How are you going to go about doing that when the Leadership over there (political and especially religious) brainwashes and/or represses their people?
Chuck
How are we going to get discounted oil? Who is going to be sold this oil, and how is it going to get back to the consumer? The only way our oil is going to get any cheaper is if Iraq gets more production online and lowers the global prices of oil. Unfortunately this has been another catastrophic byproduct of the invasion. Oil production is still lower then it was when we were artifically restricting it through sanctions. That's pathetic. (at least it was lower then prewar levels last time I checked. If it's higher now, it's not much higher)
Musharraf allowing US troops to go root these people out in Pakistan would lead to his overthrow even more certainly then if he used his own troops. If US soldiers are known to be operating in Pakistan with Musharraf's permission, his government is GONE. In a second.
If you look at most commonly measured indicatiors of quality of life in Iraq they are still frequently below how prewar Iraq was, ie. a country devastated by more then a decade of incredibly harsh economic sanctions. This is not what I call improvement. In addition the comparison of postwar Japan and Iraq is not valid. In Japan there was no insurgency, our occupation was blessed by the Japanese government, and they had a first class educated citizenry and enduring governmental institutions to fall back on. Iraq has none of these things, and shows no signs of developing them. Our track record is actually exceptionally poor when it comes to what you're talking about. It's no worse then anyone else's... but that's not saying much.
You're asking what people's excuse will be for Iraq when its great 7-10 years from now? Simply put, it won't be. That's not a realistic assessment. I know of no credible source predicting near term (ie. 5-10 year) Iraqi economic success.
Six-figure tax-free salaries are commonplace for civilian contractors; it's a well known fact.
As for the defense contractors themselves, they are enjoying big corporate tax breaks, or even moving overseas to avoid US taxes altogether, like Halliburton recently did.
That money is ending up as personal profit for a small percentage of our nation involved with defense contractors. As for soldiers in our armed services, pay is as meager as ever. And the rest of us back home? We're being taxed to pay for it all; if not now, then in the future. You can't make $1 trillion appear out of thin air. If you borrow or print it, it will directly affect our domestic economy.
You're right, because even very large domestic programs are far less cheaper to fund than wars. You could pay the yearly tuition of every college student in a medium-sized state with the $275 million we spend per day in Iraq.
NY Times It's actually a conservative estimate, only attributing $5 of the large increase in oil prices to the war. Also, since the article was written, oil has jumped up to $90/barrel. Also, if you're wondering who Bilmes and Stiglitz are, one works for Harvard, the other is a Nobel Laureate.
You're completely wrong here. Afghanistan wasn't an interventionist action. Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. They were sheltered by the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan, which made the actions of 9/11 an act of war on our nation. Our invasion was in direct response to it.
Iraq was not responsible for 9/11, had no WMDs and had no ties to al-Qaeda (according to our own government reports). Removing a leader we deemed 'unfriendly' to the west in a pre-emptive war was an interventionist action.
Bowfinger
Lifer
The only one you make look stupid is yourself. Indeed, it's one of your defining characteristics.
Your belligerent assertions are no better supported than those you attack. The OP is based on the estimates from one study. Your counter is based on estimates from a different study. Both are good-faith attempts using sound statistical analysis techniques. Neither is infallible or definitive. The survey you linked acknowledges it likely underestimates casualties due to at least two factors. It is also over 1.5 years out of date.
What is really key is both studies show Bush's attack on Iraq has resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, a horrific slaughter of people who were largely guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is a shameful legacy for the Bush regime and its many sycophants.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
Nice admission that I actually did link to a study and that your statement was made out of pure ignorance, one of your defining characteristics. All your additional rhetorical handwaving, another of your defining characteristics (Firmly rooted in your BDS-dom), does nothing to hide that fact.
Bowfinger
Lifer
Sorry, forgot you were reading impaired. The key word here is "proof". You attacked JohnOf Sheffield for failing to offer "proof" (beyond the study in the OP, of course, given that that's the subject of this thread). I merely pointed out that you also failed to offer any "proof", that your study is no more "infallible or definitive" than the OP. (I helpfully bolded the word in the exchange above for the convenience of those similarly impaired.)
My comment, "Your belligerent assertions are no better supported than those you attack." might have been a clue for you had you not been in such a frothing rush to launch another attack out of your ass. Yet another fine example of you making yourself look stupid. Good work, go with your strengths.
What is really key is both studies show Bush's attack on Iraq has resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, a horrific slaughter of people who were largely guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is a shameful legacy for the Bush regime and its many sycophants.
Toodles.
SoundTheSurrender
Diamond Member
I've gotten stories out of drunk army people and the stories they've told me are sick.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
