BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 10:47 AM

Sorry Ron Davies, but the anti-war faction ain't gonna let Kerry off the hook. Kerry is pro-war on Iraq. He voted for it, and his official campaign position is he will stay the course if elected.

Even if it means another 100,000 Iraqi civilians will die.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 11:17 PM

I'm not too sure what percentage I fall in but I'd like to see Saddam back where he was prior to the invasion, have the dead 100,000 Itaqis back and alive, the 1200 dead Americans back and alive, the countless number of folks who will be disabled for undisabled and the Inspectors still doing ytheir jobs looking for WMD...

What a disasterous foreign policy built only on the profits of the "masters of war"...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 10:55 PM

"Authority to go to war" is not, as some might think, a blank check, but an expression of trust in the president, to go to war, if necessary, as a last resort.

Kerry and the rest of us have learned to our sorrow that we could not in fact trust this president to make this momentous decision. In fact we have learned he can't be trusted to make the right decision on virtually any issue.

Just for that one wrong decision, responsible for killing large numbers of people (we can argue about the numbers), he richly deserves to be voted out.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 03:53 PM

"70% of Americans "support the idea of a public broadcast of Hussein's execution"?..." This statement in itself is enough, imo, to discret its validity. I don't believe the stat for one moment. We don't even have that percentage of Americans that support the death penalty. Going from supporting the death penalty to wishing to watch an execution is a very big leap indeed.

Keep in mind that if Saddam is executed, the event will most likely be in Iraq- and the Iraqis do not have a tradition of using the needle. That means that the likely means of killing him would be by firing squad, hanging or beheading. Messy. Most of us Americans do not have the stomach for it. Heck, I even avert my eyes in the movies.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Peace
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 03:49 PM

Sorry, pdq, I cross posted with you. What you point out is good. The numbers are wide.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Peace
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 03:41 PM

REUTERS
8:04 a.m. October 28, 2004

LONDON – Deaths of Iraqis have soared by 100,000 since the start of the Iraq war and many of the victims have been women and children, public health experts from the United States said on Thursday.

"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland said in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal.


The above is from a Google of

iraqi deaths in war

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: pdq
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 03:39 PM

100,000 Dead—or 8,000
How many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 3:49 PM PT

The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.

The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.

                            continue here
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 03:02 PM

"Bush has a lot of blood on his hands."

As does John Kerry, and every US Congressional representative that voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. Any attempts to simply hang the responsibility for the war on the Bush administration and the Republican party, are reprehensible.

John Kerry and the Democrats who voted for the authorization have just as much blood on their hands as Bush and the Republicans who voted for it.

"Frankly, If John Hopkins, Columbia medical school and the Lancet are willing to put their name on the study, I'm not inclined to question the math or the methodology."

I agree. This wasn't a political poll. It was a medical study. Those who conducted the field study were mostly Iraqi doctors, not just Iraqis. Of course, the proponents of the war on Iraq in both Britain and the US are busy denouncing this study as "flawed". I wouldn't expect otherwise.

I'm with Jack, though. While many of those involved in the study likely were opposed to the war, that doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing a sound medical study on the medical effects of the war objectively and in accordance with current medical research standards.

Was the timing of the research being released political? Yes. The researchers have said it was intended to be both political, and timed to come out before the election. Does that mean the research is flawed? Absolutely not.

And anyway, I'm quite certain the timing won't matter any way. This story simply isn't being covered by the US media, and it was released too late in the game to have any effect on the election.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 06:01 PM

Wolfgang there has been so much propaganda about who was killed by "the sanctions" and when they were killed is a challenge. Wasn't oil for food touted as saving tens of thousands of lives? Wasn't oil for food a response to the sanctions? Isn't talking about the people who died from the sanctions a red herring.

Frankly, If John Hopkins, Columbia medical school and the Lancet are willing to put their name on the study, I'm not inclined to question the math or the methodology.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 04:58 PM

Arnie - As I explained, Saddam was armed and backed by the USA and Britain and various other countries for a purpose...to destroy the Iranian Islamic Revolution by invading Iran in the '80's. He failed in that purpose. Following that fiasco he did more stupid aggressive things, having been very well armed by the USA and its allies, but he was no longer very useful to them. He became a liability. They decided to get rid of him and get Iraq's oil at the same time.

If you are trying to prove that Saddam used the deaths of innocent Iraqis to play politics, then I am sure you are absolutely right! It would be foolish not to think he would do that. After all, it's exactly the sort of thing the USA does regularly...use the deaths of innocent people to justify unjustifiable policies, such as unprovoked aggression and the murder of thousands with high tech weaponry.

Saddam is the ugly face of those in the State Department who backed him, reflected in the mirror of your consciousness. If you hate him, then maybe you should question the legitimacy of the people in the US government who backed him up when they found it convenient to. They are just as guilty as he is, and several of them are key people in the present Bush administration. They have used him as the false face to justify attacking a small country and robbing it of its resources.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 01:47 PM

Saddam's dead baby parade

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 01:39 PM

Sorry I screwed up the link. You have to select for yourself the clip of Shatner performing Rocketman in 1978.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 01:33 PM

Confidence levels of 95%. Relative risk ratios (without Falluja) 1.1-2.3. Statistically insignificant. Meaningless. But the Lancet fast-tracks (why?) the publication of this, and the Guardian runs with it. Getting harder to be a discriminating reader these days.

link

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Metchosin
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 01:30 PM

Whoowee! Billy Joe just killed our sheep! Lets go hang Billy Bob!

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 01:28 PM

I agree with McGrath, it is uncertain. I have been merely extrapolating all this time -- as has everyone. There was a UNICEF report (forget which one) which seemed to be done carefully early on with reports from doctors and nurses who at that time still had a functioning clinic system and so on (one of the problems is that child mortality figures are very difficult to assess if your medical system is broken -- children die of dysentery, complications, etc. at home. Unless children are being taken regularly to clinics, and so on, the numbers are guesswork.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 01:16 PM

I have studied the numbers available from various desk studies,

The point about this report is that it isn't based on desk studies, but on sampling. That's a fallible method, too. It's going to be a long time, if ever, before accurate figures can be estalished.

The people in charge of the invasion and occupation have made it very clear that they are not interested in gathering those kind of statistics (though I believe they had a legal duty to do so), and that has made it far harder than it should be for accurate figures to be determined.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Metchosin
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 01:07 PM

and 70% of Americans "support the idea of a public broadcast of Hussein's execution"?...the only thing that has changed much in 150 years in the US mind is the ability to order in, instead of packing a picnic lunch....such is the progress of western civilzation...pretty tragic all round.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 12:50 PM

Correct, Peter. Huge numbers of Iraqis were dying unnecessarily a long time ago, ever since the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's, and you can place the blame for that squarely upon both Saddam AND his British and American backers. First they armed him to fight Iran. They gave him chemical weapons which he used on Iranians and Kurds. He fought Iran uselessly for 8 years and killed a tremendous number of people. Having failed to destroy Iran, Saddam started becoming a liability, so they suckered him into thinking they would do absolutely nothing if he invaded Kuwait, and when he did invade Kuwait, then they smashed up his army and massacred about a hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers, and bombed his country. They also encouraged the Shiites to rise in a revolt and then did nothing to help them, and Saddam slaughtered the Shiites. They then put sanctinos on Iraq for over 10 years which caused the deaths of hundreds thousands more Iraqis and the ruination of the country. They also continued bombing Iraq off and on throughout that period. They finally delivered the coup de grace in the recent war, wrecking most of what remained in that country. Its national museums were pillaged of priceless artifacts from one of the most ancient civilizations on Earth. One wonders who got those artifacts? I bet a lot of them are in London and Washington now, but not out for public display anywhere, needless to say.

Saddam is to blame...as a former hired man of the USA and Britain. The USA and Britain are to blame as those who hired him and armed him and those who later used him as their pet boogyman to invade a country which had done nothing whatsoever to them, but had a whole lot of oil.

I wouldn't be all that surprised if Saddam was going insane, given his general circumstances. Nor would I be all that surprised if it was just a phony story made up to keep him from going to trial or to discredit what he might say at that trial. He could name names and cause a whole lot of trouble, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Peter T.
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 11:47 AM

The tragedy is that Iraq, contrary to the images, is mostly an urban country, and when you wreck power lines, destroy sewage treatment plants, and desecrate hospitals, these kinds of numbers are inevitable. I personally don't believe that the numbers have gone up in any drastic way -- and I have studied the numbers available from various desk studies, etc. -- the child mortality figures began spiralling up during the cutbacks created during the Iran-Iraq War in the 80's, and as far as I can figure, have remained steadily awful, probably at about 100,000 unnecessary deaths per year. There has been no respite, except a brief lull in 1990-1991. Saddam was a monster, the people wrecking the electrical system (in spite of gallant attempts to keep things going) are terrorists, and the Americans still refuse to deal with the dimensions of what they precipitated.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 11:33 AM

Here's some links to websites of military people, veterans, and military families who oppose the war in Iraq, or who are critical of the way the Bush administration is conducting it's foriegn policy agendas. I wouldn't call these people whiners:

Iraq Veterans Against the War

Operation Truth

Military Families Speak Out

Veterans for Common Sense

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 09:21 AM

Bunky:

The onnly people I have heard whining about imagined attacks are the guys behind those color-coded terror levels who keep spreading generalities from t he White House about imminent catastrophes that do not occur.

You seem to want to imply that the war in Iraq and the attacks of 11 September are linked in some substantive way. Aside from Bush's neurotic rhetoric, they are not.

Kerry has never made the claim attributed to him that the peole fighting in Vietnam were all villains. That is something he has never said, I am pretty sure. He certainly did not say it for six months.

Wake up and find your facts, buddy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: GUEST,Bunky
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 07:23 AM

ATT: Ron

"The Democrats' Patriotism Problem
Whining about imagined attacks is not a winning approach."
"After the Sept. 11 attacks, it seemed possible that the antiwar counterculture was a thing of the past. But old habits die hard, and for the most part the Democratic left soon returned to its Sept. 10 mindset. Democrats nominated John Kerry, respected on the left for his antiwar agitation, on the theory that his war-hero pose would establish his patriotism and be sufficient to compensate for his lack of a muscular foreign policy.

Instead it has raised questions about his character. One veteran quoted in "Unfit for Command" puts the matter pungently: "In 1971-72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains--there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for president of the United States and commander in chief. It just galls one to think about it."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/pl/

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 06:58 AM

The people responsible for the Lancet published research weren't the same as the people responsible for the earlier estimates.

The figure in the report of the Lancet piece for pre-invasion infant deaths is a lot lower than the figure in the UNICEF based site for of children under five (though it's not clear if "children under five" means the same as "infants").

Presumably the figures used by the Lancet is based on some other source, which would be identified in the actual research report.

The apparent discrepency does not in itself invalidate the new report. It coulds be that its figures here are innacurate, or it could be that the earlier figures were inaccurate. Moreover from the press sumary it looks as though the main focus of the actual research was on trying to get figures for violent deaths of people of all ages.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 05:22 AM

It stinks.

Infant mortality rose from 29 deaths per 1,000 live births before the war to 57 deaths per 1,000 afterward.

In 1990, for every 1000 live births, 56 children under the age of five were dying. Now 10 years later, the figure has gone up according to UNICEF to 131 per 1,000.

The Lancet usually is a trustworthy journal, but this study (or at least the press report about it) stinks as can be seen easily by doing a little plausibility check.

The first quote above is from the link provided by 28 Oct 04 - 06:45 PM. The second quote is from one of the many sites about Iraqi children dying before this war due to the UN sanctions. You remember the sanctions and the fight against or have you already forgotten that campaign?

If you compare the figures you can see easily that at least one them cannot be even remotely correct.

Even if reports and numbers fit into whatever is the most recent political agenda or campaign, a bit of critical reading of the numbers involved can do no harm. And a little effort of recollecting what was on the political agenda yesteryear of a bit before and what the numbers used in that campaign were can also do no harm.

If the present numbers are remotely correct, the numbers on which the former Iraq campaign were based must have been totally wrong. If the numbers then were even very remotely correct then the present study is complete rubbish.

Wolfgang (hating innumeracy)

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 04:29 AM

Saddam going insane? Why am I not surprised? It had to be either that or sudden death of one category or another. He cannot under any circumstances be allowed to stand in a patently fair court of law as a rational, living human [despicable tyrant or not---] and come out with truths that would finally expose the criminality of many of his accusers. I have wondered just how they'd wangle it. Perhaps this is the route.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: GUEST,Apollo
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 12:52 AM

"Hussein goes insane
Saddam Hussein, who is currently being held captive by the Americans, is slowly going insane. This has been reported by Arab newspaper "Elaf" with a reference to members of the Red Cross organization.

Saddam's physical condition is almost perfect. He is decently treated and well fed. However, not so long ago, one could read a completely different account of Hussein's captivity.

Saddam started to have mental problems. At times, he would suddenly start mumbling something irrational. Afterwards, he would sit in total silence, without uttering a single word. Doctors assume that the Iraqi leader used to consume a lot of alcohol or used drugs in the past. At the same time, the symptoms could have been caused by his far from young age as well as death of his sons.

Hussein has several photographs of Udai and Kusai (his sons) in his cell. Interestingly, a portrait of Gerge W. Bush of an unknown origin also neatly hangs on the wall. This fact can be interpreted as another evidence of Hussein"s insanity. Had he been well, the former Iraqi leader would not have hung a picture of his enemy. And in case the portrait had been hung by someone other than Hussein, perhaps, the captive has gone crazy as a result of constantly staring at Bush' intellectual face.

In the meantime, according to a recently conducted poll, nearly 70% of Americans in the US support the idea of public broadcast of Saddam's execution. 21% of Americans are even willing to pay for watching Osama bin Laden being executed. Another 11% would like to enjoy watching the last moments of Hussein"s life. So there you have it, a democratic society with experience."
http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/12132_hussein.html

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Peace
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 12:22 AM

Initially, I agreed with the American war in Iraq. I was stupid. The focus for me was that Hussein fall from power,. Against the advice of many, many 'catters, I argued on behalf of the USA, UK, etc. No fu#kin' more. This war is not about what I thought it was about. It's about oil and strategic placement of troops. Live and learn. Would the 100,000 could do that.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 11:43 PM

Thanks artbrooks--

I didn't know---it's been a long time since I was in the military.

But these days I identify more with "the media" anyway.

What term does the military use? Civilian casualties?

And there are still 100,000 dead, needlessly, and by our hand.

Bush has a lot of blood on his hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 11:21 PM

Ron Davies: the military does not use the term "collateral damage" for civilian casualties. This is a misappropriation by the media...rather like the change in definition of the word "liberal." "Collateral damage," as used by the US military, means unintentional damage, such as a road being blocked when a nearby building was bombed.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 09:08 PM

And they don't vote in the American election

True enough, even the ones who haven't been killed.

If they did - well, Voice of America carry a story of a poll carried out by "Iraq's Center for Research and Strategic Studies in Baghdad. Public Opinion Poll Indicates Iraqis Favor Kerry over Bush in U.S. Presidential Race.

Mind, most of them are sceptical about of the whole thing, and don't think it matters one way and another. Of those who do think it matters, 75% want Bush thrown out.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 09:08 PM

As I've said elsewhere, before the invasion, I called the White House comment line and told them the invasion was a hideous mistake, for just this reason-----and its corollary---that this sort of "collateral damage" the chillingly clinical term for it, and its broadcast on al-Jazeera would create far more terrorists than the war would kill.

But Bush had superior information to any of the dissenters, as he does on everything-----just ask him-----and he proceeded according to plan, with the results we now see.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 08:50 PM

Well, of course they (dead Iraqis) don't count! They're not Americans, right? And they don't vote in the American elections, do they?

As long as you can fool most of the people most of the time you can do anything you want in America. How do you fool them? Scare them badly and then appeal to their patriotism. Ask Goebbels, he'd tell you exactly how it works.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 08:46 PM

Little Hawk: So true!!   One keeps hoping that a moral President will finally be in place---someone of the stature of an FDR, Truman---and yes, Eisenhower, with his morality. And for morality one can go to the likes of Carter and Lincoln.   

Will we ever see the likes of such people again? Kerry sounds hopeful--society is changed so I hope he may well be that answer.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 08:35 PM

The point is, the occupation has consistently refused to collect figures about the number of Iraqis killed. It's as if they don't count, compared to the number of foreign troops.

That means all figures have to be estimates, based on scraps of published information. Whatever they are, remember the population of Iraq is only 25 million to start with - to put the number of deaths in proportion, double whatever figures seems most likely to be accurate to imagine what it'd be like for Britain, and multiply by 12 for the USA.

That's a lot of people.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 08:30 PM

Also, remember that Saddam, like Bin Laden, like Noriega, like Pinochet, like the Shah of Iran, like many other dictators...was once a friend and partner of the USA, financed and armed by the USA to kill "enemies of the USA". In his case, Iranians. It was the USA and other western powers which supplied Saddam with WMD's to kill Iranians (and Kurds). The USA funds and assists dictators wherever it needs them. When they are no longer needed, then they are transformed by the magic of propaganda into "the next Hitler", the next "greatest threat to world peace". And then they are expendable.

Saddam was just the latest thug to fall into that very nasty little trap. There was nothing he could do to stop it once Bush had decided he wanted a war. Saddam could have turned over every weapon in that country, right down to the machine guns, and the USA and Britain would still have gone in and taken the place over...for the oil.

Now they are seeking reasons to eventually attack Iran. Amazing, considering that Iraq and Afghanistan already appear to be more than they can actually handle, given the numbers of troops available on the ground.

"Oh well, we'll just bomb them out with B-52's then..." Uh-huh. You can kill 1,000 of them at the cost of one American or less and win a military victory...but then how do you secure the peace? How do you provide security and stability in the aftermath of the destruction your WMS's have wrought. Answer: You don't. They will fight you as the Vietnamese did, for generations if they must, because it is not your country, it's theirs, and you can't kill all of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 08:10 PM

One thing I have to agree with in the current "duly?" elected administration is---"better there than here". The problem is that it was never that choice. "There" was not the enemy--the admnistration merely told everyone that.   Yes, sad that Sadam tortured and killed his people. It is also sad that other tyrants have done and are doing that---do we invade them? Well--let us see. Questions first---
1) DO they have Oil?
2) Was the father of a pres. slighted?
3) Can I do more than Dad---no matter how many Americans die?
4) Should we jump to conclusions without proper intelligence?
    a)Does one criticize an opponent for looking at all sides when one says not to jump to conclusisions?
5) Do we now make light of WMDs that are not found when all that was asked was for more time for the inspectors---and we took our eye of the true perps that attacked us?

    I think the answers to these questions have only a limited ammount of answers. Given that one has to make only one conclusion about the upcoming---thankfully---election in the still---hopefully--free land.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 08:01 PM

One thing I have to agree with in the current "duly?" elected administration is---"better there than here". The problem is that it was never that choice. "There" was not the enemy--the admnistration merely told everyone that.   Yes, sad that Sadam tortured and killed his people. It is also sad that other tyrants have done and are doing that---do we invade them? Well--let us see. Questions first---
1) DO they have Oil?
2) Was the father of a pres. slighted?
3) Can I do more than Dad---no matter how many Americans die?
4) Should we jump to conclusions without proper intelligence?

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 07:51 PM

It was never their intention to create democracy anywhere...least of all in Iraq.

The population of Iraq is about 25 million. That of the USA is over 294 million. Accordingly, the USA would have to have lost over 1 million casualties of war by now and had every city devastated in order to have experienced horror on a comparative level to what has been inflicted upon Iraq by this criminal "pre-emptive" war, which wasn't really pre-emptive at all. Think about it. One million dead Americans and a completely wrecked and conquered country. Picture it. Imagine losing your owm family members. How would you like a foreign power who came in and did that to you on a bunch of phony excuses?

The Democrats and Republicans are both almost equally dishonest in addressing the real truth of this matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 07:41 PM

Not to say that these figures are true or not, but I'm afraid, IMO, that a survey of Iraqis by Iraqis, in the present circumstances, is probably as accurate as one done by American soldiers.

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 07:16 PM

Were's that little wiesel, Teribus? He had the Iraqi deaths at abougt 1,400 the last he was 'round here defending Bush... I argued that with over 30,000 bombs dropped, and millions of rounds of tank, artillery and small arms fire that the number had to be way up in the tens of thousands. Now we have a number. 100,000!

Were is that little wiesel. If anyone sees him, send him over here, ASAP!

So this is Bush's plan for creating a democracy in the Middle East? I don't get it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 07:04 PM

Too late, GUEST. I vote absentee and mailed my ballot in today.

Jeez, give it a rest, willya?

Don Firth

Subject: BS: Study: 100,000 Iraqis Killed by US war
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 06:45 PM

According to an AP article at the ABC News website, the medical journal Lancet will publish a report tomorrow that says as many as 100,000 Iraqis have died in the past 18 months, as result of the US invasion. The article says:

"...as many as 100,000 more people may have died throughout the country in the 18 months since the U.S.-led invasion than would be expected based on the death rate before the war.

There is no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began, but some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000. As of Wednesday, 1,081 U.S. servicemen had been killed, according to the U.S. Defense Department.

The scientists who wrote the report concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision," because the quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study. The interviewers were Iraqi, most of them doctors.

Designed and conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, the study is being published Thursday on the Web site of The Lancet medical journal.

The survey indicated violence accounted for most of the extra deaths seen since the invasion, and airstrikes from coalition forces caused most of the violent deaths, the researchers wrote in the British-based journal.

"Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children," they said."

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

Doesn't look like the Iraqi people will be any better off with John Kerry than George Bush, considering they both plan to "stay the course".

Vote Nader: the only anti-war candidate.