Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Cruiser
Date: 16 Jan 07 - 11:16 AM

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

U.N.: 34,352 Iraqi civilians killed in '06


"BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 (UPI) -- The United Nations said Tuesday 34,452 Iraqi civilians were killed by violence in Iraq in 2006, three times as many as reported by Iraq's Interior Ministry.

Human rights envoy Gianni Magazzeni also said in his report more than 36,000 people were injured in the fighting, largely between Sunni and Shiite Muslim militants.

Magazzeni said the figures were compiled from data collected by the Health Ministry, hospitals, mortuaries and other agencies, the BBC reported.

The Iraqi government's official death toll for 2006 was 12,320. Baghdad officials have routinely criticized independent groups' various death and injury tolls as exaggerated, the report said. There was no immediate government response to the U.N. report."

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 12:48 AM

Of course!

Old Guy, I have to believe that you're some kind of comedian, because nobody can really be that big of a twit.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 08:48 PM

How come tobacco is not outlawed? Could it be that our lawmakers are taking money from the tobacco lobby?

I would say that results in over a thousand per day people dying as a result of decisions taken by our governments, which have never been admitted as mistakes.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 08:41 PM

Well the Guy had already hurt himself. Should somebody have made a warning label to keep this from happening?

Maybe on the saw: Warning. Do not use this saw to amputate bodily extremities because the Hospital might screw up and not re-attach them when you tell them not to.

After all, there are people that need to be reminded of all these things.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 08:22 PM

In most states there are warrents that can be issued against folks who wish to harm themselves... Someone dropped the ball on 666...

When I was a social worker in Virginia it was called a "Green Warrent" and there were times when I had to call a judge and get one aginst someone so messed up that they were about to hurt themsellves or someone else...

Like I said, someone dropped the ball at the hospital as most hosiptals have social workers that deal with these kinds of situations...

Bobert

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 08:08 PM

It may be an urban legend but I heard that some guy thought he saw 666 on his hand so he cut it off with a circular saw. She was taken to a hospital with his hand. They wanted to re attach his hand but he would not let them do it. The doctor contacted a judge and was told he could not re attach the hand against the guy's wishes.

Later on he sued the hospital for not re attaching his hand.

Now what kind of a hand mounted warning label do we need to cover that possibility?

Don't cut off your hand?

Re attach all severed hands whether the patient agrees or not?

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 07:52 PM

Dang, I never had that kind of trouble with a cup of coffee.

Do you think we should outlaw hot coffee because it is too dangerous?

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 07:31 PM

Ironing clothes on the body can sometimes be quite a handy thing to do, when done sensibly.

But isn't this rather drifting? In a thread about the best part of a million people being killed as a result of decisions taken by our governments, which have never been admitted as mistakes.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 07:16 PM

The moral of that story is that one should know the reason behind certain things before popping off and revealing one's ignorance.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 07:14 PM

Furthermore, warning that "hot coffee is HOT," is not necessarily some "crybaby liberal" sponsored government regulation. It's to protect McDonalds' ass.

A lot of people have snorted derisively at the woman who sued McDonalds because she wound up with a lapful of scalding hot coffee and burned her legs. I have a little acquaintance with that phenomenon myself.

1. Some time ago (shortly before the infamous hot coffee lawsuit), my wife Barbara and I and a friend were returning to Seattle from Bellingham fairly late in the evening, and with about forty miles to go, we all felt in need of a snort of coffee. So we spotted a McDonalds I pulled up to the window and ordered three large coffees. After I had pulled into a parking spot, Nancy, sitting in the back seat, let out a yell. The bottom of her Styrofoam cup had dropped out and dumped its very hot contents in her lap—exactly what had happened to the woman who sued McDonalds. Nancy's legs got scalded pretty badly and she was pretty damned uncomfortable for the next week or so.   

2. Shortly thereafter, I dropped into a McDonalds to grab lunch (it isn't the healthiest thing I could eat, and I don't eat them that often, but I'm rather fond of the fillet-o-fish sandwich). I also ordered a large coffee. I had one of those pressed paper trays that drive-ins sometimes pass out to hold your drinks without spilling them, and I set the coffee cup into the depression on the tray (made for exactly that purpose), and drove to a nearby park to enjoy the pastoral scene, watch the squirrels, and eat my lunch. When I got to the park and reached for my coffee, I noticed that the passenger seat was soaking wet with coffee. The disk at the bottom of the cup had dropped out and dumped the contents on the seat.

I checked the cup and noticed that the disk that fit into the bottom of the cup was held in place only by a small flange, and when you flex the cup slightly (it's practically impossible to hold a Styrofoam cup without flexing it a bit), the disk can easily slip off the flange and spill its contents right out the bottom.

That's what happened to the woman who filed the law suit.

McDonalds admitted that they serve their coffee much hotter than most restaurants and drive-ins, which increases the probability of being scalded when the coffee dumps while you're waiting for it to cool down to a drinkable temperature. As a result of "that stupid woman's frivolous law-suit," McDonalds now serves their coffee at a more drinkable temperature (but still good and hot) and they've done something about their Styrofoam cups so the bottom won't drop out.

They also warn their patrons that (although not as quick off the boil as it used to be) the coffee is still hot. A lot of other restaurants and drive-ins followed suit in an effort to reduce their liability.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 05:16 PM

No, Old Guy, I won't have to pay higher insurance premiums if fewer people wind up going through the windshield because they didn't have brains enough to fasten their seat belts. And neither will you. It relieves you and me of the consequences of their bad judgment.

I know it's difficult, but try to think beyond your own narrow prejudices.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 07:31 AM

Thus releiving people of being responsible for their own actions. Common sense and practicality is no longer a necessity in today's enlightened society. Everyone will be taken care of, baby sat or protected from themselves as required.

Have an boring day because no matter what you do, you will not have to bear the consequences.

"Just keep telling me about the good life, Elton, if you want a see me puke my lunch!"

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 07:56 PM

All of which, Old Guy, seem to be called for because there are people out there who apparently need to be reminded of all these things.

(I almost went on to say that these people are called "Republican voters," which goes a long way to explaining the miserable state of the country these days, but . . . well . . . I decided that, even though true, it might be a little harsh to come right out and say.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 03:34 PM

Caution: Do not invade other countries.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 03:17 PM

"Need I go on?" Got labeling on packaged foods that state: Remove from package before eating.

Caution: Hot beverages are hot!

Caution: Remove infant before folding for storage.

Caution: Do not iron clothes on body.

Caution: Do not use orally after using rectally.

Have a bodacious day.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 06 - 09:22 AM

Another thing is there probably still was an Iraqi chemical weapons capacity at that time.

In have a feeling that if Bush Seniorv had pushed on it would now be looked on as a catastrophic mistake, the consequences of which were still going on.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 11:51 PM

I am aware that it undoubtedly would have been a mess, but at the time there was considerable international feeling that this is what Bush Senior should have done. Had he indeed done so, I think the United States would have had far more cooperation than George Junior's ill-advised junket got, and in some quarters at least, there would not have been the loss of prestige that the U. S. is now experiencing.

Among other things, the U. S. would be logically following up and removing an aggressive tyrant after he invaded one of his neighbors, not invading without provokation as the U. S. did this time.

I think there would have been a far greater willingness on the part of countries who applauded the move to help in cleaning up the mess.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 08:29 PM

There's no reason to think it wouldn't have been just about equally catastrophic, if not more so.

The difficulty didn't lie in getting to Baghdad and occupying it - it was in what to do afterwards.

Of course there would have been the difference that it wouldn't have been Dubya in the White House, and that is quite a difference. It's hard to imagine anyone else screwing things up quite so badly.

But if we imagine George Senior launching an illegal operation on that scale (without even the backing his son got from other countries), we are implicitly imagining that George Senior has been transformed into as impressive a figure as his son has turned out to be...

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 03:52 PM

I wonder what the results would have been had George H. W. Bush pushed on to Bagdad and removed Saddam Hussein as a follow-up to intervening in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. A lot of people thought that's what the plan was, and would have been quite happy to see that happen.

But Saddam got only a slap on the wrist for that little gaff, because he was still Our Boy in the Middle East--despite his unpleasant tendency to slaughter his own people in substantial quantities.

If one thinks about it a little, it's not too difficult to see that there are a fair number of reasons why a lot of Middle Easterners are not overly fond of the U. S. and A.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 02:52 PM

NY Times, January 27, 2003, John F. Burns:

"...Mr. Hussein's has been a tale of terror that scholars have compared to that of Stalin, whom the Iraqi leader is said to revere, even if his own brutalities have played out on a small scale. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, historians have concluded. Even on a proportional basis, his crimes far surpass Mr. Hussein's, but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people."


Now back to TIAs words...

1 million over a 23 year rule averages about 120 per day, or about 3500 per month (and this includes casualties of the horrendously bloody Iran-Iraq war). Saddam was certainly a very bad man, but it seems the current situation is not vastly improved, if at all for most civilians.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 02:36 PM

I think it goes like this, Old Guy.

A lot of the people who are "bitching" about avoidable deaths in Iraq, a war which, by any rational standard, was was not only entirely unnecessary, but counterproductive in any so-called "war on terrorism," are the same people who have worked to get seat-belt and air-bag regulations passed so that people have a better chance of surviving automobile accidents, got laws passed requiring the wearing of crash helmets so that motorcycle jockeys and bicyclists can avoid head injuries in falls, got warning labels placed on packages of tobacco products in hopes of getting people to think twice about smoking (vainly perhaps, but hopefully), got safety laws and regulations passed in the workplace to avoid on-the-job deaths and injuries (and are insisting against great resistance that they be enforced), object to unhealthy additives and preservatives being added to otherwise healthy foods, and. . . .    Need I go on?

All of these things may add a negligibly minuscule amount to the cost to various products, and mandate that business and industry be cognizant of certain fundamental humanitarian requirements for the health and safety of their employees. But when these laws and regulations are abided by, they do save lives and prevent injuries, and by doing so, are not only matters of oommon decency, but are found to be good for business and beneficial to the overall economy.

There are, of course, those who object to these laws and regulations, complaining that they are "needless government interference."

These exasperating people who think that avoidable deaths should indeed be avoided are sometimes call "crybaby liberals."

Have a nice day.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 12:32 PM

"So why do we bitch about avoidable deaths in Iraq and not worry about the avoidable deaths in the US?"

My impression is that you tend to find the same people who cry out against the killings in Iraq calling for the kind of changes that would cut down the carnage on the roads in their own countries.

And vice versa. People who see both sets of killings as somehow "a price worth paying."

Hence the expression "liberal crybabies".

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 12:04 PM

guy asks:
So why do we bitch about avoidable deaths in Iraq and not worry about the avoidable deaths in the US?

Avoidable deaths are always a concern, regardles of where they happen. Dialogue is a part of problem-solving and not just 'bitching' about something for which there is not solution. By discussing what has created the problem, perhaps a solution can be found.

...and then he asks:

How many civilians were excecuted under the Saddam regime?

I don't have those figures and I don't know if anyone does. Nobody is excusing the actions of Saddam but lets not forget he was put in power by the U.S. The deaths of Iraqis by Saddam and the deaths by the U.S. military are all a crime and can be directly attributed to U.S. foreign policy.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 10:25 AM

Just asking a question but not getting an answer.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 09:44 AM

Well, McGrath, I did misunderstand you and thank for the clarification.

But you did also misunderstand me:
I can't actually see where Bev and Jerry's only post in this thread really comes into it

I am talking about the first of three Bev and Jerry posts and not about the third (they always sign their posts but often forget to insert their names after the GUEST tag):

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 05:29 PM

Lancet author answers your questions - from the BBC website. Question from members of the public, with the answers given by one of the authors of the report that was published in the Lancet.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 30 Oct 06 - 02:34 AM

K, Old Guy...

As you dish out your relentless obfuscations, I am increasingly convinced that you are just putting us on. But now that I've taken the trouble to post, I will say a thing or two about this nonchalance about Iraqi civillian deaths that you're espousing, which is neither 'conservative' nor Christian...

The US went to war with Iraq because the President and almost all of his cabinet declared that we were in danger of an 'immenent threat'... perhaps a nuclear one. National security was invoked, and declarations were made of 'inside information' that could not therefore be disclosed to the public.

So, because the US is a Democratic nation, though this war was declared for what turns out to have been 'no discernible reason'... It is still being carried out in our names, for 'any reason that might turn up' for 'as long as it might seem reasonable'. Many of us here in the US do not wish to lose any of our 'best and brightest' (or our reputation around the world) due to a misunderstanding, and not a few of us are losing sleep over many tens of thousands of innocent civilians who have died... while giving hundreds of thousands no choice but to try to live thier 'ordinary lives' right in the middle of a guerilla war we insisted on creating.

To try to rationalize this 'event' in the middle east as being some kind of deadly norm for the region, or ours for that matter... to compare the morality of the American people to Saddam... to invent new 'reasons' for a war that had none at it's outset... is just plain unconscienable, and IMHO, absolutely incompatible with New Testament teachings.

Seems what you call 'bitching', Old Guy, just might be what our forefathers called 'patriotism'.

Read my lips... No new rationalizations.
ttr

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 10:36 PM

So why do we bitch about avoidable deaths in Iraq and not worry about the avoidable deaths in the US?

How many civilians were excecuted under the Saddam regime?

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:39 PM

If you set fire to a building you are likely to get a situation where further deaths are inevitable. Set fire to a country and that's also true and that's what was done when our countries made war on Iraq.

It's too late to retrospectively avoid there being hundred of thousands of dead Iraqis and the thousands of dead Americans and others. And there are going to be many many more deaths before this is through, whatever happens.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:26 PM

Yes.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:05 PM

The fact is that these deaths I have noted are avoidable.

Are the deaths in Iraq avoidable?

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: GUEST,Cruiser
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:45 PM

Dave

Thanks for that concise historical perspective.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 04:23 PM

Population of Iraq: 26 million
Population of USA: 300 million.

"These numbers are posted to put the Iraqi deaths in perspective."

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:23 PM

Considerably more than a bit.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 11:26 AM

O.G. - Such things as death by tobacco use, or obesity is different than being killed by another. Your perspective is a bit off.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 11:01 AM

This month, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) sponsored a meeting of Sunni and Shia religious scholars in Saudi Arabia. The OIC issued a Fatwah calling on Iraqis to stop killing each other. This was accepted by the major Shia and Sunni clerics in Iraq. But the clerics agreed that their plea would likely be rejected by the hard core killers. There are several groups of these, each with specific reasons to keep up the mayhem. The Sunni Arab killers are largely motivated by a desire to avoid prison or execution for atrocities committed while serving in Saddam's government, especially in the security forces. That, in turn, has spawned groups of Kurds and Shia Arabs who are seeking vengeance. The Shias are the most lethal, because there are more of them, and some of the Shia death squads are working for the Iranian government. The Iranians are still eager to punish those responsible for starting the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. For the Iranian government, those considered most guilty are the senior members of the Baath party. Saddam Hussein has led that party since the 1970s, but the Iranian death lists contain several thousand names. For Iran, there can be no peace until all these Baath Party officials are dead. For the Sunni Arab terrorists, there can be no peace until the revenge killing stop. Two years ago, most Iraqi Sunni Arab terrorists were motivated by the desire to put the Baath Party back in power. But now, just survival would be nice.

While the Shia and Sunni scholars agree on the need to end the violence, they don't agree on some fundamental religious and political issues. Many Iranian clerics believe that the Saud family, and their Sunni Arab allies, who currently run Saudi Arabia, are not legitimate rulers. The more extreme Iranian clerics believe that the Saudi Shias, who comprise about five percent of the Saudi population, should be in charge. The Iranian government is more circumspect on this issue, but would be under tremendous popular pressure to get involved, if there was a major Shia rebellion in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Shias are concentrated in the east, where most of the oil is.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 09:16 AM

Gunmen fire on Sunni pilgrims in Iraq

By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writers 39 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunmen opened fire on a convoy of Iraqi Sunni pilgrims bound for the holy city of Mecca on Sunday, killing at least one person, while U.S. forces said they killed 17 insurgents preparing to ambush American troops.
ADVERTISEMENT

The pilgrims were about 15 miles from the city of Baqouba when gunmen showered their convoy with machine gunfire, said a spokesman for Diyala province's Public Relations and Information Bureau, who asked not to be named, citing security procedures. Such killing are usually part of
Iraq's growing sectarian violence between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

The convoy of U.S. troops ran into the insurgents planning the ambush near Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad, the military said. U.S. warplanes killed three suspected insurgents in an initial attack and 14 more in a second in assault with ground forces.

The U.S. attacks set off blasts among the insurgents that showed they had been armed with homemade mines and other explosives used to disable convoys.

"Despite the terrorists' ambush attempts, coalitions forces successfully continued their operation and detained three suspected terrorists," the military said in a statement.

Elsewhere, Iraqi and U.S. forces encircled the town of Hawija, 165 miles north of Baghdad, and searched for armed men who had fired on patrols, said Brig. Sarhat Qadir of the police force in the nearby city of Kirkuk. The area lies near a key pipeline linking Kirkuk's oilfields to Turkey that has been the target of repeated insurgent attacks.

In Baqouba, gunmen shot dead two policemen at a downtown intersection, said an officer, who asked not to named because of procedures to protect the identity of police.

On Saturday night, gunmen shot dead a translator for U.S. forces outside a restaurant in Diwaniyah, 80 miles south of Baghdad, police said.

The violence came after a week of intensified exchanges between the United States and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who on four occasions challenged the U.S. handling of the war.

Al-Maliki, whose Shiite-dominated government is backed by U.S. troops, was angered by the U.S. ambassador's announcement Tuesday that al-Maliki had agreed to a U.S. plan to set timelines for progress in quelling Iraq's violence.

In a hastily arranged video conference with
President Bush, al-Maliki said that the U.S. president promised to move swiftly to turn over full control of the Iraqi army to the Baghdad government.

A close aid said the prime minister was intentionally playing on U.S. voter displeasure with the war to strengthen his hand with Washington.

"It's al-Maliki's chance to get what he wants. It's a chance for al-Maliki to force a better deal for himself," Hassan al-Suneid, a member of al-Maliki's inner circle, told the Associated Press.

Al-Suneid said the video conference was sought because issues needed airing at a higher level than with U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. Al-Suneid said the prime minister complained to Bush that Khalilzad, an Afghan-born Sunni Muslim, was treating the Shiite al-Maliki imperiously.

"The U.S. ambassador is not (L. Paul) Bremer (the former U.S. administrator in Iraq). He does not have a free rein to do what he likes. Khalilzad must not behave like Bremer but rather like an ambassador," al-Suneid quoted al-Maliki as saying.

On Friday, al-Suneid said, the prime minister told Khalilzad: "I am a friend of the United States, but I am not America's man in Iraq."

Following Saturday's talks, White House spokesman Tony Snow said al-Maliki was "not America's man in Iraq. The United States is there in a role to assist him. He's the prime minister — he's the leader of the Iraqi people."

Snow denied there was any rift between the United States and Iraq and said Bush had full confidence in al-Maliki.

A joint statement issued after Saturday's video conference said both countries were committed to their partnership "and will work in every way possible for a stable, democratic Iraq and for victory in the war on terror."

It said Iraq and the U.S. agreed to form an advisory group on achieving those goals. The group will consisting of the U.S. military commander, Gen. George Casey, Khalilzad and Iraq's national security adviser and ministers of defense and interior.

Al-Maliki has grown increasingly prickly as the Americans have pressed him to rein in Shiite militias and crush death squads that have sprung up since a Shiite shrine was bombed by Sunni insurgents in February. Thousands of Sunnis have died in revenge attacks, many under brutal torture.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:39 AM

435,000 people died from tobacco use in the US in 2005, 1191 per day.

5 million people die every year, world wide, form tobacco use, 13,698 per day.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 29 Oct 06 - 01:25 AM

16,692 people were murdered in the US in 2005, 45+ per day and there is no insurgency here.

Poor diet including obesity and physical inactivity caused 400,000+- deaths in the US in 2000, 1096 per day.

These numbers are posted to put the Iraqi deaths in perspective.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:45 PM

"Old Guy, you are a real piece of work! It's your offhand dismissal of thousands of deaths as being "no big deal" that I was calling you on, and now you try to turn it around and say that that is what I was saying."

I am not going to stoop as low as you and call you a liar. I said "a bigger deal". That does not imply the the other deal was not a big deal.

If I sad it was no big deal then you would be correct but you are wrong. You are twisting my words like you accuse me of doing.

Facts sure get you in a dither.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 02:11 PM

Thanks for the info, Cruiser. I agree with Kevin that the original title was less ambiguous and relevant for all threads concerned.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 12:39 PM

The original title - BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures - was a lot clearer and less ambiguous, and equally relevant for all the threads concerned. Still, that's water under the bridge - mistakes happen.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Cruiser
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:42 AM

Don,

You asked earlier why your thread had its title changed. There were several threads similar to your initial thread and one member openly complained that there were too many threads on the subject so an administrator merged at least one of those into yours. The current thread title modification reflects that merger.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 11:16 AM

I think you misunderstand my point Wolfgang - it was that what matters here aren't the detailed numbers. The range of estimates given by this research is extremely wide, and even if the kind of criticisms of methodology made by those critics were accepted the figures arrived at would be far higher than the "official" estimates.

If people were arguing that the estimates were too low it would equally well be looking in the wrong direction. Or if it were a dispute as to whether 3,000 people were killed on September 11th or 4,000, that would equally irrelevant to the real issues. The same would apply if there was some argument as to whether David Irving's estimates of the number killed in the Dresden bombing was set too high.

I honestly don't think I have "an obvious double standard... when any estimate is questioned."
.........
"the argumentation above by Bev and Jerry is demonstrably wrong"

I can't actually see where Bev and Jerry's only post in this thread really comes into it:

Bush said, "And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they're willing to -- you know, that there's a level of violence that they tolerate."

Like they had a choice.

What's that got to do with disputes about estimates concerning the number killed?

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Oct 06 - 09:55 AM

So maybe there haven't been 350,000 to 900,000 deaths, but only half that number? That's really a bit like arguments as to whether Hitler killed six million Jews or "only" five million. (McGrath)

This could be a good argument, McGrath, if you would not use it in a so one-sided way. Whenever a number which "the left" likes to quote is questioned and some argument for a lower estimate is presented, you bring this argumentation. When however, a lower estimate "the right" likes to quote is questioned and it is pointed out that the estimate may be too low, you are silent.

You have an obvious double standard of how you react when any estimate is questioned.

On the other hand, arguing the estimate was not why I did post the link in my last post. It was only to show that the argumentation above by Bev and Jerry is demonstratably wrong.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:31 PM

The other thing he does, like a lot of people involved in discussions here (on both sides), is to avoid the tricky points raised by other people.

In a useful discussion the thing is to concentrate on identifying the things which are said which challenge our own position, and then try to rebut them, or modify our position to take account of them. That way discussions can be useful in helping us clarify what we actually do think, and in understanding where the differences really lie.

Phony discussions are where we just pick on what seem like the weak points, and ignore the strong points. That can make for quite an entertaining game, batting debating points back and forth - but it is only a game, and some things are too important to be treated just as a game.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 06:24 PM

One of Old Guy's arguing methods:

If I don't answer every question Old Guy asks, it's because he's not the least bit interested in the answers. His whole purpose is to divert the discussion from its main point as he demands that people answer questions that are actually irrelevant to the discussion.

Asking a question in an effort to clarify the main point is perfectly all right, but that's not what he's doing. He asks an irrelevant question, and if someone answers it, he immediately counters with another irrelevant question. Thus, if he has his way, the discussion stays off-point.

Asking questions off-point and demanding that people answer them before the discussion can continue is an obvious attempt to direct, control, or manipulate the course of the discussion, often to avoid confronting the main topic. It attempts to take advantage of the fact that some people are in the habit of feeling that they have to answer questions put to them, even when the question has nothing to do with the discussion at hand,

It's a form of red herring, and I won't fall for it.

Another dodge of his is to take something someone says, twist it, and throw it back at them. He compares thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq with the number of Americans killed in automobile accidents, and dismisses the deaths of both groups as negligible, as if to say, "Well, no big deal, that's just the way it goes." I call him on his callousness, and he tries to throw it back at me with the claim that that's what I said! He knows better, he's just trying to distract attention from his own crude and insensitive comment.

Let's face it:   Old Guy is a Right-Wing propagandist, no more, no less. Arguing with him is futile.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 03:36 PM

There's no point in arguing with this clown. All Old Guy does is twist what you say and try to throw it back at you. Like the relative I mentioned above, he doesn't care about facts or the truth, he just wants to win.

To hell with it!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 03:17 PM

It was the invasion that unleashed and ignited the tribal and religious and revenge cycle of violence. And far from serving to damp it down, the evidence is that the continued presence of the occupation forces is making it worse. Some of the worst atrocities are being carried out by people armed by the "Coalition".

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 02:43 PM

He just has this pathological need to win arguments.

Think you'll find that this is a pretty near universal BuShite / NeoCon pathology and tactic.

Look at Limbaugh & the other radio clowns; look at Rumsfeld & Cheney.
And the guy in the street as well.