 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 08 Feb 09 - 06:37 PM It takes a very twisted imagination to think that it's okay to kill a million people rather than just one... Like who gives a flying fig about a 20 year old presidential order is those are the 2 choices... Choice A: Follow a 20 year old presidential order, kill a million people, then kill Saddam or... Choice B: Just kill Saddam and call it a day... Ya' know, Sawz, you would make a lousy military leader because you have no ability to use common sense... You remind me of my brother-in-law who was also narrow minded and had no common sense... He was a career Army officer who did everything by the book... He was apssed over for promotions all his life becasue of it... You should read about Stonewall Jackson... Thqat was aman who would have fully understood the arguments that those4 of us on this side have repeatedly made... The book ain't gonna give you all the answersw... It didn't for my brother-in-law, it ain't for T and it ain't for you... You can live yer life by an instruction manual if you like but keep this in mind: The mind is like a parachute, it's only works if it is open... But you go ahead a stick with yer petty little presdiential order from Jerry Ford if that makes you fell any less guilty about the million Iraqis you and yers have murdered... Yes, you... You hand is in it as deep as Bush's becuase you refuse to admit that you were (and are) wrong... Blix gave you and Bush an out but you were too steeoed in pride and dogma to take it... Very sad for you... Very sad, indeed... There is no revisionism here to turn the chicken shit into chicken salad... You have chosen to cast your lot with people who historians will one day mention with Magabe and Hitler... Like I said....Very sad for you... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 09 Feb 09 - 04:37 AM Assassinating Saddam Hussein would have accomplished nothing in terms of improving the lot of the people of Iraq, or of increasing security in the region as a whole. As like Assad's succession in Syria, Saddam would have been replaced by one, or other of his sons, who potentially were a damn sight worse than their father. Saddam Hussein could only ever been killed in the manner he actually was. Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power - which he was Put on trial in an Iraqi Court to answer the charges against him - which he was Executed in accordance with Iraqi Law - which he was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 09 Feb 09 - 09:15 AM Ha, Ha, Ha! He was dethroned by an invading military force, the country was thrown into upheaval, he was tried & hung in Kangroo style & fashion. How barbaric of us to think we had cause & right, anymore than if Spain, France, Russia invading US becasue they were tired of US being the "One & Only" superpower calling all the shots. Iragqi law is nothing more that the will of the occupyer. Iraqi court, of our "pick & choosing". Load up the bases, here we go again. It wasn't a great place to live but we wanted him in power & we put him there, then we didn't want him in power so we took him out. We had no right to be manipulating nations to our will in the first place. They were the most educated nation of peoples in the mid-east & we came in & blew them back into the stone age & blew their asses off in the process too. Are we proud yet, are we having fun yet, are we fucking broke yet??????? Nothing could ever give US the right, we should all be ashamed of what our nation did. But some will forever continue to rationalize it by saying we brought peace & democracy to the masses. We reigned hell on them, in the name of financial power, balance & gain. Who do you think you/we are fooling???? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 09 Feb 09 - 09:58 AM "It wasn't a great place to live but we wanted him in power & we put him there,...." That Barry is a lie and you know it. However if you do believe it to be true perhaps you can provide some detail by way of substantiation "we wanted him in power & we put him there" - I take it the "we" is the USA. Now why did the US want Saddam in power in 1979?? And exactly how did the USA go about putting him in there?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 09 Feb 09 - 10:36 AM Teribus - "my figures" ? ? ? Read more carefully please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 09 Feb 09 - 10:53 AM Your figures TIA = the ones that you posted in order to make your point regarding there being a lot of explaining to be done. During Saddam's 24 year period in office he killed on average between 154 and 282 people every day depending on what statistics include. For anyone to attempt to say that the US has been responsible for the same number, if not more, in one quarter of the time is ludicrous. The IBC web-site has a very good appraisal and evaluation of the John Hopkins Study figures that were published in the Lancet - basically rips it to bits - It doesn't surprise me for one second that the man responsible for the John Hopkins Study is not all that keen on full transparency. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 09 Feb 09 - 12:47 PM The US has over the years done it's share of killing to eclipse what Saddam has done. Hiroshima, Nagasaki etc. etc. Saddam was a gangster. But what America has done in terms of killing innocents exceeds that of Saddam. If you evaluate the history of comparing the US and Iraq in terms of taking human lives, it is absurd to think that Iraq has done more of this. Once again, the barrage of "factoids" that are exhibited as some kind of proof in an attempt to overwhelm specific rebuttals of their nonsense is a ploy used by think tanks. I wonder which think tank some of you are swimming in? Stngsngr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 09 Feb 09 - 04:57 PM That kind of thinking would give nations cause to contemplate reign change in the US? Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:18 PM And the problem with the "154 to 282" people killed every day by Saddam is, at best, dubious... Now if Amnesty International was saying this in 2001 it would have some level of crdibility but there are so many governmental agncies and so-called non-profits with axes to gring that these numbers are most likely as the bogus excuses that ya'll have given to justify this immoral and illegal war... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 09 Feb 09 - 05:30 PM It doesn't surprise me for one second that the man responsible for the John Hopkins Study is not all that keen on full transparency. Whereas the US Government has always been in favour of full transparency. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 09 Feb 09 - 11:15 PM Bobert: How come you blast Bush and claim he has broken the law and needs to be impeached but he should have violated presidential executive orders? You have him in a no win situation. No matter what he did, it was wrong according to you. I agree, it would have been better to assassinate the SOB but it would not be Kosher and it would lead to all kind of liberal whining, crying and sucking snot about imperialisim. Yeah, I agree too many people got killed but to let the situation continue would eventually cost more lives to be lost later on. Why in the hell didn't Clinton really go after UBL in Afghanistan and get the bastard then? Or for that matter, why didn't Bush I keep after Saddam when he had him on the run? Either action would have saved many more lives down the road. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 10 Feb 09 - 12:54 AM "The US has over the years done it's share of killing to eclipse what Saddam has done. Hiroshima, Nagasaki etc. etc. Saddam was a gangster. But what America has done in terms of killing innocents exceeds that of Saddam." - Stringsinger Oh I don't think so Frank, even including Hiroshima and Nagasaki which were acts of war in time of war and perfectly justifiable. I note that in addressing the killing of innocents you omit to give mention to the worst offenders since the end of the Second World War - Now why is that Frank?? The FOIA applies to the US Government Folkiedave it doesn't to the man who did the study for John Hopkins. The study including its timing for release was entirely politically motivated and fortunately was so ridiculous and at odds with information coming out of Iraq at the time that it failed to help Kerry in the 2004 Presidential Election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:52 AM Neither Hioshima nor Nagasaki were justified... They were not "acts of war"... They were terrrorism as it's worst because they were intended to kill civilians along with everything else... The US could have dropped the bomb off the coast of Japan as a demonstartion of it's "new weapon" and that would have had the same effect in terms of ending the war... As for the numbers of folks killed every day by Saddame that T and others stand by??? Consider the source... Propaganda is just that... After a while folks like T actually beleieve what Hitler referred to as the "Big Lie"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 10 Feb 09 - 11:26 AM "Neither Hioshima nor Nagasaki were justified..." Now this is a very easy thing for Bobert to trot out in February 2009. Might have had a slightly different slant on it had he been a serving member of the USMC bobbing about off the coast of Japan on an assault transport in 1945. But then I would doubt very much that Bobert would ever have placed himself in that situation - he prefers to enjoy to the full the freedoms that other people fight for on his behalf. "The US could have dropped the bomb off the coast of Japan as a demonstartion of it's "new weapon" and that would have had the same effect in terms of ending the war..." Pure speculation Bobert and as such irrelevant and pointless. I could suggest that Hirohito and Tojo could have been sent photographs of the test firing with a 78rpm gramaphone recording of the sound the explosion made and that would have had the same effect - I don't believe it for one minute, but it doesn't stop me suggesting it, like I said irrelevant and pointless. Well shall we just take look at how Saddam's "average" daily figures for his 24 year reign of terror are derived Bobert. - How about official Iraqi records Bobert? You see when Saddam, or his sons said they wanted somebody killed the person they ordered to do it had to prove it, otherwise he might suffer the same fate. that propaganda Bobert?? - How about excavation of mass graves Bobert?? Were they all make believe Bobert?? - How about official battle casualty figures Bobert, I take it that they were all made up as well. - How about corroborated eye-witness accounts Bobert - All made up?? Now when someone tells me that so-and-so was arrested and there is a report of that arrest and paperwork stating that so-and-so entered into custody then I would tend to believe that so-and-so was indeed arrested. When the same someone tells me that they received notification that so-and-so was executed, and that eye-witnesses come forward who had seen so-and-so taken out to be executed, and further eye-witnesses state that they were so-and-so's executioners and indicate where so-and-so's body was disposed of and that on excavating that site so-and-so along with thousands of others are discovered - Then Bobert I would tend to believe that yes so-and-so has been executed on the orders of Saddam Hussein - No lie, big, or otherwise, about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 01:44 PM "The US could have dropped the bomb off the coast of Japan as a demonstartion" Timeline for Bobert: On July 26, 1945, Truman and other allied leaders issued The Potsdam Declaration outlining terms of surrender for Japan. It was presented as an ultimatum and stated that without a surrender, the Allies would attack Japan, resulting in "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland". Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki declared at a press conference that the Potsdam Declaration was no more than a rehash of the Cairo Declaration and that the government intended to ignore it. The statement was taken by both Japanese and foreign papers as a clear rejection of the declaration. No surrender. On 4 August 1945, American aircraft dropped leaflets on Hiroshima warning the citizens to expect terrible destruction to be visited upon their city because Japan had refused to surrender. Although many civilians had already been evacuated to the country, this warning was largely ignored. On August 6, the first atomic bomb was dropped on this city. At Hiroshima, 60,000 Japanese died and a similar number were injured. Still no surrender. Three days later, when the first atomic bomb had still evoked no response from Japan, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, a port with naval installations. The primary target on this day had been the city of Kokura where a huge army arsenal was located. Thick clouds over Kokura forced diversion of the B-29 with the second bomb to Nagasaki. At Nagasaki, 36,000 were killed and about 60,000 wounded. Japan Surrendered. PS: 80,000 people died in one conventional bomb attack on Tokyo on the night of 8/9 March 1945 than in Hiroshima the bombing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:32 PM The above are not necessarily the correct facts of the situation. First of all, the rationale for using the atomic bomb was that Japan would not surrender. This is not the whole story. Japan was due to surrender because they were not successful in repelling the US. It was Truman's propaganda that was trotted out in order to use the bomb. Even if Japan had said they wouldn't surrender, they would have had to eventually without the use of the bomb. The 80,000 figure listed above sounds like a false estimate. How would anyone know this? It has to be speculated not factual. Timelines are easily constructed without regard for the truth. Stringsinger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 10 Feb 09 - 04:50 PM "80,000 people died in one conventional bomb attack on Tokyo on the night of 8/9 March 1945 (more) than in Hiroshima the bombing." - Sawzaw. to which we got this from Stringsinger: "The 80,000 figure listed above sounds like a false estimate. How would anyone know this? It has to be speculated not factual." Really Frank?? Now I just bet with the way you speak about Hiroshima and Nagasaki that you are one of the outraged and concerned citizens who vehemently declare the Dresden raid a "war crime" in which you will claim that 135,000 to 225,000 people were killed. Yet when German records are examined the toll was actually somewhere between 18,000 and 25,000. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:08 PM I am not surprised that Teribus clings to the IBC. From the Guardian link above: "Only the conservatively calculated Iraq Body Count death toll credits the occupation with an average annual rate that is less than that - some 18,000 deaths in the five years so far. Every other source, from the WHO to the surveys of Iraqi households, puts the average well above the Saddam-era figure." So, if IBC has ripped the Lancet study to shreds (a matter of opinion), they still need to rip the Baltimore study, the WHOI study, the ORB study, and the director of the Baghdad morgue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:34 PM No, T... My thoughts on the 2 nuclear strikes is not "irrelevant or pointless"... That is what seperates caring people from thugs... It is very relevant to this discusssion... Some folk, like you and others here, think that killing lots of people is the way that conflicts are solved... That doesn't solve the conflict... It just worsenes the conflict... This is the same thinking that causes men to beat up or kill their wives... They don't understand how to solve conflict... It is relavent to talk about people differing philosophies... If we don't then we are doomed to repeat history... I'm glad to see that folks like you are now on the outside and in the minority... The world is safer without testeserone driven foriegn olicy and we've had quite enough to testesterone over the last 8 years, thank you... So it is not at all pointless or irrelevat to discuss these issues just because you say so... The world has quit listening to your types and is loking for a littler more sanity and humanity... You and yers are on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of the here-an-now... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:42 PM Bobert: What side of this history are you on? OWI presses were turning out leaflets that revealed the special nature of Hiroshima's destruction and predicted similar fates for more Japanese cities in the absence of immediate acceptance of the terms of the Potsdam agreement. By 9 August, more than 5 million leaflets about the atom bomb had been released over major Japanese cities. The OWI radio station beamed a similar message to Japan every 15 minutes. Front side of OWI notice #2106,View the leaflet dubbed the "LeMay bombing leaflet," which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning: "Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:52 PM Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY More than 600,000 Iraqis have died by violence since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to a study released Wednesday by researchers at Johns Hopkins University. The figure is based on surveys of households throughout most of the country. It vastly exceeds estimates cited by the Iraqi government, the United Nations, aid and anti-war groups, and President Bush. The new estimate was immediately challenged by the Pentagon. Lt. Col. Mark Bellesteros, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Iraqi government "would be in a better position ... to provide more accurate information on deaths in Iraq." Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council said "many experts" found that a 2004 study by the same group "wildly inflated the findings." That study said the war had caused 100,000 Iraqi deaths. "This study appears to be equally flawed," he said. The new study said the deaths have resulted from coalition military activity, crime and religious violence.The Iraqi government dismissed the Johns Hopkins estimate. The toll in the report "exceeds the reality in an unreasonable way" and the report "gives inflated numbers in a way that violates all rules of research and the precision required of research institutions," Iraq spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement. "These numbers are far from the truth," al-Dabbagh said. The Iraqi government has never given an official number of people killed since the U.S. invasion. Iraq's Health Ministry has estimated 50,000 violent deaths since the war began, through June. Last December, President Bush put the figure at 30,000. The Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, estimated the death toll at 60,000. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:22 PM Bobert: This whole thread is one of your stink bombs. You don't believe 600,000 iraqis were killed yourself. You are just trolling and messing with Tbus. "I'd mess with em' and they'd get all upset" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:34 PM A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros. Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead. The study, published in 2006, right before the election was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology. “The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,â€쳌 said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London. The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset. His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households. Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 of the approximate $100,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute. Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 10 Feb 09 - 07:46 PM
-Joe Offer] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 09:59 PM Hey Bobert: Your words matter, once you say something it is said and you have to live with it, You can't sneak away from it by accusing somebody else of being sneaky. Now in that big bad study you use like a bludgeon to bully Tbus with, what was the base line they used? Come to find out, they cherry picked their baseline from a short little period with very little extermination by the Saddam regime. That blows that study away, exposes their bias and subjective results. Tom Grey answers David Crow's request the empirical basis for his statement on the number of dead under Saddam Hussein. Here is an excerpt:"Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:20 PM Ahhhhh, didn't matter much that the Kurds were trying to take him out... But wait, fir an extra $2.95 (plus shipping and handling) you'll get documentation that the US government had promised the Kurds they would support them against Saddam... Hmmmmmmk???... Heck, the US even provided the bad gas that was used against the Kurds... Even rewarded Saddam ****afterwards**** with all kinds of booty, including a gold plated M-16 rifle... Hmmmmmmmmm???? You got it wrong, Sawz... But what is new here??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 10:42 PM 2.95 is purdy cheap compared to what Soros paid to get the results he wanted. And it made him and you both happy. Another day, another stink bomb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 10 Feb 09 - 11:43 PM March 16 and 17, 1988, Iraq dropped poison gas on the Kurdish city of Halabja, then held by Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas allied with Tehran; throughout the war, Iran had supplied the Iraqi Kurdish rebels with safe haven and other military support. The poison gas attack on the Iraqi town of Halabja was the largest-scale chemical weapons (CW) attack against a civilian population in modern times. It began early in the evening of March 16, when a group of eight aircraft began dropping chemical bombs, and the chemical bombardment continued all night. The Halabja attack involved multiple chemical agents, including mustard gas, and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX. Some sources have also pointed to the blood agent hydrogen cyanide. While the United States did not supply full-fledged chemical weapons to Iraq, it did approve private business sales of biological weapon precursors to Iraq, according to a 1994 report issued by the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, the Riegle Report. It should be noted that the report does not provide proof of U.S. involvement in Iraqi chemical weapons and that the gas attack was carried out by Mustard gas and not a biological weapon. In addition, there is no evidence that Iraq ever used biological weapons in combat during the war with Iran. Several European nations also participated in arming Iraq, specifically Germany. German chemical companies and German Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical protective gear manufacturers also supplied the Iraqi Army and Rustimiya Officers Academy. Stores of German chemicals and training materials were found in June 2003 by U.S. soldiers in east Baghdad. I see Bobert, You claim the US was selling gas to Saddam to use against the Kurds at the same time that the US was backing the Kurds against Saddam and the Kurdish town that was gassed was being held by Iranian forces abd Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas on the side of Iran. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh something don't add up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:42 AM Ah Bobert, see you've got to the stage of now completely ignoring the points put to counter your rather weak arguements and are now simpley attacking the persons calling them into question. Iraq Body Count - Reality Check relating to the figures given in the John Hopkins Study: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/ I'll go with IBC as they take the trouble to check and confirm. From the above link, Press Release 14 dated 16th October 2006: If the Lancet figures are correct then - "The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja." - Simply does not add up, no wonder the man who conducted the study does not want to let anybody know what questions were asked to get his figures. But some people like Bobert and TIA will swallow anything, without question as long as it suits their arguement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 11 Feb 09 - 07:58 AM Yer a stuck record, T.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 11 Feb 09 - 08:48 AM Just like the facts, logic, reason and common-sense Bobert - and they all tell me that 1,300,000 Iraqi civilians have not been killed by the US in Iraq since 20th March 2003. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:34 AM Okay, now how about ORB, Baltimore, WHOI, etc.? IBC is still the outlier in the statistical sense. Not saying they are wrong or biased or anything of the sort. All measures in all sciences tend to fall on a bell curve of some sort. Seizing upon the outlier and ignoring the rest of the distribution is not good science or logic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:39 AM "Seizing upon the outlier and ignoring the rest of the distribution is not good science or logic. " EXACTLY. I have not insisted on the IBC ( I think when IBC was 100,000 I used 300,000 as the most likely number)- I HAVE commented that Bobert's selection (and insistance on regardless of the facts) of the Lancet report, the definite outlier,required a lot more justification than he ever offered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Feb 09 - 10:41 AM the previous numbers were in reference to the TOTAL number of Iraqis killed BY ALL SOURCES- NOT just US. But I notice no-one cares how many are killed by insurgents supported, supplied, and funded by Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 11 Feb 09 - 11:57 AM What about them TIA?? Didn't you provide a link from a Guardian article that covered all of them, detailing their methodology and their weaknesses. Out of all of them only one actually concerned itself with reported and confirmed deaths, care to tell us which one it was TIA. That organisation TIA now accepts single source accounts, they did use to use this information before to help establish "low" and "high" figures. The figures were presented to the world to indicate civilian casualties, but with most they also tossed in combatants casualty figures as well. So you have reported now approximately is as follows: - Iraq Body Count at just under 100,000 "high" - deaths as reported and verified. - Iraq Ministry of Health 150,000 approx - deaths as reported. - WHOI 233,000 - batch sampled estimate. - John Hopkins 655,000 - batch sampled estimate. - Baltimore (John Hopkins II) 1,300,000 - batch sampled estimate. - ORB 1,400,000 - batch sampled estimate. Now throughout the period of the Second World War 1,380,000 German civilians died just under 600,000 died as a result of Allied Bombing. That equates to the "estimated" figures conjured up by the Baltimore Study and by ORB. Now in all seriousness are you attempting to tell the people on this forum that more civilians have been killed in Iraq since March 2003 than were killed in Germany during the Second World War?? For the actual combat phase of the invasion in 2003 something like 9,100 Iraqi troops were killed and approximately 7,200 civilians were killed. During this period the US forces could count on a maximum of 1663 aircraft of all types. During the Second World War the Western Allies had 14,133 Bombers available and they dropped 1,588,062 tons of bombs on Nazi Germany. As I said before the figures just simply don't add up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 11 Feb 09 - 02:04 PM Are you truly saying that the "confirmed" deaths represent the total of true deaths? There are no unreported or undocumented (by IBC standards) deaths? That would be astounding. Here in the modern, information highway USA, there are still people unaccounted for after Hurricane Katrina. These would not be confirmed deaths to the IBC. I am not knocking them or their methodology opr their purpose, but you do have to realize what their numbers represent. They are not the true or actual number, they are an absolute indisputable minimum. The truth goes up from there. One can legitimately argue how high, and that is what the other studies are doing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 11 Feb 09 - 05:19 PM No TIA the only thing regarding numbers killed that I have ever said is that one million plus Iraqi's have not died. i.e. the John Hopkins Study; the Balmoral Study and the ORB figures are all batch sampled estimates - rubbish trotted out at optimum times in order to further a political agenda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: TIA Date: 11 Feb 09 - 05:27 PM And you are citing the IBC count as the basis for your opinion, so please understand what it represents. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 11 Feb 09 - 05:37 PM Yeah, TIA... T thinks that only ***his*** facts are the real deal and anyone elses are bogus... The problem is that no one knows for sure exactly how many Iraqis have died... We do know that over 30,000 sorties (bombing missions) were flown and millions of rounds of various calibre ammunition were fired so it is very concievable that a lot of folks have been killed... But as long as T can keep us arguing over counting methodology the better for T because T never wants to stop arguing over academic stuff to have to look in the mirror and see that he is partly responsible for the deaths, be it one or be it a million... So T will keep this thing on a purely academic pedestrian level because that does not threaten T at all that way... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 11 Feb 09 - 05:38 PM site as a comparison because it shows the disparity between a reported and confirmed versus a batch sampled estimate. Obviously the truth lies somewhere in between, my bet is that it lies pretty much in line with the figures provided by the Iraqi Ministry of Health. IBC have just altered their method of counting to permit single source reporting of deaths and on retrospective investigation trialed it and found their previous figures were understimated by just under 13%. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 11 Feb 09 - 06:02 PM "The problem is that no one knows for sure exactly how many Iraqis have died... We do know that over 30,000 sorties (bombing missions) were flown and millions of rounds of various calibre ammunition were fired so it is very concievable that a lot of folks have been killed..." - Bobert. What was your source for the "over 30,000 sorties (bombing missions) were flown"?? Oh and I think we've been through in the past how a sortie or mission can be flown where no bombs or bullets are fired and no-one gets killed - obviously that still hasn't registered. OK then Bobert back to some very creditable, confirmed and authenticated figures: Between 1939 & 1945 Bobert did you know that 297,663 bombing sorties were flown over Germany by night and 66,851 were flown by day, making a grand total of 364,514 bomber sorties. In the course of flying those sorties Bobert 7,449 aircraft were lost by night and 876 were lost by day. In flying those 364,514 sorties against Nazi Germany a total of 1,588,062 tons of bombs were dropped causing something in the order of 600,000 German deaths. Are you seriously attempting to convince anybody that with less than 10% of the bombers available; flying at most 8% of the missions; in less than 1% of the time resulted in double the number of casualties inflicted on the Germans during the entire Second World War. In the words of John McEnroe - "You just cannot be serious!!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Folkiedave Date: 11 Feb 09 - 07:13 PM Teribus - the war has cost so far $600 billion dollars. What has it been spent on? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 11 Feb 09 - 08:41 PM The number of sorties was published in the Washington Post at least 5 years ago, T... and it was closer to 35,000 than 30,000... And please, can you keep up, man??? We ain't talkin' about WW II... We are talkin' about Iraq... A country about the size of Texas... Geeze... Get back on yer alzheimers meds... You keep driftin' off... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 11 Feb 09 - 11:04 PM Like I said Bobert the study was flawed and not accurate. It did not reflect the true death rate of the pre war era. You you have not been able to dodge that fact with your gold plated M16 urban legend that was actually a gold plated AK47 that was found in Iraq by US forces. You you have not been able to dodge the fact that It was other countries that sold the gas ingredients. You you have not been able to dodge the fact that the vast majority of those "Kurds that "Ahhhhh, were trying to take him out..", were unarmed grannies, babies, women and children that you characterize as some how doing something wrong which justified Saddam's genocide. Despite your smoke screen of all those urban legends that you claim are facts while you claim other people's facts are not true, your Boss Hogg Soros financed subjective study that you use like a bludgeon to bully other people with is flawed because the baseline was cherry picked from a certain period when Saddam was not exterminating his own people. Conspiracies and myths always trump facts for liberal Bush haters. It's like watching a documentary containing facts as compared to sitting down and watching a fictional thriller with a bowl of popcorn. or in your case, a bowl of something else that keeps the Mexican drug lords well financed so they can behead some more innocent people. The Hopkins researchers chose their "base-line" for pre-invasion Iraq carefully: January 1 2002 to March, 2003. They chose to characterize Ba’athist violence by a period during which the Kurds were sheltered by a U.S.-imposed no-fly zone in the north. They chose to calculate the "pre-war" death rate after the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Shi’a and Marsh Arabs in the South and Kurds in the north has occured. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 12 Feb 09 - 01:54 AM "The number of sorties was published in the Washington Post at least 5 years ago, T... and it was closer to 35,000 than 30,000..." - Bobert. Bobert how very unlke you to play down an important number like that. Five years ago you say, so that adjusts the comparison as follows: "with less than 10% of the bombers available; flying at most 9% of the missions; in less than 8 weeks managed to kill double the number of casualties inflicted on the Germans during the entire six years of the Second World War. In the words of John McEnroe - "You just cannot be serious!!" The numbers simply do not add up, to anyone gifted with a modicum of common-sense. No doubt Bobert you will continue to rant on about your one million dead Iraqis because one thing no-one could ever accuse you of would be your abundance of common-sense. Oh still looking for those "dnaged kies" you reckon I bought - do they taste good?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Feb 09 - 01:29 PM Iraq's Good Example Jim Hoagland The Washington Post February 8, 2009; Page B07 A new Iraq is emerging from five years of American invasion and occupation, and at first glance it looks distressingly like the old Iraq: Its people are still bound by the barbed wire of suspicion and hatred as much as by any sense of common purpose and history. But the new Iraq is clearly a nation in ways that the old Iraq -- long considered by experts as an artificial creation that would fly apart under the pressure of outside intervention -- was not. It did not fly apart and has in fact undergone significant, positive mutations as a result of a soon-to-subside U.S. presence. The provincial elections held a week ago were far from perfect, and personal relationships among the country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds still range from malignant to murderous. In Anbar province, disgruntled Sunni sheiks didn't ask for recounts or fire their political consultants. They unleashed threats of new mayhem unless they were immediately declared the winners. Old habits die hard in Iraq, too. But by the standards of the past -- and of the rough neighborhood in which Iraqis still live -- the two general elections that Iraq has held in four years stand as paragons of progress and adaptation that others in the region should aim to emulate. That development should not be ignored or minimized, particularly as the United States and Europe wrestle with analogous problems that confront a newly besieged Afghanistan. Even more important than shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan may be shifting counterinsurgency lessons learned. ad_icon Another signpost suggests that Iraq is closer today to being a source of regional stability than it ever was in its pre-American era, when Saddam Hussein repeatedly threatened (and at times tried) to annihilate Iraq's Arab and Iranian neighbors as well as Israel. That signpost is the growing acceptance by the region's Sunni Arab regimes of the central Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose Shiite-based State of Law coalition scored the biggest victories in the election results released Thursday. Just a few years ago, Jordan's leaders were ominously warning that they would not accept Iraq's becoming part of a "Shiite crescent" of subversion. Today, Amman leads the way in establishing improved diplomatic relations, economic cooperation and security ties with Baghdad. Abu Dhabi and other Gulf states, as well as Egypt, have also upgraded their relations with Iraq, as Maliki and his aides have established some distance from both the United States and Iran. "President Bush made many mistakes in occupying Iraq," one Arab official told me recently. "But he did the right thing in staying with the surge and giving the Iraqi government time to show it could sustain itself. The results of the past 18 months have persuaded many of us that Iraq's civilian government is here to stay, and it is time to cooperate" with Baghdad, rather than push for a return to domination of Iraq by the Sunni Arab minority. Saudi Arabia is the most notable holdout from this trend, in part, it seems, because of poor personal relations between Maliki and the royal family. But the Saudis should not feel comfortable in remaining isolated on this issue in the face of Maliki's solid electoral victories last week over his more religiously minded rivals in Iraq's southern provinces. A continuing argument here over whether the surge worked misses the significance of the broader, still-unfolding historical changes brought by the 2003 toppling of Saddam Hussein. The internalizing of Iraq's strife -- as horrible as that strife can be on any given day for Iraqis -- makes the region less of a global tinderbox than it was. That the country's Kurds no longer live under the threat of genocide directed from Baghdad and that the Shiites no longer have to submit to state-organized mass murder on a routine basis constitutes real progress for them and for humanity. For too long, Bush resisted letting the Iraqis find their own way -- however messy or even brutal -- to reconcile their differences. President Obama should reflect on that as he develops a new approach to the conflict in Afghanistan, another "new" country that looks very familiar as corruption, drug dealing and Taliban control mount. Reflect on this part of the Iraqi example as well, Mr. President: American power was able to shock Iraqis. But it did not awe them. They are returning quickly to old habits, to their own moral and social compasses. But they do not return unchanged by the experience. Nor do their neighbors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 12 Feb 09 - 07:57 PM Define "The Surge", Sawz... You, T.... If yer gonna go quotin' folks at least say who the heck you are quotin'... Yer above post make no sense... None what so ever, mah man... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Feb 09 - 11:43 PM Heres part of it Bobert, If you want to see all of it click here Iraqis Are in the Lead in Ensuring Success â€"U.S. in Support Role •Place the responsibility for success on the Iraqis •Recognize and expect that sectarian violence must be addressed by Iraqis •Encourage Iraqis to reach national reconciliation •Urge Iraqi Government to serve Iraqis in an impartial way The Primary Mission Is Helping Iraqis Provide Security to the Population •Help Iraqis provide greater levels of security in Baghdad in order to enable political and economic progress •Help Iraqis create the security environment in which political deals needed to sustain security gains can be made •Bolster Iraqi capabilities and transfer responsibility to able units as part of this effort Moderates Will Be Vigorously Supported in their Battle with Violent Extremists •Counter extremist portrayalof Iraq’s conflict as Sunni vs. Shi’a, rather than moderates vs. extremists •Recognize and act upon the reality that the United States has a national interest in seeing moderates succeed •Build and sustain strategic partnerships with moderate Shi’a, Sunnis, and Kurds We Will Diversify our Political and Economic Effort in Iraq to Achieve Our Goals •Increase attention to developments outside of the International Zone â€"emphasize flexibility •Help Iraqi provincial governments deliver to their constituents and interact with Baghdad •Extend the political and economic influence through the expansion of our civilian effort We Will Further Integrate Our Civil and Military Efforts •Harness all elements of national power; further augment joint civilian-military efforts throughout theater •Resource at levels that assume a resilient enemy and realistic assessment of Iraqi capacity over the next 12 months Embedding Our Iraq Strategy in a Regional Approach is Vital to Success •Iraq is a regional and international challenge •Intensify GOI and USG efforts to expand regional and international help, counter Iran and Syria meddling •Invigorate diplomatic efforts to improve the regional context We Must Maintain and Expand Our Capabilities for the Long War •Acknowledge that succeeding in Iraq is the immediate challenge, but it is not the last challenge •Ensure we have adequate national capabilities to fight the long war, on the military and civilian side •GOI leads outreach to insurgents; maintain outreach and keep door open for Sunni moderates |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Feb 09 - 11:50 PM Cherry Street Fish Market Opens Doors Wednesday, 11 February 2009 FOB FALCON â€" For thousands of years, fishermen near the Ma Baynaa Al-Nahreen, the Land Between the Two Rivers, sold their catch to others to sustain their existence. Today, the Saydiyah Fish Market stands as a classic example of where Iraqi fishermen sell their wares to their neighbors from across Iraq. Senior Multi-National Division â€" Baghdad leaders attended the Saydiyah Fish Market’s ribbon-cutting ceremony with their Iraqi Security Forces partners, Feb. 9, to mark the re-opening of the market that fell to disrepair during the war. Muzhir Ali Salman, the General Cooperative Union chairman, welcomed the attendees to the market's compound along Cherry Street in the Saydiyah community of southern Baghdad. Muzhir thanked the Coalition forces for starting the project to rejuvenate the fish market and the commanders who worked on the project. "This is the main fish market in all of Iraq, not just Baghdad," he added. The fishermen sell their fish wholesale to the other provinces in Iraq as well as retail to the citizens of Baghdad, Muzhir explained. Brig. Gen. Faiswl Malikmhsen al-Talall, commander of the 5th Brigade, 2nd National Police Division, recognized the importance of the market and the eagerness of the community. "We thank Coalition forces for their contribution to this project. I appreciate the readiness of the people and their ideas to embrace progress," he said. The rebuilding of Iraq began after the security situation improved in the area due to the cooperation of everybody, said Faiswl, who used the ceremonial scissors to cut the ribbon at the entry into the compound. The fish market is not just important to Saydiyah, but it is significant to the rest of the city of Baghdad, said Sheik Abdulnazzaq, the Saydiyah Tribal Support Council chairman. The 1st BCT’s embedded Provincial Reconstruction Team displayed a tremendous effort using the co-ops in Baghdad and the neighborhood councils to come up with this fantastic opportunity, said Col. Ted Martin, commander, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, MND-B. "We are priming the pump to bring a better life back to the Cherry Street Market," said Martin, who hails from Jacksonville Beach, Fla. "The only reason we can do a project like this is because of the increase in security in Saydiyah. It was a hot spot for insurgent activity, but now all the sects get along to live together peacefully." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 13 Feb 09 - 07:48 AM Sawz, How would that list differ from pre-Surge objectives??? B~ |
