B.S. John Kerry, Idiot

Subject: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 09:57 PM

John Kerry proves once again why he would have made a terrible President (not as bad as Bush, but that is now saying nothing) and why he should shut up and go home. His latest idiot remark is that the Administration should bring 20,000 troops home at Christmas. For no good reason, just to do it. Can anything be more pathetic.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: pdq
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:00 PM

If that is a serious question, I have a serious answer: Al Gore!

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Rapparee
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:00 PM

I heard the speech, and that's not everything he said. The 20,000 troops he wants to bring home are those sent to provide additional security during the elections.

Moreover, he said that he wants to gradually (over 12 - 15 months) remove the US troops and all the Iraqis to stand on their own.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Amos
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:12 PM

Given the context, perhaps it less idiotic that it might appear, Peter.

A

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:15 PM

Yer right, Peter...

He should have said, "Bring 'um all home!!!"

Bobert

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:17 PM

Twenty thousand here, thirty thousand there, pretty soon there won't be anyone there to fight the war!

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:23 PM

According to Iraqis, that sounds like a very good idea. From the Seattle PI:

It is impossible to gauge with any accuracy the popular mood in a nation as fractured and traumatized as Iraq. Nevertheless, the poll by an Iraqi university research team for the Ministry of Defense this summer is likely to bear some resemblance to the reality of the situation.

The confidential survey, leaked to the British media last weekend, suggests that fewer than 1 percent of Iraqis think the U.S. and U.K. military involvement in their country is helping to improve security. Sixty-seven percent feel less secure precisely because of the occupation. And -- most worrying of all -- around 65 percent of Iraqis approve of attacks on occupation forces.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:33 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1253030

WASHINGTON Oct 26, 2005 � Sen. John Kerry says President Bush should bring home 20,000 troops from Iraq over the Christmas holidays if the December parliamentary elections there are successful.

Defeated by Bush last year and a potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, Kerry called for a "reasonable time frame" for pulling back troops rather than a full-scale withdrawal advocated by some Democrats. He said it could be completed in 12 to 15 months.

"It will be hard for this administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down � starting immediately after successful elections in December," Kerry said in a speech Wednesday at Georgetown University.

The presence of 159,000 U.S. troops in Iraq is deterring peace efforts, said Kerry, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks," he said. "At the first benchmark, the completion of December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays."

Kerry, who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, has been a strong critic of Bush's handling of the war, accusing the president of misleading the public into going to war.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:49 PM

sounds reasonable to me. Maybe you should rethink the title of this thread, Peter, and ask that it be changed? First time I think I've ever disagreed with you about a thread title and/or political view!:-)

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Mr Happy
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:50 PM

only an idiot would keep 'em there. bring 'em al back + all the other occupying armies & camp followers

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Peace
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 10:51 PM

Well, then there's no point having a war if everyone is going home.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:16 PM

John Kerry wears his Frankenstein costume all year around.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: number 6
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:43 PM

How many more times will we have to hear ... "I'll have them home for Xmas'??

sIx

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Oct 05 - 11:58 PM

John Kerry proves once again why he would have made a terrible President (not as bad as Bush, but that is now saying nothing) and why he should shut up and go home. His latest idiot remark is that the Administration should bring 20,000 troops home at Christmas. For no good reason, just to do it. Can anything be more pathetic.


Peter T, your warmongering is what is pathetic. You'd rather leave them in Iraq?

2000 have come home in body bags so far. How many of the rest of them need to die so Bush can strut his stuff for the rest of the world, prove what a tough guy he is (even if he angers the rest of the world in the process)? It isn't just pathetic, Peter, it is obscene.

SRS

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:39 AM

Slip em over the border to Iran and finish the fucking job save time and airfares too....;-)

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:54 AM

The 116th BCT (Oregon, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Washington) will begin deploying back to the States in two days -- the Advance Party is already here. In three weeks they'll be home and there will be lots of happiness around here.

I would have thought Kerry a true idiot if he'd called for the troops to be brought home immediately, all at once.

Tactically, such a withdrawal would be extremely stupid and wasteful of life -- you lose far, far more people in a rout than in a planned, careful retreat (a/k/a "withdrawal").

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: GUEST,Stoopid Hillbilly
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 09:17 AM

This here's the purfict place for you peace mongers to strut yore stuff an show whut tuff guys you are.

SH

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 09:33 AM

I imagine that Stoopid Hillbilly is writing us from the front line? Talk about tough!

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Peter T.
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 11:52 AM

As I have said before, in these circumstances the stupid ruthless ones have it all over the smart ditherers. How do the Democrats expect to win back the government if they keep talking like John Kerry, a little bit of war here, a little bit of peace there. That is why they lost the last time. If I were a Republican, I would cheer up every time John Kerry opens his mouth -- 20,000 troops home by Christmas. Why? What about the other 140,000? Are they building democracy or not? What should be done about them? Are they safer in Iraq with 20,00 fewer of them? Is the insurgency really fueled by the American troops, or an impending civil war? Why not more troops? Why not the draft? Why not no troops over there?

It is crazy to keep making these "me too, but only sort of different" dithering statements: I'll see you 20,000 and raise you 10. It is agonizing to watch the Democrats like deer in the headlights, but they could have at least the good grace to shut up and go home until they have something worthwhile to contribute.


yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 01:41 PM

Peter - Maybe I missed it - but what's your plan for withdrawl ?

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 02:10 PM

I think Peter makes a good point, politically.

Strategically, it would be a good idea, since Iraqis want a constitution (7 to 3 or some such), to recruit one-for-one replacements of all 140,000 troops, train them in democratic law and as much decency as they can absorb, and apprentice them under opposite numbers throughout the expeditionary forces. If every soldier out there knew he could get back home if he got his apprentice through his education, it would make for a lot more graduates. And a regular flow homeward of American troops from cooks to captians to infantry and all points in between.

It would not prevent a civil war; but that's not likely to be preventable until the factions internal to Iraq gird up their loins and build their own nation. One of W's idiocies was going in on the premise of doing it for them without the indigenous demand being in much evidence.

Just my two bits worth.


A

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 03:22 PM

After watching the last five years of the Bush administration, there seems no position better suited to this discussion than one of fatalism. There are a lot of people who aren't going to get out of the Bush years alive. We never should have gone to Iraq, we shouldn't be there now, and the sooner we get everyone out, the better, done as an orderly withdrawl to avoid the casualties of leaving (yes, that is the scary part, Rapaire, how the hell to get them back out of that place?).

It was a mess before we went there. We may have made it worse, because no one strong is in charge now to run things--it WILL go to the insurgents, despite what Bush is trying to do. There's no way to avoid it. It will be a mess when we leave WHENEVER we leave. We don't belong there. Throwing money at it isn't going to work, and I'm not so inhumane that I would say 'leave them to their own devices' with the way it is now. Bush obligated us to trying to clean up the mess we made, but the myth is that we can clean up the mess that we made. Trying to fix the problem is now just making things worse for a lot of people. The U.S. had no business invading Iraq. Period. Clinton had the right idea--at least Saddam was under control.

Crusader Bush started this war based on lies. How many Iraqis have died? Then add in over 2000 US troops, and many other contractors and security people. There are some dead Europeans and reporters in there. Bush has put America in about as bad a position as possible. If he'd been trying he couldn't have done a better job. Don't bash Kerry because he sees the mess and wants it over with and wants to try to redeem things with some kind of improvement before we leave.

Iraqis are going to suffer with us or without us. So I vote they do it without us.

SRS

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 04:17 PM

It doesn't seem idiotic to me. What are the alternatives?

Wait for peace and stabilty over there before the troops leave. When will that be?

Withdraw all the troops now in one go? I think that would be a recipe for even greater disaster.

It is hard to know what to do about the mess we created but I think a planned withdrawal in stages is the best option.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 05:16 PM

rapid withdrawal? Nawww! We've already seen how to deal with the situation when we get in too deep for all the wrong reasons. We just send MORE troops over, fight the enemy on his turf so he can use guerrilla warfare, try to prop up an untried, incompetant government, and then when we realize the IS no way to win (after losing 30,00-40,000), we evacuate suddenly and watch the chaos develop after we're gone.

Sound familar?

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 05:27 PM

Peter, I am also curious to know what you would consider a non-idiotic approach to this situation.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 05:27 PM

Recruiting new bodies and throwing them into the cauldron because we have to honor those who gave their lives previously is perverted thinking. That is not honoring them; it is DIShonor.

Kind of like we have to elect the president because we are at war - when he was the one who took us there in the first place.

Paraphrase: "How do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?"

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: number 6
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:02 PM

" Paraphrase: "How do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?""

Well put Ebbie.

sIx

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:24 PM

I think that there is a certain wisdom beyond the issue in what you say, Peter. Long I saw Republicans so afraid of being seen as stingy that, rather than stand on some principle, they would instead offer the same program offered by the Democrats -- only "Lite" -- less spending.

The predictable way in which the electorate interpreted this was that -- since the principle or value of the program was not made an issue, then the Republicans were just needlessly stingy, as the Democrats offered them more goodies.

There is a kind of compromise that is admirable -- where principles are not compromised, but two sides can get a bit of what they are after.

There is the kind of "compromise" offered here by Kerry that, like the Republicans and their stingy spending, has shown no principle. As Peter has astutely observed, since Democrats like Kerry offer no principle by which the electorate can feel as though their national security interests are important, Kerry's capricious "compromise" seems idiotic, unprincipled and, ultimately, dangerous.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:27 PM

How about if the US & UK send to Iraq both President & Prime Minster & the present administrations to rule there since they've done such a bang up job & send all the soldiers home. NOW. Well played, we're not going anywhere for quite along time (see Korea). If anyone thinks there's an end in site, forget it. We're there & come hell or high water the government will stay there, unless a demand from the public says OUT NOW. It's all fine to hear maybe by Xmass or 6 months or within a year, this has already been play out, already & it's being played again then it'll be played again. 20,000 dead do we want another 10,000 to raise to stay in the game not to mention the 200,000 to 300,000 dead Iraqi's. They're really dying for us to stay there. This we can't pull out now is another smoke screen that's getting tired & is being played a little too often. Take the cards, take the losses, fold & go home to the families. We went in for no good reason & made trash of the country & are continuing to make a bad situation worst by staying there. Iraqi's will have to do for themselves, as cruel as that sounds, in giving their option, I would say, we've pretty much set-up the country for civil war. We can't come out of this shinning in any way, so we should try to start thinking what's best for them, for once & get out. "But what about the soldiers, the bases, time & money & the endured shame we've already invested & what about the Iraqi's that we never cared about"? Come home & beg on our knee's to let the UN, the World Court & all the other humanitarian countries & organizations advise & approve, with the Iraqi's consent of course.

Barry

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: GUEST,Ian - Nottm -uk
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:40 PM

Kerry may well have been a terrible President, but would he have been stupid enough to invade Iraq in the first place?

Ian

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:08 PM

Whatever your politics over 2,000 Americans have died. At least 15,000 Americans have been mutilated or dimembered and at least 100,000 Iraqies have perished. "How long?" "How long?"

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 09:53 PM

Ditto, Barry Finn...

Like I have been sayin' fir a long time noe, the reral civil war in Iraq will occur when the US/UK leave....

Don't matter when we leave or how many folks have died before we leave...

This was one dumbass foriegn policy decision... When you think of it, it was dumber than Vietnam becausde we had Vietnem as a vivid reminder of how not to conduct foreign policy...

And it hasn't even given the big US/UK oil companies any more access to other folks (Iraqis...) oil???

Like I said, dumbass, dumbass, dumbass....

Bobert

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:58 AM

Barry Finn (27 Oct 05 - 07:27 PM), GUEST,Peter Woodruff (27 Oct 05 - 08:08 PM).

What are the sources that lead you to state that "200,000 to 300,000 dead Iraqi's" and "at least 100,000 Iraqies have perished."

Those figures related to recent activities in Iraq are unsubstantiated and groundless, please do not trot them out as fact when they patently are not.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 11:52 AM

Okay, Teribus, find the "real" numbers please. What number of dead soldiers and civilians is okay with you?

SRS

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:10 PM

Barry's estimate I read as a projection if the USA would stay there for much longer. Therefore there's no real need to ask where this number comes from.

Peter Woodruff's at least 100,000 Iraqies have perished is simply wrong. The 100,000 he has in mind are the best guess estimate from an article using self report data collected in some parts of the country. The lowest estimate in that article is much lower (below 10,000 if I recall correctly; the highest BTW was above 200,000). To take a middle value like 100,000 and add 'at least' to it is shows a very creative memory at work.

The more reliable 'body count' from newspaper articles gives the number right now as very close to 30,000. This is most likely an underestimation so therefore 'at least 30,000' seems now as a defendable statement, other than Peter's.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:29 PM

Barry's estimate I read as a projection if the USA would stay there for much longer. Therefore there's no real need to ask where this number comes from.

Peter Woodruff's at least 100,000 Iraqies have perished is simply wrong. The 100,000 he has in mind are the best guess estimate from an article using self report data collected in some parts of the country. The lowest estimate in that article is much lower (below 10,000 if I recall correctly; the highest BTW was above 200,000). To take a middle value like 100,000 and add 'at least' to it is shows a very creative memory at work.

The more reliable 'body count' from newspaper articles gives the number right now as very close to 30,000. This is most likely an underestimation so therefore 'at least 30,000' seems now as a defendable statement, other than Peter's.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: GUEST,Stoopid Hillbilly
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:30 PM

Ain't no since in axin' a questin here. Ain't nutthin here but peceniks wif a lot o' hi flyin' ideals and no idys of how to reach im.

To thim reality is fo folks who cain't handle drugs.


SH

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: pdq
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:32 PM

Here is an analysis of the casualty figures Wolfgang mentions. The original article was in Lancet Online and was rushed to the public about one week before the US elections of 2004 - intended to do as much damage as possible to the Republican candidates for congress. I do not believe it ever appeared in the actual Lancet publication.

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

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.

Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday's election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling.

The problem is, ultimately, not with the scholars who conducted the study; they did the best they could under the circumstances. The problem is the circumstances. It's hard to conduct reliable, random surveys—and to extrapolate meaningful data from the results of those surveys—in the chaotic, restrictive environment of war.

However, these scholars are responsible for the hype surrounding the study. Gilbert Burnham, one of the co-authors, told the International Herald Tribune (for a story reprinted in today's New York Times), "We're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate." Yet the text of the study reveals this is simply untrue. Burnham should have said, "We're not quite sure what our estimate means. Assuming our model is accurate, the actual death toll might be 100,000, or it might be somewhere between 92,000 lower and 94,000 higher than that number."

Not a meaty headline, but truer to the findings of his own study.

Here's how the Johns Hopkins team—which, for the record, was led by Dr. Les Roberts of the university's Bloomberg School of Public Health—went about its work. They randomly selected 33 neighborhoods across Iraq—equal-sized population "clusters"—and, this past September, set out to interview 30 households in each. They asked how many people in each household died, of what causes, during the 14 months before the U.S. invasion—and how many died, of what, in the 17 months since the war began. They then took the results of their random sample and extrapolated them to the entire country, assuming that their 33 clusters were perfectly representative of all Iraq.

This is a time-honored technique for many epidemiological studies, but those conducting them have to take great care that the way they select the neighborhoods is truly random (which, as most poll-watchers of any sort know, is difficult under the easiest of circumstances). There's a further complication when studying the results of war, especially a war fought mainly by precision bombs dropped from the air: The damage is not randomly distributed; it's very heavily concentrated in a few areas.

The Johns Hopkins team had to confront this problem. One of the 33 clusters they selected happened to be in Fallujah, one of the most heavily bombed and shelled cities in all Iraq. Was it legitimate to extrapolate from a sample that included such an extreme case? More awkward yet, it turned out, two-thirds of all the violent deaths that the team recorded took place in the Fallujah cluster. They settled the dilemma by issuing two sets of figures—one with Fallujah, the other without. The estimate of 98,000 deaths is the extrapolation from the set that does not include Fallujah. What's the extrapolation for the set that does include Fallujah? They don't exactly say. Fallujah was nearly unique; it's impossible to figure out how to extrapolate from it. A question does arise, though: Is this difficulty a result of some peculiarity about the fighting in Fallujah? Or is it a result of some peculiarity in the survey's methodology?

There were other problems. The survey team simply could not visit some of the randomly chosen clusters; the roads were blocked off, in some cases by coalition checkpoints. So the team picked other, more accessible areas that had received similar amounts of damage. But it's unclear how they made this calculation. In any case, the detour destroyed the survey's randomness; the results are inherently tainted. In other cases, the team didn't find enough people in a cluster to interview, so they expanded the survey to an adjoining cluster. Again, at that point, the survey was no longer random, and so the results are suspect.

Beth Osborne Daponte, senior research scholar at Yale University's Institution for Social and Policy Studies, put the point diplomatically after reading the Lancet article this morning and discussing it with me in a phone conversation: "It attests to the difficulty of doing this sort of survey work during a war. … No one can come up with any credible estimates yet, at least not through the sorts of methods used here."

The study, though, does have a fundamental flaw that has nothing to do with the limits imposed by wartime—and this flaw suggests that, within the study's wide range of possible casualty estimates, the real number tends more toward the lower end of the scale. In order to gauge the risk of death brought on by the war, the researchers first had to measure the risk of death in Iraq before the war. Based on their survey of how many people in the sampled households died before the war, they calculated that the mortality rate in prewar Iraq was 5 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The mortality rate after the war started—not including Fallujah—was 7.9 deaths per 1,000 people per year. In short, the risk of death in Iraq since the war is 58 percent higher (7.9 divided by 5 = 1.58) than it was before the war.

But there are two problems with this calculation. First, Daponte (who has studied Iraqi population figures for many years) questions the finding that prewar mortality was 5 deaths per 1,000. According to quite comprehensive data collected by the United Nations, Iraq's mortality rate from 1980-85 was 8.1 per 1,000. From 1985-90, the years leading up to the 1991 Gulf War, the rate declined to 6.8 per 1,000. After '91, the numbers are murkier, but clearly they went up. Whatever they were in 2002, they were almost certainly higher than 5 per 1,000. In other words, the wartime mortality rate—if it is 7.9 per 1,000—probably does not exceed the peacetime rate by as much as the Johns Hopkins team assumes.

The second problem with the calculation goes back to the problem cited at the top of this article—the margin of error. Here is the relevant passage from the study: "The risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1 – 2.3) higher after the invasion." Those mysterious numbers in the parentheses mean the authors are 95 percent confident that the risk of death now is between 1.1 and 2.3 times higher than it was before the invasion—in other words, as little as 10 percent higher or as much as 130 percent higher. Again, the math is too vague to be useful.

There is one group out there counting civilian casualties in a way that's tangible, specific, and very useful—a team of mainly British researchers, led by Hamit Dardagan and John Sloboda, called Iraq Body Count. They have kept a running total of civilian deaths, derived entirely from press reports. Their count is triple fact-checked; their database is itemized and fastidiously sourced; and they take great pains to separate civilian from combatant casualties (for instance, last Tuesday, the group released a report estimating that, of the 800 Iraqis killed in last April's siege of Fallujah, 572 to 616 of them were civilians, at least 308 of them women and children).

The IBC estimates that between 14,181 and 16,312 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war—about half of them since the battlefield phase of the war ended last May..."

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:49 PM

Kerry is not the world's most effective messenger, but his point was a good one: we need a plan to bring this to a close. Whatever your views on the wisdom of starting this war, the fact is, we're there now, and we need to be thinking and talking about how we're going to bring this to a close and get out of there.

Immediate withdrawal would be insane; even if we could manage to pull it off without taking catastrophic casualties ourselves in the process, it would leave a power vaccuum, which would quickly evolve into a large-scale civil war that would make the current death rates appear insignificant. And that civil war would not be contained within Iraq's borders. It's all well and good to talk about just picking up our toys and going home, but it just isn't realistic.

We need a plan; if Kerry's isn't the right one, let's come up with a better alternative. The problem now is that we really don't seem to have a plan for bringing this to a close, and all we hear from the Administration is "we'll stay until the job is done". Their justification for not giving any more details seems to be that this would "embolden the insurgency," and allow them to "wait us out". But the insurgency is already emboldened, and they fully intend to still be there when we're gone, whether that's this year, next year, or ten years from now. That's a pretty lame excuse for not saying how we're going to end this thing.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Jeri
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 02:29 PM

The end is looking a bit more like Vietnam than the preceding bits. I may be being incredibly general here, but there was an attempt to help the S. Vietnamese take over while we pulled out. Once we'd left, everything fell apart. This was possibly because WE cared more about 'winning' than they did.

Bush's plan - indeed ANY plan - for slowly extricating the U.S. completely is going to fail. Either we'll be delayed in leaving until we might as well just give up the idea or we will slowly pull people out and the insurgents will step up their efforts until we have to either bail or get back in 100%. I don't see another path, but I'd welcome hearing rational opinions. I'd definitely like to hear what Peter T thinks would be best.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:40 PM

The scum who lead us will keep our troops in Iraq facing death or mutilation until WE force them to withdraw just as we did in vietnam.

There is not and never was any good reason to be there and now our troops are to be abandoned in a conflict, the outcome of which they have no control over.

The tales of "spreading democracy" can now be seen by even the most dense observer to be half lies and half wishfull thinking.

The occupying forces should be withdrawn now.
There is going to be blood shed because of our actions and the longer we stay the bloodier will be the reckoning...Ake

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:10 PM

I'm still waiting for Peter T's withdrawl plan. Do you have one Peter ?

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: GUEST,Whiplash
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:32 PM

Real deep thinker.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: GUEST,Martin gibson
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:33 PM

Guest, Wwhiplash, didn't you rape Nell before you tied her to the tracks?

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Auggie
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:37 PM

You know, if W takes them home anytime soon he's just going to have to turn right around and redeploy them to Iran. My guess is he thinks it will be easier and cheaper just to send them over from next door in Iraq. I mean, what the hell, as long as we're in the neighborhood, we might just as well drop in...

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Justa Picker
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:49 PM

Naw ... in light of the wonderful remarks made yesterday by the President of Iran, they should relocate them all, next door and do what should have been done there, INSTEAD of in Iraq.

Too late now, though. Armageddon's just around the corner and Iran is working fast to achieve that.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Auggie
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:49 PM

I do however, still agree that John Kerry is an idiot.

Anyone with an Ivy League law degree who drops into Rural America for a photo op and says for the cameras, "Kin ah git me a huntin license here", and then expects us not to recognize that he's a calculating, insincere poseur, is assuredly an idiot.

The last time I saw anything that patently stupid from a candidate, it was Michael Dukakis sitting in that damn fool tank with a helmet on.

Now, is he a bigger idiot than GWB? Well, as military hawk (who never quite managed to enlist) John Wayne once said,"I'd hate to live on the difference."

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: GUEST,Whiplash
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 04:52 PM

No, MG, I'm not related to Simon Legree. The name I chose means that I intend to be a pain in the neck to creatures like you. I'll leave raping Little Nell to you. You seem to have sex on your mind a lot.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Peter T.
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 05:25 PM

My withdrawal plan is for John Kerry to go home now, and not wait for Christmas.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: B.S. John Kerry, Idiot
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 05:57 PM

That's not an answer Peter. Just how should we withdraw from Iraq ? Or should we just annex it and call it our 51st state ?