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.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 01:49 PM

An RAF serviceman saw Iraqi civilians with bags over their heads being shouted at and abused by British soldiers, he has told a hearing.

Senior Aircraftman Scott Hughes spoke at the court martial of seven soldiers charged variously with treating Iraqi civilians inhumanely and manslaughter.

Cpl Donald Payne has already admitted the war crime of inhumanely treating civilian detainees in southern Iraq.

He and six others deny other charges relating to the alleged abuse in 2003.

The charges also relate to the death of Baha Mousa, 26, in custody in Basra.

        
CHARGES IN FULL
Cpl Donald Payne - manslaughter, inhumane treatment of persons, perverting the course of justice
L/Cpl Wayne Crowcroft - inhumane treatment of persons
Pte Darren Fallon - inhumane treatment of persons
Sgt Kelvin Stacey - actual bodily harm, alternatively assault
Warrant Officer Mark Davies - negligently performing a duty
Maj Michael Peebles - negligently performing a duty
Col Jorge Mendonca - negligently performing a duty

Mr Mousa, a hotel receptionist, was among a group of detainees arrested following a counter-insurgency operation in September 2003.

SAC Hughes told the court martial, at the Military Court Centre, Bulford Camp, Wiltshire, he was visiting a British detention centre in Basra where 11 Iraqi civilians were being held when he heard "loud noises" and "shouting".

When he went to investigate, he saw detainees with sand bags over their heads and arms outstretched.

SAC Hughes said he saw Cpl Payne attacking an elderly detainee, nicknamed "granddad" by the soldiers - later identified as Kifah Al-Matairi - and kicking him in the kidneys.

"He then put his fingers into his eye sockets and yanked his head up, it was as if he was gouging his eyes."

SAC Hughes said Cpl Payne had asked him: "Would you like to see the choir?"

Cpl Payne then went around the room kicking each detainee in the kidneys so each cried out in pain, SAC Hughes added.

        
I had never really seen anything like that before. I did not know why I stayed that long
Senior Aircraftman Scott Hughes

He also told of the smell of excrement, sweat and urine in the building, saying he was told the prisoners had soiled themselves.

A day after his visit, SAC Hughes said he told his commanding officers what he had seen after hearing one of the detainees had died.

"I reported it because I had a conscience," he said.

"I had never really seen anything like that before. I did not know why I stayed that long. I was shocked."

Asked why he had not intervened, he replied: "They [the soldiers] were a lot bigger than me and I didn't know what their orders were."

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:37 AM

The issue should not be the mere statistical number of deaths, but the reason why, and by whom they are being killed. (mostly tribal and revenge issues) The history books teach that it took the USA (original thirteen colonies) eleven years of peacefull negotiation to come up with a Constitution. Apparently you expected Iraq with all it's divisive and beligerent tribal qualities to do better?

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 08:29 AM

"the greater number of deaths in the US" - I think you should check your figures there Old Guy.

The death rate in Iraq is far higher than in the US even in absolute numbers. And that is a country with a tiny population compared to the USA.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 26 Oct 06 - 12:33 AM

DF: If that is your position then you are dismissing the greater number of deaths in the US as no big deal.

"If someone makes a comment, he will contradict them, and the argument is off and running. And he won't quit until the person who made the initial comment throws up his hands and quits in disgust." Sounds like you.

"He doesn't care about facts and he has no regard whatsoever for the truth" I ask you for facts and get nothing but personal attacks.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:41 PM

You know, Old Guy, you remind me of a relative of mine. If someone makes a comment, he will contradict them, and the argument is off and running. And he won't quit until the person who made the initial comment throws up his hands and quits in disgust. He'll argue about anything:   politics, religion, sports, the weather. . . . And he never argues fairly. He ducks and dodges, he knows every fallacy in the book and uses them with some skill (straw man, ad hominem, begging the question, red herring—he's so fond of red herrings, you'd swear he was Scandinavian!—he uses them all).

Recently, I tried something on him just to see how it played out. We'd had one of our more heated discussions some time back. The next time I saw him, a month or so later, I brought the subject up again, but I took the position he had taken before. He disagreed with me—surprise surprise! He took the position that I had taken previously, and as usual, he wouldn't quit until finally I said, "Okay, you're right! Just forget it!" He was so busy smirking that he didn't notice that I was smirking a bit myself. I was sure now that I had his number.

So that pretty well nailed it down. He doesn't care about facts and he has no regard whatsoever for the truth. He just has this pathological need to win arguments.

Well, the difference between the two of you is that he can argue either side. I don't think you're quite that versatile.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 03:24 PM

"War's just murder undisguised."

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 03:19 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.

You, sir, are a liar!

And furthermore, that "crybaby liberal" bumpersticker you're so fond of using is pure Rush Limbaugh. Obviously that's where you get all your political and debating acumen.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: jeffp
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:49 AM

That number of 2,660 is for the city of Baghdad alone. Pick a comparable US city and imagine what the outcry would be at a similar death toll from any cause.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:48 AM

Or, to put it differently - 2,660 deaths per month in Iraq is equivalent, relative to the population of the two countries, of having a September 11 twice every week.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:33 AM

Iraq has a population of around 26 million people. The USA has a population of 300 million people.

So 2,660 civilians in a month in Iraq killed is equivalent to about 30,000 deaths per month in the USA. Just "to put the civilian deaths in Iraq into perspective". (And that 2,660 pretty certainly doesn't include a lot of deaths caused less directly. )

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:28 AM

DF:

"considering that the number of civilian casualties are the pretty much the same"

No, 3553 and 2660 are not pretty much the same.

"why the big deal about the attacks on the World Trade Center?"

I think the attacks on the world trade center caused roughly 3000 civilian deaths in one day which is a bigger deal than 155 per day or 89 per day in Iraq.

Apparently you think the the attacks on the World Trade Center were not a big deal.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 25 Oct 06 - 10:20 AM

Amos:

As usual you lack perspective. My statistic is intended to put the civilian deaths in Iraq into perspective.

For what purpose do Americans die in auto crashes? We are so civilized here in the US. We have perfect people like Amos that can instantly point their finger at the cause and cure for any problem involving the senseless death of human beings. Why do people continue to die from silly things like auto crashes? If we know the answer for Iraq why don't we know the answer for the USA?

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 01:34 PM

Quoted by Old Guy just above, presumably to defend Bush and show that 2,660 casualties in one month is--nyah--no big deal.

"3553 US civilians die in auto crashes per month. 155 per day."

Okay then, Old Guy, considering that the number of civilian casualties are the pretty much the same, why the big deal about the attacks on the World Trade Center?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Bagpuss
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 01:07 PM

If you cant access the article linked to by wolfgang, here's a news story reporting on it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1929817,00.html

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 12:48 PM

"the liberation of Iraq"...

That is some chutzpah!

Smoking doesn't cause cancer; there is no global warming; the holocaust hads been grossly exaggerated: and only 72,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 12:38 PM

A mere 72,000 civilian deaths? Well, that's all right, then, innit?

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:51 AM

The recent survey, published in the British medical journal, "The Lancet," claiming over 650,000 civilian deaths due to the liberation of Iraq, was quickly labeled propaganda, not science.   Is the survey accurate? The answer is, apparently not. The survey is widely out of sync with casualty counts by other organizations, and by a wide margin. A 2004 study by the same authors claimed 100,000 civilian casualties – a survey at odds with one done by the United Nations at the same time (which estimated 18,000 to 29,000 deaths). To compare this with other studies – the group Iraq Body Count only claims 49,000 civilian deaths, the Brookings Institution reports 62,000, and the Los Angeles Times has reported 50,000 civilian deaths since the liberation of Iraq.

The Lancet survey, conducted by researchers from the American Johns Hopkins University, used a method that is generally acceptable for use in developing countries. This method involves the use of cluster points – interviews with a number of households (usually 10 to 40) in a given neighborhood in that country. This survey apparently only used 47 clusters of 40 people each, for roughly 1,800 people. The 2004 Johns Hopkins study used a grand total of 33 cluster points. This is a very small sample when compared to those of other surveys, which have used far more cluster points. For instance, the 2004 UN survey used 2,200 cluster points. The following year, a group of media outlets used 135 cluster points for their study. A survey in Kosovo used 50 cluster points for a population that was less than 6 percent of Iraq's. A 1992 Harvard study of Iraq used 271 cluster points. A survey of the Congo cited by the authors of the Johns Hopkins study used 750 cluster points.

Another sign this number is off is the fact that it implies that, on average, hundreds of civilians per day have been killed since the liberation of Iraq. Not even the mainstream media has reported death tolls that high. One recently reported "surge in violence" involved a total of 110 people killed in a two-day span. That is an average of 55 people killed per day – which would imply a total of roughly 72,000 civilian deaths (somewhat higher the Brookings Institution estimate).

Something else that has been ignored is the fact that in the past, false claims of massacres and a high death toll have occurred. One such example was the alleged massacre in Jenin. Palestinians claimed that over 500 civilians were killed. Later investigations revealed that the death toll was 52 – 30 of whom were Palestinian terrorists from various groups (including Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the al-Asqa Martyrs Brigade).

The small samples and the past history of exaggerated casualty counts have not stopped numerous opponents of the liberation of Iraq, like Greg Mitchell of " Editor and Publisher" (a publication geared towards the media), from citing the study – and attacking those who have questioned it. In this case, a highly questionable figure has been seized upon, and is now being bandied about – while the flaws have been ignored. Another favorite subject at " Editor and Publisher" is, "why don't people trust the media." Here is a case where the answer is closer than the editors of " Editor and Publisher" would like to admit.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Amos
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:32 AM

Guy:

Taking a Big Ugly Fact and trying to cover it up with a Small Ugly Fact is disingenuous, misleading, and deceitful. Your assertion about car deaths in the U.S. has no bearing or relevance, and you know that; so it is clear your intent is to simply occlude the conversation and act as a spoiler. You can do better.

A

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:17 AM

So how come that isn't the priority, rather than being shrugged of as a price worth paying? No signs of a "War on Car Killing"...

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Old Guy
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 09:00 AM

3553 US civilians die in auto crashes per month. 155 per day.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 08:18 AM

Hey, its "just a number" anyway.

Relax. Mission Accomplished! some time ago.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 07:48 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.   

In both cases exact figures can't be obtained, by the nature of the events - and this gets used by people and governments who have an agenda of denying the scale of the killing, as a way of avoiding the ugly truth.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 month
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 07:19 AM

A lot of American intel people are very pessimistic about sectarian violence in Iraq. It is the most critical problem confronting the government and the Coalition. And many analysts see no way to curb it. Especially since militia leaders, such as radical cleric al Sadr, appear to have lost control of some of their followers. Much of the killing is being done by small independent cells, who no longer even pay lip-service to obeying their ostensible militia leadership. A few cells exist in the police, and are particularly dangerous.

Sectarian violence aside, there have been some useful successes in the war. Attacks on security forces and critical infrastructure are down, there has been some progress in co-opting the largely Sunni tribes of Anbar into the fight against al Qaeda. Recently, Iraqi intelligence operations managed to bring down a major Baathist network that was moving money around to finance local terrorist operators. In the process, police busted several important mid-level Baath officials, which will reduce Baathist terrorism. But the increase in sectarian attacks, mostly Shia on Sunni, but with some Sunni on Shia as well, is more than making up for the decline in attacks on security forces and infrastructure, or Baathist activity. The sectarian violence is all about revenge, with Shia, and even some Kurdish, gunmen out to avenge decades of murderous rule by the Sunni Arab minority.

Subject: RE: Iraq War Casualties - 2,660 civilians in 1 mon
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Oct 06 - 05:53 AM

Article about the 650,000 estimate
that shows that disagreement with the target article comes not only from people with a political agenda like Bush but also from scientific peers.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures - 2,660 civilians
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 09:37 PM

Okay, here we go:

ABC News International.

BAGHDAD, Iraq Oct 11, 2006 (AP)— More than 2,660 Iraqi civilians were killed in the capital in September amid a wave of sectarian killings and insurgent attacks, an increase of 400 over the month before, according to figures from the Iraqi Health Ministry.

The increase came despite an intensified U.S.-Iraqi sweep of Baghdad that was launched in mid-August to try to put down the wave of violence that has swept over the capital. The violence consists of a deadly combination of bombings and shootings by Sunni insurgents, and slayings by Shiite and Sunni death squads.

The September numbers come as a controversial new study contends that nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died in the three-year-old conflict in Iraq, more than 10 times higher than other independent estimates of the toll.

The rest of the story HERE.

But still, who changed the thread title and why?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures - 2,660 civilians
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 08:40 PM

When even Johns Ho[pkins admits that the 650,000 number may not be accurate but in their anaylsis there is a 95% chance that the number is between 400,000 and 900,000 still has to make the Teribus's and Beardedbruces of the world at least stop and take notice...

BTW, this study was funded and overseen by MIT so between MIT and Johns Hopkiins we ain't exactly talklin' Jim Jones University here but some very reputable institutions...

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures - 2,660 civilian
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 07:40 PM

I think that's the number of civilians killed this month or something like that, but the heading has lost its tail.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures - 2,660 civilians
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 07:12 PM

Yeah, I was wondering about that. That isn't what I typed when I started this thread, and it makes it more than just a bit misleading to the casual browser. The John's Hopkins report said around 650,000 civilian casualties.

Surely Karl Rove doesn't have clone status! What's going on?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures - 2,660 civilians
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 07:10 PM

His remarkable insight into this kind of thing was previously displayed. Remember when he applauded as "uniquely American" a single-parent woman who told him that she was working three jobs?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures - up to 900,000
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 05:34 PM

"Iraq War Casualty Figures - 2,660 civilians" What's with the modified heading? "2,660" is even lower than Bush's made up estimate.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures - 2,660 civilian
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 09:04 AM

Lets see how many different threads Dave can post the same three paragraphs of surmise on....

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures - 2,660 civilians
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 08:35 AM

Shia leaders, including even radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr, are coming to believe their militias must be reined in if there is to be any chance of establishing a Shia-dominated regime in Iraq. Apparently they have begun to see that Shia death-squads have been radicalizing Sunni groups that were at least willing to acquiesce to Shia rule, thus feeding the violence in the country. How this will play with the more violent elements in the Shia militia remains to be seen. Even Sadr has reportedly been having trouble keeping control over the more hot-headed among his followers.

The basic problem is that, while there are still thousands of Sunni Arabs who believe they can use terrorist attacks to regain control of the country, the Kurds and Shia Arabs now have an overwhelming advantage in the firepower department. There is no terrorism to speak of in the northern Kurdish provinces. Kurdish border guards and police see to that. In most southern Shia Arab towns, it's the same. Strangers, especially if they look to be Sunni Arabs, are definitely not welcome down there. But in central Iraq, where Shia and Sunni Arabs live mixed together (with a few Kurds), it's easier for Sunni terrorists to get around. Well, it used to be easier. Now it's getting harder. More road blocks, and cops who are better at spotting terrorists, have brought down the number of terror attacks. Meanwhile, the Shia Arab death squads are increasing their operations. Death squads don't just kill, they also deliver letters to Sunni families living in Shia areas, telling the Sunnis to get out or die. As a result, there are fewer Sunni Arabs living among Shia. In the last three years, over a third of the Sunni Arab population has moved, either within Iraq, or fleeing the country altogether.

Many of the killers on the Shia death squads want all Sunni Arabs out of Iraq, dead or alive. It's largely a matter of revenge. For decades, Saddam had his own death squads working in Kurdish and Shia Arab areas. Over half a million were killed, and all of them had kin. There are plenty of avengers out there. There are three times as many Shia as there are Kurds, and for the Shia, the revenge is religion based (al Qaeda terrorists kill Shia partly for religious reasons), as well as political and personal. The violence in Iraq is all about power (the Sunni Arab minority thinks they can bully their way back in) and revenge (the Shia Arabs and Kurds want Sunni Arabs brought to justice, with or without a trial).

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: ard mhacha
Date: 13 Oct 06 - 04:18 AM

General Sir Richard Dannatt the head of the British forces in Iraq has said that it is time to get out, the Generals impression of the present situation in Iraq was ine of a lost cause, among many criticisms of the invasion, he pointed out that there was no post war planning, also the present state of Muslim extremism in Britain was due to the unlawful occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:54 PM

Someone brave ought to point out that there is NO evidence they are tolerating the violence, and that a good part of the violence is in fact the result of them NOT tolerating it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:50 PM

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.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 10:52 PM

Let me get this straight, If Bush had, instead of invading Iraq on false grounds, hhad the Special Forces round up 3,000 or 30,000 individual citizens, women and chiildren included, and had the Marines machine gun them to death, does he imagine this would have been an OK thing to do??? The nerve of this guy!!!!!!!

Jaysus wept.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 09:40 PM

Wolfgang:

We did not read the report in the Lancet but we did read an interviewe with Les Roberts, one of the main researchers of the study in which he says:

"...this cluster survey approach, is the standard way of measuring mortality in very poor countries where the government isn't very functional or in times of war. And when UNICEF goes out and measures mortality in any developing country, this is what they do. When the U.S. government went at the end of the war in Kosovo or went at the end of the war in Afghanistan and the U.S. government measured the death rate, this is how they did it. And most ironically, the U.S. government has been spending millions of dollars per year, through something called the Smart Initiative, to train NGOs and UN workers to do cluster surveys to measure mortality in times of wars and disasters."


He went on to say:

"In Iraq, there is a huge difference in death rates between, for example, the Kurdish north, which is relatively safe, and the Sunni Triangle, where the death rates are extremely high. And what we did was we got a population estimate of every government, from the Iraqi government, and we randomly allocated these 50 clusters that we were to go visit proportional to the population in each of those governments, so that, if in the Kurdish north there is only 20% of the population living in the couple safest provinces, we would naturally end up with a sample that's 20% or so from that zone.

And then, once we had picked that we were going to visit two or three neighborhoods in a certain governance or province, we would then make a list of all the villages and towns and cities, and again randomly pick one of those to visit, so that big places had a larger chance of being visited than smaller places. And then, finally, when we got down to the village level or to the section of a city, we would pick a house at random, visit it and the other 39 houses closest to it to grab a cluster of 40 houses..."


On the other hand, Bush was quoted as saying, "the methodology is pretty well discredited..."

Onec again we must ask, "Who do you believe?"

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 08:25 PM

"It was pointed out to me the other day that a large number of the casualties in the past few monthe - if not the majority - were non-violent muslims killing other non-violent muslims of a different sect. I'm still pondering on this."

This outcome was one of the main planks in the case against invasion long before the war started.
There were many other anti-war arguments put forward, all equally valid, but Blair and Bush chose to ignore them, making every one of us who gave Blair and Bush extended mandates complicit in the horrific body count.

Ponder on!!.............Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 07:51 PM

God will recognize His own.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: The Badger
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 07:43 PM

It was pointed out to me the other day that a large number of the casualties in the past few monthe - if not the majority - were non-violent muslims killing other non-violent muslims of a different sect. I'm still pondering on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 04:04 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 03:44 PM

Judging from some of the things that Rajiv Chandrasekaran said, that could very well be true.

Of course, if the Republicans lose control of Congress (mid-term elections about a month away, and things look pretty precarious for the Republicans), things could change drastically. And, of course, Bush will definitely be out in 2008.

(Unless he tries to stage a coup, but I don't think even he could be that stupid.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 03:15 PM

Maybe he doesn't dare bring them home because of what they might do to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 03:03 PM

Just heard. Bush intends to maintain current troop levels in Iraq until at least 2010.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 01:45 PM

It was many months back that people were saying that the Iraqi civilian casualties numbered in excess of 100,000, and Bush claimed that this was a gross exaggeration, that it was more like 30,000. Even if either of those figures were close to reality, there has been a whole lot of killing since then. According to a number of reports (few of which have made the main-stream media) from people who have been there, the violence has accelerated hugely within recent months and there is a full-blown civil war going on. Last I heard (within the last day or two), Bush is still holding to the 30,000 figure.

Although it wasn't about casualties specifically, I recently heard an interview with Rajiv Chandrasekaran that was most revealing and informative. Rajiv Chandrasekaran is an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, and he served terms as the Post's bureau chief in Baghdad, Cairo, and Southeast Asia, and as a correspondent covering the war in Afghanistan. He recently completed a term as journalist-in-residence at the International Reporting Project at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies. The interview touched on the matter of casualties, but it mostly centered around the subject of his book, which has recently been released:   Imperial Life in the Emerald City : Inside Iraq's Green Zone. He saw first hand and close up the incredible, mind-boggling, forehead-smacking ineptitude of the people Bush has sent to Iraq to "liberate" the country and teach them "democracy." If you check the link, then scroll down to the Editorial Reviews, you'll get a pretty good idea of the thrust of the book, and what Chandrasekaran talked about in the interview.

No, indeed! Not in my name!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 01:03 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/11/bush-iraq-tolerate-violence/ offers some interesting public remarks.

A

Subject: RE: BS: 2,660 Iraq civilians killed in September
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:57 PM

Some interesting public comments in response to Bush's rather callous press conference can be found on this page.


A

Subject: RE: BS: 2,660 Iraq civilians killed in September
From: The Shambles
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:46 PM

At least we know these figures.

We have no way of knowing how many people may have been killed in Iraq since the end of first Gulf War and start of the Second.

All this death and misery is regretable but this period should be remembered when we are commenting on the deaths in Iraq since the American and British occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: 2,660 Iraq civilians killed in September
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:22 PM

Has anyone noticed how wdistorting the reporting by Yahoo was?

"Civilians" is what they write. "Persons not wearing uniforms" is all they can know. In a conflict in which only one side wears uniforms to call all other people "civilians" is not the correct way of reporting.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 2,660 Iraq civilians killed in September
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:16 PM

Freedom indeed. God will sort them out because God will know his own.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Wolfgang
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:10 PM

Bev and Jerry,

I wonder if you have actually read the Lancet article. If you have you should have noticed that their sampling in "clusters" (instead of random sampling) which was done quite understandably for safety reasons is a statistical problem they have not addressed in a satisfactory way in the article.

The 95% CI they have given in the article only addresses the sampling procedure and not possible systematic biases. They have hardly even discussed (or tried to asses or even control) the biases.

The other hard date we have (Iraq Body count) is now in the 40,000s (close to fiftythousand). This is definitely an underestimation of the real figures.

Bush's 30,000 is of course a figure that cannot be taken serious. I wonder if he believes it.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: 2,660 Iraq civilians killed in September
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:07 PM

It seems logical that deaths in any invaded country should far outnumber deaths of the invaders. The invaders would probably not have invaded had they not had superior weaponry and training.

In the present case, what is intolerable imo is that all these deaths and injuries and losses are happening in the name of freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: 2,660 Iraq civilians killed in September
From: SINSULL
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:38 AM

Meantime, back at the ranch, the bush slaughter continues. Anyone know the actual figures for Iraqi casualties. I have read as high as 800,00. But according to our government that's because they keep killing each other and has nothing to do with the fact that we invaded their country.

Now...if Korea invads the US to protect us from our power crazy leader, how many of us will join the street fighting?

Subject: RE: BS: 2,660 Iraq civilians killed in September
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:35 AM

Isn't it curious how an American occupation almost always manages to kill about 10 of the local people for every American that dies? I bet it was like that with the Romans too, and the Nazis, and the British in their empire period.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:26 AM

A couple of cute quotes from before the invasion:

Summary: Neither Amos, or, McGoH have come anywhere close to answering two, very basic, questions I have asked, specifically, regarding the contention by the afore-mentioned, and many others contributing to this thread, and other related threads, that President George W Bush and his administration are hell bent on attacking Iraq, even if that means doing so without the full backing of the United Nations. In attempting to answer my question - Kevin (McGoH) actually supports my contention. Great Britain...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0.7742 - Thread - Message - RE: BS: Bush, Iraq,War Part 7 - Sep 25 2002 2:59AM -   Teribus
Summary: Just what words am I putting in your mouth Amos? To yourself, Amos, Bobert, McGoH and to many others, I would like to remind you of one thing - It has always been my contention that without the full backing of the United Nations, there will not be a war. You mean to tell us that you were only kidding when you posted the "He's Gonna Go to War" song.

---

The song in question:

Subject: RE: BS: Bush,,Iraq,War Part 7
From: Amos - PM
Date: 23 Sep 02 - 02:37 PM


He's Gonna Go to War

(Tune: He's In the Jailhouse Now; J. Rogers)



I knew a guy named Dithering George
He used to weasel, lie and forge
Until he got elected Prezzy-dent.
Now he's actin' quite the boy
He got himself a bran' new toy
He thinks the US war machine was simply heaven-sent!

He's gonna go to war!
He's gonna go to war!
Doesn't matter where or when
He wants carte blanche for killing men,
He wants to go to wa-a-ar!

Now ole George is kinda slimy
He talks tough, dumb and old-timey
And he never says just what he's shootin' for.
But you can bet your bottom dollar
He'll pout and rave and holler
If we don't let him take his toys, and start another war!

He's gonna go to war!
He's gonna go to war!
Doesn't matter where or when
He wants carte blanche for killing men,
He wants to go to wa-a-ar!

Ya know ole Georgy ain't no fairy
Why he bought the Judiciary
And he knows just how to bully, push and scare
An' he's done some fancy stepping
'Bout the threat of Nukyular Weapons,
And he'd sure be quite embarrassed, if them weapons wasn't there!

He's gonna go to war!
He's gonna go to war!
Doesn't matter where or when
He wants carte blanche for killing men,
He wants to go to wa-a-ar!

---

Those were the Good Old Days....yuck!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: TIA
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:25 AM

I wish I had the time and stomach to go back to those threads also. It would make verrrrry interesting reading, and one could play a monstrous game of gotcha with a few folks (some of whom have not appeared for quite a while). But however vindictively satisfying it would be, it doesn't help get us out of the shit we in now.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:20 AM

One thing they are probably NOT doing is reviewing with humility to learn from mistakes.

Almost gayranteed.

It would be interesting to go back -- if one had the time -- and review those "Road to War" threads. I remember when it became obviosu to me that Bush was lying about not having decided anything when he clearly was going to war, reason or no reason. I wrote a song in a thread about it. You could look it up.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 11:08 AM

Sitting with their heads up their arses just as they were before.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: TIA
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 09:46 AM

Bobert-

I remember distinctly the derision you were dealt PRE-INVASION! (and later).

Now let's see...I don't have time to look up the posts, but I've got a very good memory.

DougR claimed you were chicken little, and that there really would not be an invasion because the drum beating was all part of diplomacy

Teribus said there would be no protracted urban guerilla warfare (and tried a few "I told ya so's" after Baghdad "fell")

MANY others claimed you were wildly exaggerating with the 100,000 dead prediction. Well shit, they were right after all...you were off by a factor of about 7!

Where are they now?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Hrothgar
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 05:44 AM

I can't help suspecting that these figures might be only slightly more credible than those used to justify the invasion of Iraq in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Oct 06 - 12:51 AM

It is interesting to note that most of those who do not believe the report say that they think it's wrong because they have not seen any numbers even close to that before. On the other hand, those that agree with the report do so because the calculation is based on sound statistical principles.

Who do you think is right?

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 08:36 PM

Yeah, Little Hawk, that's pretty much the way I read it.

A book I read some time ago that still impresses me as I watch world events unfold is the late Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly : From Troy to Vietnam. She details several instances illustrating how power not only corrupts, but seems to endow the powerful with an often self-destructive combination of arrogance and stupidity.

And on we march.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 08:13 PM

And there'll be people who'll say it's wrong to blame anyone, because everything was done in accordance with "the standards of the time"...

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 07:45 PM

Oh...they'll say something similar to what was said about Imperial Rome, I imagine. Something like, "A once progressive democracy with representation for the common people slowly devolved into a corrupt militaristic empire under the rule of autocratic egomaniacs and despots who lived in unheard of luxury while conducting themselves as if they were gods on Earth, until they destroyed all remaining vestiges of moral decency and responsibility. At last the empire fell, gradually, under the weight of its own iniquity, decadence, and loss of belief in its original founding principles."

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 07:32 PM

Well, Peace, the figures from the Sudan are pretty horrible all right. What twists my tail is that if we had an administration that gave a damn about people instead of power and profits, if we were active militarily anywhere in the world, it wouldn't be in Iraq, it would be in the Sudan, putting a stop to the slaughter.

I really hate to think what history is going to have to say about this country.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 06:12 PM

I'm not so certain about "Divine judgement" Bobert.

"Might as well just do while we're here"

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 06:09 PM

Not in my name!!!

Makes me think of the days when I was sayin' that upwards of 100,000 Iraqis had died and the Bushites here in Mudville jumped all over me... Yup, they were right in sayin' I was mistaken 'cause it looks as if the 100,000 at that time was probably well under the actual numbers...

And, for the record: George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Paul Wofowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Pearle will rot in Hell for what they have done... Guarenteed...

Like I said, not in my name...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 06:07 PM

On Newsnight spokesman for Bush administration says, "Most of the killing is being done by the Iraquis themselves, not the co-alition soldiers."

Its called abdication of responsibility.

AS Don says, the question is why are we there? What are we achieving?
And have we the balls to admit to the World that our leaders are guilty of waging blatant war of aggression for dubious motives.

When we are able to do that, there may be one small glimmer of hope for the future.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:58 PM

As always peace the voice of reason and wisdom. When you think of the number of men, women and children dying daily in this part of the world. If only it could of been an oil rich region.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Peace
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:52 PM

The figures are horrible. But not quite as horrible as those from the Sudan.

Subject: BS: 2,660 Iraq civilians killed in September
From: GUEST,2,660 Iraq civilians killed in September (AP
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:47 PM

2,660 (2,667) civilians in one month vs. 2,751 U.S. Military in 3 years 7 months.


A total of 2,667 civilians in Baghdad died violent deaths during September, two senior Health Ministry officials told The Associated Press this week, based on an official monthly report from the ministry to the Cabinet

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: GUEST,Norman Winstanley
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:39 PM

come on all of you big strong men
Uncle Sam needs your help again
got himself in a terrible jam
way out yonder in the land of saddam
put down your books and pick up a gun we're
gonna have a whole lotta fun


And it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for
don't ask me I don't give a damn, next stop is the land of saddam
And it's five, six, seven, open up the pearly gates
ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all gonna die.

come on generals, let's move fast
your big chance has come at last
now you can go out and get those Muslims,
cos the only good raggy is the one that's dead and
you know that peace can only be won when we've
blown 'em all to kingdom come

come on wall street don't be slow
why man this war is a go-go
there's plenty good money to be made by
supplying the army with the tools of its trade
let's hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
they drop it on the Viet Cong

come on mothers throughout the land
pack your boys off to the land of saddam
come on fathers don't hesitate
send your sons off before it's too late
and you can be the first ones on your block
to have your boy come home in a box

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:32 PM

"Official" figure 30,000 . John Hopkins estimate 600,000 (perhaps as high as 800,000).

Interseting that quote from Bush in that article Don Firth linked to:

"I am, you know, 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."

Which reads for all the world precisely like the kind of thing that a spin doctor for the Iraqi "resistance" might have said.

I suppose they would both agree on the expression "A price worth paying."

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:29 PM

Soon be nowhere to run for the pro war apologists

Latest figures state 650,000 Iraqis killed since the start of the invasion. This figure equates to 2 percent of the population and its getting worse.

The criminals who involved us in this mess still sit in Westminster and Washington, lecturing us on how to run our lives.

Heads must roll......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: ard mhacha
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 05:21 PM

This was headlined in the 10pm BBC News to-night, of course Bush was on denying the figures, many more thousands now dead than were killed under Saddam.
What a mess, surely it`s time to go, think back, the world was certainly a much safer place before Bush and his string-pullers arrived on the scene.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 04:18 PM

I've been reading reports of this on google news, today. My Rog ahd top security clearance during Viet Nam. They were sworn to secrecy as to how many body bags they unloaded, usually in the middle of the night, whilst he was stationed in the Phillipines.

Subject: BS: Iraq War Casualty Figures
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 Oct 06 - 04:15 PM

One of the major factors in turning the American public against the Vietnam War was the mounting body count. Questions like "What are we doing there?" and "Whatever it is, is it worth this?" So if you want to conduct a war without the American public asking such questions, you'd better put a lid on this kind of information.

But sometimes that kind of lid blows off.

One should have suspected something like this when Bush had a hissy-fit over a photographer taking a photo of some flag-draped coffins containing American troops that were being flown home, and the photo subsequently being published. And then, one heard reports that there were around 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed in the continuing hostilities. The Bush League denied this, saying that it was more like 30,000. Only 30,000!

I first heard of the Johns Hopkins survey on NPR this morning shortly after the clock radio came on.   After the general lack of information on this in the "main stream" media, I decided to google a bit and see what I come up with.

HERE and HERE.

There were lots more links to the same information, along with many editorial comments. Just put "Johns Hopkins Iraqi civilian casualties" or some similar combination into the google search box and you'll have lots to read.

This is too big a story for the main stream media not to report. But it will be interesting (and perhaps enlightening) to see how it develops and how they handle it.

Don Firth