|
|
#131
09-21-2007, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I Lost Track of This Post....But Here I Go
[ QUOTE ]
Quick question I'm curious about....regarding the 1.2 million casualty figure.....how many of those would you estimate are civilian casualties as the direct result of US airstrikes? I'm going to guess less than 1%. Am I close? Too high, too low? [/ QUOTE ] I'd guess you are in the neighborhood. For some time now most of the killing has been tribal. The charge is not that the U.S. killed 1.2 million Iraqis. The implication is the people of Iraq are worse off now than they were under Saddam. In the ever-changing list of justifications for the war "at least the people are better off" was a trump card that was impossible to argue against. Now that argument can be made credibly, which is why it is important to discredit the casualty surveys. 
|
|
#132
09-21-2007, 09:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Lost Track of This Post....But Here I Go
[ QUOTE ]
The charge is not that the U.S. killed 1.2 million Iraqis. The implication is the people of Iraq are worse off now than they were under Saddam. In the ever-changing list of justifications for the war "at least the people are better off" was a trump card that was impossible to argue against. Now that argument can be made credibly, which is why it is important to discredit the casualty surveys. [/ QUOTE ] Three quick questions: 1. Is the 1.2 million number really considered credible? 2. What is the number for the same time period prior to the US invasion? 3. Isn't it ultimately up to the folks in Iraq to say if they are better or worse off? If so, what have they said?
|
|
#133
09-21-2007, 09:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Lost Track of This Post....But Here I Go
[ QUOTE ]
3. Isn't it ultimately up to the folks in Iraq to say if they are better or worse off? If so, what have they said? [/ QUOTE ] The latest survey had 1.2 million no comments.
|
|
#134
09-21-2007, 10:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Lost Track of This Post....But Here I Go
[ QUOTE ]
1. Is the 1.2 million number really considered credible? [/ QUOTE ] Here and here is a discussion of the surveys and their methods. I'll summarize the contending numbers here: 2/2007 10,000 AP survey of American public. "How many Iraqis do you think have died violently in this war?" 2/2006 30,000 George Bush at a press conference. 6/2007 66,000 IBC. Count of deaths reported in English-language media. 4/2004 24,000 ILCS. Norwegians working for UNDP, large sample size. IBC was then 9000. 9/2004 98,000 Lancet #1. Epidemioligists from Johns Hopkins. "The very large 95% CI - 8,000 to 194,000 - confused many" 6/2006 655,000 Lancet #2. Same guys, bigger sample. (95% CI: 392,979–942,636) 9/2007 1,220,000 British polling complany ORB. [ QUOTE ] We now have four survey estimates from three independent teams of professionals using two different good-practice methods. They all say that the excess deaths in Iraq are hugely greater than the IBC body count, let alone the numbers from the MNF or the Iraqi government. The mean estimate, combining the ORB result with my extrapolations from the three older ones, is 782,000. [/ QUOTE ] It is possible none of these guys care a whit about doing an honest poll and are fabricating numbers to make a political point. The way to show that would be to conduct a poll that gets different results. [ QUOTE ] 2. What is the number for the same time period prior to the US invasion? [/ QUOTE ] This looks like a good estimate. They give him credit for the 450k - 730k Iranians killed in that war, the 1.5k to 200k Iraqis kill in the Gulf War, and the 500,000 children who died due to UN sanctions, for a total approaching 2 million over his 30+ years in power. The 5 years before the war he did relatively little killing. [ QUOTE ] 3. Isn't it ultimately up to the folks in Iraq to say if they are better or worse off? If so, what have they said? [/ QUOTE ] Here is a poll of Iraqis. Invasion was wrong 63% Oppose presence of coalition forces in Iraq 79% Directly on point [ QUOTE ] About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#135
09-22-2007, 12:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Lost Track of This Post....But Here I Go
Chips, thanks for the detailed responses.
[ QUOTE ] Here is a poll of Iraqis. Invasion was wrong 63% Oppose presence of coalition forces in Iraq 79% Directly on point About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today [/ QUOTE ] I always take polls with a grain of salt until I know exactly what was asked of the participants, because I've seen various polls on various issues with a heavy slant on the questions to produce desired results. Not saying that is the case here, but I've seen it happen with various polls over the years to become skeptical unless I see the exact questions polled in addition to the results. For example, I'm sure a similarly high percentage of Iraqi respondents would poll that they were happy Saddam is out of power, depending on how the wording of the question is presented. Any chance the material shows the exact questions asked during these polls? I couldn't find it explicitly stated in the links upon cursory review. Also, I know this might be asking a lot, but is there any historic poll as to Iraqi sentiment at the beginning of the invasion, in so much as it could have been much higher as it was stateside, and has slowly eroded due to fatigue and other factors?
|
|
#136
09-22-2007, 12:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Lost Track of This Post....But Here I Go
[ QUOTE ]
Any chance the material shows the exact questions asked during these polls? I couldn't find it explicitly stated in the links upon cursory review. Also, I know this might be asking a lot, but is there any historic poll as to Iraqi sentiment at the beginning of the invasion, in so much as it could have been much higher as it was stateside, and has slowly eroded due to fatigue and other factors? [/ QUOTE ] Starting point for ABC poll Nitty-gritty with questions and some historical data It ain't much, but here's some Iraqi polls.
|
|
#137
09-22-2007, 12:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Lost Track of This Post....But Here I Go
[ QUOTE ]
I want to bomb their military installations and oil infrastructures. I doubt the civilian death toll would be higher than 200. [/ QUOTE ] This is the problem with neocon zionists like Felix. They underestimate the collateral damage and insist that others do the fighting for them. Are you insane to suggest that only 200 people will die if Iran gets bombed? A suicide bomber in Iraq can kill 200 by himself. Keep in mind, these same neocon zionists said that Iraq would be a cakewalk.
|
|
#138
09-22-2007, 12:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Lost Track of This Post....But Here I Go
[ QUOTE ]
good work felix... not sure why you feel the need to keep arguing with these folks. as i said before (it was poorly rebutted, btw) these debates become pointless because the people you are dealing with live in some other alternate reality that normal people can't relate to... an exercise in futility. there is no reasoning with people who apologize for terrorists... entertaining tho, it is... [/ QUOTE ] US government are terrorists.
|
|
#139
09-22-2007, 01:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: John King, UN = LIAR
[ QUOTE ]
but then the USA couldn't sell Sadaam Hussein weapons of mass destruction. [/ QUOTE ] Felix respond: Not true and you can't support this silly statement. Iraq's chem/bio program was home grown. Their challenge was importing dual-use chemicals to keep there program going. By dual use I mean chemicals that can be used to peaceful purposes like manufacturing insecticide or making chemical weapons. Iraq found ways to circumvent import restrictions.....hence the creation of their chem weapon program. If you have proof the USA relaxed restrictions on exporting these dual use chems to Iraq then show proof. I am not aware of any such actions.... [ QUOTE ] November 1983. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro of Italy and its Branch in Atlanta begin to funnel $5 billion in unreported loans to Iraq. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the U.S. government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. - November 1983. George Schultz, the Secretary of State, is given intelligence reports showing that Iraqi troops are daily using chemical weapons against the Iranians. - July 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. - March 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the U.S. becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. - May 1986. The U.S. Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. - May 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. - Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. - April 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. - August 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. - August 1988. Five days after the cease fire Saddam Hussein sends his planes and helicopters to northern Iraq to begin massive chemical attacks against the Kurds. - September 1988. U.S. Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq. - December 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons. - July 25, 1990. U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad meets with Hussein to assure him that President Bush "wanted better and deeper relations." Many believe this visit was a trap set for Hussein. A month later Hussein invaded Kuwait thinking the U.S. would not respond. - July 1991. The Financial Times of London reveals that a Florida chemical company had produced and shipped cyanide to Iraq during the 80's using a special CIA courier. Cyanide was used extensively against the Iranians. - February 1994. Senator Riegle from Michigan, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, testifies before the senate revealing large U.S. shipments of dual-use biological and chemical agents to Iraq that may have been used against U.S. troops in the Gulf War and probably was the cause of the illness known as Gulf War Syndrome. [/ QUOTE ] So, would you care to comment those facts presented above? So, would you support an export of those weapons to the close ally which is fighting against the enemy of the USA or not? (If yes, why denying then???)
|
|
#140
09-22-2007, 04:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: I Lost Track of This Post....But Here I Go
[ QUOTE ]
You were going to explain how the Iranians are justified in killing US troops in Iraq.... Yes? [/ QUOTE ] This is an outright lie you dishonest hack. Funny how you ommitted the part where I said both sides are wrong. You and now some other douchebag continue to assert in the face of what I've said that I am justifying American deaths. I have not done any such thing. I am pointing out correctly that the US government's actions in the middle east are wrong and create blowback which endangers US lives, and the 9/11 commision as well any logical person agrees with. In fact, I looooove the irony. *You're* logic for killing civilians in the middle east when applied the same by the terrorists justifies the 9/11 attacks. So you are just as uncivilized as you make them out to be. But I mean I can't possibly argue against the actions of the US government in the middle east can I, unless of course I hate myself and America. <Jeff Foxworthy voice> If you have to resort to denouncing people as unpatriotic when they argue against what the government does, you might be a [censored] debater. All your doing is taking a page right out of playbook of Hermann Goering [ QUOTE ] Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars. Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. [/ QUOTE ] Have a nice day, I can't be bothered by your dishonest uncivilized warmongering excuses for an argument any more.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
