Thank you, America!

[9th Engineer]

In no way does that make an invasion & occupation of a nation that was no threat right. Ever.

The same reason why we have no business in Darfur. (There's been alot of activism surrounding that here on campus recently)

[yesman065]

rkzenrage and 9th Engineer you both make valid points, yet I was not trying to justify the reasoning behind going to Iraq. It was an attempt to show that the number of casualties is not as great as the media makes it out to be.

tw - I am nothing like Rush Limbaugh and I am not a republican. So as usual, your statements are way off. Again, It is you making assumptions here, not I.

I love this country more than my own life and if you truly knew anything about me that would be blatently honest. You however appear to want to complain, pass judgement and criticize. YOU are an embarrassment to this country, your attitude is almost as bad as your hate & ignorance.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

tw - I am nothing like Rush Limbaugh and I am not a republican. So as usual, your statements are way off. Again, It is you making assumptions here, not I.

It walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, and proclaim myths just like the duck. It is a duck no matter how many times the duck denies like George Jr.

You have posted classic contempt for the American soldier. Shame on you for being so anti-American as to spout George Jr lies and to justify the death of American soldiers using highway death numbers. Your contempt may be attributed to blindly believing political liars; unable to separate speculation and political spin from reality. Naivety would then explain why you have posted such contempt of American soldiers and why you preach a 'big dic' solution.

We know the death rates in Iraq are that high - somewhere in the neighborhood of one half million. But then Yesman065 who justified soldier deaths using highway statistics now magically knows those numbers cannot be known? Apparently Yesman065 also believes Saddam had a hand in 11 September.

Scary is that Yesman065 is so politically active when he does not first do simple things such as post supporting facts for his decrees. Same contrast was observed between the bourgeois and intellectual verses the brown shirts in 1930s Germany. The brown shirts were also very active - and blindly believed what they were told by their political extremist handlers. Being active does not mean being smart or informed. Being active and totally ignorant is why we have this lie called "Mission Accomplished" and why bin Laden roams free. When does Yesman065 repeatedly demand that we go after bin Laden? This always results in silence from those who listen and believe Limbaugh rhetoric.

Yes, the brown shirts also loved Germany which was sufficient to justify their actions? That is sufficient to justify Yesman065's comments? Yesman065 has posted classic contempt for the American soldier and does not even apologize for his fubar. Now he hide behind "I love this country". If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it also need not apologize?

[DanaC]

If we put the number of deaths from the situation in Iraq into perspective, I believe we may have a different outlook. The media seems to barrage us with "Another death in Iraq" every day and makes it seem much worse than it really is - relatively speaking.
Sorry I put actual facts and figures in here, but I am growing very tired of those spouting misinformation as fact. Not anyone specifically here, especially not DanaC, just in general - the media mostly.

I dispute your sources for the Iraqi death toll:


From the BBC News site.

Nevertheless, Iraq Body Count's methods and its ability to compile accurate statistics have been questioned by critics, with some arguing that it has greatly underestimated the number of casualties.

One study, published by the Lancet medical journal in October 2006, suggested that about 655,000 people had died in Iraq as a result of the 2003 invasion.

We need to get the fuck out of everywhere.
Hell, it would solve a lot of our issues as an added-extra-plus too... our being on holy land is a lot of our problem with the stupid part of the Muslim population.

[DanaC]

It was an attempt to show that the number of casualties is not as great as the media makes it out to be.

Nope, the numbers of Iraqi casualties are most likely greater than the media shows.

I love this country more than my own life and if you truly knew anything about me that would be blatently honest. You however appear to want to complain, pass judgement and criticize. YOU are an embarrassment to this country, your attitude is almost as bad as your hate & ignorance.

Blind love does not a patriot make. Every country needs critical and loving citizens, not those who will stand by silently whilst terrible and costly mistakes are made.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Nope, the numbers of Iraqi casualties are most likely greater than the media shows.

Highly, Highly doubt that, but none of us know with any certainty. I am somehow being construed as a far left republican here and nothing could be further than the truth. I am simply stating that the media's glorification of the number of casualties and is skewed to the left. Thats all. I do not feel that the situation is anywhere near as good as one side says nor as bad as the other makes it seem. I am the only one here not jumping on the "Bush bashing bandwagon" and I've taken a lot of shit for it - thats fine, but lets ALL open our eyes and try to find the truth, which as usual, lies somewhere in between the two extremes.

Originally Posted by DanaC

Blind love does not a patriot make. Every country needs critical and loving citizens, not those who will stand by silently whilst terrible and costly mistakes are made.

I am neither blind nor standing by silently - I am very active locally and very critical of the wrongs in our society that I believe need to be corrected. Just because we have differing views on them does not mean that I am not trying to do my part. In fact, I probably do a lot more than most here who simply choose to criticize me instead. I take your statement very personally and you could not be any more wrong about me.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by yesman065

I am simply stating that the media's glorification of the number of casualties and is skewed to the left.

There are casualties that the media doesn't cover, simply because the media isn't everywhere. And the casualties that the media does cover are confirmed. When they say "43 executed bodies were recovered today in Baghdad", that is the minimum, not the maximum, number of dead.

The number of casualties are FAR worse than the media shows.
They, the media or the military, do not count those wounded in-country who die later from their injuries in Germany, in transport or the US as a casualty of war (which is STUPID, there is no other word).

[Undertoad]

Peer review says the second Lancet study is bogus as hell and probably even fraud

This is the first time I've mentioned the second Lancet study.

I thought it was very obviously bullshit, but it's good to see the status of the Emperor's clothes is finally covered in major media.

I pat myself on the back, as they ask the same question I did on day one.

Dr Garfield also queries the high availability of death certificates. Why, he asks, did the team not simply approach whoever was issuing them to estimate mortality, instead of sending interviewers into a war zone?

This was the point that stuck hard in my craw. If civil society has not declined to the point where bodies are not buried and death certificates not signed, that is one thing. But it never did. But the study specifically asked for death certificates as proof. If there are certificates, there is somebody official printing and signing them. Why not just go to that source and ask how many? Did it take ten toner cartridges or only one?

Another critic is Dr Madelyn Hsaio-Rei Hicks, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, who specialises in surveying communities in conflict. In her letter to The Lancet, she pointed out that it was unfeasible for the Iraqi interviewing team to have covered 40 households in a day, as claimed. She wrote: "Assuming continuous interviewing for ten hours despite 55C heat, this allows 15 minutes per interview, including walking between households, obtaining informed consent and death certificates."


Does she think the interviews were done at all? Dr Hicks responds: "I'm sure some interviews have been done but until they can prove it I don’t see how they could have done the study in the way they describe."


Professor Burnham says the doctors worked in pairs and that interviews "took about 20 minutes". The journal Nature, however, alleged last week that one of the Iraqi interviewers contradicts this. Dr Hicks says: : "I have started to suspect that they [the American researchers] don’t actually know what the interviewing team did. The fact that they can't rattle off basic information suggests they either don’t know or they don’t care."

The first Lancet study was released a week before the 2004 elections. It didn't rattle very hard until after the election. The second Lancet study was released a month before the 2006 elections. Did you smell something? One of the article's authors certainly understands the US election cycle:

If you factor in politics, the heat increases. One of The Lancet authors, Dr Les Roberts, campaigned for a Democrat seat in the US House of Representatives and has spoken out against the war.

[Happy Monkey]

"a Democrat seat"? I guess the Times is a Murdoch paper (checks- Yup).

Not that that has anything to do with the validity of the study, but it's funny.

[BigV]

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dail..._date=20070225

[Undertoad]

I would not expect that the Times' British readership is aware of US partisan code-speak.

[Happy Monkey]

So they'll assume that's the way it's supposed to be said.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

So they'll assume that's the way it's supposed to be said.

I had no idea it was officially the Democratic Party. We have a Liberal Democrat Party and I just assumed it was along the same lines.

But aren't party adherents called Democrats? Meaning that the seat would be a Democrat seat?

Learn something new every day I guess. Like the fact we call the Conservatives "Tories" when they haven't officially been called that for about 200 years.