4,000 dead Americans

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

So the British medical journal Lancet put out a study that estimated that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war since 2003. I don't know if that's right or not, but I do think these blog posts are funny (via here):

 

1. 655,000 is an awfully big number. That would mean that this war killed a whole lot of people. (Jane Galt)

 

2. If 770 extra people were dying in Iraq every day, why don't we hear about them on the news? (Gateway Pundit)

 

3. The study was published before the election. (Instapundit) (Political Pitbull)

 

4. The peer-reviewed paper must be bogus because the editor of the Lancet goes to anti-war rallies. (Anti-Idiotarian Rotweiler)

 

5. The pre-invasion death rates are too low. Surely, Saddam was filling mass graves two months before the invasion. (Chuck Simmins)

 

6. Those peacenik scientists wish there were more dead Iraqis. ("When the statistics announced by hospitals and military here, or even by the UN, did not satisfy their lust for more deaths, they resorted to mathematics to get a fake number that satisfies their sadistic urges," Omar Fadil.)

 

7. I just know the study's wrong, but I can't figure out how. Math people? (Michelle Malkin)

 

8. Sure the study's methodology is standard for public health resesarch. But don't forget that public health is a leftwing plot. (Medpundit)

 

9. These "statisticians" say that you can take a small sample from a large population and learn a lot about the whole population. As if. I'll believe those 665,000 Iraqis are dead when they tell me so. (Tim Blair)

[Art Sandusky 0]

Boy, you think they'd just not say anything rather than saying such stupid things.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Okay, I just noticed that the blog I got that from simplified the posts. So what they actually said wasn't so dumb.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Still, even if they're only half as dumb in their original context and form that's a LOT of dumb.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

10. "I don’t consider it a credible report, neither does General Casey and neither do Iraqi officials. I do know that a lot of innocent people have died and it troubles me and grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. 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." (George W. Bush)

[Special K 0]

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."

 

WHAT?!

 

They don't exactly have a choice do they? They can't exactly make a big sign that says insurgents and US go home and have it work.

 

If they willfully tolerated violence to be free they would have united against Saddam.

[bob_barron 0]

What do you call 655,000 dead Iraqis

 

A good start

[snuffbox 0]

get it?

[SuperJerk 0]

Has anyone done any research on how many people were killed by Saddam Hussein's regime?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Human rights groups believe about 300,000 people were killed during Saddam's 24-year rule, which ended when U.S.-led forces toppled his regime in 2003.

 

CNN

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm pretty sure that probably doesn't include wars, especially the war with Iran in the 1980s.

[SuperJerk 0]

7. I just know the study's wrong, but I can't figure out how. Math people? (Michelle Malkin)

 

I'm curious to know what Michelle Malkin actually said about this.

 

And I am sure whatever it was is probably 10 times as dumb.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/12/lanc...ailable-on-web/

 

I feel dirty for linking to her site.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I would vote for a presidential candidate who gave this speech:

 

A Speech We’d Like to Hear

What any Democrat should say about Iraq.

By Matthew Yglesias

 

My fellow Americans:

 

The decision to invade Iraq in the spring of 2003 divided the country and divided my party. People I respect found themselves on both sides of that controversy. But three and a half years later, it’s clear that the invasion was a serious error. The president told us the invasion was necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from giving the fruits of his WMD programs to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. We now know that the programs did not exist, that the operational links between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda that the administration warned of did not exist, and that the White House’s claims on these subjects were the result of either deliberate deception or a willful ignorance of the truth that is in many ways more frightening.

 

Once the invasion was done, like most Americans I initially believed it was our responsibility to do the best we could to stabilize and reconstruct Iraq. Embarrassed by the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the administration outlined a noble agenda to create an Iraqi democracy. These efforts began with my support and that of my party.

 

But almost immediately it became clear that the president had no real plan to achieve his goals. As the situation deteriorated, Democrats offered suggestions to alter our course in Iraq. Invariably, we were ignored. Time passed and things got worse. The administration eventually agreed to seek some changes, but always too late, past the moment when ideas might have helped. And so, things got even worse. It’s possible that if the administration had listened to our suggestions the situation might have been turned around. But warnings went unheeded.

 

Now, we have reached the point where no further purpose is served by continuing the American military presence in Iraq. The time has come to redeploy our forces -- to begin the process of recovery from the war in terms of lost personnel and equipment, and to refocus our attention on other parts of the world -- including most pressingly the continuing threat from al-Qaeda.

 

The president believes -- or claims to believe -- that we are fighting them over there to avoid fighting them over here. This is bizarre. Our military presence in Iraq is not a physical barrier against terrorist infiltration of the United States. Since the invasion, al-Qaeda has struck in Spain and twice in England. Whether we stay in Iraq has no bearing on whether they’ll strike America again. What is relevant is that the longer we keep half of our deployable military in Iraq, the longer we dedicate so many of our spy satellites, Arabic-speaking intelligence officers, special-operations forces, and so much of our money to the mission in Iraq, the harder it is to bring the necessary resources to bear on the crucial issue of international terrorism.

 

This might be a price worth bearing if keeping our soldiers in Iraq would do some good. Unfortunately, at this point it no longer can. Our men and women in uniform are serving with honor and distinction. But they are soldiers, not magicians. They have no way to heal the sectarian divisions that are tearing Iraq apart. They cannot conjure up a liberal democracy out of nowhere.

 

The future of Iraq lies in the hands of the Iraqi people and their leaders. If they can find a way to resolve the issues that divide them, there is every reason to be optimistic about the future of their country. If, as unfortunately seems more likely, they cannot and their country continues its slide into civil war, the presence of tens of thousands of American soldiers will do nothing to help Iraq and everything to endanger the lives of our troops and the long-term security of our country. This is not a pleasant reality, which is why the Bush administration has refused to face up to it. But refusing to face unpleasant truths is the reverse of leadership. The president’s plan -- if you can call it a plan -- is simply to continue on the current course for two more years and hand the mess he’s made off to his successor.

 

That’s unacceptable. Equally unacceptable is the White House’s habit of comparing those who disagree to Neville Chamberlain and every conceivable alternative to their policies a form of appeasement. To put forward the view that America should blindly follow the dogmatic and failed leadership of the current administration is absurd, and to put it forward under the banner of anti-fascism more absurd still. The country can’t afford to be led by people who make a wreck of our national security and then lash out at anyone who dares point out the truth to cover up their own failures. And the country desperately needs a Senate that’s willing to say so. To stop the blank checks and the rubber stamps and make the White House hear what the American people are thinking -- that this war was a mistake, that the mistake needs to be brought to an end, and that the president can’t keep on jeopardizing the security of our country out of a stubborn refusal to admit that it was a mistake.

 

© 2006 by The American Prospect, Inc.

 

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sectio...articleId=12010

[snuffbox 0]

The Iraq War is resembling the War On Drugs...a continuous, heavy spending mess where the sole purpose seems to be based on our leaders' refusal to admit that mistakes happen and they should be corrected.

 

Even if a Presidential candidate was able to make such a speech as this on tv, even if America listened, even if that person were elected...with the military bases being built, the incredible amount of money involved, will we actually see an end to the Iraq War in the next 5 years? 10? 20?

 

A good friend of mine, already scarred from the first two, will return to Iraq for the 3rd time early next year. By the time of the next presidential election, if he remains physically safe, he will probably have had more tours of Iraq than Dick Cheney had draft deferrments. Sad.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

...Take Representative Terry Everett, a seven-term Alabama Republican who is vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence.

 

"Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?" I asked him a few weeks ago.

 

Mr. Everett responded with a low chuckle. He thought for a moment: "One's in one location, another's in another location. No, to be honest with you, I don't know. I thought it was differences in their religion, different families or something."

 

To his credit, he asked me to explain the differences. I told him briefly about the schism that developed after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and how Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite nations while the rest of the Muslim world is mostly Sunni. "Now that you've explained it to me," he replied, "what occurs to me is that it makes what we're doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area."

 

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_...108457720750984

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

This was in Afghanistan, but I'll put it in this thread anyway.

 

This WOULD happen to some Canadians:

 

Canadian troops fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan have stumbled across an unexpected and potent enemy — almost impenetrable forests of 10-foot-tall marijuana plants.

 

Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian defense staff, said Thursday that Taliban fighters were using the forests as cover. In response, the crew of at least one armored car had camouflaged their vehicle with marijuana.

 

"The challenge is that marijuana plants absorb energy, heat very readily. It's very difficult to penetrate with thermal devices ... and as a result you really have to be careful that the Taliban don't dodge in and out of those marijuana forests," he said in a speech in Ottawa...

 

"A couple of brown plants on the edges of some of those (forests) did catch on fire. But a section of soldiers that was downwind from that had some ill effects and decided that was probably not the right course of action," Hillier said dryly.

 

One soldier told him later: "Sir, three years ago before I joined the army, I never thought I'd say 'That damn marijuana.'"

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15239501/from/ET/

[Ripper 0]

Doesn't that figure count how many have died since the war started, as in every single person that dies in a terror attack gets counted.

 

I read a figure that the number that has direct connection to coalition forces is more like 46,000.

 

Saddam was knocking at 3 and a half million.

 

Sounds like progress.

[NoCalMike 0]

Doesn't that figure count how many have died since the war started, as in every single person that dies in a terror attack gets counted.

 

I read a figure that the number that has direct connection to coalition forces is more like 46,000.

 

Saddam was knocking at 3 and a half million.

 

Sounds like progress.

 

 

The "655,000" is not only talking about people who have died from bombs or gun shots, or torture, or suicide bombings...etc...but also. Once we bomb infrastructure and say a water treatment plant is destroyed so 1000 Iraqis die from contaminated water, or we set curfews and don't allow Iraqis to get jobs, so they basically starve to death. Those types of deaths are also counted because they come as a result of our invasion.

 

Kind of like Hurricane Katrina, everyone didn't die from the flooding itself, but the floods caused a lot of other conditions that led to people's deaths, so you would attribute those deaths to Katrina as well.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Oh good. Well, now we can drop the number to 30,000. Good job USA. I'm proud to live in a country that does the utmost to avoid civilian casualties.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Aside from the fact that Mr. Yglesias missed, COMPLETELY, the primary purpose of the Iraq War, I just want to respond to this:

As the situation deteriorated, Democrats offered suggestions to alter our course in Iraq.

I guess it's a good speech if you're not interested in the truth. Democrats offered no substantive suggestions. Not one. Work with our allies, speed the transition, bring all the groups to the table, pass a global test, those are not suggestions. It's hard to heed a suggestion when it's utterly hollow. When you say, "I'll do better," it means precisely nothing when it is not followed by any semblance of a substantive plan.

[Guest CWMwasmurdered]

This was in Afghanistan, but I'll put it in this thread anyway.

 

This WOULD happen to some Canadians:

 

Canadian troops fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan have stumbled across an unexpected and potent enemy — almost impenetrable forests of 10-foot-tall marijuana plants.

 

Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian defense staff, said Thursday that Taliban fighters were using the forests as cover. In response, the crew of at least one armored car had camouflaged their vehicle with marijuana.

 

"The challenge is that marijuana plants absorb energy, heat very readily. It's very difficult to penetrate with thermal devices ... and as a result you really have to be careful that the Taliban don't dodge in and out of those marijuana forests," he said in a speech in Ottawa...

 

"A couple of brown plants on the edges of some of those (forests) did catch on fire. But a section of soldiers that was downwind from that had some ill effects and decided that was probably not the right course of action," Hillier said dryly.

 

One soldier told him later: "Sir, three years ago before I joined the army, I never thought I'd say 'That damn marijuana.'"

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15239501/from/ET/

 

 

10 feet? almost makes me want to join the military.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Aside from the fact that Mr. Yglesias missed, COMPLETELY, the primary purpose of the Iraq War, I just want to respond to this:

As the situation deteriorated, Democrats offered suggestions to alter our course in Iraq.

I guess it's a good speech if you're not interested in the truth. Democrats offered no substantive suggestions. Not one. Work with our allies, speed the transition, bring all the groups to the table, pass a global test, those are not suggestions. It's hard to heed a suggestion when it's utterly hollow. When you say, "I'll do better," it means precisely nothing when it is not followed by any semblance of a substantive plan.

 

Just wait until after the Nov. elections when the Baker commision puts out their suggestions and it's the exact same thing Murtha was calling for about a year earlier.

[EricMM 0]

For what it is worth, 650,000 is 2.5% of the population of that country.

 

If that happened in America is would be 7,500,000 people.

 

I mean, what IS their growth rate at this point?

[Ripper 0]

Doesn't that figure count how many have died since the war started, as in every single person that dies in a terror attack gets counted.

 

I read a figure that the number that has direct connection to coalition forces is more like 46,000.

 

Saddam was knocking at 3 and a half million.

 

Sounds like progress.

 

 

The "655,000" is not only talking about people who have died from bombs or gun shots, or torture, or suicide bombings...etc...but also. Once we bomb infrastructure and say a water treatment plant is destroyed so 1000 Iraqis die from contaminated water, or we set curfews and don't allow Iraqis to get jobs, so they basically starve to death. Those types of deaths are also counted because they come as a result of our invasion.

 

Kind of like Hurricane Katrina, everyone didn't die from the flooding itself, but the floods caused a lot of other conditions that led to people's deaths, so you would attribute those deaths to Katrina as well.

 

And those are counted in the 46,000+. They are listed as deaths caused directly from coalition invasion. That means that the vast majority of the deats are from the bombs, suicide bombings, insurgent attacks. VAST majority.

 

And dude....Iraqis are not starving to death due to curfews...come on now.

[Art Sandusky 0]

My god, we're arguing about whether the body count is high or low.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

We are arguing over who is responsible, and who takes great pains to avoid civilian casualties.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

And those are counted in the 46,000+. They are listed as deaths caused directly from coalition invasion. That means that the vast majority of the deats are from the bombs, suicide bombings, insurgent attacks. VAST majority.

 

But there wouldn't be bombs or suicide bombings or insurgent attacks if we hadn't invaded.

[snuffbox 0]

We are arguing over who is responsible, and who takes great pains to avoid civilian casualties.

 

But the Iraqis will be feeling plenty of the 'great pains' after the passage of the Torture Bill!

[Guest A Silent Presence]

And those are counted in the 46,000+. They are listed as deaths caused directly from coalition invasion. That means that the vast majority of the deats are from the bombs, suicide bombings, insurgent attacks. VAST majority.

 

But there wouldn't be bombs or suicide bombings or insurgent attacks if we hadn't invaded.

 

Right. It wouldn't be called 'insurgent attacks' because the former dictatorship encouraged it. It would be more like, "The right thing to do."

 

I don't condone the deaths, I don't like war, I don't think being in Iraq at this point is the best choice. But no one has prompted another way out, Democrats simply want to pull out and the Republicans want to take their sweet time to make it look like it wasn't an error. Why? Because the Democrats bank on drawing their votes from people who simply 'hate Republicans'. The only problem with that logic is that any way of thinking can be made to work for me if it's explained, thought out, and executed with a reasonable ammount of success. Who has come up with that plan? Neither party.