655,000? You'd Better Believe It - Political Forum

Coyote Says · #1 (**permalink**) 10-22-2006, 02:46 PM

Why is this figure so hard to accept? Our military is the most powerful and destructive force in the world (next to Nature). You don't have to be hit with a bullet to be killed by the war.

Quote:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A controversial estimate by public health experts that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died because of the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is likely an accurate assessment, researchers said on Saturday.

"Over the last 25 years, this sort of methodology has been used more and more often, especially by relief agencies in times of emergency," said Dr. David Rush, a professor and epidemiologist at Tufts University in Boston.

The study, published earlier this month by the Lancet medical journal, employed a method known as "cluster sampling" in which data are collected through interviews with randomly selected households.

...

In addition, the biases inherent in cluster sampling, such as wording of questionnaires, would tend to undercount, rather than inflate, the number of deaths, Rush said.

"I think this is an extremely credible study," said Michael Intriligator, professor of economics at the University of California at Los Angeles.

...

In addition to violence, death rates in Iraq are on the rise because of threats to public health, including poorly equipped hospitals, said activist Dr. Dahlia Wasfi.

"The affects on the civilian population of the war in Iraq have been grossly underestimated," said Jonathan Parfrey, executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061021/...NlYwN5bmNhdA--

superbug · #2 (**permalink**) 10-22-2006, 03:20 PM

The only response I had to this report when I first saw it was "so?"

Coyote Says · #3 (**permalink**) 10-22-2006, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbug

The only response I had to this report when I first saw it was "so?"

I find it appalling. Let's see, the score now is something on the order of 655,000 to 3000. I'd say we have gotten our "revenge" (even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11).

What will the Iraqis think of this? How can they support our presence in Iraq when it seems the only thing we're "liberating" them from is this mortal coil?

superbug · #4 (**permalink**) 10-22-2006, 03:28 PM

This had nothing to do with revenge as you put it. It had to do with the war that started in '91 and the deal that Saddam did not live up to.
These kinds of reports are just more of the left wing media trying to bash the administration as much as they can.

Coyote Says · #5 (**permalink**) 10-22-2006, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbug

This had nothing to do with revenge as you put it. It had to do with the war that started in '91 and the deal that Saddam did not live up to.
These kinds of reports are just more of the left wing media trying to bash the administration as much as they can.

I would bash anyone who would advocate the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians. (I'm not accusing you, Super--please don't misunderstand). The average Iraqi citizen had nothing to do with WMD or Kuwait and I don't think they were overly fond of Saddam. Even in the Army they taught us (ostensibly) to avoid killing civilians.

superbug · #6 (**permalink**) 10-22-2006, 03:49 PM

If you're going to blame anyone at this point, blame the terrorists. They are the problem and the cause now.

CHUQ · #7 (**permalink**) 10-23-2006, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superbug

This had nothing to do with revenge as you put it. It had to do with the war that started in '91 and the deal that Saddam did not live up to.
These kinds of reports are just more of the left wing media trying to bash the administration as much as they can.

So, there is a "left wing" conspiracy to dull the facts?

superbug · #8 (**permalink**) 10-23-2006, 07:14 AM

There is a left wing media doing their best to get in the way of our efforts to stop terrorism, and finish our job started in '91.

rakkasan · #9 (**permalink**) 10-23-2006, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coyote Says

Why is this figure so hard to accept? Our military is the most powerful and destructive force in the world (next to Nature). You don't have to be hit with a bullet to be killed by the war.

Whatever the number is WE DIDNT KILL THEM

the INSURGENTS/TERRORISTS/ANTI AMEIRCAN IRAQI's OR TO SOME HEROES

killed them

why is it so hard for the anti bush crowd to understand that YOUR SOLDIERS didnt kill those people

Coyote Says · #10 (**permalink**) 10-23-2006, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rakkasan

Whatever the number is WE DIDNT KILL THEM

the INSURGENTS/TERRORISTS/ANTI AMEIRCAN IRAQI's OR TO SOME HEROES

killed them

why is it so hard for the anti bush crowd to understand that YOUR SOLDIERS didnt kill those people

Because if we hadn't gone in there in 2003, they wouldn't have died.

Remember, Iraq didn't have WMD or ties to 9/11. Saddam didn't even like Al-Queda. I'm not blaming soldiers here. I'm blaming the DoD and the administration. I'm blaming the Intel services who caved to pressure from the administration. I'm blaming the MSM for blithely accepting whatever the White House told it. It's no longer widely contested that faulty or exaggerated intel was used to justify the 2003 invasion, and ignored or downplayed when it conflicted with their agenda.