NationStates Jolt Archive

This has got to stop. These people don't deserve this. Rumsfeld has got to be forced out and someone who knows what they are doing has got to put an end to this.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- "They killed my mother! God help me, they killed my mother!" Osama Rumani sobbed into his cell phone before handing it to his brother Ali, who was crying even harder.

At the other end of the line were relatives in Canada. As Ali spoke to them, Osama cursed the unknown killers through his tears: "May God orphan you. May you lose your mother and go through this pain. Shoot her once, shoot her twice, break her leg, her arms, but why this?"

Osama covered his face as he cried. His mother, Umm Luma, was an ordinary citizen, well-loved in the neighborhood where she was gunned down in front of her home.

In recent months, terrorists and death squads in Iraq have increased attacks on civilians. Though the Pentagon says the sectarian violence is not tantamount to civil war, it concedes that the swelling sectarian strife has produced an upsurge in attacks, kidnappings and execution-style killings.

According to a Pentagon report, Iraqi casualties jumped 51 percent this summer, and the Baghdad coroner's office reported receiving 3,400 bodies in June and July. Ninety percent of them had been killed execution-style, the report said.

Umm Luma lost her husband to illness two years ago, after she had reared four sons and two daughters.

"She had a strong personality, she was our leader at home," said her niece, Rafal Abbas.

But beneath Rafal's calm façade, she is haunted not only by the murder she witnessed, but also by the fear that the killers might come back.

Before Umm Luma's death, the family says it had received two written threats in a year. Wrapped in the second was a bullet. The message was chilling.

"The time has come to bring down fair punishment on you traitors, you half men, by chopping off your rotten heads that sold religion, honor and the country to the occupation," it began.

"Where will you escape Umm Luma? Await the rage, the slaughter and the murder. Our swords are on the necks of every traitor, agent and coward."

The threat was signed by the Brigades of Death, a Sunni extremist group. Like similar organizations, it claims Iraqi Shiites are conspiring with the Americans.

But Umm Luma had no political affiliations and neither do they, her relatives said. They said they had no enemies.

The family fled nonetheless, even though no one -- least of all Umm Luma -- thought the note-writers would kill a woman. The false sense of security led Umm Luma home after a week.

On September 16, she left the house to buy bread for breakfast and a car drove up. Someone inside called her name. Her niece remembers well how the events unfolded.

"Are you Umm Luma?" asked a man in the car.

"Yes, dear. What would you like?" Umm Luma responded.

The first bullet ripped through her arm, knocking her to the ground, said Rafal. The man, who couldn't have been older than 18, then exited the car and shot Umm Luma four more times.

"It is something that I will never forget," Rafal said.

As Rafal cradled her aunt's body in her arms, another car -- similar to the attackers' -- passed before a stranger on a motorcycle pulled up and asked what happened.

"He approached her and slapped her on the cheek, asking, 'Are you Umm Luma?' " Rafal recalled.

"Yes. Leave her alone. What do you want?" Rafal shot back.

"I wanted to see if she was dead or alive," he replied before following Rafal into the house.

"I was baffled by this guy. No one in the area had seen him before. He asked weird questions, 'Where are the boys? Where do they live? Tell the boys to come,' " Rafal said. She did not respond to the stranger.

Today, family members are living with this nightmare. They feel hunted, Rafal said.

"We are living in extraordinary fear. If I am home alone, I get terrified," she said. "Yesterday, the door blew open and I fainted because I thought that they had come for us."

As his cousin explained the family's fear, Osama broke down, sobbing and shaking as he recalled tending to his slain mother that day.

"I saw my mother on the street. I picked up her brains with my own hands and wrapped it," Osama said, repeating the words, "picked up her brains."

Umm Luma dreamed of a secure Iraq, Rafal said, but now her loved ones live with the fear that they might not live to see that dream's achievement.

"We are scared of all of Iraq," Rafal said. "If we go out, we are afraid someone is going to kill us. Even at home we are afraid and we pile things against the door."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/iraq.victims/index.html

I thought Bush said that freedom has been brought to Iraq? :confused:

But I guess if you have a U.S. backed election, death squads roaming the streets killing indiscriminately doesn't matter. You are still free. I guess.

I thought Bush said that freedom has been brought to Iraq? :confused:

But I guess if you have a U.S. backed election, death squads roaming the streets killing indiscriminately doesn't matter. You are still free. I guess.

it matters, what really matters is that the iraqies out of power [who were in command] aren't liking the deal they are getting and are resorting to violence rather than trying to work the system

so we have a civil war going on, and it probably will forever

:mad:

Freedom doesn't guarantee security. In fact, it's often bad for security. The blame isn't just on the shoulders of the pointless US invasion, it's also on the Iraqi citizens who fight against the US by gunning down and blowing up their own countrymen in the streets. Iraq needs to start taking some responsibility for it's own security.

I give up.

I really do. I've opposed splitting Iraq into three bits all along, but now it just seems like that's the only thing there is to do. Treat it like that other misbegotten child of Versailles, Yugoslavia. Filled with ethnic and religious tensions, give everyone their own state.

Blagh.

Despicable as Saddam was, his rule was benign compared to this. We should never have toppled him.

Mission Accomplished!

Freedom doesn't guarantee security. In fact, it's often bad for security. The blame isn't just on the shoulders of the pointless US invasion, it's also on the Iraqi citizens who fight against the US by gunning down and blowing up their own countrymen in the streets. Iraq needs to start taking some responsibility for it's own security.

I give up.

I really do. I've opposed splitting Iraq into three bits all along, but now it just seems like that's the only thing there is to do. Treat it like that other misbegotten child of Versailles, Yugoslavia. Filled with ethnic and religious tensions, give everyone their own state.

Blagh.

Despicable as Saddam was, his rule was benign compared to this. We should never have toppled him.

Agreed.

Agreed.

And Agreed.

Damn...I really have nothing more to add.

Agreed.

Agreed.

And Agreed.

Damn...I really have nothing more to add.

Agreed. :)

I really do. I've opposed splitting Iraq into three bits all along, but now it just seems like that's the only thing there is to do. Treat it like that other misbegotten child of Versailles, Yugoslavia. Filled with ethnic and religious tensions, give everyone their own state.

If it was possible...

In Iraq there's a long history of strong tensions between religious groups, but they are all mixed up, both sides in each city. They were held from fighting by dictatorship. Splitting won't work, they all live in same places.

And they are fighting in the first place not US, but each other, despite both would attack US contingent as soon as they got rid of opposition. Now they only make sure that US gains no real control over Iraq.

Time to give independence to Kurdistan and let the south fight itself out. Maybe we could station some troops at the oil infrastructure and keep Basra, but other than that we should just let them kill each other.

Time to give independence to Kurdistan and let the south fight itself out. Maybe we could station some troops at the oil infrastructure and keep Basra, but other than that we should just let them kill each other.

The problem now is that people like the ones in this story are caught in the cross fire. We caused this situation, we owe it to people like them to do something to protect them. I don't know what that is, and obviously neither does Bush, it's such a mess.

The problem now is that people like the ones in this story are caught in the cross fire. We caused this situation, we owe it to people like them to do something to protect them. I don't know what that is, and obviously neither does Bush, it's such a mess.

Absolutely. I'm really wondering what, however; obviously, we could use refugee camps like the ones in Yugoslavia but even a cursory glance at that system shows that a lot went wrong and a lot of innocent people died because of mismanaged security and poor planning.

And, needless to say, I don't trust Rumsfeld or the other managers of this war to pull off such a program successfully.

The problem now is that people like the ones in this story are caught in the cross fire. We caused this situation, we owe it to people like them to do something to protect them. I don't know what that is, and obviously neither does Bush, it's such a mess.

But-but-but... Bill O'Reilly said that they're primative stone-age people who deserve no respect and are tearing their country apart because they aren't developed enough to have a democracy. Surely FOX wouldn't have let him say that if it wasn't true? :confused:

Freedom doesn't guarantee security. In fact, it's often bad for security. The blame isn't just on the shoulders of the pointless US invasion, it's also on the Iraqi citizens who fight against the US by gunning down and blowing up their own countrymen in the streets. Iraq needs to start taking some responsibility for it's own security.Wouldn't the best way to make that happen be to get the hell out of the way and make them do it? Just sayin'

Time to give independence to Kurdistan and let the south fight itself out. Maybe we could station some troops at the oil infrastructure and keep Basra, but other than that we should just let them kill each other.
As long as you realize doing that will piss Turkey off something fierce. They already don't like the degree of autonomy that area enjoys. How do you keep them from stationing troops on the border and threatening every couple of days?

As long as you realize doing that will piss Turkey off something fierce. They already don't like the degree of autonomy that area enjoys. How do you keep them from stationing troops on the border and threatening every couple of days?

By threatening to end their bid to join the EU.

And no sooner did the Kurds come up in convo...

ARBIL, Iraq, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Iraq's Kurdish regional government raised the threat of secession on Wednesday if the Baghdad government did not drop its claims to a say in the development of oil resources in their northern districts.

In a strongly worded response to comments by the Iraqi oil minister, the premier of the autonomous Kurdistan region said he "resented" the remarks by Hussain al-Shahristani and accused him of trying to "sabotage" foreign investment in Kurdish oil.

"The people of Kurdistan chose to be in a voluntary union with Iraq on the basis of the constitution," Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani said in a statement on his official Web site. "If Baghdad ministers refuse to abide by that constitution, the people of Kurdistan reserve the right to reconsider our choice."

Barzani said he was responding to an interview Shahristani gave to a Baghdad newspaper this week in which he restated the view of the Oil Ministry that recent contracts signed by the Kurdish regional government with foreign firms to develop oilfields in the area were subject to the ministry's review.

Shahristani, from the dominant Shi'ite Islamist bloc in the national unity government, has said he favours strengthening central control of Iraq's oil, although a new constitution gives autonomous federal regions a role in developing such resources.

The issue of just how powers are divided between Baghdad and the regions is at the heart of a bitter sectarian and ethnic dispute. The government is drafting legislation to clarify how oil investment and revenues should be shared with a view to encouraging foreign investment to develop its vast resources.

Leaders of the Kurds, about one in five of Iraq's 26 million people, regularly remind Baghdad politicians that they reserve a right to secede. However, they are mindful of hostility to their independence from their U.S. allies as well as from neighbouring Turkey, Iran and Syria, which also have big Kurdish populations.

KURDISH CONTRACTS

The Kurds, effectively independent of Baghdad since breaking from Saddam Hussein's rule in 1991, have struck two oil deals with foreign firms in the past year, while the four-month-old national government in Baghdad has yet to sign new contracts.

In May, Turkey's Genel Enerji and Canada's Addax Petroleum <AXC.TO> signed a 25-year production-sharing agreement with the Kurdish authority for the Taq Taq oilfield. Norwegian firm DNO <DNO.OL> signed a deal last November to drill for oil.

Barzani highlighted elements of the Iraqi constitution which provide for joint control of oil and gas fields in production. Kurds argue that new fields fall under regional control.

"I resent Dr. Shahristani's efforts to sabotage foreign investment in Kurdistan's oil sector," he said.

"Dr. Shahristani would better spend his time getting his ministry working rather than tearing down our achievements."

The Oil Ministry could not immediately be reached for comment. Shahristani says he wants to encourage foreign firms to invest in Iraq. Legislation to regulate such investments is in the works and ministers hope parliament can pass it this year.

Competition between Kurds and Arabs for control of Iraq's big northern oilfield around Kirkuk is a major potential source of conflict. The field lies outside the present Kurdish region but Kurds want a referendum to bring Kirkuk into their area.

Many majority Shi'ites are keen to emulate the Kurds' autonomy but Iraq's parliament this week agreed to delay the formation of any new regions until at least 2008 to let passions cool. Formerly dominant Arab Sunnis fear a new federal region in the oil-rich, Shi'ite south, along with Kurdish expansion in the north, could deprive them of the benefits of Iraq's oil.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/MAC761930.htm

it matters, what really matters is that the iraqies out of power [who were in command] aren't liking the deal they are getting and are resorting to violence rather than trying to work the system

What matters is that the violence sweeping that country has caused tens of thousands of Iraqis to die, all the while Bush is trying to claim that things are improving there. The fact that Iraqis are just as afraid now as they were when Saddam ruled if not more is also what matters.

At least with the dictatorship, there was only *one* psychotic maniac with the power to kill people on a whim.

Now there's thousands of them.

I like how all of you make claims about how life is in Iraq when you have no idea at all b/c you have never experienced it. It isn't like Iraqis can't walk the streets of their country safely in most places. Kids still play in the street and go to school. During the occupation the civilian deaths are estimated at 30-40 thousand. During the time period of 1987-1988, the human rights watch group estimates that 100,000 kurds were killed by saddam's gov't. Under saddam, Abu Ghraib executed 4,000 innocent iraqis in 1984, 3,000 were executed at Mahjar prison in a 5 year period and 2,500 were executed in the late 90's in order to free up space for more prisoners. More than 900,000 were displaced under saddam. 250,000 were killed in 1991 during uprisings mainly in the south. Kurds were forced to renounce their faith in replace of an Arab faith. Every shiite and kurd that i have talked to has vehemently said that life is 100% better now than it was. Now there are pockets of instability in Sunni areas b/c they want things to go back to the way they were w/ 100,000 killed in a short time period just b/c they were different. These areas are not friendly in the least. When i was in fallujah we had contact w/ the enemy almost daily in many forms but in the majority of iraq the quality of life is better and there are many fewer killings being carried out.

During the occupation the civilian deaths are estimated at 30-40 thousand.

Whose estimate?

I like how all of you make claims about how life is in Iraq when you have no idea at all b/c you have never experienced it. It isn't like Iraqis can't walk the streets of their country safely in most places. Kids still play in the street and go to school. During the occupation the civilian deaths are estimated at 30-40 thousand. During the time period of 1987-1988, the human rights watch group estimates that 100,000 kurds were killed by saddam's gov't. Under saddam, Abu Ghraib executed 4,000 innocent iraqis in 1984, 3,000 were executed at Mahjar prison in a 5 year period and 2,500 were executed in the late 90's in order to free up space for more prisoners. More than 900,000 were displaced under saddam. 250,000 were killed in 1991 during uprisings mainly in the south. Kurds were forced to renounce their faith in replace of an Arab faith. Every shiite and kurd that i have talked to has vehemently said that life is 100% better now than it was. Now there are pockets of instability in Sunni areas b/c they want things to go back to the way they were w/ 100,000 killed in a short time period just b/c they were different. These areas are not friendly in the least. When i was in fallujah we had contact w/ the enemy almost daily in many forms but in the majority of iraq the quality of life is better and there are many fewer killings being carried out.
If that's true, then why do 70% of Iraqis want the US out, like yesterday?

Whose estimate?

Iraqbodycount.net has it at 43 to 48 thousand but i have seen lower estimates.

If that's true, then why do 70% of Iraqis want the US out, like yesterday?

I don't know exactly how you would go about making a truly scientific poll in iraq b/c of the clear divide in opinions based on area and ethnic backround but my geuss would be that they polled a more Sunni area. Also, just b/c they find iraq to be more free now does not mean that they want us to still be there. They do have a very nationalistic feeling which we all know sometimes overrides logic.

I don't know exactly how you would go about making a truly scientific poll in iraq b/c of the clear divide in opinions based on area and ethnic backround but my geuss would be that they polled a more Sunni area. Also, just b/c they find iraq to be more free now does not mean that they want us to still be there. They do have a very nationalistic feeling which we all know sometimes overrides logic.

The polls were done regionally, and then compiled. Every region of Iraq had a majority wanting the US out. You know why? Because we are only making things worse.

Because we are only making things worse.

Do i really have to go over the body counts again?

Wouldn't the best way to make that happen be to get the hell out of the way and make them do it? Just sayin'

Yes.

Freedom often means the freedom to kill one another wholesale, in lots of nasty ways. Until everyone gets sick of it.

Look how many hundreds of years, and tens of millions had to die in Europe before they got tired of it.

By threatening to end their bid to join the EU.

Pffft. They're pissed off with the EU as it is. That's not exactly a 'threat' to most Turks.

Iraqbodycount.net has it at 43 to 48 thousand but i have seen lower estimates.

IraqBodyCount.net only counts the ones reported in the media, IIRC.

And every one of the atrocities you cited happened more than a decade before the war.

Iraqbodycount.net has it at 43 to 48 thousand but i have seen lower estimates.

Iraqbodycount.net tracks all reported deaths that can be independently verified. The death toll cannot be lower than the minimum estimate. It can be far higher than the maximum, and likely is. Judging by previously seen proportions, we're looking at around 200,000 deaths.

Do i really have to go over the body counts again?

Yes, let's go over the body counts.

Let's consider, for instance, the study a few years ago that gave a figure of one hundred thousand in additional deaths, and add that figure to the tens of thousands that have certainly occurred since.

Let's consider also that the atrocities you cited all happened more than a decade before the war - no such atrocities were in progress when the US invaded.

Don't forget that polls have consistently indicated that the Iraqi people see the US forces as occupiers, not liberators, and that they want them to leave.

The end result is not pretty for those who prefer to apologize for colonialist wars of aggression.

IraqBodyCount.net only counts the ones reported in the media, IIRC.

And every one of the atrocities you cited happened more than a decade before the war.

It's most likely under fifty thousand.

The famed 100,000 number is grossly inflated, with it often counting a single death multiple deaths, and often including unrelated deaths in the number as well. It's primarily considered to be a piece of AgitProp, and completely unacceptable.

Yes, let's go over the body counts.

Let's consider, for instance, the study a few years ago that gave a figure of one hundred thousand in additional deaths, and add that figure to the tens of thousands that have certainly occurred since.

Let's consider also that the atrocities you cited all happened more than a decade before the war - no such atrocities were in progress when the US invaded.

Don't forget that polls have consistently indicated that the Iraqi people see the US forces as occupiers, not liberators, and that they want them to leave.

The end result is not pretty for those who prefer to apologize for colonialist wars of aggression.
You don't list your sources for your "figures" so i really can't take them seriously. They were probabley just taken by a bunch of people who have never been to iraq to inventory these things and just figured that poeple like you would believe them. You really think that no atrocities were being commited by Saddam shortly before the war? There were still tens of thousands locked up being tourtured daily.

The famed 100,000 number is grossly inflated, with it often counting a single death multiple deaths,

How so?

and often including unrelated deaths in the number as well.

Unless Iraqis suddenly started dying at a far higher rate than under Saddam for reasons that had nothing to do with the invasion, I doubt it.

Let's not forget that the study was done years ago; even if they were off by 50% and the real number was, then, something around 50,000, the number today is far higher.

How so?



Unless Iraqis suddenly started dying at a far higher rate than under Saddam for reasons that had nothing to do with the invasion, I doubt it.



No, but elderly and sick dying were not counted in any body count as the 100,000 figure most likely does. You still have not given the name of any reputable agency who reported that w/ any evidence to back it up.

You don't list your sources for your "figures" so i really can't take them seriously. They were probabley just taken by a bunch of people who have never been to iraq to inventory these things and just figured that poeple like you would believe them.

If you haven't heard of the study that counted 100,000 deaths as the result of the invasion, I'm not going to find it for you. It's fairly common knowledge.

You really think that no atrocities were being commited by Saddam shortly before the war?

I didn't say that.

There were 280,000 Shias killed in one massacre campaign by Saddam alone, buried mostly in one place.

And we're not even talking about what he did to the Kurds.

I get the impression that there are so many different groups there, with so many grudges held for decades, that they have to engage in some payback before they can settle down.

Like I said, just look at Europe for the past 700 years or so. Murder, rape, pillage, torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing, slaughter. And now many European countries appear to be really tired of that sort of thing.

It's not like the intervention of the Allies in WWII really brought that all to a halt (although it did stop the war) - people just woke up one day, and realized that it was pretty stupid to run around killing each other.

Maybe what the Iraqis need is time. Time to kill, and get tired of killing.

No, but elderly and sick dying were not counted in any body count as the 100,000 figure most likely do.

But they should be, if their deaths were the result of problems caused by the invasion.

You still have not given the name of any reputable agency who reported that w/ any evidence to back it up.

The study was published in The Lancet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet). It was no made-up figure.

If you haven't heard of the study that counted 100,000 deaths as the result of the invasion, I'm not going to find it for you. It's fairly common knowledge.

Yep. Given the roaming death squads and bombings it will go quite higher.

If you haven't heard of the study that counted 100,000 deaths as the result of the invasion, I'm not going to find it for you. It's fairly common knowledge.
It's also fairly common knowledge that these figures are just extrapolating small numbers of casualties which obviously isn't scientific and can't be accurate. It is just propaganda.


I didn't say that.

no such atrocities were in progress when the US invaded.

But they should be, if their deaths were the result of problems caused by the invasion.




That's the point, they weren't

There were 280,000 Shias killed in one massacre campaign by Saddam alone, buried mostly in one place.

And we're not even talking about what he did to the Kurds.

I get the impression that there are so many different groups there, with so many grudges held for decades, that they have to engage in some payback before they can settle down.

Like I said, just look at Europe for the past 700 years or so. Murder, rape, pillage, torture, genocide, ethnic cleansing, slaughter. And now many European countries appear to be really tired of that sort of thing.

It's not like the intervention of the Allies in WWII really brought that all to a halt (although it did stop the war) - people just woke up one day, and realized that it was pretty stupid to run around killing each other.

Maybe what the Iraqis need is time. Time to kill, and get tired of killing.

Oh, all right then. I guess the U.S. troops there have nothing to do with the violence in Iraq? They are just shedding their "violent urges" on their own?

It's also fairly common knowledge that these figures are just extrapolating small numbers of casualties which obviously isn't scientific and can't be accurate. It is just propaganda.

It did have a fairly high margin of error, yes. However, this could mean that the real figures are far higher just as much as it could mean that they are far lower. And do recall that the study was done years ago - tens of thousands more have died since.

no such atrocities were in progress when the US invaded.

Thanks for proving my point.

Let's also not forget that the Lancet study was looking at the increase in mortality.

Even if the real number is ten, the invasion would still, as of the time of the study, have caused more deaths than it prevented.

It did have a fairly high margin of error, yes. However, this could mean that the real figures are far higher just as much as it could mean that they are far lower. And do recall that the study was done years ago - tens of thousands more have died since.

The study has no value at all. The people who worked on it (probabley 10min of coming up w/ a good number) have wasted their time. There is no scientific method to the study. I don't even know how it can be called a study.

The study has no value at all. The people who worked on it (probabley 10min of coming up w/ a good number) have wasted their time. There is no scientific method to the study. I don't even know how it can be called a study.

Thanks for making a number of worthless unsupported assertions.

How so?
Well, let's start off with how the number was derived.

The people who wrote the study said that they worked with a 95% confidence interval, which is spread out over a range of numbers. They were 95% confident that the total number fell within this range of numbers. Of course, the range of numbers was between 8,000 and 194,000. They used 100,000 because that number happened to be in the middle. Such a range is enourmous, and my stats prof was highly critical of this.

Also, their sourcing runs totally contradictory to other sources. In one time period the UN reported the number of deaths as 24,000, in the exact same time period, the Lancet study reported 39,000 deaths, which happens to be the highest reported number for said time period.

Furthermore, the Lancet report was operating with an excessively low pre-war mortality rate. They were operating under the assumption that it was a ratio of 5 deaths per 1000, whereas, the numbers that were published prior to the war were more akin to 6.1-8.1 per 1000, throughout the entirety of the nineties after the Gulf War.

Not only that, but the study doesn't only count civilian deaths since the invasion, but it also includes combatant deaths. As such, during the early weeks, the thousands of Iraqi troops who died are included, insurgent deaths are also included.

These are just some of the failings of the Lancet study.
Unless Iraqis suddenly started dying at a far higher rate than under Saddam for reasons that had nothing to do with the invasion, I doubt it.

Let's not forget that the study was done years ago; even if they were off by 50% and the real number was, then, something around 50,000, the number today is far higher.

The most accurate number at that time would seem to be something akin to 38,000 deaths.

The most accurate number at that time would seem to be something akin to 38,000 deaths.

That seems low to me. Besides, even if completely accurate I think 38,000 is incredibly high anyway.

Thanks for making a number of worthless unsupported assertions.

How is extrapolating some casualties scientific at all? It is not. Otherwise, in a basketball game we could wait to see who scores first and they will win 100-0. It is not scientific or accurate and it never will be.

How is extrapolating some casualties scientific at all? It is not. Otherwise, in a basketball game we could wait to see who scores first and they will win 100-0. It is not scientific or accurate and it never will be.

That's not how the study was conducted, as you'd know if you bothered to read up on it.

That seems low to me

Based on what? You haven't experienced the intensity of the war in iraq, you have nothing to base that assertion on. What you really mean to say is that your bias tells you that it must be higher b/c other wise your views are wrong.

That's not how the study was conducted, as you'd know if you bothered to read up on it.

The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes

-BBC

Let's also not forget that the Lancet study was looking at the increase in mortality.

Even if the real number is ten, the invasion would still, as of the time of the study, have caused more deaths than it prevented.

The Lancet study also was operating under a flawed pre-war death rate. Because of this difference, it is entirely possible that they were off by 34,818-83,028. That's a big problem.

That seems low to me. Besides, even if completely accurate I think 38,000 is incredibly high anyway.

I'm not arguing that Iraq isn't insanely bloody. I'm arguing that the Lancet study is fundamentally flawed, solely on the basis of the fact that we should use correct, and not bullshit, statistics.

We fucked up in Iraq, and because we fucked up an awful lot of people died, but there is no decent reason to inflate these numbers, because they are already horrible as is.

Based on what? You haven't experienced the intensity of the war in iraq, you have nothing to base that assertion on. What you really mean to say is that your bias tells you that it must be higher b/c other wise your views are wrong.

Say the number is accurate. Would you be willing to claim that 40,000 dead is an acceptable number? In a war to bring freedom that hasn't exactly been going to well?

Say the number is accurate. Would you be willing to claim that 40,000 dead is an acceptable number? In a war to bring freedom that hasn't exactly been going to well?

Well, if you think 40,000 dead is unacceptable, you would have quit invading Europe a few days after D-Day.

Or, if you were the USSR, you would have surrendered after spectacles of annihilation like Kursk or Kharkov.

Not to mention the civilian casualties.

The Lancet study also was operating under a flawed pre-war death rate. Because of this difference, it is entirely possible that they were off by 34,818-83,028. That's a big problem.

It is, but it does not make the use of the study illegitimate - at least, unless there is convincing contradictory data (which, as far as I am aware, there is not.)

Now, if they got facts wrong, that is a different matter.

Regardless, though, like I said, even if the real number is ten that is still ten excess deaths caused by the invasion, ten deaths that would not have happened under Saddam Hussein. High figures merely make the atrocity greater; they are not the reason it is an atrocity.

I'm not arguing that Iraq isn't insanely bloody. I'm arguing that the Lancet study is fundamentally flawed, solely on the basis of the fact that we should use correct, and not bullshit, statistics.

We fucked up in Iraq, and because we fucked up an awful lot of people died, but there is no decent reason to inflate these numbers, because they are already horrible as is.

I can certainly agree that having such a wide range of possible dead is hardly something that we need. A great way for people to attack each other over what the exact number of dead precisely is. Be nice if a more exact study was done but I suppose we can not count on that happening anytime soon. Besides, given the current violence in Iraq it will be going to that 100,000 number quicker then we might think.

I
Regardless, though, like I said, even if the real number is ten that is still ten excess deaths caused by the invasion, ten deaths that would not have happened under Saddam Hussein. High figures merely make the atrocity greater; they are not the reason it is an atrocity.

I don't disagree. One death is excessive, it's a terrible tragedy, but, for the love of God, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Kewpie Hamburgers, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and your mother's spice cupboard, use good numbers, please. Using such a flawed study is a detriment to your case, and allows for others to attack your credibility.

I'd rather that not be the situation, that's why.

Say the number is accurate. Would you be willing to claim that 40,000 dead is an acceptable number? In a war to bring freedom that hasn't exactly been going to well?

No it isn't. I'm not arguing that it is acceptable. I'm arguing that the numbers are wrong. If you don't know my views, i don't think iraq has much of a future but i also think that we must at least stay to give them a gov't to stand a chance.

Besides, given the current violence in Iraq it will be going to that 100,000 number quicker then we might think.

And that's exactly why you all should stop making use of bullshit to support your case. Using bullshit only hurts it, and makes it all the easier for that six digit number to really be reached.

Well, if you think 40,000 dead is unacceptable, you would have quit invading Europe a few days after D-Day.

Or, if you were the USSR, you would have surrendered after spectacles of annihilation like Kursk or Kharkov.

Not to mention the civilian casualties.

This isn't WWII. We aren't fighting army vs. army with the deaths of soldiers taking place in combat but in a fight where the vast majority of deaths are civilians. This is supposively an action to bring freedom to Iraq, in a war where Bush claimed that major combat operations had ended. But the violence is still extremly great. For such a limited conflict I'd consider the current situation and dead there to be a travesty.

Well, if you think 40,000 dead is unacceptable, you would have quit invading Europe a few days after D-Day.



Not to mention the civilian casualties.

I do not think that you can compare terrorism and a bunch on insurgents to the Nazis. There was muscle behind the german threat. They could have taken over much of the world if they weren't stopped. All terrorists can really do by themselves is kill a few thousand people. No real damage to the nation(not to diminish those deaths.)

i also think that we must at least stay to give them a gov't to stand a chance.

Against the wishes of the Iraqi people?

Why do you hate freedom?

Why do you hate freedom?

Because it tastes like rust. Blech.

This isn't WWII. We aren't fighting army vs. army with the deaths of soldiers taking place in combat but in a fight where the vast majority of deaths are civilians. This is supposively an action to bring freedom to Iraq, in a war where Bush claimed that major combat operations had ended. But the violence is still extremly great. For such a limited conflict I'd consider the current situation and dead there to be a travesty.

People who fight back against the US can't use straight up armies anymore - they get wasted in a couple of weeks.

Asymmetrical warfare is all they have left - suicide bombers, IEDs, car bombs, the occasional sniper, and terrorising the shit out of civilians with death squads.

In a way, it is major combat operations - major asymmetrical warfare on a large scale.

Sure, they can't win overtly by defeating US forces by outright destruction - but they can make us tired of the killing. Vietnam taught the world that.

Against the wishes of the Iraqi people?

Why do you hate freedom?

Wow, you are the biggest moron i have ever talked to. You have never talked to someone w/ no freedom, to someone who doesn't even know the concept of freedom. I know that i would rather die than live like that.

No it isn't. I'm not arguing that it is acceptable. I'm arguing that the numbers are wrong. If you don't know my views, i don't think iraq has much of a future but i also think that we must at least stay to give them a gov't to stand a chance.

I certainly don't think we should "cut and run" immediately. But we should give more money for infanstructure, actually giving more serious training to Iraqi army and police and giving a deadline to the Iraqi government to get their house in order. We cannot stay there propping up their government indefinately. Either we are causing the violence and leaving after giving the Iraqi government a chance to stand will help, or they are killing each other for other reasons and we should leave anyway. So we should certainly give Iraqs gov't say another year to stand and however it goes, leave.

Wow, you are the biggest moron i have ever talked to.

Excellent. I have reached the heights.

You have never talked to someone w/ no freedom, to someone who doesn't even know the concept of freedom. I know that i would rather die than live like that.

The Iraqi people want the US to leave. Why do you not permit them the freedom to control the presence or absence of foreign armed forces in their own country?

In an Orwellian twist, you insist that this denial is in the interest of freedom, but that is nothing but hypocrisy. If democracy is good for Iraq, why not accept the will of the Iraqi people? If democracy is bad for Iraq, why implement it?

...the range of numbers was between 8,000 and 194,000. They used 100,000 because that number happened to be in the middle.

...the UN reported the number of deaths as 24,000, in the exact same time period, the Lancet study reported 39,000 deaths, which happens to be the highest reported number for said time period.


They were operating under the assumption that it was a ratio of 5 deaths per 1000, whereas, the numbers that were published prior to the war were more akin to 6.1-8.1 per 1000, throughout the entirety of the nineties after the Gulf War.

Andalucie's argument says all that needs to be so far as Lancet is concerned. Simply knowing the methodology (described earlier in the thread) is more than enough reason to ignore the results. Further if the methodology wasnt bad enough the selection bias is - you dont take the highest numbers for one section of imput (post war deaths) and the lowest for the other (pre-war death rate) unless you are intentionally skewing the results. Such an overt selection bias is more than enough reason to ignore the results.

I certainly don't think we should "cut and run" immediately. But we should give more money for infanstructure, actually giving more serious training to Iraqi army and police and giving a deadline to the Iraqi government to get their house in order. We cannot stay there propping up their government indefinately. Either we are causing the violence and leaving after giving the Iraqi government a chance to stand will help, or they are killing each other for other reasons and we should leave anyway. So we should certainly give Iraqs gov't say another year to stand and however it goes, leave.

Yea, i agree w/ you on most points but there is one i disagree w/. We are training the army and police quite seriously. They have been trained to the level that we are trained. The problem is their culture of corruption. I've said it once and i'll say it again, the iraqi people as they are right now are incapable of acting like a western nation because of this corruption. Until they learn that bribes and not doing your job when you don't feel like it are not acceptable they will live in an iraq like the one they have now.

Excellent. I have reached the heights.



The Iraqi people want the US to leave. Why do you not permit them the freedom to control the presence or absence of foreign armed forces in their own country?

In an Orwellian twist, you insist that this denial is in the interest of freedom, but that is nothing but hypocrisy. If democracy is good for Iraq, why not accept the will of the Iraqi people? If democracy is bad for Iraq, why implement it?

The will of the people is not always a good thing. Especially when it is highly influenced by terrorists. I would be willing to bet that a good percentage of the people who said they wanted us gone said so for fear of retribution. When terrorism is invovled in a poll you have to take it with a grain of salt.

Sure, they can't win overtly by defeating US forces by outright destruction - but they can make us tired of the killing. Vietnam taught the world that.

Yeah but neither Vietnam nor Iraq are wars that have a real moral stance. I personally can't see how remaining in Iraq is going to do the world any good. The idea that staying there will hurt terrorism seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Excellent. I have reached the heights.



The Iraqi people want the US to leave. Why do you not permit them the freedom to control the presence or absence of foreign armed forces in their own country?

In an Orwellian twist, you insist that this denial is in the interest of freedom, but that is nothing but hypocrisy. If democracy is good for Iraq, why not accept the will of the Iraqi people? If democracy is bad for Iraq, why implement it?



good points.....but we broke it and have a duty to fix it..no one wants to not see my kids dieing for these ungrateful fucks...but we have to grow a pair...fix what we fucked up(thanks gwb) and get the fuck out of there..it will descend into mind numbing violence..as usaul for that insane part of the world...but we have to try...or at the least...give them a infrastructure to work with...then let the jews blast em all off the map..and believe me...thats next,if we roll to soon.

I like how all of you make claims about how life is in Iraq when you have no idea at all b/c you have never experienced it. It isn't like Iraqis can't walk the streets of their country safely in most places. Kids still play in the street and go to school.And neither have you, obviously. Kids always play in the streets. An appeal to emotion like that isn't just useless, it implies a false state of affairs. For example, when Turkey held their last ethnic cleansing fest, you still saw Kurdish kids playing football in the streets of devastated villages where 50%+ of the adult population had been exterminated.During the occupation the civilian deaths are estimated at 30-40 thousand.To be fair, you should at least mention that some 4-8 times as many died during the invasion. You know, before that hollow victory of ours was declared. Of course, we killed most of those, unlike now where Iraqis generally are the killers. But perhaps it isn't cool to bring up details like that.During the time period of 1987-1988, the human rights watch group estimates that 100,000 kurds were killed by saddam's gov't. Under saddam, Abu Ghraib executed 4,000 innocent iraqis in 1984,Again, to be fair here, it ought to be mentioned that it didn't just happen with the collective blessings of the EU & US, but with our direct help, guidance & hardware. It seems pretty irrational to claim that we can prevent repeats when we helped organise & carry out the genocide. I mean, I don't even believe it & I wasn't on the receiving end. That it's monstrously hypocritical is besides the point.3,000 were executed at Mahjar prison in a 5 year period and 2,500 were executed in the late 90's in order to free up space for more prisoners. More than 900,000 were displaced under saddam. Kurds were forced to renounce their faith in replace of an Arab faith.I haven't looked it up, but I seem to remember it was a bit more than that. Regardless.. No supervillan passes an opportunity to earn his title.

The counter argument is, of course, that Iraq wasn't any worse for non-Kurdish Iraqis than most other countries in the ME. It was a lot better than some. The thing is, Saddam saw himself as something of a messiah for Iraq. Consequently he didn't just kill a lot of people for shits & giggles & loot the coffers like the other brutal Me regimes, he spend a fair amount of energy on sanitation, education, food programs, infrastructure & creating jobs - something most of the regimes we're chummy with don't do very much of. He was dangerous & brutal, but if you sucked up to him & his cronies, it wasn't nearly as bad a place as most of the other Me nations. I'm not trying to make his regime look good, there's just more than one side to this. And it has a lot to do with why the Iraqis are so pissed at us now. 250,000 were killed in 1991 during uprisings mainly in the south.Is that including or excluding the ones we killed? OK, that was a rethorical question. It's including the ones we killed, which is groups like UNHCR estimated to be more than half.
It's also worth noting that the uprising was seeded by us. Only, we got cold feet because our intelligence agencies back then were more deserving of their names, and realised that a genocidal civil war would almost certainly follow if we removed Saddam. That's why we didn't follow through back then, why we shouldn't have gone to war for any reason this time, and why practically every impartial humanitarian organisation warned us beforehand that there was no humanitarian reasons to depose Saddam (UNHCR included, which is where most of your numbers seem to be from).

I'll let you decide whether they were psychic or if we just ignored everything we knew in a greedy bit to get longterm US puppet control over one of the last real oil resources on the planet.Every shiite and kurd that i have talked to has vehemently said that life is 100% better now than it was.That isn't surprising at all, and I get the same from the Kurds I know. Think about it.
The Kurds were a people without a country, and victims of more or less systematic extermination attempts since.. Forever, basically. Now they pretty much have a country, they're armed, they aren't under attack in Iraq, they're solidifying their position with oil money, and slowly making themselves felt in Turkey without reprecussions. Compared to the last few generations, it's heaven on Earth. Not only that, their chief enemy has been toppled & half their remaining enemies are busy killing eachother. Sort of like waking up from a wet dream & realising it isn't a dream, no?

It's been a while since I've heard anything positive about the civil war from my Shiite falafel-daddy (which is the only Shiite I've met in several years, hehe). He's saying exactly the same as every other Muslim I know, namely that we fucked things up royally, that it wasn't worth it (despite universal hatred of Saddam), that America was the last country on Earth that should have led any sort of invasion & occupation, and that we all need to get the fuck out right now, so the clans can get a chance to settle their disputes now & split the country between them as they see fit. What they do want, is tons of help to save refugees & perhaps a UN led peace force after the dust settles, to absorb flak from fuckers who wants to try jumpstarting the civil war again. But even the UN force thing is something very few of the Muslims I know have very much faith in.

It isn't surprising really. The 12 years of US-imposed sanctions were directly responsible for more than 3,000 deaths a month. Before that, we killed almost half that number in Desert Storm, and started a hopeless uprising that cost the lives of almost as many still. Throughout the period, we routinely bombed the infrastructure to rubble, causing near epidemics & mass-child deaths.
and before all that, it was one of the safer, more modern places to live in the region.
It really isn't surprising. All this shit was shockingly predictable 15 years ago.

EDIT: Whoa.. Never leave for 2 hours in the middle of writing a post. Sorry if all this is redundant by now.

The Iraqi people want the US to leave. Why do you not permit them the freedom to control the presence or absence of foreign armed forces in their own country?

In an Orwellian twist, you insist that this denial is in the interest of freedom, but that is nothing but hypocrisy. If democracy is good for Iraq, why not accept the will of the Iraqi people? If democracy is bad for Iraq, why implement it?

Well said, as always, Soheran. :)

*cookie*

Heckuva job there, George.

Heckuva job there, George.

She was a threat to your freedom!

She was a threat to your freedom!

A threat to my property, surely. Freedom? Tsk. Passé, dear.

A threat to my property, surely. Freedom? Tsk. Passé, dear.

Freedom is a series of tubes. Therefore you can, and do, own it. Things you own are your property.

Is any of this getting through to you?

She was a threat to your freedom!

Give us our freedom!

http://www.budweiser-beer.net/beer_images/braveheart.jpg