Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
New UK survey: Iraq Conflict Has Killed A Million Iraqis
crooksandliars.com — "The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes.:
blackolive- 1298 diggs
- digg it
- chall85, on 01/31/2008, -24/+17Wow.
- ivandir, on 01/31/2008, -10/+19I wonder why the British are the only ones that are investigating this?
- nospinhere, on 01/31/2008, -19/+15It's not the British, it's an independent British liberal organization that was investigating this.
Why aren't the British government or U.S. government putting much credence into this? Because the ORB is full of *****. They used flawed sampling procedures (only interviewing people in violent neighborhoods) and attributing those statistics to the rest of the population.
Digg submission buried as inaccurate.- ralph123, on 01/31/2008, -5/+8Wow, these are pretty serious allegations, so excuse me if I don't just take your word for them.
So, can you back up your allegations with anything?- cdahlkvist, on 01/31/2008, -7/+3Well, without any "fact checking" (so I am about as credible as the report) it's hard to believe that 1/27th of the population in Iraq has been killed.
If you find that pretty easy to believe then I suppose you believe everything Fox News tells you too. - hipnerd, on 01/31/2008, -2/+6Why is that so hard to believe? There has been constant war, ethnic cleansing and terrorism for five years in virtually all parts of the country. And I find you much less credible than the report. They wen;t into Iraq and interviewed families. You are disputing them not with fact but conjecture.
- Terr01, on 01/31/2008, -3/+5@cdahlkvist: So your entire "argument" is "I find it hard to believe"?
You're in no position to call for "fact checking" when you aren't going to debate logically. - cdahlkvist, on 01/31/2008, -6/+4@Terr01
Hey Douche-bag, I wasn't the one calling for fact checking.
Time for you to get off the Internet and learn some basic comprehension before you come back.
- cdahlkvist, on 01/31/2008, -7/+3Well, without any "fact checking" (so I am about as credible as the report) it's hard to believe that 1/27th of the population in Iraq has been killed.
- cababika799, on 01/31/2008, -8/+4Why not take his word? You're taking the ORB's word? And they're right because they're not biased (wrong), or they accurately took count of everyone in Iraq (wrong)?
But this isn't about truth is it? You just be biased your way and let me be biased mine.- ralph123, on 01/31/2008, -2/+5No, I'm not taking ORB's word, that's why I'm asking if he can substantiate his allegations.
Anyway, ORB conducted a scientific study. Now that of course doesn't mean in any way that it has to be correct, but it means that it only can be shown to be false if you show the underlying methology, the statistics they used, etc., to be scientifically wrong.
So if they used flawed sampling procedures, I'd be very interested to read about them, however, simply posting this allegation on digg without any supporting evidence doesn't convince me. Does it convince you? - Winston84, on 01/31/2008, -4/+8The difference is that the ORB conducted a study ..
YOU just don't like the message.. maybe because it makes your beloved Fuhrer
look like the murdering scumbag he is.. making YOU a murdering scumbag enabler . - krebcycle, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2@Winston84
give me a break, thinking that the ORB is full of ***** doesn't make him or me or anyone a murdering anything
i don't support this war, but this type of 'study' is as full of hyperbole as your comment.
- ralph123, on 01/31/2008, -2/+5No, I'm not taking ORB's word, that's why I'm asking if he can substantiate his allegations.
- mightydavefish, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5Ah, here comes the rightard misinformation squad.
C'mon *****, you KNOW the next dozen comments are people asking you to back up your neocon talking points!
How come you NEVER back anything up?
Oh, right. Because you are full of *****.- Phrag, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2Can we get off the 'tard' craze please? Its old. Its boring. Its being stretched to fit things like 'rightard'. Its over. Just let it die and come up with some new insults.
- wellyuk, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Do you have some information about this survey that the rest of us, or the reporter don't have? If so, I'd like to see it. According to the report:
"The research covered 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Those that not covered included two of Iraq's more volatile regions -- Kerbala and Anbar -- and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work."
It doesn't mention anything about specific neighbourhoods. Could you please share your information?
Thanks - wellyuk, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3Oh and I've checked the ORB website (http://www.opinion.co.uk), and it has no mention of it's political stance. Could you also let me know where you discovered they're a liberal organisation?
- ralph123, on 01/31/2008, -5/+8Wow, these are pretty serious allegations, so excuse me if I don't just take your word for them.
- nospinhere, on 01/31/2008, -19/+15It's not the British, it's an independent British liberal organization that was investigating this.
- ampersand2001, on 01/31/2008, -11/+19because the american people are being censored. the press is a propaganda machine. don't get me started on television.
- cababika799, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3And which way do you feel that American's are being censored? Are people for the war being silenced or people against it?
- Phrag, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4Free speech zones, bans on pictures of soldiers coffins and military control over press releases issued by embedded reporters.
- cababika799, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3And which way do you feel that American's are being censored? Are people for the war being silenced or people against it?
- ivandir, on 01/31/2008, -7/+4The press might be a propaganda machine but organizations can be formed by concerned citizen and pay for investigations of such nature.
- cababika799, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2And leading an organization that found over a million dead is a lot more profitable than one that found only ten thousand. Remember too that nomatter what the number is, the only time you hear of civilians being killed is when some terrorist decides to blow up a market or house. The number of people killed by US forces is not even comparable when thinking of the total number of civilians killed.
- Phrag, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1How do you know that the number of people killed by US forces is not comparable to the total number of civilians killed when "we don't do body counts' and 'the only time you hear of civilians being killed is when some terrorist decides to blow up a market or house'? You have no idea what the number of people killed by US forces actually is.
- cababika799, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2And leading an organization that found over a million dead is a lot more profitable than one that found only ten thousand. Remember too that nomatter what the number is, the only time you hear of civilians being killed is when some terrorist decides to blow up a market or house. The number of people killed by US forces is not even comparable when thinking of the total number of civilians killed.
- jdepp, on 01/31/2008, -5/+9A similar number of Iraqis died preventable deaths due to the sanctions imposed after the 1992 war.
- ViperDaimao, on 01/31/2008, -15/+11Now how many of these deaths are terrorists? How many of the people were killed by the terrorists? The majority I'd imagine.
Bottom line is the surge is working and all these numbers are trending down. It's getting better, we just need to make sure it keeps getting better.- Wargalas, on 01/31/2008, -12/+7You're getting dugg down because you're telling a side of the study that it failed to mention. No one here wants to think that insurgents have killed a single Iraqi, even though there are hundreds of reports to the contrary. It's all about "big, mean America killing innocent Iraqi's"
http://www.rightwinglunatic.com- Chunken, on 01/31/2008, -6/+7How many of those people killed by "terrorists" would have died if we didn't invade Iraq? Here I'll give you a hint: ZERO.
- Wargalas, on 01/31/2008, -11/+4Hey genius, let me explain something to you. If "terrorists" are pissed at our invasion, why aren't they going for, you know, US soldiers? Instead, they decide to kill Iraqi's. That is something we have NO control over. If I kick in your front door, does that give you the right to kill your neighbor?
Good God you're stupid. Turn off your computer and go to the nearest school and learn to think instead of jumping on every anti-American bandwagon that comes along. - MWeather, on 01/31/2008, -2/+7"If "terrorists" are pissed at our invasion, why aren't they going for, you know, US soldiers?"
They are. They're also fighting for political power amongst themselves. They wouldn't be killing US soldiers or each other if we were not there, as proven by the fact that they were not killing us or each other before we invaded. - jj101, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4@Waegalas - "If I kick in your front door, does that give you the right to kill your neighbor?" No, nothing gives you that right. But if you happened to have a deep seated, religiously fueled hatred of lots of your neighbours (and they of you) and then I removed all law and order, power/water/transport infrasructure, hospitals etc from your neighbourhood (or country in this case) do you think that might not seem like a good time to have a pop at them?
Obviously lots of the deaths in Iraq have been caused by Iraqis. The point is that the volatile state of that country was well known before the invasion and not planned for well enough to prevent the complete societal disintegration that has led to so much death. Thats a tragedy. - cababika799, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Put yourself in their shoes. As an Iraqi, you've lived under terrorist regime's for your whole life. They use fear, military might and intimidation. They control your food, water and everything else that happens to you on a daily basis. Nobody here seems to remember that the American Revolution cost thousands and thousands of lives to get rid of a governmental hold Britain had on the colonies. We praise that! But when it comes to fighting for Iraq to have the same freedoms, the body count isn't worth it. The anti-war movement is among the most selfish groups of people I have had the displeasure of sharing this country with.
- jj101, on 01/31/2008, -0/+6@cababika - thats some twisted logic you've got going on there.
The american revolution was fought by Americans wanting control of their own country. A more accurate hypothetical comparison would be China invading America to remove the British from power and triggering the American civil war while they occupied the country, becoming targets themselves. - krebcycle, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1@cababika
I don't believe these numbers either but this war has done nothing but cause misery in Iraq. In what imaginary world is Iraq going to be better off because of this? When this is over the country is going to be splintered into ethnic groups which will systematically kill and oppress the minorities within their sector which don't choose to leave when the division happens, and that will only come to pass after we finally give up and pretend that a civil war about internal borders is a viable resolution.
Your contention that Saddam was a "terrorist" is pure falacy. He was a dictator, much like our friends who run the Saudi Government, or many other dictators that we align ourselves with, which is not to say that it's a good thing to do so, I'm just establishing terms.
- Wargalas, on 01/31/2008, -11/+4Hey genius, let me explain something to you. If "terrorists" are pissed at our invasion, why aren't they going for, you know, US soldiers? Instead, they decide to kill Iraqi's. That is something we have NO control over. If I kick in your front door, does that give you the right to kill your neighbor?
- wellyuk, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Wargalas,
The report doesn't talk specifically about who did the killing.
- Chunken, on 01/31/2008, -6/+7How many of those people killed by "terrorists" would have died if we didn't invade Iraq? Here I'll give you a hint: ZERO.
- ZenMojo, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5The surge isn't working by any measure that THE US MILITARY PUT DOWN. It's only succeeded in 3 out of 18 criteria. Violence hasn't decreased, we've simply changed the definition of "sectarian violence" and "deaths in Iraq." This is some straight up Orwellian ***** and you're scooping it up by the handful.
- Terr01, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4Don't forget all the deceit with statistics, like trying to say that injuries and deaths from car-bombs don't count as "violence" and then saying that violence is down.
- mumblyjoe, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Thank you! Saved me the effort.
Now, let's remember that the stated goal of the surge was to give the Iraqi government time to get to work. AFAIK, all they've done is fight between themselves. Perhaps they're imitating the American government? The surge is definitely failing.
- mumblyjoe, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Thank you! Saved me the effort.
- Terr01, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4Don't forget all the deceit with statistics, like trying to say that injuries and deaths from car-bombs don't count as "violence" and then saying that violence is down.
- Scottamus, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1They were all terrorists because we only kill terrorists
- What Bush Would Say
"We don't torture because torture is illegal"
- Wargalas, on 01/31/2008, -12/+7You're getting dugg down because you're telling a side of the study that it failed to mention. No one here wants to think that insurgents have killed a single Iraqi, even though there are hundreds of reports to the contrary. It's all about "big, mean America killing innocent Iraqi's"
- Pssdoff, on 01/31/2008, -6/+14Watch, in 10 minutes this will read "reported by diggers as inaccurrate"
- pitlord, on 01/31/2008, -2/+4Watch, this article has been marked inaccurate and some digger is going to post that it WILL be marked inaccurate to make it LOOK like they are psychic and super cool!
X^P - xienze, on 01/31/2008, -5/+0Well, it's a survey issued by a group called "ORB", and posted on crooksandliars.com. Forgive me if I take this news with a grain of salt...
On the same note, if Fox News reported "sun to rise tomorrow", I'd expect all the little Diggers to mark the submission as "possibly inaccurate" by virtue of the source reporting it. You guys are quick to believe anything that fits into your agenda, no matter how suspect the source, but the second Fox News (or the like) reports anything, no matter how plausible, you're instant skeptics.- Terr01, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2"Well, it's a survey issued by a group called "ORB", and posted on crooksandliars.com. Forgive me if I take this news with a grain of salt..."
'Course, you're only supposed to bury it as inaccurate if you're pretty sure it's wrong, not if you're simply skeptical.
"On the same note, if Fox News reported "sun to rise tomorrow", I'd expect all the little Diggers to mark the submission as "possibly inaccurate" by virtue of the source reporting it."
Oh puhleese. Why don't we do a comparison of things that made it to the front page then? - Terr01, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Okay, searching for "foxnews.com" in the URL, newest first, things that made the front page...
http://digg.com/search?s=foxnews.com&submit=Search ...
Of the first 100 items, only ONE is marked inaccurate:
http://digg.com/world_news/Fox_News_Report_Osama_B ...
By contrast, let's look at crooksandliars.com with the same criteria.
Page 10, no inaccurate items marked.
Page 9, no inaccurate items marked.
Page 8, no inaccurate items marked.
Page 7, no inaccurate items marked.
Page 6, no inaccurate items marked.
Page 5, no inaccurate items marked.
Page 4: 2 items
Page 3: no inaccurate items marked.
Page 2: 1 item
Page 1: 4 items
I think it's interesting circumstatial evidence that if there is a "inaccuracy bury-brigade" that springs into action when things hit the front page, they're probably (A) recently formed and (B) conservative. - krebcycle, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3Diggers that xienze doesn't agree with are "little". What an *****.
- Dipsomaniac, on 02/01/2008, -0/+0The reason to be skeptical of Fox's reporting is that they are the ONLY news organization that have gone to court on the argument that deliberately reporting lies as truth is okay. (http://www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2005/1 ...
Apparently the fact that there's no rule about it makes it okay. - Dipsomaniac, on 02/01/2008, -0/+0Perhaps if Fox hadn't gone to court to preserve their 'right' to broadcast lies as news, they'd be seen as more trustworthy - http://www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2005/1 ...
- Scottamus, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1But ORB stands for Our Republican Brothers !
- Terr01, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2"Well, it's a survey issued by a group called "ORB", and posted on crooksandliars.com. Forgive me if I take this news with a grain of salt..."
- pitlord, on 01/31/2008, -2/+4Watch, this article has been marked inaccurate and some digger is going to post that it WILL be marked inaccurate to make it LOOK like they are psychic and super cool!
- NoStoppingUs, on 01/31/2008, -6/+9As a War in Iraq supporter, I'm finally convinced that we must GET OUT NOW! Obviously, all of these "one million" deaths were caused by allied forces and not the people blowing up mosques, hospitals, schools, and police stations. So, if we get out now, that means the deaths will stop occuring!!!111!!!1!!!11
Right?- f54280, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3Why do you put the one million between quotes ? Don't you feel that it is rather insulting ?
Allied forces are responsible of the Iraq situation in two ways. First, because there have no business being there (no wmd, etc). Second, because the they have removed everything that used to prevent the country to fell apart (the govt, the police, the military) and created the environment in which the death are occurring.
You are building a strawman, even the title of the story says it: "Iraq Conflict Has Killed A Million Iraqis". Not "Allied Troops Killed A Million Iraqis".- cababika799, on 01/31/2008, -3/+1You're makign the mistake (or perhaps purposefully ommitting) the fact that Iraq was never this stable place to live as you seem to think it was. The country was still ruled by a maniac and his sons. Terrorists were all over the country and were doing all the same things they were before we invaded.
And absolutely, it's increased since we got there. But have you stopped once to think that maybe this is good for Iraq? Does the phrase "give me liberty or give me death" ring true in your heart at all? Freedom is a fairy tale in places like that. You take your's for granted and therefore feel that frredom is not worth dying for.
We are the single richest and most powerful country in the world. It is our obligation to give our money and lives for the possibility of freedom in a foreign land just as it's become our responsibility to be the world's 911 service, or grocery store.
How much of the population is worth freedom? How many can die before we say "having my children live in a free society isn't worth it."? If it were you, you'd probably say that anything is worth making sure our kids have a future free of repression.
But when it's their kids, we can't seem to justify it. A ***** shame!- Terr01, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4"Terrorists were all over the country and were doing all the same things they were before we invaded."
My God. Are you an idiot or a liar?
"Does the phrase "give me liberty or give me death" ring true in your heart at all? "
The US government currently has a special deal where you don't get either, and Bush maintains that he has a legal right to throw any US citizen into jail without trial, charges, or lawyer, for as long as he wants.
But silly me, here I am expecting you to be consistent and follow your own *****.
- Terr01, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4"Terrorists were all over the country and were doing all the same things they were before we invaded."
- Insolent, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Cababika: It is our obligation to give help to those who ask for help and can be helped. Intervening has damaged our economy which in turn damages the world economy as well as reducing the amount of help we can give in the future in more dire circumstances. The amount of money spent on Iraq alone could prevent, vaccinate, and treat diseases of all kinds (HIV/malaria), feed and educate, build infrastructure to take countries which aren't permanent war-zones out of the 3rd world, and end up saving _hundreds of millions_ of lives while simultaneously expanding the economy. Instead, we've killed a million, destabilized a volatile region, and worsened diplomatic relations with numerous powerful countries. But at least we got rid of that evil man Saddam.
I hope to God you are sterile, never had kids, and cannot adopt.
- cababika799, on 01/31/2008, -3/+1You're makign the mistake (or perhaps purposefully ommitting) the fact that Iraq was never this stable place to live as you seem to think it was. The country was still ruled by a maniac and his sons. Terrorists were all over the country and were doing all the same things they were before we invaded.
- jj101, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3Of course not. The massive numbers of deaths in Iraq are not caused by "allied" forces. They are caused by the breakdown of the political system and of the society in general. By removing Saddam (who was undoubtedly a cruel and sadistic man) and obliterating the infrastructure of the entire country (power stations/communications/water supplies/hospitals/police forces/transport links etc) we have let the religious fueds that have existed there for centuries boil over into uncontrollable civil war. If we stay now tens of thousands of people will still die. If we leave now tens of thousands of people will still die - but they wont be "allied". The debate is whether, had the invasion been better planned, this disintegration could have been avoided. When people apportion blame to allied governments it is not because they think the soldiers of our countries are shooting hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (they are doing that themselves), its because the entire purpose of our soldiers presence there was purportedly to stop this happening - something which has been a spectacular failure.
- f54280, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3Why do you put the one million between quotes ? Don't you feel that it is rather insulting ?
- DLHOUOKUSA, on 01/31/2008, -8/+6So let me make sure I understand this. Bush and the Republicans invaded a country and hang their leader because he killed a few thousand people, yet in the process Bush and the Republicans contribute to the deaths of a million or more? So you are killing them all in order to save them?
- JimSwarthow, on 01/31/2008, -4/+3"he killed a few thousand people"? a "few thousand"?? they've found a couple mass graves just in the last few weeks that contained "a few thousand" now count up the number in all the mass graves that've been discovered over the past 5 years. then let's talk about the warehouse of records kept by Saddam's own govt that documented the killing of 1000's upon 1000's, then let's consider all the mass graves that will never be found.. good grief man, I didn't vote for Bush either but find a phkn clue.
- DLHOUOKUSA, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Same ***** is happening in N. Korea and has been before Saddam was ever in power. Same ***** in Darfur. Why are we not there? Hmmm Do you think before you post?
- JimSwarthow, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1who's talkin' about NK, Darfur and wherever else your little pinhead can think of? I was commenting about the previous poster's idiocy and all the while not even making a call one way or another in regards to whether we should even be there or not. generalize and jump to conclusions much? must be so nice to live in a little world where people are either "good" or "BAD!". phkn simpleton.
- DLHOUOKUSA, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Same ***** is happening in N. Korea and has been before Saddam was ever in power. Same ***** in Darfur. Why are we not there? Hmmm Do you think before you post?
- pitlord, on 01/31/2008, -4/+3FAIL!
>.>
Wrong answers. You need to go back and study recent history some more. Try accessing some actual news sources instead of liberal blogs and hate sites. - KataLieb, on 01/31/2008, -3/+5Yes. Kill em all and let God sort em out. Thats been the Christian way since the Middle Ages now..
- JimSwarthow, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1the Muslims kicked the Christians out of the ME 900 years ago. in the meantime the Muslims invaded Eastern Europe, Spain, etc and have occupied (more influenced) a decent portion since. but it's the Christians that lived nearly 1000 years ago that are the cause of today's problems, right? is that how you want it to work? as whoever else said, read-up on your history before you start blabbering away leaving no doubt who's the nitwit around here.
- krebcycle, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Completely incorrect. The muslims did not kick the Christians out of the middle east 900 years ago; Islam caused a renaissance in the middle east when the Christian West retreated in the Dark Ages as the fall of the Roman Empire occurred. In fact the muslims at the time allowed Christians to live mostly unharmed in their lands while the west forgot how to read and write; by the time the Dark Ages ended only priests could read. Then the west decided they needed to recapture the holy land because their holy men told them to and because the Seljuks were skirmishing against the Byzantine empire; war was a uniter and gave great potential political gain to any ruler who sponsored a successful crusade. Strangely the muslim empire really wasn't affected much by the west's crusades; the crusades loomed much larger in Europe's mind than anywhere else. They were largely failures; mosquitos stinging the exterior. Only once was jerusalem captured, and it wasn't held long, Saladin recaptured it. Frequently the muslims had much larger wars occurring on other fronts while the Christians were attacking the "holy land", and managed to repel the Christians each time regardless.
You should probably try reading a little history yourself before you call someone else a nitwit.
In any case there is no doubt that the repeated Christian attacks against the middle east throughout history have contributed to the borders drawn there today. However I doubt anyone is saying that what the Christians did 1000 years ago is the cause of the problems in Iraq. Christians in charge of the USA right now are the cause of that. - JimSwarthow, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1by krebcycle - "However I doubt anyone is saying that what the Christians did 1000 years ago is the cause of the problems in Iraq."
my whole point was that there are PLENTY of people spewing that nonsense. maybe you should read a little too? - thanks for the good info, btw (I really mean that). I was aware of a good bit and most of the rest actually supports my thesis when you keep in mind that, as I said, LOTS of folks are walking around w/ their pop-history at the ready telling people the Crusades are the root of the problems we see today. no joke, they really are (telling people that). the nitwit in the cube next to me for instance.. some people think the dumbest things.
- krebcycle, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Completely incorrect. The muslims did not kick the Christians out of the middle east 900 years ago; Islam caused a renaissance in the middle east when the Christian West retreated in the Dark Ages as the fall of the Roman Empire occurred. In fact the muslims at the time allowed Christians to live mostly unharmed in their lands while the west forgot how to read and write; by the time the Dark Ages ended only priests could read. Then the west decided they needed to recapture the holy land because their holy men told them to and because the Seljuks were skirmishing against the Byzantine empire; war was a uniter and gave great potential political gain to any ruler who sponsored a successful crusade. Strangely the muslim empire really wasn't affected much by the west's crusades; the crusades loomed much larger in Europe's mind than anywhere else. They were largely failures; mosquitos stinging the exterior. Only once was jerusalem captured, and it wasn't held long, Saladin recaptured it. Frequently the muslims had much larger wars occurring on other fronts while the Christians were attacking the "holy land", and managed to repel the Christians each time regardless.
- JimSwarthow, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1the Muslims kicked the Christians out of the ME 900 years ago. in the meantime the Muslims invaded Eastern Europe, Spain, etc and have occupied (more influenced) a decent portion since. but it's the Christians that lived nearly 1000 years ago that are the cause of today's problems, right? is that how you want it to work? as whoever else said, read-up on your history before you start blabbering away leaving no doubt who's the nitwit around here.
- JimSwarthow, on 01/31/2008, -4/+3"he killed a few thousand people"? a "few thousand"?? they've found a couple mass graves just in the last few weeks that contained "a few thousand" now count up the number in all the mass graves that've been discovered over the past 5 years. then let's talk about the warehouse of records kept by Saddam's own govt that documented the killing of 1000's upon 1000's, then let's consider all the mass graves that will never be found.. good grief man, I didn't vote for Bush either but find a phkn clue.
- ivandir, on 01/31/2008, -10/+19I wonder why the British are the only ones that are investigating this?
- tinko, on 01/31/2008, -64/+99Genocide
- pintomp3, on 01/31/2008, -23/+56war crimes.
- iraq, on 01/31/2008, -11/+21There's probably more truth to that than you realize. The United States illegally invaded Iraq. A war pushed under false pretenses -- a world warned of the "slam-dunk evidence" and feared into submission with rhetoric of a "mushroom cloud" was all it took to do the dirty work. It isn't an easy problem to solve at this juncture, but hopefully world leaders will grow a pair because God knows that the Democrats aren't going to.
- pintomp3, on 01/31/2008, -7/+13justifications aside, preventive war is illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war - Wargalas, on 01/31/2008, -12/+3So tell me then, if the war in Iraq was illegal, then we should have released Saddam right? At least admit that to us all. Every liberal when cornered says we should not have released Saddam, but when you point out their argument that the war was "illegal" and thus, the spoils of that war should be put back as it was, they buckle.
So, tell us, should Saddam have been released? Come on, be different then the other liberals, have a backbone for once.
http://www.rightwinglunatic.com- Wargalas, on 01/31/2008, -3/+3Pretty typical around here. Digg me down and no one has the guts to stand up and give me an answer to my question.
- pintomp3, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4nice false dilemma. we shouldn't have supported saddam in the first place. you seem to forget that we gave him chemical weapons which he used against his own people and iranians.
- krebcycle, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4Whether or not we should have released Saddam is a boondoggle. It really doesn't matter either way what we do to one man in the face of the current dilemma; this debate is not about Saddam. You're being dugg down because you really aren't making a valuable point.
- Richggs, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2We may have well have released Saddam we more than doubled his dirty work.
- DLHOUOKUSA, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1Yes we should have Richggs. It took someone like Saddam to keep Iraq the most stable country in the middle east. There are far worse people then Saddam that need dealt with.
- empraptor, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4Whether the war was legal and whether Saddam should have been hung are two different issues. Please be rational.
Personally, I don't give a flying ***** about what should have been done to Saddam. But I do wish W ***** hadn't taken us into iraq. - cababika799, on 01/31/2008, -4/+4Yeah DLHOUOKUSA, you would be singing a different tune if you woke up the next morning to find the next town over massacred so the president could stay in power. That's worth stability isn't it?
Then you would also agree that our president should have the right to just pick congressmen and senators out at random for imprisonment and execusion. That's worth stability!
Maybe the president's sons (if he had any) could walk into any house with his personal guards, rape your women and take you off to prison under false accusations of crimes just cause he didn't have anything else to do on a tuesday afternoon. So long as our country is stable!
Maybe there are much more pressing things for YOU to worry about than Sadam, but I assure you, there was nothing more "in your face" and frightening than having a dictator like him.
Just because nobody wants to invade your country does not make the country stable. Nor does that make it's citizens happy or safe.
I'm going to take the libery of putting words in your mouth right now. What you meant to say was..."So long as I don't hear about it, and it doesn't raise my oil prices, then there are far worse people that need to be dealt with."
See how I fixed that for you? Don't worry, with a few more lessons like that one, we'll have you thinking about someone other than yourself in no time!- gudnbluts, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1"I assure you, there was nothing more "in your face" and frightening than having a dictator like him."
You have no idea what's going on in Iraq, do you? Do you even own a TV? - krebcycle, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2That's all fine and good but when in the name of saving his citizens from him we stupidly cause a civil war which we completely don't understand, we have made a bad thing worse. Intelligent well informed people knew the composite of the country and how it was being held together only by force of arms before we got there. False pretenses and egotistic hubris caused rational thought to be ignored, and we jumped into a war without a plan, and now the whole place is on fire. If we're saving Iraqi lives and making the place better someone should let them know, they're pretty pissed off right now.
There are plenty of other dictators doing ***** things to their citizens, who should we attack next? - DLHOUOKUSA, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2cababika799;
What has been happening in Darfur is far far far worse then what Saddam was doing. Why did we not go there first? What about N. Korea? Again far far worse than Saddam. Please enlighten me as to why it was more important to go to war with a man that gassed a few thousand people that tried overthrowing his government rather then going to war with the Janjaweed who are truly raping and killing 100 times the amount Saddam raped and killed? I am listening? Cricket cricket cricket....
- gudnbluts, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1"I assure you, there was nothing more "in your face" and frightening than having a dictator like him."
- pintomp3, on 01/31/2008, -7/+13justifications aside, preventive war is illegal.
- iraq, on 01/31/2008, -11/+21There's probably more truth to that than you realize. The United States illegally invaded Iraq. A war pushed under false pretenses -- a world warned of the "slam-dunk evidence" and feared into submission with rhetoric of a "mushroom cloud" was all it took to do the dirty work. It isn't an easy problem to solve at this juncture, but hopefully world leaders will grow a pair because God knows that the Democrats aren't going to.
- valkyries, on 01/31/2008, -31/+12iraqis killing iraqis
- jerryparid, on 01/31/2008, -11/+18I want to come to your house and bash you on the head; who the ***** started this mess?
- DarkShroud, on 01/31/2008, -2/+5Muslim extremists. Of course the answerl depends on whose side you're on when you ask a question like that.
- Brownds, on 01/31/2008, -7/+3@jerryparid
Wow Bash in his head. Dude you need to up your ridolin intake. If you are married I feel sorry for your wife/goat if she says something you don't agree with do you bash her head with a bat? What is scary is you are being dugg up! First off valkyries is right it is a civil war going on in Iraq. Yes Saddam was a monster but he kept all those tribes in check, if they started getting out of hand he killed them. Iraq was ruled with fear but it was a controlled fear now it is in utter chaos. The US going into Iraq was wrong and a disaster. And it's not all Bush's fault most of congress agreed with him. As a matter of fact 2 of our 2008 runners Obama and Paul said it would be a mistake to invade Iraq in late 2002-2003 to bad they are in different parties that would be a great match up there. - nirav72, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3@Brownds - WTF is Ridolin? Is that a generic version of "Ritalin"?
- empraptor, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2If only one of Obama or RP gets on the ballot, is it possible for one to take the other as VP candidate?
I think Jerry's point was that if he were to go into valkyries' house and starts a fight, it'd be his (jerry's) fault for whatever mess that resulted.
- Groovemaster, on 01/31/2008, -7/+8Americans buying lies.
- ManOfVirtues, on 01/31/2008, -2/+5I dont think its fair to lump Americans into this. We didnt start this war, politicians did. Maybe I am wrong, but I didn't get a vote.
- MWeather, on 01/31/2008, -3/+1You didn't get to vote for politicians? You should sue.
- RCinBigD, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3I am afraid that the politicians that are responsible for this illegal war represent YOU. You can't wash your hands of it and say we Americans had nothing to do with it. Particularly now, that even after all of the facts have come to light and we still haven't impeached any of the jokers in this administration. We should be lighting fires under the asses of every member of the House to start proceedings immediately.
- empraptor, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1A lot of people were for the war back then. Now looking back I can see it was wrong but back then I thought it was a bad idea only because I figured we'd be in Iraq for decades like in Korea or something and end up costing a lot of money and lives. I actually bought into the whole WMD thing, like a lot of people did.
- ManOfVirtues, on 02/06/2008, -0/+1What I meant was no one asked me if I thought we should go to war before we did.
I am just as pissed about 9/11 as any other American was. It was Pearl Harbor all over again as far as I'm concerned. When Japan attacked congress declared war, and we mounted up and went, I probably would of volunteered back then. But with terrorist there is no country or origin, no bases, no strategic targets. I agree with Dr. Paul that 9/11 was the result of blow back from the US trying to impose its will on the Middle East for almost 60 years but that doesn't make it ok. The majority of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi, in fact several of the people who were supposed to be on the planes turned up alive and well in Saudi Arabia. So intelligence says we go to Afghanistan.
When we got there we attacked the country like it was an Army, decimated the country and then before we finished said, hey while we are here lets invade Iraq because Iraq supports Al Quida. 18 months into it "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"(Thanks for the clarification Mr. Bush).
To sum it up hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans have been calling for the Impeachment of almost everyone in the upper levels of government, to only fall on deaf ears. The government has declared itself separate and above the people, thus failing as a democracy. I guess citizen is just another word for slave these days.
- ManOfVirtues, on 01/31/2008, -2/+5I dont think its fair to lump Americans into this. We didnt start this war, politicians did. Maybe I am wrong, but I didn't get a vote.
- Liam76, on 01/31/2008, -5/+10He is right. But that doesn;t excuse the US as the one who started it.
- gummih, on 01/31/2008, -3/+3Exactly. His statement is true. But it implies that US is not to blame - which is not true. The US is to blame, sad but true. They did not listen to their allies and they went in there to obtain power - what they got was an enduring mess.
- MWeather, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4It's really simple. I don't see how any rational person thinks we're not at fault.
If I decide I have a bunch of rattlesnakes that need killing, and I lure them all into your house to do it, whose fault is it if your family gets bit? Mine, or the snakes?
- MWeather, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4It's really simple. I don't see how any rational person thinks we're not at fault.
- gummih, on 01/31/2008, -3/+3Exactly. His statement is true. But it implies that US is not to blame - which is not true. The US is to blame, sad but true. They did not listen to their allies and they went in there to obtain power - what they got was an enduring mess.
- muzy, on 01/31/2008, -6/+290% of the killing came from the invaders. 10% by the iraqi
- krebcycle, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1That's just dumb, regardless of whether or not you think this war is justified. Personally i think it's evil, but to think that our forces are over there with a mandate to slaughter citizens is just stupid.
- akamurph, on 02/01/2008, -0/+0care to back up your comment with some facts? ...didn't think so.
- chase001, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1More like Bush's private mercenary army killing Iraqis.
- jerryparid, on 01/31/2008, -11/+18I want to come to your house and bash you on the head; who the ***** started this mess?
- iraq, on 01/31/2008, -14/+14Yeah, this is the biggest story generally going unreported. It's a tragedy and Americans generally will look the other way because our politicians are telling us that our surge has turned everything around and now that the "surge" is working, there is no reason to end the war-on-a-tactic.
- Khannea, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3Ohh americans know. However the willingly ladle down the cool-aid the media supplies as a panacea to the raging guilt. At some level deep down the average guntoting realize their nation has become a force of pure evil.
- krebcycle, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2A democrat will be in the white house because the average American wants us out of this war.
- Paroparo, on 01/31/2008, -18/+53*****? Yes.
War crimes? Without a doubt.
Genocide? No.
A genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national group. This is just a war for profit where lots of innocent people get killed. Still horrible, but genocide is simply not the right word for it.- Tilon, on 01/31/2008, -8/+5So they're in the region for the resources and power, not to simply directly ***** the people, but make them watch as their country is literally raped in front of them.
Yes, quite the improvement, eh?- DarkShroud, on 01/31/2008, -3/+4They have control of their own oil. If this was about raping the country don't you think the US would have just taken everything during the first Iraq war. People only look at oil, there isn't any oil in Afghanistan. There is a much bigger issue going on here. "Securing" Iraq along with Afghanistan cuts the middle east in half and sets up launching grounds for future actions.
- Tilon, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2I never said the word oil.
There are resource reasons, Strategic reasons, plenty of others. It doesn't change what I said.
- Tilon, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2I never said the word oil.
- yohnstoppable, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2All about the petro dollar
- krebcycle, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Paroparo clearly isn't advocating this war, chill out. he's merely saying that the word 'genocide' is incorrect. it's not a value judgement, it's clarification. Nobody said anything about an 'improvement', you don't have to go be an ***** for no reason, it makes you sound like a ***** republican, talking without thinking.
- DarkShroud, on 01/31/2008, -3/+4They have control of their own oil. If this was about raping the country don't you think the US would have just taken everything during the first Iraq war. People only look at oil, there isn't any oil in Afghanistan. There is a much bigger issue going on here. "Securing" Iraq along with Afghanistan cuts the middle east in half and sets up launching grounds for future actions.
- MWeather, on 01/31/2008, -6/+3So there aren't mass executions of Sunnis and Shiites based solely on their ethnicity? I knew the media was lying to me. All those people floating in the Tigris and Euphrates just must be trying to learn to swim, poorly. They should be wearing water wings, not bullets in the back of their heads.
- elipabst, on 01/31/2008, -1/+7So you think the US is perpetrating sectarian violence in Iraq? These kinds of Iraqi-on-Iraqi killings are exactly the kinds of things the US is trying to prevent.
- Tilon, on 01/31/2008, -8/+5So they're in the region for the resources and power, not to simply directly ***** the people, but make them watch as their country is literally raped in front of them.
- ukblacknight, on 01/31/2008, -14/+7To put it into perspective, 1million is like wiping out the entire population of Northern Ireland...
- Liam76, on 01/31/2008, -1/+10Ppopulation in N Ireland is closer to twice that (1.9mil)
- ukblacknight, on 01/31/2008, -4/+4My bad, you are correct. I did read somewhere that it was 1mil, however that was obviously wrong!
- MWeather, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and everyone knows an Irishmen is worth 2 Brits.
- Liam76, on 01/31/2008, -1/+10Ppopulation in N Ireland is closer to twice that (1.9mil)
- Entheoddity, on 01/31/2008, -10/+24Learn the definition of genocide before trying to get some diggs kid.
- simplicityiskey, on 01/31/2008, -5/+28As Paroparo mentioned, you may not agree with the war, but it is not genocide, and in my honest opinion, it is naive and irresponsible to suggest that it is.
- Sogui, on 01/31/2008, -4/+18You're using that word, but I don't think you know what it means
- yohnstoppable, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2Inconceivable!
- pitlord, on 01/31/2008, -4/+6@ ***** that believe this crap and call it "genocide."
-_-
Stupidity.
>.>
Hey look, I can make one word responses too! I can haz cookiez nowz?!?! - FutureGuy, on 01/31/2008, -1/+6huh no, no matter how you twist it it can't be called "genocide." Was it a colossal mistake, absolutely. Does it deserve impeachment for being utterly incompetent and lies, beyond a doubt. Was this one of the worse mistakes in US history giving Bush top honors in the worse presidents ever list, count on it.
And why is this also flagged as inaccurate, it seems that anything against Bush (or Billary) gets this this honor, Digg needs to do a better job with this.
- pintomp3, on 01/31/2008, -23/+56war crimes.
- MakiNavaja, on 01/31/2008, -40/+71Where does this figure put Bush in terms of his ranking on history's all-time-most-heinous-leader list?
In one hundred years will people look back on him and say, "He made an honest mistake that, umm, coincidentally resulted in the death of over a million people." ... or ... "He intentionally manipulated information to misguide the nation and coerced its allies into sewing wanton destruction upon a nation that posed no danger, resulting in the death of over a million people."?- iraq, on 01/31/2008, -15/+30I don't know where he ranks, but he should be handcuffed and sent to jail. NO PARDON.
- jm4847, on 01/31/2008, -10/+1Too bad he's immune to prosecution thanks to a bill signed by McCain.
- CarzorStelatis, on 01/31/2008, -1/+7Not in the International Criminal Court he isn't.
- gudnbluts, on 01/31/2008, -0/+0Bush didn't sign America up for that one. Surprise surprise.
- MWeather, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5I'd like to see that theory tested at the Hague.
- CarzorStelatis, on 01/31/2008, -1/+7Not in the International Criminal Court he isn't.
- edrift101, on 01/31/2008, -0/+5I'd like to see all these WAR CRIMINALS tried and put to death.
- satanswetnipple, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Bush is very pro capital punishment, so that should make him happy.
- jm4847, on 01/31/2008, -10/+1Too bad he's immune to prosecution thanks to a bill signed by McCain.
- sieteRevueltas, on 01/31/2008, -6/+7ummmm...Im gonna go for the second one
- jm4847, on 01/31/2008, -11/+6Stallin killed over 100 millions. Mao killed millions too. So did Hitler but that's always overplayed.
Anyway my point is he isn't the worst but he isn't anywhere near good.- orangefly, on 01/31/2008, -9/+2yeah....he only has a year to catch up....the slacker....
- moskaudancer, on 01/31/2008, -0/+7Actually Stalin's death toll was closer to 30 million, and Mao's was around 50 million. The concentration camps killed "only" about 12 million people, but since he started a war that killed about 72 million people, I think it's safe to say he's responsible for those deaths, too.
- BabyWookie, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Actually, Stalin's real death-toll is closer to 3 million. It was popular to exaggerate it after the fall of USSR and the Russians themselves were guilty of coming up with these ludicrous death tolls. In reality, about 700,000 were executed during Stalin's 25 year rule and the rest died in GULAG.
- BabyWookie, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Stalin killed half of USSR's population? Really? You are nuts.
- gummih, on 01/31/2008, -4/+16"History will judge me" - George W. Bush
Indeed it will Mr. Bush. Hopefully the judicial system will too.- DarkShroud, on 01/31/2008, -1/+6It's not going to happen. Democrats like to stand in front of the camera and make speeches and that's about all they do besides taking kick backs like every other politician.
- gummih, on 01/31/2008, -0/+5Yes, but you shouldn't lose hope
- DarkShroud, on 01/31/2008, -1/+6It's not going to happen. Democrats like to stand in front of the camera and make speeches and that's about all they do besides taking kick backs like every other politician.
- geekee, on 01/31/2008, -5/+2Hey moron. Even if the number was right, the people were killed by al qaeda in Iraq. A much smaller number were killed by US forces. Saddam's number is way above the number killed by US troops.
- xbytes, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1But the point is al-qaeda weren't in Iraq until we invaded, they came to Iraq to fight the coalition. they are no more free really than they were under Sadman Insane. And now we have to deal with this mess that didn't benefit anybody.
- Xenufield, on 01/31/2008, -4/+0I think it'll be the the third option:
Bush went to war on bad intelligence given to him by a CIA that was nearly destroyed by his predecessor. In doing so he removed a leader that used weapons he was given for defense, to kill his own citizens, and had caused Bush and both Clintons to believe he was working on WMDs and possibly nukes. During the war he was demonized and the spirit of the copperheads showed itself once again with the liberal party attempting to propagandize the war like the did with Vietnam. Bush did not fold, and the people had more sources of news than just Walter Cronkite, and so the propaganda was not as effective. In the end, Iraq was able to create a democracy, with its survival dependent on the ability of its people to work together, something America itself was unable to do at the time. Among the propaganda against him was bloated casualties, claims of planning 9/11, that his surge would not work, and that his best general, Patraeus, was a traitor and puppet according to an anti-american left wing Soros frontgroup*.
* Made possible by McCain/Fiengold 1st amendment attacking legislation.
- iraq, on 01/31/2008, -15/+30I don't know where he ranks, but he should be handcuffed and sent to jail. NO PARDON.
- UltramegaOK, on 01/31/2008, -43/+66"My administration has a job to do, and we're going to do it. We will rid the world of the evil-doers." - George Bush (September 14, 2001)
- He needs to take his own damn advice.......***** Nazi
-- ronpaul20008, on 01/31/2008, -18/+32I don't know why you're getting dug down, i agree... his grandfather funded the nazis, he's a member of skull & bones.. they taught him how to make fortunes from the war machine - weapons, oil, opium, soldiers & cheap labor & creating a white-only one world government, while controlling the masses & minimizing dissent. He may look stupid, but he's doing an exemplary job, and is ready to pass the baton onto mccain.
- PurpleSfinx, on 01/31/2008, -6/+15""My administration has a job to do, and we're going to do it. We will rid the world of the evil-doers." - George Bush (September 14, 2001)"
So his next step is suicide? - simplicityiskey, on 01/31/2008, -14/+11Please don't insult the memory of those who suffered under the Nazis by comparing Hilter's regime to Bush's time in office.
- Firehed, on 01/31/2008, -5/+18It would be far more insulting to ignore the parallels between Hitler's rise to power and the steps that have been taken by GWB and to allow it to happen again. Maybe it's because I've actually studied the holocaust, but the parallels are remarkably strong and really should be staring most people in the face.
- simplicityiskey, on 01/31/2008, -2/+11You mean like the burning of the Reichstag? Kristallnacht? Night of the Long Knives? Bush is coming to the end of his final term, are you suggesting that between now and November he's going to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and seize absolute power?
- Xenufield, on 01/31/2008, -4/+1Just because you took a basic WW2 history class in highschool/college, does not make you any less of an idiot.
Bush has not even a fraction of the power Hilter had, also Bush would have taken absolute power after 9/11 if it were the same, as it was *the* chance for an american president to do so, moreso than Pearl Harbor.
Why don't you list those parallels, so we can see how 'strong' they are, compared to how ***** insane they are.
- Khannea, on 01/31/2008, -5/+6On this occasion I pay homage to the ones who suffered on Hitler's regime by exposing exactly the same dehumanizing evil in the regime of George W. Bush. It's is the SAME and it requires a full disclosure, no secret rooms TRIAL.
- simplicityiskey, on 01/31/2008, -6/+7You're comparing Bush to a man that completely destroyed democracy in Germany, mercilessly slaughtered his political adversaries, systematically tried to destroy an entire race of people, and waged a war with the intent of dominating an entire continent. I'm not Bush's biggest fan by any means, but you're not honoring those who suffered under Hitler, you're simply trying to demonize Bush.
- ronpaul20008, on 01/31/2008, -5/+6completely destroyed democracy - CHECK. Diebold election fraud confirmed.
slaughtered political adversaries - CHECK Anthrax letters , Paul Wellstone
Systematically tried to destroy an entire race of people - CHECK. scapegoating & mass murdering Muslims
Wage war w/ intent of dominating continent. NO - Bush has the intent to dominate the ENTIRE PLANET.
Reichtag Fire = 9/11 . Enabling Act = Patriot Act Military Commissions Act. Complete Control of Mass Media for Propoganda purposes. Rape, Torture & Murder of Innocents continue with absolutely ZERO accountability. - airburst, on 01/31/2008, -3/+1Did you forget to take your medication?
- ronpaul20008, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3what about the Muslims scapegoated & suffering under Bush's regime? don't insult their memories? if they could speak, they'd be warning & screaming at us that history is repeating itself and to do something! don't insult their memories? that's like saying don't insult the families of the 9/11 victims by asking questions or accusing the government of being involved, even though it is the FAMILY MEMBERS that are asking the questions... I know, I'm a family member.
- simplicityiskey, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Asking questions is not an insult to someones memory--suggesting that what occurred on 9/11 or since is somehow equal to or greater than the most atrocious war and attempted genocide this world has ever known is not only self-centered, it is incorrect and dangerous. Bush is not Hitler, America is nowhere close to Nazi Germany, and to suggest so is an insult to those who suffered. While I sympathize with your loss and in no way seek to make it seem less than what it was--absolutely horrifying--to suggest that our government has become an equal with the Nazi regime is just plain ludicrous.
- Xenufield, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2completely destroyed democracy - CHECK. Diebold election fraud confirmed. Proof? This being true would make him like JFK, who beat Nixon due to voter fraud.
slaughtered political adversaries - CHECK Anthrax letters , Paul Wellstone --- And your proof for this would be what? Some conjecture and *****? Shall we look at the deathnote of Bill Clinton's adversaries and those who dared to cross him?
Systematically tried to destroy an entire race of people - CHECK. scapegoating & mass murdering Muslims --- Going to need some proof on this. Scapegoating muslims isn't possible considering they've fought with us since the Barbary pirates. We also had the attacks by these 'scapegoats' in the 90s, which Clinton ignored due to his oral office action. IThe mass murder would be what, the bloated Iraq figures that include those killed by insurgents?
Wage war w/ intent of dominating continent. NO - Bush has the intent to dominate the ENTIRE PLANET. --- We've been the dominating power on the planet since WW2, if that's his goal it has already been accomplished.
Reichtag Fire = 9/11 . Enabling Act = Patriot Act Military Commissions Act. --- You've got part of something here, however the executive authority to declare control has existed since before he entered office. Clinton signed a bill in his tenure that was related to this, it added a few minor things, but kept the ability to declare total control intact.
Rape, Torture & Murder of Innocents continue with absolutely ZERO accountability. --- Where is Bush ordering this, or allowing it? No, blackwater do not count, they are not under his military command, and US personnel caught doing this are charged, and to people like Murtha, they are guilty and to be used as propaganda, even if they are found innocent.
I can see in your looney toon world you believe what you say, however you're letting your brainwashed little mind lead you on the leftwing crusade. I bet you believe in the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" too.
- ronpaul20008, on 01/31/2008, -5/+6completely destroyed democracy - CHECK. Diebold election fraud confirmed.
- simplicityiskey, on 01/31/2008, -6/+7You're comparing Bush to a man that completely destroyed democracy in Germany, mercilessly slaughtered his political adversaries, systematically tried to destroy an entire race of people, and waged a war with the intent of dominating an entire continent. I'm not Bush's biggest fan by any means, but you're not honoring those who suffered under Hitler, you're simply trying to demonize Bush.
- Firehed, on 01/31/2008, -5/+18It would be far more insulting to ignore the parallels between Hitler's rise to power and the steps that have been taken by GWB and to allow it to happen again. Maybe it's because I've actually studied the holocaust, but the parallels are remarkably strong and really should be staring most people in the face.
- reiner15, on 01/31/2008, -21/+5Heil
- theNazz, on 01/31/2008, -33/+87The Bush Administration had hung Saddam for a lot fewer deaths...
- Waiting2awake, on 01/31/2008, -5/+7Goose - Gander.
- DarkShroud, on 01/31/2008, -5/+8Try again, on a few counts. It was the Iraqis who hung Saddam. And Saddam's death count is still higher than the US's. This survey doesn't count actual deaths nor does it determine who the person(s) were killed buy & why. There are a lot of groups in Iraq killing people.
- L0t3k, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3You get a gold star, for being the first person to say something which required thought.
- 30thElement, on 01/31/2008, -2/+6The past tense of "to hang a person" is "hanged" not "hung".
- elipabst, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2From Merriam Webster:
"usage: For both transitive and intransitive senses the past and past participle hung, as well as hanged, is standard."
- elipabst, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2From Merriam Webster:
- Waiting2awake, on 01/31/2008, -5/+7Goose - Gander.
- aztrozon, on 01/31/2008, -21/+9Interesting how they put it. The Iraq conflict is responsible and not George the unelected dictator.
- DarkShroud, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2Bush got the electoral college votes he needed. It's 2008 already deal with it. If you and other idiots keep looking back you going to miss important events in front of you.
- whatthefu, on 01/31/2008, -12/+50Skip the blogspam: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international ...
- chall85, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2I dugg the "blogspam" because there was relevent information provided in the blog following the link to the nytimes article. The info on Douglas Feith and WHIG is important, and based on what some people are saying on here about the surge 'working', needs to be read.
- russ3, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Its bias and ***** put out there by someretard with an opinion, hard news plz.
- chall85, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2I dugg the "blogspam" because there was relevent information provided in the blog following the link to the nytimes article. The info on Douglas Feith and WHIG is important, and based on what some people are saying on here about the surge 'working', needs to be read.
- Wacer, on 01/31/2008, -28/+39Where is the proof of this? Not even the Arab world thinks this number is correct. I am not saying its wrong, just that there have been groups in past that have been criticized for their method of counting and who they say killed those people. How many have been killed by groups over their killing their own fellow countrymen?
- Edwaldo, on 01/31/2008, -20/+3you cant say the Arab world doesn't believe the numbers of you're not Arab, dumbass
- oldhick, on 01/31/2008, -6/+18They asked 2000 people and then they made some statistical estimates. There is no way that number could be wrong!!!
- leexy, on 01/31/2008, -4/+10Of course they have been criticized. Unless you actually catalog and record each corpse, critics will always point out that extrapolation can be flawed. However, it is the best thing one can do in this situation, and the figures aren't all that inaccurate. There is a good reason the US military decided to stick to the "we don't do body counts" line; if not, the implications would have been catastrophic for Bush's agenda. You are very welcome to criticize the studies, but when those efforts are peer-reviewed, and you can't be bothered to come out with an alternative figure based on scientific method, I'll take the former any time.
I am an Arab, and I know damn well what goes on in the Arab street. Let me make it clear that every time a bomb is detonated in a market killing Iraqis, a substantial part of the blame is put on the US invasion and the terrorist safe haven it created.- Wargalas, on 01/31/2008, -6/+6Well if you'd like, we can leave now and you can deal with terrorists on your own. Or, you can point them out to US troops and they will take care of it for you. Would you rather a heavily armored, armed to the teeth, highly trained soldier deal with it, or some poor guy who is going to a market, who just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time?
Perhaps you should look at your society and your religion when it says that killing yourself and innocent people with high explosives is the way to heaven. When studies come out that say upwards of 40% of Muslims think that's ok, you cannot complain when the world has an unfavorable view of your religion and region.
http://www.rightwinglunatic.com- CarzorStelatis, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2The insurgents kill, kidnap, and torture innocent civilians. The US forces kill, kidnap and torture innocent civilians. So surely it is better for Iraq to have fewer killers, kidnappers and torturers in their country - even if they can't get rid of all of them at once?
- Wargalas, on 01/31/2008, -3/+3Show me an instance of that happening and the soldier's weren't arrested for it? Your anti military rhetoric isn't backed up by the facts.
- KataLieb, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3Why wont you Wargalas respond to my comments on the disguised-as-arabs British special ops provocatuers? What, you hadnt heard of that before?
Well, get your facts straight, and get your naivete checked!- Wargalas, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2Because Digg's comment system sucks
- Wargalas, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2Because Digg's comment system sucks
- CarzorStelatis, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2The insurgents kill, kidnap, and torture innocent civilians. The US forces kill, kidnap and torture innocent civilians. So surely it is better for Iraq to have fewer killers, kidnappers and torturers in their country - even if they can't get rid of all of them at once?
- KataLieb, on 01/31/2008, -2/+4Wargalas, there was no such "terrorist" problem before the US invasion. The "terrorists" are mostly people fighting the US occupation "insurgents"..
And then there are some Agents Provocateurs like British Special Ops people who blow up mosques left and right to make Shiias and Sunnis fight with each other instead of fighting the occupier..
Here are a couple of examples of such false flag black ops (Divide and Conquer, even the Ancient Romans knew it!)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-17880 ...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vie ...
http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1556
"
British special forces caught dressed as Arab 'terrorists'
British soldiers have been caught posing as Arabs and shooting Iraqis in the occupied city of Basra in southern Iraq. A group of them was caught yesterday by Iraqi police. They were driving an Iraqi car, wearing Arab clothing, and carrying weapons and explosives.
The Iraqi police were patrolling the area looking for suspected "terrorists" or "insurgents", and they noticed that the men were acting suspiciously. Suddenly, without warning, the suspicious men started shooting at people, but the new Iraqi security forces managed to capture some of them before they could escape. Obviously, if these men had not been caught, the mass media would now be reporting the incident as just another attempt by evil "terrorists" to create civil war in Iraq."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& ... "Iraq: US blames Al-Qaeda for its own actions "
AND USA has admitted to using chemical weapons banned by most countries in Iraq ( white phosphorus and napalm, thou they go around it by naming the compounds something else than napalm, yeah, thats gonna do it, lets call it MARSHMALLOW and nobody will have a problem with it!)
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_admits_use_of_white ...- Wargalas, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1There was no "terrorist" problem before because they were too scared of Saddam to do anything, or they were on his payroll. Plus, many of them came to Iraq to fight US soldiers. A dead terrorist is a dead terrorist in my book.
- Wargalas, on 01/31/2008, -6/+6Well if you'd like, we can leave now and you can deal with terrorists on your own. Or, you can point them out to US troops and they will take care of it for you. Would you rather a heavily armored, armed to the teeth, highly trained soldier deal with it, or some poor guy who is going to a market, who just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time?
- ralph123, on 01/31/2008, -5/+6Uhm, the proof is in the study. You are more than welcome to see what methods they used to come up with this figure and how these methods stack up to good scientific practices.
And with groups being critizised in the past, are you refering to the two studies published in the Lancet?
No doubt, they were critizised, however, that doesn't mean that the studies have been discredited. On the contrary, if you research the matter, you'll find the critics have largely discredited themselves.
As to your other questions, simply look at the study, you'll find the answers there.
Oh, and while we are at it, here's some interesting reading on the subject:
http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee/research/iraq/lancet_ ...
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/74263/- KataLieb, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4As a biologist and forest ecologist, who has read the Lancet study cover to cover: It is scientifically sound, and their methods valid. I have all trust in their results. Theyve been obtained using agreed-upon, tested scientific polling methods. If someone doesnt LIKE their results, well, tough luck!
- jackkerouac, on 02/01/2008, -2/+2Then you are a pretty ***** scientist. I have read the study from cover to cover and am a statistician - that study, and this one, is complete *****. Calculating deaths by asking 2,000 people how many people they know that have died? Are you ***** kidding me?
- chicofaraby, on 02/01/2008, -1/+2You're a statistician that doesn't believe in sampling? Are you ***** kidding me? You're a pretty ***** liar.
- jackkerouac, on 02/01/2008, -2/+2Then you are a pretty ***** scientist. I have read the study from cover to cover and am a statistician - that study, and this one, is complete *****. Calculating deaths by asking 2,000 people how many people they know that have died? Are you ***** kidding me?
- KataLieb, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4As a biologist and forest ecologist, who has read the Lancet study cover to cover: It is scientifically sound, and their methods valid. I have all trust in their results. Theyve been obtained using agreed-upon, tested scientific polling methods. If someone doesnt LIKE their results, well, tough luck!
- L0t3k, on 01/31/2008, -3/+4I can't help but picture a scenario where I call 2,000 residents of "projects" in America and ask, "was someone in your household killed?" Extrapolating by orders of magnitude, supposing that not only is the number somehow representative of the truth, but that they were all killed by reckless law enforcement gunfire. Then I conclude that 70% of the US population has be executed by our police forces in the last few years.
- isellmacs, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I think you should do it. It sounds like a valuable study to me.
Call the "projects" and ask 2,000 randomly selected people if they have had a family member killed by police in the last few years. If 70% do indeed say yes, then I think that says somthing.
However, if you call 2,000 of them at 20 (1%) say they have had a family member killed in the last few years, I think that also says something.
Personally, i'd think it'd be closer to 20 than 1,400, but i'm willing to observe the results of your study.- xienze, on 01/31/2008, -1/+0Even if it was 1%, that would extrapolate to roughly three million Americans killed by police in "the last few years." Kind of brings to light the problem of extrapolating results when a good sampling isn't used, no?
- Devaney, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1"The research covered 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Those that not covered included two of Iraq's more volatile regions -- Kerbala and Anbar -- and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work." ...so where are the "projects" that they selectively used in their study? a better comparison would be doing a study asking 2,000 people from around America, but not covering a couple of the most violent cities and extrapolating from there. I don't think that you would get anywhere near 1% of people saying they know anyone who has been shot by a police officer, but at least you've got a good imagination
- xienze, on 01/31/2008, -1/+0Even if it was 1%, that would extrapolate to roughly three million Americans killed by police in "the last few years." Kind of brings to light the problem of extrapolating results when a good sampling isn't used, no?
- isellmacs, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I think you should do it. It sounds like a valuable study to me.
- KataLieb, on 01/31/2008, -1/+10Here for example, by Lancet, the leading BRITISH journal of medicine. Their tallies indicate that already in 2006 the US invasion had caused 665 000 extra deaths. Two years later one million. Very probable and likely, since the situation has only gotten worse or stayed the same.
Heres the original Lancet pdf: http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/ ...
And an article about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
Of course you can cry and deny all you like, but Lancet is a scientific medical journal, and their methods are scientific and trustworthy. But when did the ***** apologists ever care about science? Its creationism, intelligent design and ***** that captivates their imaginations...- elipabst, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3Of course you're neglecting to mention the study by the WHO (UN) that appeared last month in the New England Journal of Medicine that found the death rate to be about 150,000 which is a full order of magnitude less than this article. That was an article done by the WHO not some Bush shill.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080109/ ...- ralph123, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3*Sigh*
It was a study done by the Iraqi Ministry of Health and it does not in anyway contradict the other studies.
For example, it only counted deaths-by-violence, whereas the Lancet study counted all excess deaths.
And the researches on the Iraqi Ministry study readily acknowledged that their findings would be to low, as for example, they left out especially dangerous neighborhoods in the study.
But hey, as long as you think waving around "only" 150,000 deaths as an accomplishment will help your point, you're certainly not one to be disturbed by these little details... - elipabst, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Where was the study published besides NEJM? That's right, the WHO website. The study was funded by the UN, European commission, and WHO and 3 of the coauthors list the WHO as their affiliation. Do you really think UN authors would shill for Bush and agree to be on a paper they didn't support?
While they do state that the method they use suffers from underestimation, it is the same methodology used by the Lancet study (survey of household clusters) the difference being that the NEJM study has a much larger sample. They also specifically address that and adjust their raw number to correct for the estimated under-reporting, including in violent areas where they could not get access.
And it does contradict other studies, especially the Lancet study. In fact they say that in their conclusions: "the estimated range is substantially lower than a recent survey based estimate" referring to the Burnham study. The Lancet study reported 654,000 excess deaths but specifically cited 601,000 violent deaths, not just excess deaths, so they are comparable. - ralph123, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3Oh Jesus, you're answer has to be among the most dishonest pieces of ***** I ever had to read on this side.
First off, you were aware that even the researchers themselves said they were underestimating the casualties, but you didn't think you had to inform others about this little inconvenience, did you?
Second, the big difference between the Lancet study and the Iraqi study is the percentage of deaths attributed to violence. While the Lancet study attributes the vast majority to violence, the Iraqi study only attributes a small percentage of the excess deaths to violence.
However, that means that the 150,000 are only a small part of the excess deaths. In fact, if you look at the study it suggests excess deaths over 400,000, which isn't very far of the Lancet study now, is it?
Third, the study was carried out by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, even if you don't like it.
Fourth, the study used the same basic methodology as the Lance and ORB studies, the very methodology that has been attacked here without any argument whatsoever, and came to very similar conclusions. - Xenufield, on 02/01/2008, -2/+1"But hey, as long as you think waving around "only" 150,000 deaths as an accomplishment will help your point, you're certainly not one to be disturbed by these little details.."
Why don't you compare that to other conflicts that went on for as long? The death rate in this war is amazingly low, all because of the held-back fighting policy which will likely ensure we never succeed. - elipabst, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1"Oh Jesus, you're answer has to be among the most dishonest pieces of ***** I ever had to read on this side."
Coming from a pretentious douchebag like yourself, I'll take that as a compliment...
"First off, you were aware that even the researchers themselves said they were underestimating the casualties, but you didn't think you had to inform others about this little inconvenience, did you?"
Either you didn't read what I wrote or you simply don't understand it. If you actually read the paper, you'd know that they said that the *survey technique* underestimates the number which they they corrected for, so the 150,000 figure they gave is not an underestimate. The spend a lot of time talking about how they correct for it, but you knew that right?
"Second, the big difference between the Lancet study and the Iraqi study is the percentage of deaths attributed to violence."
Yes, because they overestimate the number of violent deaths. The rates of non-violent casualties is similar in both studies and in fact they comment on how remarkably similar they are. The difference is that the Lancet study massively overestimated the number of violent deaths. Having 1000 people dying due to violence every single day doesn't even make sense. The largest and most sensational attacks have killed upwards of 100-200 people and there are maybe a handful of US operations since the beginning of the occupation that could even come close to that number. Common sense alone is a tip off that the number was grossly inflated.
The big differences between the studies is that this one is significantly larger than both of the other studies and is more likely to be more accurate. And there is a big difference between saying that that over 90% of those people were killed at the end of an American gun or bomb (which is what you'd like everyone to assume) when the number is far lower than that (15%). After all, saying people died of diabetes and congenital anomalies just isn't as sexy as saying the American's killed 'em right?
- ralph123, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3*Sigh*
- elipabst, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3Of course you're neglecting to mention the study by the WHO (UN) that appeared last month in the New England Journal of Medicine that found the death rate to be about 150,000 which is a full order of magnitude less than this article. That was an article done by the WHO not some Bush shill.
- sonnybobiche, on 01/31/2008, -11/+43At the same time, and this is quoted from the NYtimes article that crooksandliars reports from, "the highly watched Iraq Body Count website quotes the death toll at approximately 88,000."
One of these is wrong.- Andareed, on 01/31/2008, -2/+12Different methodologies of counting. One study might count only those iraqis killed directly by US forces. Another might include people killed by rebels, arguing that these rebels wouldn't exist if not for the invasion. Further still, another study might count people who died of disease due to poor infrastructure, caused by the US destroying that infrastructure in their bombings.
- satanswetnipple, on 01/31/2008, -9/+17Just like Bush used a different methodology than Saddam when it cam to deaths of Kurds. Yes, the west were told over and over about the "tens of thousands (MAYBE MORE!!!!!!!!!)" Kurds that died, but by Saddam's numbers only a couple of thousand Kurds died under his rule.
So what we will see here is the christian nazi double standards. It is OK to count every death Saddam caused directly and indirectly, but it is not OK to count every death Bush caused directly or indirectly.- KataLieb, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Yup, exactly. Double standards. Newspeak. *****.
- satanswetnipple, on 01/31/2008, -9/+17Just like Bush used a different methodology than Saddam when it cam to deaths of Kurds. Yes, the west were told over and over about the "tens of thousands (MAYBE MORE!!!!!!!!!)" Kurds that died, but by Saddam's numbers only a couple of thousand Kurds died under his rule.
- kooft, on 01/31/2008, -4/+11I believe Iraq Body Count counts media reports of deaths in Iraq, whereas this report was an actual survey of Iraqi households.
- Liam76, on 01/31/2008, -6/+13It was a survey of what 2k houses? Hardly a large enough sample size. And if it was conducted like the lancet study with a few small areas given more weight it is even more questionable. It doesn;t even go into how they define "household".
- the6thReplicant, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3If you read the lancet article it would have you all of the information you mention. The samples are smallish but big enough to have a reasonable margin or error. At least they risked their lives to get some real information. As someone said "You can't fool nature"
- moin1097, on 01/31/2008, -4/+5It had a margin of error of 1200%. That's only reasonable to the BAF crowd.
- chicofaraby, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1"It had a margin of error of 1200%."
That is simply a lie. Not unexpected from a liar llike you, but it needs to be pointed out that you are a liar.
- chicofaraby, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1"It had a margin of error of 1200%."
- moin1097, on 01/31/2008, -4/+5It had a margin of error of 1200%. That's only reasonable to the BAF crowd.
- ralph123, on 01/31/2008, -5/+4Interesting.
Could you provide a link to a scientific paper, textbook, etc. that says that the sample size was insufficient?
Thanks in advance.
Oh, and while you're at it, could you also provide a link for your critizism of the lancet study?
Thanks again.
And btw., you might want to take a look here:
http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee/research/iraq/lancet_ ...- moin1097, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2I have simple math.
At the time the "study" was released the average death per day since the invasion would have been around 435. 435 violent deaths in a country the size of California would not have gone unnoticed by the MSM. Somebody would have seen something.- ralph123, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3Huh?
For years now there are reports about violence in Iraq every single day, even though one can be sure that only the most attrocious crimes will be reported, not every deadly incident.
- ralph123, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3Huh?
- moin1097, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2I have simple math.
- KataLieb, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Liam76 and what might be your scientific credentials?
A polling size of 1000 households is common for example determining the popularity of presidential candidates.
A polling size of 2 thousand is perfectly enough for this kind of study, if theyre randomly selected. Ive read the Lancet study and their methodology, and to me as a biologist, their method holds up.
The Iraqi bodycount site only counts deaths directly due to combat.
- the6thReplicant, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3If you read the lancet article it would have you all of the information you mention. The samples are smallish but big enough to have a reasonable margin or error. At least they risked their lives to get some real information. As someone said "You can't fool nature"
- orangefly, on 01/31/2008, -6/+29i think 88,000 is enough to get upset about....
- lovedunks, on 01/31/2008, -3/+5It is a difference in how they calculate the deaths. A Johns Hopkins study used the same method to count by just polling a few thousand people in Iraq to see how many knew someone who died. That study came up with 650k when they did it (about a year ago, I believe).
This study is using the same kind of method and it seems highly inaccurate to me. I think the 88k number seems much more probable, and yes, it is definitely enough to get upset about. One is too many.- ralph123, on 01/31/2008, -2/+5Iraq Body Count until very recently only counted deaths that had been reported in at least two english language newspapers. I think they now changed their requirements to just one english language paper.
However, why do you think that IRB with the method just described would give a more accurate account of the amount of deaths than studies using wildly tested and state of the art statistical surveys?
And if you claim that this method is highly inaccurate (a method that has been used in many regions for decades now), do you have anything to back this claim up, or do you just feel that it is inaccurate?- sonnybobiche, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1When did the Institutional Review Board enter the picture?
- ralph123, on 01/31/2008, -2/+5Iraq Body Count until very recently only counted deaths that had been reported in at least two english language newspapers. I think they now changed their requirements to just one english language paper.
- Bostocks, on 01/31/2008, -4/+7The Iraq Body Count is the right one. It's not an estimate, it's a list of confirmed deaths. All others are extrapolating from a small pool, but the violence in Iraq is not evenly spread in every region.
- celandine, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2The difference is that 'The Iraq Body' is counting the deaths from the actual skirmishes and battles of the war. "Military" deaths, if you will. Whereas figures like these are generally considering what's known as "excess deaths". These are the deaths that would never have occurred had the war never happened.
So, as well as counting those who have died from being shot etc (Military casualties), it also includes those who dies from the disruption of infrastructure, which leads to medical services being halted, food and water distribution being stopped etc. Normally this is done by comparing the pre-war national death rate and the national death rate at points mid-war. However this article seems to imply it is using this method and other methods to extract a more precise amount of deaths the war has cause.
In short, this is not a Body count, but an indication of the damage that the war has done to the military AND civilian population of Iraq as a whole through direct and indirect deaths.- KataLieb, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Exactly. This is what many readers here seem to have trouble comprehending. But then again, US public school system isnt very good at educating people and teaching them how to think. Not to mention teaching them in the scientific method.
- leexy, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5To quote the Wiki, 'IBC is not an "estimate" of total civilian deaths based on projections or other forms of extrapolation. It is a compilation of documented deaths, as reported by English-language media worldwide.' They admit that counts by their method is bound to be a severe undercount.
IBC tracks down violent deaths as far as I know. The new survey factors other causes such as unsanitary conditions, malnutrition and other things that can be attributed to the war.- gummih, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Interesting that someone would dig down your comment. What kind of a disturbed mindset would someone need to dig this down? Was the person so upset that somebody tarnished his wishful thinking that the 88.000 reported deaths (high as that is) was an accurate estimate?
- nirav72, on 01/31/2008, -2/+488000 or 1 million. Its still death without reason. Especially Civilians.
- Andareed, on 01/31/2008, -2/+12Different methodologies of counting. One study might count only those iraqis killed directly by US forces. Another might include people killed by rebels, arguing that these rebels wouldn't exist if not for the invasion. Further still, another study might count people who died of disease due to poor infrastructure, caused by the US destroying that infrastructure in their bombings.
- Wosat, on 01/31/2008, -36/+27If some nut-job decides to drive a truck full of explosives into a crowded market to breed fear and bad press with the ultimate aim of toppling the new democratic government and driving out the US so that Islamic militants can take over and use the failed state as a new home base... how are those 50 deaths Bush's fault?
If a Sunni shrine is blown up by foreign agents and that leads to retaliation... how are the 100 deaths that result Bush's fault?
At its peak, over a dozen bodies were dumped on the streets of Baghdad every day. Were these people kidnapped and killed by US troops?
This "survey" is flawed and the way its being interpreted is just wrong. Anyone using the word "genocide" in this context needs a dictionary. The fact is that since Bush ordered the surge in troops, violence and death rates have dropped significantly. If people really cared as much about the Iraqi people as they (as opposed to caring about seeing "Bush's war" fail), they'd support sending more troops to help quell the violence. All these European countries love to complain about the deaths, but since it's been proven that more troops increase security, why don't they send troops of their own? They love to complain about the poor infrastructure. How about sending in people to help repair it? Where are the solutions?
To be sure, many people have died in Iraq, but revolution is often bloody. How many people died in the American revolution? Who do we blame for the deaths? How many people died in the French revolution? Whose fault was that? Is anyone thinking about this *****, or are you all digging anything you find that tries to make Bush and co. look bad?- Kizilbash, on 01/31/2008, -15/+20How is it Bush's fault?
1 Lying about WMD's and Iraq's ties to al Qaeda 935 times in the run up to the war.
2 Going in with too few troops to maintain order.
3 Dismantling the Iraqi army, thereby making the problem of not being able to maintain order in two ways (fewer soldiers to do so and more potential insurgents with a grudge and military training)
4 De-Baathification, again making the problem of maintaining order greater and creating a new pool of people with a grudge.
5 Massive corruption and incompetence from the start as reported in Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekara (He presents the tenure of presidential viceroy L. Paul Bremer between May 2003 and June 2004 as an all-too-avoidable disaster, in which an occupational administration selected primarily for its loyalty to the Bush administration routinely ignored the reality of local conditions until, as one ex-staffer puts it, "everything blew up in our faces." Chandrasekaran unstintingly depicts the stubborn cluelessness of many Americans in the Green Zone—like the army general who says children terrified by nighttime helicopters should appreciate "the sound of freedom." and This revealing account of the postwar administration of Iraq, by a former Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post, focusses on life in the Green Zone, the American enclave in central Baghdad. There the Halliburton-run (and Muslim-staffed) cafeteria served pork at every meal—a cultural misstep typical of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which had sidelined old Arab hands in favor of Bush loyalists. Not only did many of them have no previous exposure to the Middle East; more than half had never before applied for a passport. While Baghdad burned, American officials revamped the Iraqi tax code and mounted an anti-smoking campaign. Chandrasekaran's portrait of blinkered idealism is evenhanded, chronicling the disillusionment of conservatives who were sent to a war zone without the resources to achieve lasting change. http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Life-Emerald-City-I ... )
So yeah, the Bush administration is directly responsible for this godsawful mess and don't you forget it.
As for this: "The fact is that since Bush ordered the surge in troops, violence and death rates have dropped significantly." There is no fact there. Correlation is not causation. The number of US deaths dropping for a while (it is back up) is mainly from other causes (more aerial bombardments which cause more civilian deaths but fewer US casualties, the ceasefire by the Mahdi Army, the US using proxy militias that pose a very high danger in the long term but mean fewer US casualties in the short run etc.). The violence in Baghdad is mostly down because the sectarian cleansing there has been completed. During the surge most of the remaining Sunnis in the capital fled to Syria, so they are not being killed anymore...
So once that falls apart, this comment: "All these European countries love to complain about the deaths, but since it's been proven that more troops increase security, why don't they send troops of their own?" is total nonsense too. Nothing has been proved except that ethnic cleansing, once successful means fewer people get killed. Yay... So first of all that statement is nonsense because more troops do not mean more security (and many Iraqis will tell you that they think the troops are the main cause of violence, not that anyone is listening), but second: why should anybody else take on the responsibility of cleaning up this mess when the creators of the mess are still in charge? That would be like mopping up without repairing the leak first. First there needs to be a schedule for pulling out US troops and giving Iraq REAL independence, then we can talk about peace-keeping forces.- Waiting2awake, on 01/31/2008, -11/+8Bravo.
- Liam76, on 01/31/2008, -6/+10I agree it was bush who started this mess. But anyone who thinks the killing will stop when we pull out is an idiot.
There are two choices pull out now and have a much larger bloodbath. Or keep troops there until it is a stable country. People are so blinded by bush hatred they want the blood bath.- orangefly, on 01/31/2008, -5/+2"keep troops there until it is a stable country."
so you mean we should stay there until there are no iraqis left....???.... - Kizilbash, on 01/31/2008, -4/+1There are experts that state that it is the US presence and especially the surge that are standing in the way of national reconciliation. Arming Sunni militias is certainly not helping and neither is supporting a government of Shi'ite sectarians and Kurdish separatists. The US army, like the Syrian army in the Lebanese civil war, is playing a game of divide and rule and actually fanning the flames.
- orangefly, on 01/31/2008, -5/+2"keep troops there until it is a stable country."
- orangefly, on 01/31/2008, -5/+1if they die because they want bush out how is it bushs' fault....???....
i don't understand your logic.... - Delphium226, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2It was predicated by many, including the CIA, that Iraq would turn into a clustferf**k once Saddam was gone but Bush knew better. So yes, it is his, and all the other neocons, fault.
Saddam, love him or hate him, was providing some sort of stabilizing influence.
- Kizilbash, on 01/31/2008, -15/+20How is it Bush's fault?
- mooseontheloose, on 01/31/2008, -23/+30And god drat it, McCain will make it a 100 million Iraqis if he has to to win the war for America and freedom!
- Khannea, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Why? They are not gooks?
- Spectre74, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1They die the same though.
- scm21st, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Whatever it takes so our soldiers can return home "with honor", whatever the ***** that means to him.
- hinchb, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1thats huckabee. apparently he didn't take economics and doesn't know what a sunk cost is.
- Spectre74, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1They die the same though.
- geekee, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1Obama and Clinton's plan will mean far more Iraqi deaths than McCain's plan. I'm sorry you are so stupid that the evidence of decreased death in Iraq since the surge is completely lost on you.
- Khannea, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Why? They are not gooks?
- doctorfungi, on 01/31/2008, -37/+108Sorry, but I call *****. Please hear me out before you digg me down though.
It's amazing how the majority of diggers are sensible enough to acknowledge that polls based on small sample sized are morbidly inaccurate, yet buy into these kinds of studies which use -literally- the exact same method as small sample polling to get their results.
These are my gripes with this "survey":
* The survey based the number of households to apply its average to on a 1997 census. It's now 2008, 11 years later, and the number of households is guaranteed to have increased by a significant amount since then. The population of Iraq has increased by 4-5 million in Iraq since 1997. This is a 19% increase in population, and the survey assumes that the number of households hasn't increased even 1%. This would significantly throw the already inaccurate end result off.
* This survey was a revision of a previous survey that concluded 1.2 million had died. This is a 16% difference to the old survey (that used the same methods over a smaller sample size). This indicates that the methods being used to reach these numbers are dramatically flawed, and that the larger sample sizes are showing a decrease in the number of deaths compared to the smaller sample sizes.
* We have been in Iraq for around 1800 days now. The number of deaths concluded by this survey indicates that, on average, 522 Iraqis have died every single day since the beginning of the conflict. Keep this drastic figure in mind for the rest of these points.
* The highest one-day civilian death toll in Iraq, according to all media outlets ranging from independent Middle-Eastern media, to independent American media, to the main stream media, is no higher than 250. This means that every foreign and domestic media agency has failed to detect even half the deaths of the average daily death toll that ORB alleges.
* This study implies that around 900,000 people have died due to combat without ever having a death certificate issued.
* In combat, we typically see more wounded on the battlefield than are killed. If this normality were to apply to this figure (which it should, considering that most attacks are car bombs which typically leave a 3:1 wounded:death ratio), literally millions of Iraqis have been wounded without checking into a hospital.
There is no need to achieve drastically unrealistic death toll numbers through poor survey methods to call Iraq a humanitarian crisis and a tragedy. The above facts I have pointed out are based on minimal research, and show how easy it is to debunk such a number.- gummih, on 01/31/2008, -13/+12Ok so they estimate the average deaths per household - and then they multiply that with the number of households in Iraq. You are saying that they should use a significantly higher number of households? That would result in a higher estimate of deaths as a result of the invasion (note, this is the estimate of people who have lost their lives due to the invasion - those deaths are far from limited to combat.)
- simplicityiskey, on 01/31/2008, -1/+9I think what he was suggesting was that people who use a census from 1997 to determine the number of Iraqis in 2008 cannot be trusted with their results.
- gummih, on 01/31/2008, -6/+1I disagree, what you need is a good estimate of the households, which understandably does not exist - how many households have been wrecked during the invasion? The one thing you can do is get the last good estimate and from that data you can deduce the impact it has on the accuracy of the final estimate such as if it is more likely that the data causes a negative or positive bias to the final estimate. But you need good data to begin with.
- jm4847, on 01/31/2008, -8/+20You make a compelling argument.
- mattr12345, on 01/31/2008, -15/+1TL : DR
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWNNN - JessicaLF77, on 01/31/2008, -4/+14Excellent, well worded argument.
- quraid, on 01/31/2008, -4/+11i disagree with most of your points but i'll digg you up just because it is refreshing to see people here actually take their time to think over what they are about to write.
- Nonplussed, on 01/31/2008, -0/+6Excellent, Doc.
May I suggest an addition: It's been well-documented that the Iraqi population has been constantly on the move since '04 or so (see: segregation of Baghdad/provinces, mass exodus to Syria/Jordan/Iran, etc.). Particularly if you consider the multi-generational household, it's pretty likely that many of these people have been separated from friends and relatives who lived under their roof at some point in time, and now count them among the dead. Not to generalize, but the region has a history of, shall we say, exaggeration. Particularly when hatred of the occupier runs deep and overstating the number of dead may mean a black mark.
The above also leads me to disagree with your contention of more households. Gummih makes a valid point. I'd counter: More than 2 million Iraqis have fled. Is that out of your number or theirs? Is there any accurate way to even estimate how many civilians are in Iraq right now?
This survey is simply unbelievable. Where are the bodies? These numbers would have to mean a huge disposal mechanism, and likely mass graves. Yes, the sectarian killings were numerous and gruesome, but this is wildly inaccurate.
Let's count the dead by not counting the dead. Nice work, ORB. We liberals cry foul when the media don't report this? Why? Wouldn't we rather them report credible surveys? The battle of ideas cannot be won with disinformation. We criticize the right for it -- let's keep the high ground, folks. - serif69, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Well done, sir.
I'd like to add that the sample group was prohibitively small. One could take a sample group of 2,400 Americans and get a response that 20% had a member of their household die since 2003. It depends on where that sample group is located and how the data is extrapolated. It's very easy to spin it to say, "60 Million Americans Have Died Since the Iraqi Conflict Began", using flawed mathematical syllogisms, despite facts that not nearly that many people have died since then. - Delphium226, on 01/31/2008, -3/+1Some good points raised. However, in terms of max death-toll per day, we only get to hear about the most spectacular mass killings here, market bombings, etc. It is possible that there is a sustained 'background noise' of killings going on all the time which don't make the news because they result in smaller numbers of deaths per incident.
There are also probably a lot of unreported deaths.
Even if the number were half of what has been projected, it's still a lot.- KataLieb, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3And there is the "background noise" of destroyed infrastructure, nonfunctioning power and sanitation, lack of medicine and professionals in hospitals, lack of food and other necessities..
This is all taken into account in studies like Lancets..http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/ ...
Which is different from a simple bodycount of the dead in combat action.
Neverthless, USA is responsible for these too, according to Geneva conventions and UN agreements.- Delphium226, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1agreed
- KataLieb, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3And there is the "background noise" of destroyed infrastructure, nonfunctioning power and sanitation, lack of medicine and professionals in hospitals, lack of food and other necessities..
- Feralvision, on 01/31/2008, -6/+4"We don't do body counts" Gen. Tommy Franks.
The fact of the matter is that you haven't debunked anything. The data extrapolation techniques used are mathematically sound and internationally recognised. You've only got to look at the information regarding the Falluja massacre where at least 100,000 innocents perished. All in the name of democracy mind.- saunders45, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2Evidence?
- Feralvision, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Evidence for what? The extrapolation techniques or the fallujah massacre? or both?
- elipabst, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2There were barely over 400,000 people livi
- saunders45, on 01/31/2008, -2/+2Evidence?
- gummih, on 01/31/2008, -13/+12Ok so they estimate the average deaths per household - and then they multiply that with the number of households in Iraq. You are saying that they should use a significantly higher number of households? That would result in a higher estimate of deaths as a result of the invasion (note, this is the estimate of people who have lost their lives due to the invasion - those deaths are far from limited to combat.)