"They are substantially lower than the 601,027 death toll reported by US researchers in 2006 in the Lancet using similar study methods, but higher than the Iraq Body Count's (IBC) register - based on press reports - of 47,668."

So in other words, these studies are completely useless.

I don't see these results doing anybody any real good. Using a "similar study method" they got results of 600,000 over a year ago and 150,000 not that long ago. The only thing it does is give results to two different groups. political agendas that can be pushed with higher numbers will say 600,000 people were killed in Iraq while political agendas that can be pushed with lower numbers will say 50,000 were killed in Iraq. It says nothing about the actual situation, but gives two opposing groups inaccurate data to fling back and forth at each other. That's as good as useless to me.

*** Study: 151,000 Iraqis Killed Since Invasion ***

......a small price to pay for us getting their oil.......

"......a small price to pay for us getting their oil......."

That's one of the most fallacious arguments against the war. The US has NOT gotten any oil from this war; just look at oil price trends since 2003 to see how stupid this argument is. If the US wanted to get oil from Iraq, they could have simply made deals with Saddam like Russia and France did.

*** That's one of the most fallacious arguments against the war. ***

......really ?......so who has the Iraqi oil contracts now ?......

I still say our reaction to 9/11/01 should have been a little nuke on Mecca and then tell them that if they do something the next bomb will be much bigger.

Seemed to work on Japan.

But on the bright side, Bush/Cheney is now correct about Al-Qaeda being in Iraq.

so I guess it would be a little out of order to make some sort of comment about how you have to break eggs to make an omlet....

yeah I thought so.....thats why I didnt say that.....

For those that care, the difference between the numbers produced by the Lancet staudy and all others is that Lancet made thier own estimates on pre-war death rates while the others use the UN numbers on pre-war deaths. Iirc, Lancet estimates that the pre-invasion death rate was rougly 6 in 1000, while the UN number was about 11 in 1000. Based on the death rates in other middle eastern countries, which are very low, Lancet felt that the UN numbers had been exaggerated.

In my opinion, the Lancet study was strictly a political move. They chose to disregard the official UN number, as well as the many reasons why the pre-invasion death rate in Iraq was so much higher than in Syria or Jordan. Those being primarily sanctions, which led to the starvation of something like a half million Iraqis between the two wars, as well as continued internal strife. A similar situation would be like using the death rates in Mexico as an estimate for the US. Because we are geographic neighbors does not mean we will share similar demographics.

Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth
by Greg Muttitt


While the Iraqi people struggle to define their future amid political chaos and violence, the fate of their most valuable economic asset, oil, is being decided behind closed doors.

This report reveals how an oil policy with origins in the US State Department is on course to be adopted in Iraq, soon after the December elections, with no public debate and at enormous potential cost. The policy allocates the majority (1) of Iraq's oilfields accounting for at least 64% of the country's oil reserves for development by multinational oil companies.

Iraqi public opinion is strongly opposed to handing control over oil development to foreign companies. But with the active involvement of the US and British governments a group of powerful Iraqi politicians and technocrats is pushing for a system of long term contracts with foreign oil companies which will be beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic control.

COSTING IRAQ BILLIONS

Economic projections published here for the first time show that the model of oil development that is being proposed will cost Iraq hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue, while providing foreign companies with enormous profits.
Our key findings are:
At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts (2), from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed. These estimates, based on conservative assumptions, represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi government budget.

Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment.
A CONTRACTUAL RIP-OFF

The debate over oil "privatisation" in Iraq has often been misleading due to the technical nature of the term, which refers to legal ownership of oil reserves. This has allowed governments and companies to deny that "privatisation" is taking place. Meanwhile, important practical questions, of public versus private control over oil development and revenues, have not been addressed.

The development model being promoted in Iraq, and supported by key figures in the Oil Ministry, is based on contracts known as production sharing agreements (PSAs), which have existed in the oil industry since the late 1960s. Oil experts agree that their purpose is largely political: technically they keep legal ownership of oil reserves in state hands (3), while practically delivering oil companies the same results as the concession agreements they replaced.

Running to hundreds of pages of complex legal and financial language and generally subject to commercial confidentiality provisions, PSAs are effectively immune from public scrutiny and lock governments into economic terms that cannot be altered for decades.

........yup.......we got the oil........

*** I still say our reaction to 9/11/01 should have been a little nuke on Mecca and then tell them that if they do something the next bomb will be much bigger.
Seemed to work on Japan.
Posted by Sniper *****

......you may be right......but Mecca is in Saudi Arabia.....and Mr Bush took pains to protect Saudi Arabia from retaliation by flying all of Bin Laden's relatives out of the U.S. the day after 9/11 without questioning by the FBI, and by blacking out references to Saudi Arabia's role in 9/11 from the 9/11 Commission Report........

.......he doesn't hold hands with Saudi princes for nothing..........

Although still a substantial number, it's down quite a bit from the 650,000 killed that I have heard sated over and over on TV and radio as fact. Pathetic.

.......Pathetic ?.....yes...and all for nothing, except to steal their oil so the oil companies could make billions........more than pathetic, it is sick.........

still say our reaction to 9/11/01 should have been a little nuke on Mecca and then tell them that if they do something the next bomb will be much bigger.
Seemed to work on Japan.
Posted by Sniper *****


You know, that damn well could have been the best thing we could have ever done. After that we could have told the Middle East to shut the hell up, don't fuck with us, and don't try to get nukes or it will happen again.

Surely we'd have hit some places and people that would have been highly, politically......ummm difficult to deal with let's say. But it still could have been the best thing to do.

Maybe if we just nuked Afghanistan.......maybe that would hae sent out the right signal about fucking with this country.

"I'm still going to act like and rant and rave that it's over 600,000".

Sincerely and Rabidly,

THE DR LEFT

*** Maybe if we just nuked Afghanistan.......maybe that would hae sent out the right signal about fucking with this country.
Posted by everlong ***

...since the Afghans hosted the Al Qaida training camps I would have agreed with that......

......instead we attacked Iraq, who were enemies of Al Qaida.......

"Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment."

Exxon posted profits of 10.4% last quarter. When their profit margins start approaching the 40% mark, or even the 20% mark, then you might be able to claim absurd profit. Of course if they were able to capture that much profit, it would be more beneficial for them to simply reduce their profits and capture market share from other firms. It would also mean the end of the OPEC cartel, since most of the cost of a barrel of oil goes to them, not the oil companies.

**** I'm still going to act like and rant and rave that it's over 600,000".
Sincerely and Rabidly,
THE DR LEFT
Posted by ride_on ****

.....whether its 150,000 innocent people, or 600,000 innocent people that are dead because of Mr Bush's stupidity.......a war crime is still a war crime......

This is like arguing what is more, infinity or infinity + 1?


150k dead people for nothing is horrible.

600k dead people for nothing is horrible.


That being said, I hope we're there for another 100 years like Grampa McCain said. Of course by we, I don't actually mean me, I mean your kids.

.......Pathetic ?.....yes...and all for nothing, except to steal their oil so the oil companies could make billions........more than pathetic, it is sick.........
Posted by skizziks


Skiz - give it a rest. Oil may be a reason we are there but we aren't stealing it - it is being paid for. Also please consider: the Iraqi lawmakers are still kicking around the plan for distributing the oil $$ to all Iraqis. It is battered but not dead.

Also: As an oil supplier to the US, Iraq has stayed steadily in 6th place since at least 2002.


Also - RIP for the poor innocent folks killed and GFR for terrorists, thugs, criminals and insurgents.

*** I still say our reaction to 9/11/01 should have been a little nuke on Mecca and then tell them that if they do something the next bomb will be much bigger.


I agree and it doesnt matter that its in saudi arabia....it is the most important shrine to muslims all over the world..

but rather than retrpspect........we should PROMISE them......that in the event of a nuclear device being set off ANYWHERE in the world from one of these religion of PEACE idiots.........that mecca would be little more than ruble.........
it might be the ONLY target that would affect EVERY muslim.........

"I still say our reaction to 9/11/01 should have been a little nuke on Mecca and then tell them that if they do something the next bomb will be much bigger." -Sniper

The leaders of Al Qaeda would have loved that. I don't think giving Muslims a better reason to sign up to suicide bomb American's is a great way to stop Muslims from signing up to suicide bomb American's... Unless your idea is to wipe Muslims entirely off of the face of the Earth, but if that's your plan, you're no better than Hitler.

"...that mecca would be little more than ruble........."

So in your view the policy of the United States should be to nuke a Muslim Holy Site in retaliation for a device being sent of ANYWHERE in the world.

Nevermind that the population of the city is about 1.3 million and there are a few hundred thousand pilgrims there at any given time.

Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

The US has NOT gotten any oil from this war

You are right. Corporate America is getting the oil once the agreements are finalized.

The US has gotten the bill for this corporate welfare.

An estimated 151,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the violence that has engulfed the country from the time of the US-led invasion until June 2006

Is it just a coincidence that they stopped the count about the same time the civil war began?
Must be....

**** I'm still going to act like and rant and rave that it's over 600,000".
Sincerely and Rabidly,
THE DR LEFT
Posted by ride_on **

It's okay, they are only Iraqis.

Sincerely and apathetically,

THE DR RIGHT

Just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

What would your solution be?

"What would your solution be?"

Not killing 1 or 2 million innocent civilians "just to make a point".

Oil may be a reason we are there but we aren't stealing it - it is being paid for.

Under the original CPA plan, written by Cheney's oil buddies, Iraq would have been forced to auction off its oil fields in closed (American and maybe a Brit or two bidders only)auctions. Anybody doubt the fields had already been divvied up in Washington beforehand to keep prices down?
Al sistani put a stop to that, but the fact is, dear Fighty Rightys, that's what the Mission was supposed to have Accomplished. You can look it up.

All this talk about nuking reminds me why there should never again be a Republican in the WH.

These numbers are much lower than the 1,000,000 quoted by death pud the other day.

I don't know who to believe.......

These numbers are much lower than the 1,000,000 quoted by death pud the other day.

I don't know who to believe.......

YOMELIB - you'd better make sure Harry Truman never gets in there either!

Yeah, I think we pretty much got the whole Harry Truman thing sewed up...unless someone wants to cash his SS check. Then you'll see him wheeling through the Rotunda on a leather recliner.

These numbers are much lower than the 1,000,000 quoted by death pud the other day.

I don't know who to believe.......

Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2008-01-10 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

....hey SpudDud(tm) the DR lefty hero respects life that's why he went after another DR posters deceased wife with such a vengence. But, RCADE is so smart....he sent him the route of 101. Now to show his brilliance....RCADE is bringing 101 back.

"...Al sistani put a stop to that, but the fact is, dear Fighty Rightys, that's what the Mission was supposed to have Accomplished. You can look it up."
Posted by northguy3


Yes but regardless of the profits by middlemen downstream, the plan called for the local oil revenues to go to the Iraqi people, vs. Saddam, Russian, French, and UN officials, British MP's (see Hitchens vs. George) and others.

Yeah, I think we pretty much got the whole Harry Truman thing sewed up...unless someone wants to cash his SS check. Then you'll see him wheeling through the Rotunda on a leather recliner.
Posted by Jomama


HAHA Jo! Very good! Hey I hear Harry still votes in Chicago! ;o)

***Yes but regardless of the profits by middlemen downstream, the plan called for the local oil revenues to go to the Iraqi people, vs. Saddam, Russian, French, and UN officials, British MP's (see Hitchens vs. George) and others.
Posted by MrFair ***

......not true.......under Saddam, Iraqis had subsidized gasoline, it cost them only a few cents a gallon at the pumps......

.......today they have constant shortages even though their production is still high.....they are getting screwed by their "oil ministry" working with western oil companies........

*** Also - RIP for the poor innocent folks killed and GFR for terrorists, thugs, criminals and insurgents.
Posted by mrfair ***

....or should we call you Mr Fair and Balanced ?......

......lets remember that there was no Al Qaida in Iraq before we let them in....and that they had a stable society before we destroyed it......

.......we have no business being in Iraq, period....our presence there is a war crime, should we let crime RIP ??......

"......lets remember that there was no Al Qaida in Iraq before we let them in....and that they had a stable society before we destroyed it......"

That's kind of a bold statement, but probably incorrect. Saddam was a secularist and would have executed any Islamic fundies, and then he would have gone after their families. Even in Syria, which was a less oppressive regime, they bombed and bullduzed an entire city, killing 18,000 people, when it became known that the city was a hotbed of Muslim Brotherhood activity. Since then, Syria has been relatively peaceful.

The biggest problem in Iraq is that they are not ready for democracy. There are simply too many groups that would rather fight each other to the death than make meaningful compromise. We could win in Iraq, but it would take supporting another Saddam; someone willing to go to the extremes he was in order to keep the country together.

"We could win in Iraq, but it would take supporting another Saddam; someone willing to go to the extremes he was in order to keep the country together." -Madbomber

I feel the same way. It's funny to think that the answer to the problems we've had after getting rid of Saddam is to put another Saddam in power, but that looks to be the best solution in my eyes. The minority Sunnis had been in power too long to allow the tyranny of the majority aspect of Democracy to lower their political voice to a whisper. Authoritarian power is the only thing that keeps such opposing views from going into complete violent disarray, even if that power is violent itself.

*** That's kind of a bold statement, but probably incorrect. ***

......compared to the chaos we have provided the Iraqis, they had a much more stable society.......

......and as you yourself point out, if you don't have a Saddam to keep that kind of country under control, than you have to go find another one just like him.......

......which still does not excuse the fact that our attack on Iraq was an unprovoked War Crime.......

Saddam was a secularist and would have executed any Islamic fundies, and then he would have gone after their families

And that is bad how? I thought all you righties were all for killing all the terrawrists and their families and supporters and sympathizers. Shit will you guys ever get your stories straight?

150,000 killed, c'est la vie...

148 killed in Dujail, now THAT is something to die for ;-)!

""The biggest problem in Iraq is that they are not ready for democracy.""

REally it boils down to whether any country, with its citizens too heavily influenced by any religion can accept democratic rule because they believe their religious rules are superior to any secular law. It seems religion and democracy can coexist but only if religion is relegated to second most important law of the land. If it remains superior to secular law democracy cannot succeed. Even in America, if we ever let the religious lunatics make this a Christian nation the strength of our democracy would be greatly reduced.

For those who think that these numbers are to varied, O.K. pick one 151,000 or 600,000 which one?
These people dies for nothing, they will not benefit for the removal of WMD's, they will not benefit from Democracy, they will not benefit from there surplus of Oil that will bring there Country in to the 21st. Century.

These people were murdered by the policy of this Administration, War Crimes should be brought by the World Court in the Haque....The World should go on record that this type of behavior of any Government cannot go un-challenged. Will it do any good maybe not but they should go on record anyway!

IMPEACHMENT, of course it is the Law of the Country and should be used, if not for this Administration than get rid of the Law. The Democrats will not do it for what ever reason but if they had any balls they would..These are criminal acts against Humanity an our Country needs to act....

*** Also - RIP for the poor innocent folks killed and GFR for terrorists, thugs, criminals and insurgents.
Posted by mrfair ***

....or should we call you Mr Fair and Balanced ?......


Whatever gets your nipples hard, Spanky. Go look at my posts and see if I have tried to be fair.

Or are you shitting on the memory of the innocents and rooting for the all the sectarian assholes who are killing each other and our guys?

"""*** I still say our reaction to 9/11/01 should have been a little nuke on Mecca and then tell them that if they do something the next bomb will be much bigger."""

Wow. Just brilliant. Where did the 19 terrorist come from? Oh yeah, SA.

Regardless of the inaccuracy of your premise, by the same bent logic, the state of New York should been nuked when McVeigh bombed Oklahoma.

In any case, 151,000 or 600,000, it's still an act of terrorism perpetrated by the u.s. that is of massive proportion, which makes 911 (for which Iraq had nothing to do) pale in comparison.

Do yourself a favor and read a history book. The dance didn't start on 911, it was started by the u.s. in the 40s and 50s. so using 911 as the starting point for the conflict is fallacious, but you seem to be comfortable with that type of argument and justification, cause it fits your reality. Enjoy the kool-aid.

Yea. Right.

altough you would like to think that nuking mecca would be the best thing

2 million americans would turn jihad overnight

i love peace
but you nuke mecca
you attack me directly

and we don't need baghdad in the usa.

thats like me saying lets bomb bethleham to teach the christians a lesson
stupid stupid stupid

only stupid people would think such things

"only stupid people would think such things" -Klifferd

I'm with you 100% on that one. I'm sorry some people are so ignorant of what an action like that would really mean that they would say something like that. It wouldn't teach anybody a lesson, it would give people who were pro-America a reason to switch sides and hate us, and it would give people who hate us a reason to strap bombs to themselves and kill themselves and others around them to further the mission of extremist anti-american groups

I don't see these results doing anybody any real good. Using a "similar study method" they got results of 600,000 over a year ago and 150,000 not that long ago. The only thing it does is give results to two different groups. political agendas that can be pushed with higher numbers will say 600,000 people were killed in Iraq while political agendas that can be pushed with lower numbers will say 50,000 were killed in Iraq. It says nothing about the actual situation, but gives two opposing groups inaccurate data to fling back and forth at each other. That's as good as useless to me.

Posted by Incredibleplum at 2008-01-10 09:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

The study method was the same; however, it is interesting that the 600,000+ estimate was extrapolated from responses from surveying less than a fourth of the number of Iraqi families that the more recent study surveyed.

"And that is bad how? I thought all you righties were all for killing all the terrawrists and their families and supporters and sympathizers. Shit will you guys ever get your stories straight?"

It's not good or bad, just an explantion of the prevailing condition at that time. It has nothing to do with whether or not I would personally support Saddam in his crusade against fundamentalism, or whether or not I would stamp out Islamic fundamentalism.

Of course I would have supported Saddam and I wish the government would authorize me to do a little work in the skies over Waziristan, which I would do with much zeal in my big gray instrument of death!

That's one of the most fallacious arguments against the war. The US has NOT gotten any oil from this war; just look at oil price trends since 2003 to see how stupid this argument is. If the US wanted to get oil from Iraq, they could have simply made deals with Saddam like Russia and France did.

Posted by Yooperboy






noooooo, someone is just making a shit load more money from the sale of oil


truth hurts donut

Anybody doubt the fields had already been divvied up in Washington beforehand to keep prices down?





there is no desire on the powers that be to keep the price of oil down.

they are making 2x as much for the same gallon of gasoline 5 years later.

...10 from each of more than 1,000 clusters across the 18 provinces of Iraq. Because of the insecurity, 115 (11%) of the clusters could not be visited - mostly in Anbar and Baghdad - so calculations were made to account for the probable number of deaths in those places.

I believe that the invasion of Iraq was the best thing that ever happened to the Iraqis. All those refugees are just whiners who need to suck it up and be grateful for George W. Bush's brilliant geopolitical move. All those dead Iraqis were going to die anyway and the number is greatly exaggerated anyway. The number of dead and injured Iraqis is always double the number of dead and injured coalition forces. I heard that somewhere on the radio, or maybe it was FOX news, so it must be true.

The Rightnuts - represented here by BL2, Sniper and Everlong.

"...Nothing but bull shit study and the fact that the gaurdian is willing to prints such crap tells ya what bed they sit in."

You're kidding, right? The leftist Guardian in bed with GWB & Co.?? Wow, just wow. No other words.


"Just from the top of my head reasoning about troops and kill ratios this number of 151000 is way too low."

OK - we'll just go ahead and trust your "top of my head reasoning" and we'll tell these researchers who actually resided in Iraq and risked their lives (one was kidnapped and another was murdered) to shove their report, shall we?

Look - the painful point has been made in earlier posts: even if it is 151,000, that's still a lot of tragic deaths, isn't it? Yet you want to use your top-of-my-head estimates and refuse to consider this study just to hold on to your position, it seems.

150,000

One hundred and fifty THOUSAND.

That's thw population of an American midsized city.

Sad and tragic. They didn't deserve to die.

Sad and tragic. They didn't deserve to die.
Posted by AMERICANUNITY


As I said earlier: R.I.P.

OK - we'll just go ahead and trust your "top of my head reasoning" and we'll tell these researchers who actually resided in Iraq and risked their lives (one was kidnapped and another was murdered) to shove their report, shall we?

Look - the painful point has been made in earlier posts: even if it is 151,000, that's still a lot of tragic deaths, isn't it? Yet you want to use your top-of-my-head estimates and refuse to consider this study just to hold on to your position, it seems.

Yes, you should trust the top of my head because apparently your too unintellectual to prudently understand what you actually read.

BUUUUUUTTTTTT I think I will help you.

It has been established long ago that on a low side the kill ration of U.S. troop to Surge is about 10 to 1. Just think about that ratio a little bit and run numbers and anything less than half a mill. is propaganda crap but you go ahead and stick with the BUSH conservative idiocy, it tells us just how smart you are really.

As I said earlier: R.I.P.

Posted by MrFair


I mean R.I.P. for the innocents.

This article doesn't say how many of the dead may have been sectarian militiamen, organized crime figures, or just plain old thugs.

"...your too unintellectual to prudently understand what you actually read."

LOL.



"It has been established long ago that on a low side the kill ration of U.S. troop to Surge is about 10 to 1."
Posted by moneywar


Money - I am trying to be fair and so I will consider your assertion about this "established" ratio, but where did this come from?

Money - I am trying to be fair and so I will consider your assertion about this "established" ratio, but where did this come from?

Clearly by this post you are showing your intelligence factor.

You just keep reading your propaganda and post stupid comments, it serves you well.

There is no way I believe that number to be even remotely close to the number of Iraqi's killed.

Money - I am trying to be fair and so I will consider your assertion about this "established" ratio, but where did this come from?

Money - I am trying to be fair and so I will consider your assertion about this "established" ratio, but where did this come from?

Clearly by this post you are showing your intelligence factor.


You just keep reading your propaganda and post stupid comments, it serves you well.

Fair,

Shall we try it a third time, maybe it will sink in.

Wow, a quick search and look what I found. I guess MRFAIR isn't able to search out information to prudently reason out whether the media propaganda is correct or not.

Overall, the ratio of Iraqi to American fatalities during year 4 was 18.8
to 1, in the five central provinces 18.1 to 1. But the dispersion of fatalities varies
widely, from a high of 42.2 Iraqis killed per American in Ninawa province to a
low of 2.2 in Al Anbar. In Baghdad, the ratio was 38.3 to 1.

WOW.... you think with a civil war raging and our troops murdering iraqi civilians by the thousands along with suicide bombings everyday...the number would be over 10 million

i guess the news reports before must have been out of wack....iraq must not be as violent as reported

BTW...insurgents without weapons are concidered civilians

"concidered(sic)"

Or too much cider.

"If they run, they're VC ...
If they stay still, they're well-disciplined VC ... "

I feel the same way. It's funny to think that the answer to the problems we've had after getting rid of Saddam is to put another Saddam in power, but that looks to be the best solution in my eyes. The minority Sunnis had been in power too long to allow the tyranny of the majority aspect of Democracy to lower their political voice to a whisper. Authoritarian power is the only thing that keeps such opposing views from going into complete violent disarray, even if that power is violent itself.

Posted by Incredibleplum at 2008-01-10 01:34 PM | Reply |

LOL... What say we just get the fuck out of there, so when the next Saddam comes along and kills 10,000 of em we will not be blamed for installing dictators...

I mean fuck this is a road we know very well... and here we are, if there was ever a better way to piss away 3000 soldiers installing another saddam would be it.

I still say our reaction to 9/11/01 should have been a little nuke on Mecca and then tell them that if they do something the next bomb will be much bigger.

Imagine, just for a second, that that you were a muslim and you read that. Would that make you say to yourself "Gee, these Americans are OK, better just go along with whatever they want", or would it make you think Americans were an unhinged threat, bent on destroying your religion and willing to kill millions of innocents to do it?

And what on Earth could we have nuked in Afghanistan, for Chistssake? One of their 10,000 mountains? The terrorists were ALREADY living in caves.

Lastly - once you nuke Mecca, you're pretty much done. You've done the worst thing you can do, bigger bombs going off somewhere else aren't going to scare anyone. The other 999,000,000 muslims will be too busy

There is no way I believe that number to be even remotely close to the number of Iraqi's killed.


Posted by Lisa at 2008-01-10 07:14 PM |


Of course not Lisa. That would mean that democrat consituents are just dupes used by their party and financed by Soros.

George Soros funded the survey. The U.S. authors played no role in data-collection, and did not apply standard anti-fraud measures. The chief Iraqi data-collector had earlier produced medical articles to help Saddam's anti-sanctions campaign in the 1990s, and said Allah guided the prior 2004 Lancet/Johns Hopkins death-survey. Some of the field surveyors were employed by Moqtada Sadr's Ministry of Health. The Iraqis' numbers contain evidence of fakery, and the Lancet did not check for fakery.

...loading mags, burning every US property worldwide, and killing every American in sight to even notice. For the next 1,000 years.

"Wow, a quick search and look what I found. I guess MRFAIR isn't able to search out information to prudently reason out whether the media propaganda is correct or not.

Overall, the ratio of Iraqi to American fatalities during year 4 was 18.8..."
Posted by moneywar


YOU made the original assertion. What's wrong with asking you to provide some proof? By the way, what is this source you are using? If this issue is so politicized that it can get you in such a lather, maybe you need to cite a few more sources just to be fair.

And what exactly is it I should keep on believing? If you mean I should keep on posting here and asking questions and trying to gain some insight as to the real numbers of dead then OK I will take your advice.

But sadly, we will probably never have a good idea how many people died nor how they were divided into innocent and guilty. We grieve for the innocent dead.

New York Times, Jan 10, 2008
"But another study, by Johns Hopkins, which has come under criticism for its methodology, cited an estimate of about 600,000 dead between the war's start, in March 2003, and July 2006."

New York Times, Jan 10, 2008:
"The Johns Hopkins study, which was published in The Lancet in October 2006, estimated that 601,027 Iraqi civilians had died from violence. That study, which was conducted with researchers from Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, involved one-fifth the number of households and one-twentieth the number of areas surveyed by the new W.H.O. study."

(cont.)
"One organization has been keeping track of what it calls Iraqi "civilians" killed since the beginning of the war: a group of academics in both the United States and Britain calling themselves Iraq Body Count.

By tracking -- and rigorously checking -- media reports of deaths, the group has kept a running total of Iraqis reported killed during the major combat phase of the war, which U.S. President George W. Bush declared over in May 2003, and during the occupation phase since.

But the numbers published on iraqbodycount.net don't distinguish between Iraqis killed by coalition forces or by insurgents, arguing that they are all a result of the March 2003 invasion and the U.S.-led coalition is responsible for preventing them.

There are problems inherent in Iraq Body Count's methodology, not the least of which is the reliance on information gathered by the media.

But people on the ground in Iraq can't keep count, either. Left-wing British journalist Robert Fisk wrote last July that many deaths go unreported, as families often bury their dead without notifying the authorities. "Death is now so routine even the most tragic of deaths becomes a footnote," wrote Fisk in the Independent.

Also, without the benefit of uniforms, the bodies of insurgents at the morgue can be difficult to distinguish from those of civilians.

Critics of the war, such as Fisk, say those dead "insurgents" nearly always include civilians killed in the crossfire.

Nonetheless, the numbers that appear on iraqbodycount.net are estimates based on actual reports of real people killed.

That's in contrast to the numbers contained in a study released in fall 2004 by the British medical journal The Lancet. That study surveyed Iraqi households and compared death rates before the invasion to those after, and concluded about 100,000 civilians are likely dead because of the coalition military action"

Whether 150,000 or 600,000, it's still a criminal war.

"Whether 150,000 or 600,000..."
Posted by Ray


Thank you Ray. People are dead.

Christopher Hitchens excluded ;o) Slate is not exactly a Right Wing mouthpiece:

CORRECTION: "Christopher Hitchens excluded ;o) Slate is not a pro-Iraq-War mouthpiece."

Posted by MrFair

I still say our reaction to 9/11/01 should have been a little nuke on Mecca and then tell them that if they do something the next bomb will be much bigger.

Seemed to work on Japan.

Posted by Sniper at 2008-01-10 10:26 AM | Reply | Flag

Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, family friends of the Bush clan.

Overall, the ratio of Iraqi to American fatalities during year 4 was 18.8..."
Posted by moneywar

Wow, what a dropped thread when it started going badly...

18.8 does not prove that 151,000 is low...it proves it's high.

Note that ratio is to American fatalities....not boots on the ground

let's round off favorably....5k American dead and a 20 to 1 ratio....would yield 100,000

I believe your off the top of your head number was 10:1 ... so the original comment about basically making crap up to support your predetermined position holds true. Have an opinion but when numbers don't jive with your position be willing to re-evalute your stance....otherwise your basically just a fundamentalist.

"I still say our reaction to 9/11/01 should have been a little nuke on Mecca and then tell them that if they do something the next bomb will be much bigger."
Seemed to work on Japan.
Posted by Sniper at 2008-01-10 10:26 AM | Reply | Flag

"Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, family friends of the Bush clan."
Posted by COMMONSENSE


Stuck between flights at O'Hare (surprise) and browsing the bookshop, I picked up a "thriller" called "Wild Fire" by Nelson DeMille. It deals with this kind of scenario. Much of it is pretty outlandish.