655,000 Iraqis Likely Died Due To War...Does Bush Care?
Too_Many_Tools
He has the power to end it...if he really did care to.
But then if he really cared thousands of Americans would still be alive
today too.
That is of course, if he cared.....
TMT.
Study: 655,000 Iraqis died due to war By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science
Writer
A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died
because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other
estimates.
The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S.
congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."
In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis
have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their
conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is
that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found
a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and
cancer.
"Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that
from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead
author of the study, said in a statement.
The study by Burnham, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health, and others is to be published Thursday on the Web site of The
Lancet, a medical journal.
An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one
respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at
least one expert was skeptical of the new findings.
"They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the
Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He
criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results
were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.
"This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.
The work updates an earlier Johns Hopkins study - that one was
released just before the November 2005 presidential election. At the
time, the lead researcher, Les Roberts of Hopkins, said the timing was
deliberate. Many of the same researchers were involved in the latest
estimate.
Speaking of the new study, Burnham said the estimate was much higher
than others because it was derived from a house-to-house survey rather
than approaches that depend on body counts or media reports.
A private group called Iraqi Body Count, for example, says it has
recorded about 44,000 to 49,000 civilian Iraqi deaths. But it notes
that those totals are based on media reports, which it says probably
overlook "many if not most civilian casualties."
For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849
Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to
early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The
estimate deals with deaths up to July.
The survey participants attributed about 31 percent of violent deaths
to coalition forces.
Accurate death tolls have been difficult to obtain ever since the Iraq
conflict began in March 2003. When top Iraqi political officials cite
death numbers, they often refuse to say where the numbers came from.
The Health Ministry, which tallies civilian deaths, relies on reports
from government hospitals and morgues. The Interior Ministry compiles
its figures from police stations, while the Defense Ministry reports
deaths only among army soldiers and insurgents killed in combat.
The United Nations keeps its own count, based largely on reports from
the Baghdad morgue and the Health Ministry.
The major funder of the new study was the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
___
On the Net:
The Lancet: http://www.thelancet.com
Iraqi Body Count: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Möbius Pretzel
BC
That is so bad in so many ways. Statistical extrapolation is
always tricky, but it is based on real science. The margin of
error here ranges from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths, so even
the low is too much. The murderous and destructive mayhem
over there makes accurate census-type accounting virtually
impossible.
There are only three possible solutions by my count: planned
phaseout and let the Iraqis deal with the fate we delivered;
institute basically a new offensive with at least 3x the number
of troops we are now using, for at least a 90 day operation
window; or just come up with a much more intelligent battle
plan using existing personnel than we now have. The 2nd
and 3rd options will probably only work with a whole new
command organization in place at the upper plannning levels,
up to and including the people in the White House.
I'm thinking now that impeachment isn't just for punishing
a liar, but now more importantly to get some people of
competence and intelligence in place to deal with an urgent
problem requiring competence and intelligence.
-BC
The Real Diddy Pop
you read as fact. Every other estimate puts the number as less than
50,000, yet this study is 655k+? They didn't even base their study on
any actual body counts. It's pure speculation, you morons believe
these stupid stats time and time again. What are we talking about, an
AVERAGE of over 15,000 kills per month? You guys need wake the fuck
up, and find some common sense.
BC
The Real Diddy Pop wrote:
> That number is bullshit, I can't believe that you libs accept anything
> you read as fact. Every other estimate puts the number as less than
> 50,000, yet this study is 655k+? They didn't even base their study on
> any actual body counts. It's pure speculation, you morons believe
> these stupid stats time and time again. What are we talking about, an
> AVERAGE of over 15,000 kills per month? You guys need wake the fuck
> up, and find some common sense.
Dumbass, that 50,000 count comes only from media and
eyewitness accounts of specific deaths, so "common sense" --
if you had any -- will tell you that should only be fraction of
all deaths, the bulk of which would happen in the worst areas
of Iraq where there is little on-site press coverage or "official"
tallying for somewhat obvious (if you're not a dumbass)
reasons.
Here, go see how the most cited study of Iraqi civilians are
counted and see if you can find a few issues with counting as
such in an active war zone:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.php#methods
-BC
Sue
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well, what do you think....does George care?
>
>He has the power to end it...if he really did care to.
How? Completely pull our troops out? LOL. Even is these stats are
correct you don't think that twice as many Iraqis would die within the
same time frame if we left? I wish we would leave (wish we'd never
gone), but if we do we will still be held accountable for the Iraqi
lives lost (as we probably should be). At least it would end the loss
of life among our military, but it isn't going do help stem the tide
of Iraqi loss of life. There are plenty of Iraqis just waiting for us
to leave so they can start the real slaughter.
Just my opinion.
Sue
BC
The Real Diddy Pop wrote:
> you read as fact. Every other estimate puts the number as less than
> 50,000, yet this study is 655k+? They didn't even base their study on
> any actual body counts. It's pure speculation, you morons believe
> these stupid stats time and time again. What are we talking about, an
> AVERAGE of over 15,000 kills per month? You guys need wake the fuck
> up, and find some common sense.
Also, try doing some math.
The murder rate in our worst cities tends to be around 50 per
100,000/year. Or 500 murders per 1 million population/year
Iraq has a population of about 26,000,000 so if it was simply
suffering with a murder rate comparable to Detroit or DC, it
would have a baseline murder rate of 500 * 26 = 13 000 murders
per year.
But the entire country to different degrees is a war zone, so the
murder/killing rate would be much, MUCH higher than the 13k
per year from a simple high crime rate. If you multiply the rate
by just 10, you would get 130,000/year. It's been about 3 1/2
years, so 3.5 * 130k = 455,000, which would put us in the low
range of the 426,369 to 793,663 deaths estimated by The
Lancet study:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2398967,00.html
Hope this enlightens.
-BC
snakehawk
> On 10 Oct 2006 21:48:19 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
> <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, what do you think....does George care?
> >
> >He has the power to end it...if he really did care to.
>
> How? Completely pull our troops out? LOL. Even is these stats are
> correct you don't think that twice as many Iraqis would die within the
> same time frame if we left? I wish we would leave (wish we'd never
> gone), but if we do we will still be held accountable for the Iraqi
> lives lost (as we probably should be). At least it would end the loss
> of life among our military, but it isn't going do help stem the tide
> of Iraqi loss of life. There are plenty of Iraqis just waiting for us
> to leave so they can start the real slaughter.
> Just my opinion.
> Sue
>
There are only two choices: either stay or get out. Staying has only
aggravated the situation and can only aggravate it more in the future.
The United States has deliberately destroyed the social order in Iraq
and is clearly incapable of restoring even a semblance of civilized
government anywhere in the country. In fact, the very presence of the
alien United States in the country is an insurmountable barrier to the
restoration of any semblance of order. Personally, I think the chaos
in Iraq is a deliberate policy of the Bush and his Israeli advisors in
Washington. But if not, then it is the result of the most bungled
operation in history. It's time to leave Iraq---NOW.
Too_Many_Tools
Well, what did we do in Vietnam?
And what happened to the people left behind?
And did we really care what happened to them?
And Vietnam did not sit on major oil deposits...oil that the United
States needs.
And there were not millions of people related in religion and blood in
other countries.
So the real issue is if we are going to stay, why isn't Bush committing
MANY MORE resources to the task including drafting more bodies for
cannon fodder and double the national deficit?
Or else to do a pullout, let someone else fill the void, repair the
damage to this Country and hold those accountable for the failed
policy?
Now what do you think the average American whose wage level has
significantly declined under Bush and is preparing their sons and
daughters for votech school/college will want to do?
Vote for a recession and the draft OR vote for a pullout and hold
accountable the Party that got us into this mess?
Either way, now is not a good time to be an Iraqi living in Iraq.
TMT
Steve
because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other
estimates."
3.5 years for 655,000?? With 25 million in Iraq, this will take forEVER!
skully
years...except maybe Carter, he was a big girl when it came to "those poor
people". Anyone else who acts all concerned is just blowing smoke up yer
arse. I hope you are smart enough to see that.
Skully
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160542099.8...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
who...@gmail.com
liberal comes at me with logic, so you get my respect...not that you
probably care though. I would respond that there is a fallacy with
your arguement. I'm not sure that you can take the murder rate of one
of the most violent cities and extrapolate that to an entire country.
C'mon now, every other estimate puts the number somewhere around
50,000. The number of 650,000 just doesn't pass the common sense test.
This study seems to get down in the statistical weeds, and we all know
that we can arrive at whatever number we want. Maybe oversampling
violent areas or something. How valid can it be when every other study
places the death toll at a tenth of what this study is?
govern...@comcast.net
>Now this is the kind of post that I like! Seriously, I like it when a
>liberal comes at me with logic, so you get my respect...not that you
>probably care though. I would respond that there is a fallacy with
>your arguement. I'm not sure that you can take the murder rate of one
>of the most violent cities and extrapolate that to an entire country.
He's not. He's setting up a statistical comparison to show how
dangerous Iraq has become. Perhaps this is a reaction to posters who
have tried to claim that being in Iraq is little more dangerous than
walking city streets in America at night.
>C'mon now, every other estimate puts the number somewhere around
>50,000. The number of 650,000 just doesn't pass the common sense test.
You mean in total Iraqi dead since the invasion? 650k is being
quoted by CNN as recently as list night. It's the only figure on
Iraqi deaths I've heard from anybody. Dozens of bodies are being
found every day but you're quite right. The math doesn't work. If
fifty bodies were being found every day, five years would yield a
total body count of 60k over the last three years.
> This study seems to get down in the statistical weeds, and we all know
>that we can arrive at whatever number we want. Maybe oversampling
>violent areas or something. How valid can it be when every other study
>places the death toll at a tenth of what this study is?
The discussion would be enhanced if you were both to post cites for
studies on the death toll in Iraq.
Swill
Al Smith
> liberal comes at me with logic, so you get my respect...not that you
> probably care though. I would respond that there is a fallacy with
> your arguement. I'm not sure that you can take the murder rate of one
> of the most violent cities and extrapolate that to an entire country.
> C'mon now, every other estimate puts the number somewhere around
> 50,000. The number of 650,000 just doesn't pass the common sense test.
> This study seems to get down in the statistical weeds, and we all know
> that we can arrive at whatever number we want. Maybe oversampling
> violent areas or something. How valid can it be when every other study
> places the death toll at a tenth of what this study is?
Fifty thousand is too low, 665,000 is way too high. The true
number is .... [presses card to forehead] 240,000 Iraqi dead from
all causes due to the war and subsequent occupation. That's the
high side of the Karnac estimate. The low-ball figure is 180,000.
So Johns Hopkins missed it by a factor of three. Way to go, highly
paid intellectuals. Another example of why we should not trust the
passionate pronouncements of scientists.
Str...@flashlight.net
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:20:03 GMT, Al Smith <inv...@address.com>
wrote:
Don't forget that the Iraqis and the rest of the world measure
the US war with Iraq as continuous from the Gulf War. Between
1991 and 2003 a lot of people were killed in Iraq. I figured a couple
of years ago that by 2004 about 300,000 were killed outright and
another 100,000 died from wounds or infections. Deaths have
increased dramatically since then.
I'll accept 600,000 as a conservative figure from 1991 to present.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
gah...@comcast.net
that are painful to look at. Let's put this into some perspective.
We had about 1,900 fatalities from Katrina.
About 2,800 from 9/11
About 5,000 in Gettysburg. The biggest battle of the Civil War.
Right now, there are between 100-200 bodies turning up, that we know
of, every day in Baghdad. At that rate, that is 3,000-6,000 a month or
36,000-72,000 a year. That kinda blows out the 50,000 for the total
length of the war number. We aren't being told of the total number in
the country and a lot of times, entire families are wiped out so there
isn't anyone to report the deaths either.
To put that number in perspective for all rightwingers, that is like
having a 9/11 once a month, every month for years at a time. Does that
add perspective? Do you understand why they don't like us anymore?
The calculations that were used to come up with this number is the same
mathematical study that gave the numbers in Rwanda and Congo. Why
weren't you crying about those numbers?
Also, for those who haven't understood this fact yet, a death means the
end of a life. It isn't just a number. When someone dies, someone loses
a husband, wife, child and so forth. So try, and I know that this is
hard for neocons, to understand this fact. I know, if you let this
realization take over, you may not have such war lust.
I really can't stand the rightwing neocon attitude that puts such
little value on lives of those they don't understand or in places
they'll never go.
The Real Diddy Pop wrote:
Str...@flashlight.net
>On 10 Oct 2006 21:48:19 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
><too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Well, what do you think....does George care?
>>
>>He has the power to end it...if he really did care to.
>
>How? Completely pull our troops out? LOL. Even is these stats are
>correct you don't think that twice as many Iraqis would die within the
>same time frame if we left? I wish we would leave (wish we'd never
>gone), but if we do we will still be held accountable for the Iraqi
>lives lost (as we probably should be). At least it would end the loss
>of life among our military, but it isn't going do help stem the tide
>of Iraqi loss of life. There are plenty of Iraqis just waiting for us
>to leave so they can start the real slaughter.
>Just my opinion.
>Sue
Oh yeah. I estimate that the power vacuum created by the US
in the middle east will result in at least 1 million deaths by the
time Bush leaves office (1991-2008). That's at the current
rate. Of course a real war could erupt in the region amounting
to many more deaths and maimed.
On the other hand, if the US were to leave Iraq tomorrow, the vacuum
would seal pretty quickly. Interestingly, the only person that
can pull it together with a minimum of problems is Saddam Hussein.
Of course that makes sense in that he was initially hand picked for
that very purpose by the CIA.
I hope that by 2008 Americans will understand that the Neocons
are not conservatives and have been pursuing an agenda quite
different from that advertised.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
Too_Many_Tools
the
end of a life. It isn't just a number. When someone dies, someone loses
a husband, wife, child and so forth. So try, and I know that this is
hard for neocons, to understand this fact. I know, if you let this
realization take over, you may not have such war lust.
Neocons don't care about others...only about themselves.
And many will not care if it was their wife, child or friend that was
the victum....as long as it is not them.
Neocons are the center of their own little universe....which is why
they turn on each other so easily...and condone pedophily as we are now
seeing.
I have dealt with a number of them over the years...and the only thing
that matters is themselves.
Understand for what they are...parasites that live off the rest of us
who care.
And never ever trust one.
TMT
maginot line
gah...@comcast.net wrote:
and How many died during the 12 years of "sanctions"?
you can foley some of the children some of the time.
time to vote some off the island.
Al Smith
>>>number is .... [presses card to forehead] 240,000 Iraqi dead from
>>>all causes due to the war and subsequent occupation. That's the
>>>high side of the Karnac estimate. The low-ball figure is 180,000.
>>>So Johns Hopkins missed it by a factor of three. Way to go, highly
>>>paid intellectuals. Another example of why we should not trust the
>>>passionate pronouncements of scientists.
>
>
> Don't forget that the Iraqis and the rest of the world measure
> the US war with Iraq as continuous from the Gulf War. Between
> 1991 and 2003 a lot of people were killed in Iraq. I figured a couple
> of years ago that by 2004 about 300,000 were killed outright and
> another 100,000 died from wounds or infections. Deaths have
> increased dramatically since then.
>
> I'll accept 600,000 as a conservative figure from 1991 to present.
Well, if you're going to go as far back into history as you need
to go, sure you can come up with a figure of 665,000, or whatever.
I'm talking about the Bush invasion and the Bush occupation.
BC
> Now this is the kind of post that I like! Seriously, I like it when a
> liberal comes at me with logic, so you get my respect...not that you
> probably care though. I would respond that there is a fallacy with
> your arguement. I'm not sure that you can take the murder rate of one
> of the most violent cities and extrapolate that to an entire country.
> C'mon now, every other estimate puts the number somewhere around
> 50,000. The number of 650,000 just doesn't pass the common sense test.
> This study seems to get down in the statistical weeds, and we all know
> that we can arrive at whatever number we want. Maybe oversampling
> violent areas or something. How valid can it be when every other study
> places the death toll at a tenth of what this study is?
Actually, after my calculation, it's that 50,000 number that
makes no sense whatsoever. Using 50 murders/100,000/year
as a baseline makes sense when you consider that even
places like Detroit, DC and Boltimore with rates now down to
about 40/murders/100k/yr (the rates dropped a lot during the
90's and are about 1/2 what they were around 1990) are still
nowhere near being actually dangerous places overall -- you
can go visit, shop, and wander around as long as you avoid
the bad areas especially at night.
It's unclear how dangerous Iraq was before the war, but
given Hussein's treatment of people he didn't like and the
the chronic conflicts in the Kurdish area, it's likely that the
murder rate for all of Iraq was not than much better than a
place like DC. So as I calculated, if you use the 50/100k/yr
as the base murder rate for 26 million people, then you end
up with 13,000 people being killed each in the country for
one reason or another, but without a war.
OK, now let's take that 50,000 death number and have "fun"
with that. 50k spread over the 3 1/2 years since the invasion
comes out to about 14,286 additional deaths per year since
the war started on top of the baseline murder rate we
estimated at 13,000. That represents almost exactly a
110% increase in violent death since the war started.
So basically, if you accept the 50,000 number as being
more realistic, then you're saying the war, the insurgency,
and the Shi'ite-Sunni sectarian violence has only made
Iraq roughly about twice as dangerous as it use to be
before the war.
Does that make any sense at at all? Suppose you add
the death rates together, the 13,000 estimated per year
baseline plus the 14,286 per year added using the 50,000
total the Bush administration is apparently saying is more
true -- you end up with a total murder/killing rate of 27,286
per year per Iraq's 26 million population. This translates
to a murder/killing rate of about 105/100k/year. Is that a
lot or a little?
Well, let's check the crime statistics for Washington DC:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
In 1991, there were 482 murders (reported ones that is)
in a population of 589,000. That comes out to a murder
rate of 82/100k/yr, which in turn means that DC back in
1991 was only about a 22% safer than Iraq has been on
average during the past 3 1/2 years if you believe that
50,000 number for civilian deaths.
Apparently DC's near war-like murder rate around 1991
didn't hurt the convention business a whole lot:
http://www.meetings-conventions.com/gold/service.html
(check near the bottom.)
Eff Why Eye.
-BC
BC
PS -- After posting this, I realized that there is no way to
"fix" this to make the 50,000 number less ridiculous. The
only variable is my using a high US city murder rate of
50/100k/year as the pre-war guesstimated baseline, and
if you try to adjust that up or down, you still end up with
ridiculous results using the 50k death number.
If you decrease the baseline murder estimate by half to
25/100k/year, you also half the total pre-war murders per
year to 6500. Add that to the 14,286 per year you would
get with the 50 total death number spread over 3 1/2 years
and you now get a 20,786 per year murder/killing death
rate for Iraq's 26 million population. That translates to
about 80 deaths/100000/year, which is actually slightly
less than than DC's 1991 murder rate of 82/100k/yr or
just only about twice what the current murder rates are
in DC, Detroit and Baltimore. I don't seem to recall the
cops in those cities complaining about their Humvee's not
being sufficiently armored.
If you double the baseline estimate to 100/100k/year,
you now double the total pre-war murders per year to
26,000. What does that get you when you factor in the
additional 14,286/yr rate if you buy the 50k total? That
would raise the murder/killing total to 40,286, and that
would in turn means that the war, the insurgency, and
the sectarian violence ended up making living in Iraq
only about 55% more dangerous than before. Which
again makes no sense.
Since murder rates in US cities can go up or down by
close to a factor of 3 with just changes in the economy
and (presumably) better policing, that 10x factor I originally
used to estimate the increase in murder and killing rates
in Iraq for a 3 1/2 yr total of 455,000 looks to be a very
modest and conservative estimate. Which in turn means
that The Lancet study estimate of 426,369 to 793,663 is
right on the money.
Which of course means Bush's dismissal of it is just
further evidence for the need to impeach his sorry, lying
ass ASAP after the mid-terms.
-BC
maginot line
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On the Net:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Lancet: http://www.thelancet.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Iraqi Body Count: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
> > > >
> > > > That is so bad in so many ways. Statistical extrapolation is
> > > > always tricky, but it is based on real science. The margin of
> > > > error here ranges from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths, so even
> > > > the low is too much. The murderous and destructive mayhem
> > > > over there makes accurate census-type accounting virtually
> > > > impossible.
> > > >
> > > > There are only three possible solutions by my count: planned
> > > > phaseout and let the Iraqis deal with the fate we delivered;
> > > > institute basically a new offensive with at least 3x the number
> > > > of troops we are now using, for at least a 90 day operation
> > > > window; or just come up with a much more intelligent battle
> > > > plan using existing personnel than we now have. The 2nd
> > > > and 3rd options will probably only work with a whole new
> > > > command organization in place at the upper plannning levels,
> > > > up to and including the people in the White House.
> > > >
> > > > I'm thinking now that impeachment isn't just for punishing
> > > > a liar, but now more importantly to get some people of
> > > > competence and intelligence in place to deal with an urgent
> > > > problem requiring competence and intelligence.
> > > >
> > > > -BC
>
if bush n dick go. Nancy Pelosi will be prez. I can live with that till
Hillary n Bill re-take the WH.
Ex-foley-gate
time to vote someone off the island.
Gunner
>You mean in total Iraqi dead since the invasion? 650k is being
>quoted by CNN as recently as list night. It's the only figure on
>Iraqi deaths I've heard from anybody. Dozens of bodies are being
>found every day but you're quite right. The math doesn't work. If
>fifty bodies were being found every day, five years would yield a
>total body count of 60k over the last three years.
Gunner
Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
Gunner
wrote:
>>>Fifty thousand is too low, 665,000 is way too high. The true
Gunner
>About 5,000 in Gettysburg. The biggest battle of the Civil War.
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/gettysburg/getty4.aspx
1. The Bloodiest Battles
Total Casualties
Gettysburg
Federal: 23,053
Confederate: 28,063
The Seven Days
Federal 15,849
Confederate 20,614
Chickamauga
Federal 16,170
Confederate 18,454
Chancellorsville or Second Fredericksburg
Federal 16,845
Confederate 12,764
The Wilderness
Federal 17,666
Confederate 7,500
Antietam
Federal 12,410
Confederate 10,316
Second Manassas or Chantilly
Federal 16,054
Confederate 9,286
Shiloh
Federal 13,047
Confederate 10,694
Stones River
Federal 9,532
Confederate 9,239
Fredericksburg
Federal 12,653
Confederate 5,309
In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men
and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.
Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including
2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at
approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces
lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not
always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this
simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty
statistics).
Casualties on the British beaches were roughly 1000 on Gold Beach and
the same number on Sword Beach. The remainder of the British losses
were amongst the airborne troops: some 600 were killed or wounded, and
600 more were missing; 100 glider pilots also became casualties. The
losses of 3rd Canadian Division at Juno Beach have been given as 340
killed, 574 wounded and 47 taken prisoner.
The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928
missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2499 casualties were
from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties
at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing.
However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2000
casualties at Omaha Beach.
The total German casualties on D-Day are not known, but are estimated
as being between 4000 and 9000 men.
Naval losses for June 1944 included 24 warships and 35 merchantmen or
auxiliaries sunk, and a further 120 vessels damaged.
Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went
missing during the Battle of Normandy. This figure includes over
209,000 Allied casualties, with nearly 37,000 dead amongst the ground
forces and a further 16,714 deaths amongst the Allied air forces. Of
the Allied casualties, 83,045 were from 21st Army Group (British,
Canadian and Polish ground forces), 125,847 from the US ground forces.
The losses of the German forces during the Battle of Normandy can only
be estimated. Roughly 200,000 German troops were killed or wounded.
The Allies also captured 200,000 prisoners of war (not included in the
425,000 total, above). During the fighting around the Falaise Pocket
(August 1944) alone, the Germans suffered losses of around 90,000,
including prisoners.
Bradley K. Sherman
Gunner <gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:48:49 -0400, govern...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>You mean in total Iraqi dead since the invasion? 650k is being
>>quoted by CNN as recently as list night. It's the only figure on
>>Iraqi deaths I've heard from anybody. Dozens of bodies are being
>>found every day but you're quite right. The math doesn't work. If
>>fifty bodies were being found every day, five years would yield a
>>total body count of 60k over the last three years.
>
>www.iraqbodycount.org
>
That site just catalogs officially received bodies.
Ignores funerary practices of Iraqis which are to
bury the dead in plain wooden boxes as soon as possible
after death. Do you think the dead in Ramadi are being
processed by a county coroner?
--bks
Czoyk...@att.net
storm)
were over 100,000 killed. They were burying the bodies with
bulldozers.
During the Iraq invasion in 2003, I read a U.S. field commander quote
"we are up to our knees in body parts". Why doesn't the Govt. even
bother
to estimate or reveal enemy casualty figures? I assume it's because
the
world would be appalled at the killing fest the "liberation" of Iraq
was and
continues to be. Yeah, the right wants everybody to believe all our
troops
are doing in Iraq is building schools and killing "bad guys" who
desperately
need killing. Think about it, insurgents in blue jeans and plaid
shirts have killed
over 2,700 of the best armed, best protected troops in the world. If
our kill ratio is
100-1 then God didn't make little green apples.
The Real Diddy Pop wrote:
govern...@comcast.net
>PS -- After posting this, I realized that there is no way to
>"fix" this to make the 50,000 number less ridiculous. The
>only variable is my using a high US city murder rate of
>50/100k/year as the pre-war guesstimated baseline, and
>if you try to adjust that up or down, you still end up with
>ridiculous results using the 50k death number.
Well, this thread's over for me. I've seen half a dozen estimates
ranging from 350-600K Iraqi dead. No matter how you slice it, that's
a lot of dead people. More than Hussein ever copped in the same
period of time.
Swill
Al Smith
Lots and lots of dead Iraqis. So many that Bush is afraid to count
them. That should tell us something right there.
Gunner
1. Overview
Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of
online media reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources
report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are
given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at
least two members of the Iraq Body Count project team in addition to
the original compiler before publication.
2. Sources
Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with
web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further
sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards
(see below).
ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post
For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must
comply with the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily;
(2) all stories separately archived on the site, with a unique url
(see Note 1 below); (3) source widely cited or referenced by other
sources; (4) English Language site; (5) fully public (preferably free)
web-access.
The project relies on the professional rigour of the approved
reporting agencies. It is assumed that any agency that has attained a
respected international status operates its own rigorous checks before
publishing items (including, where possible, eye-witness and
confidential sources). By requiring that two independent agencies
publish a report before we are willing to add it to the count, we are
premising our own count on the self-correcting nature of the
increasingly inter-connected international media network.
Note 1. Some sites remove items after a given time period,
change their urls, or place them in archives with inadequate search
engines. For this reason it is project policy that urls of sources are
NOT published on the iraqbodycount site.
3. Data extraction
Data extraction policy is based on 3 criteria, some of which work
in opposite directions.
1. Sufficient information must be extracted to ensure that
each incident is differentiated from proximate incidents with which it
could be potentially confused.
2. Economy of data extraction is required, for efficiency of
both production and public scrutiny.
3. Data extraction should be uniform, so that the same
information is available for the vast majority of incidents. This is
best guaranteed by restricting the number of items of information per
incident to the core facts that most news reports tend to include.
The pragmatic tensions in the above have led to the decision to
extract the following information only for each incident:
* Date of incident
* Time of incident
* Location of incident
* Target as stated by military sources
* Weapon (munitions or delivery vehicle)
* Minimum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
* Maximum civilian deaths (see Note 2)
* Sources (at least two sources from the list in section 2
above)
Reliability of data extraction will be increased by ensuring that
each data extraction is checked and signed off by two further
independent scrutineers prior to publication, and all data entries
will be kept under review should further details become available at a
later date.
Note 2. Definitions of minimum and maximum
Reports of numbers dead vary across sources. On-the-ground
uncertainties and potential political bias can result in a range of
figures reported for the same incident. To reflect this variation,
each incident will be associated with a minimum and maximum reported
number of deaths. No number will be entered into the count unless it
meets the criteria in the following paragraphs. This conservative
approach allows relative certainty about the minimum.
Maximum deaths. This is the highest number of civilian deaths
published by at least two of our approved list of news media sources.
Minimum deaths. This is the same as the maximum, unless at least
two of the listed news media sources publish a lower number. In this
case, the lower number is entered as the minimum. The minimum can be
zero if there is a report of "zero deaths" from two of our sources.
"Unable to confirm any deaths" or similar wording (as in an official
statement) does NOT amount to a report of zero, and will NOT lead to
an entry of "0" in the minimum column.
As a further conservative measure, when the wording used in both
reports refers to "people" instead of civilians, we will include the
total figure as a maximum but enter "0" into the minimum column unless
details are present clearly identifying some or all of the dead as
civilian - in this case the number of identifiable civilians will be
entered into the minimum column instead of "0". The word "family" will
be interpreted in this context as meaning 3 civilians. [Average Iraqi
non-extended family size: 6. -CIA Factbook 2002.]
4. Data storage
Although it is expected that the majority of sources will remain
accessible on the web site from which they were drawn, the project
will create a secure archive of all original sources (in both
electronic and paper form). Where judged appropriate by the project
team, this data may be released to bona-fide enquirers, for
verification purposes. At an appropriate juncture, the entire archive
will be passed to an institution of public record (such as a
University or National Library) for permanent access by bona-fide
researchers. The copyright of original sources will remain with the
originators. The copyright of the Iraq Body Count data extraction
remains with the named researchers on the project (see About us).
5. Publication of data (including conditions of use)
Once verified through the processes described in section 3
above, each new incident will be added as a new line on a spreadsheet
database which will be updated regularly (at least daily) on the
www.iraqbodycount.org site. The total minimum and maximum deaths will
be automatically updated, and will feed through to all remotely
positioned web-counters donwloaded from the site.
Permission is granted for any individual or agency to download
and display any of the web counters available on this site, provided
that the link back to the www.iraqbodycount.org site is not disabled
or otherwise tampered with when displayed on a live interactive
web-site. Permission is also granted for cut-and-paste downloads of
the spreadsheet database listing each incident. All press and
non-commercial uses are permitted. Other commercial uses are
prohibited without explicit permission (contact
in...@iraqbodycount.org).
We request that you acknowledge any use of the Iraq Body Count
data base or its methodology by mentioning either the project name
("Iraq Body Count") or the url (www.iraqbodycount.org) or the names of
the principal researchers, Hamit Dardagan and John Sloboda.
6. Limitations and scope of enquiry:
Any project has limitations and boundaries. Here are some FAQs
about this topic and our answers to them.
Why don’t you report all civilian deaths in Iraq since the 1991
Gulf War ended?
Our decision to stick with deaths from Jan 2003 is mainly
tactical, and based on the resources we have. We would rather provide
one stream of verifiable evidence to a high degree of reliablity than
spread ourselves too thin. Current deaths are more newsworthy than
past deaths, and will be of more interest to the general websites who
will carry the IBC Web Counters. We agree that reckoning total deaths
since 1991 is a very worthwhile project. We would be happy to support
someone wanting to do this, but we can't manage it ourselves with
current resources.
Why don’t you report civilian injuries as well as deaths?
Injuries are difficult to quantify. Anything from shock to loss of
limb can be classified as an injury. Also, injuries can recover, so
that by the time there is independent verification the injury can have
healed. The level of resource we would need to track and categorise
the far higher number of injuries would likely overwhelm our
resources. Deaths are irreversible and immutable. Again, they are the
most "newsworthy" tip of the iceberg, and the greatest crime against
innocents.
"Does your count include deaths from indirect causes?"
Each side can readily claim that indirectly-caused deaths are the
"fault" of the other side or, where long-term illnesses and genetic
disorders are concerned, "due to other causes." Our methodology
requires that specific deaths attributed to US-led military actions
are carried in at least two reports from our approved sources. This
includes deaths resulting from the destruction of water treatment
plants or any other lethal effects on the civilian population. The
test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed
to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied
finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the
burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those
who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). We agree
that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in
this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can
unambiguously hold our own leaders to account. In short, we record all
civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq.
(The above FAQ does not apply to sanctions; although we are
opposed to them, our study deals with the consequences of our current
military actions in Iraq. It has also been newly revised due to our
growing awareness that we were too narrowly-focused on bombs and other
conventional weapons, neglecting the deadly effects of disrupted food,
water, electricity and medical supplies. These effects, though
relatively small at the outset of a war, are likely to become much
more significant as time passes, and we will monitor media reports
accordingly.)
Won't your count simply be a compilation of propaganda?
We acknowledge that many parties to this conflict will have an
interest in manipulating casualty figures for political ends. There is
no such thing (and will probably never be such a thing) as an "wholly
accurate" figure, which could accepted as historical truth by all
parties. This is why we will always publish a minimum and a maximum
for each reported incident. Some sources may wish to over-report
casualties. Others may wish to under-report them. Our methodology is
not biased towards "propaganda" from any particular protagonist in the
conflict. We will faithfully reflect the full range of reported deaths
in our sources. These sources, which are predominantly Western
(including long established press agencies such as Reuters and
Associated Press) are unlikely to suppress conservative estimates
which can act as a corrective to inflated claims. We rely on the
combined, and self-correcting, professionalism of the world's press to
deliver meaningful maxima and minima for our count.
Will you co-operate with other similar projects?
Many projects are needed to evaluate the full human cost of this
war. We value them all, but this one is ours. We need to ensure that
our study is focused and that its intent, scope and limits are widely
and clearly understood. We will certainly build up and maintain our
set of links to projects doing related work so that viewers of this
site can be pointed to related activity.
Gunner
http://www.worldwar1.com/tlcrates.htm
http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable.htm
Battle of the Somme was one of the largest battles of the First World
War, with more than one million casualties , and also one of the
bloodiest battles in human history. The Allied forces attempted to
break through the German lines along a 25-mile (40 km) front north and
south of the River Somme in northern France. One purpose of the battle
was to draw German forces away from the Battle of Verdun; however, by
its end the losses on the Somme had exceeded those at Verdun.
While Verdun would bite deep in the national consciousness of France
for generations, the Somme would have the same effect on generations
of Britons. The battle is best remembered therefore its first day, 1
July 1916, on which the British suffered 57,470 casualties, including
19,240 dead — the bloodiest day in the history of the British Army.
The original Allied estimate of casualties on the Somme, made at the
Chantilly conference on 15 November, was 485,000 British and French
casualties versus 630,000 German. These figures were used to support
the argument that the Somme was a successful battle of attrition for
the Allies. However, there was considerable scepticism at the time of
the accuracy of the counts. After the war, a final tally showed that
419,654 British and 204,253 French were killed, wounded, or taken
prisoner; of the 623,907 total casualties, 146,431 were either killed
or missing.
The British official historian Sir James Edmonds maintained that
German losses were 680,000, but this figure has been discredited. A
separate statistical report by the British War Office concluded that
German casualties on the British sector could be as low as 180,000
during the battle. Today commonly accepted figures for all German
losses on the Somme are between 465,000 and 600,000. In compiling his
biography of General Rawlinson, Major-General Sir Frederick Maurice
was supplied by the Reichsarchiv with a figure of 164,055 for the
German killed or missing.
The average casualties per division (consisting of circa 10,000
soldiers) on the British sector up until 19 November was 8,026 — 6,329
for the four Canadian divisions, 7,408 for the New Zealand Division,
8,133 for the 43 British divisions and 8,960 for the three Australian
divisions. The British daily loss rate during the Battle of the Somme
was 2,943 men, which exceeded the loss rate during the Third Battle of
Ypres but was not as severe as the two months of the Battle of Arras
(1917) (4,076 per day) or the final Hundred Days offensive in 1918
(3,685 per day).
The Royal Flying Corps lost 782 aircraft and 576 pilots during the
battle.
Battle of Verdun
France Germany
378,000; of whom 120,000 dead 337,000; of whom 100,000 dead
http://www.gwpda.org/photos/greatwar.htm
We set to work to bury poeple. We pushed them into the sides of the
trenches but bits of them kept getting uncovered and sticking out,
like people in a badly made bed. Hands were the worst; they would
escape from the sand, pointing, begging - even waving! There was one
which we all shook when we passed, saying, "Good morning," in a posh
voice. Everybody did it. The bottom of the trench was springy like a
mattress because of all the bodies underneath...
Leonard Thompson - quoted in Ronald Blythe, Akenfield
http://www.gwpda.org/photos/bin07/imag0627.jpg
http://www.gwpda.org/photos/bin01/imag0079.jpg
Gunner
wrote:
>In article <m9r0j25e4732tiu7n...@4ax.com>, "Gunner"
><gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>>On 12 Oct 2006 12:42:52 -0700, gah...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>About 5,000 in Gettysburg. The biggest battle of the Civil War.
>>
>>http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/gettysburg/getty4.aspx
>>
>>1. The Bloodiest Battles
>>
>>Total Casualties
>>
>>Gettysburg
>>
>>Federal: 23,053
>
><snip, snip, snip about the Civil War, WW2, etc.>
>
>Those are all just rough guesstimates of historians, idiot. The 654,000
>figure was obtained from actual field interviews conducted in Iraq by a
>team of professional statiticians, using the same methodology that's used
>by the US government.
>
>You may not like to hear it, but a hell of a lot more innocent Iraqis have
>died since Mar. 2003 than the 30,000 number that's been spoonfed to you by
>the Pentagon.
Gunner
>he estimates of Iraqis killed in the 1991 gulf war (operation desert
>storm)
>were over 100,000 killed. They were burying the bodies with
>bulldozers.
>During the Iraq invasion in 2003, I read a U.S. field commander quote
>"we are up to our knees in body parts". Why doesn't the Govt. even
>bother
>to estimate or reveal enemy casualty figures? I assume it's because
>the
>world would be appalled at the killing fest the "liberation" of Iraq
>was and
>continues to be. Yeah, the right wants everybody to believe all our
>troops
>are doing in Iraq is building schools and killing "bad guys" who
>desperately
>need killing. Think about it, insurgents in blue jeans and plaid
>shirts have killed
>over 2,700 of the best armed, best protected troops in the world. If
>our kill ratio is
>100-1 then God didn't make little green apple
Sounds like we are getting a good return on our tax dollars
Good to see the government can actually be efficient.
Gunner
Gunner
Actually..it took him 5 yrs to run up 400,000 of his own citizens,
though it only took about a year or so to run up that many dead
Iranians
Gunner
wrote:
>>>PS -- After posting this, I realized that there is no way to
Ayup. A marvelous return on our tax dollars.
Now on the other hand...what percentage of those are by direct US
action? All those Sunis killing Shia and visa versa...those are
actually US service people blowing themselves up in each others
markets?
miles
> Those are all just rough guesstimates of historians, idiot. The 654,000
> figure was obtained from actual field interviews conducted in Iraq by a
> team of professional statiticians
They came up with a number and then designed the stats to BS people for
political purposes. Every one of the 'professionals' named are
democrats. The only people buying it are liberals.
gah...@comcast.net
numbers, but casulties are not deaths. Let's try and keep the facts
straight.
I know
Terryc
Pommie democrats? lol.
You guys make Alan Connor look like one of the most intelligent posters
here.
Pope Secola IV
Actually I call 654,000 dead Iraqis a very poor start. The number I'm
thinking about is more in the neighborhood of 6.54 Million. Now that
would be a good start.
--
Censorship and Gun Control are the political equivalent of binding and
gagging a victim before raping and mugging them.
Such acts are carried out by the same thugs, one with a law degree from
a state pen, the other a law degree from a university for the same sick
perverted purposes which are to remove you from your property, liberty
and dignity, and bend you to will of others.
BC
Feel free to try to find any faults with my numbers.
The short version is that if you want to believe that
50,000 is more realistic than 600,000, then you have
to also believe that visiting Iraq, at the very worst,
is only about twice as dangerous as visiting DC. At
best, it's only about as dangerous or even less so
than visiting DC.
Now, I've been using as a prewar baseline estimate the
murder rates in the worst US cities, about 50/100k/yr
Currently Columbia, South America, is listed as having
the worst country-wide murder rate of about 62/100k/yr
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
So it would be reasonable to asssume that pre-war
Iraq was no worse than this. By all accounts, Hussein
may have been brutal, but he maintained order.
On the same charts, the US is listed as having a
country-wide murder rate of only just over 4/100k/yr
So it would be reasonable to assume that pre-war
Iraq was no (or not much) better than this, although
Saudi Arabia is listed as only having 1/100k/yr
You put the Iraq's 26,000,000 at anywhere near those
extremes for the pre-war status, and that 50,000 number
still make absolutely no sense
-----
For 62/100k/yr:
This comes to 16,120/yr. Add the 14,286/yr from the
50k total number and you get 30,406/yr for all of Iraq,
making the murder/killing rate about 117/100k/yr
Which is only about 43% more than DC's 1991 murder
rate of 82/100k/yr. Last year, DC's rate was about 35
per/100k, so the 117 rate would represent a rate 3.4x
higher.
This is rather illustrative in regards to figuring out what
minimal increases in death rates you can expect when
a war starts. DC in 1991 had a murder rate about 2.3
times higher than it was in 2005, but it was certainly
no war zone then -- as I pointed out earlier, convention
business was still good in 1991 at least:
http://www.meetings-conventions.com/gold/service.html
So even that 3.4x differential would hardly constitute
the point when you would need full body armor and
heavily protected vehicles. My 10x estimate sounds a
bit more reasonable and, if anything, is still way too
conserative in estimating the rise in deaths when war
starts.
----
For 4/100k/yr
This comes to 1040/yr. Add the 14,286/yr from the
50k total number and you get 15,326/yr for all of Iraq,
making the murder/killing rate about 59/100k/yr,
which is almost exactly midway between the 1991
murder rate of 82/100k/yr and the 2005 rate of
35/100k/yr.
In other words, the Iraqi tourist and convention business
should be very good and, um, "booming" at this point
if you use DC as a comparison.
----
This isn't exactly hard math and the data is simple and
easy to look up. But Bush and his people apparently
believe, for some strange reason, that they can just blow
off The Lancet report and state utterly nonsensical BS
and get away with it. Go read carefully the contents of
this official US State Department article commenting
on The Lancet study and then see if you can perhaps
detect a few inconsistencies: http://tinyurl.com/y53xym
-BC
Bradley K. Sherman
Gunner <gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>Actually..it took him 5 yrs to run up 400,000 of his own citizens,
>though it only took about a year or so to run up that many dead
>Iranians
>
The new Bush bozo line: "Ayup, Bush is a murdering swine, but he's
not the worst murdering swine of all time."
--bks
Al Smith
>>>though it only took about a year or so to run up that many dead
>>>Iranians
>>>
>
>
> The new Bush bozo line: "Ayup, Bush is a murdering swine, but he's
> not the worst murdering swine of all time."
>
> --bks
>
Be pretty hard to take the crown from Joe Stalin, although I guess
Chairman Mao made a run at it.
BC
While channel surfing the other day, I came across some
right-wing radio guy with a show on CNN (is CNN becoming
FOX-ized?) and he talked about The Lancet study. Curiously
he really didn't dispute the numbers, but said that the study
showed that 69% of the deaths were not caused by coalition
forces. The actual Lancet study does show this:
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
(Page 5, Table 4, end of top line)
So does that mean we're only responsible for 31% of the
estimated 655k deaths, meaning a measly 203,050?
We'll, I guess that depends on where you stand. Let's
say you were living in a town of 100,000 that had a
homicide rate of just 10. That's a good rate for a city.
Then your country is invaded and a war insues. The
police disappear, as well as electricity and phone
service. Massive looting occurs, and old grudges
and rivalries come violently and muderously back. So
you have all this mayhem of war and murder, so the
viloent death rate in your town shoots (so to speak) to,
oh say, 600 per yr. A study comes out showing that
only 200 of those killlings were directly caused by
the invaders and the rest by everyone else.
Alrighty then, so the question is: should the invaders
be held responsible for all the excess, violent deaths
stemming from the invasion including those caused
by nonexistent or weak policing and sectarian violence,
or just the ones that they themselves directly caused,
through sloppy or accidently bombings, crossfires, or
whatever?
-BC
Just Another
"BC" <call...@gmail.com> wrote:
If you shoot the driver of a schoolbus, and all fifty children die in a
fiery inferno when the bus collides with the concrete overpass, will you
be charged with one murder, or fifty-one?
JJ
> While channel surfing the other day, I came across some
> right-wing radio guy with a show on CNN (is CNN becoming
> FOX-ized?) and he talked about The Lancet study. Curiously
> he really didn't dispute the numbers, but said that the study
> showed that 69% of the deaths were not caused by coalition
> forces.
> The actual Lancet study does show this:
> http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
> (Page 5, Table 4, end of top line)
Actually it doesn't really show this. The study says:
Coalition 31%
Other 24%
Unknown 45%
Obviously, "Unknown" may or may not include further deaths caused by the
coalition. What we know is that at least 24% of violent deaths were not
caused by the coalition. Accordingly, the coalition caused somewhere
between 31% and 76% of the deaths.
> So does that mean we're only responsible for 31% of the
> estimated 655k deaths, meaning a measly 203,050?
Yeah, almost nothing. :(
I hope the 655,000 visit Bush in his nightmares for the rest of his life.
BC
JJ wrote:
> BC wrote:
>
> > While channel surfing the other day, I came across some
> > right-wing radio guy with a show on CNN (is CNN becoming
> > FOX-ized?) and he talked about The Lancet study. Curiously
> > he really didn't dispute the numbers, but said that the study
> > showed that 69% of the deaths were not caused by coalition
> > forces.
> > The actual Lancet study does show this:
> > http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
> > (Page 5, Table 4, end of top line)
>
> Actually it doesn't really show this. The study says:
>
> Coalition 31%
> Other 24%
> Unknown 45%
>
> Obviously, "Unknown" may or may not include further deaths caused by the
> coalition. What we know is that at least 24% of violent deaths were not
> caused by the coalition. Accordingly, the coalition caused somewhere
> between 31% and 76% of the deaths.
Hmmm...good call. I should have assumed that a right-
winger would have gotten it wrong in some way. My bad.
>
> > So does that mean we're only responsible for 31% of the
> > estimated 655k deaths, meaning a measly 203,050?
>
> Yeah, almost nothing. :(
>
> I hope the 655,000 visit Bush in his nightmares for the rest of his life.
His bad.
-BC
Gunner
Ayup...Leftists are very good at murdering people. Generally their own.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Bradley K. Sherman
Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:43:04 GMT, Al Smith <inv...@address.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Actually..it took him 5 yrs to run up 400,000 of his own citizens,
>>>>>though it only took about a year or so to run up that many dead
>>>>>Iranians
>>>
>>> The new Bush bozo line: "Ayup, Bush is a murdering swine, but he's
>>> not the worst murdering swine of all time."
>>>
>>
>>Chairman Mao made a run at it.
>
>Ayup...Leftists are very good at murdering people. Generally their own.
However, when it comes to *percent killed*, Bush and Hitler are
in a class by themselves.
--bks
Gunner
Actually..it appears that Bush has killed no one, unlike Teddy Kennedy,
and as Commander in Chief..it appears that his quite legal actions have
been in lawful command of his troops, who, in the course of their
duties, likely killed somewhere in the order of about 16,000 or less
Iraqis. Most quite lawfully, others as the unfortunate side effect of
war..collateral damage, which, while regrettable, is still quite legal.
Civilized warfare standards forbid using civilians as human shields,
putting headquarters in civilian populated areas and so forth. So it
would appear, that with a few exceptions, it would be the insurgents
that are responsible for the majority of civilian deaths by US forces
hands. The insurgents of course, have proven to have violated every
standard of the Rules of War, many many thousands of times. These same
people are the ones who regardless of civilian casualties, blow up car
bombs in crowded civilian market places and so forth, quite
intentionally and for the sake of striking terror in the hearts of the
civilians. Which of course was the standard MO for the Baathists,
Feyadeen and so forth, when Sodam Insane was still dictator of Iraq..so
little has changed, except of course..for the levels of carnage they are
willing to inflict on the civilian population.
The same people btw..you are an apologist for. Rather telling about your
bias, and modus operandi.
govern...@comcast.net
wrote:
>
>Actually..it took him 5 yrs to run up 400,000 of his own citizens,
>though it only took about a year or so to run up that many dead
>Iranians
Yeah, during a very hot war. Of course we all know Iraq isn't really
in a state of war, just a little civil unrest. Their shouldn't be any
reason for a Saddam free Iraq to have shattered his killing record by
50% in 'peacetime'.
Swill
govern...@comcast.net
wrote:
><snip, snip, snip about the Civil War, WW2, etc.>
All of which is irrelevant. Our current military technologies are
based on reducing our casualties and the Pentagon has succeeded
mightily at that. When testosterone overdosed wankers like Gunner
start digging back to the second world war and trying to compare it to
Iraq, you can be sure of one thing. He has nothing left to offer and
is desperately working to fill pages with text in the hope nobody will
notice he has nothing relevant, accurate or honest to say on topic.
Swill
gah...@comcast.net
is really the fuel to the fire.
Here are the harsh questions:
1. Does Iraq need a leader with absolute athority? History has shown
that forced democracies never have worked. Before we showed up, there
was no terrorism, schools were much better, everyone had electricity
and so forth. Now, before the right wing jumps, I'm not suggesting, for
one second, that Saddam be re-installed or anyone like him.
2. Should Iraq be divided into 3 countries? This may be the most
resonable solution except for one little problem. Only 2 sections have
oil and the third, including Baghdad, has absolutely no natural
resources. Also, the section with no oil has most of the population.
That could get real ugly, fast.
3. How do we stop the civil war. Yes people, it is a civil war. When
one group of the population attacks another group of the population,
you have a civil war. Bush won't admit it, but he may have even figured
it out at this point. The best solution is to divide the country up.
4. How do we explain to the American People the almost 3,000 dead and
the tens of thousands wounded? I guess this will play itself out in
every household seperately. Most people have figured it out at this
point, but for those who haven't, the president should have to explain
why everything is said about Iraq was wrong.
5. Who to hold accountable. Well, this is pretty easy. Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz, and Richard Perle. How to hold them responsible?
Well, that would be up to the court system and the crimes they can be
accused of. Right now, they are trying to rewrite the laws to shield
themselves from war crimes, but laws enacted now should not be
retroactive to actions done before. Rumsfeld knew about Abu Gahrib but
did nothing. Bush knew the CIA was torturing, but did nothing. Cheney
lied about Iraq, WMD's, Nukes, Anthrax, Smallpox, and so forth and
should be held accountable according to the constitution, which would
dictate that as a war crime. The companies like Blackwater that are
killing outside of the military, they should be held accountable
according to Iraq law since they performed the crime in that country.
Sue wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2006 21:48:19 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
> <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, what do you think....does George care?
> >
> >He has the power to end it...if he really did care to.
>
> How? Completely pull our troops out? LOL. Even is these stats are
> correct you don't think that twice as many Iraqis would die within the
> same time frame if we left? I wish we would leave (wish we'd never
> gone), but if we do we will still be held accountable for the Iraqi
> lives lost (as we probably should be). At least it would end the loss
> of life among our military, but it isn't going do help stem the tide
> of Iraqi loss of life. There are plenty of Iraqis just waiting for us
> to leave so they can start the real slaughter.
> Just my opinion.
> Sue
>
> >
> >But then if he really cared thousands of Americans would still be alive
> >today too.
> >
> >That is of course, if he cared.....
> >
> >TMT.
> >
> >
> >Study: 655,000 Iraqis died due to war By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science
> >Writer
> >
> >A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died
> >because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other
> >estimates.
> >
> >The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S.
> >congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."
> >
> >In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis
> >have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their
> >conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is
> >that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found
> >a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and
> >cancer.
> >
> >"Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that
> >from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead
> >author of the study, said in a statement.
> >
> >The study by Burnham, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
> >Health, and others is to be published Thursday on the Web site of The
> >Lancet, a medical journal.
> >
> >An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one
> >respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at
> >least one expert was skeptical of the new findings.
> >
> >"They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the
> >Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He
> >criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results
> >were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.
> >
> >"This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.
> >
> >The work updates an earlier Johns Hopkins study - that one was
> >released just before the November 2005 presidential election. At the
> >time, the lead researcher, Les Roberts of Hopkins, said the timing was
> >deliberate. Many of the same researchers were involved in the latest
> >estimate.
> >
> >Speaking of the new study, Burnham said the estimate was much higher
> >than others because it was derived from a house-to-house survey rather
> >than approaches that depend on body counts or media reports.
> >
> >A private group called Iraqi Body Count, for example, says it has
> >recorded about 44,000 to 49,000 civilian Iraqi deaths. But it notes
> >that those totals are based on media reports, which it says probably
> >overlook "many if not most civilian casualties."
> >
> >For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849
> >Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to
> >early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The
> >estimate deals with deaths up to July.
> >
> >The survey participants attributed about 31 percent of violent deaths
> >to coalition forces.
> >
> >Accurate death tolls have been difficult to obtain ever since the Iraq
> >conflict began in March 2003. When top Iraqi political officials cite
> >death numbers, they often refuse to say where the numbers came from.
> >
> >The Health Ministry, which tallies civilian deaths, relies on reports
> >from government hospitals and morgues. The Interior Ministry compiles
> >its figures from police stations, while the Defense Ministry reports
> >deaths only among army soldiers and insurgents killed in combat.
> >
> >The United Nations keeps its own count, based largely on reports from
> >the Baghdad morgue and the Health Ministry.
> >
> >The major funder of the new study was the Massachusetts Institute of
> >Technology.
> >
> >___
> >
> >On the Net:
> >
> >The Lancet: http://www.thelancet.com
> >
> >Iraqi Body Count: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Pope Secola IV
Except that he has closed with and killed the enemy by means of fire and
maneuver, while all you have ever done is sit on your fat ass inputting
your stupid ideas on a key board.
And don't bother trying to prove that you were some kind of a super
troop as any one can claim any thing on the Usenet.
AS for our current military technologies are based on reducing our
casualties, you seem to forget that the most revolutionary changes in
our fighting capability have come from communications.
Gunner
When political hacks try to use Iraq as some milestone in carnage..I
simply showed that Iraq is nothing much on the carnage scale. Pure and
simple.
You and your ilk are simply pissed that I hold your feet to the fire.
Sorry to have burst your bubble. As has been noted in the various
Honest body count sites...the US has killed directly very limited
numbers of people. The Enemy, and sectarian violence has done the lions
share of civilian deaths. And it should further be noted in the vast
majority of the cases where the Anti Bush crowd has attempted to make a
case of troops murdering civilians..its been well investigated and found
groundless. So it would appear that lying and propaganda methods are the
trademark of the antiBush crowd, which of course comes as no surprise to
anyone.
Has the US actions in Iraq caused civil unrest and sectarian violence?
Yes..very much so. Saddam and his Baathist Party and his Feyadeen used
terror methods to keep the population in line, up to and including
genocide of various groups, such as the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds.
As a result..the payback on both sides of the Shia/Sunni Conflict is
rampant. But there is an easy way to stop the vast majority of the
carnage. To wit: Both sides simply stop killing each other, and both
concentrate on killing the foreign jihadists, the Baathists and the
Feyadeen. And join the civilized peoples of the 21st Century.
To blame Bush & Co for age old hatreds is disengenious. When Yugoslavia
imploded at the demise of Tito, who also was a Sadam sort of
charector..peace by mass murder..it resulted in much of the same carnage
in the Balkans. By the anti-Bush crowds criteria..it was the fault of
Clinton, Carter and so forth that the Bosnians and Serbs were killing
each other off, is that correct?
Which reminds me..what IS our exit strategy from the Balkans?
Gunner
>The real issue is how we leave. We need to get out as our being there
>is really the fuel to the fire.
>
>Here are the harsh questions:
>
>1. Does Iraq need a leader with absolute athority? History has shown
>that forced democracies never have worked. Before we showed up, there
>was no terrorism, schools were much better, everyone had electricity
>and so forth. Now, before the right wing jumps, I'm not suggesting, for
>one second, that Saddam be re-installed or anyone like him.
>
>2. Should Iraq be divided into 3 countries? This may be the most
>resonable solution except for one little problem. Only 2 sections have
>oil and the third, including Baghdad, has absolutely no natural
>resources. Also, the section with no oil has most of the population.
>That could get real ugly, fast.
>
>3. How do we stop the civil war. Yes people, it is a civil war. When
>one group of the population attacks another group of the population,
>you have a civil war. Bush won't admit it, but he may have even figured
>it out at this point. The best solution is to divide the country up.
So far, so good.
>
>4. How do we explain to the American People the almost 3,000 dead and
>the tens of thousands wounded? I guess this will play itself out in
>every household seperately. Most people have figured it out at this
>point, but for those who haven't, the president should have to explain
>why everything is said about Iraq was wrong.
Seems this is where you jumped the tracks in partisan bullshit...
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
>
>5. Who to hold accountable. Well, this is pretty easy. Bush, Cheney,
>Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz, and Richard Perle. How to hold them responsible?
>Well, that would be up to the court system and the crimes they can be
>accused of. Right now, they are trying to rewrite the laws to shield
>themselves from war crimes, but laws enacted now should not be
>retroactive to actions done before. Rumsfeld knew about Abu Gahrib but
>did nothing. Bush knew the CIA was torturing, but did nothing. Cheney
>lied about Iraq, WMD's, Nukes, Anthrax, Smallpox, and so forth and
>should be held accountable according to the constitution, which would
>dictate that as a war crime. The companies like Blackwater that are
>killing outside of the military, they should be held accountable
>according to Iraq law since they performed the crime in that country.
Too bad your entire case is utterly flawed. Since the original action
in Iraq was quite legal, you have no case to stand one..your foundation
is built on nothing. The activities in Abu Grabe were performed by
individuals, who already have been investigated, tried and convicted as
perscribed by law. If there were lies about wmd and so forth that
people who voted for it should be accountable for..then only 19
Democrats and 5 Republicans will escape prosecution. They were the only
members of Congress to vote against the war. John Kerry will be in the
docks right beside Nancy Pelosi and so forth.
Which crimes are Blackwater committing? Be specific. Killing in Self
Defense? Odd..thats hardly a crime in a very legal war.
Pity you are such a partisan, ignorant, hack.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
BC
Gunner wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 04:23:06 +0000 (UTC), b...@panix.com (Bradley K.
> Sherman) wrote:
>
> >In article <sr93j21ms0cj6990d...@4ax.com>,
> >Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
> >>On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:43:04 GMT, Al Smith <inv...@address.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>Actually..it took him 5 yrs to run up 400,000 of his own citizens,
> >>>>>>though it only took about a year or so to run up that many dead
> >>>>>>Iranians
> >>>>
> >>>> The new Bush bozo line: "Ayup, Bush is a murdering swine, but he's
> >>>> not the worst murdering swine of all time."
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Be pretty hard to take the crown from Joe Stalin, although I guess
> >>>Chairman Mao made a run at it.
> >>
> >>Ayup...Leftists are very good at murdering people. Generally their own.
> >
> >However, when it comes to *percent killed*, Bush and Hitler are
> >in a class by themselves.
> >
> > --bks
>
> Actually..it appears that Bush has killed no one, unlike Teddy Kennedy,
> and as Commander in Chief..it appears that his quite legal actions have
> been in lawful command of his troops, who, in the course of their
> duties, likely killed somewhere in the order of about 16,000 or less
> Iraqis.
16,000? And you figured this out...how?
Oo-oo, actually, let me try to figure out your logic here:
1) Start by accepting 50,000 as being the total number of
deaths, even though I've shown it 5 ways from Tuesday that
it's mathematically grossly improbable that the total would
be anywhere this low.
2) Accept only The Lancet study conclusion that the
coalition was directly responsible for 31% of the deaths
and assume that we had nothing to do with the 45%
caused by "Uknown"
3) Multiply 50,000 by .31 and you get....
A friggin dumbass, disconnected-from-all-logic-and-
reality answer. And then round off.
Am I right or am I right?
I so prefer trolling on Usenet -- I'm in the midst of a
Wikipedia discussion and I have to be all nice and
polite and....ugh. This is much more gratifying.
-BC
govern...@comcast.net
Sherman) wrote:
>>Ayup...Leftists are very good at murdering people. Generally their own.
>
>However, when it comes to *percent killed*, Bush and Hitler are
>in a class by themselves.
Bush has murdered nowhere near as many Americans as Hitler killed
Germans. Not to forget Poles, Slavs, Czechs...
Swill
Docky Wocky
that still needs to be addressed. Another problem is the universal tendency
of Iraqis to lie about everything. This must account for why liberals side
with them over their own countrymen.
However, in the spirit of the age, I propose Bush announces that beginning
November 1, 2006, the US will give both Sunni and Shia 30 days to go at it,
undisturbed, to settle their differences.
After 30 days, if any sectarian violence continues, then the US will begin a
program to eradicate whomever continues to be the main problem, both sides
if necessary, if using whatever means the task requires.
BC
I think it would be more fun to give both Neo-conservatives
and traditional Conservatives/Libertarians 30 days to go at
it, undisturbed, with their guns and weapons of choice, to
settle *their* differences.
After 30 days, if any of them are left standing, then the rest
of us will begin a program to educate whomever continues
to be the main problem, both sides if necessary, if using
whatever means the task requires, including facts, math,
logic, diagrams, text books, duct tape, rope, etc.
Better, no?
-BC
gah...@comcast.net
would be used only if all negotiations and other paths proved futile.
My understanding also is that no negotiation was ever done, the weapons
inspectors found exactly the same amount that David Kay found, which is
nothing, which is what was being claimed. About the Cheney comments,
c'mon, you know all of the junk he was saying. Iraq has nukes. Remember
that one?
About the WMD quotes. A simple question. Who launched a war based on
items that were not true?
How was the invasion of Iraq legal? Please explain that one.
So, the soldiers that did the criminal activity at Abu Gahrib acted on
their own? That has always been disputed and the higherups never
investigated.
Abu Ghraib Tactics Were First Used at Guantanamo
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 14, 2005; Page A01
Interrogators at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
forced a stubborn detainee to wear women's underwear on his head,
confronted him with snarling military working dogs and attached a leash
to his chains, according to a newly released military investigation
that shows the tactics were employed there months before military
police used them on detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
The techniques, approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for
use in interrogating Mohamed Qahtani -- the alleged "20th hijacker" in
the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- were used at Guantanamo Bay in
late 2002 as part of a special interrogation plan aimed at breaking
down the silent detainee.
Blackwater junk:
About three dozen former Colombian soldiers are engaged in a pay
dispute with Blackwater USA, saying their salaries for security work in
Iraq turned out to be one-quarter what they had been promised by
recruiters in Bogota. (In other words, they are hiring soldiers from
other countries to do the dirty work.)
According to the Raleigh News & Observer, which reviewed voluntary
reports filed with the government during a nine-month period in
2004-05, contractors fired into 61 Iraqi civilian vehicles.
According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, Blackwater contractors
fired into a taxi at a Baghdad intersection in May 2005, killing a
passenger and wounding the driver. A review by the U.S. Embassy found
that two contractors had not followed proper procedures and they were
fired, a U.S. official told the newspaper.
Bradley K. Sherman
>Not killing enough of the ungrateful bastards is one of the main problems
Oh, now it's *their* fault we invaded and destroyed their
infrastructure, killed 500,000 civilians, raped their women
and forced our 'Viceroy' and a puppet government on them, and
have been forcing them to live in a state of siege for three
plus years.
All because they had exactly Zero WMD.
Sheesh! Let's start again with why Hans Blix had to be kicked
out of Iraq *by George "The Torturer" Bush*.
--bks
Dan
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160685503.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"Also, for those who haven't understood this fact yet, a death means
the
end of a life. It isn't just a number. When someone dies, someone loses
a husband, wife, child and so forth. So try, and I know that this is
hard for neocons, to understand this fact. I know, if you let this
realization take over, you may not have such war lust.
NeoCons are stupid cowards who do not understand that when you
kill people their friends and relatives get upset.
Don't count on them to help if our country ever is invaded...
Dan
Dan
"Gunner" <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:sr93j21ms0cj6990d...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:43:04 GMT, Al Smith <inv...@address.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Actually..it took him 5 yrs to run up 400,000 of his own citizens,
> >>>>though it only took about a year or so to run up that many dead
> >>>>Iranians
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> The new Bush bozo line: "Ayup, Bush is a murdering swine, but he's
> >> not the worst murdering swine of all time."
> >>
> >> --bks
> >>
> >
> >Be pretty hard to take the crown from Joe Stalin, although I guess
> >Chairman Mao made a run at it.
>
>
> Ayup...Leftists are very good at murdering people. Generally their own.
Sorry, they were in power at the time, so they were, by definition, on
the right...
Dan
Dan
<Czoyk...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1160802436....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The estimates of Iraqis killed in the 1991 gulf war (operation desert
storm)
were over 100,000 killed. They were burying the bodies with
bulldozers.
They wee burying entire living regiments with bulldozers...
Dan
Gunner
Lets see...first year college, taking a poli sci class from a Marxist
prof. Thats the only place you could have picked up those exact phrases
and bias.
Fascinating. Which college are you at? Just so I know not to send any
contributions to it?
zolota
>
>>>>Actually..it took him 5 yrs to run up 400,000 of his own citizens,
>>>>>though it only took about a year or so to run up that many dead
>>>>>Iranians
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The new Bush bozo line: "Ayup, Bush is a murdering swine, but he's
>>> not the worst murdering swine of all time."
>>>
>>> --bks
>>>
>>
>>Be pretty hard to take the crown from Joe Stalin, although I guess
>>Chairman Mao made a run at it.
>
>
> Ayup...Leftists are very good at murdering people. Generally their own.
>
Stalin was no more a leftist than you are. He was a power freak and a
psychopath. His rules that allowed for secret trials with no recourse to
rights or a defense are infamous in Russian history. Yet Bush has
reorganized your laws to allow exactly the same thing. To connect the
murders of Stalin to "leftists" is your own babble. If any blame should be
placed, it would be on the German high command who financed Lenin to return
to Russia expecting to create a civil war. Absent that action, communism
would never have taken hold in Russia, and by default in China. Change the
words Bush, Hussein, and Kazari for the words Kaiser, Czar and Lenin and
the stories are almost identical.
Z
zolota
<gah...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1160682172.9...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
So, tell me. How many death's is good? You are talking about number
that are painful to look at. Let's put this into some perspective.
We had about 1,900 fatalities from Katrina.
About 2,800 from 9/11
About 5,000 in Gettysburg. The biggest battle of the Civil War.
Since 911 the US has had 150,000 firearm related fatalities, both accidents
and deliberate. There have been 200,000 auto fatalities. Does anyone care?
Right now, there are between 100-200 bodies turning up, that we know
of, every day in Baghdad. At that rate, that is 3,000-6,000 a month or
36,000-72,000 a year. That kinda blows out the 50,000 for the total
length of the war number. We aren't being told of the total number in
the country and a lot of times, entire families are wiped out so there
isn't anyone to report the deaths either.
To put that number in perspective for all rightwingers, that is like
having a 9/11 once a month, every month for years at a time. Does that
add perspective? Do you understand why they don't like us anymore?
The calculations that were used to come up with this number is the same
mathematical study that gave the numbers in Rwanda and Congo. Why
weren't you crying about those numbers?
Also, for those who haven't understood this fact yet, a death means the
end of a life. It isn't just a number. When someone dies, someone loses
a husband, wife, child and so forth. So try, and I know that this is
hard for neocons, to understand this fact. I know, if you let this
realization take over, you may not have such war lust.
I really can't stand the rightwing neocon attitude that puts such
little value on lives of those they don't understand or in places
they'll never go.
The Real Diddy Pop wrote:
> That number is bullshit, I can't believe that you libs accept anything
> you read as fact. Every other estimate puts the number as less than
> 50,000, yet this study is 655k+? They didn't even base their study on
> any actual body counts. It's pure speculation, you morons believe
> these stupid stats time and time again. What are we talking about, an
> AVERAGE of over 15,000 kills per month? You guys need wake the fuck
> up, and find some common sense.
>
>
> BC wrote:
> > Möbius Pretzel wrote:
> > > Absolutely mortifying. Bush is a war criminal by any definition.
> > >
> > >
> > > Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> > > > Well, what do you think....does George care?
> > > >
> > > > He has the power to end it...if he really did care to.
> > > >
> > That is so bad in so many ways. Statistical extrapolation is
> > always tricky, but it is based on real science. The margin of
> > error here ranges from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths, so even
> > the low is too much. The murderous and destructive mayhem
> > over there makes accurate census-type accounting virtually
> > impossible.
> >
> > There are only three possible solutions by my count: planned
> > phaseout and let the Iraqis deal with the fate we delivered;
> > institute basically a new offensive with at least 3x the number
> > of troops we are now using, for at least a 90 day operation
> > window; or just come up with a much more intelligent battle
> > plan using existing personnel than we now have. The 2nd
> > and 3rd options will probably only work with a whole new
> > command organization in place at the upper plannning levels,
> > up to and including the people in the White House.
> >
> > I'm thinking now that impeachment isn't just for punishing
> > a liar, but now more importantly to get some people of
> > competence and intelligence in place to deal with an urgent
> > problem requiring competence and intelligence.
> >
> > -BC
Gunner
So Stalin Wasnt a Communist?
Hummm..and Ill bet you are going to claim next that Communism would
work just real nice, if only people like you were in charge. Right?
Fucktard
Gunner
Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
Gunner
>
>Since 911 the US has had 150,000 firearm related fatalities, both accidents
>and deliberate. There have been 200,000 auto fatalities. Does anyone care?
Where the fuck are you dredging up your data from? You ass?
robw
"Gunner" <gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:gtp2l2hkspd860to7...@4ax.com...
Day Brown
> So Stalin Wasnt a Communist?
>
> Hummm..and Ill bet you are going to claim next that Communism would
> work just real nice, if only people like you were in charge. Right?
*excuse* for his tyranny, just as the Jihadim use Mohammet, or Bush
wants to use the Jihadim.
It dont matter what kind of political structure you setup, these kinds
of personalities will figure out how to corrupt the process to gratify
their own egos.
Morton Davis
"Day Brown" <dayb...@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:%Og4h.81$To2....@news.sisna.com...
Comparing Bush to Stalin or Hitler is like claiming Jeffery Dahmer was the
same as Mother Theresa.
zolota
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:FXk4h.1055720$084.838400@attbi_s22...
Stalin's actions killed 10-60 million of his own people, depending on who
you talk to, over 40 years. Hitler (whom I never compared because of the
internet rule about that) could be credited with 6-20 million deaths many of
which were foriegners. Shrub is responsible for somewhere between 2,875
(admitted US military) and 700,000 (probable total) deaths in Iraq in three
years, most of them foreigners, so he is definately in a lower rate
category. Dahlmer killed what, 20 boys in five years? Mother Teresa makes no
sense in your comment, because she either killed no one or saved lives. Just
for fun, let's say that she saved a million people from an otherwise death.
On the above scale Dalmer would be closer to Ms. Teresa, and Shrub closer to
Stalin.
Z
zolota
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 08:28:46 GMT, "zolota" <zol...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>>Since 911 the US has had 150,000 firearm related fatalities, both
>>accidents
>>and deliberate. There have been 200,000 auto fatalities. Does anyone care?
>
>
> Where the fuck are you dredging up your data from? You ass?
I presume that you meant, "your ass?" No, I rely on US government statistics
for data on the US, makes more sense. and I quote:
In 2003 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were
30,136 gun deaths in the U.S:
a.. 16,907 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
b.. 11,920 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
c.. 730 unintentional shootings (2% of all U.S gun deaths),
d.. 347 from legal intervention and 232 from undetermined intent (2% of
all U.S gun deaths combined).
Multiplying 30,000 per year by five years gave 150,000 when I was in grade
school, same for you too? As for the highway fatality numbers, show us where
I was wrong. And while you are at it, tell us what you think US firearms and
highway accident fatalities have been since your 9-11. Try to do it without
swearing, too, you need the exercise in rational discussion.
Z
Gunner
Toss Democrat FDR or Democrat LBJ into the mix..and Bush gets tight
against Mother Teresa..and those two Democrats rub shoulders with
Stalin.
zolota
He was never a communist. Only your "made in the USA propaganda education"
forces you to believe that. Before Lenin he was the bully boy that the
Communists used to get results. He had grade four education, not enough to
even understand politics. But he understood power, and when Trotsky gave
hime the distastefull (to Trotsky) position of chief of the secret police
he used that as the stepping stone to power. He was a psychopath and a
fascist. That you cannot understand this says volumes about your intellect,
or actually your lack thereof. That does not surprise me, given that nothing
you say is above the level of memorized verbal diarhea.
>
> Hummm..and Ill bet you are going to claim next that Communism would
> work just real nice, if only people like you were in charge. Right?
In the Soviet Union I had many tours of industrial complexes and many
discussions with the directors. Most were, or had been, adamantly communist
in their beliefs and were either engineers or scientists. I was a western
educated specialist, which included economics. It was painfully obvious to a
trained professional that a significant failure of the communist system was
the lack of economic education given to their technical planners. Communist
theory equated financial accounting with Capitalism and so it was not taught
to technical people. The result was an inefficient system but not because of
the politics directly. Those officials hated me for saying what I did, but
many admitted that I was right.
I used to joke to them that if I had been in charge I would have made
Communism work because I would have made it efficient economically. You
sound too dense to understand the difference but it's really quite simple so
I'll try to explain. It does not matter whether the local ball bearing
factory is owned by J Paul Getty or The Peoples Department of Industry, the
management requirements are identical.
Communism often located a certain industry in a given district to enhance
local employment, but I defy you to show how that is significantly different
from lobbying to keep, say, shipyard jobs in New Conneticut, or to give tax
cuts to any industry.
During my first time living in the US I noticed that the medical system was
divided into three levels. At the top in a state or a large city there was a
top quality hospital with all the latest equipment and the best doctors and
whose patients are the very rich. Below it there were a few hospitals with
good equipment and doctors whose patients are the purchasers of insurance or
who were the employees of companies that provide medical care to their
workers. Below that were charity hospitals with outdated equipment and poor
doctors whose patients were the poor. The administration cost of the medical
insurance was up to 25% of the total cost of medical care.
At the same time we were going to socialized medical care from the previous
"US style one". The system put all patients as equal in the que while saving
massive administrative costs because administration was only about 6% of the
total cash flow. Despite this, the political dinosaurs called it "communist
medical care"
In the SU I saw a system with a regional top quality hospital with all the
latest equipment, the best doctors, and whose patients were the top party
brass. Below it there were a few hospitals with good equipment and doctors
whose patients were mid level beaurocrats or who were the employees of
companies that produced important products. Below that were low grade
hospitals with outdated equipment and poor doctors whose patients were the
general public. I saw no significant difference between hospital systems in
the USA and the one run by the Communist Party of Russia other than the
proportions of the populations served by each sector.
When I described the socialist system in the west I had FSU citizens tell me
that it was the system that they had long dreamed of, not the one based on
political or economic priveledge of the Communist party. When i told them
that the US system was identical to theirs they were not surprised, they
understood the inequalities of a system based on class structure.
Other than that, how was your day?
Z
mike...@yahoo.com
665,000??? That's too much. We need to get this war OVER with, NOW.
That's nearly twice the amount killed in the atomic bombing of Japan.
This
is too much, TOO MUCH... We have really, really screwed up here. Sorry
bushsupporters, but Bush is a horrific mass murderer.
Gunner
>>
>> Where the fuck are you dredging up your data from? You ass?
>
>I presume that you meant, "your ass?" No, I rely on US government statistics
>for data on the US, makes more sense. and I quote:
>
>In 2003 (the most recent year for which data is available), there were
>30,136 gun deaths in the U.S:
>
> a.. 16,907 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
> b.. 11,920 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
> c.. 730 unintentional shootings (2% of all U.S gun deaths),
> d.. 347 from legal intervention and 232 from undetermined intent (2% of
>all U.S gun deaths combined).
>
>Multiplying 30,000 per year by five years gave 150,000 when I was in grade
>school, same for you too? As for the highway fatality numbers, show us where
>I was wrong. And while you are at it, tell us what you think US firearms and
>highway accident fatalities have been since your 9-11. Try to do it without
>swearing, too, you need the exercise in rational discussion.
>
>Z
So you are claiming that there are no low or high years?
What swearing? The numbers..a bogus statistics trick..appear to have
been pulled out of your ass indeed. The fuck is hardly swearing..its
common discourse. Ask any Usenet Democrat.
Of those 11,920 homicides, how many were legally justifiable? Be
specific.
The 347 legal interventions..were cops shooting perps.
http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm
The best way to prevent gun deaths is to treat depression and other
mental illness, teach children not to sell or use illegal drugs, treat
drug addiction, and have police concentrate on enforcing drug laws.
However, the gun control lobby says that we should spend billions of
dollars on gun registration and gun licensing instead of using the
money to treat depression and combat drugs. Click here for some
sensible ways to prevent gun violence.
The accidental gun death rate has been falling since 1930 and US
accidental gun deaths per year were down to 824 by 1999 according to
the CDC. Note that it is extremely easy to prevent accidental gun
deaths by following Jeff Cooper's Four Rules Of Gun Safety.
You may also wish to review the study"
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
Now..where are you trying to go with this?
Gunner
>>>
>> So Stalin Wasnt a Communist?
>
>He was never a communist. Only your "made in the USA propaganda education"
Right. And the Titanic was sunk by a death ray from a flying saucer.
Gunner
>I used to joke to them that if I had been in charge I would have made
>Communism work because I would have made it efficient economically.
Thanks. You confirmed my claim.
Gunner
And another belch from a DNC programmed Useful Idiot parroting bogus
numbers.
Gunner
Republicans took a beating on Election Day because they abandoned
their conservative principles and in the end stood for nothing, Rush
Limbaugh says.
In his Wednesday broadcast, America’s top talker said that until
Republicans begin asking themselves what’s wrong with themselves they
are never going to fix their problems.
When things go wrong, Rush said, "you must look inward and ask first,
‘What did we do wrong? What could we have done better? What mistakes
did we make?”
Commenting that although Republicans lost, "Conservatism did not lose,
Republicanism lost last night. Republicanism, being a political party
first, rather than an ideological movement, is what lost last night.”
The Democrats, he said "beat something last night with nothing. They
advanced no agenda other than their usual anti-war position. They had
no contract — they really never did get specific. Their message was
one of ‘vote for us; the other guys have been in power too long.’”
Rush further admonished, "There was no dominating conservative message
that came from the [Republican] top and filtered down throughout in
this campaign.”
He added that if there was conservatism in the campaign, it was on the
Democratic side: "There were conservative Democrats running for office
in the House of Representatives and in a couple of Senate races won by
Democrats yesterday.” He cited James Webb as an example.
He also said it was conservatism that won fairly big when it was
tried, but it was Democrats who ran as conservatives and not their GOP
rivals. He added that the Democratic leadership had gone out and
recruited conservative candidates because they knew liberals could not
win running against Republicans in red states.
Rush quoted Thomas Sowell as explaining that the latest example of
election fraud is actually what the Democrats did — they nominated a
bunch of moderate and conservative candidates for the express purpose
of electing a far-left Democratic leadership.
"The Democrats could not have won the House, being liberals,” Rush
said. "Liberalism didn’t win anything yesterday; Republicanism lost.
Conservatism was nowhere to be found except on the Democratic side.”
The root of the problem, Rush said, is that "our side hungers for
ideological leadership and we’re not getting it from the top.
Conservatism was nowhere to be found in this campaign from the top.
The Democrats beat something with nothing. They didn’t have to take a
stand on anything other than their usual anti-war positions. They had
no clear agenda and they didn’t dare offer one. Liberalism will still
lose every time it’s offered.”
Republicans, Rush said, allowed themselves to be defined.
"Without elected conservative leadership from the top Republicans in
the House and Senate republicans are free to freelance and say the
hell with party unity.”
That leads, Rush said, to the emergence of RINOs — Republicans in name
only.
Republicans in Congress, Rush explained, were held captive by the
party’s leadership in the White House. They were put into a position
of having to endorse policies with which as conservatives they
disagreed.
"The Democratic Party,” Rush went on to say, "is the party of
entitlements; but the Republicans come up with this Medicare
prescription drug plan that the polls said that the public didn’t want
and was not interested in. That is not conservatism. Conservatives do
not grow the government and offer entitlements as a means of buying
votes. But that’s what the Republicans in Congress had to support in
order to stay in line with the Party from the top.
"It is silly to blame the media; it is silly to blame the Democrats;
it is silly to go out and try to find all these excuses,” Rush said.
"We have proved that we can beat them … we have proved that we can
withstand whatever we get from the drive-by media. Conservatism does
that — conservatism properly applied, proudly, eagerly, with vigor and
honesty will triumph over that nine times out of 10 in this current
political and social environment. It just wasn’t utilized in this
campaign.”
Rush also blamed the failure to embrace conservatism on Republican’s
fear of being criticized from those in the so-called establishment.
Republicans, he charged, go out of their way to avoid being
criticized, fearing they will be characterized as extremists and
kooks.
As a result conservatism gets watered down, and the GOP loses the
support of the nation’s conservative majority Rush stated.
Anything can beat nothing, Rush concluded, "and it happened
yesterday.”
Rush also said that the elections liberated him.
"I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why,"
Rush said. "I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people
who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might
say, 'Well, why have you been doing it?' Because the stakes are high.
Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a
far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the
Democrat Party and liberalism does."
Rush went on to explain that he believes his side is worthy of
victory, and that he believes it's much easier "to reform things that
are going wrong on my side from a position of strength. Now I'm
liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to
buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the
water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it."
The nation's top talker confided "I did not want to sit here and
participate, willingly, in the victory of the libs, in the victory of
the Democrat Party by sabotaging my own. But now with what has
happened yesterday and today, it is an entirely liberating thing. If
those in our party who are going to carry the day in the future --
both in Congress and the administration -- are going to choose a
different path than what most of us believe, then that's liberating. I
don't say this with any animosity about anybody, and I don't mean to
make this too personal."
Rush explained that it has not been easy for him to endorse some of
the things backed by Republicans in Congress. "There have been a bunch
of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of
there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in
here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are
supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves -- and
to have to come in here and try to do their jobs ...
xray
wrote:
>Rush Limbaugh: Why Republicans Lost
>
>Republicans took a beating on Election Day because
[snip a bunch of predictable ass-wiping]
Rumsfeld, because he is in the chain of command, has finally been kicked
to the curb for being a certifiable fuckup.
Limbaugh, because he is nothing but another longwinded citizen, can
continue his pointless babbling indefinately.
Joe
wrote:
Wonder how many votes this windbag, Coulter & O'Reily lost the Pugs?
--
The last official act of any government is the looting of the nation.
BC
Gunner wrote:
> Rush Limbaugh: Why Republicans Lost
>
> Republicans took a beating on Election Day because they abandoned
> their conservative principles and in the end stood for nothing, Rush
> Limbaugh says.
>
> In his Wednesday broadcast, America's top talker said that until
> Republicans begin asking themselves what's wrong with themselves they
> are never going to fix their problems.
>
> When things go wrong, Rush said, "you must look inward and ask first,
> 'What did we do wrong? What could we have done better? What mistakes
> did we make?"
>
> Commenting that although Republicans lost, "Conservatism did not lose,
> Republicanism lost last night. Republicanism, being a political party
> first, rather than an ideological movement, is what lost last night."
>
> The Democrats, he said "beat something last night with nothing. They
> advanced no agenda other than their usual anti-war position. They had
> one of 'vote for us; the other guys have been in power too long.'"
>....
Just the usual crybaby BS. Limbaugh inadvertently
demonstrates why the Republicans got their asses
handed to them -- in terms of group of people whose
job was to run the country responsibly, they simply
sucked at it. They were like a bunch of auto mechanics
at a huge dealershiip who would rather f*ck around,
talk about their weekend plans, make fun of their
competitors, and when they finally get around to
repairing a vehicle, they make things worse more
often than not. It just took some customers longer
than others to figure out that they really ought to
take their business elsewhere to get anything fixed
correctly.
All this talk about policy and agenda had always
been mostly BS when it comes to politics because
the everyday stuff is apolitical and depends far more
on competence than anything else -- the primary job
of Senators or a Representatives is to serve their
constituencies and be helpful and useful when needed.
A lying ass f*ckup will always be a lying ass f*ckup
first and foremost above and beyond party affiliation,
be that person an auto mechanic, doctor, or Senator.
Or President.
And the Republicans have been way too loaded with
lying-ass f*ckups for way too long and the consequences
simply and finally (finally!) caught up with them.
All is left is to give Bush and Cheney their likewise
long overdue desserts,
-BC
Morton Davis
"Joe" <j...@fake.net> wrote in message
news:t9a6l2hnf85f098vd...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 04:17:08 -0800, xray <notr...@hotmail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:44:23 GMT, Gunner <gunner...@lightspeed.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Rush Limbaugh: Why Republicans Lost
> >>
> >>Republicans took a beating on Election Day because
> >
> >[snip a bunch of predictable ass-wiping]
> >
> >Rumsfeld, because he is in the chain of command, has finally been kicked
> >to the curb for being a certifiable fuckup.
> >
> >Limbaugh, because he is nothing but another longwinded citizen, can
> >continue his pointless babbling indefinately.
>
> Wonder how many votes this windbag, Coulter & O'Reily lost the Pugs?
>
scvumbag Democrats.
Robert Sturgeon
<notr...@hotmail.invalid> wrote:
Doncha wish you could make those who don't agree with you
stop talking?
--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
Gunner
wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:44:23 GMT, Gunner <gunner...@lightspeed.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Rush Limbaugh: Why Republicans Lost
>>
>>Republicans took a beating on Election Day because
>
>[snip a bunch of predictable ass-wiping]
>
>Rumsfeld, because he is in the chain of command, has finally been kicked
>to the curb for being a certifiable fuckup.
Yes?
>
>Limbaugh, because he is nothing but another longwinded citizen, can
>continue his pointless babbling indefinately.
Yes?
Care to address anything in the article, or simply spew?
Gunner
Dan
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 09:22:12 GMT, "zolota" <zol...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >>>
> >> So Stalin Wasnt a Communist?
> >
> >He was never a communist. Only your "made in the USA propaganda
education"
>
>
> Right. And the Titanic was sunk by a death ray from a flying saucer.
No, Stalin wasn't a communist, though he was labeled (self-labeled?) a
Communist. He was a Stalinist, a dictator, and a lot of other things, but
not a communist.
Such is your grasp of history and economics...
Dan
Aaron
Gunner wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 04:17:08 -0800, xray <notr...@hotmail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 11:44:23 GMT, Gunner <gunner...@lightspeed.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Rush Limbaugh: Why Republicans Lost
> >>
> >>Republicans took a beating on Election Day because
> >
> >[snip a bunch of predictable ass-wiping]
> >
> >Rumsfeld, because he is in the chain of command, has finally been kicked
> >to the curb for being a certifiable fuckup.
>
> Yes?
> >
> >Limbaugh, because he is nothing but another longwinded citizen, can
> >continue his pointless babbling indefinately.
>
> Yes?
>
> Care to address anything in the article, or simply spew?
You're awfully stirred up today, Gunner. Is something the matter?
LOL
> Gunner
-Aaron
Gunner
>
>Just the usual crybaby BS.
How so? He rather handily stated that the Right had fucked up,
admitted it and how they did it.
Where is the crybaby BS?
Be specific.
Gunner
Gunner
>A lying ass f*ckup will always be a lying ass f*ckup
>first and foremost above and beyond party affiliation,
>be that person an auto mechanic, doctor, or Senator.
>
>Or President.
>
>And the Republicans have been way too loaded with
>lying-ass f*ckups for way too long and the consequences
>simply and finally (finally!) caught up with them.
>
>All is left is to give Bush and Cheney their likewise
>long overdue desserts,
>
>-BC
Odd..the same could be truthfuly said about both the left side of the
Congress and the last administration.
Yet I didnt see your outrage then. Is there some reason for your
ommision?
Gunner
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com
> Well, what do you think....does George care?
Do YOU really care? Really now, do you.
BC
Gunner wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2006 05:55:04 -0800, "BC" <call...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >A lying ass f*ckup will always be a lying ass f*ckup
> >first and foremost above and beyond party affiliation,
> >be that person an auto mechanic, doctor, or Senator.
> >
> >Or President.
> >
> >And the Republicans have been way too loaded with
> >lying-ass f*ckups for way too long and the consequences
> >simply and finally (finally!) caught up with them.
> >
> >All is left is to give Bush and Cheney their likewise
> >long overdue desserts,
> >
> >-BC
>
> Odd..the same could be truthfuly said about both the left side of the
> Congress and the last administration.
>
> Yet I didnt see your outrage then. Is there some reason for your
> ommision?
We're basically comparing guys who constantly doublepark
to guys who constantly DUI. One group is very annoying, the
other is utterly irresponsible and a menace.
-BC
F. George McDuffee
<notr...@hotmail.invalid> wrote:
>Rumsfeld, because he is in the chain of command, has finally been kicked
>to the curb for being a certifiable fuckup.
================
A point that no one seems to mention is his age. He turns 73 in
July
see:
http://www.globalaging.org/elderrights/us/2005/power.htm
Washington is top heavy with people in positions of power that
would have been retired anywhere else.
"Geriatocracy" brought the Soviet Union down, it brought the
Republican party down, and it may bring the Republic down.
If I am going to be an airline pilot or commercial truck driver I
must under take at least a yearly physical and undergo random
drug testing. Does anyone see a reason our public officials
should not have to do the same?
Unka' George (George McDuffee)
..............................
Only in Britain could it be thought
a defect to be "too clever by half."
The probability is that too many people
are too stupid by three-quarters.
John Major (b. 1943),
British Conservative politician, prime minister.
Quoted in: Observer (London, 7 July 1991).
Gunner
Are you claiming that serial rapist Clinton is a doubleparker?
Joe
wrote:
For the record, I call Scumbag Democrats either Dumbs or Dims. And
the Scumbag Republicans, I call Pugs.
But I have to also wonder how many votes pottie-mouthed NeoTards, like
you, cost the Pugs.
Proctologically Violated┊
I can see why Limby has to jerk himself figuratively on the air--cuz he
cain't find his shriveled un-used pecker beneath those belly folds--proly
cain't even see it in a full-length mirror.
But why-oh-why do otherwise intelligent people let this peckerhead ejaculate
right smack dab in their open-mouthed faces??
Even if he IS occasionally right (as in, correck <huyuk>), do you know how
difficult it is get semen out of your hair?
I just *hate* that....
It happens to me all the time, when I go to Deepak Chopra semenars.
Bring yer umbrella, and the large-sized kleenex.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
"Gunner" <gunner...@lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:p056l2h422cu95ep6...@4ax.com...
> Rush Limbaugh: Why Republicans Lost
>
> Republicans took a beating on Election Day because they abandoned
> their conservative principles and in the end stood for nothing, Rush
> Limbaugh says.
>
> In his Wednesday broadcast, America's top talker said that until
> Republicans begin asking themselves what's wrong with themselves they
> are never going to fix their problems.
>
> When things go wrong, Rush said, "you must look inward and ask first,
> 'What did we do wrong? What could we have done better? What mistakes
> did we make?"
>
> Commenting that although Republicans lost, "Conservatism did not lose,
> Republicanism lost last night. Republicanism, being a political party
> first, rather than an ideological movement, is what lost last night."
>
> The Democrats, he said "beat something last night with nothing. They
> advanced no agenda other than their usual anti-war position. They had
> no contract - they really never did get specific. Their message was
> one of 'vote for us; the other guys have been in power too long.'"
>
> Rush further admonished, "There was no dominating conservative message
> that came from the [Republican] top and filtered down throughout in
> this campaign."
>
>
> He added that if there was conservatism in the campaign, it was on the
> Democratic side: "There were conservative Democrats running for office
> in the House of Representatives and in a couple of Senate races won by
> Democrats yesterday." He cited James Webb as an example.
>
> He also said it was conservatism that won fairly big when it was
> tried, but it was Democrats who ran as conservatives and not their GOP
> rivals. He added that the Democratic leadership had gone out and
> recruited conservative candidates because they knew liberals could not
> win running against Republicans in red states.
>
> Rush quoted Thomas Sowell as explaining that the latest example of
> election fraud is actually what the Democrats did - they nominated a
> bunch of moderate and conservative candidates for the express purpose
> of electing a far-left Democratic leadership.
>
> "The Democrats could not have won the House, being liberals," Rush
> said. "Liberalism didn't win anything yesterday; Republicanism lost.
> Conservatism was nowhere to be found except on the Democratic side."
>
> The root of the problem, Rush said, is that "our side hungers for
> ideological leadership and we're not getting it from the top.
> Conservatism was nowhere to be found in this campaign from the top.
> The Democrats beat something with nothing. They didn't have to take a
> stand on anything other than their usual anti-war positions. They had
> no clear agenda and they didn't dare offer one. Liberalism will still
> lose every time it's offered."
>
> Republicans, Rush said, allowed themselves to be defined.
> "Without elected conservative leadership from the top Republicans in
> the House and Senate republicans are free to freelance and say the
> hell with party unity."
>
> That leads, Rush said, to the emergence of RINOs - Republicans in name
> only.
>
> Republicans in Congress, Rush explained, were held captive by the
> party's leadership in the White House. They were put into a position
> of having to endorse policies with which as conservatives they
> disagreed.
>
> "The Democratic Party," Rush went on to say, "is the party of
> entitlements; but the Republicans come up with this Medicare
> prescription drug plan that the polls said that the public didn't want
> and was not interested in. That is not conservatism. Conservatives do
> not grow the government and offer entitlements as a means of buying
> votes. But that's what the Republicans in Congress had to support in
> order to stay in line with the Party from the top.
>
> "It is silly to blame the media; it is silly to blame the Democrats;
> it is silly to go out and try to find all these excuses," Rush said.
> "We have proved that we can beat them . we have proved that we can
> withstand whatever we get from the drive-by media. Conservatism does
> that - conservatism properly applied, proudly, eagerly, with vigor and