Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dude if he was a Republican you would be all excited, here is a guy that can pull himself up by his bootstraps and make something of himself in spite of life's obstacles thrown his way. Take that you evil libbies!!
The number of dead may mean nothing to you, but I am thinking they probably mean something to the Iraqis...you know, those people we want to Liberate and play in the garden of Freedom with so bad. I don't see a whole lot of other people counting. It is acknowledging the basic value and dignity of human life even if it is not American.
And the report said how many lives have we saved and made better since your so called invasion. Ask the Iraqi people, they are happy we are there.
Ask a solider, they can tell you first hand.
Dude if he was a Republican you would be all excited, here is a guy that can pull himself up by his bootstraps and make something of himself in spite of life's obstacles thrown his way. Take that you evil libbies!!
The number of dead may mean nothing to you, but I am thinking they probably mean something to the Iraqis...you know, those people we want to Liberate and play in the garden of Freedom with so bad. I don't see a whole lot of other people counting. It is acknowledging the basic value and dignity of human life even if it is not American.
Nobody's saying that the number of Iraqis that died is irrelevant. The issue is how he got that number and the fact that he CLEARLY has his own agenda being an avid supporter of the far-left. His number has little proof and can be easily manipulated.
If Bush said he created a task force to quantify the number of Iraqis that died and they came up with 1,000 would you consider it accurate or legitimate??
[quote=theroc5156;2505960]Nobody's saying that the number of Iraqis that died is irrelevant.
Actually Florida Bound just did back in post 8.
The issue is how he got that number and the fact that he CLEARLY has his own agenda being an avid supporter of the far-left. His number has little proof and can be easily manipulated.
He had nothing to do with getting the number. It is pretty clear from the article that the Lancet Team did the actual research to come up with
655, 000. Lancet is one of the most respected global medical journals. The same article states another respected medical journal, The New England Journal of Medicine, came up with 151,000.
So there are some discrepancies there - although the studies have a wide margin of error. It may be impossible to ever find out the actual truth, perhaps it is somewhere in between.
To my knowledge these are the only serious studies conducted to date.
If Bush said he created a task force to quantify the number of Iraqis that died and they came up with 1,000 would you consider it accurate or legitimate??[/QUOTE]
I would respect Bush if he made the effort, however it is in his interests to minimize this news, isn't it.
I would certainly see who actually conducted the study and how it was conducted before leaping to any preconceived notions.
Nobody's saying that the number of Iraqis that died is irrelevant. The issue is how he got that number and the fact that he CLEARLY has his own agenda being an avid supporter of the far-left. His number has little proof and can be easily manipulated.
If Bush said he created a task force to quantify the number of Iraqis that died and they came up with 1,000 would you consider it accurate or legitimate??
The Lancet study was quite open about their methodology. Cluster sampling is the same way we have calculated civillian deaths in many conflicts in the recent past.
Claiming George Soros funded part of the study does not change the methodology.
Further, if Bush created a task force and came up with 1,000, it would be considered illegitimate becasue we KNOW, from news reports alone, that the number is false. If he had a task force calculate the death total, which was open and upfront about their methodology, then I would examine that to determine its relevance.
But the fact that the US government makes no attempt to track civillian deaths says something, doesn't it? It's kind of hard to understand how successful we are at minimizing civillian casualties, when we refuse to collect the data that would allow us to track our progress.
And the report said how many lives have we saved and made better since your so called invasion. Ask the Iraqi people, they are happy we are there.
Ask a solider, they can tell you first hand.
Didnt Saddam gas 200k people ??? uhmmmm
The majority of the Iraqi people think attacks on US soldiers are justified. The majority want us out of their country.
You might want to research these beliefs of yours a little bit more...
Some estimates are twice as high as the 650,000 figure. Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll conducted August 12-19, 2007 estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths due to the Iraq War.
The reason Soros financed a legitimate study is because President Bush pulled the figure of 30,000 out of the air, which was patently ridiculous, since there are virtually no studies that turned up figures that low for even one year of the war, which has now been going on longer than WWI or WWII. But the Bush figure was widely disseminated by the news media, which had little interest in publishing an accurate figure. In the Soros-funded Lancet study, a copy of a death certificate was available to support 92% of the reported deaths.
The Lancet is a highly respected, reputable British medical journal, equivalent to the New England Journal of Medicint or the Journal of the American Medical Association. Everything they publish meets rigid peer review, and they have plenty of experience in evaluating sources related to mortality and morbidity, which is their specialty.
It should be noted that that 650,000 figure does not even take into account the number of Iraqis who died as a direct result of continuous US bombing raids over Iraq during the ten years prior to the 2003 invasion, nor to the huge but unknowable number (probably millions) who died as a result of bad water, poor sanitation, and non-existent medical facilities that resulted from the American sanctions against Iraq during the same period. Overall in the past 20 years American action in Iraq has certainly killed well over a million Iraqis, probably several million. There is no way to guess now many more Iraqis will die in the next decades and centuries as a result of the litter of radioactdive depleted unranium from spent US weaponry on the Iraq battlefield. It is not surprising that media is too ashamed of American action to reference the magnitude of what has been done.
And the report said how many lives have we saved and made better since your so called invasion. Ask the Iraqi people, they are happy we are there.
Ask a solider, they can tell you first hand.
And the report said how many lives have we saved and made better since your so called invasion. Ask the Iraqi people, they are happy we are there.
Ask a solider, they can tell you first hand.
The Lancet study was quite open about their methodology. Cluster sampling is the same way we have calculated civillian deaths in many conflicts in the recent past.
Claiming George Soros funded part of the study does not change the methodology.
Could very well have changed the outcome, though.That and what's stopping them from SAYING they used one methodology to enhance their legitimacy but actually used another??
Further, if Bush created a task force and came up with 1,000, it would be considered illegitimate becasue we KNOW, from news reports alone, that the number is false. If he had a task force calculate the death total, which was open and upfront about their methodology, then I would examine that to determine its relevance.
How do we know the news reports are accurate? I mean, the New York Times has many examples of inaccuracies. Don't you think newspapers tend to over-indulge the facts to sell their product? I agree about your point regarding the need to inform people of the methodology used though.
But the fact that the US government makes no attempt to track civillian deaths says something, doesn't it? It's kind of hard to understand how successful we are at minimizing civillian casualties, when we refuse to collect the data that would allow us to track our progress.
Good point and I agree that not tracking them speaks volumes. Whether the actual number is 1 million or 1 thousand, it's an ugly and tragic stat to report.
I know I'm probably being a bit too jaded as any statistic spouted from any source can be total bull. It's just important to see where the sources of these statistics and studies come from and taken with a grain of salt. The only thing I will say is that Soros is vehemently anti-Bush and if his study ended up showing that civilian deaths have been qute low, I highly doubt he would publish his results. Same can be said for the flip side too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.