Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Published on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
Pentagon Challenge: Ask Iraqis How Many Have Died
The U.S. military is planning a large polling operation in Iraq over
the next three years to help "build robust and positive relations with
the people of Iraq and to assist the Iraqi people in forming a new
government," Walter
Pincus reports in the Washington Post.
This provides an excellent opportunity to revisit an important question:
How many Iraqis have died since the U.S. invasion?
The $15 million-a-year initiative will supplement the military's $100 million-a-year strategic communications operation, which aims to produce content for Iraqi media that will "engage and inspire" the population, Pincus notes.
The size and scope of the program "will provide an extraordinary amount of data," said a former government official. Another former official noted that $15 million is far more than the State Department allocates annually for its polling activities worldwide.
Pincus notes that the larger Pentagon project of which this polling is a part has been controversial in Congress. In particular, Senator Webb has asked for suspension of the new Army contracts to produce print, radio and television news stories as well as entertainment programs in Iraq.
While I support Senator Webb's very reasonable proposal, I would also like to suggest a different approach to the proposed polling project.
Use it.
In particular, I think Congress should require the Pentagon to ask Iraqis the following questions:
Not only should Congress require the Pentagon to ask these questions, but Congress should require the Pentagon to use the data so gathered to create estimates of Iraqi deaths since 2003, and of how many of those deaths were due to violence. And Congress should require that those numbers be reported to Congress.
When the "Lancet study" (that is, the Johns Hopkins study) estimated two years ago that 600,000 Iraqis had died, President Bush dismissed the study as "not credible," without offering his own estimate, or explaining why that estimate was "not credible."
Much ink has been spilled since then in the dispute over estimates of Iraqi casualties (relatively little, however, of that ink has been spilled in our corporate media in the United States.)
Just Foreign Policy publishes an extrapolation of the Lancet study, using the trend which can be inferred from the Iraq Body Count tally. If the Lancet study estimate was roughly correct, and if Iraq Body Count gives a roughly accurate trend, that would suggest more than a million deaths due to violence in Iraq since March 2003, over and above what would have occurred had there been no U.S. invasion.
Now, the Bush Administration has the opportunity to set the record straight. The Pentagon is, apparently, going to be polling Iraqis anyway, so there would be no additional cost. And if the Pentagon is going to be polling Iraqis on a regular basis, then the question could be repeated, so as to arrive at a more accurate estimate.
I double dare the Pentagon to ask Iraqis this question. If the Pentagon is brave, it will agree.
Of course, it could well be that, facing the prospect of being required to come up with its own estimate of Iraqi deaths, the Pentagon would lose interest in polling Iraqis. So be it. But if the Pentagon is going to poll Iraqis, then this simple question should be among the questions that they ask.
This provides an excellent opportunity to revisit an important question:
How many Iraqis have died since the U.S. invasion?
The $15 million-a-year initiative will supplement the military's $100 million-a-year strategic communications operation, which aims to produce content for Iraqi media that will "engage and inspire" the population, Pincus notes.
The size and scope of the program "will provide an extraordinary amount of data," said a former government official. Another former official noted that $15 million is far more than the State Department allocates annually for its polling activities worldwide.
Pincus notes that the larger Pentagon project of which this polling is a part has been controversial in Congress. In particular, Senator Webb has asked for suspension of the new Army contracts to produce print, radio and television news stories as well as entertainment programs in Iraq.
While I support Senator Webb's very reasonable proposal, I would also like to suggest a different approach to the proposed polling project.
Use it.
In particular, I think Congress should require the Pentagon to ask Iraqis the following questions:
"How many members of your household have died since March, 2003? How many members of your household have died since March, 2003 due to violence?"Inclusion of these questions would allow the U.S. government to estimate how many Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion.
Not only should Congress require the Pentagon to ask these questions, but Congress should require the Pentagon to use the data so gathered to create estimates of Iraqi deaths since 2003, and of how many of those deaths were due to violence. And Congress should require that those numbers be reported to Congress.
When the "Lancet study" (that is, the Johns Hopkins study) estimated two years ago that 600,000 Iraqis had died, President Bush dismissed the study as "not credible," without offering his own estimate, or explaining why that estimate was "not credible."
Much ink has been spilled since then in the dispute over estimates of Iraqi casualties (relatively little, however, of that ink has been spilled in our corporate media in the United States.)
Just Foreign Policy publishes an extrapolation of the Lancet study, using the trend which can be inferred from the Iraq Body Count tally. If the Lancet study estimate was roughly correct, and if Iraq Body Count gives a roughly accurate trend, that would suggest more than a million deaths due to violence in Iraq since March 2003, over and above what would have occurred had there been no U.S. invasion.
Now, the Bush Administration has the opportunity to set the record straight. The Pentagon is, apparently, going to be polling Iraqis anyway, so there would be no additional cost. And if the Pentagon is going to be polling Iraqis on a regular basis, then the question could be repeated, so as to arrive at a more accurate estimate.
I double dare the Pentagon to ask Iraqis this question. If the Pentagon is brave, it will agree.
Of course, it could well be that, facing the prospect of being required to come up with its own estimate of Iraqi deaths, the Pentagon would lose interest in polling Iraqis. So be it. But if the Pentagon is going to poll Iraqis, then this simple question should be among the questions that they ask.
98 Comments so far
Show AllJakenewton
I see you have fallen into the same trap that I did, trying to have an intelligent debate with someone who has a modicum of intelligence. A "friend" referred me to this site on April first, said it was a great site with many intelligent people discussing world and national events, was I fooled on that one. To be honest there are a few here that you can have an decent debate with and exchange ideas, they cite examples and don't use wikapedia very often, the vast majority on the other hand are in a galaxy far, far away.
http://www.fumento.com/military/lancet2008.html
"That the new World Health Organization-Iraqi government study of war-related Iraq deaths reached wildly different conclusions from two much-hyped reports in the British medical journal the Lancet is no surprise to anyone who has followed the issue. But the new study highlights the fanaticism of the Lancet and its defenders and illustrates yet again the bias of mainstream media coverage of the Iraq war."
"Then there's the U.N-conducted Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004 (ILCS). Using a dataset significantly larger than that of either of the Lancet studies – 22,000 households versus 988 for Lancet 2004 and 1,849 for Lancet 2006 – it found 24,000 war-related deaths from the opening of the war until May 2004. That's only the first 14 months of conflict compared with 18 in Lancet 2004, but it does stretch the imagination that in those ensuing four months the numbers of deaths somehow quadrupled."
There, I have cited a source and posted some of it's findings, You will soon see the moon-bats coming out of the wood work and will be putting words in my mouth and saying the site I posted is a neo-con front, despite the fact printed in an article in England's Sunday Times (Jan. 2008) definitively proves George Soros funded the lancet study.
"New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.
"The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research," said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London. "
"I see you have fallen into the same trap that I did, trying to have an intelligent debate with someone who has a modicum of intelligence."
Did you know that I am "paid by The Neocons? :-) I'm in no trap, I know what I am doing.
My position here is pretty far from extreme by any standard: Treat all of the studies with skepticism, don't take the Lancet numbers as fact without question. What could be wrong with that? I'll grant you that when I suggest goulish wishful thinking that the highest numbers might be correct, I may be going too far, but why else do otherwise intelligent people suspend all critical thinking powers?
Thanks for your response and the link, that essay seems pretty sensible.
Jakenewton believes that asking the gravediggers about the number of bodies that they had seen in 2002 compared to the ones that they had encountered since the U.S. illegally invaded and occupied is somehow a "horrible way to try and validate the Lancet study." Why it would be horrible to seek out the opinions of those who have been in direct contact with those bodies who had been dead both before the war and now is a mystery to me. Mr. Jakenewton remains puzzled as to where the death certificates have come from in the Lancet study despite that fact that I and Les Roberts had already written that Roberts' team had, again, gone into 50 neighborhoods, where they had knocked on 40 doors and when people said that someone died, they came back, in 92 per cent of the time, with a death certificate. As I attempted to state before, apparently to no avail, they came to the conclusion that comparing the death rate for that 14 months before the invasion, with the 40 months after, that the death rate is about four times higher. Again, the cluster survey that was conducted in Iraq is THE standard of measuring mortality in very poor countries where the government is not very functional or during times of war.
To borrow from one of your phrases, if you read the comments very slowly and very carefully you might pay attention to the fact that this methodology, despite your claim, has been done in a very professional and sound manner, no matter how many times that you seem to attempt to mimic Rush Limbaugh and/or Fox "News" in order to sully the credibility of Les Roberts and his team. As I stated before, unless are an epidemiologist and/or that you have traveled to Iraq to have done your own [alleged] scientific findings, I will place my trust in what Les Roberts and his group have done in order to obtain a rough estimate of how many Iraqis have died since the United States had unjustly, illegally and immorally invaded their country.
There was a Pentagon study done under Clinton that estimated the number of civilian casualties that would likely be lost during a ground invasion of Bagdhad to oust Saddam. The number was unacceptably high to Clinton so slick willy backed down on the plan. It was 10,000 minimum if everything went perfectly.
So, after Shock and Awe, I was already assuming 10,000 dead civilians. But things did not go so well. The bombings continued and still continue 5 fricking years later! Then add in Fallujah and surrounding cities. Add in the cut off hospitals and supplies and more...
The numbers have to be way more than IBC. At least a factor of ten would be a good guess. Then add to it the Lancet study and you have corroborating evidence that a whole fricking shitload of Iraqis died for America's addiction to oil and the Holy Land.
Not a good scenario any way you look at it. Let's pray the God of Israel doesn't like justice for anyone except us.
"There was a Pentagon study done under Clinton that estimated the number of civilian casualties that would likely be lost during a ground invasion of Bagdhad to oust Saddam."
To be clear, this was an estimate *before* the fact, and assumes major hostilities. As you describe it.
"So, after Shock and Awe, I was already assuming 10,000 dead civilians."
I would agree that the so called Shock and Awe phase might be similar to the invasion study you described.
"The bombings continued and still continue 5 fricking years later! Then add in Fallujah and surrounding cities."
There is absolutely no evidence that any of the hostilities approached anywhere near the level of Fullujah or Shock and Awe period.
"The numbers have to be way more than IBC."
I would agree that the range they provide would be a minimum, and since IBC is very open that they use a very conservative counting method of actual deaths, it stands to reason that it would be the minimum. Fine.
"At least a factor of ten would be a good guess. "
Well as long as we can just guess, why not go for twenty, fifty, or a hundred? Jeesh.
"Not a good scenario any way you look at it. "
I think everyone agrees with this.
"Why it would be horrible to seek out the opinions of those who have been in direct contact with those bodies who had been dead both before the war and now "
Because the Lancet study deals with data, not opinion. To actually survey gravediggers in a meaningful way, you need to apply a valid methodology.
"Mr. Jakenewton remains puzzled as to where the death certificates have come from in the Lancet study despite that fact that I and Les Roberts had already written that Roberts' team had, again, gone into 50 neighborhoods, where they had knocked on 40 doors and when people said that someone died, they came back, in 92 per cent of the time, with a death certificate."
And what you missed, even though I already stated it, is the number of death certificates extrapolated over the entire country would then come to 11 times the number actually issued. Please read this sentence again so that it is clear.
"Again, the cluster survey that was conducted in Iraq is THE standard of measuring mortality "
And I repeat, stating that you use a certain methodology is quite a different thing than demonstrating that the methodology was correctly implemented. Please read this sentence again so that it is clear.
"the fact that this methodology, despite your claim, has been done in a very professional and sound manner,"
As long as you completely ignore the well known criticisms of this study that cast doubt as to whether the methodology was correctly implemented, then you might be able to make that statement.
"unless are an epidemiologist and/or that you have traveled to Iraq to have done your own [alleged] scientific findings, I will place my trust in what Les Roberts and his group "
Translation: "I accept, without question, the results of a study that better support my agenda over other studies."
"Somewhere down the thread a stooge for Bush/Cheney tries his patheitic best to confuse the issue,"
Please explain why it confuses the issue or makes one a stooge by pointing out that people on these boards regularly accept the Lancet numbers without question.
Because tireless arguments questioning the statistical certainty levels of a study draw attention away from the important analysis of the "ball park" results of the study. Muddying the waters of debate is a propaganda technique used by evil-doers all over the globe.
The precise magnitude of this case doesn't matter. If America spilled the blood of 500,000 Iraqi children or 1,000,000 Iraqi children, the result is clearly the same! The world will condemn our genocide for oil and terror will get a huge boost.
So, thanks for helping al Qaida, Mr. Newton. Keep up the good work.
This is utter nonsense. The difference is around a factor of ten. The numbers do matter, the article we are responding to makes the case. The sad fact is that posters here accept the one with the bigger number as truth because it is seen to "help" their case more, and you know it.
Why do you claim others' analyses are "utter nonsense" when supposedly this is exactly the problem you care so much about: jumping to absolute conclusions.
The factors of ten you cite are easily explained by the scope of the different surveys. IBC for example limits its dead civilian body count to actual bodies brought to morgues and then reported in newspapers. During a civil war, these statistics are very irregular.
Also, since the US began its occupation of Iraq, "the news" has a Pentagon twist to it. The Pentagon calls it black propaganda. Do not trust the news that is sanctioned by the puppets in power in Iraq.
You know that much, too.
Myconscience
I think your points are well taken. As Les Roberts states in this interview on Democracy Now!, what critics of the Johns Hopkins Study should do is speak to a gravedigger and ask him how many bodies he remembers seeing in July of 2002 and compare it to those bodies that he is now seeing during the U.S. occupation and see if his figure, along with other gravediggers across that country, correspond to the figures that were roughly stated in the Johns Hopkins Study. That, it would seem, would be one of the best ways to determine if the Lancet study is erroneous or not. As I [and you] attempted to explain in my other comments, and as Les Roberts does also here, the methodology that they used was quite sound especially considering that the same methods were also used in other conflicts with no protests being lodged which said that those numbers were incorrect. Jakenewton keeps insisting that the Lancet's study is supposed to be erroneous but yet seems to place much faith in other groups that have come up with much lower mortality figures than that of the Lancet study. He also believes that too many commenters here are placing too much faith in the Johns Hopkins Study while choosing to ignore that the study co-authored by Les Roberts has received almost no recognition in the mainstream media while deferring to the much lower figures complied by the Iraq Body Count which conveniently turns out to be those favored by the Bush administration [such as in 2006 when Bush claimed, with a straight face, that the number of Iraqis unjustifiably killed by the United States was about 35,000 people]. To use a legal term, I believe that the statements spoken by Les Roberts in this interview speak for themselves.
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/10/12/co_author_of_medical_study_estimating
" what critics of the Johns Hopkins Study should do is speak to a gravedigger and ask him how many bodies he remembers seeing in July of 2002 and compare it to those bodies that he is now seeing during the U.S. occupation "
Actually that would be a horrible way to try to validate the Lancet study. What kind of "methodology" is that? Maybe instaed someone ought to directly address the points made by the critics, such aas where all the death certificates came from, rather than rely on hyperbolic red herring suggestions such as the above.
"Jakenewton keeps insisting that the Lancet's study is supposed to be erroneous"
Actually, I *never* said this.
" but yet seems to place much faith in other groups that have come up with much lower mortality figures than that of the Lancet study."
And I also said several times that *those* studies should be treated with skepticism. I wish you would try to pay closer attention.
"Why do you claim others' analyses are "utter nonsense" "
I used the term "utter nonsense" *only* to refer to your "analysis" that "The precise magnitude of this case doesn't matter.".
"The factors of ten you cite are easily explained by the scope of the different surveys. "
Not really. Were there really 1.2 million deaths, there remain the issues of how Lancet can claim by extrapolation that there were that many death certificates issued when the issuing agencies report less than a tenth of that. Also there are the issue of where all those bodies are, as well as about 3.6 million expected wounded Iraqis who haven't sought medical attention.
When the road to the hospital is blocked or patrolled by armed enemies, when the hospital has been blown up, when there is no safe place to seek treatment, where do you go? Of course the millions of injured Iraqis can't go to get a medical check up.
This is absurb. What if the Vietnamese body count only considered dead bodies or injuries that were treated in hospitals that reported everything to propaganda news sources. You call us absurd and nonsensical?
You seem to disbelieve every credible account, well-documented by history, that the conditions of war zones are hell for civilians. Clearly you are a prowar propagandist.
History stands against you jake newton. Humanity is your nemesis, not the liberals.
"Of course the millions of injured Iraqis can't go to get a medical check up."
There is no evidence that there are over three million injured Iraqis walking around having no treatment.
"History stands against you jake newton. Humanity is your nemesis, not the liberals."
I have no idea what broad vague point you are trying to make here. My point is very specific, regarding whether the Lancet results should be accepted without question. Maybe you can tell me why you don't question it.
Pathetic! Go post your meaningless "objections" on NewsBusters with the other stooges for Bush/Cheney.
It isn't enough that we killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We also have to have pathetic stooges pretending to be...
What?
Human?
Go crawl back in the sewer with your Republican friends and the rest of the stooges for torture and genocide.
Maybe you can find an audience for your sick jokes about dead Iraqi children at a McCain rally.
They're all just "gooks" to you.
Jacob Freeze
"Pathetic! "
Please explain why it confuses the issue or makes one a stooge by pointing out that people on these boards regularly accept the Lancet numbers without question.
"It isn't enough that we killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. "
Please go back and look at the title of this article. It is the number of Iraqis killed, whether by US troops or by the independent actions of Iraqis or other foreigners, that is the subject under discussion that you refuse to discuss. Instead you use pathetic ad hominems while ignoring the argument.
Approaching seventy posts, and no one is yet able to explain why the Lancet numbers are accepted without question as fact.
"Maybe you can find an audience for your sick jokes about dead Iraqi children "
What the hell are you talking about, "jokes"? Pay attention to the discussion you are trying to participate in or don't post.
How totally LAME and hypocritical for you to criticize others for doing exactly what you do every posting:
___ you avoid the gist of the discussion, and plow into some obscure corner
___ you never deign to consider the big picture issues,
___ so happy to digress to easily argured irrelevancy
But nonetheLESS, you continue to post vacuous innuendo.
¿ Guess what, it's not for you to determine what is relevant, because the world doesn't revolve around your distorted illusions?
Namaste
"you avoid the gist of the discussion,"
Go back to the title of the article. The gist of the discussion is how many Iraqis died.
"you never deign to consider the big picture issues,"
I think the goulish wishful thinking on the part of those who accept the Lancet study without question *is* a big picture issue.
Somewhere down the thread a stooge for Bush/Cheney tries his patheitic best to confuse the issue, just like stooges for the oil companies always appear to confuse the issue of global warming.
The American genocide in Iraq has already been discussed sufficiently, just like global warming has already been sufficiently discussed.
Now it's time to do something.
The genocidal Occupation must end, and officials who collaborated with the concommitant crimes against humanity should be tried and punished.
It isn't worth discussing ludicrous counter-arguments any further.
"Maybe all the missing chioldren in Iraq aren't dead. They're just hiding under the bed!"
At a certain point, all the counter-arguments are just a sick joke, and it's time to round up the guilty parties and let a higher power deal with the infinitesmisal doubt that may remain.
As Judge Roy Bean used to say...
"Hang 'em all, and let God sort out the guilty from the innocent."
Jacob Freeze
__ J A K E __ ( w/o a fig -- leaf )
What's really GHOULISH is someone sycophantingly
___ denying the dead Iraqi's significant existence ( however many )
___ trivializing their egregious suffering and OUR responsibilities
___ implicitly condoning and justifying mass murder of "OTHERS"
Your point of focus exposes your veiled agenda to be an agent of the hideous coverup of the consequences of a failed stance of warmongering, imperialistic world domination, and illegal gov't actions.
Namaste
"denying the dead Iraqi's significant existence ( however many )"
Never denied any such thing.
"trivializing their egregious suffering and OUR responsibilities"
Never trivialized any such thing.
"implicitly condoning and justifying mass murder of "OTHERS""
Never condoned or justified any such thing.
Just a freindly reminder to you: I only asked whether those accepting the Lancet data without any question were expressing a goulish wishful thinking. That you would extract the above accusations from that is quite fantastic on your part. Focus.
Sure, sure { BIG SURPRISE }, Ya cannot deal with the TRUTH nor respond authentically ?
___ never explicitly said shit, and are either
___ implicitly are a fool or shill
¿ WHat else is logical purpose of your VERY TARGETED postings, inquiring minds want to know why you do consistently bother about well proven and acknowledged neoCON horrors of mass murder and suffering ?
¿ So if the Lancet study were in error by 50%, does that make the deaths any less wicked ?
You have the perspective of a dung beetle on a Mountain of shit, so I guess that's all you CAN SEE.
How sad, your God given powers of objective thinking are subservient to defending an illegal pathocratic abomination of historic proportions, which makes your thinking just a so INcredible and DIShonorable.
Namaste
"nor respond authentically "
What is this supposed to mean?
"never explicitly said shit"
That's right, in asking my original question, I am not declaring anything. The question remains, why do you accept the Lancet numbers without question?
"WHat else is logical purpose of your VERY TARGETED postings,"
How many times do I have to tell you, the motivations of an arguer have nothing to do with the argument? When are you ever going to learn this?
"So if the Lancet study were in error by 50%, does that make the deaths any less wicked "
Of couse not. It just means they are 50% more or less numerous. You are distracted again.
"your God given powers of objective thinking"
*blush*
"defending an illegal pathocratic abomination"
Simply asking why a study is accepted without question doesn't defend anything. Focus.
Jakenewton
What you seem to be overlooking is that the mainstream media rarely if ever puts into, to use your word, focus the Lancet study in their newspapers and television programs. What you are also overlooking is that the methodology used the the Johns Hopkins study headed by Les Roberts has been acknowledged by those in the field as being quite reliable, which is the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. Bush and other administration officials have claimed, on the very few occasions when they are asked, that the number of Iraqis who have died, to be about 45,000. Any rational person should realize right away how absurd that figure is since, as Les Roberts has pointed out in the past, "there have to to be at least 120,000 and probably 140,00 deaths per year from natural causes in a country with the population of Iraq. The numerous stories that are told about overflowing morgues, the need for new cemeteries and new body collection brigades are not consistent with a 10 per cent rise in death rate above the baseline." Unless you happen to have a degree in epidemiology, then I will defer to Les Roberts and the study which he co-authored which came up with the number of Iraqis murdered [yes, murdered] since the United States illegally and immorally invaded their country since March of 2003.
"What you seem to be overlooking is that the mainstream media rarely if ever puts into, to use your word, focus the Lancet study in their newspapers and television programs."
Thank you for your response. While I do see reference to the study in the mainstream media, you and I may agree that they perhaps should bring that into the discussion more than they do, including it's various drawbacks, and compare the same to other studies.
"What you are also overlooking is that the methodology used the the Johns Hopkins study headed by Les Roberts has been acknowledged by those in the field as being quite reliable, "
I am well aware that they claim to use a reliable methodology, but saying that is quite different than actually implementing the methodology. There remain many unanswered questions surrounding this and other aspects of the study. This is perhaps also true of the "competing" studies. *All* of the studies should be subject to skepticism and scrutiny.
Jakenewton
"...but saying that is quite different than implementing the methodology." Are you always in the habit of making such bald assertions? Where is your proof that they did not carry out the necessary procedures? It is curious that this study was also done in the Congo a few years back and yet no one at the time claimed that the numbers that they had come with were somehow fraudulent. Again, the study done by the Johns Hopkins University epidemiologists of 1,850 households discovered that 600,000 dead by violence in the first 40 months of the war which was also extensively peer reviewed.
The Iraqi Ministry of Health [MoH] also found a sizable figure of death-400,000 "excess deaths" [the number above the pre-war death rate], but estimated 151,000 killed by violence. The MoH report showed a flat rate for killing throughout the war when every other account shows sharp increases through 2005 and 2006. This is most likely due to the fact that people responding to interviews from the government would not want to admit that their loved ones died by violence. Instead, there were reports that very large numbers of dead by road accidents and "unintentional injuries." In February 2008 the National Journal, like yourself, also accused the Lancet study of fraud without offering a shred of proof to back up their assertions. The National Journal and others noted that death certificates were not collected from all the families that it interviewed while ignoring the fact that 80 % of the households [which is quite credible during a time of war] did indeed give the survey team death certificates that they had requested from the Iraqi households.
Certainly more investigation of Iraqi deaths should be done which the Johns Hopkins Study group would welcome. But this most assuredly is not being done by the American mainstream media who [along with others] find it easier to smear this reputable study instead of wondering why more investigation has not been done to find out how many Iraqis have died since their country was illegally and unjustly invaded by the American military.
"Are you always in the habit of making such bald assertions? Where is your proof that they did not carry out the necessary procedures?"
Are you not up to speed regarding the various criticisms? I'd suggest the Wikipedia article, just as a starting point. Your mention of death certificates, as an example, the Lancet study suggests that they saw over 11 times the actual death certificates issued. As for proof that someone did not do something, i.e., proving a negative, please don't ask me to do that which is impossible.
Your criticism of how the Johns Hopkins Study obtained death certificates is entirely unwarranted. What this group of epidemiologists did was to go into 50 neighborhoods in Iraq where they knocked on 40 doors in each area and when people said that someone died, they came back, in 92 per cent of the time, with a death certificate. Afterwords, they compared the death rate for the 14 months before the invasion, with the death rate 40 months after, with the result that the death rate is about four times higher. Again, the cluster survey that was conducted in Iraq is THE standard of measuring mortality in very poor countries where the government is not very functional or in times of war. This is also how UNICEF measures mortality in any developing country.
It should also be pointed out that during the conflict in Bosnia, the government statistics added up to only one-fifth, if even that, of the true death total. As Les Roberts has observed, during "Saddam Hussein's last year, only about one-third of all deaths were captured at morgues and hospitals through the official government surveillance network."
As I had stated in a previous comment, unless you have recently come back from Iraq conducting a scientific survey in many different neighborhoods, I have grave doubts that your condemnation of the Johns Hopkins Study deserves any merit.
"Your criticism of how the Johns Hopkins Study obtained death certificates is entirely unwarranted. What this group of epidemiologists did was to go into 50 neighborhoods in Iraq where they knocked on 40 doors in each area and when people said that someone died, they came back, in 92 per cent of the time, with a death certificate."
I didn't dispute any of this. The problem is that if the data is extrapolated over the entire country, there were 11 times as many death certificates issued than are on record as having actually been issued. Now why would that be? You would know of this discrepancy if you were up to date with the issues surrounding the Lancet study, of which this is just one.
"unless you have recently come back from Iraq conducting a scientific survey in many different neighborhoods, I have grave doubts that your condemnation of the Johns Hopkins Study deserves any merit."
Now that's just silly. You disqualify just about everyone in the world to levy criticism because they haven't actually done the canvassing work similar to what was done to gather the data? Wise up.
Jakenewton
Your penultimate sentence managed to disingenuously avoid what I had written earlier which, again, is that "the cluster survey that was conducted in Iraq is THE standard of measuring mortality in very poor countries where the government is not very functional or in times of war." That quote is actually taken from an interview Les Roberts had given on television a couple of years back and which demonstrates that, despite your claim, "just about everyone in the world" or at least those in the scientific community, do not disagree with the very credible findings conducted by the Johns Hopkins Study. To use your less than elegant and quite tired cliche, I have certainly wised up to the fact that Bush's claim in 2006 that about 35,000 Iraqis had died since their country was illegally invaded in March of 2003 is both, like your argument, absurd and obtuse.
"Your penultimate sentence managed to disingenuously avoid what I had written earlier which, again, is that "the cluster survey that was conducted in Iraq is THE standard of measuring mortality in very poor countries where the government is not very functional or in times of war." "
The problem, as I stated already, is whether that methodology was implemented correctly, and that is part of the well known criticisms of Lancet. That along with the fact that no one ever issued 1.2 bajillion death certificates.
""just about everyone in the world" or at least those in the scientific community, do not disagree with the very credible findings conducted by the Johns Hopkins Study."
Is that really so? Has a single one of them addressed any or all of the well known criticisms of Lancet as you refuse to do? I'd love to see it. BTW, there is no such thing as a homogenous unit called "the scientific community".
kickapooviking
Intelligently and persuasively well written.
So here we are quibbling over the numbers. Fact is, Iraqis continue to be murdered by U.S. troops. The very "troops" we are asked to unequivically support, are kicking down doors without warrants, strafing neighborhoods with deadly drones and choppers, building walls between neighborhoods. All the U.S. military knows is to kill, kill, kill! How would any one of us, of YOU, like to endure occupation of your city, your neighborhood, for years on end, with no exit date allowed? We Americans are the thugs of the planet. Shame on each of us for allowing this monstrous and cruel foreign policy to rain down carnage on the suffering beautiful people of Iraq and Afghanistan...
"Iraqis continue to be murdered by U.S. troops. "
You seem to conveniently forget that the numbers include the deaths due to fighting between rival insurgent groups.
Your use of the term "murdered" wouldn't be the least bit politically inflamatory, would it? Would you not complain if I used the term in a discussion on abortion?
So please do explain how many of those dead, would have been killed "due to fighting between rival insurgent groups",
__ IF we hadn't invaded in the 1st place ?
__ IF there were no SIGNIFICANT numbers of or financing of "rival insurgent groups"
Your logic is so flawed that it has no reality basis.
We're talking the differences of some low comparable number of "regular murders" in a otherwise peaceful country, and one purposely torn apart and violated egregiously beyond understanding -- committing EXPLICITLY & IMPLICITLY hundreds of thousands ( likely or more ) mass murdered.
Namaste
"So please do explain how many of those dead, would have been killed "due to fighting between rival insurgent groups", "
"__ IF we hadn't invaded in the 1st place ?"
Full bore Non Sequitur. The the invasion and the current occupation don't compell rival groups to kill each other and those caught between.
"Your logic is so flawed "
See above, *concerning* your logic.
It's your attempt at argument that links death from rival groups as not being part of the impacts of the war in Iraq.
So where's your causality and proof -- your Non Sequitur is showing
Namaste
"It's your attempt at argument that links death from rival groups as not being part of the impacts of the war in Iraq."
The US is not responsible for those deaths, I am sorry if that was not clear to you.
Yeh, I'll agree that you're "very sorry" and "not clear".
You're about as transparent as a turd
Namaste
Since you don't take issue with me saying that the US isn't responsible for the results of violence by rival factions, does it mean you agree with me?
… in a jake's eye …
Namaste
Jakenewton claims that "... the U.S. isn't responsible for the results of violence by rival factions..." That claim is patently untrue as it is the inflammatory U.S. presence in Iraq that is the primary cause for so much of the violence in that country as well as causing the deaths of so many innocent Iraqis since the United States illegally invaded their country in March of 2003.
"That claim is patently untrue as it is the inflammatory U.S. presence in Iraq that is the primary cause "
Please explain how the U.S. presence in Iraq could even possibly be a cause of fighting between rival groups in Iraq. That you would apparently just let these groups off the hook for their violent actions is a disgrace.
.OMG...Until Sadaam Hussein was overthrown there was no wholesale violence in Iraq as we see these last six years, there was no AlQaeda presence there either. How on earth can you hold such an untenable position, and with a straight face too?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"Until Sadaam Hussein was overthrown there was no wholesale violence in Iraq as we see these last six years,"
Really? Some estimates of his regime killing 350,000, and although there is no way of telling, there were mass graves discovered. Meanwhile, I don't think there have been any such graves found for a million plus killings that the Lancet study suggests that have happened more recently.
"How on earth can you hold such an untenable position, "
I don't think you understand my position. I'll state it clearly: The Lancet study results should not be taken as fact wiithout question. Got it now? The same applies to other studies. Got it? How could you or anyone else OTOH not agree with this position?
.Get used to it, Jake. People are going to disagree with you, failing as they do to note your eminent qualifications as all knowing seer.
Iraq had very bad leadership before we invaded. But they had a certain stability and they were a bastion against so-called Islamofascism. The tortures and murders of the Hussein regime were an internal problem, the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation based upon lies and distortions is a world wide problem.
The studies done by Johns Hopkins or any other organistaion concerning the numbers of deaths caused directly by our traitorous and incompentent President are subject ,as is all science, to peer review. So far that review is positive in the case of the JH study.
I fail to see how you can offhandedly swear to the number killed by the Ba'athists while negating the numbers murdered by us? What profits you taking this position?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"Get used to it, Jake."
Thanks for your response. I've been here a while and know exactly what I am doing.
"your eminent qualifications as all knowing seer.'
Hardly, it's called Critical Thinking. Don't accept everything without question. Don't suspend it when something seems to support your position.
"But they had a certain stability"
I hear the trains ran on time.
"The tortures and murders of the Hussein regime were an internal problem, the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation based upon lies and distortions is a world wide problem."
That's a reasonable view but has little to do with the ongoing discussion.
"subject ,as is all science, to peer review."
All peer review means is that there is some merit for publication. It is not endorsement, or duplication of results, and the peers are anonymous.
"So far that review is positive in the case of the JH study."
There is an ongoing and reasonable discussion about certain problems with the study.
"I fail to see how you can offhandedly swear to the number killed by the Ba'athists while negating the numbers murdered by us?"
I have taken no position on the number killed by anyone, and that you would use the term "murdered" for all the violent deaths that have occured projects your prejudice and agenda upon this discussion. "Murder", like all words, has meaning.
"What profits you taking this position?"
Self improvement. I am serious.
Because we have been proven to be
___ supplying weapons
___ to both ( all factions ) sides.
¿ Do you ever bother to actually look into the facts, or is your agenda just to deny things contrary to your neoCON views ?
Namaste
"Because we have been proven to be
___ supplying weapons
___ to both ( all factions ) sides."
Are you going to provide one iota of evidence for this?
1 i-o-t-a
Namaste
"The the invasion and the current occupation don't compell rival groups to kill each other and those caught between."
Negroponte.
"Negroponte."
Gesundheit.
Is imitation still the most sincere form of flattery?
Jakenewton sez: "You seem to conveniently forget that the numbers include the deaths due to fighting between rival insurgent groups."
Negroponte.
You *still* seem to conveniently forget that the numbers include the deaths due to fighting between rival insurgent groups.
Is it an expression of goulish wishful thinking that the Lancet numbers are accepted without question here?
Jakenewton
Do you believe that the American government's numbers should be accepted without question? Bush has claimed that the Lancet's numbers of Iraqis who have been killed since the Iraqi invasion are "not credible" yet would not or could not state the reasons why he believed that this is so. Since the US's lies have given them zero credibility I submit that it is the United States's [tarnished] reputation that is seriously in doubt.
"Do you believe that the American government's numbers should be accepted without question?"
Of course not. They aren't endeavoring to count them anyway.
"Bush has claimed that the Lancet's numbers of Iraqis who have been killed since the Iraqi invasion are "not credible" yet would not or could not state the reasons why he believed that this is so."
Bush is not the only one who questions the Lancet numbers, and there are quite a few good reasons given that they have been questioned. You must know that already, don't you?
So you think that it might be more like 1 million, rather than 1.2 million..oh , thank gawd!! I thought we had a genocide for a minute there!
"So you think that it might be more like 1 million, rather than 1.2 million.."
I don't "endorse" any particular study, but I wouls point out to you that the Lancet study result is a full order of magnitude above most others. I would hardly call pointing out that difference a "quibble".
The pseudonym "jake newton" says...
"I would point out to you that the Lancet study result is a full order of magnitude above most others."
This is a lie.
The only other large-scale research survey of casualties in Iraq was carried out by ORB, and their estimate of the number of Iraqi deaths under the American Occupation was even higher than the Johns Hopkins survey.
http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78
Jacob Freeze
"The only other large-scale research survey of casualties in Iraq was carried out by ORB, "
This is a *lie*. You ignore IBC and the New England Journal of Medicine surveys. These should also be treated with skepticism as should the ORB study. The kicker with the ORB study is that the characterize the over one million deaths as "murders", which couldn't possibly indicate a political agenda now could it?
"jake newton" probably knows that the IBC, the Iraq Body Count, is not a large-scale survey like the ORB and Johns Hopkins studies. The IBC merely adds up bodies reported in the newspapers, and other semi-official sources.
The Iraq Family Health Survey, which is probably what "jake newton" means by the "New England Journal of Medicine" study, was not comparable to the ORB and Johns Hopkins studies for the simple reason that it systematically avoided all deaths other than those the immediate family reported as due to violence.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0707782
The title of the study makes this clear enough: Violence-Related Mortality in Iraq from 2002 to 2006
For example, children dying from water-borne diseases caused by the catastrophic collapse of the Iraqi water purification system were not reported by the IFHS.
What this means is that the continuing elevated child mortality in Iraq, which began with the genocidal British-American sanctions and blockade of essential supplies, was simply ignored by the IFHS.
This "source of mortality" was estimated by UNICEF at 5000 children per month during the whole ten years in which the sanctions were enforced, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that mortality was diminished by the American invasion which destroyed most of the infrastructure of Iraq, including hospitals, and the American Occupation, which always had an excuse for failing to supply hospitals with even the most primitive supplies.
No band-aids. No sterilizers. No antiseptics. No clean water.
Nothing.
The "neautral assumption" in this case is that mortality continued at the same rate as before, since there is no evidence of countervailing factors. The only difference was that UNICEF monitors were barred from collecting evidence by the US Occupation, after the fall of Saddam.
Over the five-year period of the IFHS study, this factor alone would account for an additional 300,000 deaths.
All of them children.
But apologists for genocide like "jake newton" don't care about the reality of the situation in Iraq.
If they can muddy the waters long enough for McCain to make a miraculous come-back and win the election, the real purpose of their bullshit posts on the blogs will be accomplished.
Jacob Freeze
""jake newton" probably knows that the IBC, the Iraq Body Count, is not a large-scale survey like the ORB and Johns Hopkins studies. The IBC merely adds up bodies reported in the newspapers, and other semi-official sources."
Depends on how you define "survey". Yes, it's not a houshold survey. Yes, it's large scale as it is on-going and encompasses the entire country.
"The Iraq Family Health Survey, which is probably what "jake newton" means by the "New England Journal of Medicine" study, was not comparable to the ORB and Johns Hopkins studies for the simple reason that it systematically avoided all deaths other than those the immediate family reported as due to violence."
Yes I'm aware it's the same study,and that's only one difference, and worthy of discussion. I have already said we should be critical of all the studies. But what I notice is that you don't seem to want to discuss any of the areas of the Lancet study that have been criticized.
"But apologists for genocide like "jake newton" "
Please explain why me asking why you accept the Lancet numbers without question makes me an apologist for anything, and while you are at it, please explain why you want to accept the Lancet numbers without question. Thank you in advance.
Suck-ups for Bush/Cheney like "jake newton" are so predictable that it isn't even worth waiting for their posts to reply.
"Let's discuss some meaningless detail until everybody loses interest."
"The US isn't responsible for health-related deaths just because they wrecked all the hospitals and water purification plants and refused to let anyone else repair them."
But I've replied enough already to the liar and propagandist for Bush/Cheney "jake newton," and it's just part of his game to waste time with meaningless objections until everybody loses interest.
Jacob Freeze
"Let's discuss some meaningless detail until everybody loses interest."
Pointing out that you are all uncritical of the Lancet study is "meaningless"? Why?
"I've replied enough already to the liar "
What is your very best example of a "lie" I have told on this forum?
This is all you've got, Jake? One survey of Iraqi deaths may be high? That's a real vindication for our warmonger-in-chief and his puppet government.
"This is all you've got, Jake? One survey of Iraqi deaths may be high?"
You seem to miss the point. The question for the group is why you accept the Lancet numbers without question. Posing that question does not mean I am trying to vindicate anyone.
Jake
Science, and the Lancet Survey was done scientifically, does not accept any "truth" without question. We even question Einstein's math and theories. Newton's Law of Gravitation is not absolute; it is a theory, but I would go jump off a bridge.
Perhaps the Lancet study is not as certain a science as classical physics, but it is about as certain a study as exists today. Therefore, with all of its flaws, it is the best we have and the results are pretty damned alarming, wouldn't you agree? Look in your heart of hearts Jake and answer me, "Are 100,000 or 1,000,000 Iraqi children worth the oil revenues and political jockeying in the region?"
But there comes a time when nominal validity flaws of studies become pointless and action becomes a necessity. You know this deep down but you have an agenda. You get a boner over pissing progressives off, don't you?
"Science, and the Lancet Survey was done scientifically, does not accept any "truth" without question."
It's true that the journal is peer reviewed, as is the New England Journal of Medicine that published a study showing 1/10 less deaths. But that is not the same as endorsing the findings or duplicating the results in either. There are plenty of articles that appear in peer reviewed journals that turn out to be hockum.
"Look in your heart of hearts Jake and answer me, "Are 100,000 or 1,000,000 Iraqi children worth the oil revenues and political jockeying in the region?" "
That is a valid question, but I don't think it's the primary question raised by the article. The issue raised is what the number really is. If one death is a tragedy, then 10 is a tragedy x 10 and 1,000,000 a tragedy x 1,000,000. The number *does* matter.
"You get a boner over pissing progressives off, don't you?"
Where people repeat untruths, or make arguments that lack cogency, I am motivated to call them on it. In the current case, no one can explain why the Lancet study is accepted in this forum as fact without question, even given the well publicized criticisms.
Consider also that Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator, a ruthless punisher, who killed any man or groups of men that tried to stop his agenda for a progressive/secular Iraq. Nonetheless, Saddam mostly killed men. Adult men who were soldiers plotting against his government.
An even worse Iraqi dictator, arguably heartless, is George W Bush. Bush has killed between 700,000 and a 1,000,000 women and children in Iraq. We have no idea how many Iraqi soldiers and "warriors" (proxy al qaida terrrusts) have died?
With 100% media vaccuum on Iraq who could possibly know. Iraq reminds me of Israel. Few pictures of dead Palestinian women and children make it out of the Holy land and so it is with Iraqi freedom these days.
I have met returned Iraqi vets who acknowledged killing civilians who "looked suspicious". Better safe than sorry was their excuse. Hey, if you don't speak their language, you shoot first, no questions to ask.
1.200.000 plus is the figure murdered so far. Even if the U.S. military pulls out of Iraq today completely, millions more will be dying in years to come due to the depleted uranium used on them intentionally.
Hey, what is 1.2 million people and over 4,000 Americans? Never mind the 4 milliion Iraqis that are living in detention or refugee camps.
Henry Kissinger would tell you, "That ain´t nothin! We killed over 3 Million of those Vietnamese and we gave up over 57,000 American lives to do it...
What, you mean to tell me that Henry could have cared less about people being killed? I guess since we have had no studies of how many Americans have died since Viet Nam from diseases they contracted from contact with "Agent Orange".....My guess would be hundreds of thousands.
But, that ain´t nothin to those that died from "Agent Pink". Yes, there were more chemicals tested and you can only get that information from Viet Nam. The Department of Defense has had a long standing policy of destroying evidence that implicates them in any wrongdoing. (Try the Pat Tillmon Case or Reports that Female soldiers were committing suicide when they were really raped and murdered. Yup, DOD really supports the troops.)
Until Americans get angry, there will be no changes. As long as we are killing people over there, Americans could care less.
I don't know what Caused the American government and it's people to hate Iraq so much. Maybe the Iraqi presence in the Middle East as a viable threat to Israel. One that would show Israel for what it really is. I know and have known a number of Iraqis having lived in Iraq for three years in better times. They're certainly intelligent and once was highly educated during Sadams time. The people of that sad country have been systematically attacked and exploited by the USA for decades. In doing so millions of Iraqis have died, been maimed for life and displaced from their homes and families. From the backing of Sadams regime to the encouragement of the war between Iraq and Iran which killed off millions of young men. To the swingeing sanctions for 12 long years and the murder of half a million children, that the Albright woman thought was a price worth paying. To the deaths from cancer brought about by DU weapons and now this latest war which has seen the deaths of well over a million Iraqis. Of course this is not the first American genocide there are many more, from its own indigenous Indians to Vietnam, South American countries. Life only matters if Americans are losing theirs and their losses are nothing in comparison to what they have wreaked on the world. There is onlt one way that the US people will see the point of their meddling in the world. That is for them to see their own children dismembered on the streets swimming with blood in the USA. Only then will they see just what their actions have caused to the rest of the world and only then they might just consider trying to share the world in peace and not by domination, bombs and misery.
AMERICAN GENOCIDE IN IRAQ
There's a headline for you!
But somehow that headline never appears in the American media.
THE IRAQI HOLOCAUST
Another excellent headline, but you'll never see it on the front page of the New York Times, much less in any honky red-state rag or TV news.
For some reason Mr. Naiman doesn't mention the ORB survey of casualties in Iraq, which was just as well-designed as the Johns Hopkins survey, and produced even more disgusting estimates of Iraqi deaths under the American Occupation.
THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION HAS KILLED 1,200,000 IRAQIS
It's easy to write a really excellent headline, if you pay a minimal amount of attention to the truth.
And now back to the top news in the American media...
Apparently one of the two Senators who both voted to fund THE IRAQI HOLOCAUST every chance they got...
Apparently one of the two Senators who both voted to fund AMERICAN GENOCIDE IN IRAQ every chance they got...
Apparently one of those bums is currently more popular in the polls than the other bum...
And compared to winning an election...
Neither of those bums could possibly care less about...
THE IRAQI HOLOCAUST
or...
AMERICAN GENOCIDE IN IRAQ.
Jacob Freeze
This is crazy. This is horrible: we are responsible for the deaths of nearly (perhaps more than) one MILLION people. Human Beings. We call them Iraqis. Some of them suffered under a dictatorship, but our troops finished off (or facilitated the deaths of) a million in about 5 years. I don't think the enormity of this has really sunk into people. We protest the war, but we don't think about it too much. We have never experienced a war; it's just something to protest against. I can't even comprehend how many people a million are... how many communities does that make, how many families does that devastate,
I remember a co-worker commenting early in the Iraq War on two consecutive days, 1) "We ought to turn the who country into a piece of glass", referring to using U.S. nuclear weapons against the civilian population, and 2) "I have a solution -- Kill their mothers". These came from an individual who likes to wear the fact that he is (reportedly) a second-generation Armenian who makes much of the genocide against Armenians.
Many polls of great historic value could be taken, except for the moral emptiness of the U.S. population. For example, imagine a national poll of Americans --
1) Why did you remain silent during the run up to the attack on and invasion of Iraq?
2) Why did you remain silent during the initial attack on and invasion of Iraq?
3) Why did you remain silent during the disclosures of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?
4) Why did you remain silent during the massacre of Iraqis and the rape of Iraqi children by U.S. personnel?
Add your own questions for the poll, which probably will only be administered at the gates of hell, given the moral bankruptcy of the U.S. people.
David Brookbank -- "Hasta donde debemos practicar las verdades?"
We were not silent.
You were not close enough to hear us.
The television only told you if we were violent.
The newspapers under-reported our numbers - on a small column on the bottom of page 27.
We were protesting.
Where were you?
I would hope that all would be approving of higher taxes, to pay reparations to the peopel of Iraq/Afghan., and to take careof our wounded troops.
Good idea. Too bad it won't happen if McCain is elected.
It wont happen no matter who gets elected! The Pentagon is NOT "brave".
How many civilians died in Vietnam? Who knows? How many died in Korea? Japan Hiroshima/Nagasaki?
Most people, sadly, would rather not know. I guess we all woudl rather not--but we should. And we should face it.
Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com [For FREE downloads of ENTIRE book]
"One 9/11 Every 11 Hours, Around the Clock, 24 Hours a Day:"
Neither the Bush administration nor the Iraqi government has counted the number of Iraqi deaths caused by the Bush regime’s illegal and immoral war on Iraq.
The cited Lancet survey estimated, through July 2006 (a period of 40 months), that 655,000 Iraqis had died as a consequence of the Iraq war. The estimate range was 943,000 at the high end and 393,000 at the low end.
Let’s try to put this horrific human toll in context by comparing it with the slaughter on 9/11, as well as the Virginia Tech massacre:
1. The 655,000 Iraqi deaths is an average of 16,375 deaths per month during the 40-month post-invasion study period (March 2003 to July 2006).
2. This means that Iraq suffered about 218 9/11 equivalents during the first 40 months of war—an average of more than five 9/11 equivalents each month.
3. On a per capita basis, Iraq suffered, on average, the equivalent of 65 9/11s per month—or one 9/11 every 11 hours, around the clock, 24 hours a day. (Iraq’s population is about 1/12th that of the United States.)
4. Iraq suffered, on average, the equivalent of 496 Virginia Tech massacres per month—or one Virginia Tech massacre every 90 minutes.
5. On a per capita basis, Iraq suffered, on average, the equivalent of 5,952 Virginia Tech massacres per month—or one Virginia Tech massacre every 7 minutes and 30 seconds, around the clock, 24 hours a day.
And some Bush/GOP supporters still ask, “Why do they hate us.”
The peer-reviewed survey, which was conducted by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and published in The Lancet medical journal in October 2006, concluded that 91% of the 655,000 deaths “were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.”
The study compared Iraqi mortality rates before and after the March 2003 invasion in 47 randomly chosen areas across Iraq, and it is the most thorough scientific survey to date.
Surveyed family members produced death certificates in more than 90% of the cases.
The foregoing is excerpted from my new book, "The Bush League of Nations: The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed – the GOP’s War on Iraq and America," by James A. Swanson (2008, published by CreateSpace Publishing, 448 pages). www.bushleagueofnations.com
See in particular Chapter 4, “The Unjust War in Iraq—Christianity is Bombing in Iraq.”
As a gift to American patriots everywhere, I now offer unlimited FREE downloads of "The Bush League of Nations" at www.bushleagueofnations.com. If you are so inclined, please spread the good news.
I ask for nothing in return, except that you consider using my book as a resource to help kick out America's worst president and worst political party ever.
Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com
Justices Clear Way for Execution in Georgia of Troy Davis
Justices Cleared Way for Executions in Iraq by One Vote!
And remember this is just the death toll from the Bush phase of the Iraq war.
Many estimte at least 750,000 died in the earlier Clinton phase of dliberate bombing of vital water and sewer infrastructure, and economic blockade.
What has gone unmentioned in this otherwise excellent article is that the best way to prevent more unnecessary Iraqi deaths is for American soldiers to choose not to fight in this most immoral and unjust war. The GI movement [as the searing documentary Sir! No Sir! demonstrated] helped to bring about the end of the Vietnam War and it could contribute to ending the Iraqi occupation. One of the best way to end a war is to have it happen from within.
I saw that--it was great. Everybody ought to see it. Also , the OLDER versions of "Winter Soldier"
The number that gets the most play in the corporate media is 4000+ American soldiers killed in Iraq. However, this number does not include American soldiers wounded in Iraq and then dying from their injuries in other locations. It also does not include contractors and others, i.e. journalists. So the number of Americans killed in much higher.
Still a small number compared to the number of local civilians killed. Why does the media ignore the civilian casualties? Because if the average dumbfuck in this country had any idea of the horror and destruction that we are raining on that country, well a protest or two might break out. People might actually demand that their representatives in congress stop funding this criminal occupation.
Question for anyone who owns war-profit stock: how can you sleep at night?
Question for the presidential and VP candidates: which one of you will be the first to acknowledge, and then apologize for, the incredibly high number of Iraqi war dead, particularly in light of the fact that the war was intentionally started, based on lies?
I would like to think that ordinary USAns ever cared about Iraqi, Afghan, or Serbian deaths, or Panamanian, Hatian, Granadian, Nicraguan, Salvadoran, or Chilean, Argentinian, Brazilian or Colombian deaths; Congolian, South African, or Angolan deaths; or Vietnamee, Combodian or Laotian; Indonesian, Timorese, or Phillipino deaths, and I almost forgot - Palestinian. Perhaps more than 10 million in all.
But, after all these years of death in these places comitted by the US or it's fully-supported friends, I doubt they really care, unless the victims are white, US-english-speaking, middle class suburban people just like them - or they are victims of offcially-designated "bad guys".
Oh, how I long for president of the sort William Blum wrote about:
If I were the president, I could stop terrorist
attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first
apologize -- very publicly and very sincerely -- to all the widows and
orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of
other victims of American imperialism.
Then I would announce that America's global military interventions have come to an end. I would then inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the union but -- oddly enough -- a foreign country.
Then I would reduce the military budget by at least 90 percent and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims and repair the damage from the many American bombings, invasions and sanctions. There would be enough money. One year of our military budget is equal to more than $20,000 per hour* for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's one year. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House.
On the fourth day, I'd probably be assassinated.
*It's closer to $35,000 now.
If Walter Pincus's news report in the WaPo is correct, obviously nobody in the Pentagon believes the US military presence in Iraq will be ended within 16 months of George W. Bush's departure from the White House (Barack Obama's time deadline).
Why else would the US military psy-ops boys be planning, and seeking to cement funding, to do three years' worth of opinion polling among Iraqis concerning man-in-the-street preceptions of how the occupation is going? If the $15 million is just for polling feedback, what's the other $100 million for?
Yes, asking the Iraqis who are being polled about casualty rates in their households would be a useful statistic to gather, although the most reliable data base for compiling such statistics would be among the millions of Iraqis who can't be opinion polled because they've fled the country since the 2003 US invasion.
While we're at it, why not also ask those polled how many folks in your household have taken part in anti-American insurgency acts of violence, or in acts of sectarian violence, during the same time frame?
Better still, let's ask our grassroots sample of Iraqis the big one that the Bushies always take for granted - "Thanks to the US invasion, in your opinion is the world, the Middle East, Iraq, your neighborhood, or your family better off today than it was six years ago when Saddam Hussein was in power?"
Slice and dice up the responses to that last question according to demographic variables and there would be lots of food for thought all around.
Bill from Saginaw