I’m reserving judgement about whether it was “right” to go into Iraq until after we hear more about this Downing Street memo thing.

If Iraq wasn’t really a threat, than whether or not it was right to me would depend on the net amount of lives that were saved. Seeing as there are more Iraqis, let alone Americans, dying every week in Iraq than there ever would be if Saddam were still in power, I would need some proof that there was some kind of threat grave enough to warrant it.

Seeing as there are more Iraqis, let alone Americans, dying every week in Iraq than there ever would be if Saddam were still in power,

Prove that statement with facts that don’t come from radical left-wing websites.

What was that average Saddam had managed? A million deaths in a twenty-year span (three wars, plus the hundreds of thousands of “political prisoners” in mass graves)?

That’s almost 150 per day - EVERY day - for twenty years, and that proves Resro can’t do math. How many more mass graves will we find, Resro (each of which will increase that average)?

Or did the DUh not bother to give you that data?

I’ve got you covered, JimK!

If you think those momos are worth the paper they’re written on, then they PROVE that the UK govenment believed that Iraq had WMD.

According to the Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world, and certainly NOT some left wing propaganda rag, but a SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, the total number of deaths that have resulted over the last two years has been about 100,000. That’s when you add up not only those that have been killed by guns and bombs but by lack of medical access due to destroyed hospitals, lack of access to resources due to destroyed infrastructure, etc.

That’s a rate of of about 50,000 deaths per year. Extend that over twenty years, and that adds up to a million deaths.

Oh, and I just looked at that Lancet report again, and that figure of one hundred thousand was exclusively civilian deaths. That’s not even counting Coalition or Iraqi soldiers.

The report also says that the mortality rate in Iraq has jumped from 5% annually under Saddam Hussein, to 7.9% annually since the invasion.

On top of that, the researchers didn’t even include all the deaths in Fallujah, which would certainly push the estimate far higher.

So it’s a guess and not a body count?

Yeah.

Does it factor in everyone who would have died naturally?  Does it bother to subtract the number of excess deaths caused by Saddam’s actions?  Does it factor in the number of deaths caused by terrorism?  Or does it just automatically dump every death in Iraq at the feet of George W. Bush?

When you get some evidence, let me know.  Until then you’re repeating moonbat talking points, dude.

Oh, and scientific journals and groups can in fact be left wing propaganda rags.  I don’t suggest the Lancet is, I wouldn’t know, but to pretend that the AMA, for example, is anything but an arm of the DNC is ridiculous.

Fox Mulder said it best: Trust No One.

Actually, I was incorrect when I said that it was based largely on loss of infrastructure. The study actually found that most of the deaths were in fact due to coalition air strikes and infantry operations.

Whose infantry? No car bombs were included, I’ll bet, despite those acts being commited by Muyslims against Muslims (or are there many Coalition soldiers outsides that girl’s elementary school?)

The report also says that the mortality rate in Iraq has jumped from 5% annually under Saddam Hussein, to 7.9% annually since the invasion.

How many were just “disappeared”? How many whole families were slaughtered (for the “crime” of not cheering loudly enough or of protesting the abduction and rape of an only daughter)), such that there was no one left to report the deaths or complain about the evil being done? And would you actually believe the numbers collected and collated by the UN?

These weren’t collected and collated by the UN. Why did you assume that? The information was based on how many people were known to have died under Saddam Hussein’s policies. His executions and kidnappings were part of those calculations.

And no, it didn’t include car bombs, because the goal was to calculate deaths that were a result of the invasion. They didn’t count acts of domestic terrorism. The 100,000 were those killed by Coalition activities and coalition activities alone.

The 100,000 were those killed by Coalition activities and coalition activities alone.

You are cordially invited to prove that.

If you can.

If not, we’ll just quietly laugh and go on with the mission, because allegations without evidence are also known as “lies”.

Look buddy, I didn’t write the report. All I know is that some of the world’s most respected medical investigators put together these statistics and found that since the invasion, the coalition has killed 100,000 people. And since I’m not a republican, I tend to take the word of respected medical professionals.

Look buddy, I didn’t write the report.

Let’s make this simple - so simple even YOU can understand. Produce the report.

All I know is that some of the world’s most respected medical investigators put together these statistics and found that since the invasion, the coalition has killed 100,000 people.

Tell us who these “world’s most respected medical investigators” are, so that we can judge their qualifications.

Do you understand now, retro? You actually have to PROVE shit that isn’t self-explanatory or hasn’t already been proven.

You are not the first to talk about “100,000 civilians”. That kind of nonsense was first promulgated by a group who styled themselves as “Iraq Body Count”, with their own website.

But ACPOTI (Anyone Can Post On The Internet), and simply putting it on a web page does not make it true (like the DU page - linked to from John Kerry’s official election home page - that blamed last December’s tsunami on Bush and Rove, and even this latest string of earthquakes, too, as was reported on my own site)

So you actually have to provide evidence to prove things. Links to the original documentation and methodology are most helpful, but you have yet to provide a single link to prove anything you have claimed. That is required, especially when saying things that are either controversial or disputed.

So hop to it, retro. You are being told that no one believes you. Here is your chance to prove them wrong.

And since I’m not a republican, I tend to take the word of respected medical professionals.

And since I’m not a democrat, I tend to not betray my nation.

(Gee, this is fun! Your turn.)

I know Jim doesn’t like links on his blogs, so just put the words “Lancet” and “Iraq” into google and you’ll find 119,000 links to the report, from the BBC to to the Washington Post. You’ll find links both for and against the report too.

And since I too am not a Democrat, I don’t take it up the ass from republicans.

And since I too am not a Democrat, I don’t take it up the ass from republicans.

If you are an American who subscribes to one of those microscopic parties, you do, you just don’t want to admit it. And if you aren’t an American, since I AM, I get to point and laugh at you, because your attempts at insult are paltry compared to the nuclear weapon insult of “you aren’t an American. ‘Nuff said.”

I know Jim doesn’t like links on his blogs

Now I KNOW you’re lying. Why do you think there is a specific button to add hyperlinks to comments?

Dumbass. Put up or shut up time, liar.

Resro, learn to use the fucking link buttons I provide, which come with goddamned instructions for the love of fuck.  Do not make me start treating you as though you were *stupid*.  Saying I “don’t like links” is a dumbfuck thing to say when the proof that you are wrong is on EVERY comment page.

My not taking your, or anyone’s word, without EVIDENCE…

See that word?

EVIDENCE…

...has nothing to do with my party affiliation, which apparently you don’t even know to begin with.  It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that I DON’T TRUST PARTISAN HACKS, and just because they have a medical title doesn’t automatically mean they’re immune to partisanship.

I don’t do bling allegiance without some basis in logic or fact.  I don’t even default to “trust but verify.” I default, in ALL media stories now, to “distrust, verify, then make a decision.”

Let me ask you a question, and I want you to be as honest as you possibly can, even if it;s only to yourself and you lie to me.

If I was to present you with a study that proved the 100,000 number was severely inflated, would you believe it?

Sorry Jim. I thought I saw something you said on moorewatch about no links or something.

Here is a BBC article on the report.

Here is a link to a Washington Post article on the report.

And as to whether you can provide evidence that the report is flawed: I already know it is flawed. All reports on the civilian death toll in Iraq is flawed. I cite this particular one as most reliable, precisely because it doesn’t rely on body counts. All the other estimates are based on a tally of the dead bodies found (which will always be an underestimate) or the number of deaths reported (ditto). Since the coalition doesn’t keep track of civilian deaths, it is up to journalists and other investigators to gather that information and there are many places in Iraq where they have no access.

There are plenty of flaws with the Lancet report. It doesn’t take migration into account, and it relies on surveys which are at the mercy of people’s memories and committment to honesty, but since it is the only study to encompass a representative sample of the Iraq population (despite what some people say about it being concentrated in the most violent areas, it actually discounted its findings from Falluja, because they seemed disproportionately high) it is the only estimate that comes anywhere near the real total.

Here’s what Iraq Body Count bases its numbers on:

Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not “possible” or even “probable” deaths.

They don’t even make an effort to calculate how many people died before making it to a hospital, or how many bodies never ended up in a morgue. They don’t even speculate how many deaths may have gone unreported to “appropriate witnesses” whoever they may be.

They also count local violence and “insurgents” killing civilians. They ALSO count any insurgents killed as “civilians” because there is no way to distinguish them from the innocent bystander (which is what “civilian” should mean in a combat situation.

But they are by no means innocent.

So there is a difference between 100,000 combat deaths and 100,000 civilian deaths when reporting same to a hostile media.

I saw one of their earlier reports that listed the cause of one of the deaths they were blaming on the Coalition as “heart attack”. The victim was in his late 60s, and he died many miles from any fighting. Incidents such as a car bombing at a mosque (Muslims killing Muslims) that was blamed on the Coalition.

And if you are trying to claim that we are just out randomly killing civilians, explain why we didn’t just level Fallujah? Why did we allow civilians to exit first? Why are there so many incidents like this that prove you wrong?

You never answered Jim’s question:  If I was to present you with a study that proved the 100,000 number was severly inflated, would you believe it?

And if you are trying to claim that we are just out randomly killing civilians, explain why we didn’t just level Fallujah?

I’m not trying to claim that. When US officials say that this is the most precise and careful targetting ever conducted by a military, I believe it. I also believe that they are taking hte utmost care in avoiding civilian casualties. That being said, I also believe that despite those measures, more people are dying now than under Saddam Hussein.

And as I said before. I know the report is flawed. It’s very possible that the numbers are inflated. I don’t doubt that in the least. However, I’ve already shown that since body counts and official reports could never accurately taly all the actual deaths that have occured, all other reports are severely deflated. So my question to you is, would you accept that there are very likely more deaths than those counted in any other report?

That being said, I also believe that despite those measures, more people are dying now than under Saddam Hussein.

What kind of math are you using where “less than 100,000, even by the most inflated of standards” is somehow greater than “many hundreds of thousands found in mass graves, with some estimates higher than a million”?

Or where there are - for the first time in decades - there are more people dying of natural causes than because of being in custody of the Baathists?

So my question to you is, would you accept that there are very likely more deaths than those counted in any other report?

No, because those numbers are ALREADY inflated, and there is no possible way you can convince me that there are more than nine deaths that went unreported for every one of those already-inflated claims. In today’s media environment (where they seize on any scrap of a story to make Bush look bad - whether it’s true or not), I would not believe that the media wouldn’t have been hyping just this kind of story if there was any way to make the claim stick, under the most broad of circumstances, reasonable or not. (IOW, that kind of claim is too whacked-out for even CBS or Newsweek to put out there...)

So you’ll accept estimates about how many people Saddam killed based on speculation (which are just as likely to be inflated), but you won’t accept the numbers from even IBC that are based solely on available hard evidence? That’s very interesting.

So you’ll accept estimates about how many people Saddam killed based on speculation

Not speculation, dingbat. It’s the number of bodies that were found in mass graves, and the number of those killed in action during the three wars of aggression he started against his neighbors. It isn’t speculation when you are talking about the actual data. “Speculation” is just a silly wild-assed guess with a high-school diploma.

but you won’t accept the numbers from even IBC that are based solely on available hard evidence?

As has already been pointed out, those numbers have already been proved to be inflated, and I have given you at least one reason why their methodolgy is suspect, to say the least. (Blaming deaths from natural causes on the Coalition? Blaming deaths from terrorist car bombs on the Coalition? They’ve done BOTH.)

That’s very interesting.

It’s just as interesting that you would blindly accept their assertions, despite all of the problems that you have been informed of, while simultaneously pretending that the thousands of bodies in dozens of mass graves - men, women and children, all shot in the head, execution-style - either didn’t actually happen, or that th4e Coalition is still worse. Interesting, but not remotely surprising.

You stated early in the thread that you believed Saddam had killed a million people over twenty years. That is in fact a mere speculation. The number of acutal bodies found is less than half of that. Nevertheless, you have no problem citing it, so if you get to cite speculations, I think I should have the same priviledge.

Iraq Body Count doesn’t blame all the deaths on the coalition. They blame the deaths they’ve tallied on the invasion. And since it’s safe to presume that there wouldn’t be insurgents (especially the ones working for Al Qaida, since no one has ever found any evidence that Al Qaida killed any Iraqi civilians prior to the invasion) blowing people up if the coalition were not there to begin with, it’s fair to blame the resulting deaths on the invasion.

Saying you can’t blame deaths caused by the insurgents on the invasion is the same as what Clinton said during the war in the Balkans. Most of the genocide that occured there happened after and as a reaction to the bombing campaign, putting as much blood on Clinton’s hands as on Milosovic’s.

You stated early in the thread that you believed Saddam had killed a million people over twenty years. That is in fact a mere speculation

No, it isn’t. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The number of acutal bodies found is less than half of that.

Those are the one in Iraq graves on Iraqi soil. It doesn’t include all the dead Iranians he is also responsible for, who were retrieved by, counted, processed and handled by, those forces, not Iraqi. So those bodies are still his responsibility, yet aren’t found in Iraqi mass graves.

HOWEVER!

The simple fact that you admit to half a million bodies already found and confirmed, yet STILL try to claim that the OVER-INFLATED claim of 100,000 is somehow worse, speaks volumes about your bias.

Saying you can’t blame deaths caused by the insurgents on the invasion is the same as what Clinton said during the war in the Balkans.

Yeah, the insurgents use that rationalization all the time. Doesn’t make it true. You are blaimng the US for the deaths of those who were killed by fellow Muslims because they don’t want the Iraqis to be free. You blame the US for exactly the same reasons, which leads to the only conclusion possible.

Which begs the question, why don’t you want the Iraqis to be free? Is it because they are verifiable evidence that flies in the face of your “must hate Bush” mindset? Or is it because you truly don’t like anything that makes America look better, even by comparison?

Tell us, retro. Why are you LOOKING for things for which to blame America?

Or are you just one of those EUro-peons who cheers at anything anti-American?

Tell us, why all this hatred against a country that has kept you safe and free your whole life, whether you like it or not?

It doesn’t include all the dead Iranians he is also responsible for, who were retrieved by, counted, processed and handled by, those forces, not Iraqi. So those bodies are still his responsibility, yet aren’t found in Iraqi mass graves.

Do you really want to cite the killings that your government actively and directly supported? That’s like citing how many Nazis were killed by the Soviet Union as proof of the brutality of communism. Sure the USSR was brutal, as was Saddam, but since the USSR was on the side of America when it killed those Nazis, and Saddam was on the side of America when he killed those Iranians, it is completely hypocritical to hold those examples against them.

And I do want the Iraqis to be free. I wanted the Iraqis to be free during the Iran-Iraq war, when nobody in the States gave a shit about their freedom. I have always supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, but I have supported the Iraqi overthrow of Saddam Hussein. This would have been entirely possible (and entirely likely) if the there had been a real embargo against Iraqi oil, instead of the faux embargo that allowed so many countries buy it through trade triangulation.

Conservatives, however, have never supported this kind of embargo, because as Dick Cheney said in his debate with John Edwards (in this case referring to restricting trade with Iran) the effect is to penalize American companies. If those countries are funding a brutal regime, they deserve to be penalized.

Do you really want to cite the killings that your government actively and directly supported?

Just because we might have agreed with the need, that doesn’t shift the responsibility for those deaths from Saddam’s shoulders to Bush’s. (Or anyone in America, for that matter.)

That’s like citing how many Nazis were killed by the Soviet Union as proof of the brutality of communism.

The brutality of Communism had enough victims on its own, thanks. But I have no problem with you adding those in with the 60 million. (I don’t think it would make much of a difference, but whatever.)

This would have been entirely possible (and entirely likely) if the there had been a real embargo against Iraqi oil, instead of the faux embargo that allowed so many countries buy it through trade triangulation.

Yeah. Funny how those illegal oil sales were all to European countries who opposed the war, isn’t it?

Conservatives, however, have never supported this kind of embargo

It was Bush, Sr., that STARTED the embargo at the UN, and the liberal countries in the EU that violated it (as well as the Donks in Congress who were trying to get the sanctions eased), but why let a few facts get in front of a good “Blame America” hatefest?

I don’t even know why I bother asking you questions. You never bother to actually answer any of them.

I’m done wasting time on you, retro. Start paying attention or start paying rent.

The oil for food scandal was a result of the sanctions against Iraq. I’ve never believed in the sanctions. Had there been a real embargo (that is, forbiding companies from buying Iraqi oil from third parties), sanctions never would have been necessary. Permitting food and medicine to enter the country without any strings attached (rather than in-exchange for oil, which I totally agree did nothing but strengthen the regime) and forbidding oil from leaving the country to the greatest extent possible would have weakened Saddam, but left the people strong enough to overthrow him.

And the embargo that Bush Sr. started is the exact kind of faux embargo I’m talking about. You forget that after the first Gulf War, Bush also gave Saddam a billion dollars to rebuild his oil industry. It seems kind of odd to me that if you were going to start an embargo against Iraqi oil, yet give the Iraqis a billion dollars to ensure they keep it coming.

Resro, why is it that in all your posts here at my site, you have no problem demanding accountability from anyone on the American right, but you NEVER demand that same accountability from anyone on the American left, and you never demand it from criminals and dictators?

The oil-for-food scandal was not “a result of the sanctions.” It was a result of horrible, greedy UN and EU filth who, in concert with a murdering thug dictator, CHOSE to exploit the people of Iraq.

The responsibility lies with the criminal who chooses to behave in a criminal manner, and nowhere else.

Of course I don’t expect you to get that on any level, even internationally.

You forget that after the first Gulf War, Bush also gave Saddam a billion dollars to rebuild his oil industry.

No, he didn’t. (You have yet to prove a single statement you make. This is a good opportunity for you to prove you aren’t just making shit up, because the facts are so far against you that the motive for you to lie is clear.)

why is it that in all your posts here at my site, you have no problem demanding accountability from anyone on the American right, but you NEVER demand that same accountability from anyone on the American left

I do. Look back to when I said that Clinton had no justification for bombing Serbia, and that the reasons he cited (namely the ethnic cleansing) happened AFTER the bombings. So I beleive Clinton’s excuse to be utter bullshit.

And about the billion dollars, sorry, that happened before the Gulf War. My bad. And it wasn’t to rebuild the oil industry, just for more weapons to fight Iranians. But in my defense it was given illegaly (congress had judged Iraq to be insolvent and refused to authorize any more loans).

If you want proof of this here is a link to documents written by Secretary of State James Baker to Tariq Aziz with scans of the original documents in jpeg form.