Where do we go from here? Deficits, wars and a world on the edge

Going back to Isis' original post-Moveonplease.com says it better, and funnier, than I ever could.

-Kiamat Dusk

Promise, Possibilities, Peace
Deluge of Good News A Karl Rove Trick

Iraqi election. Mideast truce. Fixing broken government systems. Wasteful federal programs cut. More jobs. New housing growth like never before. Don’t let this glut of progress and vigorous change fool you. Republicans will stoop to anything to get their way.

We’ve seen this before. President Reagan and the whole "tearing down your wall," defeat Communism ruse. George H. Bush and his liberating Kuwait from Saddam’s land grab. This insufferable good news is not the panacea President Bush and his confederates want you to believe. Giving freedom and autonomy to millions of people who have suffered for decades under tyrannical rule may sound good when you say it, but when you find out what’s behind it, it’s as corrupt as an "oil for food" racket and as cold-hearted as allowing a woman to drown in the car you were driving.

these latest GOP life-affirming gambits are all about getting the voting public to re-elect those behind this slimy optimism in ‘06. It’s an old Republican trick. You give people hope and supply opportunities to those who have spent their entire life looking to others to take care of them and you end up with an entire new voting bloc in your corner. As true as if they had a bulls-eye on their backs, this is a war against the poor and hopeless. You refuse to let people be victimized, and bam, they're not victims anymore. It’s so fascist.

And as sure as posting the Ten Commandments will ruin America and there’s not enough armor for Humvees, you can put money on it that IT’S ALSO ABOUT THE OIL. It's always about the oil. We’re not sure how, but with your donation we will leave no stone unturned attempting to find out.

Don’t let America fall for the hope and progress subterfuge. Hit the streets and scream at the top of your lungs...

"If we don't get these guys out of office they'll have a free ticket to continue to bury us under rampant prosperity!"

It's not very catchy but yell it as loud as you can and sooner or later someone at the networks will get you on the evening news.



YES, I want to join MoveOnPlease.org's effort to help stop the good news before it strikes at the very heart of Democracy and makes it real bloody so that we drown in our own body fluids.

Here is my may or may not be tax-deductible gift of $_____________________.
Name_____________________________________E-mail______________________
Address________________________________________________________


Make your check out to MoveOnPlease.org. Your tax deductible, or not, gift of $10 or more entitles you to a year’s subscription to the annually published MoveOnPlease.org "It’s All Bush’s Fault," if we ever get around to creating it.

Nobody said that this is Bush's fault. This is the American peoples fault for allowing this sort of thing to happen. But keep on keepin' on with your line of defense. Give up your freedoms for the illusion of safety, believe the lies and sanitize the dirty hands you are shown for as Ben said if you give up freedom for safety you don't deserve either.

An election a democracy does not make (at least not when most of those who would have voted abstained from balloting due to the gun at their head). Mideast truces have been touted in the past with little result. Fixing "broken" systems by taking the powers of war out of the hands of the congress and handing it over to black recon is not my idea of democracy. Kuwait was all about diagonal drilling and had little to do with land grabs. Nobody in the middle east has witnessed freedom or autonomy at the point of a smart bomb in fact it is just the opposite.

Where are the jobs you speak of? Why are the 10 commandments so necessary in a religion that states that the torah is obsolete? After all Yaweh is dead and the new testament God of forgiveness for the sin of picking up a prostitute and spending tithe payer's money on her is so much more appealing.

sat·ire n. 1. a A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. b The branch of literature constituting such works. 2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.


Come on, Isis! Lighten up! Sheesh! Have you found that lighter, yet? As a wise woman once said:


-Kiamat Dusk

haha...I do have a funny bone and yes I found it finally. Of course it was under my nose!

Better MoveOn.org then a fascist group like PWIC, eh Kiamat?



So basically you're just a hobbyist troll.


protestwarrior.com

Not to be confused with a salaried careerist

Oh IIIIIIII get it all now! He's just trying to convert us! That's why our arguments are all wrong!

It's so simple...

And I still want to know what they are protesting... since "their folks" are in charge of all branches of the federal government...

I totally agree with you Charlotte. I blame schools for putting everyone into a coma and somehow persuading them that the important things in life are soap operas and sport. People use the phrase "Dumbing us down" all the time, thinking that this is shorthand for putting out pap which a four-year-old would understand. Very few of them have read Taylor Gatto's book of that name (which coined the phrase) in which he explains that school tends to reduce a child's intelligence because it doesn't allow freethinking...they are told what to think about and when to think it.

Given that a lot of research has proven that children at four do far better intellectually when with untrained carers - ie their mothers - than in nurseries...I keep wondering how long it is going to be before the world wakes up to the fact that mass schooling as we have it was conceived as a measure of peasant control, and never intended to educate the masses to a high standard. It seems to put a lot of people to sleep - forever.

If you look at the transcripts of parliament around the English civil war, when a lot of ordinary people gave evidence, what you find is illiterate people who were extremely well-informed about their country, the political state of the country and had a background education in the classics too. Just look at the number of jokes in Shakespeare which require a wide-ranging knowledge of history and greek myth. Those plays weren't performed for the elite, the common people, who have been portrayed as ignorant because illiterate - they knew what he was talking about, and understood the jokes.

We have this picture that people are progressing, that evolution is ever upward...but the comatose state of most people, their lack of interest and awareness in what is going on, the lack of involvement in the political process...I have to say I blame it upon schooling.

And it can only get worse, here. English schooling is some of the most prescriptive and uniform in the world, now. The national curriculum is imposed upon teachers, and not only outlines what they shall teach, but gives a week-by-week explanation of when and how they shall teach it.

Children are now assigned a unique pupil identifier number, and they are treated as units in a factory process. When the UK will wake up to the fact that this is increasing the number of illiterate and innumerate pupils is anyone's guess, as they keep tinkering with ways to assess it, obviously trying to manipulate results to their own ends.

The idea that our government should seek to destroy trial by jury, should detain people without charge and without evidence, under house arrest, and should propose an identity card for all, and then claim to be defending freedom, is amazing to me.

As for the war...I am not a Christian, but I treasure Christian teachings. Love thy neighbour as thyself...if you're doing that, you can't bomb him, no matter what.
Cali

I believe the Romans called that "Bread & Circus"... keep the people fat dumb and happy on beer, pizza, and Super Bowl while we go stomping all over the rest of the world on endless military campaigns. Let us all remember that the Roman Empire fell... let's not let that happen to us ehh??!

No, Lianne, your arguments are wrong (when they are wrong) because they are based on lies, obfuscation, half truths, and Liberal rhetoric.

I'm not trying to convert anyone. If, by presenting fact that defeat your arguments, I convince some people of the veracity and validity of my POV, then great.

Also, I am not fool enough to believe that I know everything. So I am here to engage in intelligent conversation so that I may learn something new.

I believe in having a position based on informed decisions.

As far as PWIC is concerned. I think that was Kendra's idea of humor as it doesn't seem to exist. "Imperialist" is not a term PW would use.

-Kiamat Dusk

[RANT]
FACT: A WHOLE SHITLOAD OF PEOPLE DIED SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S "PREEMPTIVE STRIKE" MENTALITY.

FACTADDAM AND OSAMA/TALIBAN ARE NOT BUTTBUDDIES, THEY HATE EACHOTHER. ONE IS SECULAR THE OTHER IS BASED ON RELIGION.

FACT:THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, WHETHER INTENTIONAL OR NOT, LED US INTO A WAR THAT HAS NO END, A WAR THAT WAS NEVER DECLARED BY CONGRESS ON ANY SPECIFIC NATION, BUT A WAR DECLARED ON A CONCEPT.

FACT:ALL OF THE REASONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY USED TO START THE WAR HAVE BEEN PROVED TO BE FALSE. EVERY TIME THEIR RATIONALE HAS BEEN CHALLENGED, THE WHITE HOUSE CHANGES IT'S TACK AND REFUSES TO SAY THAT THEY WERE WRONG! WHAT'S GONNA BE THE NEXT REASON? "BECAUSE I SAID SO"???

ARE REPUBLICANS AWARE THAT THE "NEOCONSERVATIVES" ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO SUPPORTING TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE VALUES? WHAT HAPPENED TO FISCAL AND ECONOMIC CONSERVATISM? RECORD DEFECITS. FAMILY VALUES? COME ON! I AM NOT GONNA FRIGGIN BBQ WITH BUSH ANY TIME SOON, AND IT IS NARROW-MINDED AND SELF-CENTERED TO TRY TO IMPOSE ONE PERSON'S/GROUP OF PEOPLE'S IDEAS AND MORALITY OF WHAT "FAMILY" IS OVER THE ENTIRE COUNTRY BY TRYING TO CHANGE THE LAWS TO BE MORE SEGREGATING AND LESS EQUAL!

SO FOR FUCK SAKE ENOUGH OF THE RHETORIC ABOUT "INFORMED DECISIONS" BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL SEEN THE PICTURES OF BLOODIED AND BURNED BODIES, BLOWN UP BUILDINGS, WE HAVE ALL SEEN THE CARNAGE THAT HAS OCCURRED, AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU KIAMAT ARE INTENT ON CONTINUING THIS MADNESS BY SUPPORTING THOSE IDIOT WARMONGERS IN POWER NOW.
[/RANT]

[RANT]
FACT: A WHOLE SHITLOAD OF PEOPLE DIED SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S "PREEMPTIVE STRIKE" MENTALITY.

-3000 people died from Clinton's failure to act mentality. Amazing that the same people who fault Bush for failing to act turn around and curse him for acting. So here's the thing: If Bush really did know about 9/11 in advance as many Lefties claim, then not acting was the right thing to do following this course of "logic" as he would have been attacking "innocent" people.

FACTADDAM AND OSAMA/TALIBAN ARE NOT BUTTBUDDIES, THEY HATE EACHOTHER. ONE IS SECULAR THE OTHER IS BASED ON RELIGION.

-How many times do I have to prove this wrong? Pay attention.
Iraqi links with Al Qeada
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...03/033jgqyi.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...03/378fmxyz.asp
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/arch...96646%2C00.html

FACT:THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, WHETHER INTENTIONAL OR NOT, LED US INTO A WAR THAT HAS NO END, A WAR THAT WAS NEVER DECLARED BY CONGRESS ON ANY SPECIFIC NATION, BUT A WAR DECLARED ON A CONCEPT.

-True, there was no declaration of war by congress. Not on a nation or on a concept. But if you have a problem with a war on a concept-how about getting the government to call a cease fire on it's War on Poverty?

FACT:ALL OF THE REASONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY USED TO START THE WAR HAVE BEEN PROVED TO BE FALSE. EVERY TIME THEIR RATIONALE HAS BEEN CHALLENGED, THE WHITE HOUSE CHANGES IT'S TACK AND REFUSES TO SAY THAT THEY WERE WRONG! WHAT'S GONNA BE THE NEXT REASON? "BECAUSE I SAID SO"???

-All what reasons? Do you even know all the reasons? While WMDs were definitely high on the list, they weren't the only reasons. Here are a few highlights from the AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

"Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-33 expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime..."

And that's just a taste. You Second Liberals have conveniently forgotten that Saddam was in violation of 11 UN resolutions.

ARE REPUBLICANS AWARE THAT THE "NEOCONSERVATIVES" ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO SUPPORTING TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE VALUES? WHAT HAPPENED TO FISCAL AND ECONOMIC CONSERVATISM? RECORD DEFECITS. FAMILY VALUES? COME ON! I AM NOT GONNA FRIGGIN BBQ WITH BUSH ANY TIME SOON, AND IT IS NARROW-MINDED AND SELF-CENTERED TO TRY TO IMPOSE ONE PERSON'S/GROUP OF PEOPLE'S IDEAS AND MORALITY OF WHAT "FAMILY" IS OVER THE ENTIRE COUNTRY BY TRYING TO CHANGE THE LAWS TO BE MORE SEGREGATING AND LESS EQUAL!

-Fiscal conservatism. We're in a war. When the Gipper was fighting the Cold War, he paid to do it-meanwhile we were experiencing an economic boom. Family values-what sort of Family Values do you espouse exactly? The kind that involves terms like "exsanguination" and "partial birth abortion"? Oh, and it's amazing how you sit here in the Land of the Free talking about someone imposing "ONE PERSON'S/GROUP OF PEOPLE'S IDEAS AND MORALITY OF WHAT "FAMILY" IS OVER THE ENTIRE COUNTRY BY TRYING TO CHANGE THE LAWS " but I don't see you telling that to the terrorists trying to keep Iraqis from voting. And let's talk about changing laws. How about your friends in the ACLU who decided to force an ENTIRE STATE to change its seal *despite* the fact that the majority of the citizens voted to keep it? Or the activist judges in Massachusets who overturned the will of the majority and made gay marriage legal? But then if you're upset about people "TRYING TO CHANGE THE LAWS " you're not a big fan of democracy anyway.

SO FOR FUCK SAKE ENOUGH OF THE RHETORIC ABOUT "INFORMED DECISIONS" BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL SEEN THE PICTURES OF BLOODIED AND BURNED BODIES, BLOWN UP BUILDINGS, WE HAVE ALL SEEN THE CARNAGE THAT HAS OCCURRED, AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU KIAMAT ARE INTENT ON CONTINUING THIS MADNESS BY SUPPORTING THOSE IDIOT WARMONGERS IN POWER NOW.
[/RANT]

-Yeah, I've seen those pictures of bloodied and burned bodies as they pulled them out of the Pentagon. I've seen the pictures of the blown up Twin Towers. I have seen all the carnage that has occured because of our country's failure to act and I am saddened and enraged. I've also seen the pictures of joyful Iraqis welcoming American soldiers and Marines. I've seen the pictures of schools being built. I've seen pictures of kids released from Saddam's children's prisons. I've seen the video of jubilant crowds of Iraqi voters who braved death to exercise their new freedom and forge a future for themselves. I see all this and I am heartened.

Artillo, it seems that you and your ilk are the ones who "ARE INTENT ON CONTINUING THIS MADNESS BY SUPPORTING THOSE IDIOT WARMONGERS IN POWER NOW". Those warmongers being bin Laden, Zaraqawi, and the like.

-Kiamat Dusk

"3000 people died from Clinton's failure to act mentality. Amazing that the same people who fault Bush for failing to act turn around and curse him for acting. So here's the thing: If Bush really did know about 9/11 in advance as many Lefties claim, then not acting was the right thing to do following this course of "logic" as he would have been attacking "innocent" people. "

Did you miss the part where it's been said repeatedly that no one is assigning blame for 9/11 on anyone but the people who hijacked the planes and those that funded them? No of course not. That would require you to actually listen and abandon one of your knee-jerk talking points. Your other bit about preemption is, well... moronic. Security could have been tightened at airports in response to the reports. But in general, preemption is a stupid idea. You can't punish people for crimes they haven't commited. You can only try to prevent them from taking place. The former it totalitarianism. The latter is common sense. They had good intelligence about the possibilities of the 9/11 attack and they chose not to act on it. They had bad intelligence on Iraq which they did act on at the cost of tens of thousands of innocent lives.

"-How many times do I have to prove this wrong? Pay attention.
Iraqi links with Al Qeada "

They had a meeting. Nothing came of it. We, on the other hand, had Bin laden on the CIA payroll! hello? If a meeting with someone from Al Queada is grounds for bombing a country into the stone age then by your logic we should nuke ourselves immediately. Using this tired story of the meeting as somehow justifying the repeated claims made by the Bush administration that Hussein was somehow complicit in 9/11 doesn't do anything for your case. It makes you look stupid at best, and completely without conscience at worst.

"-All what reasons? Do you even know all the reasons? While WMDs were definitely high on the list, they weren't the only reasons. Here are a few highlights from the AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
Public Law 107-243
107th Congress "

You're forgetting a rather important point... since there were no WMD the ONLY way Iraq was in violation of the UN resolution was by not properly documenting the destruction of the weapons. If you use this as a justification for the invasion then you are in essence claiming that the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people is justified on the basis of poor paperwork. You claim to be a Christian? I guess I'll be seeing you in Hell.

"Family values-what sort of Family Values do you espouse exactly? The kind that involves terms like "exsanguination" and "partial birth abortion"? Oh, and it's amazing how you sit here in the Land of the Free talking about someone imposing "ONE PERSON'S/GROUP OF PEOPLE'S IDEAS AND MORALITY OF WHAT "FAMILY" IS OVER THE ENTIRE COUNTRY BY TRYING TO CHANGE THE LAWS " but I don't see you telling that to the terrorists trying to keep Iraqis from voting. And let's talk about changing laws. How about your friends in the ACLU who decided to force an ENTIRE STATE to change its seal *despite* the fact that the majority of the citizens voted to keep it? Or the activist judges in Massachusets who overturned the will of the majority and made gay marriage legal?"

It both amazes and disgusts me that someone who supports a war that's killed thousands of innocents, even after its supposed justifications have been proven to be false, will try and take the moral high ground. Every life is sacred, unless they have brown skin and live in the middle east I guess. Disgusting.

"-Yeah, I've seen those pictures of bloodied and burned bodies as they pulled them out of the Pentagon. I've seen the pictures of the blown up Twin Towers. I have seen all the carnage that has occured because of our country's failure to act and I am saddened and enraged. I've also seen the pictures of joyful Iraqis welcoming American soldiers and Marines. I've seen the pictures of schools being built. I've seen pictures of kids released from Saddam's children's prisons. I've seen the video of jubilant crowds of Iraqi voters who braved death to exercise their new freedom and forge a future for themselves. I see all this and I am heartened. "

And here you are back to pretending Iraq was somehow connected to 9/11. What was it Jesus said "ten thousand eyes for an eye?" No, that's wasn't it. I guess it's okay to kill innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 tragedy if it makes you feel better. Revenge is sweet I guess, even if you have to kill innocent people to exact it. Are you sure you're a Christian? You're a truly sick person. How do you sleep at night?

"3000 people died from Clinton's failure to act mentality. Amazing that the same people who fault Bush for failing to act turn around and curse him for acting. So here's the thing: If Bush really did know about 9/11 in advance as many Lefties claim, then not acting was the right thing to do following this course of "logic" as he would have been attacking "innocent" people. "



-No, I didn't miss that part. But *you* seem to have missed the part where I said "as many Lefties claim". See that means "many" not "all". And believe me when I say there are "many"; I sat in a theatre full of them and watched Fahrenheit 9/11.

"-How many times do I have to prove this wrong? Pay attention.
Iraqi links with Al Qeada "



-What this does is prove that the repeated Liberal claim that there were no Saddam/al Qaeda links is false. If people would stop repeating it, I could stop reposting these links. Second of all, Bush has *never* claimed that Saddam was complicit in 9/11. Ever. Stop saying he did. Again, you aren't paying attention because *nowhere* did I say that this tie with al Qeada was sufficient justification for going to war in Iraq. Lastly, as you've stated before, you'd rather see every American dead than see America go to war so your input is invalid. No reason will *ever* be good enough for you.

"-All what reasons? Do you even know all the reasons? While WMDs were definitely high on the list, they weren't the only reasons. Here are a few highlights from the AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
Public Law 107-243
107th Congress "



-Brilliant. I can see you didn't bother *reading* those resolutions. Pity for you-*I* did. All of those resolutions are about Iraq and Kuwait, *not* about WMDs.



-And where do you keep coming up with this "tens of thousands" number? Here's a little dose of reality for you.
3.1.3. Total war dead in Baghdad

Combining the estimates for the various categories of war dead in Baghdad yields a total of between 4,376 and 5,526 fatalities, encompassing combatants and noncombatants, civilians and uniformed military:



Nominal civilian dead at hospitals: 2,876 +
Military dead in military hospitals and wards: 500 - 1,200
Unrecovered dead buried at Baghdad International Airport: 50 - 100
Dead buried in ad hoc graves elsewhere in the city: 950 - 1,500
Undiscovered dead: 0 - 50

These estimates are based on a known -- that is recorded or counted -- quantity of at least 3,786 dead: 2,876-plus dead at civilian hospitals, 260 at the Rashid, 50 or more at the international airport, and 600 or more indentified by burial societies.
http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html#3.%20Iraqi%20noncombatant%20fatalities%20in%20the%202003

-That's far short of your "tens of thousands".


"Family values-what sort of Family Values do you espouse exactly? The kind that involves terms like "exsanguination" and "partial birth abortion"? Oh, and it's amazing how you sit here in the Land of the Free talking about someone imposing "ONE PERSON'S/GROUP OF PEOPLE'S IDEAS AND MORALITY OF WHAT "FAMILY" IS OVER THE ENTIRE COUNTRY BY TRYING TO CHANGE THE LAWS " but I don't see you telling that to the terrorists trying to keep Iraqis from voting. And let's talk about changing laws. How about your friends in the ACLU who decided to force an ENTIRE STATE to change its seal *despite* the fact that the majority of the citizens voted to keep it? Or the activist judges in Massachusets who overturned the will of the majority and made gay marriage legal?"



-Now we're down to thousands. At least you're getting more accurate as you go along. And who are you to talk about how sacred life is? You who has stated that you'd rather see every American dead than see America go to war? Every life is sacred, unless they are American I guess. Disgusting.

"-Yeah, I've seen those pictures of bloodied and burned bodies as they pulled them out of the Pentagon. I've seen the pictures of the blown up Twin Towers. I have seen all the carnage that has occured because of our country's failure to act and I am saddened and enraged. I've also seen the pictures of joyful Iraqis welcoming American soldiers and Marines. I've seen the pictures of schools being built. I've seen pictures of kids released from Saddam's children's prisons. I've seen the video of jubilant crowds of Iraqi voters who braved death to exercise their new freedom and forge a future for themselves. I see all this and I am heartened. "



-Now we're back up to "tens of thousands". One more time so you can hear me with your head in the sand "NEITHER I, NOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS *EVER* CLAIMED THAT SADDAM WAS COMPLICIT IN 9/11!!!!" -whew-



-Normally I would let the irony of this statement to speak for itself, but you're a special case so let me break it way down for you.
*deep breath*
Have you mentioned this concept to the terrorist killing scores of innocent people in Iraq or the suicide bombers blowing up school busses in Israel, or the terrorists who took a school hostage and murdered children in Belarus?

Of course you haven't. You'd much rather condemn your own country.



-Yes, I'm sure. I'm actually pretty healthy. Drink my OJ, work out... Oh, and I sleep soundly, usually on my back.

-Kiamat Dusk
'nuff said

Really? Cos I pulled that right off of protestwarrior.com

LONDON (Reuters) - A majority of Britons want an investigation into the number of Iraqis killed in their country since the 2003 invasion by U.S.-led forces, according to a poll.

The research, commissioned by the Count the Casualties campaign, found nearly four times as many people backed the call for an inquiry as opposed it.

The telephone poll conducted by MORI took a nationally representative sample of 1,012 adults aged over 18 throughout Britain during three days in late January.

Asked if an investigation should be held into total Iraqi casualties since the 2003 invasion, 35 percent "strongly supported" and 24 percent "tended to support" the idea.

Only 15 percent were opposed.

The coalition of groups that commissioned the poll called on the government to order an inquiry.

"Failing to count casualties shows a fundamental disrespect for human life, allows the human cost of the invasion to grow uncontrollably and tells Iraqis that they simply don't matter," Gerard Rosenberg, director of Waging Peace, said in a statement.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has previously rejected calls for an independent inquiry, saying he saw no need for one.

Any totalling of the Iraqi civilian war dead could embarrass Blair ahead of a general election expected by May in a country that mostly opposed the war.

Blair's reputation has suffered over intelligence from British spy services used to justify the invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent failure to find any weapons of mass destruction Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was said to have stockpiled.

The United States, Britain and other allies have suffered nearly 1,200 deaths in combat since the invasion began.

Nearly 6,400 Iraqi military deaths were recorded for 2003 while estimates by academics and peace activists, based on reports from at least two media sources, have put the civilian toll at close to 17,800 at its upper limit.

But The Lancet medical journal carried a report in October in which U.S. scientists put civilian deaths at 100,000.

Chip.


Wait...hold on...lemme get this straight. You are *honestly* citing "estimates by academics and peace activists" who, in turn, based their numbers on "reports from at least two media sources". Mind you those are *unnamed* media sources. Peace activists and academics-yeah, no bias there!

*snicker*

Sorry...sorry... Oh, and let's not forget the *unnamed* US scientists!!


BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

*wipes his eyes*

Oh goodness.

Kendra,

Could you post the link to that, please? I'd really like to see it.


-Kiamat Dusk
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! peace activists AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

None of us would have to rely on estimates from questionable sources if our government bothered to count Iraqi casualties. They don't. If you have estimates that range from those you cited to as many as 100,000 it's safe to assume that the truth lies somewhere in the middle... somewhere over 10,000. You'll continue to believe whatever you want to believe, and whatever the government tells you to believe.

The number of documented civilian deaths directly due to the invasion in Iraq stand at 15984 minimum and 18252 maximum. My source documentation includes: Incident Code, Date, Time, Location, Target Weapons and reporting source.

Here is the web site with the information: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/bodycount2.php?ts=1108605126

In most cases, the incident reporting sources are multiple so even if CNN did report an incident, it was generally also witnessed and noted by two or three other sources.

The site collecting the information is independent and they have located and cross-checked two or more independent approved news sources for the same incident (for more details see their Methodology on their web site).

This of course, does not count wounded.

Yes! Are you all paying attention? *That* is how it's done, Rose! Thank you for making an intelligent contribution to the discussion.

BTW, I point out that, while Rose's number is above 10,000, it is still not in Chip's "tens of thousands" range.


-Kiamat Dusk

You are correct - Bush has never come out and actually said that Saddam was complicit in 9/11 however, in his prime-time press conference on March 6 of 2003, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks.

A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11.

One does not always have to speak to be complicit in a lie.

Here is the actual text of the press conference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html

The alleged ties between al Qaeda and Iraq are tenuous and controversial at best. The 911 commission concluded that, and I quote: "Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

To expend billions of dollars and thousands of lives on a war with a country that did not physically attack US soil on gossamar, controversial intelligence is disgraceful.

So here is a question for you: al Qaeda was actually initially headquartered in Sudan, and certaintly their ties with Sudan were far better documented than any ties they had with Iraq, why didn't we go into Sudan and kick some ass?

Maybe because they don't have as much oil as Iraq?

When you factor in the casualties from Afghanistan you will be in the tens of thousands.

I knew Rose or Isis would pick up the gauntlet as they are better researchers than I, and better at maintaining their composure when faced with your convenient obtuseness and contrived ignorance. Frankly, your hyperbole pisses me off so much that I don't respond well to your posts. You truly and deeply disgust me.

Before you fall off your chair laughing at the claim of 100,000 Iraqi deaths

You should know something about the specific study Chip sited. The study, published on October 29th in the Lancet, a British medical journal, suggests the death toll is quite a lot higher than the newspaper reports suggest. The centre of its estimated range of death tolls—the most probable number according to the data collected and the statistics used—is almost 100,000. And even though the limits of that range are very wide, from 8,000 to 194,000, the study concludes with 90% certainty that more than 40,000 Iraqis have died.

The bedrock on which the study is founded is the same as that on which opinion polls are built: random sampling. The best sort of random sampling is one that picks individuals out directly. This is not possible in Iraq because no reliable census data exist. For this reason, Dr Roberts used a technique called clustering, which has been employed extensively in other situations where census data are lacking, such as studying infectious disease in poor countries.

Clustering works by picking out a number of neighbourhoods at random—33 in this case—and then surveying all the individuals in that neighbourhood. The neighbourhoods were picked by choosing towns in Iraq at random (the chance that a town would be picked was proportional to its population) and then, in a given town, using GPS—the global positioning system—to select a neighbourhood at random within the town. Starting from the GPS-selected grid reference, the researchers then visited the nearest 30 households.


In each household, the interviewers (all Iraqis fluent in English as well as Arabic) asked about births and deaths that had occurred since January 1st 2002 among people who had lived in the house for more than two months. They also recorded the sexes and ages of people now living in the house. If a death was reported, they recorded the date, cause and circumstances. Their deductions about the number of deaths caused by the war were then made by comparing the aggregate death rates before and after March 18th 2003.

They interviewed a total of 7,868 people in 988 households. But the relevant sample size for many purposes—for instance, measuring the uncertainty of the analysis—is 33, the number of clusters. That is because the data from individuals within a given cluster are highly correlated. Statistically, 33 is a relatively small sample (though it is the best that could be obtained by a small number of investigators in a country at war). That is the reason for the large range around the central value of 98,000, and is one reason why that figure might be wrong. (Though if this is the case, the true value is as likely to be larger than 98,000 as it is to be smaller.) It does not, however, mean, as some commentators have argued in response to this study, that figures of 8,000 or 194,000 are as likely as one of 98,000. (Mathematically, Quite the contrary). The farther one goes from 98,000, the less likely the figure is.

There was a concern which is highlighted by the case of one cluster which ended up being in the war-torn city of Fallujah. This cluster had many more deaths, and many more violent deaths, than any of the others. For this reason, the researchers omitted it from their analysis—the estimate of 98,000 was made without including the Fallujah data. If it had been included, that estimate would have been significantly higher.

So the discrepancy between the Lancet estimate and the aggregated press reports is not as large as it seems at first. The Lancet figure implies that 60,000 people have been killed by violence, including insurgents, while the aggregated press reports give a figure of 15,000, counting only civilians. Nonetheless, Dr Roberts points out that press reports are a “passive-surveillance system”.

Reporters do not actively go out to many random areas and see if anyone has been killed in a violent attack, but wait for reports to come in. And, Dr Roberts says, passive-surveillance systems tend to undercount mortality. For instance, when he was head of health policy for the International Rescue Committee in the Congo, in 2001, he found that only 7% of meningitis deaths in an outbreak were recorded by the IRC's passive system.

The Lancet study can be found at: http://www.thelancet.com/

I think that it raises some pretty valid points about the actual vs the documented number of deaths in Iraq.

Just because no one was there to document your death, dosen't mean that you didn't die.

Thank you Rose. You are a truly wonderful person!

Kiamat, I need to add that my statement that you deeply disgust me is my own hyperbole. I don't know you. I don't know how you treat your neighbors, your family, your kids, or your friends. It's more accurate for me to say that your opinions and attitudes about the Iraq war, centered as they are around blind patriotism, jingoism, and demagoguery, and your flippant dismissal of anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions... your seeming belief that the lives of Americans are so much more important than those of Iraqis... that's what disgusts me. By any decent standards of humanism this war was immoral. I find it ironic and disturbing that the Christian right are among its most ardent supporters.