Happy New Year – 3000 American dead
What a way to start 2007, the news that 3000 American’s have died in Iraq, sadly we don’t know how many Iraqi’s we’ve killed from Operation Freedom and Democracy, it is only “our” dead that deserve constant updates as they cross important ‘threshold’ numbers, like every thousand, every 500, odd number memorials and tributes to American soldiers who die on past President’s birthdays.
As for the 655 000 Iraqi’s that have been estimated to have died since the start of the invasion, they don’t get anything today.
US Iraq death toll 'hits 3,000'
The death of a Texan soldier in Baghdad brings the total number of US troops killed in Iraq to 3,000, independent groups tracking casualties have said.
The US Defence Department confirmed that the soldier was killed by small arms fire in the capital last week. The announcement came on the final day of 2006 and as the US military reached the end of the deadliest month for its troops in Iraq for two years. The US president is considering the future strategy for troops in Iraq. The figure was calculated by an independent website, Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, and by the Associated Press news agency. The Pentagon confirmed the death of 22-year-old Dustin R Donica on 28 December as previously unreported. "Every loss is regretted and there is no special significance to the overall number of casualties," Lt Col Mark Ballesteros said. The BBC's Jonathan Beale, in Washington, says this grim milestone comes at a critical time for Mr Bush as he prepares to unveil a new strategy in Iraq, which may include increasing the number of soldiers on the ground.
posted by Bomber @ 12:49 pm
11 comments
11 Comments:
More roadside bombs being gotten ready for the US troops right this minute.... glorius hahahahaha
Hmmmm.... 655,000 people dead over 45 months equals 15,000 dead a month.
That's a 9/11 + some every week.
I don't believe you.
There aren't 500 people a day dying in Iraq. Even the Iraq Body Count website only estimates just under 60,000.
You have no credibility if you continue to think of a number and multiply it by ten.
...
Hmmmm.... 655,000 people dead over 45 months equals 15,000 dead a month. That's a 9/11 + some every week. I don't believe you. There aren't 500 people a day dying in Iraq. Even the Iraq Body Count website only estimates just under 60,000. You have no credibility if you continue to think of a number and multiply it by ten.
Oh for the love of god Blair, why do you walk into these things honestly? You’ll rev up here shootin’ your guns in the air without knowing the full facts – what is it with you right wingers and reactionary knee jerks? Or just jerks in general (drum roll, please folks, this'll be worth it, stick with the kid here).
Okay, let’s go to town – Blair I take the number of 655 000 dead out of a possible range of between 392 979 – 942 636 dead in Iraq since the invasion. Where do I get such a figure Blair, did I
A) Pluck the figure of 655 000 out of my arse as another example of the liberal media lying about all that is great and God like in America because we are all secret commies....
OR
Perhaps I took the figure from last years report on Mortality published in October called The 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross sectional cluster sample survey that was published in the Lancet.
Oh and what’s that I hear Blair? Who do the Lancet think they are? Well a quick check of Wiki tells me…
The Lance is one of the oldest peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, published weekly by Elsevier, part of Reed Elsevier. It was founded in 1823 by Thomas Wakley, who named it after the surgical instrument called a lancet, as well as an arched window ("to let in light"). The Lancet takes a stand on several important medical issues - recent examples include criticism of the WHO, rejecting the efficacy of homeopathy as a therapeutic option and its disapproval of Reed Elsevier's links with the arms industry.
The Lancet has a significant readership throughout the world with a high impact factor. It publishes original research articles, review articles ("seminars" and "reviews"), editorials, book reviews, correspondences, amidst other regulars such as news features and case reports. The Lancet is considered to be one of the "core" general medical journals, the others being the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the British Medical Journal. The Lancet's impact factor is currently ranked #3 among general medical journals.
So Blair, The Lancet, one of the oldest peer-reviewed medical journals, currently ranked 3rd in the world is, what was it you said, “You have no credibility if you continue to think of a number and multiply it by ten.” - Blair you have no credibility if you can’t stay up to date with basic current events – or did this news story just pass you by…
'655,000 Iraqis killed since invasion'
The aftermath of a Baghdad bomb attack - a study published in the Lancet estimates that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war.
The death toll among Iraqis as a result of the US-led invasion has now reached an estimated 655,000, a study in the Lancet medical journal reports today.
The figure for the number of deaths attributable to the conflict - which amounts to around 2.5% of the population - is at odds with figures cited by the US and UK governments and will cause a storm, but the Lancet says the work, from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, has been examined and validated by four separate independent experts who all urged publication.
In October 2004, the same researchers published a study estimating that 100,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war since the beginning of the March 2003 invasion, a figure that was hugely controversial. Their new study, they say, reaffirms the accuracy of their survey of two years ago and moves it on.
Now how can you comment on these things if you haven’t even kept up to date on the events? Oh and just to make sure this is a shit kicking to nothing let’s examine Blair’s only argument, “Even the Iraq Body Count website only estimates just under 60,000.. Blair have you actually read the Iraq Body Count website? They count those deaths that can be verified by several media sources, that is hardly a true representation of the deaths in Iraq, do civilian casualties only count when a Fox News Reporter actually films it huh Blair? That’s a very convenient way of avoiding the consequences of your actions I suppose. And on the site they specify the differences between their count and the Lancet report, indeed Blair they EVEN TALK ABOUT THE LANCET REPORT and it’s implications to the numbers they quote.
You did actually read it and just decided to forget about it and make your point anyway. How does that make you credible Blair?
That's a 9/11 + some every week.
Could Blair finally be starting to wipe the right wing sleep from his eyes brothers and sisters? YES BLAIR, IT IS EXACTLY LIKE A 9/11 HAPPENING EVERY WEEK - that’s why there is so much resentment towards the West for committing this atrocity – are you maybe just, kinda getting it now Blair?
Oh and here’s the actual report from the Lancet as well Blair, just in case anyone needed a final nail in the coffin….
Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey
Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy, Les Robert
Summary
Background An excess mortality of nearly 100 000 deaths was reported in Iraq for the period March, 2003–September, 2004, attributed to the invasion of Iraq. Our aim was to update this estimate.
Methods Between May and July, 2006, we did a national cross-sectional cluster sample survey of mortality in Iraq. 50 clusters were randomly selected from 16 Governorates, with every cluster consisting of 40 households. Information on deaths from these households was gathered.
Findings Three misattributed clusters were excluded from the final analysis; data from 1849 households that contained12 801 individuals in 47 clusters was gathered. 1474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the observation period. Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5·5 per 1000 people per year (95% CI 4·3–7·1), compared with 13·3 per 1000 people per year (10·9–16·1) in the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654 965 (392 979–942 636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2·5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601 027 (426 369–793 663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.
Interpretation The number of people dying in Iraq has continued to escalate. The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, although the actual numbers have increased every year. Gunfire remains the most common cause of death, although deaths from car bombing have increased.
I do childrens parties and bar mitzvahs
You make it sound like the 655,000 dead were all killed by americans, when that isnt the case at all.
Firstly the 655 000 has been challenged by many critics, and is just an estimate. What is the true number of dead? Whatever it is, it is far too many, but it is probably not the aforementioned number.
And you are right anon, the Iraqis are killing each other, with the help of Iran, Syria and insurgents from Saudi Arabia.
Yes I agree with Bomber on one count- that America has a lot to answer for for starting this mess. However they are not responsible for perpetuating it.
The utter savagery of some of the people in the region has been unleashed by the particular circumstances there.
The blame needs to fall on all concerned and not just America.
"You make it sound like the 655,000 dead were all killed by americans, when that isnt the case at all."
That's the best you've got Anon? After what I could only call an impressive post by my good self all you have is the limp dicked "You make it sound like the 655,000 dead were all killed by americans, when that isnt the case at all." as a response? I mean apart from the fact you are completly wrong in your assertion, that's all you've got? Wow, justifying America isn't as easy as it used to be huh?
Let's take a moment to rip this "You make it sound like the 655,000 dead were all killed by americans, when that isnt the case at all." comment apart shall we. Anon could you please tell me who invaded Iraq and as the occupying power, who is responsible for the security and law and order of the occupied country?
Pause as implications of question start to slowly sink in.......
Let me know if you need any more tuition.
...
Firstly the 655 000 has been challenged by many critics, and is just an estimate. What is the true number of dead? Whatever it is, it is far too many, but it is probably not the aforementioned number.
And you are right anon, the Iraqis are killing each other, with the help of Iran, Syria and insurgents from Saudi Arabia.
Yes I agree with Bomber on one count- that America has a lot to answer for starting this mess. However they are not responsible for perpetuating it.
The utter savagery of some of the people in the region has been unleashed by the particular circumstances there.
The blame needs to fall on all concerned and not just America.
Oh come on Deano! You are almost there, but you’re still holding on by one hand, denial is one thing, simply writing off 655 000 as ‘inconceivable’ without any hint of evidence simply doesn’t go anywhere near challenging the accuracy of the 655 000 dead, but that is the merest of technical arguments – the fact we are debating over a figure that we don’t officially bother to keep anyway is the mentality of a pathological culture. America invades the country illegally on false pretences which creates an environment that has killed 655 000 people and it isn’t America’s fault? It’s the people fighting each other just the way we all predicted they would if America invaded! There is no fucking way you can plead ignorance on America’s behalf that they never thought the sectarian violence would cause a civil war because millions of people told them that, America was warned in clear, basic language so that Bush could actually comprehend what he was being read that if America invaded Iraq the chances of the country falling into a bitter civil war along sectarian lines was a real possibility. These arguments weren’t written about in secret manuals or underground media, Deano it was being reported on and talked about and debated and countered by many voices around the planet from every different race and every different culture united in reason and respect for each other by refusing to allow military action to be ethically, humanly or philosophically justifiable. Bush was warned that this exact outcome was a possibility and knowing that possibility he still risked invasion and that makes him completely responsible for the outcome!
How come the right wing are all about personal responsibility right up until the responsibility becomes personal?
Bomber, you're on fire! An excellent post, indeed.
People like Blair give right-wingers a bad name, so you don't have to. So lay off sniping at the right. There are plenty of so-called right-wingers who opposed the American invasion of Iraq, please don't tar us all with the same brush.
In an alternate universe where no invasion had happened:
Do you think a civil war was bound to break out anyway (sometime) in iraq?
This was unlikely to happen while saddam was in power, maybe after he died (of natural causes)...
Maybe he would have transferred power to his son(s) and nothing really would have changed (like north korea)...
Oh Bomber you do wank on...
So a bunch of pencilnecks did some sums huh? Good for them. I'm just pointing out that 500 a day, using a bit of common sense as opposed to mathematics, is faintly ridiculous. This chap seems to think so too, although I think even his figures might be a bit suspect.
I've never supported the war in Iraq. I just think you are a dishonest cunt prepared to jump on any fairytale to justify your extreme bigotry.
blair, take your own cock out of your mouth.
You belittle the tragedy that is Iraq. Even if your crappy bodycount source is accurate, that's 60000 murders for American greed.
The US invasion is responsible for the ensuing conflict. The Americans incited and exploited the sectarian divisions when the invasion did not pan out as well as they wanted. They are doing the same in Lebanon now that the Israeli terror attacks did not pan out as well as they wanted.
Fair call from Richard but the reason right wingers are targeted in such discussion is because it is clear that a right-wing neo-con agenda motivated America's invasion. We even had our own Don Brash saying he would've back the Americans (more cock sucking?).
Post a Comment
<< Home