Americans lowball Iraqi death toll.
By on Feb 24th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Americans lowball Iraqi death toll.
“Americans are keenly aware of how many U.S. forces have lost their lives in Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll. But they woefully underestimate the number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed.”
When the poll was conducted earlier this month, a little more than 3,100 U.S. troops had been killed. The midpoint estimate among those polled was right on target, at about 3,000. …
Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 54,000 and could be much higher; some unofficial estimates range into the hundreds of thousands. The U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq reports more than 34,000 deaths in 2006 alone.
Among those polled for the AP survey, however, the median estimate of Iraqi deaths was 9,890.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Why, exactly, are we having to poll to determine death tolls?
We invade a country, but are too lazy to account for the deaths we cause. Why? We don’t do body counts.
So fucking American.
February 24th, 2007 at 9:49 amBy any measure, the Bush-wrought Iraqi death, destruction, and chaos is his legacy.
February 24th, 2007 at 9:57 amI really wish people would stop using median in statistics. It is the physical center of a set of numbers and not an average. I other words:
1 2 100000 4 5
100000 would be the median.
One of the few things I remember from math classes :-(
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/median
Back to the numbers, it’s disappointing, but not surprising, that the public underestimates the death toll.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:09 amIraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 54,000 and could be much higher; some unofficial estimates range into the hundreds of thousands.
The key word here is civilians. As in, innocent Iraqis (i.e. non combative deaths)
Bush et al., you’ve accomplished so much. Orchestrating the deaths of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, for bogus claims!
The U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq reports more than 34,000 deaths in 2006 alone.
Among those polled for the AP survey, however, the median estimate of Iraqi deaths was 9,890.
Well, the right wing spin machine is sure doing it’s job, eh Exley?
Liberal media, my A$$!!!
What really irks me about this, is the likes of Exley who constantly holler “Remember 9/11! Remember 9/11!” but never utter a single word about Iraqi civilians.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:09 amIt’s almost as if the innocent lives of Iraqis are insignificant. And that is truly sad.
on 9/12/2001, we had the support of the whole world, and we f#@cked that away by attacking a region that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, and destroying hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in the progress.
You 29%’ers must be so proud (or blind)!
I just read a great quote from John McCain…
LOL, as opposed to what’s going on right now, which seems an awful lot like “chaos and genocide” anyway.
These idiots are shameless!
February 24th, 2007 at 10:13 am1 2 100000 4 5
100000 would be the median.
Comment by E_I — February 24, 2007 @ 10:09 am
You don’t understand the term median. The median in this set of numbers is 4. Median is often a more appropriate and informative measure than average. I think it is an appropriate measure in this kind of study.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:25 amHere is the difference. You include insurgents as civilians.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:27 amI had spoken to a woman whom I had met at a rally that had been held last summer for Lt. Watada at Fort Lewis, Wa. She told me that she had been involved in the group that was headed by Les Roberts, which conducted the study that was done by the Johns Hopkins Institute, which found that as few as 400,000 but as many as 700,000 Iraqi deaths were attributed to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. She said the group took into account not only deaths that resulted from Iraqis being shot by U.S. troops but also those caused by illnesses, lack of clean water, inadequate sewage facilities, lack of hospitals along with good medical care, etc. The woman expressed to me her frustration and anger at the fact that this study has received, as Think Progress infers, almost no coverage from the mainstream media and that the methodology done by her group was very reliable and solid. But this also reveals, I believe, a marked lack of empathy on the part of Americans for those who live anywhere outside the United States and especially those whose lives have been directly impacted by U.S. aggression and imperialism.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:28 amIraqi flu deaths are probally due to the US as well
February 24th, 2007 at 10:29 amBushco has to cover up the extent of civilian deaths. As long as they can convince people it is low, then they can get away with calling it collateral damage. Once those numbers skyrocket, however, it becomes clear that we are presiding over a mass genocide.
I wish the world court would just indict Bushco. Be funny to see them bloviate about how they don’t have the legal jurisdiction in our country, but then I guess that would throw out their position that we had legal jurisdiction to invade Iraq and hold persons prisoner indefinitely if we just label them as illegal combatants.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:33 amIt’s really no surprise that the American people tend to underestimate the numbers of Iraqi civilians who have died. After all, at least in my experience, the mainstream media only really concerns itself with the numbers of American military personnel who have been killed — and if what has been reported is true, that the military is only officially counting those people who die on the field of combat and not those who die from their injuries during transport or while under medical care, then this number is also being underestimated. Let’s face it — the mainstream media doesn’t encourage the American people to give much if any thought to Iraqi civilian casualties (or what the military prefers to euphemistically and dismissively describe as “collateral damage”) — how often do pictures or video footage appear in the American press vs. the international press representing the true human cost of the war? Let’s remember that the Vietnam War was the first one which gave the American people an up-close-and-personal look via their televisions — and increasing opposition was one of the results because the images came too close for most people’s comfort. It’s hard to swallow the idea that the Bush administration and the press aren’t aware of this — which would explain why the media depiction of the war is relatively sanitized. While there are stories about Iraqi civilian casualties, the pictures generally don’t really do the stories justice — but visual images are often distinctly more memorable than words, and bring news stories home in a way that words alone cannot. There’s no doubt in my mind that if the American people were given the opportunity to get a full picture of the death toll among Iraqi civilians, support for the war would fall off significantly more than it already has — and I think both the press and the Bush administration know this.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:41 amPersonally,
We should declare that we are defeated and leave. that way the terrorists in Iraq can kill the rest of the Iraqi community. We are just slowing them down right now. It is time for America to officially declare our defeat and declare victory for the terrorists. It is time to let these people kill and control what they want. Why we tried to promote deomcracy, free markets, and freedom in other countries is beyond me.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:46 am#11 Roger_Roger
Democracy at the point of a gun does not work. The only free markets we were promoting are those for our big oil corporations, so no benefit to the Iraqi people. Occupation by a foreign army does not sound like freedom to me. BTW, most of the fighters are insurgents fighting against American occupation, not terrorists interested in spreading fundamentalist Islam.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:50 amPersonally,
February 24th, 2007 at 11:06 amWe should declare that we are defeated and leave.
Comment by Roger_DebateDodger — February 24, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Wow, I never would have thought you would recommend declaration of defeat.
Me, I would declare Mission Accomplished (Saddam’s dead), and bring our troops home safely (but that’s just me).
that way the terrorists in Iraq can kill the rest of the Iraqi community. We are just slowing them down right now.
Well, this just shows how friggin’ ignorant you really are. Terrorists are targeting civilians and Americans because of the occupation of the US in Iraq. But at least you and I agree, that under Bush’s failed policy of the War on Terror, the world is more dangerous then ever!
Why we tried to promote deomcracy, free markets, and freedom in other countries is beyond me.
Deomcracy? Do you mean demoncracy?
Ohhhh democracy!
You can’t force democracy by gun point! Here, I’ll give you an example:
Let’s say your bogeymen (terrorists) invaded your hometown, took control, and forcibly required everyone to convert to the peaceful teachings of Islam.
Would you, albeit reluctantly? Or would you make a stand?
take your time not getting back to me on this!
AshenShard
You are right. Thomas Ricks, the reporter for the Washington Post, has reported that those outside forces or terrorists who are fighting against the coalition forces number six per cent. As you say, the rest are Iraqis who want the U.S. to stop occupying and raping their country.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:10 amOf course Americans low ball the number of Iraqi deaths. I mean, what’s happening with Britney Spears? Are sandblast jeans in or out? Did everyone get the Friends DVD set? What is up with Paula Abdul anyway? Is Anna Nicole Smith still dead?
February 24th, 2007 at 11:26 amLet’s say your bogeymen (terrorists) invaded your hometown, took control, and forcibly required everyone to convert to the peaceful teachings of Islam.
Comment by DRxJ — February 24, 2007 @ 11:06 am
Are we trying to force the Iraqis to convert to Christianity? Funny, I do not remember seeing that in the ROE or the Guidelines we were issued for operations in Iraq.
But I do agree that the deaths of innocent Iraqis, either by US forces or insurgents, is tragic.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:26 amThe difference is that every man and women wants to be free. We are simply helping them overcome the terrorists in there way. The problem now is that we have congress controlled by S o c i a l i s t s that dispise freedom.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:32 amIs Anna Nicole Smith still dead?
Comment by Zooey — February 24, 2007 @ 11:26 am
OMG! Anna Nicole Smith is dead?!! OMFG!!!
Tell me it isn’t so…..
Are we trying to force the Iraqis to convert to Christianity?
February 24th, 2007 at 11:36 amComment by hacker bob — February 24, 2007 @ 11:26 am
okay, not quite the comparison I had in mind.
Let’s say Canada invades your hometime, and requires everyone to switch from Bud Light to Labatt! Would you?
I hope this is more clear.
Heh!
Comment by DRxJ — February 24, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Now you are talking about something serious. I love you man, but you can’t have my Bud Light.
Seriously, I can understand why the large percentage of the “insurgency” does what they do. They are doing the same thing you or I would do.
But there is also a certain percentage that is just there to kill Americans. In some cases, they are Iraqis, in other cases, they are Saudis, Jordanians, Chechnya’s, and yes, the occasional Persian (Iranian). Is the 5-10% of foreign fighters there for to make benefit the great nation of Iraq? Or are they there because it is a free fire zone on the US?
February 24th, 2007 at 11:42 amNow you are talking about something serious. I love you man, but you can’t have my Bud Light.
Comment by hacker bob
And Mrs Robert went to all the trouble of certifying your sexuality…tsk tsk.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:51 amBush Regime does not want Americans to know the exact number of Iraqis killed, because then Bush would be known as a mass murderer. At least a few hundred thousand Iraqis have been killed so far.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:52 am#11
Personally,
We should declare that we are defeated and leave. that way the terrorists in Iraq can kill the rest of the Iraqi community. We are just slowing them down right now. It is time for America to officially declare our defeat and declare victory for the terrorists. It is time to let these people kill and control what they want. Why we tried to promote deomcracy, free markets, and freedom in other countries is beyond me.
Comment by Roger_Roger — February 24, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Most of America didn’t enter the USA’s war based on a lie. Therefore Canada, Mexico and the rest of America won’t have to declare defeat. Nor will we finally have to admit we were suckered in to this illegal war based on lies. Unfortuneately, the ctizens of the United States (of America) won’t be so lucky.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:58 amWhere has the US ever promoted democracy? The leadership has been rolling back democracy at an unprecidented rate under bush/ Cheney in the USA. Explain how you are promoting democracy in places like Venezuela, when after being elected, re-elected and confirmed by majorities of Venezuelans, bush and Co. have tried to have him removed. Correct me if my idea of democracy is wrong, but I understand it to be something along the lines of on person, one vote, majority rules.
By the way. Where are those Weapons of Mass Destruction. You know. The ones around Bagdad and Tekrit (Rumsfeld). After all that was the first reason to go to war. How many reasons DO you need to go to war? One should be enough if it’s based on fact, and a dozen won’t do if they’re lies. Mission accomplished. Yeah right.
dang it hacker bob, I was going to leave work in an hour, grab a beer, and salute ya, when I remembered, I gave up alcohol for Lent………ahhhhhhh!
I’ll have to honor ya in less then 40 days (and 40 nights)!
Zooey, when it comes to beer drinking and men, we become very anti-homophobic after the suds take effect. Statements of I love you, man , usually slurred, are of an admiration standpoint, not a romance
That, and hackerbob and I attended the same homo detoxicfication as Rev Haggard did.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:01 pmSee, we’re all good!
They woefully underestimate the US death toll also. I read that they are only counting people who die in Iraq. They are not counting the people who die in an evacuation to a hospital in Germany. They are not counting the people who die later of injuries they sustained in Iraq if they are outside of Iraq when they die. And they certainly are not counting the brave men and women who take their own lives due to PTSD. If they counted all deaths caused by our participation in Iraq, the death tool would be closer to 10,000.
The Bushies are experts at “cooking the books”. They should hold seminars on how to do it.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:02 pm# 17 The difference is that every man and women wants to be free. We are simply helping them overcome the terrorists in there way. The problem now is that we have congress controlled by S o c i a l i s t s that dispise freedom.
Comment by Roger_Roger — February 24, 2007 @ 11:32 am
The way bush would move the US to the right, if he had another term Hitler would look like a socialist. The more you move to the right, the more of a lefty I am, and I haven’t changed.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:02 pmZooey, when it comes to beer drinking and men, we become very anti-homophobic after the suds take effect. Statements of I love you, man , usually slurred, are of an admiration standpoint, not a romance
That, and hackerbob and I attended the same homo detoxicfication as Rev Haggard did.
See, we’re all good!
Comment by DRxJ
Ummm hmmm, hope that detox holds. :-D
Too bad about the beer, I’ll have one for you.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:11 pmComment by DRxJ — February 24, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
39 days and counting, right? that’s ok, I grab a cold one in your honor.
Zooey, don’t confuse love with love. As DRxJ said, we are on the Haggard plan.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:12 pmZooey, don’t confuse love with love. As DRxJ said, we are on the Haggard plan.
Comment by hacker bob
We all know the Rev Haggard will be the first to stumble. Heh.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:15 pmBTW DRxJ, I gave up Lent for Lent. Does that count?
February 24th, 2007 at 12:15 pmToo bad about the beer, I’ll have one for you.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:16 pmComment by Zooey — February 24, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
Thank you. I have to live vicariously through some one for the next 36 days!!!
(Last off topic post, I promise)
#17 Roger_Roger
First off the democrats are not socialists, they are liberals, big difference. Second, socialists do not despise despise freedom, they embrace it, support it, and help it thrive. The fascists that disguise themselves as the republican party, however, wish to destroy that freedom because it hinders their ability to turn a profit at the cost of others.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:19 pmWhen I was a kid, I gave up Sunday school for Lent — and forever. The teacher almost popped me in the mouth. :-D
February 24th, 2007 at 12:21 pmbetween afghan and Iraq and somalia the totals 1 Million
February 24th, 2007 at 12:28 pmhttp://newsmine.org/
News and Document archive source for uncovering and exposing
February 24th, 2007 at 12:35 pmwith over 10,000 articles and documents
Noticed Roger_Roger couldn’t debate my points.
February 24th, 2007 at 12:39 pmDoes this surprise anyone?
Alright, I’m outta here.
Post atchya on Monday
Here is the difference. You include insurgents as civilians.
Comment by mandolin — February 24, 2007 @ 10:27 am
Sorry, a**hole, most of the dead, order of hundreds of thousans, are civilians. Women. Babies. Moms. Dads. So STFU, freak, because a**holes like you enable it.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:20 pmI am sickened by the putrid filth that trolls this site. There is no excuse for it regardless of how screwed up your geopolitical views are. The people still defending Bush are simply callous losers, and mostly racists.
February 24th, 2007 at 1:22 pmDoes America really understand how many lives have been lost?
A couple (?) of years ago Ray Taliaferro talked about the Herring Reprot at tpmmuckraker which stated that the total number of deaths of US in Iraq were those that died on the soil of Iraq – not those en route to or already at the hospital. So if true the death toll would be 4 to 5 times higher. Also, this would be a typical example of how this administration lies to keep their war cash machine going.
I am no longer able to find this article…
http://tpmmuckraker.com/
February 24th, 2007 at 1:44 pmCHIMPya, Torticola Cheney and Bushland Uber Allies is keeping the REAL number of Iraqi Civilians killed in the conflict as LOW as they can manage in a FUTILE effort to try and contain the RISING TIDE of INDIGNATION, DISPLEASURE and DOWNRIGHT HOSTILITY that is rising in Iraq and here at home among the thoughts of average Americans at the GENOCIDE and MASS MURDER of INNOCENT Iraqi BYSTANDERS WHICH NOW NUMBER IN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS–MUCH MORE THAN THAT MURDERING Saddam KILLED OF HIS OWN PEOPLE!!!!! I think this CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR HAVING A WAR CRIMES WORLD TRIBUNAL SET UP AND BRINGING CHIMPya, Cheney and Bushland Uber Allies to JUSTICE, nicht wahr?
February 24th, 2007 at 2:09 pm“Iraqi flu deaths are probally due to the US as well
Comment by mandolin — February 24, 2007 @ 10:29 am”
Yes and don’t forget head colds, ear aches, running noses, tooth aches, etc. etc etc.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:16 pmHere are some Iraqi statistics from The World Factbook
Iraq 2001
Population: 23,331,985 (July 2001 est.)
Age structure: 0-14 years: 41.64% (male 4,934,340; female 4,781,206)
15-64 years: 55.28% (male 6,528,854; female 6,368,823)
65 years and over: 3.08% (male 335,953; female 382,809) (2001 est.)
Population growth rate: 2.84% (2001 est.)
Birth rate: 34.64 births/1,000 population (2001 est.)
Death rate: 6.21 deaths/1,000 population (2001 est.)
Net migration rate: 0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2001 est.)
Sex ratio: at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.03 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.03 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.88 male(s)/female
total population: 1.02 male(s)/female (2001 est.)
Infant mortality rate: 60.05 deaths/1,000 live births (2001 est.)
Life expectancy at birth: total population: 66.95 years
Iraq 2005
Population:
26,074,906 (July 2005 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 40% (male 5,293,709/female 5,130,826)
15-64 years: 57% (male 7,530,619/female 7,338,109)
65 years and over: 3% (male 367,832/female 413,811) (2005 est.)
Median age:
total: 19.43 years
male: 19.35 years
female: 19.51 years (2005 est.)
Population growth rate:
2.7% (2005 est.)
Birth rate:
32.5 births/1,000 population (2005 est.)
Death rate:
5.49 deaths/1,000 population (2005 est.)
Net migration rate:
0 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2005 est.)
Sex ratio:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.03 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.03 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.89 male(s)/female
total population: 1.02 male(s)/female (2005 est.)
Infant mortality rate:
total: 50.25 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 56.06 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 44.14 deaths/1,000 live births (2005 est.)
Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 68.7 years
male: 67.49 years
female: 69.97 years (2005 est
Looks like death rates are down.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:34 pmAnd life expectancy is up. Perhaps Faiz or Nico could link to these statistics on the main page.
February 24th, 2007 at 2:39 pmSharon. Killing 650,000 men women and children in a country that posed no threat hurt’s me as much as every one of our own soldiers that are wounded or are killed
54,000 is less than 10% of 650,000. So, I guess you could figure that any outrage Sharon has, is exaggerated at least 10 fold.
Sharon, despite your fuzzy math and crazy political views, I’m glad your cancer free. Since you don’t have cancer, you’ll probably live longer, and the chances for you and me to hook up for a glass of wine (and maybe more) go way up; huge.
Even if you don’t want to hook up, you seem like nice person. Maybe a higher power has decided to give you more time on Earth to attain a better grip on reality. For whatever reason, I am (sincerely) glad you will be around longer. Peace and love and hopes for better clarity for all.
February 24th, 2007 at 3:14 pm“Killing 650,000 men women and children in a country that posed no threat”
650,000 is the number being bantered about on most liberal websites with nothing to back it up. The website below tracks the death tole and it is not by any means a Conservative website!
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
February 24th, 2007 at 3:25 pmmichael —
I invite you to read my post in the Tancredo thread about DU and it’s effects on the present and FUTURE death toll Michael.
Are they taking into account radiation and cancer deaths ON BOTH SIDES?
I doubt it.
You and your site are “dead” wrong.
February 24th, 2007 at 3:36 pmmichael —
I invite you to read my post in the Tancredo thread about DU and it’s effects on the present and FUTURE death toll Michael.
Are they taking into account radiation and cancer deaths ON BOTH SIDES?
I doubt it.
I would venture to say it is in the MILLIONS since Gulf War I.
You and your site are “dead” wrong.
February 24th, 2007 at 3:38 pmThere is a war between the ones who say there is a war
and the ones who say there isn’t.
~~Leonard Cohen
February 24th, 2007 at 3:42 pmLooks like death rates are down.
Comment by mandolin — February 24, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Lame snow job attempt, freak.
February 24th, 2007 at 3:57 pm54,000 is less than 10% of 650,000. So, I guess you could figure that any outrage Sharon has, is exaggerated at least 10 fold.
Comment by paul — February 24, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
First, our idiot bedwetter friend paul doesn’t understand the difference between a body count that sets an extreme lower bound, and the actual death rate. Second, I find paul’s little math exercise morally repugnant in the extreme. Nice linear thinking, a**hole.
February 24th, 2007 at 3:59 pmTo all the Nazi freaks trolling this site, someday even you won’t be able to deny the massive death and destruction caused in Iraq by Bush’s adventure. The day will come when a sizable majority of people in this country finally realize it, and are shocked and sickened by it. Then you will find yourself boxed into a tiny little place with all the other tiny little Nazis wannabes.
February 24th, 2007 at 4:01 pmDuhmerica can lie all it wants…
…but the blood on our hands will not wash off so easily…
…Duhmerica is cursed and will pay a price for what Bushiva and L’il Dick have made her a party to…
…Like Saddam who murdered thousands- Bush and Cheney have out done him…
…They will pay the same price he did (the universe’s justice system demands they do)…
…Hitler, Saddam, Pol Pot, Stalin, Pinochet all pay for their crimes in hell right now…
…the people who cheered them on and supported them pay for their crimes in hell right now…
…Bushites will no doubt pay for their crimes in hell as well…
…Bush/Cheney worshippers are all cursed, and have lost their souls…
…mark well these words as hell descends upon your houses Bushites…
…your Karma (like all of the mass murdering criminals before you)…
…demands it…
February 24th, 2007 at 4:39 pmBut there is also a certain percentage that is just there to kill Americans.
Comment by hacker bob
And Americans are there just to … what?
February 24th, 2007 at 5:24 pmBig Papa, there is no need to go to hell for them to pay. Everything is payed right here…sooner or later.
February 24th, 2007 at 5:26 pmComment by Juan C #49
…I understand (and was remiss in conveying) the fact that…
…”hell” lies on many planes of existence…
…thank you for illuminating that fact Juan…
February 24th, 2007 at 5:37 pmA View Of The Radical Threat Of Islam and Those Who Simply Want To Ignore It
There are three books that are must reading for anyone who wants to understand the war we are in whether we like it or not.
This trilogy may be the most important reading of recent decades. It will convince any reasonable mind that our lives are at stake and so is our civilization.
Of course, those who believe that war is an elective even if you are under attack, and believe that you can say “I’m not participating” and the war will go away, will not be convinced. Furthermore, those who believe in the approach of current French government, “negotiate, appease, retreat, and surrender,” will also not be convinced. Finally, those who think we should conduct wars by opinion polling and then micromanage wars in an attempt to run, cut and capitulate will also not be convinced.
The rest of us will, and should read:
Mark Steyn, America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It (2006),
Melanie Phillips, Londonistan (2005), and
Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying The West From Within (2006).
[Vince comments: I have read all three]
The books pretty much demonstrate Europe is already gone, and has committed cultural suicide while surrendering to radical Islam. The United States may not be far behind unless we change our approach. The three books describe the problem and offer solutions.
All three should have received nothing but readers and prizes, but a funny thing happened to Bawer.
[Vince comments: By the way Bawer is a gay guy too. Maybe us gay guys are smarter than the Progressives. Bawer lived in the US, and after a while couldn't take the oppression by Christian Fundamentalists so after writing a book about that , he fled to Europe and discovered not a abstract theological threat but a real physical , political threat of exponentially greater magnitude]
It was nominated for a National Book Critics Circle Award from a prestigious book group, but some involved in the process accused Bawer of being a racist, apparently because he offered criticism of radical Islam.
One board member of the Circle, Eliot Weinberg, said the book was “racism as criticism.” The President of the Circle said, “It’s hyperventilated rhetoric slips from actual critique into Islamophobia.” As far as I can tell such critics themselves did not speak to substance, but spoke only in their own hyperventilated and irrational rhetoric by condemning the book in hollow generalities, ignoring the most threatening facts and realities of our time.
Bawer had the perfect response: “As I and many others have pointed out a few million times, radical Islam is not a race…But it’s easy – and in some circles highly effective – to fling the ‘R’ word instead of trying to respond to irrefutable facts and arguments.”
He continues, “One of the most disgraceful developments of our time is that many Western authors and intellectuals who pride themselves on being liberals have effectively aligned themselves with an outrageously illiberal movement that rejects equal rights for women, that believes gays and Jews should be executed, that supports the cold-blooded murder of one’s own children in the name of honor, etc., etc. These authors and intellectuals respond to every criticism of that chilling fundamentalist code – however cogent and correct the criticism may be – by hurling the ‘R’ word. I will not be cowed by such dangerous, duplicitous rhetoric. Civilized, tolerant, pluralistic values are at stake – values that affect freedom loving individuals of all races.”
Then Bawer exposes his critics for the hypocritical, left-wing loonies and phonies they are: “Some people think it is terrific for writers to expose the offenses and perils of religious fundamentalism – just as long as its Christian fundamentalism.”
Ron Dreher, who has written a book critical of Christian fundamentalist, writes that this is the standard approach of the left – to yell bigotry at any ideas they don’t want to confront, or perhaps can’t logically respond to.
Because the left views criticism of radical Islam as bigotry, it has failed to rationally respond to this existential threat to our civilization. For that reason, Europe has virtually surrendered its civilization to the on-rushing Islamic fundamentalists and the demands of Islam.
Dreher makes another point deadly to the critics of Bawer: “It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that this sort of liberal hates political conservatives and orthodox Christians more than he loves his own liberty.”
These liberal types are in fact totally intolerant of ideas they don’t like, and instead of considering such ideas they simply reject them out of hand by branding them as racist, as bigotry, or by applying some other pejorative. It is ironic indeed that the great bastions of liberalism – our colleges and universities, our mainstream media, and Hollywood – have also become the bastions of intolerance and the closed mind. Observe the ex-President of Harvard, who was driven from office, by making the claim that there may be differences between men and women.
If it is not politically correct, you can’t talk about it or believe it. The list of things that are sacred to the left – such as global warming – are now considered beyond discussion and dispute.
Unless we consider the ideas of the Bawers, the Steyns, and the Phillips of this world, we will not be able to consider or even think about ideas other than those imposed by radical, fundamentalist Islam. I challenge anyone to read the trilogy on radical Islam – by Steyn, Phillips, and Bawer – and not be convinced of their thesis.
Herb Denenberg, a former Pennsylvania insurance commissioner and professor at the Wharton School, is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the National?Academy of Arts and Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@thebulletin.us.
February 24th, 2007 at 6:33 pmAnd Americans are there just to … what?
Comment by Juan C — February 24, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Well, they are not there to kill innocent Iraqis.
February 24th, 2007 at 7:07 pmBig Papa, there is no need to go to hell for them to pay. Everything is payed right here…sooner or later.
Comment by Juan C — February 24, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
So, I deserve a ticket to hell? I expected this from big racist (papa), but not you.
February 24th, 2007 at 7:09 pmBased on everything I know and based on things I assume and based on things I read between the lines:
Americans are in Iraq to
- Get rid of a dictator who had motives to do harm to us
February 24th, 2007 at 7:34 pm- Perhaps try to civilize the animals over there
- Set a precedent that the US won’t tolerate being f*cked with
- Create a base from which to take further action against Iran and Saudi Arabia,, the Shiite and Sunna pillars of Islamic Jihad
- To attract the Jihadis as a place to attack us and be killed
Vince says:
Americans are in Iraq to
- Get rid of a dictator who had motives to do harm to us
Question:
…The Bushites claimed that Saddam had the “means” to do harm to us, implying nuclear capabilities and aerial drones that could deliver a chemical spray…
…If the Bush I and Clinton admins, Brithish, French, Germans, and various other NATO allies didn’t see the need (and indeed saw the foolishness in such a move)…
…why did Bushiva and L’il Dick ride hellbent-for-leather into this disaster?
ANSWER:
…after 9/11 they (Bushiva and L’il Dick) saw a perfect opportunity to strengthen (immortalize) the Repulsivescum Party in the eyes of the DUHmerican public as “the Party of Action and U.S. Power and Security”…
…while at the same time raking in the dough for U.S. military /corporate industrial political benefactors…
Vince says:
- Perhaps try to civilize the animals over there
…racist screed with no basis in fact, unworthy of response…
Vince says:
- Set a precedent that the US won’t tolerate being f*cked with
…unless it’s someone with comparable nuclear or miltary strength/technology that’s doing the fu*king…
…why am I dithering with this intellectual inbred moron…
…yawn…
February 24th, 2007 at 8:17 pmUh? Michael? Where have you gone?
I see you sent your Chief Obfuscator over here to try to cover your little smarmy ass with his LONG GOP BOT posts. To move my post WAY up the board. Well Fuc*K you.
Let’s get it on punk!
But there is no covering up the “facts”
Care to discuss the issue?
I thought not.
Open your BIG mouth, post a few Copy/Paste GOP BOT JOBS and run away.
Coward. They say “cowardice is, as cowardice does”
You my friend are the penultimate coward and of the highest order.
——————————————————
“Killing 650,000 men women and children in a country that posed no threatâ€
650,000 is the number being bantered about on most liberal websites with nothing to back it up. The website below tracks the death tole and it is not by any means a Conservative website!
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Comment by michael — February 24, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
michael —
I invite you to read my post in the Tancredo thread about DU and it’s effects on the present and FUTURE death toll Michael.
Are they taking into account radiation and cancer deaths ON BOTH SIDES?
I doubt it.
I would venture to say it is in the MILLIONS since Gulf War I.
You and your site are “dead†wrong.
Comment by rachel rj kinnardi — February 24, 2007 @ 3:38 pm
February 24th, 2007 at 8:18 pmHey rachael genius.. take 650,000 and tell us how many would have to die a day to reach that number
February 24th, 2007 at 8:26 pm5 hours later and crickets. No Michael.
Only Vince P. pasting his LONG GOP BOT talking points to attempt to cover his “little buddy” by moving my post WAY up the frickin board.
Fuc*k you Vince P. aka “The Gay Patriot”
—————————————————-
Big Papa, Vince P. posts over at the site “The Gay Patriot” and the bullshit he spews here really contrdicts the bullshit he spews there.
He is a “two timing troll”
He has gone under cover over there as a Liberal in a vain attempt at trying to sharpen his claws to attempt to bring it over here.
He is really fu*cked in the head.
And if I say that about someone, you can “take it to the bank”
Now I know my “fuc*ked in the head” and if it passes “my” litmus test for certifiable Section 8, you can take it to the bank.
LOL LMAO rotfl…crazily of course.
February 24th, 2007 at 8:30 pmI didnt think you could do the math
February 24th, 2007 at 8:38 pmThe point is Vince P. is you cannot figure this war on a daily basis …basis.
20,000 here, 4000 there.
It really adds up no?
The military is NOT going to tell us how many truthfully die on a daily basis on both sides. It would be too abhorrent. They “leech” the numbers out slowly to make it more “palatable” to the viewing public.
So your “daily” argument is hypothetical and fecetious at best.
A lame attempot at trolling at worst.
And as always Vince P.,
Go fuc*k yourself!
February 24th, 2007 at 8:55 pmDo the math bitch.
February 24th, 2007 at 9:02 pmMichael,
You wrote: “650,000 is the number being bantered about on most liberal websites with nothing to back it up. The website below tracks the death tole and it is not by any means a Conservative website!
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/”
You are really showing your ignorance and proving how the “liberal” media is afraid to mention an excellent, exhaustive study, using well-established methodology, conducted by one of the finest universities in the world (Johns Hopkins) and probably the foremost medical journal in the world (The Lancet) !!!!
I am sure that Michael has studied research at a better university than Johns Hopkins and contributes to a finer journal than The Lancet (sarcasm).
Their study says, as of July 2006, the middle figure in the estimate would be 655,000. It may be somewhat lower, but it also may be somewhat higher.
The reason Iraqbodycount.org is so much lower is that it only includes deaths as a direct result of violence (not indirect such as the destruction of healthcare or destruction of clean water facilities leading to disease) and they insist on two different media sources for each death. With all the chaos in that country, it is unreasonable to require two different media sources for each death. Mostly, it is too dangerous for the media to leave the Green Zone.
The Johns Hopkins/Lancet researchers went from household to household in Iraq asking about family members who had died and 95% of the time were shown death certificates. (Does this come under Michael’s fantasy of “nothing to back it up”?)
Who gave “The World Factbook” their deathrate info? They could have been lying to cover up how bad things really are in Iraq. Sometimes government officials do such things. The morgues really are overflowing. It’s not too difficult to count bodies in the morgues. It really is common for 100 bodies a day to turn up in the streets (sometimes in Baghdad alone)–bound, tortured, and executed. If this happens for four years, that equals 146,000. But most Iraqi deaths don’t wind up in that manner.
When the news says our invasion and occupation have caused one million Iraqis to flee to other countries and for another one million Iraqis to become refugees within Iraq—what do you ignorant trolls think of that? Do you think that proves how wonderful things are going?
An excellent economic study of the real total costs of Iraq (by Nobel winner Stiglitz and co-author Bilmes) says over $2.2 TRILLION. That money is coming out of the ignorant trolls’ paychecks. And your children’s. And your grandchildren’s!!
By the way, all the reasons given for the invasion were known lies long before they were given.
February 24th, 2007 at 10:31 pmI am sick and tired of American government not revealing the death count. If the death count will demoralize the American people, then maybe we haven’t presented a convincing reason for going to war in the first place?
February 24th, 2007 at 10:38 pmMichael,
You ignoramus, I forgot, the word you meant is “bandied”——-not “bantered”.
February 24th, 2007 at 11:15 pm#8. Iraqi flu deaths are probally due to the US as well -Comment by mandolin
ah how pathethicly these rightwing inbreds try to use sarcasm. yes morondolin, not having any food because you can’t venture out safely or because theres a curfew can lead to malnutrition which can lead to disease.
having no electricity most of the day probably means what little food you have in your fridge is rotting, but you have to eat it anyway because its better than nothing. that could lead to disease too.
its hot as heck during the day, but at night in the desert, it get frigid. being subjected to cold temperatures can lead to disease. again, the fact it gets cold at night in the desert is something your too stupid to contemplate..
not having any working sewage system or trash pickup, with streets filled with garbage, feces and urine can lead to disease too.. thats how the black plauge started and was spread.
turning on your waterfaucet and getting a cupful of worms with your putrid water, but having to drink it anyway because its the only water there is, could lead to disease also.
these are merely a handful of the hygenic horrors we have inflicted on iraq. i know your too stupid to understand anything about the collateral effects of war, but turning an entire country into a battlezone can create conditions which causes disease to spread like wildfire..
February 25th, 2007 at 7:01 amSunday, February 25, 2007
http://www.theittlist.com/
Virginia Legislators Vote to Apologize for Slavery (1:46 am)
Larry O’Dell for AP reports:
RICHMOND, Va. — Meeting on the grounds of the former Confederate Capitol, the Virginia General Assembly voted unanimously Saturday to express “profound regret†for the state’s role in slavery.
Sponsors of the resolution say they know of no other state that has apologized for slavery, although Missouri lawmakers are considering such a measure. The resolution does not carry the weight of law but sends an important symbolic message, supporters said.
——————————————————
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×234561
How the U.S. military would remove Bush-Cheney
There’s a term for when the military replaces its Commander-In-Chief – coup d’etat — but there are lesser practical steps that have been taken by Pentagon brass several times in modern American history to deal with Presidents viewed as incompetent to carry out their duties as CIC. Here’s how it works in practice.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have developed a range of options to deal with domestic political crises. These contingencies include major military or terrorist attacks, natural catastrophies, insurrections, civil disturbances, and the partial or complete cessation of civilian goverment. By far, the most difficult for the national command staff is confronting and managing the threat posed by a manifestly imcompetent or incapacitated CIC who issues launch orders without proper procedures. Under no circumstances short of actual hostilities or a confirmed threat of attack, could the military carry out launch orders committing the military to war on the sole authority of the President. George W. Bush can not just pick up the phone in the middle of the night and begin a nuclear strike. That order has to be countersigned by others within the chain of command.
The Pentagon carries out strategic planning for all possible contingencies. The staff of Joint Chiefs and the combat commands attempt to prepare reponses to all possible threats or orders they may receive. Somewhere in a locked file in the D-Ring of the Pentagon, the JCS staff have developed contingency planning for how top military commanders would respond to manifestly illegal or irresponsible orders issed by a deranged President. These responses would always involve consultation with civilian agency and Congressional leaders and range up to and include plans for the use of troops to forcible remove the President from the White House, depending upon the circumstances.
Political Containment
One doesn’t contemplate the involuntary removal of elected civilian leadership lightly. Civilian control over the military is the cornerstone of the American constitutional system, and all actions must serve that end. Therefore, the military brass will not act independently and will seek out responsible elected and appointed officials for any action prior to removal of a President. Prior to any direct intervention in the political process, Pentagon commanders would have to be convinced that all normal procedural and political options, including Impeachment or succession under the 25th Amendment, had been exhausted or were futile.
An active plan of containment by civilian political institutions is the preferred means to deal with a dangerously unstable CIC. If normal political checks and balances break down, however, then top military commanders face a series of more difficult choices that must be made in order to uphold their oaths to protect and preserve the U.S. Constitution.
Removal in Place
Romoval in Place is an option to forcible removal of the incumbent from office, or may be employed as an intervening step pending the resignation or involuntary removal of the President.
Removal in place has been seen in “figurehead” presidents in the past, employed due to illness or temporary physical or mental impairment during the terms of Presidents Wilson, Nixon, and Reagan. Historically, this option has been carried out more or less informally by measures such as confinement to hospital of the President, the removal of the CIC’s access to the nuclear “football” containing launch codes, and the heavy medication and close supervision of the President by aides.
The removal in place option requires the cooperation of key figures within the White House inner-circle along with civilian agencies to effectively keep the President from exercising undesirable command decisions of consequence. The effective maintenance of this option ultimately depends upon at least the passive acquiesance of the CIC and his immediate staff and family.
This option has the advantage of maintaining the public appearance of normalcy, avoiding open conflict between civilian and military authorities, and the attendant political and economic crises that open, formal, involuntary removal would entail.
Involuntary Removal
When it becomes apparent that an incompetent or psychologically impaired President can not be countered by normal political means or contained in place, military and civilian leaders must cooperate to insure that the CIC is disconnected from the mechanisms by which he might be able to issue launch orders to the national command system.
This option is a matter of last resort exercised only when by the consensus of the Joint Chiefs, after consultation with civilian heads of agencies and Congressional leaders, that the incumbent President presents extreme danger to the national security that can not be contained by alternatives, including those outlined above. The proper procedure would then be for alternate civilian leadership within the Line of Succession to invoke the 25th Amendment declaring the incumbent President incapable of carrying out his duties. If the Vice President is also judged incapable of carrying out succession duties in a responsible manner, he too is also subject to immediate removal under the 25th Amendment.
Involuntary removal may only be considered as a last resort in the face of grave, imminent threat to national security, such as to prevent the exercise of unlawful orders committing U.S. forces to hostilities. An example of unlawful launch orders would be issuance of a preemptive nuclear strike orders against a foreign state or power that poses no realistic, imminent, and grave threat to American forces or interests. Of particular concern would a launch order issued without Congressional consultation or approval initiating a conflict that foreseeably holds a high potential for large-scale U.S. military casualties or retaliatory attacks on civilian targets within the United States that can not be effectively defended against.
Given the escalating tensions in the region, and the vital U.S. interests at stake in South Asia, the top military commanders have forcefuly articulated their positon on various options. They have opposed implementation of plans for a preemptive attack on Iran. If the President were to issue a launch order for a preemptive attack on Iran without first obtaining a Congressional resolution of war, that action — in effect, an illegal order — would require the national command authority and civilian leadership to implement plans to contravene such an order, sever the CIC’s command authority, pending the removal the President and Vice President under the 25th Amendment.
Do not be deceived by the rhetoric and sabre-rattling. The United States will not go to war with Iran just because George W. Bush or Dick Cheney order it.
February 25th, 2007 at 7:02 am——————————————————
most Americans couldnt find Iraq on a map let alone care about the slaughter of Iraqi citizens. They are not witness to the blood and carnage since the media carefully sanitizes all first hand accounts of war violence.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:31 amJason: So what is the the conclusion one should reach based on what you said?
February 25th, 2007 at 9:57 amAP can congratulate itself for the poll result – their negligent reportage has taken away the average American’s right to make an informed decision on anything. Someone should inform the public of that, too, I suppose..
February 25th, 2007 at 12:22 pm54 – that’s impressive, Vince – it should be called “the bug zapper strategy” and, like bug zappers, shouldn’t be seen or heard of outside a doublewide’s screened-in porch.
February 25th, 2007 at 12:25 pmPaul, the contraction for “you are” is “you’re”, not “your”. And Roger Roger, third person plural possive is “their”, not “there”. I can’t remember if I learned these in the first or second grades. But it sounds as if you two have not read very much.
May I suggest you read William Blum, Ray McGovern, Stephen Kinzer, Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky, and Howard Zinn.
Vince, you strongly oppose radical Islamists, yet you favor our invasion and occupation of Iraq which radicalizes Islamists. Can you elaborate on your apparent inconsistencies.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:23 pmIslam is radicalizing no matter what. It’s best to be forward deployed and fight them at the source.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:28 pmThe source was NOT Iraq. Saddam was doing a splendid job of strongly suppressing them. That is why they hated him and called him a “secular hedonist”.
Bush did not finish the job in Afghanistan because he wanted to take Iraq for the OIL. He did not surround bin Laden and al Qaeda at Tora Bora. In fact, he strangely left them an easy exit to Pakistan where they are today. Why does Bush not care that they are operating in Pakistan TODAY?
Pakistan (unlike Iraq & Iran) does have nuclear weapons and the delivery systems. Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) did send funds to the 19 who committed 9/11. Pakistan’s dictatorship is not a stable government.
Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the US opened it up to them. Wasn’t that stupid?
February 25th, 2007 at 11:47 pmThere are currently about 1.2 billion Islamists in the world. They most definitely are not all radical. That would be a ludicrous statement. But if Vince had his way, they would become radical.
February 25th, 2007 at 11:51 pmp.s.: Pakistan DID sell nuclear technology to North Korea. Why is it you don’t hear our administration mention that little historical detail? You would think it was important.
February 25th, 2007 at 11:54 pm>There are currently about 1.2 billion Islamists in the world. They most definitely are not all radical. That would be a ludicrous statement. But if Vince had his way, they would become radical.
Well that’s nice and all, BUT I NEVER SAID THEY WERE.
February 25th, 2007 at 11:59 pmWhats’ your point anyway? That Islam isn’t a violent totalitarian religion?
>ps.: Pakistan DID sell nuclear technology to North Korea. Why is it you don’t hear our administration mention that little historical detail? You would think it was important.
They have mentioned it. Anyway who pays attentions to things would know that.
February 25th, 2007 at 11:59 pmThere have been some awfully radical Christians (The Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, extermination of 6,000,000 Jews, extermination of 20,000,000 Native Americans, Jim Jones cult, David Koresh cult, Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nation, Eric Robert Rudolph, etc, etc.). Yet it would be ludicrous to say that ALL Christians are radical or that it is a radical religion. There are many Christians I admire—my mother and Ray McGovern, for instance.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:03 amkeith: Guess what… no matter how bad the people you cite are. the Muslims are all that times 1000.. So what is the point? That Islam isn’t a threat… if it isn’t, then why bring up things are far lessor threats?
February 26th, 2007 at 12:10 amMy point is that the policies you advocate greatly increase the number of Islamists who see the USA as their enemy. You don’t have to take my word for it. That is what the 16 intelligence agencies of the US and every study in the world say.
What we are doing in the Middle East is extremely, extremely, extremely counter-productive. And it is going to get worse with any kind of attack on Iran.
Our actions in the Middle East are not for the reasons given, but because we want to control that part of the world. One of the obvious reasons for our oil administration wanting to control that part of the world is its oil.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:11 amIn every poll taken in Europe they say Bush is a greater threat to the world than the radical Islamists.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:13 amSo if the Islamists are 1000X worse than the extermination of the 26 million I mentioned—that would mean they have exterminated 26 Billion?
February 26th, 2007 at 12:17 am>My point is that the policies you advocate greatly increase the number of Islamists who see the USA as their enemy
hahah.. You know the mind of the Islamists? Tell me who their intellectual inspiration is. this person’s writings date to the 1st half of the 20th century. No googling.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:19 amLike I care what lazy Europeans think.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:20 am>So if the Islamists are 1000X worse than the extermination of the 26 million I mentioned—that would mean they have exterminated 26 Billion?
Um, hyperbole,, hello.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:21 amIslamists most definitely NOT from Iraq caused the deaths of 3,000 Americans. Our invasion of a country that was a threat to noone in 2003 caused the deaths of 655,000 Iraqis and 3,150 Americans. And $2.2 Trillion. And increased the number of our enemies (16 intelligence agencies of the US).
February 26th, 2007 at 12:22 amThey are not lazy. But if they were, what the @#$% would that have to do with the argument. I was trying to say that Europe used to be a strong ally of the USA (especially after 9/11), but because of what this administration has done, even Europe thinks we are the biggest threat in the world. Asia, Africa, and Latin America really think so !!
February 26th, 2007 at 12:27 amOk, so you dont know about Qutb. Qutb is one of the founders of today’s Jihad. Back in the 40s, he identified the United States as the primary power that needs to be destroyed by Muslims in order for them fulfil thier religious duty. So you see, no matter what the US does or does not do, the Jihad will see it as its primary target because we are the main force in their way.
I see everything as revolving around the US.. whatever peole do , they do it because of something we did.. you almost delegitimize them as thinking human beings.
Well the Jihadis do think and their religion is the basis for everything they do in life, including how to wipe thier butt after they crap (really).
They are operating from that rule book and we are thier primary target. If we dont keep the pressure on them (and that includes making the precisious Europeans upset (actually they’re scared to death of thier muslim minority populations) they will eventually take hold of vast parts of the planet and with WMD they will destroy us.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:35 amI made a mistake in the diatribe I wrote.. this:
I see everything as revolving around the US.. whatever peole do , they do it because of something we did.. you almost delegitimize them as thinking human beings.
should be this:
You see everything as revolving around the US.. whatever peole do , they do it because of something we did.. you almost delegitimize them as thinking human beings.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:36 amI worked in Europe for 12 years (three countries) and traveled to seven others. They ain’t lazy. Do you think the Nazis were lazy? I guess you think they should have exterminated a lot more than 6,000,000—if they hadn’t been so lazy!
February 26th, 2007 at 12:36 amThen I guess it was pretty stupid to remove Saddam who was extremely suppressing these people and open up the country to the jihadists.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:39 amWatch Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Muslim refugee from Somali who became a MP in Netherlands, her friend Van Gough murdered by Muslims, had her citizenship revoked (and reinstated) and now lives in the US.
Watch her on Bill Maher and listen to her message
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpk7SNVlagQ
February 26th, 2007 at 12:41 amThe Jihad moving to Iraq was inevitable. I read a book “Inside the JIhad”.. the guy who was in the camps related a story that was in 1995 when all the Al Qaida leaders were agreed.. Iraq was the location of the next battle.
It’s very good thing we’re there. Otherwise had Saddam fell from power and these forces pour into teh country, we would never have been able to establish our troops there.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:44 amDo you realize you are saying you know more about the situation than the sixteen intelligence agencies of the US combined?
February 26th, 2007 at 1:06 amSo that I dont have to guess.. which statement of mine do you mean by that?
February 26th, 2007 at 1:11 amUnder your knowledge of humans, it would be impossible for the number of Americans who wanted to go to the other side of the world and kill al Qaeda to be any higher on 9/12/01 than it was on 9/10/01—because people either have a violent radical religion or they do not, and nothing others do to them (like attack their country) can change it.
This is so ignorant that I don’t know where to begin. A large percentage of Americans were so changed by 9-11-01, that they even wanted to kill those NOT responsible (like Iraqis) just because they were of the same race and religion. They don’t even care if hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians die in the collateral damage.
This was due to a one-day attack causing 3,000 deaths. Now, imagine a complete invasion and four-year occupation of the USA causing 655,000 deaths (the vast majority civilians). Would that “radicalize” Americans against al Qaeda? According to you knowledge: NO, since people either have a radical violent religion or they do not and events don’t sway them !!!
February 26th, 2007 at 1:31 pmVince, I am assuming you are currently fighting in Iraq—-otherwise you would be massively hypocritical !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 26th, 2007 at 1:38 pm“The rate of terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups and the rate of fatalities in those attacks increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the average fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, which accounts for fully half of the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks in the post-Iraq War period. But even excluding Iraq, the average yearly number of jihadist terrorist attacks and resulting fatalities still rose sharply around the world by 265 percent and 58 percent respectively.
And even when attacks in both Afghanistan and Iraq (the two countries that together account for 80 percent of attacks and 67 percent of deaths since the invasion of Iraq) are excluded, there has still been a significant rise in jihadist terrorism elsewhere–a 35 percent increase in the number of jihadist terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, from 27.6 to 37 a year, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities from 496 to 554 per year.”
By Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank
February 26th, 2007 at 1:57 pmResearch fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law. Bergen is also a senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C.
You keep throwing that 600,000 number around like it’s true. But like everything else that you write, it’s a trite cliche that has been proved to be false.
I laugh at how by reciting your lefty lies over and over and over with nothign new to contribute that you think you are actually contradicting me. No, you’re off on tangents trying to avoid directly my assertions which are merely observations of the jihad around the world. No amount of your chihuahua like beligerance will invalidate that.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:07 pmThe Jihad rates are only going to get higher and higher for the near future. One thing is for sure, not fighting them is worse than fighting them. Not fighting them means you’re facing 1,000,000 of them in 5 years instead of 100,000 of them now.
The major failure of Leftists is that they never look forward to see the consequences of their silly ideas… and most of them end in failure.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:09 pmYou are really showing your ignorance and proving how the “liberal†media is afraid to mention an excellent, exhaustive study, using well-established methodology, conducted by one of the finest universities in the world (Johns Hopkins) and probably the foremost medical journal in the world (The Lancet) !!!!
I am sure that Vince P has studied research at a better university than Johns Hopkins and contributes to a finer journal than The Lancet (sarcasm).
Their study says, as of July 2006, the middle figure in the estimate would be 655,000. It may be somewhat lower, but it also may be somewhat higher.
The reason Iraqbodycount.org is so much lower is that it only includes deaths as a direct result of violence (not indirect such as the destruction of healthcare or destruction of clean water facilities leading to disease) and they insist on two different media sources for each death. With all the chaos in that country, it is unreasonable to require two different media sources for each death. Mostly, it is too dangerous for the media to leave the Green Zone.
The Johns Hopkins/Lancet researchers went from household to household in Iraq asking about family members who had died and 95% of the time were shown death certificates. (Does this come under Vince’s claim of a trite untrue claim?)
Want to hear trite cliches that have been proven untrue? “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them over here”……..”greeted like liberators”……..”a cakewalk”…….”maybe six days, maybe six weeks, I doubt six months”……”we cannot wait for the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”….”Bring ‘em on”….”freedom is untidy”…”stuff happens”…”we know where the WMD are, they are around Baghdad, Tikrit, and north, east, south, and west”…”I wouldn’t be surprised if in six months there was a street or plaza in Baghdad named after President Bush”….”the reconstruction will virtually pay for itself”.
Vince P, you are one insulting, tiny-minded, narrow minded, ignorant, racist, sociopathic, sick puppy, genocide-loving poor excuse for a human being and I will never address you again.
I notice you didn’t answer the question about whether or not your @$$ is in Iraq or you are all mouth and no action.
February 26th, 2007 at 8:57 pmps: the answer to your question “what did you say that was contradicted by the 16 intelligence agencies of the USA?”
The answer is everything, everything, everything you have said !!!!!!!!!
February 26th, 2007 at 9:00 pmkeith: I dont have to go to Iraq to advocate killing our enemies anymore than your cowardace requires you to relocate to France.
But thank you for using tactics designed to silence my use of Free Speech. The Leftist tendancy for dictatorship is never far beneath the surface.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:08 pmShould I go to Pakistan by myself to fight those who attacked us on 9/11. It would have to be by myself since George Bush is certainly not going to send anyone to Pakistan to fight those who really did attack us. Pakistan does not have the second largest oil reserves in the world Iraq does. Iraq did nothing to us. Are you capable of putting 1 and 1 together and coming up with 2 ?
You, freak, are the coward since you are all in favor of others doing the killing and being killed while your @$$ is safely behind the keyboard.
When France conquered all of Europe under Napoleon, they certainly must have been a bunch of cowards [sarcasm]!!! They also helped us win our independence from the other King George.
In your opinion 70% of our troops currently in Iraq must be cowards since they want withdrawal.
There are many liberals (John Kerry, Bob Kerry, Al Gore, Max Cleland, etc.) who fought in Vietnam and many conservative cowards who did not: George Bush, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, John Ashcroft, Wayne LaPierre (my ex-best friend), Ted Nugent, Jack Kemp, Clarence Thomas, Dan Quayle, etc. John Kennedy and George McGovern were heroes in WWII. Are liberals John Glenn and General Wes Clark cowards in your opinion?
The Americans, French, Canadians, British, etc. who went to fight the fascist Franco in Spain well before WWII were all left-of-center.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:32 pm> Are liberals John Glenn and General Wes Clark cowards in your opinion?
Yes. I have no respect for either of them.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:39 pmYou just called John Glenn and General Wes Clark cowards and not worthy of respect? Is that right? What exactly have you done for your country???
February 26th, 2007 at 10:41 pmHow about all the cowardsly conservatives I just named? Do you have respect for them? Who have you fought?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:42 pmAre you calling the 70% of our military currently in Iraq who want withdrawal cowards?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:44 pmExactly which enemies of the US have you fought, VINCE ????
February 26th, 2007 at 10:45 pmEXACTLY WHICH ENEMIES OF THE USA HAVE YOU FOUGHT VINCE ?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:47 pmEXACTLY WHICH ENEMIES OF THE USA HAVE YOU FOUGHT, VINCE ?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:47 pmI’ll have to repeat myself for the retarded , Rainman-like Keith:
keith: I dont have to go to Iraq to advocate killing our enemies anymore than your cowardace requires you to relocate to France.
But thank you for using tactics designed to silence my use of Free Speech. The Leftist tendancy for dictatorship is never far beneath the surface.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:49 pmCHICKENSHIT VINNIE, WHICH ENEMIES OF THE USA HAVE YOU FOUGHT VINCE ?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:49 pmFOR THE MORONIC VINCE (SORRY TO ALL THE REAL MORONS OUT THERE):
Are you calling the 70% of our military currently in Iraq who want withdrawal cowards?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:51 pmIt is extremely easy to advocate SOMEONE ELSE putting their life in danger—-any CHICKENSHIT CAN DO IT. ANY RETARD CAN DO IT. DUSTIN HOFFMAN IN THE RAINMAN COULD DO IT.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:53 pmkeith: I dont form my opinions based on opinion polls. Maybe you follow the crowd, but I stand on principle.
And I dont accept that poll as being accurate. So your question is moot.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:54 pmWELL, ARE YOU CALLING 70% OF OUR MILITARY CURRENTLY IN iRAQ COWARDS?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:54 pmAny evidence that disagrees with the retarded Vince is “inaccurate”.
Do you know the poll I am referring to?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:56 pmWhat makes you know more than those who did that poll?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:57 pmI stand on the principle that you should go after those who did attack us instead of going after the oil.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:58 pmFebruary 28, 2006
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are neededâ€
While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.
The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,†while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.â€
Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months.
The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.
The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,†77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.â€
“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,†said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.†Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World” was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).
The continuing insurgent attacks have not turned U.S. troops against the Iraqi population, the survey shows. More than 80% said they did not hold a negative view of Iraqis because of those attacks. About two in five see the insurgency as being comprised of discontented Sunnis with very few non-Iraqi helpers. “There appears to be confusion on this,†Zogby said. But, he noted, less than a third think that if non-Iraqi terrorists could be prevented from crossing the border into Iraq, the insurgency would end. A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency.
The survey shows that most U.S. military personnel in-country have a clear sense of right and wrong when it comes to using banned weapons against the enemy, and in interrogation of prisoners. Four in five said they oppose the use of such internationally banned weapons as napalm and white phosphorous. And, even as more photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq surface around the world, 55% said it is not appropriate or standard military conduct to use harsh and threatening methods against insurgent prisoners in order to gain information of military value.
Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more.
A majority of the troops serving in Iraq said they were satisfied with the war provisions from Washington. Just 30% of troops said they think the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate troop protections, such as body armor, munitions, and armor plating for vehicles like HumVees. Only 35% said basic civil infrastructure in Iraq, including roads, electricity, water service, and health care, has not improved over the past year. Three of every four were male respondents, with 63% under the age of 30.
The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.
(2/28/2006)
February 26th, 2007 at 11:00 pmWhat makes you know more than the ones from the Lancet and Johns Hopkins who were in Iraq counting death certificates?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:07 pmYoung Girls Young Girl Models Young Puffy Nipple
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 14th, 2008 at 12:28 pmAss Thick Ass Babes Kick Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 15th, 2008 at 11:52 pmHealth Insurance California Health Insurance Michigan Health Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 3:10 pmGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 10:24 pmAss Round Ass Tight Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 6:22 pmInsurance Small Business Health Insurance Nationwide Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:43 amamerica map
Hello there- Can I link a couple f comments?
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:23 pmSmart Tips for Buying Life Insurance
Get quotes from several companies. Each insurance company uses its own underwriting guidelines. Life insurance agents are “captive,” meaning they can only issue policies for the insurance company they work for. Brokers, on the other hand, are “non c…
March 24th, 2008 at 5:46 amBlack Pussy Black Lesbian Porn Fat Black Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 10:30 pmGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 1:18 pmShaquana
You always have a choice, even if it is only a choice of your attitude.
March 30th, 2008 at 4:33 amAnimal Sex Free Animal Sex Stories Sex With Dogs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 7:59 amSex Gay Sex Anime Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 4:48 pmAll about Digimon Adventure Online Game. Digimon Adventure Fans Blog….
…Digimon is a small virtual pet. You can download and play an online RPG in the Digimon universe. It looks and feels like 2D graphic RPG adventure. You can train and level up your Digimon, make hundreds of quests, and travel through a huge universe a…
March 6th, 2009 at 7:07 amShag Hairstyles and Haircuts…
shag hairstyle basically gotits name from the word “shaggy” since …once the hair is cutand layered it gives off a shaggy look. The shag hairstyle has always been apopular hairstyle, and there are plenty ofshag hairstyles to choose from…
April 6th, 2009 at 10:38 pmThe truth about Arbonne Skin Care Products…
Arbonne is one of the leading companies in the world when it comes to skin and beauty care. Its skin care line is one of the best in the world that many women. The products of Arbonne skin care products are developed in Switzerland….
May 1st, 2009 at 4:08 pm