‘With Iraq on fire, rest of world on hold.’
‘With Iraq on fire, rest of world on hold.’
As the “White House struggles to show progress in the 52-month-old war, other important global issues increasingly are getting pushed to the side.” McClatchy reports:
Two months ago, President Bush enthusiastically accepted an invitation to visit Singapore in September. But he abruptly changed plans, and his summit with Southeast Asian leaders is off. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is skipping an Asian meeting, too, and tossed out plans to visit Africa this week. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ mission to Latin America? Postponed.
The reason is Iraq. [...]
Few doubt Iraq’s centrality in U.S. foreign policy. Failure there could damage America’s prestige for years, if not decades, and suck Iraq’s neighbors into the vortex of violence.
But the high-level U.S. attention and energy drawn away from all but a handful of other world problems is yet another cost of the Iraq war.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
We should probably be happy that GDumbya’s attention has been drawn away from other world problems. Everything that he “pays attention to” turns to Shiite.
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:54 amNone of those regions have much OIL, so Bush Regime is not interested in them.
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:55 amAlbanians stole my watch.
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:57 amInteresting observation: my imagery today involved Rome burning; Ace’s involved the Reichstag burning, and TP notes Iraq burning. Guess one could say that we’re all realizing that this country is “up in smoke”??
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 amCan’t wait to see what Conyers does to assuage Sheehan’s threat to run against Pelosi today!! This will definitely fire up the Democratic base and I’m hoping for a positive outcome.
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:59 amMy ass is still burning.
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:59 am52 months and 4,000 deaths – this is the travesty of this new century! The Bush Cabal (including the PNAC & GOP) has so much blood on it’s hands and in it’s karma that it has no alternative but to be brought down.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 am#6: Gotta love it! You’ve brought a smile to my face with your injection of levity today! The visual on it is fabulous….the chimp running around with his ass singed….too much.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:01 amLatin America must be feeling hurt because Gates cancelled his trip. Yeah right.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:05 amThe rest of the world is probably tickled pink – no meddling from the US for the last 52 months!
The “You broke it, you bought it” world wide mentality is real and maybe this administration is starting to understand tha.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:07 am“Failure there could damage America’s prestige for years, if not decades”
You mean, it hasn’t already?
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:07 amThe remainder of Bush’s presidency is going to be a full court press to revive him for the history books….
That’s what you get when you have Dick Cheney and Karl Rove running the show.
-GSD
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:09 amthe more obvious reason for the change of plans
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:10 amis to avoid embarrassment…
they can’t even show their faces anymore…
Call Congress Today for Impeachment
We’ve reached the impeachment moment for Vice President Dick Cheney. We’ve pushed the cosponsor list for H. Res. 333 up to 14. Chairman John Conyers says that if we get 3 more he’ll begin the impeachment proceedings.
And many Congress Members must be recognizing that there is no other path available. Cheney and Bush have repeatedly refused to comply with subpoenas, ordered former staffers not to comply, and announced that the Justice Department will not enforce contempt citations from Congress. When a special prosecutor attempted to hold this administration accountable, Cheney’s chief of staff obstructed justice, and Cheney persuaded Bush to commute his sentence. There is no course left for Congress but Impeachment.
On Monday, July 23rd, the fifth anniversary of the meeting that produced the Downing Street Minutes, Cindy Sheehan, Ray McGovern, Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Ann Wright, Debra Sweet, Dave Lindorff, David Swanson, Jodie Evans, Medea Benjamin, Kevin Zeese, and Tina Richards will lead a march to Chairman Conyers office and not leave until he agrees to begin impeachment proceedings.
If you cannot be there, you can take two minutes on Monday and do two things: phone Chairman Conyers at 202-225-5126 and ask him to start the impeachment of Dick Cheney; and phone your own Congress Member at 202-224-3121 and ask them to immediately call Conyers’ office to express their support for impeachment. Your Congress Member might be one of the three needed, not just to keep impeachment activists out of jail but to keep this nation from devolving into dictatorship.
Also email your Representatives:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/73
#####
Forward this message to everyone you know!
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:23 amWait…the libs want us out of everywhere starting with Iraq, yet they also worry that we arent involved…uh…everywhere. Laughable if it werent so pathetic.
The lefty trolls here are getting out of hand, its time for TP to weed out these dorks and get this site back on track.
Perhaps veritas can use his background in linguistics to assist in that effort.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:23 amI forwarded it to every lib I know but now their local governments will need to spring for people to read it to them.
Will the government interference never end?
US out of EVERYWHERE! Except for Afghanistan of course, because the dems need that war to prop up the facade that they are ‘tough’ too.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:26 amLOL mucho!
Tough? Their idea of tough is drinking a hot latte without blowing on it first.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:28 amWait…the libs want us out of everywhere starting with Iraq, yet they also worry that we arent involved…uh…everywhere. Laughable if it werent so pathetic.
Comment by Mucho Gusto — July 23, 2007 @ 10:23 am
No, we want the U.S. involved in diplomacy internationally. We don’t want the U.S. to go starting pointless wars internationally. See the difference? It’s subtle, I know.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:28 amBut the high-level U.S. attention and energy drawn away from all but a handful of other world problems is yet another cost of the Iraq war.
Good thing the Democrats aren’t looking to divert time from all those other pressing world affairs by seeking the world’s assistance with an alternative security solution for Iraq prior to withdrawal.
Hmmmm….. I wonder what will replace Iraq as a pressing concern for the world’s dominant players once the US withdraws without ensuring a viable government.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 amAny ideas ?
Ignoring Asia is Bush’s second greatest mistake.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 amThe only parts of the world that they are interested in are the parts where their handlers can see the opportunity for huge profits.
They then have this admin. put up a front through their msm for their upcoming actions . Very quickly followed by their msm commanding 100 talking heads to back it up.
Then comes the rape, pillage and burn as far as the eye can see while leaving whatever is left for someone else to deal with.
Tools, one and all.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 amWith just 18 months left in office, Bush appears to have settled on a few top-flight issues — Iraq, the “war on terrorism,” North Korea and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — to shape his legacy.
“To shape his legacy”? His legacy lies in VA Hospitals and in military cemetaries. His legacy lies in the destruction of a country. His legacy lies in the loss of moral authority once respected around the world.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 am“His legacy lies in VA Hospitals and in military cemetaries. His legacy lies in the destruction of a country. His legacy lies in the loss of moral authority once respected around the world.”
Comment by leftcoast — July 23, 2007 @ 10:43 am
Don’t forget that by the time he leaves office, he will have surpassed both Nixon and Truman for lowest approval ratings ever. So in addition to having squandered our reputation with the rest of the world, he will be remembered for being most scorned by his own people.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:47 amOT, sorry –
Just curious, does anyone here know of any other news sites like ThinkProgress that present a daily news stream and have a comments board? I have checked TalkLeft, Firedoglake, DailyKos, and JuanCole. All are extremely interesting, but don’t offer oft-updated news like TP. Just let me know what’s out there if you have any suggestions. Thanx.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 amThe rest of the world gets on with their stuff while the US has been bogged down on the road to nowhere for nearly 8 years
Bush has to be the biggest idiot of a world leader in the history of mankind
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:51 am24 – the guardian.co.uk has excellent comments on news -
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 amHave you served in this occupation? How old are you? Have you ever served in the military? Just trying to see who I am talking too.
Questions are for Blackwater too.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 amTobey > a reporter asked Bush about what historians might say about him someday and Bush replied that he did not care because he would be dead. Dubya only cares about enriching himself, and his father’s cronies, so he cares nothing about the future.
July 23rd, 2007 at 10:55 am28 / its the same for many people that mentality – what he dont understand is his children and grandchildren for centuries will have to live with his social stigma
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:05 am#23
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 ammissmolly, You’re right. We could probably keep adding to the “legacy” thing all day. How sad this is.
Bush replied that he did not care because he would be dead
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 amTobey- I guess we could say, so much for his faith.
Comment by Chris L — July 23, 2007 @ 10:48 am
http://www.rawstory.com/
i’m not sure about the comments section,
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:16 ambut always updated news…
Rawstory is a good source for updated news and comments.
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 amCan’t wait to see what Conyers does to assuage Sheehan’s threat to run against Pelosi today!! This will definitely fire up the Democratic base and I’m hoping for a positive outcome.
Comment by veritas
This comment has been determined to be off-thread, irrelevant and irrational. It could be hazardous to your health and well-being if taken seriously. Please ignore completely. Thank you!!!
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:29 am“… a reporter asked Bush about what historians might say about him someday and Bush replied that he did not care because he would be dead…”
Comment by Jay Randal
At least it sounds like he’s giving up the pretext of leaving a legacy, or at least a good one, behind.
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:31 amMired in a quag, much?
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:33 amLOL mucho!
Tough? Their idea of tough is drinking a hot latte without blowing on it first.
Comment by Blackwater
At least it’s not blowing on a page first.
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:33 am“Failure there could damage America’s prestige for years” The way this is written it suggests that America’s prestige has not yet been damaged by the Chimp and his antics. How disingenious do people take the majority of Americans to be? We dont all watch Faux news.
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:33 am3 people said the same thing to me today that you quoted this man saying.
One is a soldier. One is a blackwater employee. One is neither.
Do tell, what would your response be to any of them ?
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:38 am“Failure there could damage America’s prestige for years, if not decades, and suck Iraq’s neighbors into the vortex of violence.”
What is this COULD shit?
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:44 amand it already has…Geez, Gates, buy a clue somewhere.
Look in your Sunday newspaper, there might be an ad for one somewhere.
“Hmmmm….. I wonder what will replace Iraq as a pressing concern for the world’s dominant players once the US withdraws without ensuring a viable government.
Any ideas ?”
Comment by Kilo —
What is your solution to the problem of Turkey invading the Kurdish areas of Iraq? Just let them do it? They are using Bush’s imminent threat rationale to invade, and the US commander of the area wants to pull our soldiers back. What consequences do you see if Turkey invades? Do you think Turkey should be confronted militarily for any incursion, given that we are tasked with protecting Iraq’s sovereignty?
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:44 amYo, Kilo. Too tough a question?
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:48 amWhich question is this ?
I posed one where I asked what international crisis everyone would be dealing with once the US withdrew from Iraq before establishing a replacement security force.
You appear to have replied to this by asking what is the solution to Turks invading Kurdish Iraq.
If you support immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq I’d have to assume the solution you are seeking is to encourage this to happen and with as little opposition as possible.
And I’d have to agree. Immediate US withdrawal without a replacement security force would be a good way to encourage and/or ensure that outcome.
Simple logic too tough for you ?
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:26 pmSorry about not getting back to you during those intervening 4 minutes also.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 pmThis should be written “Failure there has damaged America’s prestige for years, if not decades and it has sucked Iraq’s neighbors into the vortex of violence”. The way it was written sounds like it hasn’t already happened. Any thinking adult is well aware of the fact that it has already happened and all we can do now is to try to repair the damage. A good start would be the impeachment of Chaney and then Bush. Problem is, that would end up with President Pelosi and that worries me. But, it can’t be worse than what we have now.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 pmMeanwhile, before and after either 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, or “Sicko,” we’ve got a health care crisis that neither the executive nor the legislative branch seems to be addressing.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 pm“Tough? Their idea of tough is drinking a hot latte without blowing on it first.â€
Comment by Blackwater — July 23, 2007 @ 10:28 am
Yeah and this one tough administration! Boy george is one tough SOB for sending 4,000 troops to their death for no good reason. Boy george is one tough SOB for getting drunk on a daily basis with his rich, privileged friends in the air national guard whilst others his age were getting killed in Vitenam. Let’s not forget that tough old bastard Dick Cheney. He’s two deferments tough! Then there’s Rove! Whoa! Make way for the Pillsbury dough boy!
I suspect that like most neocons, you too are one tough TALKER!
STFU! Don’t embarrass yourself again.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:40 pmYup.
Not a suprise.
It seems the U.S. is the only country concerned in preventing all out genocide in Iraq.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:49 pmFrom what i have read, regardless of US troop presence we should expect 10-15 years worth of civil war and violence in Iraq. The bigger question remains how will this destabilize the rest of the region? Will Saudi Arabia, be sucked into a armed conflict, with Iran on one side, and armed fundamentalist insurgents within its own borders. How will Turkey react to ethnic Kurds, and who will they fight for and against? And finally who will the other smaller countries in the region support? Iran, Saudi Arabia? Jihadists? Bush has opened the Pandora’s box, and nothing is going back.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:50 pmJust curious, does anyone here know of any other news sites like ThinkProgress that present a daily news stream and have a comments board? I have checked TalkLeft, Firedoglake, DailyKos, and JuanCole. All are extremely interesting, but don’t offer oft-updated news like TP. Just let me know what’s out there if you have any suggestions. Thanx.
Comment by Chris L
AmericaBlog is one I check now and then. http://www.americablog.com/
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:17 pmLividLib, I think Cheney actually got at least 4 deferments, although the number 5 sticks in my mind. The ratbastard!
—————————
“It seems the U.S. is the only country concerned in preventing all out genocide in Iraq.”
Comment by Thrasymachos — July 23, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Got any proof of that?
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:17 pmGot any proof of that?
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — July 23, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
———————
Well, it’s from the article above:
“Few doubt Iraq’s centrality in U.S. foreign policy.”
I don’t know of any other country who is more concerned with the threat then us. I’m sure there are others but none seem to be standing up to insurgents like the USA.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:23 pm“It seems the U.S. is the only country concerned in preventing all out genocide in Iraq.â€
Comment by Thrasymachos — July 23, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
“I’m sure there are others but none seem to be standing up to insurgents like the USA.”
Comment by Thrasymachos — July 23, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
So which is it, none or few? And if by “insurgents” you mean the Iraqis who want the US out of their country, then, in a twisted way, you’re correct.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:27 pmRe #51
I don’t know of any other country who is more concerned with the threat then us. I’m sure there are others but none seem to be standing up to insurgents like the USA.
Comment by Thrasymachos — July 23, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Ridiculous. There were no Suuni insurgents, no Shiite death squads, and no al-Qaida in Iraq before the Bush’s pre-emptive war. Now we are simply encouraging these groups to exist, become our enemies, and then we kill them. Wow, our concern for Iraq is very concerning. Bush’s culture of death is very concerning.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm“Few doubt Iraq’s centrality in U.S. foreign policy.â€
Besides, this quote does not simply mean that “the U.S. is the ony coutnry concerned in preventing all out genocide in Iraq.” Iraq is central to U.S. foreign policy because of one thing only: OIL.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:29 pmSo which is it, none or few? And if by “insurgents†you mean the Iraqis who want the US out of their country, then, in a twisted way, you’re correct.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — July 23, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 pm—————————————————–
I admit, to “none” would be wrong, “few” would be more accurate. Insurgents, Shia death squads, various extremists, they all pose a threat to the innocent Iraqis. It seems the USA is one of the only countries that is taking this seriously. I guess we learned our lesson after we sat back and watched the genocide in Rwanda, under Clinton. We wouldn’t let something like that happen again, not under Bush’s watch.
“We wouldn’t let something like that happen again, not under Bush’s watch.”
Comment by Thrasymachos — July 23, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Heard of Darfur?
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:35 pmIraq is central to U.S. foreign policy because of one thing only: OIL.
President Bush has already stated that the US will be exploring alternative energy sources… switch grass and what not.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 pmHeard of Darfur?
Sure. I believe that the UN has taken actions there to keep the peace.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:38 pmre #55
Insurgents, Shia death squads, various extremists, they all pose a threat to the innocent Iraqis. It seems the USA is one of the only countries that is taking this seriously. I guess we learned our lesson after we sat back and watched the genocide in Rwanda, under Clinton. We wouldn’t let something like that happen again, not under Bush’s watch.
Comment by Thrasymachos — July 23, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Wrong again. The U.S. military has killed more civilians in Iraq than the insurgents. Remember “Shock and Awe?” Remember how Bush and Rumsfeld okayed 50 bombing attacks against Iraqi leadership targets with ZERO SUCCESS but that killed hundreds of innocent Iraqis? To this day, our attacks on insurgents kill more civilians than anything. Again, Bush’s culture of death–hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead–poses much more of a threat to the Iraqis than anything else.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:39 pmJane, about the UN in Darfur:
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 pmhttp://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=1049
re #57
President Bush has already stated that the US will be exploring alternative energy sources… switch grass and what not.
Comment by Thrasymachos — July 23, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
And how much money and priority has Bush put behind that? How many billions? Who in his cabinet works on it every day? What is the timeline? When will Bush double the CAFE standards for fuel economy? This could be done with existing, on the road technology. Where is Bush on this? Bush has said a lot of things that he never follows through on or that he in fact does the exact opposite on.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 pmComment by CZ-1 — July 23, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Can you prove any of your claims?
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:43 pmComment by Thrasymachos — July 23, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
That’s the U.N. – is the U.S. committing troops, and, if so, how many? “Several hundred international troops” certainly doesn’t sound sufficient. Hell, Hollywood celebrities are raising more awareness (and money) about Darfur than the Bush administration.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:45 pmThrasymachos,
You want me to be your Goggle monkey? Look it up yourself. This stuff is documented in many ways. Here’s one:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6318.htm
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:48 pm“President Bush has already stated that the US will be exploring alternative energy sources… switch grass and what not.”
Comment by Thrasymachos — July 23, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
That was in his SOTU in 2004. I see we’re making great strides in that area – NOT! What about solar and other alternatives – is that part of the “what not”?
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:48 pmThrasymachos,
Here’s another:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/fuel-economy-the-single-most-effective-step-for-cutting-oil-depedence.html
Over the past 20 years, automakers have used advancements in technology to add more than 800 pounds to the average vehicle and nearly double horsepower, while fuel economy has been allowed to slip. Today we have ample technology to preserve or improve current size, utility, performance, and safety characteristics, while increasing fuel economy to 40 mpg within 10 years. And over the next 20 years, hybrid technology can deliver even greater gains in fuel economy.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:50 pmComment by Jane E. Schneider — July 23, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
The U.S. is part of the UN. and this is something I just heard about recently, so I am not claiming to know all of the details. However, if the U.N. is sending in a force, it may not be necessary for the U.S. to send in troops independently.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:52 pmThrasymachos,
Here’s another:
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=sr-109-1-56
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:54 pmHere’s another:
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000028.php
…”In each case they devise their policies with as much secrecy as possible and in close cooperation with the most powerful special interests that have a monetary stake in what happens. In each case the public interest is not only ignored but actively undermined. In each case they devote considerable attention to a clever strategy of deception that appears designed to prevent the American people from discerning what it is they are actually doing. Indeed, they often use Orwellian language to disguise their true purposes. For example, a policy that opens national forests to destructive logging of old-growth trees is labeled “The Healthy Forest Initiative.†A policy that vastly increases the amount of pollution that can be dumped into the air is called the “Clear Skies Initiative.â€
And in case after case, the policy adopted immediately after the inauguration has been the exact opposite of what was pledged to the American people during the election campaign. The promise by candidate Bush to conduct a “humble†foreign policy and avoid any semblance of “nation building†was transformed in the first days of the Bush presidency, into a frenzied preparation for a military invasion of Iraq, complete with detailed plans for the remaking of that nation under American occupation.
And in the same way, a solemn promise made to the country that carbon dioxide would be regulated as a polluting greenhouse gas was instantly transformed by the inauguration into a promise to the generators of CO2 that it would not be regulated at all.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 pmAnd a seemingly heartfelt declaration to the American people during the campaign that he genuinely believed that global warming is a real problem which must be addressed was replaced after the Inauguration by a dismissive expression of contempt for careful, peer-reviewed work by EPA scientists setting forth the plain facts on at global warming.”
Comment by CZ-1 — July 23, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
I was talking about your claim that
“To this day, our attacks on insurgents kill more civilians than anything”
But, to be honest, if you are going to use phrases, such as “Bush’s culture of death,” I do not feel that I owe you a response.
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 pmHere’s another:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0925-02.htm
Published on Saturday, September 25, 2004 by Knight-Ridder
More Iraqi Civilians Killed by US Forces Than By Insurgents, Data Shows
by Nancy A. Youssef
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis – most of them civilians – as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder.
According to the ministry, the interim Iraqi government recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country’s 18 provinces from April 5 – when the ministry began compiling the data – until Sept. 19. Of those, 328 were women and children. Another 13,720 Iraqis were injured, the ministry said.
While most of the dead are believed to be civilians, the data include an unknown number of police and Iraqi national guardsmen. Many Iraqi deaths, especially of insurgents, are never reported, so the actual number of Iraqis killed in fighting could be significantly higher.
During the same period, 432 American soldiers were killed.
Iraqi officials said the statistics proved that U.S. airstrikes intended for insurgents also were killing large numbers of innocent civilians. Some say these casualties are undermining popular acceptance of the American-backed interim government.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:01 pmComment by CZ-1 — July 23, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
You said, “to this day,” these articles are at least 2 – 3 years old, and as you know the problem has become worse. Not to mention the presence of al-Qaeda.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:08 pmAccording to the ministry, the interim Iraqi government recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country’s 18 provinces from April 5 – when the ministry began compiling the data – until Sept. 19. Of those, 328 were women and children. Another 13,720 Iraqis were injured, the ministry said.
Comment by CZ-1 — July 23, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
Well, duh! Of course there are a lot of civilian casualties if you limit the study to a period DURING the war. That’s an unfair manipulation of the data.
If you want an accurate statistic, you need to include all relevant time periods. If you compare deaths during the war with deaths from violence in Mesopotamia dating back to the beginning of Sumerian civilization, the deaths during this war are paltry in comparison. PALTRY!
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:11 pmComment by toasterhead — July 23, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Actually, you need to calculate the total number of civilian deaths, under regular conditions, and then subtract that number from the deaths resulting from battle injuries.
Battle deaths do not include those who died from starvation or disease, but rather only those who died as a direct result of violence. Mr. CZ claims that US attacks on insurgents was the primary cause of death, this just isn’t so.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:31 pmActually, you need to calculate the total number of civilian deaths, under regular conditions, and then subtract that number from the deaths resulting from battle injuries.
Battle deaths do not include those who died from starvation or disease, but rather only those who died as a direct result of violence. Mr. CZ claims that US attacks on insurgents was the primary cause of death, this just isn’t so.
Comment by Thrasymachos — July 23, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
And if you really want to be accurate, you calculate civilian deaths that resulted indirectly from the war as well, since right now there’s no such thing as “regular conditions” in Iraq. When a woman dies in childbirth because the insurgency has stopped shipments of medicine from getting to hospitals, or when a child dies of diarrhea because the water system is polluted despite four years of “progress” rebuilding basic infrastructure, those are deaths that resulted from the war.
And even these indirect deaths are still small compared to direct ones. The 2006 Lancet study found that the vast majority (601,000) of the 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq were due to violence, and of these 31% could be attributed to coalition forces. Assessing which of the remainder were due to insurgent activity or criminal violence is not possible in the current security situation.
July 23rd, 2007 at 2:50 pmHey, don’t blame me for your lack of knowledge and lack of responsibility for educating yourself. I said you should Google it yourself.
Yes, thanks to Bush’s illegal, immoral, preemptive war and his administration’s stunning incompetence, Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. The Iraqi on Iraqi violence has greatly increased the body count. The deaths due to U.S. collateral damage are still high as well. Since this situation didn’t exist before the U.S. entered the country, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Pearl/Wolfowitz are responsible for it all.
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:03 pmRemember this research?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm
‘Huge rise’ in Iraqi death tolls
An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university.
The research compares mortality rates before and after the invasion from 47 randomly chosen areas in Iraq.
The figure is considerably higher than estimates by official sources or the number of deaths reported in the media.
It is vigorously disputed by supporters of the war in Iraq, including US President George W Bush.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimate that the mortality rates have more than doubled since the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein, causing an average of 500 deaths a day.
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:04 pmAnd where are your numbers? Sources? You’re defending the worst mistake in U.S. history. Got anything to back yourself up?
July 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pmFan of the Man has done his part by copying and pasting his copy points IN BOLD on every topic on the board today. Have you done your part and followed his directions?
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:41 pmThe 2006 Lancet study found that the vast majority (601,000) of the 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq were due to violence, and of these 31% could be attributed to coalition forces. Assessing which of the remainder were due to insurgent activity or criminal violence is not possible in the current security situation.
Comment by toasterhead — July 23, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
——————————————————————–
Thanks toasterhead!
CZ, do you still want to stick by your claim:
“To this day, our attacks on insurgents kill more civilians than anythingâ€
????????
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:45 pmComment by CZ-1 — July 23, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
Just common-sense, and a sober mind. Things I would recommend for you before you make outrageous claims.
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:47 pm655,000
601,000
186,310 = 31% of 601,000
However you slice it, these are EXCESS DEATHS. Deaths that didn’t have to happen. Blood on the hands of the Bush administration and those who voted for Bush. Yours are the outrageous statements, and you seem mighty proud of them. I think you are the one needing some common sense, a sober mind, and some human decency. Shame on you. Does your mom know the kinds of things you value? Does your God know?
July 23rd, 2007 at 5:59 pmCZ,
There you go getting all emotional again!
31% of the excess deaths “could be attributed” to the coalition. Your previous statement:
“To this day, our attacks on insurgents kill more civilians than anythingâ€
is incorrect.
Please try to control yourself…
maybe you should see a therapist of some sort, I don’t know, just a thought…
July 23rd, 2007 at 6:07 pmComment by Thrasymachos
July 23rd, 2007 at 8:04 pmProve it. You’ve got nothing. Go buy yourself a clue.
Good Lord, CZ.
69% of the excess deaths due to violence can not be attributed to Coalition forces. That means that the majority of civilians are dying because of sectarian violence not the coalition. This means that your statement:
“To this day, our attacks on insurgents kill more civilians than anythingâ€
is wrong.
In fact, only 31% of the total excess deaths that resulted from violence, could be attributed to Coalition forces. Therefore, our attacks on insurgents do not kill more civilians than anything, but rather, the majority of these excess deaths come from non Coalition violence.
How many other ways to I need to explain this?
July 23rd, 2007 at 9:44 pm“If you support immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq I’d have to assume the solution you are seeking is to encourage this to happen and with as little opposition as possible.
And I’d have to agree. Immediate US withdrawal without a replacement security force would be a good way to encourage and/or ensure that outcome.
Simple logic too tough for you ?”
Comment by Kilo
I see the question was too hard for you – you ducked giving a straight answer. And what the hell are you babbling about?
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:24 pmGee I don’t know, how many troops should the US commit to try and intervene in civil war where the UN is unable to do this itself ?
Maybe check the title of the thread and get back to us. After you’ve bandaged your foot.
July 24th, 2007 at 6:29 amWhat are you playing dumb or is this for real ?
Tell you what, I’m not going to explain how withdrawing all troops from Iraq will effect what those troops can do to prevent or influence Turkey to not invade the country those troops were formally in.
If you can’t figure that out without assistance why bother. I’m guessing you’ll probably get lost in a shopping mall tomorrow and won’t be around to read it anyway. Probably stuck behind a door marked “push” somewhere for the next few months.
July 24th, 2007 at 6:34 amAgain, are these people pretending to be this retarded ?
July 24th, 2007 at 6:38 amProve 30% isn’t a majority ? How ?
Will you accept http://www.mathsforbeginners.com as a reliable source ?
Fk me. And not an ounce of embarrassment shown.
Prove 30% isn’t a majority ? How ?
Comment by Kilo — July 24, 2007 @ 6:38 am
No, that’s not what you or Thrasymachos need to prove. I’ll explain it very simply: You need to prove that insurgents have killed more than 186,310 Iraqis (31% of 601,000 violent excess deaths). I await the unveiling of your splendorous mathematical abilities. So far it looks like you can’t handle the “word problems” from 9th grade.
July 24th, 2007 at 11:16 amYou need to prove that insurgents have killed more than 186,310 Iraqis (31% of 601,000 violent excess deaths).
No we don’t. You said that the U.S. attacks on insurgents killed more people than anything, you did not say that the U.S. attacks on insurgents killed more people than did violence done by the insurgents. No matter how you look at it, the Coalition is not even responsible for 1/3 of the violent deaths in Iraq.
Dude, you were wrong. I don’t hold it against you, but next time don’t make unjustified claims.
July 24th, 2007 at 1:30 pmDude(s), you are still too lazy to do your own research.
Here you go: Average the estimates below, and they prove my point. Are you too proud to be an American that you can’t take a critical, objective look at what your government is doing in your name with your tax dollars?
———————————————————————————
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/02/AR2005060201098.html
Iraq Puts Civilian Toll at 12,000
Insurgency Claiming About 20 People a Day
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 3, 2005; Page A01
BAGHDAD, June 2 — Insurgent violence has claimed the lives of 12,000 Iraqis over the past 18 months, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said Thursday, giving the first official count for the largest category of victims of bombings, ambushes and other increasingly deadly attacks.
———————————————————————————
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/casualties.html
In Depth
Iraq
Casualties in the Iraq war
Last Updated Feb. 5, 2007
CBC News
At a glance: Deaths in Iraq since March 20, 2003
Iraqi civilians 55664 to 61369
Iraq military 4,900 to 6,375*
…Since taking over the administration of their own country in late June 2004, the Iraqis have stepped up their efforts to keep track. In January 2007, Iraqi authorities reported that 16,273 Iraqis, including 14,298 civilians, 1,348 police and 627 soldiers, died violent deaths in 2006.
———————————————————————————
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/09/europe/EU_GEN_Austria_Iraqis_Killed.php
Iraqi health minister estimates as many as 150,000 Iraqis killed by insurgents
The Associated Press
Published: November 9, 2006
VIENNA, Austria: As many as 150,000 Iraqis have been killed by insurgents over the past three and a half years, a senior Iraqi official estimated Thursday.
For every person killed, about three have been injured in violence since the U.S.-led invasion, Iraq’s Health Minister Ali al-Shemari said at a news conference in Vienna.
Al-Shemari initially said he estimated that at least 150,000 had died, but in a follow-up interview with The Associated Press late Thursday, he said it could be in the range of 140,000 to 150,000.
“Each day we lost 100 persons, that means per month 3,000, per year it’s 36,000, plus or minus 10 percent,” al-Shemari said. “So by three years, 120,000, half year 20,000, that means 140,000, plus or minus 10 percent,” he said, explaining how he came to the figures.
July 24th, 2007 at 2:45 pmComment by CZ-1 — July 24, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
Fascinating information, CZ. However, these links have nothing to do with your claim:
July 24th, 2007 at 3:48 pm“To this day, our attacks on insurgents kill more civilians than anythingâ€
In fact, most point out that the insurgents are responsible for massive amounts of civilian deaths, NOT the Coalition. But hey, don’t feel too bad, I’m sure you gave it your best shot. And remember, you’re special too.
Thrasymachos and Hilo,
Congratulations, you are true trolls.
I’ve proved my point. In estimates that reach to this day, our military attacks have killed more Iraqis (186,310) than anything else (~70,000).
Now, go get some schooling or a job or something. Better yet, join the Army and go to Iraq.
July 24th, 2007 at 4:21 pmSo current estimates are that the Lancet study was complete bullshit and there’s actually only 250k dead in total…. a figure that is smaller than Lancet’s projected death rate for a single year.
July 24th, 2007 at 8:39 pmIf you say so.
Comment by CZ-1 — July 24, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
What is your major malfunction?
You haven’t proved a thing. It seems that you are the troll, Mr. CZ.
July 24th, 2007 at 10:52 pm