user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : It is a double standard
However, inflated number or no, Iraq was a mess that could have been avoided, and definitely better handled.
Oh yeah, there's credible sources. Bush, a known liar and the new Iraqi government, who owes their very existence to Bush and the United States. Sure, we'll believe them. NOT! Look I think its wrong of you to politicize this issue, which is precisely what you're doing. Its very immoral of you to minimize the deaths, which Bush caused, by playing poltics. You need to do a conscience check.
You're also being less than honest. The report clearly said that there was no way to say with certainty and the report clearly showed the means used to come up with the number. You're making it seem, as is your MO, that the report was just a fabricated lie. It was not. They were clear on the analyis and forced no one to accept it as absolute fact as to the exact number. You make it seem like the report did. It did not.
As for this quote :
"This figure, which in reality has no basis, is exaggerated," said Iraqi government spokesman Ali Debbagh.
^ Well of course he's and Bush will try to minimize it! Use your brain.
What disgusts me is that you are so quick to try and make this about the right vs. the left. That is outrageous. Where the hell is your heart? Up your butt?
To help keep you honest, here is an article on the analysis.
'655,000 Iraqis killed since invasion'
Sarah Boseley, health editor
Wednesday October 11, 2006
The Guardian
The aftermath of a Baghdad bomb attack - a study published in the Lancet estimates that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. Photograph: Getty Images
The death toll among Iraqis as a result of the US-led invasion has now reached an estimated 655,000, a study in the Lancet medical journal reports today.
The figure for the number of deaths attributable to the conflict - which amounts to around 2.5% of the population - is at odds with figures cited by the US and UK governments and will cause a storm, but the Lancet says the work, from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, has been examined and validated by four separate independent experts who all urged publication.
In October 2004, the same researchers published a study estimating that 100,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war since the beginning of the March 2003 invasion, a figure that was hugely controversial. Their new study, they say, reaffirms the accuracy of their survey of two years ago and moves it on.
"Although such death rates might be common in times of war, the combination of a long duration and tens of millions of people affected has made this the deadliest international conflict of the 21st century and should be of grave concern to everyone," write the authors, Gilbert Burnham and colleagues.
"At the conclusion of our 2004 study we urged that an independent body assess the excess mortality that we saw in Iraq. This has not happened. We continue to believe that an independent international body to monitor compliance with the Geneva conventions and other humanitarian standards in conflict is urgently needed. With reliable data, those voices that speak out for civilians trapped in conflict might be able to lessen the tragic human cost of future wars."
The epidemiological research was carried out on the ground by teams of doctors moving from house to house, questioning families and examining death certificates. Between May and July this year, they visited 1,849 households in 47 separated clusters across the length and breadth of Iraq. The doctors asked about deaths among members of the household in a period before the invasion, from January 2002 to March 2003, and about deaths since. In 92% of cases, they were shown death certificates confirming the cause.
A total of 629 deaths were reported, of which 547 - or 87% - occurred after the invasion. The mortality rate before the war was 5.5 per 1,000, but since the invasion, it has risen to 13.3 per 1,000 per year, they say. Between June 2005 and June 2006, the mortality rate hit a high of 19.8 per 1,000.
Thus they calculate that 654,965 Iraqis have died as a consequence of the invasion. It is an estimate and the mid-point, and most likely of a range of numbers that could also be correct in the context of their statistical analysis. But even the lowest number in the range - 392,979 - is higher that anyone else has suggested. Of the deaths, 31% were ascribed to the US-led forces. Most deaths were from gunshot wounds (56%), with a further 13% from car bomb injuries and 14% the result of other explosions.
"Since 2004, and especially recently," writes the Lancet editor, Richard Horton in a commentary, "independent observers have recognised that the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated dramatically." The new study, he continues, "corroborate the impression that Iraq is descending into bloodthirsty chaos".
Yet, he writes, "absolute despair would be the wrong response. Instead, the disaster that is the west's current strategy in Iraq must be used as a constructive call to the international community to reconfigure its foreign policy around human security rather than national security, around health and wellbeing in addition to the protection of territorial boundaries and economic stability.
"Health is now the most important foreign policy issue of our time. Health and wellbeing - their underpinning values, their diverse array of interventions and their goals of healing - offer several original dimensions for a renewed foreign policy that might at least be one positive legacy of our misadventure in Iraq."
Please note, that it does NOT say the deaths were a result of Iraqi civilians being shot or blown up only. NOTE that it would also be cause by a severe deterioration in health care. You know, sort of like how Bush's invasion caused a complete destruction of their infastructure, like destroying their hospitals, sewer system, water supply. You know, vital things like that. Use your brain!
Who cares what the precise number of dead is? Not me. It is catastrophic, terrible, and could have been avoided with a bit of truth, restraint, and diplomacy.
Herzog you have sunk to a new low with this one. Whether the death toll is 600,000 or 30,000 it is still a huge number. It would seem that your morals are being muddied by your politics. Your ballot suggests that the wrong done here was in reporting 600,000 instead of 30,000 as though 30,000 Iraqi dead is all right by you. The wrong here Herzog is the fact that a huge number of Iraqi people have been killed in an illegal and unjust war. You complain that negative news about Iraq is believed over positive news. There is no positive news about Iraq. Iraq is in chaos, people are dying in there hundreds on a daily basis and things are going from bad to worse. Whether you believe it was right or wrong to invade Iraq is almost irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is that unless something changes thousands more will die. To politicize the issue as left versus right is to spit in the face of all those people. It’s not a case of left versus right it’s a case of wrong versus right. How could it be right and how could you justify the killing of 30,000 even 10,000 people. More people have died in the few years under US occupation than ever did under Saddam. Yes Saddam was a tyrant and an evil one at that but if the evil of his tyranny is to be measured by the numbers of dead then how are we to judge Bush and co.
by B_P on Fri Oct 13, 06 3:33am
[+]
"When this report was posted on B&W it was accepted without question."
No it wasn't.
The methods used seemed fairly orthodox and reliable in ther breakdown I saw on the BBC. Complete accuracy was not a claim that the researchers made, but even their lowest estimate of 300k + Iraqi deaths is a shocking figure.
Voted : It is a double standard
I don't think herzog made this an issue of left vs. right.
I believe that if the 655, 000 estimation was intentionally exaggerated- then it is those who came up with the statistic who probably had a left/right agenda.
Look, I oppose the Iraq War, BUT I oppose using exaggerations or deceit to prove it wrong. The same goes for those on the other side, whom may minimise the death toll. Neither side should exaggerate or deceive. If you truloy believe something is right or wrong, deceit is not necessary, and one can just use facts and only facts to be able to prove their point.
I don't know what the exact death toll is, but I know that it would be a lot. I have always opposed the war.
You may have a point, herz.
I think we all have to exercise extreme caution to assess information -- not merely to accept what affirms our current beliefs.
After all -- that is exactly what brought this country to its current state -- the unquestioning, blind acceptance of assertions that affirmed peoples' existing beliefs/ fears.
^ I am addressing what I perceive as herz's general point -- didn't want to digress into specific tangents.
Although, herzog -- your balloy title really doesn't reflect what I perceive to be your thesis question. That might influence people to address the specifics of the estimate instead of the more general question posed in your transition paragraph.
And finally ... this has to be one of the most absolutely ironic ballots I have ever read. 
I wasnt about when the report was "accepted without question" on B and W, but if thats true then it doesnt reflect the real world, where the report was both endorsed AND discredited
Beau, marge, B_P: you have misread the question. I wasn't asking "if it turns out that fewer than 600,000 iraqis have died, would you then support the war?". I was asking if there is a double standard on this site when it comes to accepting information sources. In other words, negative news about iraq (or bush, or whatever the liberal majority dislikes) is not questioned. Whereas positive news about such things is held up to intense scrutiny and usually disregarded even if it holds up.
Do you believe it constitutes a double standard when news you like is accepted and news you dislike is questioned? In other words, is it a double standard to hold two things to two different standards? This is pretty simple.
See cathexis' first comment and socrates' entry for what this ballot was actually asking.
And cath, the ballot title was a copy from the article title that I got this from.
Had I changed the title no doubt I would have been criticized for altering the story.
There have only been a mere 45,000 civilians killed in violent deaths in Iraq, reported and cross-checked. That's makes it like 14 times less horrifying.
iraqbodycount.org
A mere 4 people feel this is a double standard.
Alot of hypocrites on this site.
|
|
