100,000 Iraqi Civilians have died in current war

[Undertoad]

That is true, I completely agree. Nevertheless, the number 100,000 is the topic of the thread.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

That is true, I completely agree. Nevertheless, the number 100,000 is the topic of the thread.

UT, the topic goes right back to how you also knew those aluminum tubes were for weapons of mass destruction. You acknowledge error only because you have no alternative. But you still fail to acknowledge a reason why you were wrong. Same reason is why you are now challenging the '98,000 dead Iraqi' number. You just know - facts be damned. Or better still, you still blindly believe what the administration says. The administration says 15,000 dead. Therefore it must be 15,000? History alone says a number from that source cannot be trusted. Why do you still believe what they hype?

If you have a problem with that number, then stop the wild speculation as to why those people died. Again, provide a reasonable study that either has numbers based in logic, or that explains how so many Iraqis (military and civilian) died. I keep asking for this that you don't provide.

That is topic. Does UT, et al believe science or does he believe the administration spin? Those who believe reality verses those who blindly follow spin and myths. Is it 98,000 dead Iraqis due to Americans, or the politically spun 15,000? The first number is based upon facts. The second ... well we don't even know how they got that number. Karl Rove? Same person who hyped an aluminum tube myth?

History alone says numbers from the administration are not credible. Need we cite another recent example? The latest massive cost increases in the administration's prescription drug program? By now, UT, I would have thought you learned that lesson - why you were totally wrong about aluminum tubes. What is the subject? What numbers are to be believed? Those based upon science or those hyped by an administration that often lies? Shrodinger's Cat has demonstrated why the study is so credible. UT - your only response has been, "I don't believe it; facts be damned". Same reasoning used to hype those alumimun tubes.

Don't just acknowledege you were wrong. Address the reason why you were wrong. Same reason is being used to challenge 'America's 98,000 dead Iraqis'.

[Undertoad]

You really truly believed that a massacre happened in Jenin.

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=1324

You never even acknowledged that you were wrong. I bet you still won't. I'm giving you this opportunity.

Originally Posted by tw

Isreal even refuses to let any of the hundreds (maybe thousand) of Palestinian bodies be returned to their relatives.

Thousand? Let's talk about body counts shall we. Let's talk about facts and who believes in what.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Thousand? Let's talk about body counts shall we. Let's talk about facts and who believes in what.

UT. I acknowledge my mistakes AND (this is the more important point) acknowledge why I made those mistakes. Big difference. We have two numbers. Lies from an administration of only 15,000 dead. Or numbers based upon what made America great - logic and science - that say 98,000 dead due to America. Which do you promote? You had to acknowledge being wrong on those aluminum tubes. But when do you stop making the same logical errors? If logical, then say America has killed 98,000 Iraqis.

First it goes to credibility. Another example. The administration knew that a drug plan costs far more than $400 billion. So they ordered the expert to not talk to Congress so Congress could not learn about the lie. The expert's numbers said at least $500 billion. Today we learn (after the election) that the administration knew it was at least $700+ billion. Ahhh but Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Lying therefore is justified? No wonder the administration authorized torture of prisoners who were not even guilty. How many lies before George Jr has no credibility? Welcome to the Vietnam syndrome.

George Jr proves he can lie repeatedly and UT (, et al) will believe him ... religiously? When does this Vietnam syndrom stop?

Again the numbers. 98,000 dead as so accurately explained by Shrodinger's Cat verses the 15,000 ... and the administration does not even try to justify those numbers. How can anyone believe the administration? And that is the point. How and why would anyone believe only 15,000 dead when there is no logical reason to do so?

UT completely misses the point. You are taking personal insult. Logical conclusions have no place among silly emotions. The point is about how one draws conclusions. Meanwhile no one is insulted. Again, I keep asking UT, et al to provide just some 'real world' facts to justify a defense of the mental midget president's numbers. I do so repeatedly because he will not provide any such facts. He can't even admit why he was so wrong about those aluminum tubes - a critical self examination. One instead would take insult to this continued demand for facts? A demand so that one does not make same mistakes as with those aluminum tubes. Learn why you were wrong about those aluminum tubes AND about 98,000 killed by America.

Where pray tell is a study anywhere near as responsible as the one published in The Lancet. We are talking here about, for example, why emotion rather than logic created a war that killed 98,000 Iraqis for no good reason. A person properly burned by this lying president would have long ago said, "I don't trust the administration's 15,000 number". Obviously. Aministration provides no supporting facts knowing full well that many in America will still blindly believe. Why then, UT, do you still keep making the same logic mistakes you made with those aluminum tubes?

The next event is fast approaching as I predicted last year. Already the lies and half truths are being put forth to justify another unjustified invasion - in Iran. We know this will happen if only because the administration said up front that it intends to 'fix' the Middle East and put Iran on a list of countries to invade. So when that war goes nuclear, will you stand there screaming that the US launch ICBMs and nuclear bombs on Iran? Are you already justifying that war using the same logic that promoted aluminum tubes for WMDs? When will you confront White House spin using logic - and not blindly believe what they say? That, UT, is the point. Where is the logic that says a 15,000 dead number is accurate? It does not exist - except in White House speculation.

Those who blindly believe a 15,000 number are likely to call for a unilateral attack on Iran. And that one may turn nuclear. It is coming because too many are so blind as to even believe a fictitious 15,000 number. This is not a personal attack on anyone, UT. It is a question of how many times one will believe a lying president - without facts to justify that support. A person using logic says The Lancet's 98,000 dead number is the most likely estimate. A person who advocates a unilateral attack on Iran blindly (and without facts) would typically believe the administration's 15,000 numbers. That is the danger. A danger because things are believed - facts be damned.

Oynxcougar - at what point do we finally declare George Jr as evil. With the invasion of Iran, or with the invasion of N Korea? Is that not the sign of a devil - when logical thinking is replaced by a blind compliance? Only a devil could put up a 15,000 dead number, provide no justification, and people both loyally and unquestionably believe what they are told.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Let me add some clarification here, since few seemed to have bothered to read the original Lancet article. The study looked at the number of civilian deaths as a result of the war. The researchers wanted to compare civilian death rates pre-American invasion and post Saddam. Remember how a big bone of contention has been that Saddam was responsible for many deaths of his own people?

Here's just one example of the factors the researchers looked at: One of the major public health problems in Iraq has been the increase in infant mortality since the US invasion. The authors of the paper address this problem, explaining that increased infant mortality rate is due to the mothers' fear of going to the hospital since the outbreak of the war. This segment of the civilian death toll is NOT due to US soldiers gunning down infants. It IS due to the over-all instability of the country since the US invasion. The US stance has been that we are making life better for the average Iraqi. Going by the data published in the Lancet, we are not.

The Lancet paper was not some anti-American diatribe. It was scientific and impartial. It even made mention of US soldiers coming to the familes of the deceased and apologizing in some instances of inadvertant civilian deaths. The concluding paragraphs of the paper ask a very valid question. The US military claims that "collateral" deaths have been kept to a minimum due to precision weapons and bombing. If the US military has no knowledge of the actual number of civilian deaths, how can it make such a claim?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

UT. I acknowledge my mistakes AND (this is the more important point) acknowledge why I made those mistakes.

Please point out the post where you acknowledged there was no Jenin massacre, and explained why you made such a massive error.

I'll make it easier for you. Please point out any post at all where you acknowledged that you made any error at all, and explained why you made that error.

Everyone else can help. Certainly one Cellarite can recall it happening. Anyone?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Is that not the sign of a devil - when logical thinking is replaced by a blind compliance? Only a devil could put up a 15,000 dead number, provide no justification, and people both loyally and unquestionably believe what they are told.

The Devil? Now who's being illogical?

[jaguar]

Ut and tw remind me of the feud in Asterix in Corsica about his great-great-great-great grandad buying a lame donkey from the other guy's great-great-great-great-grandad. It was very, very serious.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Please point out the post where you acknowledged there was no Jenin massacre, and explained why you made such a massive error.

Unfortunately, UT, you fail (or just don't want) to understand the subject. Too often, you promote myopic 'them verses us' conclusions rather than first learn facts. Your insistence that ‘those aluminum tubes were for WMDs’ says you did not first learn facts. Even quoting an accurate post that “not everyone wants democracy” (no matter how many times you insist otherwise) says you are trying to avoid the point.

UT you were wrong to blindly believe what George Jr said about Iraq. You don't have an engineer’s attitude that first demands the irrefutable fact. But then you blindly accept Rush Limbaugh type propaganda as if that were fact. IOW you make multiple reasoning mistakes. If you first demand facts, then you would not have posted repeatedly about aluminum tubes and other WMD propaganda.

Have you learned from that mistake? Apparently not. For example, not one good reason exists to challenge the 98,000 dead number. Schrodinger's Cat has again posted what you did not read before forming opinions. You immediately assumed the Iraqi dead were due to military violence. Again, you just knew – facts be damned. As with aluminum tubes, you failed to learn facts before forming an opinion. A problem that is also widespread in America. Same problem will cause an illegal invasion of Iran.

Ok that is how you came to opinions and still failed to learn from your 'aluminum tube', ‘Saddam is a threat’, et al fiasco. To repeat it again: This discussion is not about you. This is a discussion of how people in America now view the world and form opinions. The point again, UT. It is not only about how you think (which is why you have no reason to feel so insulted). Your posts are cited as but examples. Bury your emotions to comprehend the point of this discussion. People, such as you, who have a problem with The Lancet study (knew it was wrong without even reading the study) also don't learn facts before forming conclusions. You even assumed you knew what The Lancet study was counting. This becomes a serious problem in America when the president is so extremist, dishonest, confrontational, mentally deficient, and aggressive. UT is not the only one who demonstrates this problem. But an aluminum tube myth and ‘Arabs in every closet just waiting to massacre Americans’ is a problem create by “so many who just know – facts be damned”.

Again, there is no insult here of UT. UT’s denial of 98,000 dead Iraqis is a symptom of a much larger and more dangerous problem. Unfortunately, so many Americans are so easily deceived by lies and myths that America threatens to become the so-called ‘great Satan’ - and invade Iran.

The statement today by N Korea is, unfortunately, accurate. American belligerence so threatens world peace that N Korea would be irresponsible to not build nuclear weapons. You tell me how such belligerence makes for a better world. Instability created because too many Americans just know – facts such as The Lancet study be damned.

UT, you did not read the study. You did not understand what deaths were counted. But you just knew it was wrong? That is a problem that extends well beyond how UT forms opinions. That is the point. There is no insult of UT. There is a problem in America that UT repeatedly demonstrates.

[Undertoad]

Yes, tw, and my questions are not about you. They're about people LIKE you, who are mentally ill. Not YOU. People LIKE you.

People with an "engineer's mind" who somehow come to accept propaganda such as "thousand dead in Jenin", and, having subjected the "fact" to their "engineer's mind", find it to be factual and work from that point as a given.

Not YOU though. Just people LIKE you. You know. Morons.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Yes, tw, and my questions are not about you. They're about people LIKE you, who are mentally ill. Not YOU. People LIKE you.

What questions, UT? I don't see any questions. I see accusations that have no justification - accusations made without any supporting facts or numbers. Where is this question about The Lancet study that says the US caused the death of 98,000 (and probably many more) Iraqis? Instead the study is wrong - and yet you apparently did not read it. Instead you assumed it was about people killed by military violence. And again, where is the question? All I read is your accusations that the study must be wrong.

Are you acknowledging that what Schrodinger's Cat has posted is accurately? Do you better understand the 98,000 dead number since he has noted who gets counted as dead?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

What questions, UT? I don't see any questions.

That's because you don't read for comprehension. The questions are: 1) Please point out the post where you acknowledged there was no Jenin massacre, 2) please explain why you made such a massive error, or really, any post at all where you acknowledged that you made any error at all.

Instead the study is wrong - and yet you apparently did not read it. Instead you assumed it was about people killed by military violence.

From the actual study, "Findings", page one:

The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Yes, most of the deaths were due to military actions, but concern about infant mortality rates was also a vital component of the study:

The Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Ministry of
Health have identified the halving of infant mortality as a major objective.

The paper goes on to discuss this in further sections, so death by violence was NOT the only thing the researchers were looking at.

They also state that violent deaths were mostly due to air strikes, so, once again, this is not some diatribe about evil US soldiers gunning down helpless civilians on the street. It is about the failure of the US military command to use its so-called precision bombing techniques:

Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence.

The authors practically request that the US military follow up on their preliminary study:

Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce noncombatant deaths from air strikes.

If a couple of University professors with limited funding were able to carry out a study valid enough to be published in a highly respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal; surely, the DOD with its much greater access to funding and materials could do the same and end the controversy one way or the other. Why don't they?

[jaguar]

Noone would believe them anyway.

[Undertoad]

If the cause is different we will need a new motive from you, Jag.