Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Holocaust Denial, American Style

By Mark Weisbrot, AlterNet. Posted November 21, 2007.


Institutionally unwilling to consider America's responsibility for the bloodbath, the traditional media have refused to acknowledge the massive number of Iraqis killed since the invasion.
Mark Weisbrot

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Mark Weisbrot

The IMF's Going Down -- Is that a Bad Thing?
Thanks to disasters of its own making, the agency is losing money and influence.
May 1, 2008

The Audacity of Populism
If Obama convinces white working-class voters that he cares about their economic plight, he will become the 44th President of the United States.
Apr 7, 2008

A Question of Values: Drug Patent Laws Must Have Public Health Exceptions
Big Pharma is up in arms about developing countries importing less expensive generic versions of their drugs.
Mar 25, 2008

More stories by Mark Weisbrot

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's flirtation with those who deny the reality of the Nazi genocide has rightly been met with disgust. But another holocaust denial is taking place with little notice: the holocaust in Iraq. The average American believes that 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invasion in March 2003. The most commonly cited figure in the media is 70,000. But the actual number of people who have been killed is most likely more than one million.

This is five times more than the estimates of killings in Darfur and even more than the genocide in Rwanda 13 years ago.

The estimate of more than one million violent deaths in Iraq was confirmed again two months ago in a poll by the British polling firm Opinion Research Business, which estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths since the US invasion. This is consistent with the study conducted by doctors and scientists from the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health more than a year ago. Their study was published in the Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal. It estimated 601,000 people killed due to violence as of July 2006; but if updated on the basis of deaths since the study, this estimate would also be more than a million. These estimates do not include those who have died because of public health problems created by the war, including breakdowns in sewerage systems and electricity, shortages of medicines, etc.

Amazingly, some journalists and editors - and of course some politicians - dismiss such measurements because they are based on random sampling of the population rather than a complete count of the dead. While it would be wrong to blame anyone for their lack of education, this disregard for scientific methods and results is inexcusable. As one observer succinctly put it: if you don't believe in random sampling, the next time your doctor orders a blood test, tell him that he needs to take all of it.

The methods used in the estimates of Iraqi deaths are the same as those used to estimate the deaths in Darfur, which are widely accepted in the media. They are also consistent with the large numbers of refugees from the violence (estimated at more than four million). There is no reason to disbelieve them, or to accept tallies such as that the Iraq Body Count (73,305 - 84,222), which include only a small proportion of those killed, as an estimate of the overall death toll.

Of course, acknowledging the holocaust in Iraq might change the debate over the war. While Iraqi lives do not count for much in US politics, recognizing that a mass slaughter of this magnitude is taking place could lead to more questions about how this horrible situation came to be. Right now a convenient myth dominates the discussion: the fall of Saddam Hussein simply unleashed a civil war that was waiting to happen, and the violence is all due to Iraqis' inherent hatred of each other.

In fact, there is considerable evidence that the occupation itself - including the strategy of the occupying forces - has played a large role in escalating the violence to holocaust proportions. It is in the nature of such an occupation, where the vast majority of the people are opposed to the occupation and according to polls believe it is right to try and kill the occupiers, to pit one ethnic group against another. This was clear when Shiite troops were sent into Sunni Fallujah in 2004; it is obvious in the nature of the death-squad government, where officials from the highest levels of the Interior Ministry to the lowest ranking police officers - all trained and supported by the US military - have carried out a violent, sectarian mission of "ethnic cleansing." (The largest proportion of the killings in Iraq are from gunfire and executions, not from car bombs). It has become even more obvious in recent months as the United States is now arming both sides of the civil war, including Sunni militias in Anbar province as well as the Shiite government militias.

Is Washington responsible for a holocaust in Iraq? That is the question that almost everyone here wants to avoid. So the holocaust is denied

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: epidemiology, mortality, cluster sampling, opinion research business, lancet, johns hopkins, civilian deaths, casualties, deathtoll, iraq

Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2000), and has written numerous research papers on economic policy. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Well
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Nov 21, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a HUGE difference between Amadenjad (?)'s questioning of the holocaust and what is going on now with Iraq. That difference being that Iran and its president had NOTHING to do with the slaughter of jews in Europe. The US has EVERYTHING to do with the slaughter of people in Iraq... and has been complicit in that slaughter both during the reign of Hussein, during the arranged "first" Gulf War, and now in Iraq today.

Its not Iran this country more resembles, but the Nazis themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Well Posted by: talkville
» Bevakasha... Posted by: ShoShenQ
» Well... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Well... Posted by: talkville
» RE: Well... Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Well... Posted by: talkville
» RE: Well... Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Well... Posted by: talkville
» RE: Bevakasha... Posted by: werewolf
» RE: Bevakasha... Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Well Posted by: drsivana99
» RE: Well, we are awake. Posted by: Lauren
Value and values
Posted by: talkville on Nov 21, 2007 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Value of "an American Life" is one that is distinct, in kind, from the values of all other lives on the planet. It's recited as an assumed Article of Faith throughout vast expanses of mainstream and other media, day in and out and for a long long time. Differences only exist in whether it's a matter of Nationalism and Chauvinism or of racial characteristics assumed as exceptions. Whether outside (e.g. Iraq and etc.) or inside (e.g. the "immigration debates" and 'legals' and 'illegals'), the under-lying assumption and message remains the same. There's always a qualitative gap, an empty space, between the 'loss of an American life' and loss of life in general.

They want to keep on living, acting, thinking , and speaking in these ways, and I say "They" in a deliberate and conscious sense as one of the many ways of quitting this pernicious and dangerous habit of living - immensely more momentous than a smoking or heroin or gambling habit. As a citizen, I refuse to grant the underlying assumptions and self-appointed 'righteousness' of that general 'vision of America' fed to us daily.

All loss of life, especially that consequent on nationalist, imperialist and universalizing zeal and aggression, is to be deplored by any one who wants to lay claim to such other words as 'humanity' and 'civilization' and not make them mere pre-texts and excuses for actions of an in-human, barbaric and un-civilized kind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Value and values Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Value and values Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Value and values Posted by: talkville
» RE: Value and values Posted by: talkville
Moving up the list
Posted by: ScottP on Nov 21, 2007 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I presume the administration is proud of their progress up the list of killers (to broaden the scope beyond those cases that are clearly genocide). An off the top of the head list would be something like:

1. Nazis
2. Stalin
3. Vietnam
4. Pol Pot
5. Armenian
6. Iraq/US
7. Idi Amin, Rwanda, Darfur, Yugoslavia, Iraq/Hussein, etc.

Watch out Turkey, you're about to be passed!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Moving up the list Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Moving up the list Posted by: johnrohan
» RE: Moving up the list Posted by: werewolf
» RE: Moving up the list Posted by: werewolf
» RE: Moving up the killing list Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» You forgot the Congo Posted by: lb
» RE: Moving up the list Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Moving up the list Posted by: clayclaiborne
THATS NOT WHAT THE LANCET STUDY SAID
Posted by: owlsliveintrees on Nov 21, 2007 8:19 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your ignorance is numbing. That's not what the Lancet study said at all. This was debunked a year ago, but you hoped that everyone would forget it. Shame on you for spouting the same lies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: THATS NOT WHAT THE LANCET STUDY SAID Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Democracy?
Posted by: bgg on Nov 21, 2007 9:06 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The government talks about delivering democracy to Iraq but when it comes to Iraqi casualties, they don't count. If democracy isn't about counting votes and voters, then we're wasting our time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Democracy? Posted by: Eezee
Re list of population massacres from ScottP
Posted by: CJC on Nov 21, 2007 9:20 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're missing a lot.

Probably at the top in the 20th century were the 30 million or so who died in China under the Great Leap Forward.

20 million or more died in various political calamaties in the Soviet era starting with mass starvation as a result of collectivization.

Then maybe the Nazis.

And of course on Thanksgiving especially we Americans (US) shouldn't forget about all the Native Americans we managed to kill or let die with smallpox blankets and the rest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And 68% believe Diana is living in Brazil
Posted by: PaulD on Nov 21, 2007 9:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Polls? POLLS?! Now there's a real scientific way of getting at the truth - if the facts don't support you, take an opinion poll.

What's next? A poll to determine whether JFK is really dead?

This author was on a real short deadline without a real live clue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No one said OPINION poll Posted by: Hans B
A sample survey is NOT a poll
Posted by: CJC on Nov 21, 2007 9:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What are you talking about?

The 2 studies published in the Lancet on estimating the number of Iraqis who have died are not polls. Have you read the papers? Have you heard the methodology described by the authors?
Do you know anything about epidemiology or public health?

Basically, the researchers devised a sampling frame of all of Iraq and randomly picked neighborhoods all over the country and then within those neighborhoods randomly sampled streets and then had Iraqi interviewers interview every family and ask how many people from those households had died within a given period. If someone came to your door and asked if anyone in your household had died in the last year it's highly likely you could give an accurate number. Residents were not asked what they thought.

From these counts it's possible to get a good estimate of how many people have died in the whole country within the selected time period.
There is, of course, a confidence interval around the estimate. I don't remember what it is exactly but say it's plus or minus 20%. So if the most likely number is 1 million then the 95% confidence interval would be 800,000 to 1.2 million. However you look at it it's a lot of dead Iraqis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A sample survey is NOT a poll Posted by: walldodger1969
Let's not forget Bill's 500,000 Iraqi children.
Posted by: mmckinl on Nov 22, 2007 12:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The Democrats, after all, claim Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Back in 1996, when Albright was still U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, she was asked by reporter Lesley Stahl of "60 Minutes": "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima ... is the price worth it?"

Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

The figures were off a bit in 1996. It was not until 1999 that the United Nations, in a detailed report, estimated that 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 had died as a result of the U.S./U.N. sanctions. And they continue dying -- reportedly as many as 4,000 per month."

google :UN report 500000 Iraqi children Clinton , bnet

I have included this information to say that "The War Party " has been in office since Kennedy. America needs a new direction , not another War Party President like HRC or any of the Republicans.

Indeed Iraq will be our shame for centuries. In the Middle East they still remember Alexander the Great from 331 BC. We Americans think we get a clean slate every time we elect a new President ... well ... it doesn't work that way.

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're absolutely right. Posted by: EKSwitaj
It's Much Worse Than That
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Nov 22, 2007 2:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's actually worse than that. On top of over a millon civilian deaths and untold millions maimed, 4.5 million have been driven into destitution and displacement. And on top of that 1m+ and the 500,000+ children who died as a result of sanctions (which included life-saving drugs), we supported and armed Saddam and encouraged him to fight Iran in a war that killed 2 million, caused thousands of deaths in the 1990 war, and were the ones who built his poison-gas plants, turning a blind eye to them until he invaded Kuwait. In the wake of that war we encouraged the Marsh Arabs, Kurds and Shiites to rise up, promising them support, then abandoned them to Saddam's tender mercies. For all but 2 of the past 27 years we have been bringing carnage to Iraq; no wonder they hate us and want to see the back of us as soon as possible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But who is it that is actually doing the KILLING?
Posted by: RON_KING on Nov 22, 2007 3:59 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of the Iraqi casualties are the doing of the insurgents, not the coalition military units. We don't use carbombs to kill Iraqis, the insurgents do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Surely not censorship...
Posted by: Knowmad on Nov 22, 2007 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"This is consistent with the study conducted by doctors and scientists from the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health more than a year ago. Their study was published in the Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal. It estimated 601,000 people killed due to violence as of July 2006; but if updated on the basis of deaths since the study, this estimate would also be more than a million."

You only have to read the above paragraph to get an idea of how even the American medical system has been bullied by your corrupt neocorp administration.

Ask yourself: Why was this American study published in the Lancet, and not JAMA, the American equivalent? It couldn't be that cheney and the rest of the children-in-power didn't allow it, now could it?

Nah, that can't be right. It was also buried by your MSM, so it must be simply that the neocorp elite thought you Americans just wouldn't be interested in a study by your own medical experts...yeah, that's it.
~

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What If?
Posted by: QQOblivion on Nov 22, 2007 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The thought of a million-plus Iraqis dead as a result, indirectly and directly, of actions taken in my name is sickening.
(And the "Liberal" Media does indeed contribute to the ignorance of this genocide.)
What if the situation was reversed, and some other country had preemptively invaded and occupied OUR nation instead? What if tens-of millions (tens-of, since the US is much bigger than Iraq) of Americans were killed by the resulting violence and by the invaders themselves? I mean, I don't think many Americans would be too keen about this situation, even if the stated goal of the invasion was to remove America's dictatorial leader. (And we all know that America has been run by a relatively dictatorial president or vice-president on at least one occasion.)
What if YOUR loved ones were attacked and killed by the invaders?
Would you then be grateful for the invasion, even if our dictatorial president was removed, but the invaders still remained in America contributing to the mass-death?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What If? Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» RE: What If? Posted by: Ky Lake Dave
Why only Jews count?
Posted by: lc on Nov 22, 2007 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As many gypsies were exterminated by Hitler as Jews but nobody cares or says anything about it. The Gypsies were thrown out of India centuries ago and made their way overland by horse drawn carts they converted into homes because they were never allowed to stay anywhere. They always were forced "to keep moving" so Hitler got rid of them the same way he got rid of the Jews. Hitler exterminated every ethnic group he could. The German Jews were no more special than the German homosexuals, intellectuals, political opposition (liberals) and any and all other critics rounded up and killed long before Hitler directed his efforts against all the Jews and sent his army into other countries to round them up.
Jews get all the attention because they know how to manipulate the media. 29 million Russians died or were killed by Hitler's army. More Russians died in Stalin's Gulag than all the Jews killed during WW II. But Russians are communists and don't count any more than Muslims and heathens to Christian idiot-ologues hitched to a Jewish born baby and savior on a Crusade to the oily lands in the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
It can not be debated how much influence Israel exerts on US policy for fear of being attacked as "anti-Semite." But consider how many Bush people are Jewish. Consider how many media people are Jewish. Consider how many Jews you know personally verses how many dominate decision making at all levels of US economic and political administration. Now contrast that with how many Muslims you know or ever hear anything about. Bush I and II are guilty of killing over a million human beings. Israel has killed tens of thousands of its neighbors and domestic non-Jews. Only 4 million or so more mass murders and the Bushes will catch up with Hitler's numbers against the Jews. Yea God. Pass the bullets and don't shoot until you know what religion they are.
IM
Belteshazzar

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why only Jews count? Posted by: wireup
» RE: Why only Jews count? Posted by: Ambrose Pare
» RE: Why only Jews count? Posted by: Turiye
» RE: Why only Jews count? Posted by: werewolf
Any questions?
Posted by: willymack on Nov 22, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it has webbed feet, likes to swim, and quacks, it's probably a duck. If a nation exhibits all the symptoms of a depraved, evil dictatorship, peopled by brain-dead Homer Simpsons-well, you know the rest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nothing short of a nuclear mass killing
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Nov 22, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will awaken the average American to what's being done in their name while they dance with joy over Glade Scented Oil Candles in "Glistening Snow."

Many more millions of dark-skinned, far away Others will die before any Americans miss a meal over it.

"It's the sheep in the other feedlot that are being taken away. If they were going to kill me, why am I getting all this nice feed?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DENIAL IS JUSTIFICATION FOR GENOCIDE
Posted by: Smitty511 on Nov 22, 2007 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The actual number of Iraqi murders under the stars and stripes since 1991 is in the neighborhood of 7 million.

Since 1991 the US and Great Briton have bombed Iraqi CIVILIAN infrastructure on a daily basis.

Since 1991 the US and Great Britain have polluted the Iraqi countryside with over 2,000 tons of URANIUM 235. Enough uranium to build 500,000 Hiroshima size atomic bombs: The effects of which are seen in VERY HIGH cancer rates and extreme birth defects among Iraqi and OCCUPATION FORCES.

Since 1991 the US and Great Britain have denied ALL VACCINES FOR PREVENTABLE CHILDHOOD DISEASES. They have deliberately destroyed Iraqs' ability to provide safe drinking water. They have destroyed Iraqs' ability to effectively treat raw sewage. They continue to deny Iraq these abilities under their "reconstruction" because they are knowledgeable that a high infant mortality rate and deadly PREVENTABLE DISEASES WILL CONTINUE TO KILL CIVILIANS; MOSTLY CHILDREN. They have trained, financed, AND ASSIST the IRAQI death squads for purposes of ethnic cleansing.

The leaders of both countries have committed TREASON. By knowingly putting their own troops in danger by using Weapons Of Mass Destruction that will kill and maim for 4.5 billion years is considered an act of TREASON in ANY SOCIETY.

They are guilty of crimes against humanity for these stated IMMORAL and ILLEGAL policies.

They are destroying major archaeological sites in an attempt to literally "wipe" Iraq "off the map".

If one denies this as GENOCIDE AND A HOLOCAUST: Then we must deny there was never a "HOLOCAUST" ANYWHERE!

The goal is depopulation to favor the FASCIST IDEOLOGIES of the terrorist state of Israel. It really is that simple. That: is why the Arab population call our troops "MOSSAD"

When Fascism Comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. -Sinclair Lewis

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bleeding Hearts
Posted by: magus65 on Nov 22, 2007 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're all just a bunch of bleeding heart, pot smoking hippies.

This is war. You have to expect a little collateral genocide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» yo, man...pass the bong... Posted by: Coleman
» RE: Bleeding Hearts Posted by: Turiye
» RE: Bleeding Hearts Posted by: maestra
» RE: Bleeding Hearts Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Bleeding Hearts Posted by: hellofriends
BTW
Posted by: magus65 on Nov 22, 2007 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, that was meant to be sarcastic - not real commentary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BTW Posted by: Turiye
Pure Science Fiction
Posted by: johnrohan on Nov 22, 2007 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
(Condensed from this article)

The Holocaust/Nazi comparison is not apt, since by far most deaths are Iraqi vs. Iraqi. If this were part of a deliberate extermination campaign, all Iraqis would be dead by now. Guaranteed.

But the "over a million" killed claim doesn't hold water either - not by a long shot.

1) Even if their methodology was rock solid, the astronomically high total of dead itself causes glaring problems. Compare the number to other wars; it's way too high, even when compared to wars that included millions of combatants, major battles, and deliberate targeting of civilians! In the entire history of United States from 1776 to present, the nation lost exactly 770,650 lives to all their wars combined. So the ORB poll figure in Iraq is far higher than the total number that America has lost in every single war it has ever fought?

2) Moreover, where are all these people buried? There are no mass graves in Iraq, other than the ones from the Saddam era.

3) Under the "rule of three" (where normally three people are wounded in modern war for every one killed), there are literally three million seriously wounded Iraqis that never sought hospital treatment. It just doesn't wash.

4) Iraqi Body Count (a vehemently anti-war organization) only estimates the numbers of dead between 77-84 thousand, a figure that is not perfect but far more realistic. They issued a devastating critique of the Lancet report, including the observation that, if it were true, then: "Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued".

And about the blood sample analogy - it just doesn't apply. As a liquid, blood flows through your entire body and any viruses or trace elements become fairly evenly distributed all around. People however, are not evenly distributed all over the map, and instead live in clusters. You might have heard of these; they are called often "cities" or "towns"...

More importantly for our purposes here, the violence in Iraq also tends to cluster in certain areas more than others. Hit any one of these areas for your survey and the numbers will be wildly inflated (or deflated).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» John, John, John... Posted by: Coleman
» RE: Pure Nonsene Posted by: blitzmesser
Its clear few have actually read the Lancet report.
Posted by: Gazza126 on Nov 22, 2007 4:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because if they had, they would know that part of the metholdology involved the researchers asking to see death certificates. And in 90 percent of cases, they were produced.

Similarly, if they had read the report, they would know the researchers were not interested in the causes of the high fatality rate. They only wanted to know what it actually was. (The American military certainly isn't going to tell us. Thery have an official policy of not counting civilian casualties.)

Its ironic that one of the official reasons for entering Iraq (I know, I know) was the estimated 1.2 million Saddam was alleged to have killed during his 20 plus years in power. Six years of occupation and we've most likely already equalled that number.

Let's hear it for American know-how and ingenuity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Accuse
Posted by: P. Hermes on Nov 22, 2007 5:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My mother's entire family was murdered by Hitler's Nazis and their syncophants. So I stand here today to say:

I accuse you, George W. Bush
I accuse you Richard B. Cheney
I accuse you Donald Rumsfeld
I accuse you Condoleezza Rice
I accuse you all, and all your self serving syncophants of the most heinous of human crimes:

Wanton mass murder of a likely million or more innocents in a war of pure convenience and brutality.

And...

I demand that you all be arrested and tried before a tribunal of both your fellow citizens and the world at large, thereupon to meet your fate such as you had inflicted upon those many innocents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I Accuse Posted by: justicenow
» RE: I Accuse Posted by: Turiye
» RE: And I Accuse Israel! Posted by: pierrot
We rule by chaos
Posted by: Ambrose Pare on Nov 22, 2007 8:03 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'We rule by chaos' is the ideal at play here, well quoted by Zionists.

Don't forget, the US are the pricks who armed Sadaam, and got him in power.

They arm the different factions and encourage them to fight. They kill each other, and innocents as well. Total Chaos.

After a few more years of Chaos, the Iraqi people will be so worn down by civil war they probably will accept the US puppet government to be installed.

This is a Genocide, the use of DU weapons will kill millions over time. I think we should give Israel to the Iraqi people for their suffering. Sounds fair to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is still time!
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Nov 22, 2007 9:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the killing goes on - a couple of air dropped nukes in Iran will quickly ratchet up the body count of innocent civilians to one that can make us all proud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

baby
Posted by: granny52 on Nov 22, 2007 10:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"GOD HELP US".

http://uruknet.info/?p=m38464&hd=&size=1&l=e

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here they go again!
Posted by: foreverhope on Nov 23, 2007 3:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An organization, Unity08, is trying to form a new third party to run a "bi-partisan dream team" to upset the election next year.

They have a glossy marketing and advertising campaign, a tv star spokesperson from Law and Order, and claim to have 115,480 very angry voters ready to cast a ballot for whatever they are cooking up.

The website is elaborate and very consumer friendly, lots of bells and whistles. They are proposing to 'reinvent' our democracy.

Unity08 is putting together what they are calling their "American Agendy". God only knows what they mean by that.

The republican strategist at the "top" is said in a 1996 interview that he could get Hitler elected by the Bahai.

I can smell rabid right winger neocons, and that place stinks to high heaven. Unity08 is an elaborate internet hoax, a dog and pony show. I don't want a glossy marketing campaign, with some new wave third party, being strategized by a highly qualified republican, setting up an online scam to upset the democratic process next year or any year.

Take a really good hard look at Unity08 and get in on their American Agenda, "light a torch for freedom", and get the word out to others wherever you can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here they go again! Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Here they go again! Posted by: JOHN L.
denial has been going on since long before WWII
Posted by: jingles on Nov 23, 2007 4:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't see anything about Americans in denial, or at best delusion, of the systematic extermination in bodies and culture of the Indigenous Americans, which is the real original 100% authentic American-style Holocaust Denial, so I thought I'd mention it. Yay Thanksgiving.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anti-Semmite or anti-Zionist?
Posted by: lc on Nov 23, 2007 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In an earlier post about Jews ruling the US media and policy, I was attacked as being antisemitic. How typical. Maybe others out there would like to stop pulling their punches and call out Israel for its Zionist policies rather than have some religious zealot dismiss everything with their favorite nonsense response to any messenger and message the Jews don't like
Typical irrational religious reaction: Denial of truth. How dare I say anything against Israel even if they are guilty just like Bush. Stick to the facts without ranting Antisemitism. Why did you not also accuse me of anti-Christian-ism? Why is there only a word for expressing anti-Zionist sentiment but not anti-American. Zion is a country just like Americanism is represented by a country. I can attack America's policies and not be called an anti-Christian but if I dare to attack Israeli Zionist policy I am called antisemitic.
This Jewish policy of crying and attacking the messenger all the time while denying the message is going to be the end of Israel.
IM
Belteshazzar

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When the meat hits the fan
Posted by: b4upoo on Nov 23, 2007 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wouldn't argue that a million folks have perished in the Iraq conflict. What we can not measure is whether the slaughter house effect might have been worse if the US had stayed at home. There are numerous factions wanting to use violence within Iraq as well as nations like Turkey that mull over the notion of stomping Iraq out of the history books. So we might actually be a peace
keeper relative to the situation rather than an aggressor. Frankly as long as terrorism is likely we have plenty of moral justification for letting loose on any nation that in any way contributes to terrorism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When the meat hits the fan Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» Tsk..tsk..tsk Posted by: Thetorganization
Not the Reason
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 23, 2007 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Amazingly, some journalists and editors - and of course some politicians - dismiss such measurements because they are based on random sampling of the population rather than a complete count of the dead.

They dismiss the measurements, but not for that reason. They dismiss the measurements because they don't like the results of the study. If a random study supported their desired story-line then they would be giving the Lancet study front-page headlines until everyone in the country could recite the results in their sleep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DUHHH It's a war
Posted by: Ky Lake Dave on Nov 23, 2007 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iraq invaded Kuwait. The USA along with many allies pushed Iraq back. Iraq broke over 150 UN RESOLUTIONS, breaking the ceasefire. The President declaried an end to the ceasefire. And with both houses voting we resumed the war against Iraq. We have been at war with Iraq since. In War People Die. The side that kills the most of the other side wins. The side that dies the most loses. That is a cruel fact of war. The USA or President Bush did not invent the concept. The more more fighting souls a leader sends against superior force the more fighting souls that side will lose. I blame the insergent leaders. If insergents wish to keep dying then they just need to keep attacking the greatest fighting force in the history of mankind. The war is turning in Iraq. We have the upper hand and we will be victorious. Democrats and Progressives have spent so much of they're political future on the USA losing that they just are unable to embrace VICORY. We will do wonderful things for the Iraq people and the rest of the middle east may see the example of hope and freedom and I pray they will follow the example a free Iraq will be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: DUHHH It's a war Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: DUHHH It's a war Posted by: Ky Lake Dave
» RE: 'Penis'-oops, I mean pistol envy Posted by: Ky Lake Dave
» DUHHH It's the OIL! Posted by: bigbad
» RE: DUHHH It's the OIL! Posted by: Ky Lake Dave
» RE: DUHHH It's the OIL! Posted by: zorro
» RE: DUHHH It's the OIL! Posted by: Ky Lake Dave
» RE: DUHHH It's a war Posted by: maestra
» RE: DUHHH It's a f*^king cretin! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: DUHHH It's a f*^king cretin! Posted by: Ky Lake Dave
» RE: DUHHH The f*^king cretin is waving his flag! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: DUHHH It's a f*^king cretin! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: DUHHH It's a f*^king cretin! Posted by: Ky Lake Dave
» RE: DUHHH It's a war Posted by: harryf200
» RE: Ky Lake Dave Dipshit Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive