COMMENTS: 189
Study: More Than 600,000 Dead in Iraq
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.
The John Hopkins University researchers were meticulous about the methods used to randomly choose the survey sites and analyze the data. It is state-of-the-art work, and its accuracy is not an issue. The survey is the only scientific account of the war dead. There is no other, and those who publicly dismiss the findings must offer an alternative. There is none. Every other account is deeply flawed in method, and this one is not. It is standard in epidemiology and disaster response.
The survey, which my Center helped organize, is available here.
Just two weeks ago, the Washington Post published a survey of Iraqi attitudes toward the United States and the war. The survey, conducted by the State Department, revealed that enormous majorities blamed the United States for the violence and wanted us to leave Iraq. Another poll from the University of Maryland published the next day confirmed that sentiment and also reported that 60 percent of Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops. The Johns Hopkins mortality survey and these polls go hand in hand. The Iraqi attitudes are difficult to grasp unless the violence people suffer is an enormous daily threat to them.
The implications of this level of mayhem are profound. Most obviously, the United States is not providing security. It is not viewed by the Iraqi people as doing so, and the death rate confirms why these attitudes are so firmly held. The "mission" is not being accomplished, and if trend lines are an indication, the mission is deteriorating rapidly. The debate about withdrawing must be waged in this context.
It is conceivable that the application of force by the U.S. military is making things worse. Again, this is what Iraqis believe. A number of explanations for the violence see insurgent action in particular as "defensive" -- that is, the insurgents believe they are defending their communities. Because the United States went in with a relatively small number of troops, more force was applied to compensate for those inadequate numbers. (That does not mean, however, that larger numbers would have changed the course of the war.) This strategy has perhaps stirred the insurgency as much as any other plausible factor, and the growing violence then generates itself in a giant feedback loop: the United States attacks a village where they think insurgents are harbored, and this produces more insurgents who then act violently, exacting a new U.S. military response, and so on and so on.
Many of the journalistic accounts of the war, such as Thomas Ricks' "Fiasco," suggest that this may be what is occurring. At the same time, journalists are only seeing a tiny fraction of what goes on in Baghdad, what Dexter Filkins of the New York Times describes as 2 percent of the entire country, and thus their scope is very limited in seeing the violence, accounting for the dead, or drawing out the broader meaning. As a result, we have very little understanding of how the violence affects everything -- politics, ethnic and sectarian divisions, the hundreds of thousands displaced (another invisible statistic), the many thousands leaving Iraq in droves, the deterioration of the public health care system, and every other dimension of life and death in Iraq.
This is what we need to concentrate on as the discussion of the mortality survey unfolds. Even if there were a large sampling error in the survey -- which there does not seem to be -- the numbers would be colossal in scale. And it is the meaning of these colossal numbers that we must debate. We now have empirical evidence of the scale of this human disaster. In that light, what is best for Iraq? How can such violence be ended? How can the United States carve out a constructive role from the ruins of its intervention?
Let's honor the dead of Iraq by grappling realistically with their tragedy and forge a way to ensure that this horrific human cost does not continue to mount.
Stay up to date with the latest World headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CTvoter on Oct 11, 2006 8:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Justice on trial
Posted by: Heath
» US privately approved of Saddam's use of chemical weapons
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: US privately approved of Saddam's use of chemical weapons
Posted by: heech
» RE: US privately approved of Saddam's use of chemical weapons
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Wrong again - read your history
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Wrong again - read your history
Posted by: brunowe
» Saddam DID try to assassinate the nationalist leader of Iraq in 1959
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Wrong again - read your history
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» What grammer school did you go to?
Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: What grammer school did you go to?
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» When compared to Bush, history will be kind to Nixon.
Posted by: LeftWright
» Ducking and dodging?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: US privately approved of Saddam's use of chemical weapons
Posted by: Peyotino
» Yes - Senator Prescott Bush was indicted in 1942 for 'trading with the enemy'
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: US privately approved of Saddam's use of chemical weapons
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» You're talking about Hitler's Plan Orient (a lot like Bush's, actually)
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: You're talking about Hitler's Plan Orient (a lot like Bush's, actually)
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Rumors? Hardly
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» Rumors - totally!
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Owning 1 share and being the director are rather different, don't you think?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Owning 1 share and being the director are rather different, don't you think?
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Can't you post a link to support your nonsense?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Can't you post a link to support your nonsense?
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» I guess that means no?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» Well, I can post a link to question your nonsense..
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Rumors - totally!
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: umors - totally!
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: umors - totally!
Posted by: SatanicJamboree
» RE: Rumors - totally!
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: umors - totally!
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Justice on trial
Posted by: Peyotino
» RE: Justice on trial
Posted by: Lauren
» Live and Die by the Gun
Posted by: edith
» Saddam's trial is highly selective (and in Iraq) for a very good reason
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Justice on trial
Posted by: yellow
» The Plan To Divide Iraq Is On Schedule
Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: The Plan To Divide Iraq Is On Schedule
Posted by: symcokid
» Meaning all of Iraq is in flames?
Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: Meaning all of Iraq is in flames?
Posted by: symcokid
» Unfortunately, I have to agree
Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: Unfortunately, I have to agree
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SteveB on Oct 11, 2006 8:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iraqis can see that the main mission of the Americans is protecting themselves - even if that means massive use of force that results in more dead Iraqis.
Let's get out NOW.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Ditto ditto but the Democrats need that message!
Posted by: edith
» RE: The real disconnect between Iraqis and Americans
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Techubus on Oct 11, 2006 9:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If these numbers are accurate, if that many have truly died, then Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney all deserve to be standing alongside Saddam in that court room.
We can't pull out all the troops immediately, but we should be starting a phased withdrawal immediately.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The US Army and Marines are the terrorists-- so no "terrorists" are being bred
Posted by: chief of okeefe
» RE: The US Army and Marines are the terrorists-- so no "terrorists" are being bred
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: The US Army and Marines are the terrorists-- so no "terrorists" are being bred
Posted by: mjabele
» Simple ...
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: The US Army and Marines are the terrorists-- so no "terrorists" are being bred
Posted by: TooDamnCool
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drew on Oct 11, 2006 9:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are facts that are unforgivable and unforgetable. I tried a brief experiment the other day- i asked people, often well informed people and progressives, how many had been killed in Iraq. To a person they gave figures in the 2700-2800 range- presuming i suppose that the common reference point was how many americans have died- as if others are a non issue or somehow in the category of collateral damage. The sense of humanity and vision that their assumptions seemed to reflect leaves me with a feeling of anger and even self loathing for a country in which the vision of many of its people is so self focused and limited.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Chomsky makes a similar point
Posted by: SteveB
» RE: drew
Posted by: pete ess
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AJN007 on Oct 11, 2006 9:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: How does this relate to the sectarian violence?
Posted by: OCDem
» RE: How does this relate to the sectarian violence?
Posted by: kryptx
» 'Scuse moi
Posted by: cold2touch
» RE: How does this relate to the sectarian violence?
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» Correction
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» The argument is not that the people of Iraq were better off under Hussien...
Posted by: chief of okeefe
» RE: How does this relate to the sectarian violence?
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: How does this relate to the sectarian violence?answer
Posted by: rwa
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cold2touch on Oct 11, 2006 9:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
President Bush dismissed the report as not credible. "The methodology is pretty well discredited," he said at a White House news conference.
Moreover: Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told Reuters "The report is unbelievable. These numbers are exaggerated and not precise."
I am sure that the Johns Hopkins epidemiologists are devastated by this critique, I mean, c'mon folks, if Dubya al-Dabbagh questions your methods, you better go back to school, ok, because unlike his, your Mission Is Not Complete.
We wanna see "precise" numbers, like 655,071.49 bodies, then we'll send in Halliburton to double check.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DougScott on Oct 11, 2006 10:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For damning revelations about Shrub the Charlatan plus 70 Bushwhacking cartoons and other illustrations, please visit one of the best progressive websites on the Internet --www.King-George.biz
Try to keep smiling everyone, Doug
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Forget 600,000. An innocent dead Iraqi is one too many.
Posted by: lydia cypher
» RE: Forget 600,000. An innocent dead Iraqi is one too many.
Posted by: DougScott
» RE: Forget 600,000. An innocent dead Iraqi is one too many.
Posted by: karyse
» RE: Forget 600,000. An innocent dead Iraqi is one too many.
Posted by: Lauren
» Alternative voices won't overcome revenge
Posted by: DougScott
» RE: Alternative voices won't overcome revenge
Posted by: Lauren
» It will take a long time
Posted by: HeroesAll
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Robba29 on Oct 11, 2006 11:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WWI casualties were 90% military, 10% Civilian
WWII were ~40% military and 60% Civilian
Vietnam I know was higher (don't have those exact stats)
What would the Iraq war look like? A complete reversal of WWI: 90% civilian, 10% military?
Are we "winning the hearts and minds" of the people by killing them? Those who ultimately suffer have always been the people...war is not pretty, but this is absolutely sickening and ridiculous. When are we going to wake up? Let armies kill armies--fine, go for it, knock yourself out, literally. But what did the average person ever do to deserve this. This is maddening...and madness.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: good point
Posted by: cold2touch
» RE: Modern Warfare
Posted by: yellow
» Yellow Interventionism is still Occupation
Posted by: edith
» "The Late Unpleasantness"
Posted by: Douglas
» RE: Yellow Interventionism is still Occupation
Posted by: Robba29
» So Much for Toleramce and the Enlightement
Posted by: edith
» RE: Yellow Interventionism is still Occupation
Posted by: mjabele
» RE: Yellow Interventionism is still Occupation
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Modern Warfare
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Modern Warfare
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Modern Warfare
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Modern Warfare
Posted by: symcokid
» RE: Modern Warfare
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Modern Warfare
Posted by: socrates2
» RE: Modern Warfare
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Modern Warfare
Posted by: yellow
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rafey on Oct 11, 2006 11:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bush is a piker when it comes to killing but he's a frisky fellow for sure.
Posted by: mjabele
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mistery509 on Oct 11, 2006 12:09 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They have killed thousands of people and lied to the world and their own nation. Then the world should decide what to do with these lying monsters.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ask for forgiveness
Posted by: edith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Knowmad on Oct 11, 2006 12:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You need to ask yourselves, and each other, why the pathetic, immoral losers that make up your current administration are allowed to do this type of thing - and all the rest - without consequences.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» ~six million injured
Posted by: LDavistrueblue
» RE: The appropriate number is 1.
Posted by: Peyotino
» RE: The appropriate number is 1.
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ellie1 on Oct 11, 2006 12:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Iraqi dead now number (as of October 11)
Posted by: symcokid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FedUp on Oct 11, 2006 2:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was voted on a few weeks ago.
Wake up folks! There's gonna be a test at the end of this course!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A New Law
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edith on Oct 11, 2006 3:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However perhaps some good can come out of this quantification of slaughter. Media groups that oppose the war, and I only mention MoveOn as an example, I am sure there are others, might devise effective advertising using that number to demand prompt withdrawal and an end to a slaughter that now equals many good-sized US cities.
The Holocaust advocates understandably have used the 6 million number of victims as a symbol of Jewish suffering for years. The results of that campaign have been quite successful for the victims and their families as well as more distant and dubious beneficiaries like the State of Israel.
Let 600,000 become this generation's 6 million.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rollo on Oct 11, 2006 5:41 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If GW and crew are telling the truth, then they can stay their rotten course. If not...off with their heads!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 11, 2006 5:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, has the program been resurrected? Are Saddam's old killers and torturers now working for the CIA in Iraq? Was the bombing of the Shiite mosque in Samarra a CIA job aimed at turning Shiite against Sunni in at attempt to divide the country up into 'autonomous regions'?
Here are some evidenciary reports along these lines:
Operation Phoenix Rises from the Ashes of history (OC Weekly)
Death squads didn’t work in Vietnam, but the CIA is betting they’ll be great in Iraq
By Nick Schou
Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 12:00 am
Never pretty, the war in Iraq is about to get a whole lot uglier. U.S. officials have begun to recruit ex-officers of Saddam Hussein’s infamous Mukhabarat, or secret police, to hunt down resistance forces fighting U.S. troops in Iraq.
According to human rights groups, the Mukhabarat was responsible for torturing and murdering tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians during Hussein’s brutal reign. Nonetheless, the CIA has already reportedly begun sending paychecks to dozens of Saddam’s former thugs, who reportedly assisted in the successful hunt for Hussein and suspected Iranian and Syrian spies in Iraq.
Ex-CIA officials have compared the program to Operation Phoenix, an agency operation that assassinated and tortured tens of thousands of mostly innocent South Vietnamese civilians between 1967 and 1970, a period that marked the most brutal years of the Vietnam War.
"They’re clearly cooking up joint teams to do Phoenix-like things, like they did in Vietnam," said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro in a Jan. 4 London Sunday Telegraph article....
See also today's Washington Post article:
Iraqi Parliament Passes Federalism Bill
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The Shiite-dominated parliament Wednesday passed a law allowing the formation of federal regions in Iraq, despite opposition from Sunni lawmakers and some Shiites who say it will dismember the country and fuel sectarian violence...
The right-wing Brookings Insitute has also been promoting this (with the aid of the LA Times):
Break Up Iraq To Save It
With the Iraq mission on the brink of outright failure, some analysts are contemplating a "Plan B" - pulling out and trying to prevent the war from spreading to other countries. But rather than accept complete disaster, outright civil war and the likelihood of genocide, we should try to develop a strategy for achieving some minimal level of stability, even if it requires discarding our loftier aims for Iraq.
Looks like a well-coordinated operation by a pack of war criminals.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 11, 2006 6:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But, face it GW, its an unwinnable war, and quit killing all these people. Now, if some decide they want to be part of Iran or some want Kurdistan, that is what will happen, no matter what the USA does. We need to stop killing people for nothing as really the outcome of this Iraq thing is already
decided.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Oct 11, 2006 7:26 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
first when I'm told that a statistical method was used and not to bother questioning it because it is completely accurate and oh BTW, my group organized the study?????? ..mmmm
I am suspect... is everyone taking this at face value and does anyone know if this has been done in other conflicts and what the accuracy is..??
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Stastical analysis of war dead -what happened to counting???
Posted by: cold2touch
» RE: Stastical analysis of war dead -what happened to counting???
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Stastical analysis of war dead -what happened to counting???
Posted by: brokenbendystraw
» RE: Stastical analysis of war dead -what happened to counting???
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Stastical analysis of war dead -what happened to counting???
Posted by: brokenbendystraw
» RE: Stastical analysis of war dead -what happened to counting???
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Stastical analysis of war dead -what happened to counting???
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Let me have a go
Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Let me have a go
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: No, you got it wrong!
Posted by: cold2touch
» RE: No, you got it wrong!
Posted by: Conservasaurus
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TooDamnCool on Oct 11, 2006 9:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I smell some pre-election bullshit, bullshit that the left will most likely ask for seconds on, but bullshit just the same.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» It's the median age that makes it correct
Posted by: rwa
» RE: Is it me, or do I smell BS
Posted by: rtdrury
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Oct 11, 2006 9:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, the U.S. government, using entirely different methodologies, estimated the Iraqi death rate at 5.37. That's pretty close to 5.5.
Second, the study produced a range of 4.1-7.3, and the 5.5 figure is the midpoint.
Third, you're comparing apples and oranges in terms of demographics. It shouldn't come as that great a surprise that Iraq had a lower death rate overall because the median age in Iraq is 19.7 years (compared with 36.5 years in the U.S.) and only 3 percent of the population is over 65 (in the U.S. it's 12.5) All of those numbers are more skewed for the European countries cited, which have much older populations than the U.S.
One also expects to find a much lower rate of violent crime deaths in a police state than in a democracy.
All of that is irrelevant, however, because the methodology was a survey of a sample. That is to say, people were asked how many members of their family had died in a period before and since the invasion. People know who died in their own families and that's comparing apples with apples.
Lastly, while I never underestimate conservatives' ability to create a comfortable alternative reality, The Lancet is a premiere, peer reviewed medical journal, and any group of reviewers is bound to include liberals, moderates and conservatives. Your pre-election stuff is silly -- a peer reviewed study by the most respected British medical journal was not timed to coincide with midterm elections in the U.S.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Is it me, or do I smell BS
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Typical "conservative" response
Posted by: SteveB
» RE: Is it me, or do I smell BS
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Is it me, or do I smell BS
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» What "certainty"?
Posted by: SteveB
» RE: What "certainty"?
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: What "certainty"?
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: What "certainty"?
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Is it me, or do I smell BS
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Is it me, or do I smell BS
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Is it me, or do I smell BS
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Is it me, or do I smell BS
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Lauren
Posted by: Conservasaurus
Comments are closed-
Posted by: andyc on Oct 11, 2006 10:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This is genocide(you left out Israel)
Posted by: rwa
» RE: This is genocide(you left out Israel), and
Posted by: symcokid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Oct 11, 2006 10:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...600,000 deaths -this is startling … but a stastical method???
It’s bizarre to sneer at statistical methodologies; they are the backbone of the entire field of epidemiology.
“Counting” -- conducting a census of an entire population -- is prohibitively expensive and time consuming -- we only do it once every ten years in this country -- and, obviously, impossible when a civil war is going on (the study has a whole section about what they had to do to keep their field researchers from getting killed).
first when I'm told that a statistical method was used and not to bother questioning it because it is completely accurate and oh BTW, my group organized the study?????? ..mmmm
Regardless of who wrote the article, this study was peer-reviewed and published in what is likely the most respected British medical journal. As such, it is appropriate to judge it by its methodology -- sample size, etc. -- not by who authored one particular article about it.
It included quite a large sample size -- over 1800 families in 16 provinces.
It’ used a tried and true methodology that’s very reliable for determining a range. The number we’ll hear in the media -- 655,000 -- is simply the midpoint in the range; the study estimates that there have been between 392,979 and 942,636 excess civilian deaths compared to the prewar period. The margin of error is very low, meaning that the likelihood that the actual number -- the one you’d get by taking a census if that were possible -- is lower than the low end or higher than the high end is tiny. That’s what the claim of accuracy is based on.
The study’s significance has no relationship with where in the range the actual number might fall -- even the low figure is 7-10 times higher than any previous estimate.
I am suspect... is everyone taking this at face value and does anyone know if this has been done in other conflicts and what the accuracy is..??
The administration has already dismissed the study as not being credible, but it uses the exact same methodology as has been used to estimate the death toll in Darfur -- numbers that the administration uses all the time without question and in official policy documents -- as well as in countless other epidemiological studies in different countries and different circumstances.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: e: Stastical analysis of war dead -what happened to counting???
Posted by: NeilDeal
» nice explanation
Posted by: ethanay
» RE: nice explanation
Posted by: ethanay
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeftWright on Oct 12, 2006 12:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The terrified Iraqi people and the horrified international community, driven to find a solution, will end up "settling" on this solution. The Iraqi federal government's main task will be overseeing the development/production of oil and distributing the revenue to the three Iraqi states. This small group of people will also be put in charge of negotiating all the oil contracts. U.S. bases will remain until the oil is flowing and "stability" has been established (or the oil runs out).
Stay tuned.
The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Don't sell out the opposition ...
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Don't sell out the opposition ...
Posted by: Lauren
» The Kurds want and deserve
Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: The Kurds want and deserve
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Oct 12, 2006 1:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 12, 2006 3:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: estimates
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: estimates
Posted by: rsaxto
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rockpicker on Oct 12, 2006 4:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If a bunker buster
falls in the desert
and no one
shows you photos
of the shadows
of little bodies
etched on concrete walls,
is the wailing of mothers
still swallowed
by the whirr
of rotors?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Farmertim on Oct 12, 2006 5:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finding the information is one thing, and thanks for that, but what are we going to do about it...
Personally, I feel my vote will not be counted, verses simply having it count, and every neighbor within eyesite (3 miles) is simply uninformed, scared or to busy making ends meet to care about "our" actions 16000 miles away.
We talk, we post....all we do is get closer to the real actions our goverment is up to and these are the things they want us to know.
What "are" we going to do.....
FarmerTim
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 1 or 600,000...
Posted by: symcokid
» RE: 1 or 600,000...
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jodin on Oct 12, 2006 7:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The day the nation demands impeachment is almost upon us. Today (Oct 12), sacks and sacks of mail will be sent to congress demanding impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635).
There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.
That's where we come in. In addition to the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org, part of the movement to impeach the president, has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.
STOP WAITING FOR YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO ACT FOR YOU.
You can initiate the impeachment process yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. Be a part of history.
http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html
-
Jodin
Do-It-Yourself Impeachment
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rwa on Oct 12, 2006 8:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The grim news was widely--though not universally--reported in the U.S. media (my local paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, blacked it out), but few news organizations reported the most disturbing finding of the study, which was that 31 percent of those killed were actually slain by U.S. and "coalition" forces (actually by U.S. forces, since most of the other foreign forces working with the U.S., with the exception of the British, have not played combat roles, and even the British have largely operated in the south where fighting has been much less severe.)
That means U.S. forces have, since the March 19, 2003 invasion, killed between 132,000 and 246,000 Iraqis. It should be recalled that the Pentagon has estimated that the insurgency numbers perhaps 20-40,000 individuals, and they have only succeeded in killing a fraction of them. Assuming generously that the military has succeeded in killing maybe a quarter of the enemy fighters, that would be 10,000 people at most, leaving the U.S. civilian death toll at 122,000-236,000. The Christian Science Monitor, no radical rag, once did a survey and found that U.S. forces were killing civilians in Iraq at a rate of 30 for every enemy fighter slain. At that rate, it would appear, if the peer-reviewed Lancet study is correct, that the U.S. invasion and occupation forces have killed between 127,000 and 238,000 civilians. At least a third and perhaps a half of those killed, various studies of Iraqi casualties have made clear, have been children.
We are told is making America safer.
Just to put things in a little perspective, the Iraqis killed at the hands of our "heroes" in uniform on orders of this great commander in chief represent about one percent of the Iraqi population of 24 million. If a comparable number of Americans were being killed in a war, it would be as if we had lost between 1 million and 1.9 million people! Imagine Americans referring to any army that did such a thing as a "liberator"! Anyone who thinks that we are making friends this way in Iraq has to be an idiot.
It boggles my mind how the U.S. share of this slaughter could have been kept out of the report offered in the New York Times or USA Today. (The Times did run some small pie charts that showed in a dark shade the share of deaths caused by U.S. forces, but because no numbers or percentages were provided, and because no such figures appeared in the accompanying story, the impact was greatly diminished.)
What made the Times article, which ran on an inside page, particularly offensive, was a page-one story that ran on the same day, headlined "3rd Iraq Death Has One town Shaken to Core." This piece looked in detail about how the deaths in Iraq of three servicemen from the New York hamlet of Highland, had caused such widespread grief and anguish in a small American town. How on earth could editors give that story--excellent and poignant as it was in its own right--such prominence while burying a report about the wholesale slaughter of a people by U.S. forces? Don't the editors realize that every one of those Iraqi deaths was producing the same kind of grief and anger in towns and villages across Iraq?
Americans still haven't grasped the horror that American troops are inflicting upon the Iraqi people, and hiding these numbers--and the American military's direct responsibility for nearly a third of them--is an example of why...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SteveB on Oct 12, 2006 8:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's absurd - it makes no sense to quote a figure down to the single digit for a study that has a margin of error of plus or minus 200,000.
The proper way to report the results would be to say that the study estimates deaths in the range of 400,000 to 800,000. The 600,000 figure is just the midpoint of that range.
I should think that's enough of an indictment of the US decision to invade a country that had not attacked us.
And if I didn't have such a low opinion of the mathemaitical abilities of the average reporter, I would suspect that this mis-reporting is deliberate. Report an absurdly precise number (601,027) and the gov't can duck the charges by arguing that that EXACT number of people wasn't killed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aburritt on Oct 12, 2006 8:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Haven't had time to carefully read the whole study yet, but I wanted to ask you a question about the survey before the number of comments here becomes so large you stop responding to them. The study says that in 92% of the reported cases of death found during the interviews, the households could also confirm this by producing a death certificate at the end of the interview. Am I correct in assuming that the breakdown in causes of death were determined by what the death certificates said was cause of death, rather than what the family members claimed during the interview? And if this is the case, given the fact that pre-invasion Iraq had very low violent death rates, shouldn't the discussion of numbers of death due to the invasion just center on this number? As the report states: "The deaths recorded for the pre-invasion period in both the 2004 and the 2006 surveys were almost entirely non-violent deaths." And the report continues on to say that in regard to the apparent rather slight rise in non-violent deaths by the middle of 2006 "It is not possible to say that this number is a statistically significant increase over the pre-invasion baseline death rate." So what I am taking from this is that the post invasion rise in death rates is almost entirely due to violent causes, and that in 92% of these cases a death certificate is available which should indicate whether the cause was violent or not. Thanks for the clarification on this.
-Amos B
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Question to Joshua on causes of death
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Question to Joshua on causes of death
Posted by: aburritt
» RE: Question to Joshua on causes of death
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Question to Joshua on causes of death
Posted by: aburritt
» RE: Question to Joshua on causes of death
Posted by: Joshua Holland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 12, 2006 8:53 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Oct 12, 2006 11:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And as Bush said, just go shopping....
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Wrecked Country
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tashi on Oct 12, 2006 1:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Yet Another Genocide...whats the big deal?
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Oct 12, 2006 1:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
4 years ago I was one of the most vehemently anti-neocon voices on the web. I guarantee I would have been kicked off Alternet for being too angry about the upcoming war -- had I known about Alternet at the time. I would have been described as extreme by 95% of even the anti-war anti-Bush crowd.
I was right, in the worst possible way. Why I can't be this right about things like stock picks and lotto numbers I don't know.
Anyway this is a critical moment. We have a chance to drive a stake through the heart of this administration's rhetoric. Bush's head is Buried in the Sand. Spread the word. The magnitude of the number of dead is in dispute, yes. But it is only in dispute the same way that the evidence for global warming is in dispute.
The decider thinks he can decide what is credible. Well... not this time.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 12, 2006 4:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: For Bush and Rummy, this is COMEDY!
Posted by: cold2touch
» RE: For Bush and Rummy, this is COMEDY!
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Captainmagic on Oct 12, 2006 4:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regards Captain.
P.S. can someone over there tell Bu$hCo that the wheels have well and truely....fallen off!
PPS Sorry i'm off thread but ...Hey!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: WORLD NEWS...I TOLD YOU THE GENERALS WERE RETURNING
Posted by: Aussie Kim
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Graeme on Oct 12, 2006 5:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) 1958-1979: the US interferes in Iraqi politics by helping first the Ba'ath Party in general and then Saddam Hussein in particular into power. Unknown numbers of Iraqis suffer under their oppression.
2) 1980-1990: the US enables, funds and equips Saddam in his war of aggression against Iran, with the happy cooperation of the Arab Gulf states. Over 1 million people (including hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers) die. In the same time period, the US turns a blind eye to Saddam's repression and murder of his own people, most notably the Kurds, culminating in the vicious Anfal campaign of 1987, in which Saddam used (Western-supplied) poison gas against civilians.
3) 1990-1991: the most intensive period of killing so far. Gulf War I - the US apparently deceives Saddam into invading Kuwait, then annihilates his army, primarily as it retreats (and after a ceasefire has gone into effect). Tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers, mainly conscripts (along with hundreds of Kuwaiti and Egyptian refugees) are incincerated in the "Highway of Death" and the Mutla Ridge. Up to 10,000 Iraqi soldiers are simply buried alive by American armored bulldozers. In the aftermath, the US asks the Shia and Kurds to rise up against Saddam, tricking them into believing it would support them if they did. Instead, the US stands aside, prevents any rebels from acquiring weapons and gives explicit permission for the defeated Iraqi army to recover its equipment, including helicopter gunships to use against the insurgents. Hundreds of thousands more are killed; perhaps a quarter of a million or more over this entire period. The US military also deliberately targets civilian infrastructure (including water treatment plants) during the war; combined with the sanctions that follow (which make it impossible to repair these facilities), this contributes to great numbers of civilian deaths, particularly amongst children.
4) 1991-2003: the worst phase yet overall. UN sanctions which are so severe the UN official in charge of the "Oil-for-Food" program calls them "genocidal" are enforced. A later UN study estimates half a million children under 5 were killed by the effects of the sanctions from 1990-1998 alone. The total number of "excess deaths" during this period has never been estimated by a neutral source; the Iraq government claims 2 million deaths caused by the sanctions.
5) Finally, the current war. 655,000 or so killed from the war's beginning until July of this year. The actual number is likely even higher, given the ever-increasing levels of violence Iraq has experienced over the last few months.
So, to summarize: 1) the US killed Iraqis with the help of the Ba'athists and Saddam; 2) the US helped Iraqis kill Iranians (and vice versa) and Saddam kill Kurds; 3) the US killed Iraqis directly, this time against Saddam, then helps Saddam kill more Kurds, Shia and Marsh Arabs; 4) the US starved hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mainly children, to death; and 5) the US again killed massive numbers of Iraqis directly.
The total number of dead is probably unknowable, but it's likely in the millions. Certainly Iraq has suffered as much under American influence over the last half-century as any other country, other than Vietnam and perhaps Cambodia and Laos. So The Lancet study is noteworthy, certainly, but it's not the whole story, any more than the story of Auschwitz equates with the entire Holocaust.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Excellent post
Posted by: LeftWright
» RE: Sadly just the latest chapter...
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Sadly just the latest chapter...
Posted by: Lauren
» Thank you Graeme, LeftWright, and Mr. Holland.
Posted by: WhatNow?
Comments are closed-
Posted by: andyc on Oct 12, 2006 5:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I accept completely that the Israelis are currently committing genocide against Palestinians, and that the Brits/Yanks/Aussies have previously done so to the indigenous inhabitants of North America and Australia. As a Celt, I am also pretty sure that the Saxons and Normans committed genocide against some of my ancestors a millennium ago or so. Genocide is and has been a frequent, predictable result of invasion. That does not excuse it, anywhere, but we are currently talking about the slaughter and facilitated early deaths of civilians in Iraq.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» [RE: stay on topic, folks...]
Posted by: andyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NeilDeal on Oct 13, 2006 7:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can we stop talking about the past and get to what's happening right now?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 13, 2006 12:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go and talk to random people on the street and ask them if they think the US ever supported Saddam. Many or most will say no, that we never supported Saddam. That's because the television news never covers history - except in a distorted manner. Do you think it was an accident that "The History Channel" was running WWII clips day and night in the buuildup to the Iraq invasion, while never running any clips from the Vietnam-Cambodia era?
We have to know the past in order to understand the present. Only after we understand the present can we take actions that will actually stop the slaughter and prevent new slaughters from arising in the future.
The powers that be would rather bury the past - because the truth would show everyone just how bloody their hands really are.
The best way to stop the killings in Iraq? Put in a six-month program for the total removal of US and British forces from Iraq. Begin by moving troops into southern Iraq from the northern and western regions. Abandon the Green Zone and the military bases. Tell Exxon and Chevron to forget about controlling Iraqi oilfields, and tell Bechtel and Halliburton that their juicy government contracts have been terminated, so get you contractors out right now. Set up small-scale loan and credit programs for the Iraqis so that they can rebuild their own country.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Here is another actual plan that would have had us out of Iraq a year ago.
Posted by: WhatNow?
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ethanay on Oct 14, 2006 9:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Assuming the population of 27.1 million people, that means 2.4% of the total population in Iraq.
Assuming that a war and foreign military occupation on US soil yielded the same death rate, based on a population of 300 million, that yields 7,200,000 US citizen deaths from war.
How would we feel after losing a few million?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Megalommatis on Oct 15, 2006 11:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
636 days have passed!
Before precisely 636 days, I warned – in an article first published in Buzzle (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-10-2005-63962.asp) and then quoted and/or republished in various portals and fora – that the US were left with no choice in Iraq, but to accept millennia long realities, reject colonial standpoints (subtly supported by the phenomenally opposed French and British Iraq policies) and implement in Mesopotamia the very American, anti-colonial, principles of the Founding Fathers. In that article, I did warn – at a moment no one commentator had – about the real outcome of the ongoing, seemingly local, conflict: the messianic arrival of a bogus Mahdi to lead 1.2 Muslims to world supremacy.
America will not have another chance after 624 days!
Many things have changed meanwhile; Somalia is being lost and for those with an insightful the Horn of Africa is not just another place on this planet.
Iran attempts to mount a nuclear threat against Israel, and will use the first bomb it creates on the spur of the moment.
Disoriented and disunited Europe, misguided by the demented colonial powers, France and England, is about to commit intellectual and corporeal suicide.
Turkey – the key country par excellence – is left to deviate to the bogus-Islamic paranoia, and its brave military authorities are discouraged from doing what it takes to rid the pivotal country of the Erdogan pestilence.
Meanwhile, presidential and royal dictators between the Atlantic and the Pacific are gullibly believed as friends of America, the West in its entirety, or the Civilized World; they are therefore naively left to pursue their murderous work of preparing hundreds of millions to go for a war wherever the fake Mahdi of their Satanic sheikhs will indicate as best place for them to die (as they have been left without any interest for life – so miserable and filthy is their surrounding world of slums).
And every Friday hundreds of thousands of Satanic puppets, idiotically believed to be sheikhs and disreputably though to be relevant to Islam, emit their mental and intellectual pollution that takes the verbal form of Khutbas (prayer sermons) of unprecedented Hatred and vociferous odium; they discharge such volumes of anti-human malignancy that is incomparably denser and heavier than all the negative feelings expressed throughout the entire History of the Mankind.
So low has therefore the Mankind fallen?
What Demon chases the Human Race with such Perseverance and such Passion?
The only power left able to oppose this disastrous disintegration is America.
America has to break Sudan down, liberate Darfur and all the enslaved parts of the vast African country.
America must bring forth Freedom, Democracy and Independence for the sake of the peaceful Berbers of Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco.
America must lacerate Abyssinia, the East African cemetery of peoples that is erroneously called ‘Ethiopia’; the Khammitic Oromos must rise to national supremacy and to major regional leadership in the Horn of Africa area, before fanaticized Abyssinian Muslims, exacerbated by the criminal Amhara monophysitic empathy, are led to join forces with the Mogadiscio Mahdist thugs.
America must dethrone the Syrian murderous dictator, and
America must nuke three sites in Iran,
Go to: www.buzzle.com/articles/points-us-victory-defeat-iraq.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TheStranger on Oct 15, 2006 11:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By Ivan G. Goldman
Critics of the White House’s Iraq policy contend a civil war is already in progress over there. Bush and his handlers say not so fast, cowardly pessimists. It’s just a “young” democracy ironing out a few wrinkles. I put “young” in quotes because once the Bushelbubs deide on a detour around an inconvenient truth, they all follow it as precisely as a Vegas chorus line. “Stay the course,” “central front in the war on terror,” “cut and run,” and so on.
But for once the kleptocratic androids chosen to mouth these Cheney-vetted absurdities are correct. That’s not a civil war in Iraq, but a series of two-way slaughters – a kind of slow-motion Auschwitz that’s simultaneously manned by opposing sides.
A civil war involves things like battles, firefights, soldiers fighting soldiers -- something we rarely see among Iraqis. A typical scenario goes more like this:
Shiite murderers get the drop on a group of Sunni civilians waiting for a bus, abduct, torture, kill them, and dump the bodies someplace they’ll be easily found. They like to let others see their handiwork. Then the Sunnis retaliate by convincing a teen-ager to leave this world for the pleasure of 72 virgins by blowing up a mosque. And so on. An actual civil war would be ugly enough, but these guys make civil war look like a tulip festival.
We all know what we’re seeing. The question is what to do about it. Simple, call a taxi and go home. The longer we stay, the worse it gets. The presence of our troops, as British General Richard Dannett recently pointed out, only exacerbates the slaughter. He referred only to British troops because he’s in charge of the British army. It’s up to America to recognize that Dannett’s interpretation of reality is tailored for us exactly.
Yes, America set the fire, and it’s a damn, dirty shame. Maybe next time we’ll elect better leaders. In the meantime, we just have to let the Iraqis work it out for themselves, and no, that won’t be pretty. We have troops there now only because this criminally inept Administration can’t bring itself to admit making the worst foreign policy error in our history. It’s killing people for nothing, including our own sons and daughters. We can send for them now or wait ten years and many thousands of lives later. The result will be the same.
http://ivangoldman.blogspot.com/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vkh on Oct 17, 2006 9:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
On Anniversary of Iraq Invasion, Time to Rethink Anti-War Activism
The Timing Is Ripe for Obama to Make Demands on Israel to Settle for Peace
Juarez Prison Celebrates International Women's Day With Lurid "Captive Beauty" Pageant




