|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 245 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Have 600,000 Iraqis died violently since 2003? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I don't see how that's a response to my comment. You didn't "point out an anomaly", you made a statement about the study that was 100% false. Here it is again: quote: Absolutely false. What purpose does it serve your argument to say false things about the study? I'm not making things up about the study. What I am doing is:
I have made my objections well known. Perhaps listing them in a very simple manner may help to sift through my meanings.
quote: Nice euphamism. They're not bombing people with an illegal chemical weapon; they're "illuminating" them. It wasn't meant to be a euphamism. I meant what I said, however, I now retract my statement since I have found newer articles on the subject from reputable, non-partisan reports. Here's the article. Fascinating, but irrelevant. Let me be more direct. I'm challenging your "dropping leaflets in Iraq" claim. The last time we did that was during the Clinton years, warning Iraqis not to fire on airplanes enforcing the no-fly zone. We have not dropped any leaflets during this Iraq conflict. Psychological operations employing the use of leaflets quote: I stand corrected and retract my previous statement.
Firstly, in 92% of cases, researchers were able to obtain death certificates for reported victims. "The 1,849 households that completed the surveys had 12,801 household members at the time of the survey; thus, the mean household size was 6.9 people... Survey teams asked for for death certificates in 545 (87%) reported deaths and these were present in 501 cases. The pattern of deaths in households with birth certificates was no different from those with certificates."
Indeed, the numbers are extrapolated from a sample. That's a basic statistical technique with a proven track record. There's not a single field of science or medicine that doesn't do that, and you accept statistical sampling in every single instance - except for this one, where you have a partisan axe to grind. I don't have a problem with statistical techniques used to quantify and ascertain figures of an unknown (x). I do, however, have a problem with the fact that out of 1,849 households, only 545 homes were asked to produce some sort of documentation about the family member(s) that allegedly died. Of that 545, 501 produced documentation. Had they asked every home and gained an 87% rate of verification, I would lend more credence to it. The other problem is that no other study conducted, studies from other reputable sources, have no where near the figure presented by the Lancet reort, and only the Lancet report. The most generous estimate does not exceed 50,000 total deaths. The lower figures would certainly seem consistent with news reports. As I pointed out, if over 400 people were dying daily and on average, there should be some evidence of that. Even taking into consideration where sectarian violence has caused the mass murder of, say, 40 Shiites or Sunnis in a given night, and those bodies are not found days, weeks, or months later than the actual time of death, even then the estimate of over 400 people a day, for 1,305 days straight, seems like grossly improportionate figure.
quote: Since when? We invaded Iraq on the premise that Saddam was murdering thousands. How many of those bodies do you think we had ever recovered? We've only recovered maybe 1 in 20 since the invasion. We have recovered thousands, and hundreds more are presumed dead. You can't just say because people are missing that they are automatically dead and throw them into your figure. Any number of things could have happened, such as they've been kidnapped and are being held hostage, they've fled Iraq or are living in a less hostile region, etc.
Seems to me you were perfectly happy to accept conclusions of death sans corpus when it fit your political agenda. Now all of a sudden, you need the bodies right in front of you for proof? That's nonsense. What? When was I happy to accept conclusions of death sans corpus to fit my political agenda? I've always maintained that you need a body to prove death unless by some remarkable gathering of DNA evidence and other extenuating circumstances. If someone is missing you start an investigation. You don't just say, "Well, their dead. I know it. I can feel it may bones! While they may be true, and given the violent climate it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume their death, you can't just make an all-inclusive estimate.
quote: Or, perhaps, buried all together quickly. You know, kind of a "mass grave." Gosh, where have I heard that term before? Yeah, but how can you account for them until you FIND them dead???
It really is a lot of dead people. I know it's hard for you to believe, since your talk radio stations keep telling you how much "progress" Iraq has made. I know there is alot of people dead. That's the ugly face of war. As far as "my" talk radio stations, (that I already shared with you that I listened to sparingly), I don't just nod in approval to everything they say. The reality is that alot of progress was being made in Iraq until the last 4 months or so since its gotten really bad. You never seem to hear about those things because its under reported. The reality is probably somewhere in between. The Right wants you to think, "Mission Accomplished, Progress in Iraq, Stay the Course, WMD's, Al Qaeda losing strength." The Left wants you to believe, "America the Evil Empire, Abu Graib, Bush the Fascist, Death and Gore, Cindy Sheehan." Perhaps we need some moderation because the next civil war in America won't be North or South it'll be Left and Right.
But they're lying to you. Iraq is in the middle of a catastrophic civil war. 50,000 Iraqis flee the country each month. 50,000! Look, if you don't want to take my word for it, take the word of an actual Iraqi I've posted just the opposite from Iraqi sources, sources that were once under Saddam's control. It seems we have conflicting views. Again, the Right wants to paint the picture that your average Iraqi is glad that Saddam was overthrown and hopes the violence will quell. The Left wants yout to believe that all is lost and that the average Iraqi despises America and that if we just left, all would be well. The reality is that there are Iraqi's who hate the American presence. There are Iraqi's who once liked US presence during the overthrowing of Saddam, but their feelings are waning and they are tired of the war. Then there are those Iraqi's who want and need the US to finish the job so that Iraq can stand up on its own two feet.
Laura Ingram or Sean Hannity, because they're trying to tell you how swimmingly things are going in Iraq. It's crucial to their propaganda that you believe Iraq is a success, that Bush actually succeeded there. If they were to actually tell you the truth, you would know that Bush's war plan failed in Iraq. Excuse the irony, but wouldn't the opposite true of liberal pundits?
I simply don't understand how you can say that this isn't being reported. Like I said, it's all over the "liberal media" that you ignore in favor of your conservative radio echo chambers. No wonder you don't see it. Clearly you misunderstood me as WK pointed out. The dialogue we hear is what I already presented in mock-fashion. If over 400 people were dying every single day for 1,305 days, we would hear reports more closely akin to: "Sectarian violence kills 240 in Fallujah, Brittish and US forces exchange gun fire with insurgents killing 190."
quote: Well, here's some: Yeah, those are the bodies they found-- 'found' being the operative word.
Don't you get it, yet? Everybody knows about this but you. It's been all over the news for years. You couldn't possibly have thought that I was this deep in a vaccuum.
The reason you don't know that is because you ignore the mainstream media - you think it's liberal so you don't pay attention to it. How could I not pay attention to it when its everywhere?
The reason you don't know about the mass graves - the ones after Saddam I did know about mass graves after Saddam. I didn't know people were burrying their dead on football fields or gardens.
Laura Ingram and Michael Medved are doing all they can to make sure you don't learn the truth. Part of that is that they never ever mention it themselves. Another part is the discrediting of the mainstream media as "liberal" so that you learn not to pay any attention to it. Yeah, that's it. They know they are incorrect but say it anyway...? Could it be that they believe they are correct in their assessments? I mean, even I know that somebody like Michael Moore actually believes in what he claims.
Can't you see how you've been used? Yes. Now I do see that. I'm just a pawn. Dammit that's it!
Viva la revolucion! nobody likes America anymore. Didn't you wonder about that, why we're so hated? The main charges against the United States vary from region to region. I believe Europeans don't like us because we're supposed to be fat and arrogant. The ME doesn;t like us becuase we're supposed to be fat, arrogant, and immoral. And to be fair, who would know any differently after watching just one episode of Jerry Springer. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo... again. "There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
US forces err so much on the side of caution that in many cases it is detrimental to the mission, or scrubs the mission completly. For instance, my convoy was hit by a SAF (small arms fire) and RPG attack initiated by an IED. The shooters popped a rounds at us for a few seconds, threw down their rifles, then conducted retrograde (that means they ran, standard shoot, scoot and boogie). When the Apaches that were giving us cover closed in on the running individuals, they couldn't engage them because they had no weapons in had, even though they were shooting at us 2 minutes before. Insurgents use our ROE against us very effectively. Oh, I have no doubt that the insurgents know very well the military's SOP's and rules of engagement and exploit that every chance they can-- such as you described. This is the type of underreporting that goes on. And that's why I've been saying that there is a clever spin on things to paint the false picture that coalition forces are out there indiscriminantly spraying the street in hail of gun fire.
Yes, someone might catch a stray bullet from our return fire, but it isn't mass casualties like your message seems to conclude. Whoa, hang on a minute. Your quote comes from another EvC member. My beliefs concerning the war closely model yours. If you'll read some of my posts on this topic, I'm very much a realist on the matter. I'm not a conspiracy theorist who thinks 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy perpetrated by Mossad to force the hand of America into 'killing Arabs' for them, nor do I believe half of the inflated stories that come from specific media outlets for their blatant misrepresentation on the facts about the war. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given. "There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 245 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Questioning the motivation of the experiment. To be the first active study of the toll of the war in Iraq. The reason being that the passive methods so far used rarely capture a fifth of deaths accurately, and more often it can be worse than that. Point of contention 1: This is the only active research method so far carried out. This kind of investigation is usually gives a more accurate figure than other kinds of investigation.
I do, however, have a problem with the fact that out of 1,849 households, only 545 homes were asked to produce some sort of documentation about the family member(s) that allegedly died. If that were the case, the figure would be 30% not 87%. There were 629 deaths reported, and of those 545 were asked for documentation. They would have asked for more - but it was occasionally judged to be dangerous to question the word of a man in his own home.
The other problem is that no other study conducted, studies from other reputable sources, have no where near the figure presented by the Lancet reort, and only the Lancet report. The most generous estimate does not exceed 50,000 total deaths. The lower figures would certainly seem consistent with news reports. As I pointed out, if over 400 people were dying daily and on average, there should be some evidence of that. This is the only active study. Other methods are renowned for underestimating death tolls by a fifth at best. News reports are actually one of the methods used to tally these death tolls, so of course they are going to agree! There is evidence of over 400 people dying daily. Nearly 13,000 Iraqis were asked about deaths in their household. Of this group, their mortality rate was 13.3 per 1,000 per year. No major incident relies on physical body counts for a death toll. It's just not practical. That is why the American government invests millions of dollars into training people to use methods such as cluster sampling to gain an estimate of death tolls. A non-war example would be the Boxing Day Tsunami. Other examples include Darfur. Pure body counts as a method almost always underestimates the toll by a large degree in major incidents. Even before the invasion, some methods of body counting (counting death certificates issued) would only give us 30% of actual deaths. Point of contention 2: Sampling is used in similar situations to get an idea of deaths, and it doesn't get questioned. Even in the peacefulness of west Europe, decades after the World Wars, not all of the bodies of non-combatants have been found.
Even taking into consideration where sectarian violence has caused the mass murder of, say, 40 Shiites or Sunnis in a given night, and those bodies are not found days, weeks, or months later than the actual time of death, even then the estimate of over 400 people a day, for 1,305 days straight, seems like grossly improportionate figure. Why would find them days/weeks/months later? It's not like there is an organized hunt for bodies going on. If they get buried, they won't get found unless an entire of a country is scoured. Can you imagine digging up the entirety of Idaho twice in the middle of a modern near-civil war with a barely effective government and a foreign power in place with foreign fanatical insurgents taking pot shots at everyone? That's the scale of the task you are asking here - just so you know.
Yeah, but how can you account for them until you FIND them dead??? And how do we know that 10% of Americans are left handed unless everybody in America is put through dexterity tests every year? I don't know anyone who has done such a test. How do we know that belief in creation is growing in popularity, without testing the faith of every single person in intense psychological experiments (to make sure they don't lie)? We didn't see the 5.5 bodies per 1,000 people per year that were dying before the invasion.
. If over 400 people were dying every single day for 1,305 days, we would hear reports more closely akin to: "Sectarian violence kills 240 in Fallujah, Brittish and US forces exchange gun fire with insurgents killing 190."
But the media are mostly concentrated in Baghdad, they cannot possibly report on every single death that happens in near-anarchy near-civil war conditions with Arabic foreigners coming in adding to the confusion. Point of contention 3: The media simply cannot report most deaths as they happen. There are many murders and gun battles going on that the media are ignorant of. If you can answer the points of contention, I think we can move this debate forward. About half of your thread is allowing yourself to get drawn off topic into a general discussion on Iraq. Please don't let this happen, the thread is very specifically about this single report and its methodology. Thanks. Hopefully there are better arguments that can be levelled at this study than your incredulity. I started this thread with a 50-50 opinion of the study. Given the best arguments that have been raised so far - I'm leaning closer to accepting the figures might be accurate. Let's try and get this debate moving forwards, not sideways! Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Oh, I have no doubt that the insurgents know very well the military's SOP's and rules of engagement and exploit that every chance they can-- such as you described. This is the type of underreporting that goes on. And that's why I've been saying that there is a clever spin on things to paint the false picture that coalition forces are out there indiscriminantly spraying the street in hail of gun fire. What we (US forces) do is not as important as the perception (by the locals) of what we do. And, I guess I misread a quote somewhere
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
He was saying that that is what the news sounds like, but that if 400 people a day were dying the reports would be more like "80 civilians dead after being caught in crossfire as coalition troops battle insurgents. 100 die in indiscriminate airstrike". I still don't understand. That is what the reports are like: "70 killed in sectarian kidnapping/murders." "300 die in mosque bombing." "Carbomb kills hundreds in predominatly Shiite neighborhood." That's what's coming out of Iraq, right now. What exactly are you saying isn't being reported?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member (Idle past 293 days) Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
You also agreed, although at the time you seemed to think you were disagreeing, with NJ's claim that the reports were along the lines of...
4 people were slain in an incident involving a roadside bomb in Anbar Province today due to the increasing sectarian violence. As well, 9 Iraqis were killed today when a US Apache helicopter unwittingly sent three hellfire rockets into a suspected insurgent stronghold. ... and that you wouldn't be getting reports with such low numbers as a whole days reporting if the actual number of deaths was ~400/day. I didn't agree with NJ that that was what the reports were like you did. He said if casualties were that high you wouldn't be hearing reports with the low figures he suggested. You then replied saying that you did hear such reports. If what you meant to say was "No, the reports I hear have much higher figures" then you didn't do it very well. It has nothing to do with what is being reported and everything to do with you misunderstanding NJ's argument and effectively agreeing with him when you obviously meant to do the opposite. TTFN, WK
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
you wouldn't be getting reports with such low numbers as a whole days reporting if the actual number of deaths was ~400/day. That doesn't make any sense. The "400 a day" is just an average, not a literal statement about how many people die in Iraq every day. The real number is 650,000 since 2003. They don't break it down by day. To assert otherwise would be so idiotic that it would be beneath responding to. Is that really the argument that NJ made? That the simple fact that there are days where less than 400 people are reported as dying means that 650,000 people can't possibly have died since 2003? That's so stupid I don't know what to say. If I made a mistake, and responded to a different argument than he wrote, then I apologize for assuming that Nj was making an argument that at least made a modicum of sense.
He said if casualties were that high you wouldn't be hearing reports with the low figures he suggested. You then replied saying that you did hear such reports. If what you meant to say was "No, the reports I hear have much higher figures" then you didn't do it very well. I understood him to be saying that because there were no reports at all - and I'm sure there aren't on the "news" sources he's told us he listens to - he knows that the 650,000 figure is false. My point is that there are such reports, ranging from "hundreds die in mosque attack" to "US soldiers murder family of 6 in order to rape and kidnap their 16-year-old daughter." It's 10 on Monday and hundreds on Tuesday. And those are just what's reported. We can assume that the reporting reports only a very small fraction of the actual deaths. I mean that should be obvious.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1727 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm not making things up about the study. But that's exactly what you've done. Here it is, for the third time:
[quote]No, the purpose of the inquiry is to established the number of "civilian casualties" at the hands of US troops.[quote]
The Lancet inquiry clearly states that it established the number of war-related deaths since 2003. Not the number of Iraqi civilians killed accidentally (or otherwise) by US troops. When you claimed that it did, as I've quoted you doing three times now, you were making up your own facts.
Psychological operations employing the use of leaflets Irrelevant article, since it's not what you were talking about. You said that the US military warned population centers with pre-bombing leaflets. I told you that they have not done so at any point in the invasion or occupation of Iraq. Your article says that this was done in the run-up to war; that's irrelevant. And they weren't pre-bombing warnings, they were psyops pamphlets targeting Saddam and his supporters. Where are the pre-bombing warning leaflets you claimed were being dropped?
I do, however, have a problem with the fact that out of 1,849 households, only 545 homes were asked to produce some sort of documentation about the family member(s) that allegedly died. Why? Out of 1849 households, those 545 were the only ones with family members who had died. Why would a household with no deaths be expected to produce a death certificate for someone who hadn't died?
As I pointed out, if over 400 people were dying daily and on average, there should be some evidence of that. The Lancet study is the evidence of that.
Any number of things could have happened, such as they've been kidnapped and are being held hostage, they've fled Iraq or are living in a less hostile region, etc. That doesn't make any sense. Kidnappers would notify the family, or at least someone; otherwise what's the point of the kidnapping? And people don't generally flee countries without trying to take loved ones with them, or at least trying to contact them beforehand or afterwards. So disappearance by kidnapping or by flight can be ruled out. Those wouldn't make it into the Lancet data.
We have recovered thousands, and hundreds more are presumed dead. That's what we're talking about here, though. 650,000 people presumed dead.
If someone is missing you start an investigation. You don't just say, "Well, their dead. I know it. But that's done all the time, because the law recognizes that people can die but the body might never be found. After a certain point, or under certain circumstances, the presumption of death is legally justified. What's wrong with doing that in this case? I mean, let's not be stupid here. The Lancet study doesn't presume to refer to specific people who are dead. The Lancet study is not a list of 650,000 names of dead people. The Lancet study is a mathematical extrapolation purporting to estimate the number of people killed in Iraq, as a result of the invasion, since 2003. It's not an obituary page, for pete's sake.
I've posted just the opposite from Iraqi sources, sources that were once under Saddam's control. It seems we have conflicting views. Huh? I have no recollection of you doing this; and why would former Saddam supporters offer you a legitimate picture of what is going on in Iraq? Are you really having that much of a problem determining the credibility of a source?
Excuse the irony, but wouldn't the opposite true of liberal pundits? Why would it be? The truth, the actual facts, are sufficient to implode Republican spin. Why would the liberal pundits need to fabricate anything at all? The biggest myth in American politics is that the conservatives and the liberals are mirror images of each other, each dishonest and corrupt in the exact same way and to the exact same extent, but towards opposite goals. Why on Earth would that be the case when the actual truth is more than sufficient to justify most liberal policies and positions?
If over 400 people were dying every single day for 1,305 days, we would hear reports more closely akin to: "Sectarian violence kills 240 in Fallujah, Brittish and US forces exchange gun fire with insurgents killing 190." The media can only report the deaths they know about. If that's less than 20% of the actual number of deaths, minus whatever portion they don't find newsworthy, the half-a-dozen one day, half-a-hundred the next sort of pattern we actually see would seem to be entirely consistent with 650,000 deaths since 2003.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Let me save you some wondering. About 1,000 Iraqis die a day.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 245 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Let me save you some wondering. About 1,000 Iraqis die a day. There are about 27,000,000 people living in Iraq. Before the war the mortality rate was 5.5 per 1,000 per year. So every year 148,000 people died. This is approximately 406 people per day. When you say 1,000 Iraqis die per day, do you mean in total (an additional 600 per day) or do you mean in addition to this? If you mean in addition, how long have 1,000 Iraqis been dying every day? If that is a war-long average that means you believe over a million Iraqis have died since the war began, a very high figure indeed. Perhaps this is just a figure related to recent problems? Far from keeping me wondering, your figure has left me wondering all the more!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
When you say 1,000 Iraqis die per day, do you mean in total (an additional 600 per day) or do you mean in addition to this? The source I'm citing is from the secret squirrel network, so I can't give you exact numbers, but its over 1,000 total civilian deaths per day during Ramadan. For some reason Ramadan is a month-long holiday where you blow more people up than you usually do. These are broken down into terrorist attacks against civilians, sectarian violence, and death squads. I'll see if I can find an OS (open source) article about it. Until then, here's a good run down of what is going on and why from General George Casey.
Good afternoon, everybody. I'd like to give you an update on how I see the mission here, and then Zal and I will take your questions. A situation -- this will come as no surprise -- the situation here in Iraq remains difficult and complex. And I'm sure for the folks back in the United States trying to look at this, it looks very confusing and very hard to understand. I'm not sure I can cut through all that, but let me try. Several factors add to the complexity that we're now seeing. First, since the elections in December, we've seen the nature of the conflict evolving from what was an insurgency against us to a struggle for the division of political and economic power among the Iraqis. The bombing of the al-Askari mosque in Samarra in February heightened this. Second, there's several groups here that are working actively to upset and disrupt the political process. The first, al Qaeda and the Iraqis that are supporting them, have an active strategy of fomenting sectarian violence. In the aftermath of Zarqawi's death, they've remained wounded but lethal. Second, the death squads and the more militant illegal armed groups are attacking and murdering civilians in the center of the country and have caused security problems in the central and southern parts of the country. The third group is the resistance, the insurgents that primarily fight us and who claim to be the honorable resistance to foreign occupation in Iraq And lastly, I'll mention the external actors, Iran and Syria. And both Iran and Syria continue to be decidedly unhelpful by providing support to the different extremists and terrorist groups operating inside Iraq. Now, if you add to all this the intensities of Ramadan and the fact that the new government is about 150 days old, it makes for a difficult situation, and it's likely to remain that way over the near term. Now, what I just described is a fundamental change from how we saw the threat and the general situation here last year. So people are rightfully asking how are you changing, what are you doing differently. I can tell you that we have continuously adapted to stay ahead of the enemy and to ensure that our service men and women have the proper tools and support they need to accomplish their missions. Think back two years, and I'm looking at some of the veterans here in the front row. Two years ago, some of you weren't even sure that we were going to have elections in January 2005. To get there, we made a judgment in mid-2004 that for successful elections we had to eliminate terrorist safe havens in Najaf, Samarra and Fallujah. Working with the Iraqis we did that, and on January 30th, 2005, the Iraqi people chose democracy. Immediately following those elections, we determined that we needed to enhance the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces to develop and to succeed in security operations. We began embedding transition teams with Iraqi units and partnering with Iraqi units in February of 2005, and we completed the whole transition to this new system by June. In the summer of 2005, we thought we saw the threat changing, and we set out to restore Iraqi control to the Syrian border to disrupt the flow of foreign fighters and suicide bombers coming into Iraq from Syria. To tough fights in Tall Afar and out the whole western Euphrates Valley, we succeeded with the Iraqis in restoring their control to that border by November as we had projected. Following the December elections and the Samarra mosque bombing, we saw the situation evolving, as I mentioned earlier. It's a much more complex environment, and it's one that will be resolved primarily by Iraqis but with our full support. We have also focused our collective security efforts on the capital and the center of the country, where the sectarian conflict is the greatest, while keeping pressure on al Qaeda and the resistance in the west and the north. Again, as we have done previously, we shifted forces from around the country to support our main effort, and we have also increased our targeting efforts against death squads to match our efforts against al Qaeda. On the political side, we have, as Zal mentioned, developed a political program to address the critical issues dividing the country. We've supported the prime minister's reconciliation initiatives and begun with the Iraqi government engagement with the resistance with a view toward decreasing violence and bringing them into the political process. Working on addressing the key issue of militias is proceeding. Resolution of the militia issue will require an integrated political military effort, and we are working with the government of Iraq to do that. Now underpinning all this change, all these adaptations have been two constants. The first is the continuing development of the Iraqi security forces, and the second is the continuing development of protective measures for our troops. During the battle of Fallujah, we had a handful of battalions in the Iraqi army, and they operated in support of us. Today, six of the 10 Iraqi divisions are in the lead; 30 of the 36 Iraqi brigades. Almost 90 of the 112 Iraqi battalions are in the lead, and we operate in support of them. We continue also make progress with the Iraqi police forces and are working with the minister of Interior on the reform of his ministry and to continue to transition Iraqi provinces to provincial control. The Iraqi security forces are in the fight, and in Ramadan alone they have lost over 300 martyrs in defense of their country. On the equipping side, the protection of our troops remain a paramount concern for us, and we have made significant strides in improving both the physical and electronic protection of our men and women. We will continue to adjust our tactics to meet and stay ahead of evolving conditions on the ground. Baghdad's a good example. The Baghdad security plan continues to have a dampening effect on sectarian violence, and we, the government of Iraq, and the coalition, are working aggressively to further reduce sectarian violence in the capital. The additional U.S. brigades that we've kept here have had a decisive effect, and the Iraqi security forces are having a significant impact as well. I'll remind you that the plan for Baghdad was: clear, protect build. Clear any Iraqi forces from the difficult areas and neighborhoods, protect those neighborhoods with Iraqi security forces so that the Iraqi government and the coalition forces could come in and build the local services that would improve the quality of life within the neighborhoods. Our ultimate intent is to help the citizens of Baghdad feel safe in their own neighborhoods, and this is not something that's going to happen overnight. The tearing down that our enemies do is infinitely easier than the building up that Iraq requires after three decades of neglect. But building is what Iraq needs, and we have committed $400 million already to projects in support of the Baghdad effort, with almost 600 more million dollars in additional projects to kick in here over the next couple of months Make no mistake about it, we are in a tough fight here in the center of the country and in Anbar province. But I think it's important to remind people that 90 percent of the sectarian violence in Iraq takes place in about a 30-mile radius from the center of Baghdad; and that secondly, 90 percent of all violence takes place in five provinces. This is not a country that is awash in sectarian violence. The situation is hard, but it's not a country that's awash in sectarian violence. The American people already know what a magnificent job the men and women of their armed forces are doing here, and we continue to be grateful for their continuing support. But they should also know that the men and women of the armed forces here have never lost a battle in over three years of war. That is a fact unprecedented in military history. They and our Iraqi security forces continue to carry the fight to the enemy every day, and I continue to be in awe of their courage, their agility, their resourcefulness, and their commitment. You can be confident that our service men and women are well-trained, well-equipped, and well-led. Finally, in closing, I'd say that our Iraqi partners continue to move forward steadily every day, and together we will defeat the divisive forces that are attempting to rip Iraq apart and deny the Iraqi people the security and the prosperity that they so well deserve after 35 years under Saddam Hussein. We will succeed in Iraq, but it will take patience, courage and resolve from all of us. Thank you all very much. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6618&Itemid=30 Edited by Tal, : No reason given. Edited by Tal, : No reason given. Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking. --Ferdinand Foch-- at the Battle of the Marne
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 245 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The source I'm citing is from the secret squirrel network, so I can't give you exact numbers, but its over 1,000 total civilian deaths per day during Ramadan. Do you think that the numbers outside of Ramadan are significantly different than during (say by a factor of three)? The way I'm looking at it, it seems you are agreeing that 655,000 is an entirely feasable amount of deaths in Iraq.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Do you think that the numbers outside of Ramadan are significantly different than during (say by a factor of three)? The way I'm looking at it, it seems you are agreeing that 655,000 is an entirely feasable amount of deaths in Iraq. I made a mistake. I was wrong. /embarrassment It is a little over 100 civilians deaths per day during Ramadan. The main graph I was looking at had the individual days represented as a verticle bar, and that bar was broken down into 3 colors. Each color represented a sub-category. I was reading those sub-category numbers in the hundreds, which made it look like the actual deaths were in the thousands because the verticle bars didn't have numbers at the top on the earlier versions of the graph. The sub-categories were totals for the month, not per day. Apparently someone made the same mistake I did, and it was updated. I still should have caught it. I will find the rebuttal after lunch and post it up. It is open source, but I have to track it down on the internet, or handwrite/copy it and re-type it here (I can't download/print anything from my work computers, even if the data mining brings up OS material). Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking. --Ferdinand Foch-- at the Battle of the Marne
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
Okay. You know yesterday I was talking about David Kane's 'rebuttal' of the Lancet study? I take that back now, on the sayso of these statisticians.
Alice in Wonderland and the Lancet study — Crooked Timber It sounds as though he was making a fundamental error, and for whatever reason is refusing to acknowledge it. I am very angry that there are people out there who might have been pursuaded by his illogical arguement that has been propogated all over the net by pro-war types. I'm still interested in your point - that if the 92% holds for the 98000 (or was it the subsequent 655000?) sample, then does that mean we should expect 92% of the excess deaths to have death certificates?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1666 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I am very angry that there are people out there who might have been pursuaded by his illogical arguement that has been propogated all over the net by pro-war types. You mean those that use any shred of evidence for their position and ignore all the mountains of evidence counter to it? This should surprise you after the 2004 election? This should surprise you after over 500 posts on this board? Did you mean to revive this old thread or add to Lancet Iraq Mortality Study: Is It Sound?? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : link to other thread on topic compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024