They are allowed to be just as wrong as you are Rich.

Of course, they will have to work at it.

Always open to a well thought out and reasoned critique. BTW, you're not the kid who flunked my survey class twice, are you? :eyebrow:

No. Does your honor student also go by the name "slang"?

Generally, I call him "Yo, Entropy!" He's longing for a recommendation for grad school and spends a lot of time getting under foot in the lab. You'd probably like each other. :D

A conservative blogger notes how even though it's horseshit, the 100,000 figure is used routinely as if it were credible.

Clearly the Lancet is wrong because Rush Limbaugh said so. I wonder if he said it before or after using more drugs.

The UN weighs in with their number.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...610143,00.html

can we just bring our folks home, nuke the joint, and quit debating how many people have died?

seriously, it could help a lot of people.
-The Dems could point and scream and guarantee themselves the next couple of elections.

-The international community could have real justification for their Anti-America sentiment.

-The Republicans would get crucified in the media, but then they can revive their martyr act, and give the clean up and reconstruction contracts to their friends.

-The US military members would be happy to be home with their families with fewer bullets flying.

-The UN would probably pull out of NY - do i have to explain the benefit there?

-A lot of future TNT vest wearing freaks would be out of commission, and other groups might just realize we are crazy enough to do the same thing to them.

-A few million innocent Iraqis dead... ok, i don't see any possible upside here, but there is a cost for every positive, right?

I sometimes wonder if there are that many innocent Iraqis. They blow most of em up themselves before they reach puberty.

I'd like to hear the benefits of such a move.

most of them are just as innocent as we are. interpret that as you see fit.

they are trying to live their lives, raise their kids, not annoy the wife too much, maybe hang out with friends when they get a chance. most of them have never known a time when their country wasn't being torn apart by some sort of turmoil. their hot buttons and sensitivities will be different than ours, but for the most part they are no different than we are.

we can judge them for not doing more to stop the suicide bombers and terrorists but everything is relative (insert another thread here). when is the last time you (or I) intervened A) when you knew of a man abusing his wife, B) the neighbor's kid stealing something, C) the guy who sold weed to the school kids, D) the coworker who proudly cheats on his taxes?
all of these things are illegal or immoral, why didn't you (I) step in and stop it? because it wasn't worth my time and effort? I don't want to get involved? No good deed goes unpunished? I've got enough to worry about in my own family?

I know my examples of crimes aren't even remotely close to the hideous nature of suicide bombing, but how many Iraqi's would even consider these examples as problems? their problems consist of long term rule under a tyrant who pulled people off of streets to rape them, kill them, disappear them. their beloved former leader gassed his enemies - even those within his own borders. they've lived in a form of poverty that nobody on this board has experienced. injustice, violence, death, destruction, retaliation are the mainstays of their lives. the suicide bombers are just more of the same - just a different target this year.

they are not going to stand up and police themselves until they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the new government is relatively stable, relatively just, reasonably assured of winning the conflict, and that the suicide bombers and their supporters will not rise to power. to put their necks on the line without some of those concerns put to rest is akin to poking a hornets nest to hear the buzz - just not worth it.

that doesn't mean i don't get furious at them for not doing something. but i've been in there culture. the "outrages" are different, but human nature in relation to the "outrages" is the same there as it is here.

as most of that post was - so to was this statement - mostly sarcastic.

but if the UN were to pull out.

A) prime real estate opens up -not just the UN building but all of the housing, etc.
B) diplomats who are above the law would be gone
C) fewer limp dicks standing on our soil ridiculing the US for no other reason than they can.
D) it would be fun to see where they land and gauge the reaction of their new hosts over the next 20 years.

Bases in Iraq are necessary for the invasion of Iran. There is no real exit strategy nor any reason to have an exit strategy. The long term intent is to force democracy on the 'axis of evil'. An exit strategy for Iraqi - ie 'nuke the joint' - would only undermine America's new foreign policy of unilateral invasions.

The new Domino Theory. If we attack them over there, then they will not bother to attack Americans over here. Better to make enemies in Iraq since the whole world hates Americans anyway.

According to those UN numbers, we are killing Iraqi civilians at about the same rate per year that Saddam was. But clearly that is better because Americans are more moral about causing civilian deaths.

After all, we did not intend to kill all those people. Therefore it is moral. We did not intend to create the insurgency when we disbanded the army and police. Therefore all this violence is not America's fault.

Question remains: how many more will die if Iraq breaks down into civil war? History teaches that American occupation (complete with a puppet government) will be required for up to 10 years. No problem. America wants to be the world's policeman. The current Iraqi government can only exist in Green Zones protected by the US military. Why is their own country so dangerous even for their own government? Iraq has never been a more dangerous place - thanks to America.

Those who do die will die for moral reasons. The Iraqi death rate is either same as or higher than during Saddam's reign depending on the source. We call this "Mission Accomplished" - or "Good Morning Vietnam". Same difference. They are only gooks.

Many would be gone, but there would still be plenty of them on Mass. Ave. NW in DC.

yes, but in theory, they face consequences for ignoring the laws of the land.

Another number noted:

Iraq Puts Civilian Toll at 12,000 (wapo via yahoo)

"by insurgents"

My understanding is that it is not the policy of the US military to tally civilian deaths. They report obvious ones, when they deliberately shoot someone, but do not do an in-depth examination of collateral damage from bombing or shelling.

This incident comes to mind. Or was it all faked?


When the deaths are high profile enough, the US will acknowledge the incident.

Who's telling the truth? Can incidents that occur in the backwater of a country at war and in which jouranists cannot travel safely unless 'embedded' be accurately tallied?

Was the wedding video faked, or was the incident real and subjected to spin by the US to downplay fears about civilian casualties?

If anyone knows the answer, then I would say that they are lying, because without first-hand knowledge you are relying on one of a number of groups, all of whom have an agenda.

All I can say about Iraq is that the coalition does not control the ground. They have responded to attacks by creating rules which are difficult for civilians to obey. (Picture an invisible line 1000 feet from a police car. If you cross that line the cops can shoot at you. Now try to imagine having to look out for police cars at every intersection so that you are never any closer than 1000 feet from one. How soon before you screw up?) They are also relying on bombs, shells, and missiles to make up for a lack of manpower. How 'smart' are our bombs, shells, and missiles? Multiply that margin of error by 2 years.

The most accurate answer is 'more than a dozen and less than a million'.

The reason US casualties are so low, besides better medical care, is that the rules of engagement have been designed to maximize the protection of our troops. This comes at the price of a higher amount of 'collateral damage'.

It's us or them, and the them includes civilians. Even if the US military wanted to do a post action survey of casualties, they couldn't, because they don't really own any ground outside of the 'green zone' and bases. They only have enough time to pick up their casualties and leave. Their is no Iraq:CSI to sift through wrecked buildings and vehicles. They might get an unofficial count of the ones who die in hospitals, but for every one sent to a hospital there might be ten dead on the ground.

Noone knows. 30,000 sounds like a good estimate. Since I don't know about every operation out in the sticks, I couldn't say 100,000 was wrong. Certainly the people on both sides have an agenda. Certainly the current adminstration has a very solid record of twisting numbers into something they like to hear.

It may be that in 10 years CNN will be interviewing Iraqis in the Baghdad Starbucks and they will all agree that it was worth it and have no hard feelings about everything they went through and about the cousins who were killed by coalition bombs or detained and 'rigorously interrogated' by US forces. Personally, I doubt it.

Michael Yon details the battle for Mosul, which is fascinating. Part of the intro speaks to what I was saying about modern communcations in the beginning of this thread. Why there can't be a high number of deaths without people knowing about it:

Michael Yon's article reads like it was written in Vietnam. In fact, same claims were written just after the Vietnam Tet Offensive. Mosul was a quiet town when the 101st Airborn took over. Locals even worked with the 101st to save a dam from destruction that would have flooded the entire town. Because Bremer and his White House assigned staff had no plans for the peace, the 101st commander took it upon himself to try to restore and rebuild the city. Bremer did not even have any staff people in Mosul. Either he regarded it as too dangerous or was too busy doing what we now know created the insurgency. Once the 101st Airborne left Mosul, there still were no plans for the peace from Bremer and George Jr. And so, one year later, the town broke down into chaos and violence. Police and National Guard all fled.

But things are getting better. There is more military force. The body counts are getting higher. Its not as bad this month as it was last month. In Vietnam, these same briefings were called the 5 o'clock follies. Things used to measure progress - more military force, more body counts, etc - really meant the war in Nam was being lost. Why is it be any different in Iraq? When do we start talking about light at the end of a tunnel. It took Americans about 7 years to finally admit what was well published in "Making of a Quagmire". Why did Lt Calley's troops massacre the residents of My Lai? They got tired and frustrated of being attacked by booby traps. Booby traps, car bombs, or suicide bombers. What is the difference? The bottom line is the war is getting better - just as in Vietnam as proven in daily briefings from the 5 o'clock follies. IOW the George Jr administration had no plans for the peace. Same problem created by same people at the end of the Kuwait liberation. The same mistake that resulted in no fly zones, massacre of thousands in Basara even as the US Army sat five miles away just watching, the massacre of Kurds who were supposidely protected in a CIA training camp, etc. Major mistakes (repeated by the same people who also disbanned the Iraqi Army and Police) are predicted in a paper written by the UK government for Tony Blair: