violence problem? ya think?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Yeah, I heard that. Saddam killed 300,000, and Bush's actions have killed twice that. He should be doubly proud.[/sarcasm]

The 600,000 figure isn't trustworthy, coming as it does from a source that is anti-American-foreign-policy-success first and carefully accurate a distant second. The methodology used to make this estimate is open to considerable question to put it mildly. The actual figure may be a twelfth that -- circa 50,000, and how much of that Iraqi-on-Iraqi in this low-grade civil war?

And still the real brawling stays in the Sunni provinces, after years of troublemaking. Seems it can't spread to any effect, which gives me hope for a democratic and wise and humane future for Iraq.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Well, there's this guy.



Oh, you meant George.

She did say in March, when asked at a campaign stop about the crash, ''I know this as an adult, and even more as a parent, it was crushing ... for the family involved and for me as well.''

How about for the guy in the other car?

I've always suspected GWB had his own Chappaquiddick in his past, and it's possible that he still does. IMO, noone who went around that impaired and with that much of a sense of entitlement could possibly have been safe on the road. Maybe he got lucky, or maybe to this day a few thousand goes out each month to the family of some kid in Texas.

Basically, stuff like this always comes out after a president leaves office.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The 600,000 figure isn't trustworthy, coming as it does from a source that is anti-American-foreign-policy-success first and carefully accurate a distant second. The methodology used to make this estimate is open to considerable question to put it mildly. The actual figure may be a twelfth that -- circa 50,000, and how much of that Iraqi-on-Iraqi in this low-grade civil war?

And still the real brawling stays in the Sunni provinces, after years of troublemaking. Seems it can't spread to any effect, which gives me hope for a democratic and wise and humane future for Iraq.

The 600.000 figure doesn't measure actual bodies but compares death rates against a historical average. This means that it is not just considering violence, but also the effects of a severely degraded infrastructure that has still not been rebuilt. Poor sanitation, water, and a lack of electricity make Iraq closer to a third world country than it was before the invasion.

The 600,000 is definitely inaccurate, but probably closer to the truth than the 50,000 who died by violence. Wars in the past have shown that disease kills more people than bullets.

One century after the war experts still do not a clear idea about the Spanish casualties in the Spanish American War. Data varies but indicates that between 55,000 and 60,000 men died. Of these men, 90 % died from malaria, dysentery and other diseases; the remaining 10 % died during the battles or later as a consequence of their injuries.

Of course, the US, operating on the 'you broke it, you bought it' principle, has been pouring money into Iraq for reconstruction, above the 5 billion a month we are spending on the military. What's shameful is that these hundreds of thousands of deaths only represent the tip of the suffering of the population in spite of the money we are throwing at the problem, money that should have been spent rebuilding the US. This will be the legacy of the Iraq war.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

A trillion dollar annual GDP and a Dow Jones flirting with 12,000 and he says "money that should have been spent rebuilding the US." (!) This is why I don't think you use your intelligence very well, Rich.

[xoxoxoBruce]

So you think that stockbroker will be better off when his Mercedes goes off that crumbling bridge than he would have been in a Ford?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Better airbags? He just might. :p

More seriously, it's still true that a rising tide lifts all boats.