Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Users
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Free Minds Forum Icon
  1. Home
  2. General Issues / Questions
  3. General Issues / Questions
  4. Declarations of Independence

Declarations of Independence

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Issues / Questions
43 Posts 10 Posters 1.0k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • O Offline
    O Offline
    oneway
    wrote on last edited by
    #34

    ONEWAY

    I believe you are getting your Iraq news from Fox. I really am not paying much attention to the news. Thank you you make me search the latest Iraqi Civialian killed in this illegal criminal war.

    How Many Dead Iraqis?
    Guessing about collateral damage.
    By Fred Kaplan
    Posted Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2003, at 623 PM ET

    How many Iraqi civilians will die in Gulf War II? It's one of the most disturbing questions going into this battle?the question that fills doves with passion and hawks with doubt?so a few activists and analysts have tried to develop an answer. The most widely circulated one comes from a confidential report by a U.N. humanitarian-aid specialist, which was leaked to a group in Cambridge, which in turn published it on the Internet. This report estimates that civilian casualties could total 500,000. Another much-cited public study, by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, cites a figure of up to 100,000. If these calculations were even close to plausible, they would certainly strain many of the rationales for going to war, especially those that involve the liberation and welfare of the Iraqi people.

    So, it's worth asking How were these numbers computed? On what assumptions?especially about U.S. strategy, tactics, weapons, and targets?are they based? There's an old phrase among those who work with computer models "GIGO," for Garbage In/Garbage Out. Feed a computer silly assumptions; it spits out ridiculous numbers. Not to paint a rosy picture on the devastation wrought by any war, especially this one, which is likely to be fought partly in densely populated cities, but these numbers are textbook cases of GIGO. They're not so much wrong as they are completely useless.

    source http//www.slate.com/id/2079264/

    More latter. You are way too ONEWAY.

    Did you actually read the article you posted, KGB?

    It does not support your position. It was written in 2003, before the war started, and lists predictions of casualties and then goes on to explain that the predictions are useless.

    Not sure how you thought posting useless predictions from three years ago would bolster your argument.

    Cheers,
    oneway.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • K Offline
      K Offline
      KGB
      wrote on last edited by
      #35

      ONEWAY

      No I did not read slate.com article before posting.

      Following is the article which prove Iraqi Civialians killed by U.S. troops.

      War has killed 100,000 Iraqis study
      Last Updated Fri, 29 Oct 2004 062507 EDT
      CBC News
      LONDON - Nearly 100,000 more Iraqis have died during the American-led occupation than would have been expected otherwise, a study posted on The Lancet medical journal's website Thursday estimates.

      INDEPTH Casualties in the Iraq war

      A building explodes during a U.S. aerial assualt (AP Photo)
      Most of the extra deaths in the first 18 months of the occupation were due to violence, the researchers said ? in particular, air strikes that claimed civilian casualties.

      "Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children," they wrote.

      Previous estimates of the number of Iraqis killed during the American-led air strikes and occupation have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000.

      The report in the British journal is based on the work of teams from Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The authors acknowledge that the data cited in the study might be of "limited precision."

      However, similar methodology was used in the late 1990s to calculate the number of deaths from the war in Kosovo, put at 10,000.

      The information was obtained as Iraqi interviewers surveyed 808 families, consisting of 7,868 people, in 33 different "clusters" or neighbourhoods spread across the country.

      In each case, they asked how many births and deaths there had been in the home since January 2002.

      That information was then compared with the death rates in each neighbourhood in the 15 months before the invasion that toppled president Saddam Hussein, adjusted for the different time frames, and extrapolated to cover the entire 24.4 million population of Iraq.

      The researchers came up with the figure of 100,000 extra deaths based on the fact that the rate rose from five deaths per 1,000 people before the war to 12.3 deaths per 1,000 in the 18 months that followed its start.

      Fallujah neighbourhood factored out

      One neighbourhood in the besieged city of Fallujah may have boosted the numbers unnaturally, the researchers pointed out.

      But even with that neighbourhood taken out, the death rate was 7.9 per 1,000 people ? 50 per cent higher during the occupation than in the months before.

      "We estimate that there were 98,000 extra deaths during the post-war period in the 97 per cent of Iraq represented by all the clusters except Fallujah," the researchers said in the journal.

      Nearly 1,100 American soldiers have also died in the conflict.

      Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and other chronic diseases, the Lancet report said.

      Since early 2002, violence was by far the main cause of death, linked to coalition air strikes in about 95 per cent of cases where people died by the intentional act of others. Infant mortality also rose significantly.

      Remember there is no offical Civilian Death Counts just like Vietnam war where the whole villages were blown up causing millions of deaths.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • O Offline
        O Offline
        oneway
        wrote on last edited by
        #36

        ONEWAY

        No I did not read slate.com article before posting.

        Following is the article which prove Iraqi Civialians killed by U.S. troops.

        War has killed 100,000 Iraqis study
        Last Updated Fri, 29 Oct 2004 062507 EDT
        CBC News
        LONDON - Nearly 100,000 more Iraqis have died during the American-led occupation than would have been expected otherwise, a study posted on The Lancet medical journal's website Thursday estimates.

        INDEPTH Casualties in the Iraq war

        A building explodes during a U.S. aerial assualt (AP Photo)
        Most of the extra deaths in the first 18 months of the occupation were due to violence, the researchers said ? in particular, air strikes that claimed civilian casualties.

        "Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children," they wrote.

        Previous estimates of the number of Iraqis killed during the American-led air strikes and occupation have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000.

        The report in the British journal is based on the work of teams from Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The authors acknowledge that the data cited in the study might be of "limited precision."

        However, similar methodology was used in the late 1990s to calculate the number of deaths from the war in Kosovo, put at 10,000.

        The information was obtained as Iraqi interviewers surveyed 808 families, consisting of 7,868 people, in 33 different "clusters" or neighbourhoods spread across the country.

        In each case, they asked how many births and deaths there had been in the home since January 2002.

        That information was then compared with the death rates in each neighbourhood in the 15 months before the invasion that toppled president Saddam Hussein, adjusted for the different time frames, and extrapolated to cover the entire 24.4 million population of Iraq.

        The researchers came up with the figure of 100,000 extra deaths based on the fact that the rate rose from five deaths per 1,000 people before the war to 12.3 deaths per 1,000 in the 18 months that followed its start.

        Fallujah neighbourhood factored out

        One neighbourhood in the besieged city of Fallujah may have boosted the numbers unnaturally, the researchers pointed out.

        But even with that neighbourhood taken out, the death rate was 7.9 per 1,000 people ? 50 per cent higher during the occupation than in the months before.

        "We estimate that there were 98,000 extra deaths during the post-war period in the 97 per cent of Iraq represented by all the clusters except Fallujah," the researchers said in the journal.

        Nearly 1,100 American soldiers have also died in the conflict.

        Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and other chronic diseases, the Lancet report said.

        Since early 2002, violence was by far the main cause of death, linked to coalition air strikes in about 95 per cent of cases where people died by the intentional act of others. Infant mortality also rose significantly.

        Remember there is no offical Civilian Death Counts just like Vietnam war where the whole villages were blown up causing millions of deaths.

        That article is a joke.

        The authors of the study simply sampled families and conducted surveys then extrapolated from there. That is a highly inaccurate method which they brush off with their acknowledgement "that the data cited in the study might be of 'limited precision.'"

        The numbers I posted earlier come from an anti-US, anti-war site that is clearly biased toward inflated rather than conservative numbers, and their source is morgue statistics in Iraq, not grossly inaccurate sampling and extrapolation.

        (Editing to clarify Sampling and extrapolation are not inherently inaccurate themselves. The problem is that the accuracy of that method depends very much on the quality of the sample and the reliability of the answers provided in the surveys, which would be all over the map on an issue as contentious as the body count in Iraq. This is confirmed by the order of magnitude difference between the estimates of the 2004 article posted by KGB above and the up to date statistics collected from Iraqi morgues by the IBC.)

        That said, even if the numbers in the above report were accurate, it would still be true that 98% of the deaths are from two causes (1) people who attack coalition troops and/or Iraqi government troops and die in the process, (2) people killed as a result of sectarian and insurgent attacks, as shown in my previous post.

        Cheers,
        oneway

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • O Offline
          O Offline
          oneway
          wrote on last edited by
          #37

          For those who want to grasp a better understanding of the war in Iraq, and many other events happening in our today's world, here is a interesting article
          http//ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf

          Peace

          Good morning all,

          A followup on this one As I said, I agree with some of the content in the article JM posted, but do not agree with its ultimate conclusions.

          Today I saw a critique of that article that I wanted to share with you all, just fyi

          http//tinyurl.com/qf66v

          Regards,
          oneway

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • S Offline
            S Offline
            savage_carrot
            wrote on last edited by
            #38

            For anyone interested in the article JM posted-

            http//www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1743767,00.html

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • K Offline
              K Offline
              KGB
              wrote on last edited by
              #39

              It is very unlikely that we are going to agree on anything here ONEWAY.

              Remember this that U.S. has already Iraq war. Iraqi Resistance has the capability and will to prolong this war for decades. U.S. can't afford time or money to keep Iraq under occupation. U.S. will withdraw by decieving majority of American with beautiful sologan its just the matter of time. The finance is for logistics not for Iraqi reconstruction.

              My last post on this topic.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • O Offline
                O Offline
                oneway
                wrote on last edited by
                #40

                It is very unlikely that we are going to agree on anything here.

                Remember this that U.S. has already Iraq war. Iraqi Resistance has the capability and will to prolong this war for decades. U.S. can't afford time or money to keep Iraq under occupation. U.S. will withdraw by decieving majority of American with beautiful sologan its just the matter of time. The finance is for logistics not for Iraqi reconstruction.

                My last post on this topic.

                Thanks for a good discussion KGB. I think it will be clear to other readers here that your notion of "Iraqi Resistance" is not supported by the facts.

                Your prediction on the US withdrawal certainly has potential. Hopefully we will not yield to those in American politics that are moved by expediency rather than a long term view.

                As for reconstruction and good progress in Iraq, certainly you are correct that the majority of spending the US is doing today is in support of the troops we have over there, but there is evidence of good progress that counters your earlier statements regarding lack of infrastructure in Iraq. You just have to look for it

                http//goodnewsfromthefront.com/

                (Scroll down and you'll see categories on right sidebar that lead to articles for particular topics like reconstruction, etc., for both Afghanistan and Iraq)

                Regards,
                oneway

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • K Offline
                  K Offline
                  KGB
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #41

                  Thanks for a good discussion KGB. I think it will be clear to other readers here that your notion of "Iraqi Resistance" is not supported by the facts.

                  lol No comments.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • U Offline
                    U Offline
                    unknownuser
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #42

                    lol

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • E Offline
                      E Offline
                      esimsek100
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #43

                      Newsflash We already have the power and the cash. We don't need Afghanistan and Iraq so we can become more dominant. We need them to stabilize to help reduce the havens for terrorists, make clear that tyrants cannot thumb their nose at the world and get away with it, and get the ball rolling toward democracy in the Middle East which will be better for everyone and lessen the threat of terrorist attacks in the US and everywhere else. That's what its about in spite of the conspiracy theories wrapped up in the fancy socialist rhetoric of people like MAsadi.

                      /oneway.

                      lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

                      Oh gees, they've already got the power and the cash.

                      lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

                      Seriously that's hilarious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                      lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

                      China and South America.

                      The US is sh1t scared of China.

                      The South American's are finally uniting and kicking american corporations out of their lands.

                      If you think us muslims are biased in our view of the US foreign mistreatements, then how about you speak with a Catholic South American, who knows their politics.

                      I think you'll find that Sth Americans absolutely hate the American government.

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Users