Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Iraq, Shell To Sign $17.2 Bln Gas Deal Nov 24 -Deputy Oil Minister

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
cory777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-17-11 02:12 AM
Original message
Iraq, Shell To Sign $17.2 Bln Gas Deal Nov 24 -Deputy Oil Minister
Source: Dow Jones

BAGHDAD (Dow Jones)--Iraq and a consortium led by Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA) are expected to next week put their final signature on a $17.2 billion deal to capture and process gas from three giant fields in Basra governorate, the Iraqi deputy oil minister said Wednesday.

"We are planning to sign the contract Thursday Nov. 24," Ahmed al-Shammaa told a news conference in Baghdad.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111116-716953.htm...



Activist News http://activistnews.blogspot.com /

Refresh | +11 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
OKDem08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-17-11 02:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. oh brother...
Edited on Thu Nov-17-11 02:55 AM by OKDem08
Well, on the bright side, the corruption & exploitation is becoming so blatant that even those only marginally paying attention now see the true nature of the world clearly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-17-11 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. The endgame of this whole bloody, murderous Iraq "War" is finally here
wow - what do you know - just like people said from the start - it was about OIL. And power, and control.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
44. Mission Accomplished. Smirk and pass the foie gras
:puke: Everything that was opaque should now be so obvious even to the blind sheeple
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-17-11 03:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. so the millions "dirty hippies" marching in the streets of the world
Edited on Thu Nov-17-11 03:22 AM by Amonester
were right

NO BLOOD FOR OIL they screamed


the 1% just ignored them

sent thousands grunts to their coffins

murdered a million civilians

:puke: growth is their god


who's next? You? Me? Us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-17-11 04:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. We usually are
we (as i do consider myself one) get judged for our looks and attitudes and behaviors because we think outside the box. that's always been seized upon by those in power and used against us. but that's not the real problem. the real problem is that others WON'T think outside the box.

Dirty F@#*ing Hippies Were Right! -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Scuba Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-17-11 03:46 AM
Response to Original message
3. American military goals met. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KeepItReal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-17-11 04:13 AM
Response to Original message
5. O.I.L.: "Operation Iraqi Liberation"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-17-11 05:11 AM
Response to Original message
7. My profitsee for this 'deal'
total unmitigated clusterf*ck (R)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-17-11 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Keep track and watch how many other oil companies profit from the Iraq cluster fuck.
The Empire battles so the corporations can gain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrJs1G Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-11 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
9. Oh brother.
Anybody else see the irony here?

If the United States expends too much money abroad in order to remove a sadistic, totalitarian, and irrational dictator sitting on half of the world's oil supply, people cry foul about how much the war is costing.

If US corporations acquire oil deals which in turn, creates jobs, people cry foul about how the US is driven solely by corporate and economic interests.

If the US sits back and does nothing, with Saddam Hussein having every intention to acquire WMD (see: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/oct/4/20031004... ), and having precedents that he would utilize them to their fullest extent (e.g. Anfal Campaign against the Kurds and the Iran-Iraq War), people cry foul for the US not committing to anything (modern day Rwanda).

So, which is it? You can't have it all three ways.

Okay, now for this selective claim about how Iraq was for oil:

See oil imports from Iraq by the US (note the general decline since '03): http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET...

How US oil corporations lost out in '10 for the oil auctions (with Russia, China, and France acquiring significant ones): http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,0...

Lastly, gas prices. If the US truly ventured into Iraq for its oil (which I find to be a claim hardly made at this point in time, excluding conspiracy theorists and the like), then why wouldn't gas prices sharply decline?

Anybody can copy and paste a link about how an oil corporation acquired a deal in an oil-rich country -- however, the much more difficult task, the completion of which is absent on this thread, is the correlation and causation of the two. So what if greedy corporations attempt to make the most net profit? Is this something new? Perhaps you can make this contention, but at its absolute best, it's a contention against crony capitalism or even capitalism -- but no way in hell does it signify anything about intervention in Iraq.

If Iraq was truly for oil, and that the nefarious military-industrial complex had as much influence as the people on this thread suggest it does, then why didn't the US simply install a Western-friendly dictator (and who would you blame then?) and simply hand over the oil deals to US corporations?

In order to sway me, show me:
- which option would've been best and why.
- the significant signs of the influence of the "MIC".
- correlation and causation of going to war for resources in Iraq.

Until then, I rest my case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. If you truly believe this ...
> ... with Saddam Hussein having every intention to acquire WMD ...
> and having precedents that he would utilize them to their fullest extent
> (e.g. Anfal Campaign against the Kurds and the Iran-Iraq War)

... (never mind your other disconnected "points" about "gas prices")
then I respectfully suggest you "rest your case" somewhere else ...

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrJs1G Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Intellectual cop-out
So when you can't respond with points of your own with evidence, you simply state that "it isn't a point -- take faith it isn't"?

Weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-11 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #12
29. Nope, just not into necrophilic re-hashing of established facts ...
... in order to allow a disruptor to waste my time.

Have a nice day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrJs1G Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Oh, and
Edited on Tue Nov-22-11 03:37 PM by MrJs1G
This isn't speculation. The gassing of the Kurds and WMD were used in the '80 war (or did you not know that either?).

Typical of those who have no intellectual fortitude or support for their arguments. Before you criticize somebody for not making a point (suggested by your quoting of the word points) or not making any (your quoting of rest your case), wouldn't you be better employed by making points of your own which refute mine?

You should read this: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

I think you can be properly classified as a DH-2. Nothing substantive, simply responding to tone. Nice of you, I might add, to say nothing about the topic at hand, either (:

Just because you watch Michael Moore doesn't signify that you know everything, bud.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
plumbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Of course the gassing occurred - we sold the gas and provided satellite
images to Saddam to do it. It's what we wanted.

Remember this?



And so it's a little dishonest to use gassing the Kurds as a reason to invade, no?

The real cause, of course, was that Saddam was setting up a non-USD denominated oil bourse, similar to the one the Iranians have set up. That's what all the nonsense and deaths was about and will be about in Iran - protecting the US dollar dominance as a world currency.

So $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ as usual drive all war efforts, and the "right" people make the money.

We're every dictator's best friend until we find someone even more compliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrJs1G Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Realpolitik.
"we sold the gas"
-- No we didn't. The US might've been complicit, but it only provided 1% of the weapons to Iraq (and also supported Iran) which was $200 million in unarmed helicopters.

"And so it's a little dishonest to use gassing the Kurds as a reason to invade, no?"
-- I find it an even stronger reason for intervention. If Saddam used weapons he acquired by some sort of assistance by the US, as insignificant as it may have been, does it not re-double the US' responsibility in order to prevent a mess for exacerbating? If not, what would you have done at that point instead?

"The real cause, of course, was that Saddam was setting up a non-USD denominated oil bourse"
-- The "real cause" of the US intervening in Iraq?

"We're every dictator's best friend until we find someone even more compliant."
-- Look, you're pushing an open door with me if you believe corrupt regimes like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have too much influence and receive too many benefits from the US. However, you have to take into account what these decisions imply: realpolitik. I would love nothing more for everyone to hold hands and stare at the mountains instead of creating conflict and war. It's simply impractical. It isn't reflective of reality. If you want to discuss what would've happened alternatively, fine -- but at least offer something that the US *should* have done instead of what it *shouldn't* have done.

Like Robert Gates said about the document dump:

Many governments -- some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation. So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another. Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
plumbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Got single piece of evidence for a single one of your assertions?
Just one?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrJs1G Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Sure.
Here's one of them from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute:

And for the helicopters: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq61.pdf

Please do your research on my other points -- I find it insulting (to yourself) that you need my assistance in order to find out what the al-Anfal claim is / was (and if you needed links on other things, be more specific).

And what does "nt" mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
plumbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. You can hardly expect me to research your points for you.
You've yet to refute the oil bourses denominated in non-US dollars as the proximate cause of the invasion of Iraq and the upcoming invasion of Iran, so I'll wish you a happy holiday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MrJs1G Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. By the way,
Do you (or anybody else on this thread) know how to receive notifications via e-mail? There doesn't seem to be a function on the "preferences" page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
plumbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. I don't know, but I did forget my manners. Welcome to DU!
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-11 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
33. I don't understand why you are putting so much energy into this post.
Edited on Wed Nov-23-11 10:17 PM by county worker
Everything you are saying has been hashed and rehashed since before the Iraq invasion. We as a country are devastated by two wars, the Medicare drug bill, Bush's tax cuts and the Wall Street deregulation. Many here are out of a job and on their last dime.

So please peddle your rehash of right wing talking points were someone wants to read them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrJs1G Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-24-11 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. As if.
You're sure nobody is going to read them? Absolutely sure? 100% sure?

If not, then that means there's the possibility of somebody stumbling upon these and reconsidering their position.

Oh, and if I'm rehasing "right wing talking points", then you're simply rehasing left-wing talking points -- you're simply like the first poster I responded to. Copping-out because you have no intellectual substance to contribute.

I could make the same argument you do if I was a member of the KKK in the early '90's. "Take your civil rights points elsewhere, where someone wants to read them."

Please.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
county worker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-24-11 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. You should wake the hell up. Nobody believes that shit anymore except gullible fools!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrJs1G Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-24-11 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Thanks.
For proving my point. Glad I didn't have to do it for myself (:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-24-11 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
38. "If Iraq was truly for oil..."
I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.
- Alan Greenspan, 2007

Of course it is all about oil,
-Gen. John Abizaid, referring to the occupation of Iraq, 2007
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
45. first off, you need to start reading a few books by people who've done LOTS of research
How 'bout House of Bush-House of Saud for starters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blueclown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-21-11 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. Hundreds of thousands of American military and Iraqi civilians dead
so Shell could make billions off of a gift oil deal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrJs1G Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Try again.
The Lancet Survey (and any other study near its total casualties) has been refuted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
plumbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Got a link for that statement? Got an estimate of Iraqi deaths?
Please, by all means post them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrJs1G Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Here you are.
Note that the Iraqi Body Count includes insurgents killed since '03 and doesn't distinguish them from civilians killed. Neither do they determine the source of the kills, which is mainly Muslim-on-Muslim violence.

66,081 civilian deaths as reported by WikiLeaks (at least it distinguishes insurgents from civilians; nevertheless, still no distinction between who did the killing). Let's take this as the official civilian dead (still distinguishing from insurgents vs. Coalition).

As for the "hundreds of thousands" dead cited by the above poster (and almost anybody else I've gotten into discussion with), there are a large number of issues (note: "it" now refers to the Lancet Survey, the most popular citation by those who wish to corroborate their conclusions with little to no scrutiny of the means of conclusion ):

- It is based on interviews.
- It mixes civilian deaths with combatant deaths, and makes no attempt to distinguish them. So even if the count was accurate, it would still be worthless. Combatant deaths are not something we should be worried about.
- It is not an actual count of the dead, but an estimate based on extrapolation.
- It is an extrapolation from tiny figures. e.g. It only actually found 61 deaths that were even claimed to be caused by the allies. This could include lies, and combatants.
- You cannot take interviews at face value without checking the claimed facts. The dead may not exist. The dead may have been killed by the Iraqi side, not by the allies. The dead might be combatants. The dead may have died of natural causes. As Natalie Solent says, there are many motivations to lie or embellish the truth: "I think some of the interviewees falsely claimed to have lost relatives .. in the hope of getting compensation. I think some of the interviewees exaggerated .. in order to feel important, to gain the psychological payoff of being hard done by, to restore their pride, and to pay out the Americans for defeating them in war. (This bundle of motives could be shared by those who felt that the American invasion was a good thing, as well as those who thought it was a bad thing.)"

Even the anti-war Iraq Body Count dismisses the study: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/lancet1000... /

That's for starters. I could go on and on -- but I would like to see a response first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
plumbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Response to what? You have yet to give me a number.
You've cast all sorts of doubt on all sorts of numbers, but you have not picked one. That's your affirmative burden of proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrJs1G Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. plumbob,
Edited on Tue Nov-22-11 05:41 PM by MrJs1G
I stated the WikiLeaks number in the post. If you aren't going to devote any type of time or attention to my points, then why should I commit mine to yours? Moreover, of all the points you could've made...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blueclown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. Let's see.
Let's take some of your points, one by one.

- It mixes civilian deaths with combatant deaths, and makes no attempt to distinguish them. So even if the count was accurate, it would still be worthless. Combatant deaths are not something we should be worried about.


I think we should certainly factor combatant deaths into the equation. Failure to do so frames the narrative that there is a good and evil continuum, and that the U.S. represents good, and everybody else fighting against them represents evil. This is an oversimplification of the entire Iraqi War insurgency. When Bremer deba'th-ified the entire Iraqi civil service, which was a complete and utter mistake, he put countless men on the unemployment line, many of whom would have fought alongside the United States if they hadn't been summarilly dismissed. Instead, these people turned bitter and joined the Iraqi insurgency. Better planning and foresight would have prevented this from happening, and many of these insurgents died in battle simply trying to find a way to get paid and feed their children. To simplify combatants deaths as unimportant is absurd and ignorant.

- It is not an actual count of the dead, but an estimate based on extrapolation.


One would assume that you would apply this same burden of proof to other wars, such as World War I and World War II? Do you actually think that casualty counts from those wars were based on an actual hand-count of bodies, rather than estimates and extrapolations based on historical anecdotes?

You cannot take interviews at face value without checking the claimed facts. The dead may not exist. The dead may have been killed by the Iraqi side, not by the allies. The dead might be combatants. The dead may have died of natural causes. As Natalie Solent says, there are many motivations to lie or embellish the truth: "I think some of the interviewees falsely claimed to have lost relatives .. in the hope of getting compensation. I think some of the interviewees exaggerated .. in order to feel important, to gain the psychological payoff of being hard done by, to restore their pride, and to pay out the Americans for defeating them in war. (This bundle of motives could be shared by those who felt that the American invasion was a good thing, as well as those who thought it was a bad thing.)"



It does not matter WHO killed WHO. This narrative frames the war as a neccessary evil; a conflict that the United States could not ignore. It assumes that these deaths were not preventable, and attempts to marginalize the true death tool by meaninglessly discrediting the dead by stating that if a civilian did not die as a direct result of U.S. actions, that the United States was not responsible for their death. It is a beyond offensive analysis that misses the root of the issue; the United States had no business being in Iraq, and in invading a sovereign nation where they did not belong, assumes most, if not all, the blame for Iraqi casualties.

Keep trying to discredit Iraqi civilian deaths, if it makes you feel better. But there will be no whitewashing here at Democratic Underground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrJs1G Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-11 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #27
31. Same story.
Edited on Wed Nov-23-11 11:59 AM by MrJs1G
Let's take some of your points, one by one.


Already affirming that you aren't going to reply to all of my points (I consider a concession a response), only to ones that you may have something you'd like to say -- and then base a conclusion off of these incomplete premises.

And is it just me who finds this statement facetious? "Some" of my points "one by one"? Suggesting that you're going to carefully explore points whose responses would only further your position (theoretically)?

Already starting off dishonest.

Okay, after reading through your response, some macro-points which I'd like you to address.

1. Why is that that WikiLeaks, the organization whose primary goal for existing reports the civilians killed much lower than that of Lancet? Have you ever considered that this Lancet study has special interests as opposed to an institution which would love nothing more than to reveal that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were indeed killed (indeed, the staunchly anti-war George Soros funded half of the funding for the Lancet Report: http://www.timesplus.co.uk/tto/news/?login=false&url=ht... )

2. A large number of your points have nothing to do with the casualty figures, but about the nature of the casualties themselves. That's a different discussion, one that you yourself didn't initiate (in other words, it's irrelevant). Here's the claim you made which I responded to:

Hundreds of thousands of American military and Iraqi civilians dead


So please, hold yourself to your own standards when we're discussing such an important topic.

3. Please see post #9 above for my stance on the "blood for oil" point which you (and numerous others) espouse.

4. We're not supposed to be debating whether or not what the interpretation of these casualty figures should be, like you so arduously argue, but why these casualty figures are. A difference in hundreds of thousands of lives isn't an issue to be glossed over. You also seem to muddle objective casualty figures with your own interpretations of the casualty figures. I'll give examples below.

Okay, now onto your points.

I think we should certainly factor combatant deaths into the equation. Failure to do so frames the narrative that there is a good and evil continuum, and that the U.S. represents good, and everybody else fighting against them represents evil. This is an oversimplification of the entire Iraqi War insurgency.


This is a prime example of point #4. Here, you're responding to:
It mixes civilian deaths with combatant deaths, and makes no attempt to distinguish them. So even if the count was accurate, it would still be worthless. Combatant deaths are not something we should be worried about.


My point was about the *number* of casualties. Your point is about how these casualties should be interpreted.

The first example of how you fail to meet your own standards.

Albeit I've already admitted interpretations of the numbers are irrelevant, I'll take on your challenges, in spite of what we've initially agreed to talk about.

Well, yes, the US represents good intentions, does it not? It's established a fledgling democracy in Iraq. It's removed Saddam Hussein (and his intentions to acquire a WMD program in addition to having Iran on his back). It's freed the Iraqi people from the totalitarian grip of Saddam Hussein. It's nationalized Iraq's oil (to which the US has no monopoly on, by the way).

Equating this with Islamic terrorists whose main purpose is to extirpate those believing in a different version of Islam than them?

Makes total sense.

When Bremer deba'th-ified the entire Iraqi civil service, which was a complete and utter mistake, he put countless men on the unemployment line, many of whom would have fought alongside the United States if they hadn't been summarilly dismissed. Instead, these people turned bitter and joined the Iraqi insurgency. Better planning and foresight would have prevented this from happening, and many of these insurgents died in battle simply trying to find a way to get paid and feed their children. To simplify combatants deaths as unimportant is absurd and ignorant.


I agree with your premise -- that Bremer (and the entire Bush Administration, for that matter) was staggeringly incompetent. However, again, to state that the "only other way" of life for them is to make a living blowing themselves up, killing other people, and terrorizing the public seems to be a bit of an apology on their behalf.

One would assume that you would apply this same burden of proof to other wars, such as World War I and World War II? Do you actually think that casualty counts from those wars were based on an actual hand-count of bodies, rather than estimates and extrapolations based on historical anecdotes?


Well, for those like the Jews, yes. The Nazis took meticulous notes on how many Jews were exterminated, etc.

I wouldn't have a problem were it not for *method* of extrapolation. The Lancet Study was conducted by doctors who went door to door and asked for how many of their family members died, were wounded, etc and extrapolated from this that there were 600,000+ civilians killed. Which is why I quoted Natalie Solent.

Somehow, I doubt this occurred in WWI and WWII.

By the way, nice of you to return to the topic.


It does not matter WHO killed WHO.


Wait, so if subject A stabbed subject B's mother with a knife, making her unconscious, and subject B punched subject A and, by accident, knocked him unconscious, then subject B would be as morally culpable as subject A, who did the stabbing?

Disgusting principle you hold there.

This narrative frames the war as a neccessary evil; a conflict that the United States could not ignore. It assumes that these deaths were not preventable, and attempts to marginalize the true death tool


Now you're just yelling. You have a conclusion, but you don't demonstrate how you arrived there. How does "this narrative" frame the Iraq War as necessary? How does it assume these deaths aren't preventable?

Again, conclusions. No links, and no premises.

Furthermore, you should take what assuming these number dead and wounded imply. Taken from the anti-war, liberal Iraq Body Count: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-ch... /

"The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:

1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.

If these assertions are true, they further imply:

* incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began
* bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
* the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;
* an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.

In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy."

Keep trying to discredit Iraqi civilian deaths, if it makes you feel better. But there will be no whitewashing here at Democratic Underground.


The icing on the cake. You've already talked past yourself -- not only have you displayed dishonesty through your selectivity, but you further claim here that you've disproved my refutation of the Lancet Study (with points about the interpretations of the study and casualties, not the actual numbers themselves -- shocking!).

Moreover, are you truly read to defend Democratic Underground as a whole? Conspiracy nuts, included? Think before you post, not the other way around.

I absolutely despise comparing body counts, but it's a must, unfortunately, to counter the dis-information and misinformation regurgitated by the sanctimonious, faux intellectuals in this day and age.

And with that, I'd love to hear what you think the US should have done instead of what it shouldn't do. That is, offer an alternative (or concede that you would be willing to live with the ramifications and implications of pre-war Iraq). "Don't participate in terrorism" isn't an answer, by the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blueclown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-11 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. Really?
Edited on Wed Nov-23-11 10:00 PM by blueclown
Already affirming that you aren't going to reply to all of my points (I consider a concession a response), only to ones that you may have something you'd like to say -- and then base a conclusion off of these incomplete premises.

And is it just me who finds this statement facetious? "Some" of my points "one by one"? Suggesting that you're going to carefully explore points whose responses would only further your position (theoretically)?

Already starting off dishonest.



Good job starting off with namecalling. I think that really inforces the strength of your "argument", if you want to call it that. I do not have to reply to each and every letter in your post to formulate an effective response to your drivel.

1. Why is that that WikiLeaks, the organization whose primary goal for existing reports the civilians killed much lower than that of Lancet? Have you ever considered that this Lancet study has special interests as opposed to an institution which would love nothing more than to reveal that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were indeed killed (indeed, the staunchly anti-war George Soros funded half of the funding for the Lancet Report


Wikileaks' primary goal is to report the facts, from whatever source they may come from, whether they be classified leaks or not. And I reject your assertion that Wikileaks has ever published an official Iraq body count. Wikileaks is not in the business of determining a
true body count. They simply report (i.e leak) the documents that they have available to them. There is no single official government entity in Iraq or the U.S. that has ever measured the full extent of the Iraqi War body count. There have been various investigations by a number of entities, including limited Iraqi public records and extensive reporting and discovery by various NGOs. I find it extremely interesting how you mention right-wing boogeyman George Soros as a subtle way to discredit the findings of the Lancet survey. Even if the Lancet survey's numbers were at the high end, you fail to mention other Iraqi War body count estimates, such as from the IBC, which put the Iraqi war body count in the range of what I said (100,000+)

2. A large number of your points have nothing to do with the casualty figures, but about the nature of the casualties themselves. That's a different discussion, one that you yourself didn't initiate (in other words, it's irrelevant). Here's the claim you made which I responded to:

Sigh. The entire premise of my argument is based on what the true casaulty figure in Iraq is. YOU are the one who is attempting the diminish the Iraqi War death count by distinguishing between combatants and civilians. Not ME. I did initiate that conversation. You wanted to create a category that is entirely arbitrary and oblivous to context, that of "combatants", and sweep under the rug significant Iraqi War deaths that you placed in that convenient category.

So please, hold yourself to your own standards when we're discussing such an important topic.


I'd like to see you hold yourself to any standard. Especially since you are arguing with me about how whether we should count "combatants" as part of the Iraqi War death count while referencing an all-encompassing Wikileaks "count" that doesn't even exist.

4. We're not supposed to be debating whether or not what the interpretation of these casualty figures should be, like you so arduously argue, but why these casualty figures are. A difference in hundreds of thousands of lives isn't an issue to be glossed over. You also seem to muddle objective casualty figures with your own interpretations of the casualty figures. I'll give examples below.


"We're" not supposed to be debating whether or not this interepretation of casualty figures is effective, because then it would strike a glaring hole in your argument. I don't remember agreeing to a construct of a debate that was framed on only your terms. If you want to dismiss a figure that has been supported by multiple sources, then you will need to provide evidence that these sources are wrong. You have not done so.

My point was about the *number* of casualties. Your point is about how these casualties should be interpreted.

The first example of how you fail to meet your own standards.


Listen. I posted a TOTAL estimate that has been supported by multiple sources. Your point was never about the number of casualties. If it was, you would have simply agreed with my initial assertion, because the TOTAL number of casualties in the Iraq War has been reported in the range I stated, by both the IBC and the Lancet survey. You have yet to present a thorough study that contradicts these sources. In addition, YOU were the one who wanted to determine how these casualties should be interpeted. Not me.

Well, yes, the US represents good intentions, does it not? It's established a fledgling democracy in Iraq. It's removed Saddam Hussein (and his intentions to acquire a WMD program in addition to having Iran on his back). It's freed the Iraqi people from the totalitarian grip of Saddam Hussein. It's nationalized Iraq's oil (to which the US has no monopoly on, by the way).

Equating this with Islamic terrorists whose main purpose is to extirpate those believing in a different version of Islam than them?

Makes total sense.



There is so much wrong with this passage, I don't even know where to begin. And I won't start, because it effectively packages all of the main neoconservative talking points in the run-up to the war in a neat, tidy paragaph. I'm just curious, since you are a defender of the Iraqi War - does the fact that we found no WMDs (the entire rationale for going to war with Iraq) mean anything to you? Anything?

And your assertion that all "combatants" (you know, your favorite category) are all Islamic terrorists is certainly not backed up with facts of any kind. It's simply another blanket assertion in the long line of blanket assertions you have thrown out during this discussion.

I agree with your premise -- that Bremer (and the entire Bush Administration, for that matter) was staggeringly incompetent. However, again, to state that the "only other way" of life for them is to make a living blowing themselves up, killing other people, and terrorizing the public seems to be a bit of an apology on their behalf.



In a nation that was ravaged by an ongoing war, there are very few ways to make a living that don't involve participating in that war. In your U.S. centric world view, I'm sure you think that he could give out his resume and be hired by McDonalds the next day. But that just isn't the case away from your little world-bubble. Families need to be fed, hometowns need to be defended, etc.



Well, for those like the Jews, yes. The Nazis took meticulous notes on how many Jews were exterminated, etc.

I wouldn't have a problem were it not for *method* of extrapolation. The Lancet Study was conducted by doctors who went door to door and asked for how many of their family members died, were wounded, etc and extrapolated from this that there were 600,000+ civilians killed. Which is why I quoted Natalie Solent.

Somehow, I doubt this occurred in WWI and WWII.

By the way, nice of you to return to the topic.


First of all, your comparision with the Nazis is incredibly flawed. You are referring to the death counts within the controlled environment of a concentration camp where the methods of counting dead bodies were a result of specific procedures. A warzone is not nearly as controlled an environment as a concentration camp, and I can assure you that there is not an exact body count of the amount of Nazis that died during the battles of World War II.

Second of all, Welcome to the world of statistical sampling. Have you ever read an election poll? Also, do you have any proof that this didn't occur in WWI or WWII? I'm still waiting for one assertion that you have made to be backed by any sort of research, facts, etc.

Wait, so if subject A stabbed subject B's mother with a knife, making her unconscious, and subject B punched subject A and, by accident, knocked him unconscious, then subject B would be as morally culpable as subject A, who did the stabbing?

Disgusting principle you hold there.


The United States invaded a soverign country under false pretenses. That fact along renders your absurd argument moot. Again, you keep coming back to this dichotomy that everything the U.S. does is "good", while everything their enemy does is "evil". And it just doesn't fly under any critical analysis.

Now you're just yelling. You have a conclusion, but you don't demonstrate how you arrived there. How does "this narrative" frame the Iraq War as necessary? How does it assume these deaths aren't preventable?

Again, conclusions. No links, and no premises.

Furthermore, you should take what assuming these number dead and wounded imply. Taken from the anti-war, liberal Iraq Body Count: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-ch ... /

"The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:

1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.

If these assertions are true, they further imply:

* incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began
* bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
* the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;
* an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.

In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy."



You are presenting the idea that the Iraqi war was unavoidable, and any deaths that the U.S. didn't directly cause are not its fault. That is the narrative you are trying to peddle. Why are you distancing yourself from your own analysis?

And it's quite interesting how you describe the Iraqi Body Count site as liberal and anti-war, and seek to discredit it solely based on that description, when a critical look at the facts would reveal that the IBC has no political agenda. In addition, you cite from the same group (the IBC) which provides an incredibly through study of a body count that is consistent with the range I described. You do realize that, don't you?

The icing on the cake. You've already talked past yourself -- not only have you displayed dishonesty through your selectivity, but you further claim here that you've disproved my refutation of the Lancet Study (with points about the interpretations of the study and casualties, not the actual numbers themselves -- shocking!).

Moreover, are you truly read to defend Democratic Underground as a whole? Conspiracy nuts, included? Think before you post, not the other way around.

I absolutely despise comparing body counts, but it's a must, unfortunately, to counter the dis-information and misinformation regurgitated by the sanctimonious, faux intellectuals in this day and age.

And with that, I'd love to hear what you think the US should have done instead of what it shouldn't do. That is, offer an alternative (or concede that you would be willing to live with the ramifications and implications of pre-war Iraq). "Don't participate in terrorism" isn't an answer, by the way.


I have exhibited no selectivity. In fact, the entire premise of YOUR argument is selectivity. You have presented no study that would place the Iraqi War death count in the vicinity of your range. Instead, you have referenced studies that affirm my point. The only way your assertion has any credibility is if you apply the criteria of selectivity, and establish a completely arbitrary category known as combatants, with no definition and no context.

I had a simple idea of what the U.S. should have done - not went to war with Iraq. We were sold a set of lies in the lead-up to the War in Iraq, and the criminals have still not been held responsible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrJs1G Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-24-11 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #32
35. Yes, really.
Good job starting off with namecalling... I do not have to reply to each and every letter in your post to formulate an effective response to your drivel.


When did I ever state anything about your character? I stated that your methods of discussion are dishonest.

Furthermore, if you desire to make a point about something, it's better not to contradict yourself by participating in the activity which you condemned in the same sentence, no?

I do not have to reply to each and every letter in your post to formulate an effective response to your drivel.


I'll post it again, just to emphasize this point.

Hahaha.

And I reject your assertion that Wikileaks has ever published an official Iraq body count


It's not an assertion pal. See:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/warlogs /
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/23/wik...

There is no single official government entity in Iraq or the U.S. that has ever measured the full extent of the Iraqi War body count. There have been various investigations by a number of entities, including limited Iraqi public records and extensive reporting and discovery by various NGOs.


Right. We can have a discussion about this. I arrived here to discredit your implication that there were hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed (and it seems my point has gotten through; you no longer seem to insinuate that hundreds of thousands were killed ).

I find it extremely interesting how you mention right-wing boogeyman George Soros as a subtle way to discredit the findings of the Lancet survey. Even if the Lancet survey's numbers were at the high end, you fail to mention other Iraqi War body count estimates, such as from the IBC, which put the Iraqi war body count in the range of what I said (100,000+)


Wait, so you're stating that Soros' funding doesn't discredit the objectivity of the study. Fair enough, but be ready to make a concession on every other study which is funded by opinionated institutions (e.g. anti-climate change studies funded by mega oil corporations).

And you seriously believed that the Lancet Survey and the IBC have the same "range"...? Oh. My. God.

Sigh. The entire premise of my argument is based on what the true casaulty figure in Iraq is. YOU are the one who is attempting the diminish the Iraqi War death count by distinguishing between combatants and civilians. Not ME. I did initiate that conversation. You wanted to create a category that is entirely arbitrary and oblivous to context, that of "combatants", and sweep under the rug significant Iraqi War deaths that you placed in that convenient category.


No, try again. I came with the primary objective of falsifying the refuted Lancet Survey, which you cited in your title. Must I repeat myself? This was your heading:

Hundreds of thousands of American military and Iraqi civilians dead


"Hundreds of thousands" implies a number greater than or equal to 200,000 -- and the only significant study which espouses this claim is the Lancet Report. That's what I came here to disprove -- that these many civilians were murdered. Forget the difference of whether it was insurgents or US soldiers who committed the killing; that was solely for surveys like the IBC which places the number of Iraqis dead at around 100,000. Does that (very simple) concept make sense?

Especially since you are arguing with me about how whether we should count "combatants" as part of the Iraqi War death count while referencing an all-encompassing Wikileaks "count" that doesn't even exist.


This is based on the asinine and naive premise that WikiLeaks hasn't released an "official" body count. Look above. You've been refuted yet again.

If you want to dismiss a figure that has been supported by multiple sources, then you will need to provide evidence that these sources are wrong. You have not done so.


If most your contentions rely on the premise that WikiLeaks hasn't released an official number, then I'm troubled for you. It takes 10 seconds to check -- seriously.

If it was, you would have simply agreed with my initial assertion, because the TOTAL number of casualties in the Iraq War has been reported in the range I stated, by both the IBC and the Lancet survey.


THAT'S MY ENTIRE POINT. There's an extraordinarily LARGE difference between the IBC and the Lancet Report. The IBC lists the Iraqis dead at around 100,000. The Lancet Report reports them at 1,000,000. The IBC has denounced the Lancet Report a COUNTLESS number of times, one of which I've already posted for you. Why can't you see through this?

There is so much wrong with this passage, I don't even know where to begin. And I won't start, because it effectively packages all of the main neoconservative talking points in the run-up to the war in a neat, tidy paragaph. I'm just curious, since you are a defender of the Iraqi War - does the fact that we found no WMDs (the entire rationale for going to war with Iraq) mean anything to you? Anything?


And you wanted to condemn me for name-calling? If I sat down with you and asked you to give a stoic, non-satirical definition of a "neo-conservative", you'd probably bloviate about how evil they are (by the way, I don't identify myself with them; it's the same as if I classified somebody a bleeding-heart liberal for supporting Obama; it's fallacious).

So much wrong? Oh please, do commence. I found "so much wrong" with your body count but I still responded (to my regret). You're being so obstinate -- you've even contradicted yourself by stating that the Lancet Report is in concurrence with the IBC (which was my entire point to begin with).

And this is why I hesitate to respond to secondary points -- because they provide a veneer for those whose main point have been thoroughly refuted in addition to detracting and befuddling what the primary point is. However, since you've committed all these things and this conversation doesn't seem to be swaying either of us, I guess it won't hurt to further address your claims.

I'm just curious, since you are a defender of the Iraqi War - does the fact that we found no WMDs (the entire rationale for going to war with Iraq) mean anything to you? Anything?


Firstly, since you seem to know my political views so much better than I do, so could you define what you mean by being a "defender of the Iraqi War"? I'm extremely curious.

And of course I do -- however, if I give you a direct answer, it'll just ruin how you'd respond. I promise to express how this affects my views if you could please tell me what my political positions are (since, time and time again, you've demonstrated that you know them to a more profound degree than I do).

And your assertion that all "combatants" (you know, your favorite category) are all Islamic terrorists is certainly not backed up with facts of any kind. It's simply another blanket assertion in the long line of blanket assertions you have thrown out during this discussion.


For all intents and purposes, it is. Or would you be willing to provide me with a source that most insurgents in Iraq are indeed non-Islamic?

And lol @ "blanket assertions". This is the first one you've mentioned that I've made these claims -- however, aren't you the one who labelled me a "neo-conservative"?

In a nation that was ravaged by an ongoing war, there are very few ways to make a living that don't involve participating in that war. In your U.S. centric world view, I'm sure you think that he could give out his resume and be hired by McDonalds the next day. But that just isn't the case away from your little world-bubble. Families need to be fed, hometowns need to be defended, etc.


Again, nice of you to contradict yourself by impetuously calling me names.

And how do you even know that I reside in the US? How do you even know that I'm not staunchly opposed to US foreign policy elsewhere? As a matter of fact, what makes you think that the US is the center of my world view...? Talk about blanket statements, sheesh.

Terrorism is not a grievance, it's how you express those grievances. So you're telling me that since the Iraqi Army was disbanded, they had every right to bear arms and kill innocent civilians? Please, enlighten me with facts that if there aren't any jobs in the police / military sector, the only other option is joining the insurgency and intentionally killing civilians. Otherwise, you've committed the error of which you accuse me of -- establishing a false dichotomy.

First of all, your comparision with the Nazis is incredibly flawed.


No, I was giving you an example of what I consider a valid extrapolation. I never compared one method over another. Just simply which means I consider to be legitimate extrapolation.

Second of all, Welcome to the world of statistical sampling. Have you ever read an election poll? Also, do you have any proof that this didn't occur in WWI or WWII? I'm still waiting for one assertion that you have made to be backed by any sort of research, facts, etc.


You've already portrayed your ignorance of the facts by equating the numbers of the IBC with the Lancet Report. My entire point is to differentiate the two, and show you which one *isn't* credible (Lancet) and then convey to you which one *is* credible (WikiLeaks / IBC). We've yet to progress past the first step, in spite of your implication that you don't differentiate between the two.

And facts? Did you see the links I posted from IBC here *and* above?

The United States invaded a soverign country under false pretenses. That fact along renders your absurd argument moot. Again, you keep coming back to this dichotomy that everything the U.S. does is "good", while everything their enemy does is "evil". And it just doesn't fly under any critical analysis.


Just like how Saddam violated annexing his neighbor (Kuwait), harbored international criminals and gangsters (e.g. Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin), violated the Genocide Convention (al-Anfal), Hussein was intending to acquire WMD and utilize them, as evidenced by his down payment on the North Korean WMD system to the run-up of the intervention.

And it just doesn't fly under any critical analysis.


Are you SURE? Not ANY critical analysis? Don't you mean "any liberal critical analysis"? Or perhaps "any Leftist critical analysis"?

Look up the No True Scotsman fallacy, pal. Your argument here would fit perfectly with the list of examples.

You are presenting the idea that the Iraqi war was unavoidable, and any deaths that the U.S. didn't directly cause are not its fault. That is the narrative you are trying to peddle. Why are you distancing yourself from your own analysis?


Oh my god. This is precisely what I was talking about -- you're basing INTERPRETATIONS off of causualty figures from the Lancet Report (which you can't seem to differentiate from the IBC). I have an issue with the CASUALTY FIGURES you're basing your interpretations off of. Does that make sense?!

And it's quite interesting how you describe the Iraqi Body Count site as liberal and anti-war, and seek to discredit it solely based on that description, when a critical look at the facts would reveal that the IBC has no political agenda. In addition, you cite from the same group (the IBC) which provides an incredibly through study of a body count that is consistent with the range I described. You do realize that, don't you?


Yes. Hints at its bias: http://ambit.typepad.com/ambit/2003/09/how_come_the_ir....

The IBC and the Lancet have two totally different counts. The former makes great efforts in order to distinguish itself from the latter. Why you keep lumping them together is beyond me. It also portrays that you haven't done much research on the subject, yhet you hold quite strong opinions (as shown by your stubbornness to concede a position).

I have exhibited no selectivity.


Are you kidding me?

This is what you said (in chronological order):

"Let's take some of your points"

and

"I do not have to reply to each and every letter in your post to formulate an effective response to your drivel."

You've already admitted that you were being selective. Just keep diggin' your grave man.

I had a simple idea of what the U.S. should have done - not went to war with Iraq. We were sold a set of lies in the lead-up to the War in Iraq, and the criminals have still not been held responsible.


This is precisely the point I wanted to make -- but you made it for me. Thanks.

You provide no alternative to the Iraq War. At least GWB, in all his mighty incompetence, stated that "okay, we should do a, b, and c instead of doing x, y, and z." You state here that "We should've never done a, b, and c" yet mention absolutely nothing about living with the ramifications of "x, y, and z". I expcted nothing more from most the members of this forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
blueclown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. I'd not going to get into a tit for tat with you.
I don't have the time, nor the will.

I will make a few points, though.

1) I said hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Iraq War. That could range anywhere from 100,000 up. I have been consistent with that claim, and have not backed down from it. You still have not presented a single piece of evidence that contradicts the Lancet study. Instead, you lambast a statistical sampling method that has been in use for decades.

2) I made a statement regarding Iraq war deaths that provided a sum total of the amount of deaths in that war. You instead tried to be SELECTIVE and deem some of those deaths meaningless because they were in what you referred to as a category known as "combatants", a category you have yet to define with any sort of sufficient context and honesty.

3) Wikileaks has not released any documents that would indicate a total sum of deaths in the Iraqi War. What they have released are Iraq Body Logs, an incomplete list of deaths that other organizations such as the IBC have used in their research. Your claim that Wikileaks has ever published an official number of total deaths is just flat-out wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrJs1G Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. Then why did you respond in the first place?
"I will make a few points, though."

Talk about selectivity, ha.

1) You never addressed my refutations of the Lancet Report. And a "sampling method that has been in use for decades"? Really? I've responded to this above (with no adequate response from you).

2) I'm not sure how I'll be able to convince you that this isn't what I said. I differentiated between the IBC and the Lancet Report, the former of which I claimed didn't differentiate from combatant deaths to civilian deaths. I stated nothing about differentiating the two for the latter study. Simply that the total number was incorrect. I've stated this numerous times above, to no avail.

3) "What they have released are Iraq Body Logs, an incomplete list of deaths that other organizations such as the IBC have used in their research"

You do know that the IBC claims it would able to add "25,000 deaths" to their tally *because* of WikiLeaks, right...? This doesn't mean that they use the same source; rather, quite the contrary.

Sad you didn't consider my points (and that I had to repeat myself so much). I surely did at least attempt to put myself in your shoes.

But surely, if you no longer have the time... goodbye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #17
41. Did you actually read that link?
No where does the author dismiss the study or say that the Lancet study was in error. Instead, he repeatedly says that it is beyond their scope to evaluate the Lancet's claim. For example: "At present our resources are focused on our own ongoing work, not assessing the work of others."

Therefore, you haven't presented anything that refutes the Lancet study.

"Combatant deaths are not something we should be worried about." No? Why not? We were, after all, the invaders of a sovereign nation that played no part in 9/11. Those combatants wouldn't have died if not for our invasion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MrJs1G Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. Yes.
Before I state anything though, would you be able to PM me and perhaps we could start exchanging there? I haven't found out how to be notified via e-mail if somebody responds so PM'ing would be more convenient (and here, I'm beseeching you).

Posted the wrong IBC piece -- if you look below to my points against blueclown, you'd see that I post more, from the same IBC, which takes a stance on the Lancet Report (or the Opinion Research Business survey, which makes similar claims to the Lancet Report).

Here is a compilation of what the founders think about the "1 million death" report: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-ch... /
And yet another one: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/exaggerate... /

"No? Why not? We were, after all, the invaders of a sovereign nation that played no part in 9/11. Those combatants wouldn't have died if not for our invasion."
-- Because, the combatants don't have the same intentions of the US there. Because the combatants, afaik, are Islamists who kill *each other*, for the most part. And why no insurgency before '03, then?

Because of Hussein. Because of his police state. Because of his absolute fist over the people of Iraq (I recommend Kanan Makiya's "Cruelty & Silence" and "Republic of Fear").

An epitome of how well he had his country under his power was his crushing of the '91 uprisings after his invasion of Kuwait (Makiya expands on this in "Cruelty & Silence").

And surely, they would have. Most of the violence in Iraq is Muslim-on-Muslim (as it is in Afghanistan) to which the Coalition may have a role in playing. Thus, the root source of it certainly isn't western foreign policy. I'm able to expand on this; however, I'd rather not commence for fear of being flamed on this board.

So again, I urge you to PM me to further this discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
marasinghe Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-22-11 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
28. bedtime read for the fucking war crime apologists .... only symbolic 'tis true; but here's hoping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Islandlife Donating Member (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-23-11 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
30. Please repost the WSJ article
The link provided to the article doesn't let me see the article because I am not a wsj subscriber.

Please post another link. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-24-11 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
37. Will this impact gas prices?
Would be nice if they went down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
octothorpe Donating Member (358 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #37
40. I doubt it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ash_F Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-11 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
43. Only 17 billion? Mission accomplished
Pennies on the dollar I am sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC