Hi very body.
I am back. Sorry for being too late.
I was in vacation, I spend it with the family in Syria and Jordan. You can read the details in Najma (The star of Mosul) blog.
Thank you to all who shared positively on my previous post, some, or at least one of them, is probably a psychopath (dan), I apologize for deleting his nonsense. I realize there should be a thought differences due to different culture, education and believes. But let discuss it in a civilized manner like civilized people.
If you agree I will continue, if you don't, I will close the comment section.
It is up to you my friends.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
78 comments:
Well, those comments above seem pretty strange!
Welcome back, Truthteller! Don't let the idiots get you down, just delete their comments. If it were not for the comment section in your blog I would probably never have become involved in shipping stuff to the hospital so I think it's probably a good thing to leave comments enabled. You should have no compunctions, however, about deleting comments which are obscene or insulting, either to you or to other commenters. Sensible people will accept the principle that ideas may be discussed and debated but insults and obscenity are forbidden, and these are very reasonable rules. Ultimately, it is your blog and any rules you choose to impose you have a right to impose.
I hope you had a restful vacation. I was worried you might not return to Mosul - I know things are hard there, and I salute your courage in choosing not to leave Iraq as many other doctors have done.
On closer examination the comments by "cadsmith" and "roger" above seem to both be commercial spam and should probably be deleted. They have nothing to do with the topic at hand and only offer links to sites with lots of advertisements.
I agree with Waldschrat. We may not agree with each other on certain things, but sharing our thoughts with each other, no matter how harsh they may be, is a worthwhile endeavor.
As for Dan, I think Strykerdad is right. I think he may be on some kind of medication. That may account for the mood swings. He does have valuable things to add to the discussion when he is having a "good day". So, Dan, if you are reading this comment, please know that I wish you all the best and hope to see you here again.
Welcome back, Truth Teller.
Welcome back, TT. I really enjoyed reading both HNK and Najma's account of your vacation. It seems like they enjoyed themselves and I guess in the end thats all that matters.
As for comments. Well I think Lynette is right. Most people can argue their differences in a calm and sensible manner. But this is your blog, it is up to you to decide when the line has been crossed and you should delete whatever you think is out of bands.
Hello all,
Waldschrat, good to hear about the ostomy supplies arriving. I'll be emailing you shortly to see if I can help fund another shipment.
In general, however, I will be out of reach for the next two months. My hometown was in the direct path of the hurricane, and much of my time will be involved helping out there. I no longer live there, but my entire extended family, as well as my childhood friends, are all in bad shape. It's surprising how many things that happened in the early days following the war in Iraq, are now happening back home. (massive power outages, gas rationing, looting, random kindness, inability to organize infrastructure to effectively coordinate aid).
Bless you all, glad to see the moslawi family is still safe and sound (relatively speaking)
jemyr -
I have enabled the email link in my blog. Contact me at your convenience.
john
"Truthteller, is there any chance that you could post something about current conditions in Mosul - are things getting better or worse? It's very hard to get any real news out here.
Alternatively, as an Iraqi citizen, father, doctor, can you assess the effect on you and your patients and family of the American conquest of your country? Has anything good come of it, or has it all been disaster.
We out here in the free world, who used to look up to America, just cannot believe what it has so suddenly become."
The current conditions in Mosul...If I said the truth, our American friends will be upset and get angry as if they are the reall cause to what had happened.
The condition is bad, I can say very bad, but there is an improvement although very little from two months ago.
The ordinary life become very difficult, the security situation is bad, if we get out of our house we may not be able to get back easly, thie happened every day, the streets may close for one reason or another, gunfire is so common, that the police, the national guard, and the Iraqi army cars never use Horns to warn people, they used gunfire instead. Thre American Stryckers A 7 tons machine move in the street in high speed with very loud Horn (like the train's) never stop, they may pass over a car or any thing in their way without even look behind them.
House raid during the night and day is very very common, innocent being put in prisons for months without a logical cause. People taken from the city were put in jail in Kurdistan ??. during the last few days, the government announced that they will free thousands of innocent detainees. The rich people, some of the doctors, and university teachers are fled out of the country. those who still here are subjected to repeated blackmail and threat. The police are not able to protect themselves.
Last week, one of my friend, a doctor, get a threat to be kidnapped or to pay money, he paid, and then call the police, to take any action to secure him and his family, the police officer told him, that he have two options, either to flee, or to close his clinic for 6 months.!! No action was taken what so ever.
Other thing is that, no body in the past mentioned that this one is Sunni or Sheei, we lived all as brother, the discrimination came with the occupation.
All these things are new to Iraq and to Mosul in particular. We knew these things only when we knew the American.
Are all these disasters or not? You judge.
john
I didn't planed to get out. It is against my principles. But I have only daughters, and to protect them in such circumstances is not so easy. I may send them out to complete their educatuions when they reach the colleges.
I don't think that things are going to be improved in the near future, may be after 2 or 3 generations, but difinitly not in the next 10 years.
The whole population must be replaced in ordr to forget the crimes and the awfull things committed by some of them.
john
It is a mix of all of those.
I feel if people like me flee, no body will be there to defend Iraq, and that is what our enemies want.
Besides it my grand parents land, lived here and died here, I will not going to chang that.
Strykerdad
"The only thing that I would argue is your belief that Americans brought this on Iraq and that the conditions that exist are entire or even mostly because of Americans."
When I said the American, I mean the Occupation. And this quit right in my point of view.
"To pretend that there were no sectarian and racial divisions in Iraq before is ludicrous"
All the sectarian and racial divisions came to us with the occupation, believe me or not, my daughter didn't know if they are Sunni or Sheei, until racently ( after the occupation).
"Iraqi judges and police are releasing them
Iraqi police used to artrest every one in the scene of the events and claimed that they arrested so and so terrorists and then released them. That mean a very high percentage of the people here were being arrested and released at some time. Not because they paid, but because they are innocents.
"The group that ends up in control may choose your group to pay the price for security this time"
This is the democracy the occupation brought to us!!
"I hear some neighborhoods are banding together forming neighborhood watches"
From the second day of the arrival of the American troops together with the looters and thiefs, our neighborhood form watches groups to quard the neighborhood, i was one of them, I carried a Klashinkof and watched, but later on the american ask us to quit, to take the task themselves, and you know the result.
"did you refer to Northern Iraq as Kurdistan before?"
Yes from 1991 on I called the north of Iraq as Kurdistan, BTW the word Kurdistan mean the land of the Kurd. Every body here believe that the north of Iraq is a land of the Kurds within unified country.
I have very good relations with many of the Kurdish tribe leaders, I like them very much and they did the same.
"How would you feel if parts of Mosul were included in that state with the river forming part of the border? Do you think security would improve for Mosul if such a thing came to be as the Kurds have demonstrated an ability to maintain security elswhere or do you think the Kurds would oppress Arabs living there?"
I will take this as an honest question.
Ther will be a disaster to both the Arabs and the Kurds.
The Kurds are minority in Mosul, in both sides of the river. Although they are armed and supported by the American, but they can never control over the city.
But if this could happen it make no difference to me as far as they make no discrimination or sectarian division and no double standards treatment.
What is ultimately sad is that much of Iraq's misery seems to be self-inflicted. Some damage is no doubt caused by Americans, but kidnappers, thieves, extortionists, and other common criminals seem to be Iraqi citizens preying on their fellow countrymen, certainly not Americans. Whether they can be controlled while American troops remain in Iraq and whether the situation will improve or deteriorate when the Americans leave is the question.
I really can not do anything about the "occupation", and I can not do anything about the kidnappers and thieves and murderers. I wish I could. The situation distresses me.
"Yes from 1991 on I called the north of Iraq as Kurdistan,"
Welcome back.
What did you call it before 1991?
[strykerdad] “I know some of my questions and remarks have to sound ridiculously naive to one who is living there--but I know that most of the American troops are good people who want nothing more than to have their efforts, for which they volunteered, to lead to an eventual result of which they can be proud.”
A final result of what? A fragmented, impoverished Iraq that is prey for US companies like Bechtel? Or a united impoverished Iraq that is a US satellite state, home to thousands of US troops? Or an Iraq that is crushed underfoot, with only the “good” Iraqis that support the Americans left alive, together with those that are too intimidated to speak out?
You know, I have read the blogs of these soldiers, and corresponded with them over the net. And I believe that quite a few of them are indeed the good people that you claim.
On the other hand, the policy of subjugation they are executing is evil, and they are irrevocably stained with that evil. The Nuremburg trials established that if a soldier is ordered to carry out a task that is immoral, or support a cause that is immoral, he is bound to disregard those orders. This means my sympathy for their individual morality and qualities is rather lessened.
I have noticed that the sentences for soldiers who refuse to redeploy to Iraq for moral reasons are much heavier than those for soldiers caught abusing or murdering Iraqis.
That says a lot to me about what your country stands for.
"... but kidnappers, thieves, extortionists, and other common criminals seem to be Iraqi citizens preying on their fellow countrymen," Waldschrat
"These problems did not exist before you came to "liberate","
Hurria
Oh dear, I was just ready to give you an "A" on that propaganda essay. You need to work a little more on the subtlety of the lies, Hurria.
"who are the looters, thieves, extorionists, killers, rapists and other common criminals who have been running rampant in New Orleans over the past week,"
I don't know that I have seen anywhere where we have said that given the same circumstances as the people in Iraq, or something similar, that we would not act just like you. A breakdown in civilization will bring out the worst in some people.
madtom
It was part of Iraq, I called it by it name, Duhook, Erbil or whatever it called.
After 1991, there was a border between us, many check points on both side of the border, and different government there. The only positive thing is that, you need no passport to cross the border.
Hurria -
Glad to see you are still in good form. FYI, the difference between New Orleans and Iraq is that in New Orleans people complain because America does not help enough, while in Iraq people complain because America tries to help at all. Americans are capable of working together to resolve problems (and are doing so in New Orleans). Can you say the same of Iraqis?
Hurria, just about every American I know wants to help Iraqis, none have serious enmity towards them except for a few who consider them (unjustly in my opinion) to be a nation of homicidal fanatics. As far as I can tell, Iraqis fear other Iraqis more than Americans and rightly so.
American forces are not going to leave Iraq right away, Hurria. Get used to it. Neither you nor I can do much about it, and for my part I am far from sure I would be inclined to withdraw American forces from Iraq even if it were in my power top do so.
sorry, i don't have time now to read all the comments here, so i don't know if i am intercrossing in a discourse...
but: i am wondering if in Mosul more is known about the story Baghdad Dweller describes today on her blog? 'Youngest Iraqi killed by...' -> http://www.roadstoiraq.com/index.php?p=495
I hope some more can be found out about this?
bests to you all,
cecile (streamtime)
[strykerdad] “Every credible human rights organization agrees that the violent death rate among Iraqis today is roughly half what it was under Saddam, even excluding the carnage of the Iraq-Iran War.”
** B U L L S H I T **
This is complete crap, dredged up from where, one knows not.
Every study I’ve seen has concluded the opposite, be it the Lancet which calculated (last year) that the Iraqi death rate was roughly 98 000 mortalities higher than under Saddam, or be it health studies that conclude a large increase in child mortality.
I would seriously like to see these ‘credible statements’ of yours.
Backup for MY statement:
Let them eat bombs - The doubling of child malnutrition in Iraq is baffling
Terry Jones - Tuesday April 12, 2005 - The Guardian
“A report to the UN human rights commission in Geneva has concluded that Iraqi children were actually better off under Saddam Hussein than they are now.
[...]
It now appears that, far from improving the quality of life for Iraqi youngsters, the US-led military assault on Iraq has inexplicably doubled the number of children under five suffering from malnutrition. Under Saddam, about 4% of children under five were going hungry, whereas by the end of last year almost 8% were suffering.” //end excerpt
And:
Study puts Iraqi deaths at 100,000
By E. ROSENTHAL- THE NEW YORK TIMES - Friday, October 29, 2004
PARIS -- "About 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq as a direct or indirect consequence of the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to a new study by a research team at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. [My note: Rosenthal misunderstands the conclusions – the study calculated *excess deaths* to be +-100000, and they are not necessarily all civilians]
[...]
In the study, teams of researchers led by Dr. Les Roberts fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion.
[...]
Although the authors acknowledge that thorough data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect are extensive. Using what they described as the best sampling methods that could be applied under the circumstances, they found that Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months after the invasion than in the 14 months before it." //end excerpt
Adding to the regular violence of war, the Iraqis also face acute shortages of basic services - which exacerbate the situation. Like here:
Living conditions in Iraq 'tragic'
2004 Survey reveals 85% of Iraqi households lack stable electricity, 54% have access to clean water.
“Planning Minister Barham Saleh, during a ceremony in Baghdad, blamed the dire living conditions in most of the country on decades of war but also on the shortcomings of the international community. "The survey, in a nutshell, depicts a rather tragic situation of the quality of life in Iraq," Saleh said in English at the event, attended by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's deputy representative in Iraq, Staffan de Mistura.
The 370-page report entitled "Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004" was conducted over the past year on a representative sample of 22,000 families in all of Iraq's 18 provinces. Eighty-five percent of Iraqi households lacked stable electricity when the survey was carried out. Only 54 percent had access to clean water and 37 percent to sewage.
"If you compare this to the situation in the 1980s, you will see a major deterioration of the situation," said the newly-appointed minister, pointing out that 75 percent of households had clean water two decades ago.” // end excerpt
[strykerdad] “Everything I have read tells me that Iraq was a pressure cooker being held together by one of the most brutal regimes of our time.”
So, instead of letting the steam escape slowly, you hit it with an axe. Bravo.
Hurria said...
... "Waldschratt, try to understand that what just about every American you know wants to do is 100% irrelevant." ...
Actually, Hurria, it isn't. What Americans I know want to do they find a way of doing, and their sympathy for the plight of Iraq translates into real benefit for Iraqis. The problem is that at every turn they have to work around problems and situations which I believe are aggravated by your unremitting rhetoric and rejection of anything which might be positive in America and it's people. I admire your determination and resolve, Hurria, but I believe it is mis-directed.
TT: "After 1991, there was a border between us,"
We called it the No Fly Zone (NFZ). Would you have preferred that we had not created and enforced the NFZ? I ask because I have not been reading here long enough to know your position.
And in a related question from John
JNZ: "why did the US pick on Iraq to "help?""
We didn't pick Iraq. Iraq picked us.
"One obvious hint was the way they went back 14 months before the invasion--"
This is the crutch of that report. It starts it comparison at the point where saddam was trying desperately to look good in front of the world and get all sanctions lifted. I think it's also the height of the Oil for the UN program. I bet a few barrels could make whole villages appear out of thin air, on paper.
"When the Republican Guard came ashore in San Francisco, eh?"
There are other things worth protecting, over and above S.F. The world is smaller than that today.
Hurria -
You said "Wnile some people are fond of generalizing, no kind of generalization about any group of people makes any sense, particularly a group as large and varied as the American people."
I could not agree with that statement more. As I see it, much of the death and chaos in Iraq and elsewhere is due to generalizing, as when a soldier slaughters an oncoming driver because he acts like he might be intent on mayhem, or a terrorist slaughters a blond, female aid worker because she looks like a minion of a foreign power. All human beings rely on generalization in their judgements to one extent or another, due to lack of time or lack of capacity or ignorance or failure of dilligence. It's part of being human - none of us is perfect, none of us makes perfect decisions, we tend to generalize and act on generalizations if for no other reason than our own human limitations and lack of information.
If this is true, if human beings generalize not only because of inclination but because of necessity, then is it safe or productive to characterize nations or groups or individuals as malevolent or unjust? Would it not be better to concentrate one's rhetoric on describing how things might be made better and hyold up examples of what is honorable and just and beautiful in this world for others to emulate and admire?
I wish I could say this better. I know it may sound hopelessly idealistic. Do the best you can to help Iraq and humanity, Hurria. I will do likewise.
"And Iraq wasn't threatening a single one of them, nor was there any reason to believe it would do so in the foreseeable future."
Iraq attacked and occupied important allies of the US and threaten to overrun another. The only thing that held Iraq back from taking what it called it's "lost province" and maybe much more was the US intervention and the imposition of the NFZ. Those actions on the part of Iraq had consequences. You can't rewrite history.
"Iraq attacked and occupied one ally of the US only, "
Oh only one, at least that clear.
"and NEVER threatened to overrun any ally of the US."
Not according to them, they thought you were coming, the believed it to the point of asking the US to help, and invited the US to put troops on the ground, and allowed the US to use their territory to launch an attack to expel the Iraqi troops from Kuwait. But according to you it's
"Contrafactual rubbish."
I suggest that next time Iraq should make it's position more clear to your neighbors, to avoid confusion.
The fact remains that it fell to the US to contain Iraqi ambition and maintain order.
"The evidence that the satellite photos were faked is clear."
Do you have a source for this. I have heard it repeated many times but no one has ever given me a credible source. Maybe you could help.
Once we invaded we captured thousands of Iraqi troops from the border. And we killed countless others, one returning veteran told us that he walked for kilometers without his boots touching the soil. Not a pretty picture. Were they also fake, maybe lost tourist that took a wrong turn.
"Every one of Iraq's neighbors insisted that they did not see Iraq as a threat."
Yet they continued to allow us to use their air base and air space to patrol the NFZ. Very confuse aren't they?
"By 2003 the only "Iraqi ambition" was to survive another day."
And to bribe thier way out from under the international sanctions. Should we have agreed to saddams wished, should we have removed the northern NFZ, and allowed saddam to rebuild and crush the Kurdish autonomy?
Hurria, strykerdad
These are facts from my personal experience:
Every doctor after graduating from the medical college, an dfinishing the residency, have to serve in the villages for about two years befor he allowed to complete his study or to open private clinic.
this was a rule, from the date when the Iraqi medical colleges started to graduate doctors.
I my self serve in the north of Iraq from 1973 to 1975, and so did all my colleagues.
I can say that no a single village in the north of Iraq didn't see a medics in its history, this true for the period before 1991. I don't know about the situation after that. But I also know that many of the medical staff had fled from kurdistan at that time, and they had a deficiency in doctors and other medics.
"That seems like a fair deal, doesn't it?"
No not fair at all. I have not made any extraordinary claims. Iraq invaded Kuwait, threatened the KSA and the Kurds. Do I really have to site sources for this?
Your claim "The evidence that the satellite photos were faked is clear." is not a well know fact where I'm from, I have heard a few rumblings and once or twice people have directed me to a few sites... but nothing I would call reliable. So I would, I don't know about Strykerdad, appreciate if you would be kind enough to site some sources so I could get a better grasp of the story.
I guess your sources are not worth reading.
"Since 1990 Iraq has not made a hint of a suggestion of a move toward Kuwait or any other country."
Not true, they made countless attempts and aggressive moves against the NFZ. They built and activated and targeted out planes with targeting radar, and they fired on our plane. How can you say "not made a hint of a suggestion" It was very suggestive, the NFZ was the only think that stood between saddam and your neighbors to the south, and he constantly attacked and threatened those planes. Those missiles were very "suggestive" as to his intent. He intended to raise the cost of maintaining the NFZ in the American public eye, and to get out of the sanctions without ever having to comply with any of our demands.
Don't those action on the part of saddam suggest anything to you about his intentions?
ITM posted on a possible chemical attack today 9/11/05
Have you heard anything about it?
Thanks,
Pebble
strykerdad
"Some great pictures here, Hurria---I have others that were sent to me personally that very much resemble the pictures on this site---who are these people?"
If you believe in pictures like those, I can supply you with million of pictures where thousands of people even Kurds and sheeis celebrating, just for seing Saddam. And hundreds of pictures where people demonstrated against the occupation.
Those pictures prove nothing to any body here.
BTW the picture you have are from the north of Iraq as I guess, where the government there are American ally. Did you ask your selfe what would be the situation if that government change it's mind and start to consider the American troops as an Enemy. That is not far a way from reality. The relation now is just an exchange of interests and benefits.
strykerdad
Thank you for your Non irritant comment. I will try to be as nice as you.
"I have heard accounts of people coming out of their houses with trays of food and drink which they insist the soldiers sample,"
This is a well known habit of all Iraqis specially with the foreigners. If you know soldiers who serve in Mosul during the early days of occupation when we thought they were liberators not occupants, they can tell you similar stories.
"I have no doubt that there are a smaller number in favor of US troops, a small number who are very anti US troops, and a majority who are glad Saddam is gone and just wish things would get resolved so that the US troops would leave."
I agree with you, but I don't believe that the US troops will leave ever.
"Considering all the pressures and dangers from all surrounding Kurdistan, I am unable to imagine a scenario where Kurdistan would ever see it in their interests to consider the US as an enemy."
The Kurds are Iraqis and majority of them are Muslims. They never forgotten what happened in 1991 when the US left them to face their destiny alone. Any single mistake by an American can change every thing upside down.
The condition with the Sheeis is the same. they don't love the american they just take advantage of them.
"To whom would you give credit for that newfound freedom for which many have suffered, including yourself and your family? How much do YOU and those around you value that freedom."
Honestly speaking WE never felt this freedom yet, We can't talk to other, we can visit our family, we can't even move in our town the way we want, we can't look to our surrounding in the way we want, we can't eat or drink what we want,
I can't drive my car in my neighborhood when I want, even we can't sleep in our bedroom with out fear of house raid.
You can't feel that unless you live with it. It is a real nightmare.
All this freedom is new to us, we did't use to it.
So please don't speak about freedom unless we try it in reality not in words.
"Yet Muslim rhetoric concentrates on the crimes of “the West”."
A rather neat "sleight of hand". Blame someone else so you don't have to take any responsibility.
"Those missiles were allowed to him for national defense. If he shot a few of them at the U.S. military aircraft that were flying over his sovereign territory and bombing his country several times a week, that "suggestive" of nothing more than that he did not appreciate having U.S. military aircraft in his airspace and bombing his country."
Just amazing how your love for papa saddam comes though in your writing. And to think that the bombing that was taking place was organized by saddam to kill shi'a. He would place his anti aircraft guns near civilians and then turn on the radar so the resulting bombs would kill shi'a civilians. But in you mind he was:
" like any national leader, he did not accept having foreign military aircraft in his airspace, and bombing his country every few days, and would periodically decide to do something about it."
I have to say, I know of no national leader who would act in this fashion. I think your imagination, or fascination, is greater than mine.
Truth Teller --
[tt] “BTW the picture you have are from the north of Iraq as I guess, where the government there are American ally. Did you ask your selfe what would be the situation if that government change it's mind and start to consider the American troops as an Enemy. That is not far a way from reality. The relation now is just an exchange of interests and benefits.”
Quite right. I see that Turkey and the US are talking about plans to attack Kurdish groups in northern Iraq as we speak. First, I like the way they do this without bothering to consulting the Iraqi ‘government’, such as it is, as if they already owned the country, and second … I wonder how happy the Kurds are going to be when their cousins and relatives get blown up by the Turks?
Madtom --
Would you be so kind as to refer us to the UN Resolutions specifically authorising the No Fly Zones and detailing their purpose, duration and the parameters within which they were to be conducted? I think that you really need to educate us ignoramuses who view the NFZ’s as an act of war, as to what the reality of the situation was. Have fun.
Hurria, that was an excellent response, btw.
Strykerdad --
[sd] “The region, about 125 miles northwest of Baghdad, is a hotbed of insurgent activity.
The Marines, though, received a friendlier-than-expected welcome from Hit's residents in the early going.
A group of troops, operating in sweltering temperatures, stopped at one home to take advantage of the air conditioning. The hosts even changed the channel on the satellite TV to an English-language talk show about the Middle East.”
And you take this as indicative of what …?
I can already see the scene:
[Five minutes prior to the warm welcome extended to the Marines by Hit’s residents]
Mohammed : “Look there - here come some more of those murderous American bastards strutting about like they own the place! I’m going to spit on them as they pass!”
Abdul : “What? Are you crazy man? These guys shoot at us for driving too close to them and now you want to spit at them– do you want to end up in a camp with sticks up your arse?”
Mohammed : “Yes, you’re right. That would be stupid. So what do we do?”
Abdul : “We smile at them, offer cool drinks, and see if we can’t get them to drop some information about their plans, so that we can tell Hamid and the boys.”
Mohammed : “Hamid, the bomb guy? ”
Abdul : “ Who else?”
Mohammed : “Good plan! This sneaky stuff is much more intelligent. Let’s do it!”
;)
On the Lancet study:
(1) The strategy page article you provided does not cite sources for its statistics. I’m thinking that the author has engaged in a bit of um, ‘creative accounting’ here.
(2) Neither is the time frame compatible with that of the Lancet.
(3) The classification criteria and system for classifying people as civilians or not is not revealed.
(4) The Lancet makes a tally of the total death rate, not the ‘civilian’ death rate.
[article] “Adding a bit more to account for unreported deaths (especially in Sunni Arab areas where chaos, not the government, runs things)”
How much is a ‘bit more’? The author does not explain, nor explain what scientific method he used to extrapolate the numbers for a ‘bit more’.
He also is pretty damn vague on the “hundreds of thousands” that Saddam was supposed to have killed. Where does he get these figures from? From US/British propaganda? Is he aware that exaggerating the atrocities committed by an enemy is SOP for the US and it’s cronies. This is the same line that was tried in Serbia. FACT: only a few thousand of the ‘hundreds and hundreds of thousands’ of people killed in mass graves have actually turned up. You owe us about half a million dead Iraqis.
Ergo: it is somewhat difficult for one to accept these figures as indicative of anything in particular, especially given the author’s lack of sources and vague generalisations.
The Lancet however, WAS peer reviewed and WAS validated by some pretty important people in the fields of medicine and statistics. For example:
Counting the casualties
Nov 4th 2004 - From The Economist print edition
“Is the methodology used by Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, in Baltimore, and his colleagues, sound enough for reliable conclusions to be drawn from it?
[…]
Nan Laird, a professor of biostatistics at the Harvard School of Public Health, who was not involved with the study, says that she believes both the analysis and the data-gathering techniques used by Dr Roberts to be sound.
[…]
Arthur Dempster, also a professor of statistics at Harvard, though in a different department from Dr Laird, agrees that the methodology in both design and analysis is at the standard professional level.” // end excerpt
So: even the Economist publishes a validation of the Lancet study.
And, may I add, if you look for people on the net that are actually statisticians and know what they’re talking about, they invariably express surprise that the methodology of the study is questioned. You can find one such person at the Crooked Timber site, for example.
Secondly, when Roberts used the exact same methodology to demonstrate that close to 2 MILLION people had died due to war in the Congo, nobody had anything to say about the science. On the contrary, Powell and Blair quoted these figures themselves as a basis for the urgency to take action. But, now when THEY are responsible for the deaths of people, the science suddenly becomes quackery?
This speaks more about the selective morality of the leaders of the USA and Britain than any valid critique of the Lancet.
"I think that you really need to educate us ignoramuses who view the NFZ’s as an act of war, as to what the reality of the situation was."
If I might answer that for Madtom. Perhaps this piece will make it clearer.
"The "No-Fly Zone War" pitted the air and naval forces of the United States and the United Kingdom (also referred to as "Great Britain"), against the air defenses of Iraq. This conflict proved to be largely ignored by the media and the public in both the U.S. and in the U.K., though it impacted the military and the citizens of Iraq on an almost weekly basis, especially since the intense "Desert Fox" bombing campaign of 1998. The roots of this conflict are quite simple to trace: the inconclusive and vague cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War of 1990-1991. This agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq. The original intent of these zones was to protect the rebellious Iraqi minorities (Kurds and Shiite Muslims) in northern and southern Iraq, respectively. The Coalition was permitted to fly warplanes over these zones to prevent Saddam Hussein's government from using military aircraft to attack these minorities. As time progressed though, the No-Fly Zones became a means for the Allies to force Iraq to comply with UN and Coalition demands, often related to the status of the weapons inspectors."
Madtom, I do apoligize if I preempted your response to that question of John's.
Lynette --
Why, that was a most official and informative – sounding piece of propaganda! Congratulations, where did you find it?
Unfortunately for you, and in case anybody actually believes that nonsense, I happen to have the ACTUAL Ceasefire agreement ( UN Resolution 687 ) at hand. So, it was quite interesting to read this, because it would mean that somehow I had missed a very large and important chunk of the Resolution :
[lynette] “This agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq.”
After much scrutiny, I don’t see ANY authorisation of continued bombing of Iraqi targets, or over-flight authorisation or, in fact, any authorisation for continued military action at all.
I did, however, find THIS:
United Nations RESOLUTION 687 (1991)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 3 April 1991
“Affirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Kuwait and Iraq, and noting the intention expressed by the Member States cooperating with Kuwait under paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end as soon as possible consistent with paragraph 8 of resolution 686 (1991),
[...]
B 6. Notes that as soon as the Secretary-General notifies the Security Council of the completion of the deployment of the United Nations observer unit, the conditions will be established for the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990) to bring their military presence in Iraq to an end consistent with resolution 686 (1991);
[...]
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.”
Conclusion?
There is NO, repeat, ** NO ** provision in the Ceasefire Agreement for either continued hostilities or over-flight by US / British / French aircraft. As per paragraph 34, the UNSC remained seized of the matter, and ‘further steps’ clearly and obviously refer to a new UN resolution clarifying what those steps might be – which would have been the requirement for a legalisation of the No fly zones.
Perhaps more importantly, (to paraphrase your excerpt) the said excerpt is a pile o’ crap which merely tries to fool the reader into believing that the US et al had some sort of mandate to institute the No fly zones.
And, my name is Bruno, not John.
Strykerdad --
“… if they tell me they have been warmly greeted many times in ways that were genuine, I am going to believe them.”
That’s weird, you know. If all the Iraqis are so friendly and all, then who exactly is fighting you? Who is noting the movements of your troops and their times and using the ‘friendly’ populace as cover? How come US ‘intelligence’ has completely and utterly been outwitted time after time by the Iraqi insurgents?
I’ll tell you why: those Iraqis are not friendly, and your ‘tame’ Iraqis that work alongside US troops have been riddled with informers and double agents. But of course you’ll not believe me, and that suits me fine – it just means that your bad intel is going to hasten your defeat.
( Funny thing though, after the Vietnam war was over, and the cards were on the table, a whole whack of the Vietnamese working for the US actually turned out to be moles for the VC. )
[strykerdad] “What does the UN have to do with it? Did the UN negotiate the terms of surrender or do anything to bring it about?”
and
[strykerdad] “[infractions- my note] To which the UN responded by authorizing force as a consequence.”
I LMFAO at you. Please, don’t even bother trying to explain. Instead, you might want to provide us with a Ceasefire agreement OTHER than UN Resolution 687, that was negotiated and signed between the USA and Iraq. Then we will peruse its writ. Have fun!
Secondly, you can also supply us with the Resolution and specific paragraph wherein the UN “authorised force as a consequence”. Really, if you don’t have a clue of what you are talking about, then just zip the lip, OK?
[strykerdad] “The terms of surrender agreed upon by the losing party were being manipulated to murder thousands of civilians in insurrection or otherwise incovenient to the regime (deaths that you apparently deny--you are too kind when you describe yourself as an ingnoramus).”
Hmm. This is a whole discussion on its own.
Briefly: I don’t deny the deaths of thousands of insurrectionists. If you READ my post properly, you would understand this, because I said: “only a few thousand of the ‘hundreds and hundreds of thousands’ of people killed in mass graves have actually turned up.”
What I question is the scale of the deaths, given that the size of the mass graves that have been found are far below the sizes claimed by the US. I suspect the scale of the purported killings to be exaggerated. (Find me the additional mass graves and I will withdraw my allegation gladly.)This distortion was employed against Serbia as well.
Secondly: If one reads the reports on Saddam’s trial, he is NOT being tried for these deaths. Amazing, isn’t it? The US justifies a war on (amongst other things) the basis of the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam, yet now it does not even want to prosecute him for those deaths. As I understand it, he is being tried for the razing of a village from whence an attack was launched on his motorcade.
The conclusions I draw from this are: the US / Britain don’t want their complicity in the insurrections, nor their nefarious motivations at the time questioned. Additionally, comparisons between Saddam’s justifications for the mass killings and the justifications used by the US for the razing of towns like Fallujah might arise, which would indeed be awkward for your heroes, wouldn’t it?
Hurria --
Our ‘strykerfriend’ made this amusing comment:
“Hurria, if you have any understanding of how the American political process works, you know that the only way our troops will remain in Iraq indefinitely is if the Iraqi people make that invitation through its elected representatives.”
I find your response quite agreeable. Additionally, I might add that if he had any understanding of how the methods of American interference in other countries’ political processes works, he will understand that the US routinely uses huge sums of cash to buy off influential politicians and hence to influence the course of the events on the ground. It’s like a pimp and his whores.
(In any case, I’m guessing that even if Iraqi puppets are unable to muster sufficient support to formally invite the US to stay, the US will exploit the legal grey area and remain anyway.)
Moustazaf --
[m] “Hurria, there are 200 free newspapers and journals today in Baghdad and Iraq. There are private TV and radio stations.”
This is a sick thing to say. “Free” unless they print something contrary to government writ, you mean. They have already been threatened with punishment if they write things other than the official government line. It’s also interesting to note how independent stations like Al Jazeera have been banned, and newspapers sympathetic to the idea of an Iraq without foreign oppressors closed down.
Naturally the US funds its own propaganda mouthpieces to drown out what little opposition remains, one of which is Al Iraqiya, if memory serves me correctly. Spout your bilge to a less informed audience, OK?
mostazaf --
[m] "Bruno your ignorance is paramount. You claim 200 Iraqi publications are being censored. OK, produce link, or STFU."
Ah, I smell a little man hiding behind those aggressive words. Do you always hide behind bluster, or do you have the facts and intelligence to back up your arguments? I, of course, always do.
For example:
Press Watchdog “Deeply Disturbed” by Iraqi Regime’s Media Threat
Nov 15 2004 - Jim Lobe, OneWorld US
“[...]
Citing the 60-day state of emergency declared by Allawi on the eve of the U.S. offensive against insurgents in Fallujah, the HMC directive said news media must differentiate between “innocent citizens” of the city and the insurgents.
It warned that journalists should not attach “patriotic descriptions to groups of killers and criminals,” and urged the media to “set aside space in your news coverage to make the position of the Iraqi government, which expresses the aspirations of most Iraqis, clear.”
“You must be precise and objective in handling news and information,” according to the statement, which was reported by Associated Press and Reuters. “We hope you comply …otherwise we regret we will be forced take all the legal measures to guarantee higher national interests,” it said, without elaboration.
The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPA) said […] “We are very troubled by this directive, which is an attempt to control news coverage through government coercion,” said CPJ’s executive director, Ann Cooper. “It damages the government’s credibility in establishing a free and democratic society.”
[...]
When the HMC was first announced, both CPJ and the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) expressed concern. The latter suggested that the commission may have been set up to ban “certain criticism of the prime minister.” //end excerpt
Good enough for you?
[M] “Al-Jazeera was warned several times to stop publishing the racist, misogynist, and religious hatred literature produced by Zarqawi and al-Qaeda. When a publication calls for the assassination of a section of society, then it will get banned, and that includes in Europe. Waiting for your link, or STFU.”
Link? When you yourself ADMIT that Al Jazeera has been banned? I suggest that your logic has somewhat of a gap here. On the other hand, you try and justify that the reasoning behind the banning of Al Jazeera is valid. Ah, but whose criteria do we use for deciding whether a publication ought to be banned or not?
Europe’s?
America’s?
YOURS?
Your hypocrisy naturally will not extend the justification for banning a similar call for killing people from the side of the US, of course. For example, if some people lay out the fabricated case for an illicit war, which will result in a great deal of destabilisation and people being killed – I somehow doubt that you will apply the same censorship and banning to them.
Take this man and his news network for example. Have they been banned?
From billoreilly.com
“I don't have any respect by and large for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is -- yeah, there's excuses. Sure, they're terrorized, they've never known freedom, all of that. There's excuses. I understand. But I don't have to respect them, because you know, when you have Americans dying trying to, you know, institute some kind of democracy there, and two percent of the people appreciate it, you know, it's time to -- time to wise up. The big lesson is that we cannot intervene using ground troops in the Muslim world ever again. What we can do, is bomb the living daylights out of them, just like we did in the Balkans. Bomb the living daylights out of them. But no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds ... ain't going to work. They're just people who are primitive.” //end excerpt
No. On the contrary, despite his PERSONAL views of killing lots and lots of Muslims and Iraqis, Fox News remains the darling of the US right, and nobody would dream of censoring them. Al Jazeera merely relayed the news, which happened to be that of various militant groups, amongst other things, and was henceforth banned.
In reality you don’t really want a free press, you want a controlled press.
Onwards …
[M] “Dan, I guess it is quite a bit of progress that an upper middle class Baathist even has a blog, and then allows dissenting opinions to be heard.”
I’m assuming that you have some sort of ‘link’ for this? Or is this just your ‘opinion’ – ie – invented allegations without any real evidence for your claims?
[M] “Hurria, in the past 2 weeks: approx. 400 terrorists were killed and another 400 terrorists were arrested. The Iraqi Army lost only 5 soldiers. The MNF lost none. Zero - zilch.”
This is the clincher (as if I ever had any doubt) of the gullibility and bias that you are prone to. Only a retard accepts the CENTCOM numbers as fact, any more than one accepts the albasrah.net figures of the resistance. I suppose that you are one of the ones that believed that there were only 5000 Ba’athist ‘dead enders’ to deal with. It seems strange to me that a US general claimed to have killed about 50000 insurgents, yet the fight is raging stronger than ever. Iraqis must be strange people – obviously they can resurrect themselves to be shot more than once – IF one believes the US govt. bullshit propaganda.
Capture any SENIOR AIDES TO ZARQAWI lately? (*snigger*)
[M] “Let me ask you what do you think about this act? Do you find it commendable and heroic, or contemptible and dastardly?”
IF the facts are EXACTLY as you report them : contemptible, of course. What purpose does it serve to call up a hundred random civilians and blow them to bits?
Driving a VBIED into a US convoy would be a far more profitable way to die.
Bruno,
Sorry about the John reference. You sound alot like him.
As you can see from the following rather large excerpt, we can all cut and paste those parts of a document that we think pertinent to our position. S/RES/687 (1991)
8 April 1991
RESOLUTION 687 (1991)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting,
on 3 April 1991
The Security Council,
Reaffirming the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions in the light of its unlawful invasion and occupation of Kuwait,
Aware of the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles located in Iraq,
Conscious also of the objective of achieving balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region,
Conscious further of the importance of achieving the objectives noted above using all available means
Deploring threats made by Iraq during the recent conflict to make use of terrorism against targets outside Iraq and the taking of hostages by Iraq,
Bearing in mind its objective of restoring international peace and security in the area as set out in recent resolutions of the Security Council,
Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,
1. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;
9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:
(b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate
Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World
Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such
approval:
(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of
terrorism;
33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the
Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678
(1990);
34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.
But there is no getting around the fact that Saddam Hussein in 1991 set in motion a chain of events that is still playing out today.
I wish they could understand some of the Arabic exchanges their Arabic interpreters have in their presence.
How do you know that they don't? Iraqi's are not the only ones who may know how to act a part.
To the commentator on this blog.
I told you that I will delete any non sence and offinsive comments. I found the comments of both dan and mostazaf are non sence. In addition they insult Islam, the thing I will never allow to take place in my blog.
It looked to me as if they are just wasting time in their comment.
I will delete all their comments, the present and the future if any.
Dan, mostazaf you both are unwelcome here, found an other place to enjoy your selves.
Hurria,
No doubt Bruno will have something to say. He is one of the more wordier commenters around.
Beentherenowback,
I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your service. You and others like you have been working very hard. I want you to know that we really appreciate your efforts. I'm glad to hear you are back home safe.
Some of them resented my presence greatly and weren't shy about expressing that..."
Yes, and that is the difference between us and Saddam. If anyone expressed any disapproval of him or his policies it was likely to earn them a bullet.
Welcome home, Beentherenowback.
That is why I have been from the beginning adamantly opposed to a foreign power using massive deadly and destructive force to impose its presence and its military, political, economic, social, and cultural will on another country.
So, we are to assume that you lodged a protest with Saddam when he invaded Kuwait?
"Lynette,
I am sure Bruno will be able to point out to you very clearly why the excerpt you posted above in no way autorizes the unilateral establishment of no-fly zones by any member state, including the U.S., let alone regular bombing runs on the part of the U.S."
Thanks Lynette for posting the Text, but the question is a straw man, where is it written that we are dependent on the UN to defend our rights, our allies, and our interest from the aggressor. Iraq found us, we have to ask where was saddam's UN resolution? Or is it only the US that is required to have one.
War sucks. Politics sucks.
Perhaps this is a suitable dirge for the times:
Lakes of Pontchartrain
Lynette --
I appreciate that your efforts amply exceed those of the great bulk of the war groupies, who have not even read (or heard of) the relevant Resolutions, much less attempted to conduct an analysis of them. Nevertheless, I fear that your conclusions are still incorrect.
Let’s take it from the top.
(1) The Resolution is the legal property of the UNSC. This means that action taken on the behalf of the UN is a collective, consensus effort, not the results of any yahoo member that takes it upon itself to interpret and act on resolutions at will.
(2) The line “Conscious further of the importance of achieving the objectives noted above using all available means” that you quoted is incomplete. The complete line has “including a dialogue among the States of the region,” appended to it. I would hate to imagine some sort of intellectual dishonesty upon your part, so let’s assume it was an oversight.
Please note that this is NOT a specific declaration to ensure compliance by force – it is an affirmation to keep the option of force, amongst other options, on the table.
Now, if we examine the document further, we see that the line
“. Affirms all thirteen resolutions noted above, except as expressly changed below to achieve the goals of this resolution, including a formal cease-fire;”
supercedes any intention of the further use of force, given that in the text after it there is point 8 which refers to the key disputed objectives of your incomplete line, and point 9 which details specifically as to HOW point 8 (disarmament of Iraq in respect of NBC weapons) is to be carried out. This specific action calls for a Special Commission consisting of inspectors etc to ensure compliance. It says NOTHING of either no-fly zones or continued bombing.
On the contrary, the resolution takes pains to affirm Iraqi sovereignty and the inviolability of it’s border in paragraph A4 :
“4. Decides to guarantee the inviolability of the above-mentioned international boundary and to take as appropriate all necessary measures to that end in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;”
Logically IF Iraqi compliance was linked to the use of force IN THIS SPECIFIC RESOLUTION – this line would have a caveat authorising continued hostilities if Iraq was not in compliance.
Again, line 34 “34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.”
Clearly states that the UNSC reserves the OPTION to take ‘further steps’ but it does NOT detail what such steps are. Hence, and I repeat, a further UNSC resolution would be required to authorise force and the aims of that application of force.
Which is incidentally, substantiated (logically speaking) through the US trying to get use of force authorised in Resolution 1441 through the inclusion of a ‘trigger clause’ - a de facto admission that Resolution 687 was insufficient. As we all know, there was no such trigger clause included, which is why the US further wanted to pass the so called “second resolution” which would have been Res. 1442, which would have found Iraq in material breach of 1441 and which would have authorised the implementation of the threats of 1441.
Here ends, I trust, any further argument on the legality of the NFZ and the Iraqi war with respects to the United Nations specifically.
Lynette, you can argue for (and I will contest it) a moral or humanitarian need for the NFZ or war against Iraq, but legally speaking, you are flogging a dead horse.
Beentherenowback --
[Btnb] “Those who really wish to effect change and do good for common Iraqis will find it can be a powerful way. You don't even have to like us, just be pragmatic and willing to do what you can.”
The problem here is that ‘doing what one can’ – ie – working for the Occupation – will inevitably contribute to the eventual enslavement of Iraq to the US and it’s corporate interests. I truly pity those Iraqis who - through the dismantling of the Iraqi government and bureaucracy by the US – are forced through economic necessity to work with the Occupation, thereby becoming targets. The sooner the US leaves, the better.
Hurria --
Beentherenowback said “We have a friend we like to call 'technology'.”
I’m imagining that he’s referring to some sort of speech translation device, such as those programs which allow one to communicate with computers. (Dragon’s “naturally speaking” comes to mind.) One the other hand, this software is notoriously finicky and difficult to set up even for an individual user … allow me to express my DEEP scepticism of the efficiency of an automated Arabic translator that is able to understand multiple individuals , not to mention the different accents and dialects.
Beentherenowback --
[Btnb] “Those who really wish to effect change and do good for common Iraqis will find it can be a powerful way. You don't even have to like us, just be pragmatic and willing to do what you can.”
The problem here is that ‘doing what one can’ – ie – working for the Occupation – will inevitably contribute to the eventual enslavement of Iraq to the US and it’s corporate interests. I truly pity those Iraqis who - through the dismantling of the Iraqi government and bureaucracy by the US – are forced through economic necessity to work with the Occupation, thereby becoming targets. The sooner the US leaves, the better.
Hurria --
Beentherenowback said “We have a friend we like to call 'technology'.”
I’m imagining that he’s referring to some sort of speech translation device, such as those programs which allow one to communicate with computers. (Dragon’s “naturally speaking” comes to mind.) One the other hand, this software is notoriously finicky and difficult to set up even for an individual user … allow me to express my DEEP scepticism of the efficiency of an automated Arabic translator that is able to understand multiple individuals , not to mention the different accents and dialects.
agh!Sorry about the double post.
[strykerdad]
[bruno] Driving a VBIED into a US convoy would be a far more profitable way to die.
Strykerdad “[...] But really, why would a person driving a bomb laden vehicle attack non-military persons when military targets abound? [...] An attack on civilians is certainly more likely to be 'successful' as they are defenseless targets. A successful attack on a military target is less likely to have any lasting effect [...] So those responsible must think they can influence the ongoing politcal process though terror inflicted on the Iraqi people”
I’m sorry, but I disagree strongly with your conclusions. Attacking a bunch of civilians sends absolutely no message to anybody. Now, if these people were being hired to build an American base, it would make more sense, as at least there would be some sort of rationale behind the action. As far as I can tell, the attack was on a common labour point with no particular affiliation.
Who would profit from such an action? Not the legitimate Resistance, since such an indiscriminate attack simply blackens the name of those fighting for freedom.
Some people say the attack was designed to provoke sectarian warfare amongst Iraqis.
Let’s be honest – that’s just a dumb way of liberating your country. If Sunni and Shia start fighting one another, the only people to benefit would be those who want to impose a stark choice on Iraqis – that you are either with us or against us. The only people with this sort of motivation are the Americans or Al Qaeda. To me, the US and bin Laden are two faces of the same coin at this point in time.
The way to defeat the US is simple: keep up the attacks on convoys and soldiers, and keep killing the Iraqi intelligence apparatus that would collaborate with them. Without tame Iraqi snitches, the US is nothing more than a blind giant blundering about the countryside. Oh, and also keep the oil exports reduced to a trickle, so that every penny used to sustain this war comes from American pockets.
Killing innocent civilians contributes absolutely nothing to the eventual aim of a free Iraq. In fact, it is counterproductive, since it has the same effect that US killings of Iraqis has – it turns people against them. I wonder who was really responsible for this event.
As for the story of the drugged up child molesters, I file that straight under ‘US Propaganda for Dumb People”. The same as the mythical Kuwaiti babies ripped from incubators by Iraqi troops, and the same as Hussein’s people – eating wood chipper. I suggest you read Cockburn’s “Say, waiter, where’s the blood on my margerita?” for more background to the American way of psyops (psychological operations).
Oh, and as an afterthought, please note that these sentiments do not necessarily reflect the position of either the blog owner or other commentators.
Hurria,
You are very eloquent in your comments here regarding our actions. Therefore, I was interested in what your actions were when Saddam invaded Kuwait. In what way did you show your displeasure with his actions?
Madtom,
"...where is it written that we are dependent on the UN to defend our rights, our allies, and our interest from the aggressor."
Actually I would argue that the UN is the one who is dependent upon US for any sort of material action on it's resolutions. But, Bruno's question was regarding the source for something I had posted and I was simply trying to answer him on that point.
Waldschrat,
Thank you for the song. It was beautiful. We can only hope that New Orleans and the Gulf coast will come back stronger and better than before. Yes, and Iraq and Afghanistan too. If you haven't heard about him there is a blogger who was posting through the entire hurricane and it's aftermath. His address is: mgno.com
Bruno,
As you, I am sure, noticed I did not copy the entire text of the resolution. It was for the sake of brevity only. The end of the line: "including a dialogue among the States of the region," was not something that you were questioning the legality of, so I did not include it. No ulterior motive on my part.
You are right I would argue a humanitarian need, and we will not agree. But this document was written as a cease-fire agreement. Section 32 states:
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of
terrorism;
I would argue that his actions amounted to terrorism within the country of Iraq when he allowed his military to crush the Shia's in the south and the Kurd's in the north. Saddam abrogated the cease-fire agreement.
"How would YOU have shown your displeasure, Lynette, if YOU had been an Iraqi living in Iraq at that time?"
<sarcasm> She would have written about it on her blog. Like you are doing here today. You yourself have told us how there is less freedom in Iraq today, than under saddam, so there should have been no problem with expressing her "displeasure".</sarcasm>
"The freedoms that Iraqis have lost thanks you your government are much more basic than the freedom to post on a blog, believe me...But, Tom, even if Iraqis did indeed and in fact have true freedom of speech, that is absolutely worthless when you do not even have the freedom to sleep safely in your house, or drive on the streets, or walk to the store, or wear what you like, or provide the goods and services you have always provided."
I beg to differ. The freedom of expression is crucial to the maintenance of any democracy, without it non of the other "basic" freedoms are even remotely possible. Oh and the Idea that Iraq is now free is another strawman from you. I have never made that claim. I mean that useless draft is not even ratified yet, and the WAR still rages. Those freedoms are a promise of democracy, a democracy which we can help willing Iraqis "build". It's not something that comes out of a bottle, or the muzzle of a gun. When you complain that those promised freedoms are useless to the Iraqi's, you speak about something to which they have not even tasted yet. How can they know if they will like it or not if they have not had even a chance to experience life under such a system? Yet even under the circumstance of fierce war, the freedoms of expression are of such paramount necessity that they go before the democratic revolution. We could have had an easier time during this war had we just left the Ministry of Information in place, peopled by our puppets. Yet we chose to bring the basic and most powerful communication tool available to us. This tool allows for great people like our host TT to post completely anonymous postings to the world, and for us readers to react, with no, or at least minimal supervision from any authority.
Lynette –
LOL! Persistent, aren’t you?
OK, look, for the third and final time, in caps for those who are hard of hearing:
THE 1991 CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT WAS THE LEGAL PROPERTY OF THE * UN * AND *NOT * THE US.
The UN is the final arbiter of whether the Ceasefire was broken or not, and what action ought to be taken. NOT THE UNITED STATES. I don’t care if Saddam had, in fact, kept all his NBC weaponry and had called for an International Terrorist Conference in Baghdad – legally speaking, it would have been up to the UN to declare him in material breach of the Ceasefire AND to stipulate what action was to be taken.
You have argued that Res. 687 called for continued use of force. It clearly does not. What it does, at most, is to reserve the use of force as one of many future options to pick from. Or more precisely, for the UN to pick from.
Now, you claim that the quelling of the insurrections by Saddam constitutes an act of terror and hence a breach of the Ceasefire, and hence allows the US to take action – ASSUMING – please note the ‘assuming’ - that it could legally do so, without UN sanction. Alright, that was quite a nasty time. Perhaps you have a case on that score.
Let’s flip the scenario over. Iraq drops thousands of leaflets over American cities calling for the people to overthrow their oppressors, and promises to aid them in doing so. Half the people in the US riot on the streets in response and the military is called in to restore order. Tell me, would that be viewed as an act of war by the US?
YES OF COURSE IT WOULD.
If you see the suppression of the rebellion as state terrorism (and you could make a case for that – just ask the US Southern states about Gen. Sherman.) then this fact cannot be divorced from the fact that the US breached the Ceasefire by promoting violence and sedition within Iraq by calling for insurrection.
This itself is a breach of the Ceasefire.
So, really, who started it, huh?
Madtom --
[mt] “We could have had an easier time during this war had we just left the Ministry of Information in place, peopled by our puppets.”
I’m assuming that you read my reply to Moustafaz concerning media freedom, as well as the excerpt detailing how journalists must adhere to the ‘government line’ or else. Again, I repeat: Iraqis are free to write what they like, so long as it does not contradict the official line. Alternative media like Al Jazeera are banned because they cannot be controlled.
Blogs like Truth teller’s are a different proposition. Controlling blogs is both virtually impossible and a waste of time. Impossible because there are so many of them, and a waste of time because their audience is relatively limited in comparison to traditional print and televised media. Take Raed’s blog for example, probably the biggest Iraqi blog judging by the number of comments. He has reached a million or so hits in a over a year. This is actually nothing if one compares it to print media which reach that number daily, or televised media which can reach tens or hundreds of millions daily. This means that the truth is restricted to a small circle of people who actively search it out; the majority of people drink the kool-aid peddled by the MSM which is controlled by people like Murdoch et al. What I’m saying is, blogs are too small a concern to worry about.
Moron99 –
My God! A balanced sort of opinion from M99!
Can this really be the same fanatic M99 we all know?
*rubs eyes*
Nope, it’s still there.
;)
This struck my eye, perhaps it will interest others:
--------------------------------------------
Egypt-Gaza Border
Open for Business
Associated Press
September 13, 2005 9:48 p.m.
RAFAH, Gaza Strip -- The Egypt-Gaza border was open for business Tuesday: cheap cigarettes, live goats and Egyptian tourists flooded into Gaza, and Gazans celebrating their new freedom rushed to Egyptian seaside resorts.
Any semblance of order along the once heavily guarded frontier disintegrated a day after Israeli troops left Gaza after 38 years.
Israel told Egypt that it was growing concerned about possible weapons smuggling, and Palestinian police promised to begin sealing the border.
The border hopping began soon after Israel pulled out Monday as Palestinian families went to see relatives in on the Egyptian side of Rafah and boys jumped over to buy cigarettes with plans to sell them at a profit in Gaza.
But what had been a trickle turned into a torrent Tuesday as news of the lax border security spread and Palestinians from all over Gaza headed to Rafah to cross into Egypt.
Palestinians pried open doors in the massive metal security wall left by Israel and squeezed through. Thousands of others walked through gaps in the wall that Israeli tanks used to drive through. The razor wire that topped the short Egyptian wall had been mostly ripped off by Tuesday afternoon.
Fathers lifted their children over the wall, teenage boys helped push elderly women over. Palestinian girls in school uniforms walked through the Egyptian fields holding hands, while men pulled cars beside the wall and filled them with smuggled goods.
Before Israel withdrew, Egypt agreed to post 750 security officers on the border to prevent militants from smuggling advanced weapons into Gaza for use against the Jewish state. Israel and the Palestinians haven't agreed on how and where people and goods will be allowed to move between Gaza and Egypt.
Israel said it talked to Egypt about the chaos, though it understood the Egyptians hadn't yet fully deployed their border guards.
Zalman Shoval, an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said Israel might eventually seek international monitors for the border.
"The great danger is that both people and arms could be smuggled under the unwatchful eyes of the Egyptians -- that was the whole purpose of coming to this agreement," Mr. Shoval said.
Jamal Kaed, the Palestinian commander of southern Gaza, said 1,000 Palestinian police would be sent to the border to patrol and set up roadblocks. By Tuesday afternoon, a bulldozer could be seen lifting a concrete block into place to plug a gap in the wall on the Palestinian side.
Mr. Kaed also said the Palestinian forces were seizing marijuana as well as cigarettes and food that was smuggled into Gaza.
But the border was a hectic bazaar Tuesday afternoon.
Gazans returned from Egypt with cases of cigarettes tied to the roof racks of their cars. Others came back with a list of goods that were cheaper in Egypt: children's formula, cheese, jerry cans of gasoline, huge rugs, laundry detergent, fluorescent light bulbs, blenders, nuts and cakes.
One man pushed a refrigerator over the 3-foot-high border wall and another hoisted nearly a dozen goats over as Egyptian soldiers chatted with the Gazans, occasionally searching cases of cigarettes for weapons.
At least one Rafah resident said that amid the chaos, some weapons had crossed to the Palestinian side. But there was no confirmation.
Moneychangers in Gaza did a furious business as Palestinians bought dollars to bring to Egypt.
Copyright © 2005 Associated Press
"The UN is the final arbiter of whether the Ceasefire was broken or not, and what action ought to be taken. NOT THE UNITED STATES."
Yea right, tell it to the pilots. I guess that when they see that their plan is being tracked by radar, or missiles fly by just missing their wings, that they are to call the UN and ask if in fact the cease fire was broken? You should write that not only in capitals but make them bold also. You need to yell so YOU can hear yourself.
" Al Jazeera are banned because they cannot be controlled."
What a lie, al-jazerra is not banned, it's watched by millions of Iraqis every day. And if blogs are so inconsequential, why were they so controlled by the last regime, and by most of the neighboring regimes, and places like Cuba. It's a lot of wasted effort for such an inconsequential thing?
"How would YOU have shown your displeasure, Lynette, if YOU had been an Iraqi living in Iraq at that time?"
lol! You ARE slippery aren't you?
But you are right that wasn't a fair question, was it? Because both you and I, and anyone else who would be honest, knows that to cross Saddam was to invite death.
"...freedom to sleep safely in your house, or drive on the streets, or walk to the store, or wear what you like, or provide the goods and services you have always provided."
Yes, these are freedoms that for certain people living in Saddam's Iraq, were granted. The little girls and boys who didn't rock the boat and did what Saddam told them to. Now, unfortunately, when Iraqi's have the temerity to want to govern themselves, those freedoms are being take away. Taken away by the remnents of Saddam's supporters, common criminals and terrorists who would capitalize on Iraq's turmoil. Those freedoms will only return if those people are defeated.
Bruno,
Yes, I do tend to be a little stubborn.
" You have argued that Res. 687 called for continued use of force."
Actually, no, I was arguing that since there was a breach in the Cease-fire the document was made invalid. It's provisions are void. In other words, the war never ended, or maybe I should say paused.
"...the fact that the US breached the Ceasefire by promoting violence and sedition within Iraq by calling for insurrection."
But, if you are correct, that is up to the UNSC to decide, isn't it? Not for any yahoo out there.
Interesting dilemma, hmmm? What came first the chicken or the egg?
"Alright, that was quite a nasty time."
We agree on something.
Moron99,
Welcome back.
"...boys jumped over to buy cigarettes with plans to sell them at a profit in Gaza"
Don't they know those things can kill you?
Sorry Huria I deleted your post accidentally.
Here is a copy of Hurria post
(( "It is just a concept that can be neither proven nor disproven."
No, it is nothing more than an opinion that has no legal, historical or logical basis. In fact it has no basis whatsoever in anything resembling reality.
"Is a nation defined as a group of people living in a territory or as a territory within which the people live?
Irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion was about neither nation nor territory. The issue under discussion was the legal issue of what determines the legitimacy of a state.
"If you examine your own preconceptions you will find an equal number of them that can be neither proven nor disproven."
Irrelevant to the topic of the discussion. The topic is states and the legal basis for their legitimacy.
"The idea that a nation is defined by its people is the root ideology of modern democracy."
Irrelevant to the topic. The topic was not the ideology of modern democracy, but the legal and historical basis for the legitimacy of states.
Try again, and this time see if you can actually come up with a relevant argument. ))
Sorry again.
I noticed just now that all the posts by Strykerdad has been deleted, there is a note say "This post has been removed by the author." That mean they are deleted by some one who know Strykerdad password.
Last time strykerdad said that some body has an access to his password and deleted his posts without his knowledge. I hope this didn't happened again.
Strykerdad, did you delete your comments? Or some one else?
..."they know more than do Iraqis who have actual direct experience of the place and time."
Hurria dear, it is from those very Iraqis that the information comes from.
"It is certainly true that common criminals and "terrorists", which were never a major problem at any time in Iraq's history prior to March, 2003..."
But, according to Saddam, all those mass graves are filled with thugs and common criminals. Yet you say there was no major problem with crime or terrorists. What, you say he LIED? Just a moment while I get over the shock. So, if not common criminals, than what? Perchance innocent people who got in the way of Saddam and his megalomania? People who were not only not granted any freedom, but were given a death sentence for their temerity in opposing Saddam?
"And who exactly has created and has determinedly and constantly exacerbated this turmoil?"
Those people who are too spoiled and selfish to allow sharing of power between ALL people in Iraq, not just a single minority. By their very intransigence they have fostered an unstable situation. No, despite what you might think, I am not entirely referring to the Sunni minority. Although they are partly guilty. I am referring to anyone who would try to take advantage of the power vacuum to grab power for themselves.
"...protect the population from them (something Saddam did very effectively, by the way)?"
And just who, pray tell, protected the population from Saddam?
"It is their bombs, not those of the mythical "Saddam supporter remnents (sic)", criminals, and terrorists that Iraqis fear will demolish their homes over their heads while they are sleeping."
They only have to fear being trampled to death on a bridge when some terrorist yells BOMB! They only have to fear the bad aim of some so called freedom fighter when he shoots a mortar round or a rocket into their homes.
"Iraqis will not have any chance at anything resembling a normal life until the Americans are gone"
Iraqis will not have any chance at anything resembling a normal life until they are capable of running their country themselves. To do that they need every Iraqi to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
This is an interview between Dr Les Roberts and Joseph Choonara about the same subject Strykerdad discuss in his last comment. I hope you will find it useful.
Counting the dead in Iraq
In 2004 the US-based scientist Dr Les Roberts led a survey into deaths caused by the invasion of Iraq. His results showed that approximately 100,000 Iraqis had been killed after the invasion. He spoke to Joseph Choonara about his survey
"Your research on mortality in Iraq, published in the prestigious Lancet journal, made headlines across the globe last November. What motivated you to conduct the survey?:
This is about the ninth “hot war” I’ve worked in. In most wars people are killed more by disease and disruption than by bullets and bombs. But when I read the newspaper reports on the war, all I heard about were the bullets and bombs. I didn’t think the reports were describing the suffering of the Iraqis very well.
I thought it would serve the interests of Iraqis if I described what they were really dying of. So, if we found they were dying of diarrhoea we could do something about that.
If they were dying at home in childbirth because they were too scared to go to hospital, we could do something about that. Much to our surprise we found that these things weren’t what they were dying of. Most were dying violent deaths.
"Tommy Franks from US Central Command told the press that the US army “don’t do body counts”, despite the duty of care the Geneva Convention imposes on occupying forces. You showed it is possible to make mortality estimates."
Absolutely. I was smuggled across the border into Iraq. I went with just a suitcase and $20,000 in my pocket. All it took was six Iraqis brave enough to do the survey.
During a war things are messy and the Geneva Convention imposes very few constraints. But during an occupation things are quite different.
As I understand it there are obligations for the occupying forces that are similar to the obligations of a police officer on the streets here towards the local population — to arrest them if they step out of line, but to protect them the rest of the time.
Most of the people killed by the coalition were women and children, which implies the use of a lot of force, and perhaps too much.
As far as I’m concerned the exact number of dead is not so important. It is many tens of thousands. Whether it’s 80,000 or 140,000 dead, it’s just not acceptable.
"What methods did your survey use?"
What we did is not really that complicated. First we went to the ministry of health and asked them how many people were in each city and each village on 1 January 2003.
Then we randomly picked 33 neighbourhoods to visit. In each of these neighbourhoods we randomly picked a house and visited the 30 houses nearest to it.
Some of the mathematical detail may be complex, but the basic idea was to find almost 1,000 households representing the whole of Iraq.
"How would you summarise your main findings?"
The bottom line is that by any measure the death rate after the invasion was far higher than the death rate before.
Most of the deaths were violent and most of those deaths were caused by the coalition forces. There is little doubt that these “excess deaths” are as a result of the invasion and not some new flu epidemic or something else.
"Are there other surveys of death rates in Iraq? Do they back up your findings?"
In a very prestigious journal called the New England Journal of Medicine there was an article published on 1 July 2004. Military doctors interviewed soldiers returning from Iraq.
They interviewed them because they were interested in post-traumatic stress disorder, so they asked the soldiers about stressful things that might have happened to them.
Among other things they found that 14 percent of the ground forces in the army had killed a non-combatant and 28 percent of returning Marines had killed a non-combatant.
If you work through the numbers you come up with a figure pretty darn close to our estimate in the Lancet.
There have been other surveys with similar findings. But when the media talk about our figure they almost always compare it to the lowest estimate. That estimate — the Iraq Body Count — was calculated by academics based on press reports.
"Even though the Iraq Body Count under-reports the total number of deaths, the patterns in your Lancet survey seem to mirror the patterns in their count."
Yes, the patterns in our findings are extremely consistent. The academics that do the Iraq Body Count estimate have said right from the start that their surveillance network is not, and could not be, complete. It’s made up of the deaths that get reported in the press.
But I’m very grateful that for a year and a half, when the rest of us were afraid to go to Iraq and do anything on the ground, they were reminding the world that civilians were dying.
"What was it like going round and talking to Iraqis on the ground? Did security get in the way?"
Americans are so hated that I couldn’t go around talking to people. We would pick a random point in each “cluster” — each village or town we surveyed.
I would show our Iraqi team how to pick a random point in a town, how to use a Global Positioning System to draw a map of the town and drive to the right point, how to find the few houses closer to the point.
Always in the first few houses there’s some that are a bit quirky. There might be a cousin visiting and you have to decide whether you include him in the sample. We worked through the first few clusters together to go through those issues.
I’d walk around on the street with our interview team. Then I’d go get in a car and hide, and the Iraqis would visit the houses by themselves. I was almost never out in public.
My driver had three brothers so he had access to four different cars and he would pick me up in a different one each morning. We’d leave at different times and use different routes.
I only went out with the interviewers for the first eight days. On the eighth day the police picked up our interviewers while I was in the car watching and that was a pretty bad experience.
After that we were convinced that interviewers knew what they were doing, and they didn’t want me there. For about 15 days I just stayed in a hotel room and didn’t go out.
"Did the US forces cause trouble?"
Things then, and I think still now, were so stressful that any vehicle would be searched by local police, in some areas by insurgents and by coalition forces or their Iraqi colleagues.
In many areas the police are unofficially on the opposite side to the local Iraqi forces. It’s always stressful when you come up to a checkpoint.
"Did you get a sense of the wider cost of war, beyond the question of mortality?"
I study mortality — that’s something I know. Talking to workers from non-governmental organisations, my colleagues and my driver, I would ask if things were better. They said some things were better but they were really worried about security.
Most of them hate the Americans, most want the coalition troops gone. But because things are in such a flux they are also surprisingly hopeful about the future.
"Two thirds of all violent deaths in your survey were in one city — Fallujah. Why were the deaths so concentrated in this city?"
The city was shelled extensively in the weeks before we were interviewing. We went and attempted to interview 30 households. Almost half of the houses we went to were empty.
We skipped over them and went to other houses. We think that our findings, if anything, underestimated the number of deaths because of the number of empty and destroyed houses. Some of the families probably fled, but many are probably dead.
Of those families sticking around in Fallujah, a quarter lost a family member in the few months leading up to the interview. Who knows how many have died since the assault on the city in November.
I get very angry about the coverage of Fallujah. I heard a show last week on public radio in the US. They said that it is believed that half the 200,000 people who used to live in the city had returned. Well, the ministry of health told us the population used to be 310,000.
The US press has been manipulated. Things don’t sound as bad if you say that 50 percent rather than 30 percent of the population are back.
During the invasion of Fallujah, Pentagon spokespeople said again and again that they believed 3,000 to 5,000 mainly foreign combatants were left in the city and that most of the civilian population had left.
Well, they went in, they killed a lot of people — estimates range from 600 to 2,100 — and they captured 1,600 prisoners.
Only 30 of the prisoners were identified as foreign combatants — only 2 percent of those captured. In my country no one was held to account for what was either a lie or an absurd intelligence failure.
I know terrible things happened in Fallujah, but no one has been given a chance to get good information about what is going on.
"What was the reaction to your survey when it was published?"
The coverage in the press varied enormously. It was very different in the US and in Europe. I had more interviews with European newspapers and radio shows than I did with American ones. The interviews I had in America were with the left wing, marginal media, which doesn’t have a very wide audience.
"What about political responses?"
In Britain foreign secretary Jack Straw issued a press statement attacking the findings. I was quite pleased that in Britain the compassion of the British people demanded an explanation from what was the second biggest member of the coalition that invaded Iraq.
I’m disappointed that there has been no similar protest or demand for explanation in the US. On the day of the presidential elections, if you believe the polls, 60 percent of the US public believed that evidence of weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq.
In Britain I understand that almost no one believes that.
Right from the start the US public was behind the invasion. After 9/11 there was a certain retaliatory mentality in the public which didn’t exist in Britain. People in Britain were against it from the start.
Our press is also much more “embedded” than yours. If you listen to the BBC you get a less jaundiced view than in the mainstream US media.
"Your survey was published just before the US presidential election. You might have expected the Democrats to have an interest in raising its profile."
I can’t really speculate about that, but they didn’t. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry voted in favour of the invasion of Iraq. Most of the Democratic Party went along with this. That makes them at the least complacent in this fiasco.
"I get the impression from things you’ve said that you were opposed to the war. What impact did the survey have on you personally?"
I’m not a pacifist. I’ve worked in places where I’ve wanted UN peacekeepers to come. I think there are problems in the world for which a military response might be appropriate.
But I think that in my country, in particular among the leaders of my country, there is a grossly inadequate understanding of what a horrible thing war is, and all the misery and suffering that goes with it. My country went to war much too flippantly. Our data strongly supports that.
I went to Iraq hoping I’d find fewer deaths. It certainly never occurred to me that I’d find more deaths caused by coalition forces than by non-coalition forces. Listening to the press in my country that would have been an unbelievable thing.
I’m convinced that the war has been a dismal failure. People in my country might not know that for years to come. But we’ve sown the seeds of hatred to an enormous extent.
The URL to the original study is: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673604174412/fulltext#article-outline..
or you click here.
Strykerdad --
Oh, yawn, the Kaplan ‘critique’.
Point #1 you must understand is: he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about.
Even with my relatively average statistical background, I could see the problem straight away: he does not account for a normalised distribution within the result. This means that the most likely figure is closer to the centre of the range than the fringes. For example, if you recalculate the study with say 80-85% confidence, you will see a large tightening of the range of numbers. I have corresponded with people who actually work with stats everyday, and they more or less confirmed my suspicions. One chap (Chris Lightfoot) went further to correct my slightly skewed impression of the distribution by pointing out that it was not a classical normal distribution, but that the bootstrapping methods used by the study (and these are not at all unusual, btw) will result in a normal – looking distribution. (If I recall correctly) I should still have his email about if you are really interested, even though it was a while back.
The Economist also defended the study from similar accusations from similar statistically challenged individuals. Again, check out the Crooked Timber blog on the Lancet study. (Link not available, sorry)
Furthermore, to compare the study to the Iraqi Body Count is ludicrous. IBC is a passive method relying on news reports. I’m sure that you can immediately see what the problem is here, given that most journalists ‘report’ from the Green Zone and that every death is not recorded anyway. The two methods are not directly comparable.
Strykerdad --
To a certain extent I agree with this statement. In search of the truth one often has to dig deep and hard, and more often than not the result is inconclusive having been distorted by both sides of the political spectrum.
In any case, the point that I always come back to on the Lancet study is, if it is so flawed etc. - then (apart from the implications for the valididty of the field of statistics) why does the US / Britain no undertake to count the Iraqi casualties in an open and systematic manner in order to refute these sorts of conclusions? The fact that they still refuse to 'do body counts' smells fishy to me, and to others as well.
I suggest, then, Strykerdad, that you get yourself a copy of the report in the Lancet, and peruse it for yourself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the methodology used. You can see it if you read the report, which can be downloaded from the Lancet's site. Alternatively, I can mail you a copy.
My point remains: Why do the US and Britain not conduct their own, transparent survey on how many people have died since the war? Then the issue can be laid to rest for good. I suspect that they know full well what the results of such a survey will be, and that's why they don't - even though they are, strictly speaking, required to do so as part of their obligations as an occuping power.
*whispers*
"If the Lancet could do it, so could they..."
Bruno out
Post a Comment