The Party of Brownshirts

UK-based Iraq Body Count estimated that up through September of 2006, between 43,491 and 48,283 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion.

The Iraqi NGO Iraqiyun estimated 128,000 deaths from the time of the invasion until July, 2005, by use of various sources, including household interviews. Estimates from the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior were in line with this.

There is no reason to assume that the Lancet's much higher numbers are the more accurate.

 

Pro-war zealots such as Hillary Clinton?

Quote -

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade. - Hillary, March 2003

She never did say what would account for the disappearance of those WMD. At least those who assert that they were moved have a plausible explanation.

 

I wonder how many of you who hate President Bush so are spending as much time in prayer for him as you are tearing him down.

You might not like him, but that doesn't excuse you from following the Biblical command to show respect to those in authority over you.

 

As usual when the conversation starts to show another one of Bush's screw-ups, a Clinton is interjected into the discussion. :laugh:

 

...................

 

Rooselk said: "That you shed no tears for the Federal agents who were murdered by Koresh says much. Again, by your logic it's apparently acceptable for cultists to shoot and kill Federal agents serving a lawful warrant so long as it is a Democrat that controls the White House and heads the Department of Justice. Is the hatred you and others like you feel for the Clintons really so bitter that you can actually side with a madman David Koresh?



Sorry, but I don't accept your politics of paranoia. This is exactly the same type of delusional nonsense that Republican theocrats like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have spoonfed to their guilible followers for decades. Truth is that Bill Clinton was President for eight years and our liberties were still intact when he left office. That said, I stand by what I said regarding the Bush administration."

_____________________________________________________________________________________


You know what? No. WHy waste my time trying to talk to people like you? Go ahead and seek your "perfect" humanist, socialist, politically correct paradise.

Oh, you may want to learn Arabic and memorize the Q'uran.

And no, I'm not a Theocrat -- or a Republican for that matter.

I also won't shut up.

If you wish to be a member of the "Hate America" and "Blame America First" crowd, it's your right. I won't lie -- I wish you'd move to France -- or some other like-minded "workers paradise." I hate the thought of being forced to attempt to fight for our survival against the Islamo-fascists you are encouraging today. That is, assuming anyone of your mindset would find anything in our nation worth fighting for.

I do know this -- taking time to talk to people of your ilk is neither productive nor sanctifying. Spew your nonsense if you wish. I've got better things to do.

JDale

 

So I take it that to disagree with an enlightened conservative like you is to be a "humanist, socialist, and politically correct?" Is that the extent of it or do you have any more names in your bag of tricks that you'd like to tag me with? I mean why not question my patriotism as well? After all, you Bushies seem to be real good at that type of thing.

If you can't answer critics with facts, then go to plan "B" and call names. Good job. Rush Limbaugh would be proud of you. :applause:

 

JDale:

Oh, and lest I forget, I have to give you kudos for that "you may want to learn Arabic and memorize the Q'uran" remark. There are not many other Christians who would be so bold as to put politics above religion and to be so self-righteous as to question the faith of another believer. :thumbs:

But I admit I could be wrong. Perhaps I am simply not aware that one's political views are now the test of heresy and apostasy. I'll consider what you say by checking to see that my statement of faith meets political orthodoxy and get back to you on that one.

 

"ARGUABLY" being the operative word here.

Your original challenge was that no one could provide estimates refuting the Lancet study, "aside from shallow undocumented claims by neocon tv and radio personalites and personal opinions from individuals who may benefit from hiding the numbers?"

And I provided estimates from reliable organizations. They may be wrong, and the Lancet study may be way wrong. They each used different methods, but the ones using actual morgue records are probably closer to the real numbers than the Lancet's. How are they going to count many thousands of bodies that never even made it to a morgue?

 

Did you do the same for President Clinton?

 

I don't "Blame America first." That's because I don't believe the anti-freedom and pro-world conquest objectives of GW Bush have any place in the "Land of the free and the Home of the brave." It's not America itself that's the proolem. It's the radical, war-mongering Neo-Cons that have seized control of it.

 

Yep, I clicked on your linky, and it predictably backs up your point of view. I can click on just as many links that refute the Lancet study.


Professor Michael Spagat of Royal Holloway College, for example, says that the authors of the Lancet study "ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions…They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated."

The Iraq Body Count study (an anti-war organization, by the way) and the United Nations Development Agency estimates were much lower.

The Lancet study greatly underestimated the pre-war infant mortality rate; the study found that it was about 29 per 1000 live births, while UNICEF estimated that it was 108.

The Lancet study estimates more than double the number of deaths in Iraq than occured from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings combined.

According to Lancet, more than 500,000 death certificates were supposedly issued to families, death certificates which were never officially recorded by any Iraqi aqency... hmmm.

And I was only 'asking you questions' rhetorically.

 

10-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 3:15 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

LE

 

Closed per previous notice. LE