- #1
edward
- 62
- 166
I hope they have a plan to get our troops out of there if necessary. They are asking too much from too few for too long.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220816/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220816/
That story has been mentioned in other threads - e.g. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=50169&page=3 , post#39.lunarmansion said:I do not know what to say. The other day the N.Y. times reported that the death toll in Iraq as an overall consequence of the war was 600,000.
Those who had faith in an earlier report from 2004 - also published in the medical journal The Lancet - are now able to say that this larger survey proves their point that Iraqi deaths have been far greater than publicly reported, and have now reached what the report calls "a humanitarian emergency".
Those who thought that the 2004 survey was exaggerated - it estimated 98,000 additional deaths up until September 2004 - think this one is even more wide of the mark. . . .
On the other hand, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, which tracks statistics in its Iraq Index, said: "I do not believe the new numbers. I think they're way off."
The Brooking Index, relying on the UN (which gets figures from the Iraqi health ministry) and the Iraq Body Count (IBC), estimates the civilian death toll at about 62,000.
The IBC, which counts the number of reported civilian deaths, puts them between 43,850 and 48,693, though it adds that "our maximum refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media."
The IBC reaction to the Lancet report is awaited.
US President George W Bush rejected the estimate.
. . . .
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0922-02.htmThe bi-monthly UN report on Iraq is almost the only neutral and objective survey of conditions in the country. The real number of civilians killed in Iraq is probably much higher because, outside Baghdad, deaths are not recorded. The Health Ministry claims, for instance, that in July nobody died violently in al-Anbar province in western Iraq, traditionally the most violent region, but this probably means the violence was so intense that casualty figures could not be collected from the hospitals.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) — Iraq's Health Ministry has ordered a halt to a count of civilians killed during the war and told its statistics department not to release figures compiled so far, the official who oversaw the count told The Associated Press on Wednesday.
The health minister, Dr. Khodeir Abbas, denied in an email that he had anything to do with the order, saying he didn't even know about the study.
Dr. Nagham Mohsen, the head of the ministry's statistics department, said the order was relayed to her by the ministry's director of planning, Dr. Nazar Shabandar, who said it came on behalf of Abbas. She said the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which oversees the ministry, also wanted the counting to stop.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-iraq-civilians_x.htm
It appears that we are using the WAG (wild Arse guess) system used in Vietnam to inflate the body count, to come up with the current numbers.
In the meantime with heavily fortified permanent military bases still being built in Iraq, it is obvious that the Bush administration is aiming at using those bases as turf for keeping a military ground force in Iraq indefinitely.
I would imagine that one way or the other, a permanent and significant military presence in the Middle East was the goal all along.
edward said:I would imagine that one way or the other, a permanent and significant military presence in the Middle East was the goal all along.
devil-fire said:this would explain the way things have paned out much better then a mission of stopping a WMD program or toppling an evil dictator.
edward said:? What WMD program would that be? How things panned out would have been the same regardless.
a humanitarian cause of stabilizing the region
Oranges and Apples, Iraq didn't attack the USA.Futobingoro said:
Nevertheless, we did impose democracy at the point of a gun. We've also done similar things (if not democracy, imposing freedom or food or peace itself) in a number of other places - not to mention being lambasted for not doing it in others. Heck, this is America - have people forgotten how our country got started?edward said:Oranges and Apples, Iraq didn't attack the USA.
We most certanly did have specific demands and place specific constraints on how their country was reconstituted.edit: Come to think of it, too bad the results in Iraq didn't turn out the way they did in Japan. We weren't trying to give Japan anything except a crushing defeat.
Umm . . . genocide and ethnic cleansing of the native population. BTW, they were not invited to be part of the American democracy, nor were African Slaves and their decendants, nor were women, nor were poor whites. Basic rights and participation in the political process came as a result of struggle against the establishment (often considered the conservative establishment), e.g. abolition movement, women's suffrage, the civil rights struggle in the 1950's and 1960's.Heck, this is America - have people forgotten how our country got started?
And many more failures. Also, it would appear that the US has supported many more dictatorships than democracies, e.g. Iran (Shah), Cuba (Batista, then Castro), Philippines (Marcos), Vietnam, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile (Pinochet), Argentina . . . .The point being - it may sound like an oxymoron, but it is often both a valid and viable solution to problems. Whatever the circumstances, it is a fact that the US has successfully promoted democracy at the point of a gun in several circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina#HistoryThe armed forces took power through a junta in charge of the self-appointed National Reorganization Process until 1983. The military government repressed opposition and terrorist leftist groups using harsh illegal measures (the "Dirty War"); thousands of dissidents "disappeared", while the SIDE cooperated with DINA and other South American intelligence agencies, and with the CIA in Operation Condor. Many of the military leaders that took part in the Dirty War were trained in the U.S.-financed School of the Americas, among them Argentine dictators Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3720724.stmOperation Condor was founded in secret and remained a mystery until after democracy had returned to South America.
Office_Shredder said:The reason it worked so much better in japan is because... wait for it...
Japan actually surrendered. Iraq clearly hasn't, either formally or in spirit.
The Army has determined that maintaining current troop levels until 2010 is necessary in order to continue providing stability and security in Iraq, as well as to support the Iraqi government in their efforts to build a self-sufficient and democratic nation.
As of 2021, there are approximately 2,500 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq. This number has decreased significantly from the peak of over 170,000 troops in 2007.
The Army's decision to maintain current troop levels until 2010 is based on the current security and political situation in Iraq. However, this decision is subject to change depending on any developments or changes in the region.
This decision will have a direct impact on the soldiers currently serving in Iraq, as they will continue to fulfill their duties and responsibilities until 2010. The Army will also ensure that these soldiers are properly supported and equipped during their deployment.
The Army is continuously assessing the situation in Iraq and will determine the best course of action for withdrawing troops in 2010. This plan will prioritize the safety and security of both the troops and the region, while also supporting the Iraqi government in their efforts for stability and self-governance.