Monday, 21 of May of 2012

Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.

• About
• Ask for Help
• FAQ
• Posting a Diary
• Report Abusive Behavior
• Rules of the Road

Print

IRAQ BODY COUNT – ONGOING – 8/2/07

August 2, 2007 – Thursday

1586 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3659
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 27104

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 68038
(MAXIMUM): 74435
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $448,477,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

---

Date: August 2, 2007

Author:

Categories: activism, Be Afraid, general, history, homeland insecurity, Our Glorious War Machine, Outrages, politics, war and peace

Tags: war

(327 votes, average: 3.03 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 4 comments

• 

  Pro bush

  in August 4th, 2007 @ 04:26

  This post seems fairly one sided. How many terrorist have been killed?How do we know where we stand in this “war” if we dont know the “score” since so many liberals think that we have already lost the war. In my opinion, a successful outcome in iraq would put shame to the democratic party. The more of our warriors that die, the better the democrats look. they have put themselves in a position that is extremely anti american.

  ---

• 

  RED DAVE

  in August 4th, 2007 @ 06:57

  From Pro bush: “This post seems fairly one sided.”

  Yeah, casualty figures for thhe War in Iraq tend to be that way.

  From Pro bush: “How many terrorist have been killed?”

  Define “terrorist” in this situation? Do you mean Iraqis fighting against the illegal US invasion and occupation of their country. Or do you mean fighters in theIraqi civil war. Or do you mean Al-Qaeda, that had no presence in Iraq before we invaded.

  From Pro bush: “How do we know where we stand in this “war” if we dont know the “score””

  Why don’t you come up with your own “score”?

  From Pro bush: “since so many liberals think that we have already lost the war.”

  It’s not only liberals. By the way, would you care to give us your defintion of a liberal?

  From Pro bush: “In my opinion”

  Okay, here comes a statement unsupported by facts.

  From Pro bush: “a successful outcome in iraq would put shame to the democratic party.”

  Well, since the Democrats have been the junior partners in this war, and have failed to take effective measures to end it, and since the war will not have a successful outcome, this statement is moot.

  From Pro bush: “The more of our warriors”

  Tha’s a nice fantasy term for a member of the US Armed Forces.

  From Pro bush: “that die”

  In the cause of an illegal invasion instigated by a deliberate propaganda program based on a pack of lies.

  From Pro bush: “the better the democrats look.”

  Actually, just the opposite. The more Americans and Iraqis die, the worse the Dems look for not ending the war.

  From Pro bush: ” they have put themselves in a position that is extremely anti american.”

  Actually, dude, the anti-American ones are Bush, apologists for him like yourself and people who haven’t got the guts to oppose this horror like the Congressional Democrats.

  Unless you think that Americanism is lying, invading defenseless foreign countries based on lies, killing people, torture, fomenting civil war and helping to build Al-Qaeda are pro-American.

  RED DAVE

  ---

• 

  Iroquois

  in August 4th, 2007 @ 09:11

  “Pro bush” has a good point that hasn’t really been answered. RED DAVE has just cut and pasted the original questions interspersed with comments like “why don’t you think up your own answer”, which is not really a response and does not involve any critical thinking.

  So what about it. During the Vietnam War we had body counts and knew exactly how many Viet Cong were killed (okay, they were estimates,… okay, they were faked numbers, since you don’t stick around a battlefield to do accurate counts while guerrillas fade in and out of the jungle) but still, there was a count. How many of their dead. How many of our dead. You could keep count, just like a football game.

  Maybe someone else can do some original thinking on this. Is is fair to post numbers of U.S. casualties and civilian casualties only? If you want to be balanced, don’t you have to post “terrorist” casualties too?

  Does it matter how many insurgents have been killed? Would a “score” tell us “where we stand”?

  ---

• 

  RED DAVE

  in August 4th, 2007 @ 10:54

  From Iroquois: “Pro bush” has a good point that hasn’t really been answered. RED DAVE has just cut and pasted the original questions interspersed with comments like “why don’t you think up your own answer”, which is not really a response and does not involve any critical thinking.”

  I think you need to reassess what you think “critical thinking” is. I analyzed Pro bush’s statements, critically. That’s what critical thinking is.

  From Iroquois: “So what about it. During the Vietnam War we had body counts and knew exactly how many Viet Cong were killed (okay, they were estimates,… okay, they were faked numbers, since you don’t stick around a battlefield to do accurate counts while guerrillas fade in and out of the jungle) but still, there was a count. How many of their dead. How many of our dead. You could keep count, just like a football game.”

  The body counts during Vietnam were as bogus as the body counts now. The US called anyone they killed an enemy insurgent. This was a pseudo-justification for mass murder, as it is now.

  The fact is that attacks on US forces by Iraqis are legitimate attacks on an enemy invader.

  To which we have to add the casualties of the US-instigated civil war.

  Plus the attacks by Al-Qaeda, which weren’t happening before we invaded.

  From Iroquois: “Maybe someone else can do some original thinking on this.”

  Maybe, if you think it’s required, you should do it.

  From Iroquois: “Is is fair to post numbers of U.S. casualties and civilian casualties only? If you want to be balanced, don’t you have to post “terrorist” casualties too?
  Does it matter how many insurgents have been killed? Would a “score” tell us “where we stand”?”

  Why don’t you start with some definitions. That’s the beginning of critical thinking.

  For instance, is the president of a country who invades another country based on a deliberately calculated series of lies, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands, a terrorist?

  RED DAVE

  ---

Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion uses WordPress as content manager.