From: Jurriaan Bendien (adsl675281@TISCALI.NL)
Date: Sat Oct 21 2006 - 17:59:28 EDT
Iraq Body Count suggests the Lancet estimates of violent deaths must be vastly exaggerated, probably due to faulty sampling/extrapolation techniques http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14.php "The study's central estimate of 601,000 violent deaths is exceptionally high." "Since IBC's work is confined to violent civilian deaths, we make no further comment on Lancet's non-violent death estimates." "Do the American people need to believe that 600,000 Iraqis have been killed before they can turn to their leaders and say "enough is enough"? The number of certain civilian deaths that has been documented to a basic standard of corroboration by "passive surveillance methods" surely already provides all the necessary evidence to deem this invasion and occupation an utter failure at all levels. On 9/11 3,000 people were violently killed in attacks on the USA. Those events etched themselves into the soul of every American, and reverberated around the world. In December 2005 President George Bush acknowledged 30,000 known Iraqi violent deaths in a country one tenth the size of the USA. That is already a death toll 100 times greater in its impact on the Iraqi nation than 9/11 was on the USA. That there are more deaths that have not yet come to light is certain, but if a change in policy is needed, the catastrophic roll-call of the already known dead is more than ample justification for that change." http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/6.php Let us not forget though that the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Iraq had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile Mr Bush has said: "We will not pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete. There are some in Washington who argue that retreating from Iraq would make us safer. I disagree. Retreating from Iraq would allow the terrorists to gain a new safe haven from which to launch new attacks on America. Retreating from Iraq would dishonor the men and women who have given their lives in that country, and mean their sacrifice has been in vain. And retreating from Iraq would embolden the terrorists, and make our country, our friends, and our allies more vulnerable to new attacks." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061021.html This is however a surprisingly weak defense of his policy. Terrorists - as Mr Bush well knows - do not need any particular country as a base from which to launch attacks, and there are plenty countries from which they can operate. The number of US personnel that have been killed in Iraq is tiny compared to total Iraqi war deaths on any verified estimate, and, well, shit happens - if a policy gets bad results, it should be abandoned. Whether pulling out the troops would "embolden" terrorist activity is pure speculation; it could just as well be argued that keeping the troops there aggravates terrorist activity worldwide. Thus, pulling out the troops is the best option available to preventing further loss of life among those troops. If the situation proves anything, it is that a military presence is unable to prevent terrorist activity. It is not as though the Muslim world is in favour of sectarian violence - "Shia and Sunni religious figures have issued a series of edicts forbidding violence between Iraq's two Muslim sects after a meeting in Makka, Islam's holiest city. Clerics from the two sides of Iraq's religious divide signed a document on Friday declaring that "spilling Muslim blood is forbidden" at the meeting organised by the 57-member Organisation of the Islamic Conference. The 10-point text, which was drafted by a group of four clerics, draws on verses of the Quran and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. It calls on Iraqis to safeguard the two communities' holy places, defend the unity of Iraq and urges the release of "all innocent detainees". http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7B405E8E-0A3C-4416-8F34-2BA4C6C51DBE.htm Jurriaan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EST