2007-03-26

BBC: UK Gov Warned That Iraqi Death Study Was 'Robust'

From the BBC:
The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt.

Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet.

But the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".

Another expert agreed the method was "tried and tested".

What a shame that over 650,000 people have died because our government invaded a country that WASN'T an imminent threat! None of those 650,000 people was even remotely a threat.

Why do you reformed leftists still defend your decision to support this carnage, and why do you still defend the criminals who launched this invasion?

12 comments:

Paul Hue said...

I agree that Hussein's Iraq posed no "imminent threat." Bush should not have made such a claim.

South Carolina in 1860 also posed no "imminent threat", and Lincoln (we may thank the lord) exaggerated the threat there as well; that war directly caused about the number of deaths here approximated to include even people not born due to the war, and people killed by the tyrants who target civilians.

Bush appears to have mishandled this war, and lost the chance to facilitate Arabia's first civilization in modern times. What an awful shame.

Paul Hue said...

To make your case against Bush here even stronger, Nadir, Al Qaida and the various other Bush-hating groups need to just go kill more civilians, and destroy even more infrastructure. That'll boost these anti-Bush figures even higher.

Paul Hue said...

It fascinates me whose interests favor boosting or reducing these numbers: US forces or its various opponents. Who has an interest in minimizing civilian deaths? Who has an interest in maximizing them?

For those who blame Bush for all these deaths, what does he gain from them? Do we really believe that he is using his resources to maximize killings and infrastructure destruction?

And let's consider the wars that Nadir and Tom characterize as "liberating": those in Cuba and Zimbabwe. Did this involve a period of increased death and destruction? Do Tom and Nadir look back at those periods as unjustifiable?

Nadir said...

"For those who blame Bush for all these deaths, what does he gain from them? Do we really believe that he is using his resources to maximize killings and infrastructure destruction?"

Bush's family business is oil, spying, war and financing. Based on his family's business dealings, the war in Iraq benefits Bush family holdings whether the US wins or loses.

But it is only beneficial if the war continues, not if the war ends. Thus the neverending "war on terror" would be the perfect scenario for a new arms race.

This is why it behooves Bush to escalate the war when the prevailing wisdom, and most generals, and public sentiment say end it.

Consider the recent overthrow of the Islamic regime of Somalia. The Union of Islamic Courts brought stability to that war-torn nation for the first time in years. How? By eliminating the importation of weapons into the country.

So when the Ethiopian army invaded with US backing to overthrow the Islamic government, the first thing they did was flood the countryside with weapons.

Why would the US want to destabalize a nation like Somalia?

Okay, the transitional government that is backed by the US has been largely powerless without Ethiopian guns. Even with the institution of a new friendly regime, why put more weapons in the hands of gangsters and warlords who can also destabalize the new government?

Weapons dealers don't care who wins the wars as long as someone is fighting. Republican and true conservative Dwight Eisenhower warned you about this...

Nadir said...

"And let's consider the wars that Nadir and Tom characterize as "liberating": those in Cuba and Zimbabwe. Did this involve a period of increased death and destruction? Do Tom and Nadir look back at those periods as unjustifiable?"

I am not an advocate of war. I am peaceful and fight for peace. However, I am an advocate for self-defense and justice. The Cuban Revolution was a war of national liberation that had positive and negative results as do all wars. The American Revolution ended British dominance of US colonies, but it resulted in the genocide of the continent's indigenous people.

Former revolutionary Mugabe is struggling to maintain power in Zimbabwe. He is fighting British and US colonial interests who are backing his opposition. Unfortunately he has become the oppressor of his people while struggling to keep the other oppressors out. This happens often. Just look at any country that is receiving USAID funds or where the US is investing money to "spread democracy". Destabalization is often the result whether the people are happy with the government or not.

Look to Venezuela for another example... Or Iran... Or Greece...

Nadir said...

Cuba is the best example of a nation that could have gone a different direction without US government interference. Who's to say Cuba wouldn't have evolved into democracy naturally if not for imperialist aggression and US embargoes? We can't speculate about that, but certainly US interference has hurt the Cuban people more than it has hurt the Castros. If you want to win people over and have them overthrow their governments, drop food, not bombs.

Paul Hue said...

I agree that a different position by US officials in 1959/60 could have influenced Castro to honor the promises he made when he sold his war to the Cuban people. However, he's a big boy, and he could have just as easily have fulfilled his promise of freedom -- including freedom to own your own property, labors, and thoughts -- and the tandem concept of constitutional democracy.

Just as one could argue that a different behavior by US officials could have influence Castro away from dictatorship, one could argue that a different behavior by Castro could have influenced US officials away from sanctions and isolation. After all, US officials happily worked with the pre-Castro non-commie horrible dictatorship. Had Castro fulfilled his promise to erect a democracy, US officials would have looked foolish maintaining sanctions.

Paul Hue said...

Nadir: You think that Bush and his corporate supporters wish to enrich themselves by having third world nations constantly in a state of war. How many of those people engaged in war are purchasing ipods and GM cars? How many are producing cheap socks and Home Depot door knobs?

Those neocons have quite a racket going there, pouring out all those reams of printed and website pages advocating economic expansion via peaceful, prosperous third world nations, and everybody keeping secret the real intention of eternal war.

Nadir said...

"How many of those people engaged in war are purchasing ipods and GM cars? How many are producing cheap socks and Home Depot door knobs?"

Bush doesn't own Apple or GM. As far as I'm aware he and his family have no holdings in Fruit of the Loom or Home Despot.

The Bush family money is made from oil, defense contracting and finances. They are also into the intelligence game with his father's work as CIA Director and the contacts that come from that. Witness the number of former intelligence officials who now hold top cabinet posts.

I'm not talking about the benefits to a capitalist American society. I'm talking about direct benefits to a small sector of businesses in which Bush's family has invested considerable fortune over the years. Don't get it twisted.

War in the Middle East helps those industries. It may even harm other industries, but Bush's cronies are getting richer every second.

Nadir said...

"Those neocons have quite a racket going there, pouring out all those reams of printed and website pages advocating economic expansion via peaceful, prosperous third world nations, and everybody keeping secret the real intention of eternal war."

Well, if they told you what they were doing, you wouldn't support them, would you?

Actions speak louder than words, my right wing friend.

Paul Hue said...

OK, now I better understand your Unified Theory of how evil corporations successfully conspire to orchestrate all world events in their efforts to enrich themselves at the expense of everybody else:

1. Their cabal includes only some corporate executives from only some sectors of the economy.

2. "Neocons" have created a phony socio-political philosophy that dupes people like me into supporting this cabal (in the form of the Bush dynasty).

Question1: do the neocon commentators know that their philosophy is a phony, or do are they dupes?

Question2: Why dis Bush I and many of his colleagues oppose invading Iraq, since that move so clearly supports the cabal that he created?

Nadir said...

"Question1: do the neocon commentators know that their philosophy is a phony, or do are they dupes?"

Good question. I would say some know it is phony and others are dupes like you.

"Question2: Why dis Bush I and many of his colleagues oppose invading Iraq, since that move so clearly supports the cabal that he created?"

Bush I is smarter than his progeny. US arms sales skyrocketed after the relatively quick show of force in Gulf War I. No need to be greedy. The swift and decisive massacre of the Iraqi army in that war served the purpose of spanking Saddam, protecting Kuwaiti oil, and demonstrating new US weapons technology to the world.

The cost of US treasure and lives spent on an invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation the size of Texas is way more than the American people are willing to bear. This is playing out exactly as Bush I had predicted it would if he had followed the advice of those who wanted to go all the way.

I credit his intelligence in that regard, but still see him as leader of an evil cabal. HW was CIA director when crack began flooding US innercities and its profits were funneled to the Contras under his watch as VP. Not to mention the invasion of Panama.