An exchange on the report of 1,000,000+ dead in Iraq

Read original post.

Anonymous said…

These figures are usually bogus. Remember how the Lancet’s figures were debunked. Also keep in mind: These casualty figures also usually include sectarian violence. Iraqi vs. Iraqi. These deaths are tragic as well, but you can’t put the blame on the U.S. soldiers.

10:28 PM

MCM said…

No-one ever actually debunked The Lancet’s figures. Pro-Bush flacks _impugned_ them through snide strokes of mere assertion (such as your claim that “these figures are usually bogus”).

Moreover, all those deaths are undeniably a consequence of the US invasion of Iraq, whoever’s done the killing in specific cases. You CAN, therefore, “put the blame” on Bush’s policy (unless your intellect’s been crippled by Bush/Cheney-worship).

1:48 PM

Anonymous said…

It was shown how the casualty figures were arrived at by doing a mini-survey of casualty reports from hospitals and then plugging in mathematical extrapolations that had no business being a part of this report. This is a casualty report, not a poll.

The people of Iraq no longer have Saddam murdering them by the truckload; unfortunately, some of the people took this as an opportunity to murder other people who don’t belong to their sect of Islam. That’s on them. It is not on Bush.

And if Saddam had been left in power, he would eventually go back to murdering his own people by the truckload. Would the left then find a way to blame Bush for that? I bet they would.

11:50 PM

MCM said…

“It was shown,” eh? By whom? The Pentagon? Your mom? The fact is that The Lancet’s estimate still stands; but it’s irrelevant to _this_ new figure of 1,000,000+ dead. You have no grounds for dismissing it, other than to say that “these figures are usually bogus.”

On the other hand, you argue that, although Iraqis _have_ been dying “by the truckload,” Bush is not responsible, although this is his war. (He and Cheney really cared about Iraq’s security after their invasion, eh?) Then you argue that Saddam Hussein would have murdered just as many.

Well, Saddam Hussein was monstrous——just as monstrous when the Reagan/Bush administrations armed and funded him as he was thereafter. But, bad as he was, his regime did not kill as many of his people as have died since Bush invaded.

Your posts are little quagmires of illogic and disinformation. One could spend hours trying to set the record straight. So I’ll now leave this conversation, and ignore your next post, brave Anonyous.

10:22 AM

3 replies on “An exchange on the report of 1,000,000+ dead in Iraq”

David Kane from Harvard and Fred Kaplan from Slate are just two of many other individuals who poke major holes in the Lancet study. The Lancet’s estimate does not stand.

So you can take your “quagmire of disnformation”, ground it up into flakes, put it into a water pipe and start gurgling.

Those critiques themselves have been much criticized. (Kane’s was just a work-in-progress, which Michelle Malkin fiercely, and inaccurately, propagated as his final word.) Anyone who’s interested should do a Google search on them and see their worth for him/herself.

In any case—let me repeat—the fuss over the Lancet piece (which, let me repeat, still stands) bears no relation to this latest estimate.

welcome to the world of bignglog. feel free to visit my blog as well. we conservatives need to stick together. my last post concerned the treasonous remarks by that DICK Durbin. you can visit my blog by clicking on my name and then clicking on the name of my blog. when you get there, feel free to make a comment on any of my posts and don’t forget to visit the blog sites that i have links to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.