Conquer Club

Why does the rest of the World hate Venezuela?

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Do you as a Foreigner Hate Venezuela?

 
Total votes : 0

Postby Stopper on Mon May 28, 2007 3:21 pm

Wow! Nice trip down memory lane. That last joke of mine was bit rubbish though. Maybe it could have been delivered a bit better.

ksslemp wrote:Stopper, Are you smarter than President Bush?


I don't know, though I've never claimed to be. Why?
User avatar
Lieutenant Stopper
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 5:14 am
Location: Supposed to be working...

Postby Anarchist on Mon May 28, 2007 3:44 pm

jay, can you deliver any message that doesnt translate into Conform and obey?

The reason the right wing fascist(on the political compass) aka republicans fear Chavo Is because he has the interest of Venezuela before the interest of America.
The reason Chavo is forced to take the communist approach while delivering the socialist message is due to outside interference, and opposition by the capitalists of Venezuela. This does not mean i agree with his approach, I believe his message is strong enough to gain support of the people(which he already has)
At the very least if he does manage to seize all private property atleast it will belong to Venezuela, no longer to foreign investors. The steps are quite obvious as are the reasons for your hatred of it.
1) All of Venezuela belongs to the people of Venezuela
2)Arm the people
3)Free education and healthcare, total equality
4) Dedication to improving society
One Nation,One Continent,One World

Will this hurt America? yes
Since America isnt Independent, they require control over the rest of the world.
Thats why they intervene in countries that dont carry the same Agenda-profit.
Will this hurt the Upper Class in america? No, it will hurt the rest of the Americans(lower classes)
You cannot blame Chavez for looking after his own nations interest. You cant blame him for your leaders stupidity(imperialism)

Capitalism has failed, only way you can save it is by using your military might(hasnt worked so far) and end the world.
Anarchy-The Negation Of All Oppressive Structures
http://www.marxist.com
http://www.attackthesystem.com/anarchism2.html
(You have 110 armies left to deploy)
"Si pacem vis, para bellum" - if you want peace, prepare for war.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Anarchist
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 3:25 am
Location: A little island in the Pacific

Postby ksslemp on Mon May 28, 2007 3:52 pm

Stopper wrote:Wow! Nice trip down memory lane. That last joke of mine was bit rubbish though. Maybe it could have been delivered a bit better.

ksslemp wrote:Stopper, Are you smarter than President Bush?


I don't know, though I've never claimed to be. Why?


Well when you call the soon-departing British PM a "Buffoon" and the American President a "Chimpanzee", i take that to mean you think you could do a better job.
Both of these Men believe that what they're doing and have done has been the right thing to do. They're not Evil Fascists.

I have a feeling that after Blair is out of office the country will be "Pineing" for his return. As for Bush i'll be happy when his term ends, but he's not an Evil guy.
User avatar
Major ksslemp
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Slemp, KY 41763 Pop. 'nough

Postby mandalorian2298 on Mon May 28, 2007 4:10 pm

vtmarik wrote:I wasn't aware that Venezuela was hated by anyone other than Bush.


Bush AND all the bushoids. :lol: Personaly, I have nothing but respect for Venezuelan President. I wish that leaders of my country had as much integrity and bravery. =D>
Mishuk gotal'u meshuroke, pako kyore.

Image

Talapus wrote:I'm far more pissed that mandy and his thought process were right from the get go....damn you mandy.
User avatar
Lieutenant mandalorian2298
 
Posts: 4536
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:57 pm
Location: www.chess.com

Postby GTE on Mon May 28, 2007 4:12 pm

Anarchist wrote:jay, can you deliver any message that doesnt translate into Conform and obey?

The reason the right wing fascist(on the political compass) aka republicans fear Chavo Is because he has the interest of Venezuela before the interest of America.
The reason Chavo is forced to take the communist approach while delivering the socialist message is due to outside interference, and opposition by the capitalists of Venezuela. This does not mean i agree with his approach, I believe his message is strong enough to gain support of the people(which he already has)
At the very least if he does manage to seize all private property atleast it will belong to Venezuela, no longer to foreign investors. The steps are quite obvious as are the reasons for your hatred of it.
1) All of Venezuela belongs to the people of Venezuela
2)Arm the people
3)Free education and healthcare, total equality
4) Dedication to improving society
One Nation,One Continent,One World

Will this hurt America? yes
Since America isnt Independent, they require control over the rest of the world.
Thats why they intervene in countries that dont carry the same Agenda-profit.
Will this hurt the Upper Class in america? No, it will hurt the rest of the Americans(lower classes)
You cannot blame Chavez for looking after his own nations interest. You cant blame him for your leaders stupidity(imperialism)

Capitalism has failed, only way you can save it is by using your military might(hasnt worked so far) and end the world.


Capitalism has failed? Thats funny. When will such morons understand that Communism does not work. If Capitalism has failed then please explain why that millions of foreigners flock here every year for a better life for their families? You sound like a bitter man. Try looking at things in a positive manner, you might see America as a wonderful place that has done much good for the entire world.
User avatar
Major GTE
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:50 pm
Location: USA

Postby ksslemp on Mon May 28, 2007 4:16 pm

mandalorian2298 wrote:
vtmarik wrote:I wasn't aware that Venezuela was hated by anyone other than Bush.


Bush AND all the bushoids. :lol: Personaly, I have nothing but respect for Venezuelan President. I wish that leaders of my country had as much integrity and bravery. =D>


HA HA HA HA!!!

I hope you have a moment of Clarity before the mothership departs.
User avatar
Major ksslemp
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Slemp, KY 41763 Pop. 'nough

Postby Stopper on Mon May 28, 2007 4:31 pm

ksslemp wrote:
Stopper wrote:
ksslemp wrote:Stopper, Are you smarter than President Bush?


I don't know, though I've never claimed to be. Why?


Well when you call the soon-departing British PM a "Buffoon" and the American President a "Chimpanzee", i take that to mean you think you could do a better job.


No, the insult was in much the same manner as someone might complain that some top-flight professional footballer is "useless". I, personally, may not be able to do a better job, but I know of candidates for both jobs who probably can.

ksslemp wrote:Both of these Men believe that what they're doing and have done has been the right thing to do. They're not Evil Fascists.
I have a feeling that after Blair is out of office the country will be "Pineing" for his return. As for Bush i'll be happy when his term ends, but he's not an Evil guy.


No, Bush is incompetent and corrupt, and has made the world an unhappier and more dangerous place - but saying he is an Evil Fascist is probably an exaggeration, and certainly not something I've ever said.
User avatar
Lieutenant Stopper
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 5:14 am
Location: Supposed to be working...

Postby GTE on Mon May 28, 2007 4:44 pm

Stopper wrote:
ksslemp wrote:
Stopper wrote:
ksslemp wrote:Stopper, Are you smarter than President Bush?


I don't know, though I've never claimed to be. Why?


Well when you call the soon-departing British PM a "Buffoon" and the American President a "Chimpanzee", i take that to mean you think you could do a better job.


No, the insult was in much the same manner as someone might complain that some top-flight professional footballer is "useless". I, personally, may not be able to do a better job, but I know of candidates for both jobs who probably can.

ksslemp wrote:Both of these Men believe that what they're doing and have done has been the right thing to do. They're not Evil Fascists.
I have a feeling that after Blair is out of office the country will be "Pineing" for his return. As for Bush i'll be happy when his term ends, but he's not an Evil guy.


No, Bush is incompetent and corrupt, and has made the world an unhappier and more dangerous place - but saying he is an Evil Fascist is probably an exaggeration, and certainly not something I've ever said.

A more dangerous place? Can you tell me what America did to make people fly airplanes into our buildings? Evil people do not need reasons to kill you. Quit reading all of those left web sites, they will corrupt you.
User avatar
Major GTE
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:50 pm
Location: USA

Postby Stopper on Mon May 28, 2007 5:12 pm

GTE wrote:
Stopper wrote:No, Bush is incompetent and corrupt, and has made the world an unhappier and more dangerous place - but saying he is an Evil Fascist is probably an exaggeration, and certainly not something I've ever said.

A more dangerous place? Can you tell me what America did to make people fly airplanes into our buildings? Evil people do not need reasons to kill you. Quit reading all of those left web sites, they will corrupt you.


Bush's reaction to the New York atrocity is part of what has made the world a more dangerous place. He has turned Iraq into a hell-hole, a breeding ground for terrorists, (where it wasn't before), and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the process.

But this is all common knowledge, and can be gleaned from mainstream, middle-of-the-road newspapers, TV and websites.
User avatar
Lieutenant Stopper
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 5:14 am
Location: Supposed to be working...

Postby gethine on Mon May 28, 2007 5:24 pm

Stopper wrote:
GTE wrote:
Stopper wrote:No, Bush is incompetent and corrupt, and has made the world an unhappier and more dangerous place - but saying he is an Evil Fascist is probably an exaggeration, and certainly not something I've ever said.

A more dangerous place? Can you tell me what America did to make people fly airplanes into our buildings? Evil people do not need reasons to kill you. Quit reading all of those left web sites, they will corrupt you.


Bush's reaction to the New York atrocity is part of what has made the world a more dangerous place. He has turned Iraq into a hell-hole, a breeding ground for terrorists, (where it wasn't before), and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the process.

But this is all common knowledge, and can be gleaned from mainstream, middle-of-the-road newspapers, TV and websites.

sure, but did you get your einstein illusion cast thing yet?
User avatar
Major gethine
 
Posts: 982
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:55 pm
Location: Wales

Postby GTE on Mon May 28, 2007 5:26 pm

Stopper wrote:
GTE wrote:
Stopper wrote:No, Bush is incompetent and corrupt, and has made the world an unhappier and more dangerous place - but saying he is an Evil Fascist is probably an exaggeration, and certainly not something I've ever said.

A more dangerous place? Can you tell me what America did to make people fly airplanes into our buildings? Evil people do not need reasons to kill you. Quit reading all of those left web sites, they will corrupt you.


Bush's reaction to the New York atrocity is part of what has made the world a more dangerous place. He has turned Iraq into a hell-hole, a breeding ground for terrorists, (where it wasn't before), and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the process.

But this is all common knowledge, and can be gleaned from mainstream, middle-of-the-road newspapers, TV and websites.

Nonsense! Your figures are way off. There have not been hundreds of thousands killed. Your far left sources are wrong, again. The people we are fighting in Iraq have wanted to kill us long before we attacked. The terrorist, which include Iran, want America dead. Your argument really makes you sound foolish. Try working from facts and see how far you get with your story.
User avatar
Major GTE
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:50 pm
Location: USA

Postby ksslemp on Mon May 28, 2007 5:28 pm

Stopper wrote:
GTE wrote:
Stopper wrote:No, Bush is incompetent and corrupt, and has made the world an unhappier and more dangerous place - but saying he is an Evil Fascist is probably an exaggeration, and certainly not something I've ever said.

A more dangerous place? Can you tell me what America did to make people fly airplanes into our buildings? Evil people do not need reasons to kill you. Quit reading all of those left web sites, they will corrupt you.


Bush's reaction to the New York atrocity is part of what has made the world a more dangerous place. He has turned Iraq into a hell-hole, a breeding ground for terrorists, (where it wasn't before), and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the process.

But this is all common knowledge, and can be gleaned from mainstream, middle-of-the-road newspapers, TV and websites.


At least these Terrorists are in Iraq, Most of the real Terrorists are bred in other places, such as Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestinian Terr., etc. and come to Iraq to DIE and get their "Virgin" tang! They've been brainwashed from an early age that dying is better than living! It's not Better, but it certainly is easier.
It's a Very Sad and Foolish Death.!

You do know that this estimate of yours includes the first Iraq war, fought to remove Iraq from Kuwait dont you?

Was that War a good thing? Who was responsible for that War?
User avatar
Major ksslemp
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Slemp, KY 41763 Pop. 'nough

Postby ksslemp on Mon May 28, 2007 5:44 pm

Here is a nice Stat, which greatly influences what is happening in the Muslim world. 1/3 of all male Arabs are Illiterate.

It makes the imams and clerics' job of brainwashing their fellow muslims much easier. If you cant read the Quran, you have to believe in what the leaders tell you it says, and in how they interpret it.

You give them books, and they eat the pages.
User avatar
Major ksslemp
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Slemp, KY 41763 Pop. 'nough

Postby Colaalone on Mon May 28, 2007 5:47 pm

I write in colors! AND BOLD!!

WTF ITALICS

Image
Luis BuƱuel wrote:In the name of hypocrites,
doctors have invented the most exquisite form of
torture ever known to man: survival.
User avatar
Cook Colaalone
 
Posts: 1660
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:57 pm
Location: Checking into a Las Vegas hotel with the intent of committing capital fraud and a head full of acid

Postby Stopper on Mon May 28, 2007 5:50 pm

GTE wrote:Nonsense! Your figures are way off. There have not been hundreds of thousands killed. Your far left sources are wrong, again. The people we are fighting in Iraq have wanted to kill us long before we attacked. The terrorist, which include Iran, want America dead. Your argument really makes you sound foolish. Try working from facts and see how far you get with your story.


ksslemp wrote:At least these Terrorists are in Iraq, Most of the real Terrorists are bred in other places, such as Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestinian Terr., etc. and come to Iraq to DIE and get their "Virgin" tang!

You do know that this estimate of yours includes the first Iraq war, fought to remove Iraq from Kuwait dont you?


The source for the estimates of deaths in Iraq is a study published in The Lancet, probably the UK's most prestigious medical journal, and by no means a "far-left source". The best estimate, within a range, was about 650,000 killed, and no, it didn't include the 1991 war. The study's easily googled.

Even including what Iran may be doing to fuel the war in Iraq, the fact is that the majority of the combatants are Iraqis, who would not have been terrorists before the invasion started. Bush has created more terrorists - no-one ever took seriously his aim of "fighting the terrorists on their own turf" - Iraq was the last place anyone would look for them.

Face it, the whole enterprise was a foreseen disaster before it even started, as the rest of the world (and not just lefties) tried to tell Bush. I'm just amazed that anyone even attempts to defend it anymore.

gethine wrote:sure, but did you get your einstein illusion cast thing yet?


Not yet, it's way too soon. I am excited, though.
User avatar
Lieutenant Stopper
 
Posts: 2244
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 5:14 am
Location: Supposed to be working...

Postby ksslemp on Mon May 28, 2007 5:53 pm

Colaalone wrote:I write in colors! AND BOLD!!

WTF ITALICS

Image


I do that to make it easier for you to follow! Should i add a happy face?
here you go :-)

If the option is there, whats wrong with using it?
User avatar
Major ksslemp
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Slemp, KY 41763 Pop. 'nough

Postby ksslemp on Mon May 28, 2007 6:38 pm

Stopper wrote:
GTE wrote:Nonsense! Your figures are way off. There have not been hundreds of thousands killed. Your far left sources are wrong, again. The people we are fighting in Iraq have wanted to kill us long before we attacked. The terrorist, which include Iran, want America dead. Your argument really makes you sound foolish. Try working from facts and see how far you get with your story.


ksslemp wrote:At least these Terrorists are in Iraq, Most of the real Terrorists are bred in other places, such as Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestinian Terr., etc. and come to Iraq to DIE and get their "Virgin" tang!

You do know that this estimate of yours includes the first Iraq war, fought to remove Iraq from Kuwait dont you?


The source for the estimates of deaths in Iraq is a study published in The Lancet, probably the UK's most prestigious medical journal, and by no means a "far-left source". The best estimate, within a range, was about 650,000 killed, and no, it didn't include the 1991 war. The study's easily googled.

Even including what Iran may be doing to fuel the war in Iraq, the fact is that the majority of the combatants are Iraqis, who would not have been terrorists before the invasion started. Bush has created more terrorists - no-one ever took seriously his aim of "fighting the terrorists on their own turf" - Iraq was the last place anyone would look for them.

Face it, the whole enterprise was a foreseen disaster before it even started, as the rest of the world (and not just lefties) tried to tell Bush. I'm just amazed that anyone even attempts to defend it anymore.

gethine wrote:sure, but did you get your einstein illusion cast thing yet?


Not yet, it's way too soon. I am excited, though.


With casualties that high i only imagined that they had to have included casualties from the first gulf war and include the Kuwaiti dead as well.


I hate to quote the L.A. Times BUT:
Borzou Daragahi of the Los Angeles Times, in an interview with PBS, questioned the study based on their earlier research in Iraq, saying, "Well, we think -- the Los Angeles Times thinks these numbers are too large, depending on the extensive research we've done. Earlier this year, around June, the report was published at least in June, but the reporting was done over weeks earlier. We went to morgues, cemeteries, hospitals, health officials, and we gathered as many statistics as we could on the actual dead bodies, and the number we came up with around June was about at least 50,000. And that kind of jibed with some of the news report that were out there, the accumulation of news reports, in terms of the numbers killed. The U.N. says that there's about 3,000 a month being killed; that also fits in with our numbers and with morgue numbers. This number of 600,000 or more killed since the beginning of the war, it's way off our charts."

The Lancet estimate also drew criticism from the Iraqi government. Government spokesman Ali Debbagh said, "This figure, which in reality has no basis, is exaggerated". And Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari gave a similar view a month later, "Since three and a half years, since the change of the Saddam regime, some people say we have 600,000" killed, he said. "This is an exaggerated number."


Erroneous Lancet graph
Figure 4 from the second The Lancet survey of Iraqi mortality, showing a comparison with two other mortality estimates. Two letters subsequently published in the Lancet journal challenged this graph as erroneous and misleading, and the authors of the study conceded these problems in their 'Authors' reply'
Figure 4 from the second The Lancet survey of Iraqi mortality, showing a comparison with two other mortality estimates. Two letters subsequently published in the Lancet journal challenged this graph as erroneous and misleading, and the authors of the study conceded these problems in their 'Authors' reply'

Figure 4 from the October 2006 Lancet survey of Iraq War mortality, showing a comparison of 3 mortality estimates. Two letters subsequently published in the Lancet journal challenged this graph.

The purpose of the graph according to the Lancet article is to show that these 3 mortality estimates all indicate an increasing rate of deaths over time. The increasing rate is purportedly shown by the increasing steepness in the slopes of all 3 graph lines. Accompanying the graph is a claim that "the similar patterns of mortality over time documented in our survey and by other sources corroborate our findings about the trends in mortality over time."

However, the IBC and DoD slopes are not illustrating "rates", but rather the rise in their cumulative totals over time, and are plotted along the "Deaths" axis on the left. Contrarily, rates for the Lancet are plotted independently using the "Deaths per 1,000 per year" axis on the right. A letter by Debarati Guha-Sapir, Olivier Degomme and Jon Pedersen explains: "Burnham and colleagues' figure 4, in which cumulated Iraq Body Count deaths parallel their study's mortality rates, is misleading. Rates cannot be compared with numbers, much less with cumulative numbers."

A second letter by Josh Dougherty explains that the DoD figure is misrepresented: "Burnham and colleagues' assertion that the DoD 'estimated the civilian casualty rate at 117 deaths per day' is mistaken, as is their figure 4, which repeats this error in graphic form. These data refer to Iraqi civilians and security-force personnel, not just to civilians, and to casualties (ie, deaths or injuries), not just deaths."

The text of the Lancet document is also in error regarding the figure of 117 casualties per day: on p.1, it states that this figure applied "between May, 2005, and June, 2006"; whereas the DoD report[55] only gives this figure between May 2006 and Aug 2006. (The relevant bar chart is on p.32 of the report.)

The authors' reply says, "Josh Dougherty and Debarati Guha-Sapir and colleagues all point out that figure 4 of our report mixes rates and counts, creating a confusing image.
We find this criticism valid and accept this as an error on our part. Moreover, Dougherty rightly points out that the data in the US Department of Defense source were casualties, not deaths alone."

Also remember that their estimates are based on a pre-war population estimate. If their numbers are true, then there are 500,000 death certificates that were never issued by Iraqi officials.
The numbers just dont add up, 650,000 deaths in 40 months, That's 16,250 "War" deaths a month? or 542 a day? I havent seen anything like this on the news, and if it were happening, i guarantee they'd be reporting it!!

There are some major holes in this study, on the surface it does'nt pass the "Smell Test".'
User avatar
Major ksslemp
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Slemp, KY 41763 Pop. 'nough

Postby ksslemp on Mon May 28, 2007 7:04 pm

This article about the Iraqi death toll estimate is from Al Jazeera.net

Iraq war deaths 'top 650,000'

More than 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died in violence as a result of the US-led 2003 invasion of Iraq, a new study says, but the US and Iraqi governments have rejected the claims.
The purported figure amounts to 2.5 per cent of Iraq's population

The report published in the Lancet, a medical journal, said on Wednesday: "We estimate that as of July 2006, there have been 654,965... excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area.

"Of post-invasion deaths 601,027 ... were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire."

The report, by a team led by Gilbert Burnham of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, was later dismissed by George Bush, the US president, who said he did not consider it "credible".

The Iraqi government also condemned the figures as "exaggerated", with Ali Debbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, saying the figure "flies in the face of the most obvious truths".

Statistics


The report estimated deaths in the post-invasion period from March 2003 to June 2006, and compared the mortality before the invasion, from January 2002 to January 2003.

"Gunfire remains the most common cause of death [in Iraq], although deaths from car bombing have increased"

Lancet study
They randomly selected 47 sites across Iraq, comprising 1,849 households and 12,801 people.

Interviewers asked householders about births, deaths and migration and if there had been a death since January 2002 and, if so,
asked to see a death certificate to note the cause.

Of the 629 deaths recorded, 547, or 87%, were in the post-invasion period.

This sample was used to extrapolate that, across the country, 654,965 deaths - amounting to 2.5 per cent of the population - have occurred since March 2003.


Violent deaths


About 601,000 of the deaths were due to violence, of which about half were due to gunfire. The study also estimated that 31% of deaths were as a result of action by the US-led forces. Whats 31% of 650,000?

"The number of people dying in Iraq has continued to escalate," the report concluded.

"The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, although the actual numbers have increased every year.

"Gunfire remains the most common cause of death, although death from car bombing have increased."

The Lancet's new study follows a previous October 2004 study which said that 100,000 deaths had occurred in the country between March 2003 and September 2004 as a result of violence, heart attacks and aggravated health problems.

It also comes as Jan Egeland, the United Nations undersecretary for humanitarian affairs, said that revenge killings in Iraq were "totally out of control".

Egeland said that a "very worrying" deterioration in conditions had led to more than 315,000 Iraqi civilians being displaced, while women were increasingly being attacked in so-called "honour" killings.

However, some attacked the timing of the new report's release as political, coming only three weeks before the US midterm elections.

"They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, of the figures.


"This is not analysis, this is politics."
User avatar
Major ksslemp
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Slemp, KY 41763 Pop. 'nough

Postby GTE on Mon May 28, 2007 8:13 pm

ksslemp wrote:This article about the Iraqi death toll estimate is from Al Jazeera.net

Iraq war deaths 'top 650,000'

More than 650,000 Iraqi civilians have died in violence as a result of the US-led 2003 invasion of Iraq, a new study says, but the US and Iraqi governments have rejected the claims.
The purported figure amounts to 2.5 per cent of Iraq's population

The report published in the Lancet, a medical journal, said on Wednesday: "We estimate that as of July 2006, there have been 654,965... excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area.

"Of post-invasion deaths 601,027 ... were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire."

The report, by a team led by Gilbert Burnham of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, was later dismissed by George Bush, the US president, who said he did not consider it "credible".

The Iraqi government also condemned the figures as "exaggerated", with Ali Debbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, saying the figure "flies in the face of the most obvious truths".

Statistics


The report estimated deaths in the post-invasion period from March 2003 to June 2006, and compared the mortality before the invasion, from January 2002 to January 2003.

"Gunfire remains the most common cause of death [in Iraq], although deaths from car bombing have increased"

Lancet study
They randomly selected 47 sites across Iraq, comprising 1,849 households and 12,801 people.

Interviewers asked householders about births, deaths and migration and if there had been a death since January 2002 and, if so,
asked to see a death certificate to note the cause.

Of the 629 deaths recorded, 547, or 87%, were in the post-invasion period.

This sample was used to extrapolate that, across the country, 654,965 deaths - amounting to 2.5 per cent of the population - have occurred since March 2003.


Violent deaths


About 601,000 of the deaths were due to violence, of which about half were due to gunfire. The study also estimated that 31% of deaths were as a result of action by the US-led forces. Whats 31% of 650,000?

"The number of people dying in Iraq has continued to escalate," the report concluded.

"The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, although the actual numbers have increased every year.

"Gunfire remains the most common cause of death, although death from car bombing have increased."

The Lancet's new study follows a previous October 2004 study which said that 100,000 deaths had occurred in the country between March 2003 and September 2004 as a result of violence, heart attacks and aggravated health problems.

It also comes as Jan Egeland, the United Nations undersecretary for humanitarian affairs, said that revenge killings in Iraq were "totally out of control".

Egeland said that a "very worrying" deterioration in conditions had led to more than 315,000 Iraqi civilians being displaced, while women were increasingly being attacked in so-called "honour" killings.

However, some attacked the timing of the new report's release as political, coming only three weeks before the US midterm elections.

"They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, of the figures.


This is not analysis, this is politics."

KSS, why do you have to ruin a good discussion with facts. I think he was getting his facts from Rosie, who got her information from media matters
(Another America hating organization). How many innocents must die before you get a clue that Islam wants to rule the entire world. If we simply go away and ignore them you think they will calm down? Of course not! They will plan and scheme their next plan to kill INNOCENT people. They want to kill you too your just too stupid to figure that out.
User avatar
Major GTE
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:50 pm
Location: USA

Postby jay_a2j on Mon May 28, 2007 8:57 pm

DogDoc wrote:No, the U.N. is an irrelevant organization that is bereft with corruption and that passes totally meaningless resolutions. They don't have the will to take any kind of stand on priniciple which might require a use of force. This emboldens renegade nations such as North Korea and Iran since they know they can ignore the U.N. mandates without consequence.



Aaaaahh the voice of reason! Now, if only we could wake everyone else up to these truths.


*Runs off to start a "Why do people with common sense hate the UN" thread.*
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Postby ksslemp on Mon May 28, 2007 8:59 pm

I agree with Dog, and GTE Who are you calling INNOCENT? :twisted:
Last edited by ksslemp on Mon May 28, 2007 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major ksslemp
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Slemp, KY 41763 Pop. 'nough

Postby ksslemp on Mon May 28, 2007 9:04 pm

I think i'll move to Venezuela and start a clothing company specializing in RED shirts!

I'd make a killing! No pun intended.
User avatar
Major ksslemp
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Slemp, KY 41763 Pop. 'nough

Postby Skittles! on Tue May 29, 2007 12:41 am

Um, can you please stop the the multi colours as they are annoying to read
Oh, also is the annoying yellow colour in italics.
KraphtOne wrote:when you sign up a new account one of the check boxes should be "do you want to foe colton24 (it is highly recommended) "
User avatar
Private Skittles!
 
Posts: 14575
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:18 am

Postby ksslemp on Tue May 29, 2007 1:09 am

Skittles! wrote:Um, can you please stop the the multi colours as they are annoying to read
Oh, also is the annoying yellow colour in italics.


Color Bigot!

What's the point of have the option of using different font colors if you don't use them? I personally think it's easier to read.

No offense but i'm not changing the way i post.
User avatar
Major ksslemp
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:30 pm
Location: Slemp, KY 41763 Pop. 'nough

Postby Skittles! on Tue May 29, 2007 1:11 am

ksslemp wrote:
Skittles! wrote:Um, can you please stop the the multi colours as they are annoying to read
Oh, also is the annoying yellow colour in italics.


Color Bigot!

What's the point of have the option of using different font colors if you don't use them? I personally think it's easier to read.

No offense but i'm not changing the way i post.

Okay, that's fine, but why with the multiple colours? Or just in italic? Or bold? Or at least don't use the yellow, that's all.
Please, no more yellow.
KraphtOne wrote:when you sign up a new account one of the check boxes should be "do you want to foe colton24 (it is highly recommended) "
User avatar
Private Skittles!
 
Posts: 14575
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:18 am

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DirtyDishSoap