![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 16 of 16. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dunder on October 12, 2006, at 4:52:03
So according to research published in the prestigious medical journal, the Lancet. The death toll in Iraq since the invasion is about 650,000.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1920166,00.html
Never has a piece of research been so politicized. It's interesting to note that Bush has instantly rejected this figure. I was wondering whether this was based on his outstanding knowledge and understanding of statistical methods or something else. Maybe it was this same scientific prowess that has led him to deny that global warming is man made.
Posted by Declan on October 12, 2006, at 12:08:41
In reply to Iraq death toll, posted by Dunder on October 12, 2006, at 4:52:03
Wasn't the last administration estimate 60,000 some time back? What does it say about us that this figure can come out and this is the response? People accepted the destruction of Europe and Japan in WWII for good reasons. We have no excuse.
Posted by Jost on October 12, 2006, at 12:45:13
In reply to Re: Iraq death toll » Dunder, posted by Declan on October 12, 2006, at 12:08:41
Another way of putting that is that about 2.25% of the population has been killed.
That's a staggering figure.
Jost
Posted by mair on October 12, 2006, at 13:02:17
In reply to Iraq death toll, posted by Dunder on October 12, 2006, at 4:52:03
So what if it's off. Even if it was off by 50% which is a whopping difference in statistical terms, we'd still be looking at 325,000! This doesn't count the people in Afghanistan.
To put things in some perspective, 650,000 is roughly 200 times the numbers of people killed in 9/11. Hardly an eye for an eye.
Posted by tealady on October 21, 2006, at 5:05:38
In reply to Re: Iraq death toll » Dunder, posted by mair on October 12, 2006, at 13:02:17
might is right? .. more US ?(and those counries trying to equalise this a little by acquiring nuclear weapons or at elast technology)
an eye for an eye is more a Muslim country .. or old testament?
so why go for an eye for an eye?
Posted by zeugma on October 21, 2006, at 15:07:27
In reply to Re: Iraq death toll, posted by tealady on October 21, 2006, at 5:05:38
the U.S. is an occupation force, not an invading one, and while U.S. casualties are getting higher, they hardly approach levels seen in this nation's bloodiest wars (War Between the States, both world wars, Vietnam). But the Iraqi death toll is staggering. And President Bush says in his radio address today, "The fighting is tough, but our nation has seen difficult fights before."
Ah, the moral calculus. Sure, more Americans died in Hitler's last Ardennes offensive in a day than during the entire Occupation Era in Iraq (a "comma" in Iraq's history, according to Mr. Bush, who is known for his wide-ranging historical imagination, which must have flown pretty far into the stratosphere to see the chaos become a mere "comma." Maybe he's preocupied with militarizing the Moon, in which case I can understand his "long range" view. I can understand- the "long range" view looks a lot more appealing than the shortsighted view of, say politician X- insert there, I don't know, the name of a generic politician who would be kicked off PBabble Politics more frequently than I am. Thank the deity that Donald Rumsfeld is inspired by that such politicians would not stick their uncivil heads into Dr. Bob's sedate bubble, here).
Yes, our nation has seen "difficult fights" before. But we are fighting it with a fraction of the force we invested in Vietnam. If the construction of Fortress Mesopotamia is "the central front on the war on terror," one of the few matters on which both Osama bin Laden and Mr. Bush agree (at least, they say they agree), then why fight it with a depleted, vounteer force? The simple expedient of instituting a draft, as Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.) has implored Mr. Bush to do, would deprive bin Laden of his central front in less time than it took the U.S. to liberate France in WWII.The more I think about it, the more obvious it seems.The carnage the American people experienced breaching Hitler's Fortress Europa will surely not be comparable to that suffered by a conscript army defending Mr. Bush's Fortress Mesopotamia, and the causes are clearly equally noble (nothing less than the salvation of the free world- yes, we hear this kind of thing in America, and I choose to believe it because it makes me a kinder, gentler, more patriotic person, if a bit unusual for d*mned liberal New York. Imagine what i go through at the workplace, where I suspect certain colleagues of holding less than "American values." I am sure this information will be useful someday to the Department of Homeland Security, which has already saved us from no less than 21 plots planned by al Qaeda members posing as 14-year-old girls on the Internet in order to learn where we store our nukes). But Mr. Bush has been strangely silent when Rep. Murtha has pressed him on this. (Perhaps he will soon change his mind. After all, Tony Snow has informed us that Bush's "plan is to win." This is not a plan but a goal, but I take that to be an enthymeme for "Mr. Bush will implement the most rational strategy for ensuring that Fortress Mesopotamia serves its intended purposes indefintely.) The Iraqi terrorist trainees are nothing compared to the well-trained infantry of the North Vietnamese Army, and we could have kept Saigon non-Communist indefintely, until n*ive *ppeasers like George McGovern (f*ck his Distinguished Flying Cross in WWII, the man was [and is]...no, can't say, I won't be able to participate in these honest, informative, and truthful discussions anymore.
-z
Posted by Dinah on October 22, 2006, at 10:47:37
In reply to the irony of it of course » tealady, posted by zeugma on October 21, 2006, at 15:07:27
It's been local, not international. But it's not necessarily different. Or at least I don't think it is. I guess I'm too ignorant to know.
The national guard's been called in to keep the peace in New Orleans, yet the crime rate is still incredible. People are leaving who had intended to stay. And I get so angry and frustrated that with the help of the national guard they can't provide enough coverage to stop people from hurting each other. And yet, it would seem that they can't.
I'm just sad. And frustrated that people *want* to hurt each other and find a way. And that the government just can't stop that. I mean, they know where the problems are. Why can't they stop it?
Posted by madeline on October 22, 2006, at 12:28:34
In reply to I've been feeling really sad lately, posted by Dinah on October 22, 2006, at 10:47:37
I think the gov't can't really stop it because it is a decision on the part of the individual. It's in one's heart and mind.
I dreamt about new orleans last night. I dreamed I was trying so hard to get out of the city myself, but I couldn't get a flight out and all the cars were gone (for some reason).
Strange.
Maddie
Posted by Declan on October 22, 2006, at 18:30:07
In reply to the irony of it of course » tealady, posted by zeugma on October 21, 2006, at 15:07:27
There was a good article in Harpers, The Way out of War, by McGovern and Polk. Nice to hear it in these times.
They understand the power of influence.
Posted by Dinah on October 22, 2006, at 21:12:09
In reply to Re: I've been feeling really sad lately » Dinah, posted by madeline on October 22, 2006, at 12:28:34
I know. :(
I guess that's what makes me feel so sad.
It seems like there should be something that can be done about it, but the fact is that there isn't. Not in our type of society.
It sometimes makes me despair of solutions anywhere. But then I see rays of hope. Isn't the situation in Ireland getting better? And some other places?
It's a lot harder to change hearts and minds than it is to put the National Guard on the streets.
And of course it goes without saying that here, as well as I'm reasonably sure, there, most people just want to go about their lives in peace and safety.
I can't watch the news too much, or I get horrendously depressed. Not only do there seem to be no easy answers, but all too often it seems there are no answers at all.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2006, at 0:36:13
In reply to Re: I've been feeling really sad lately » Dinah, posted by madeline on October 22, 2006, at 12:28:34
> I get so angry and frustrated that with the help of the national guard they can't provide enough coverage to stop people from hurting each other. And yet, it would seem that they can't.
>
> Dinah> I think the gov't can't really stop it because it is a decision on the part of the individual. It's in one's heart and mind.
>
> MaddieIt's a tough one, people hurting each other. I think the individual and the government (or, um, administration) are both factors.
Bob
Posted by zazenducky on October 24, 2006, at 8:56:42
In reply to Re: people hurting each other, posted by Dr. Bob on October 24, 2006, at 0:36:13
>
> It's a tough one, people hurting each other. I think the individual and the government (or, um, administration) are both factors.
>
I understand that you believe the government is a factor, but please be sensitive to the feelings of others here (such as members of the government and their supporters).But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
You might want to consider asking another poster to be your "civility buddy" and to preview your posts before you submit them.
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
zazenducky
PS: According to the new system:
previous block: 0 weeks
period of time since previous block: 0 weeks
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
particularly uncivil: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: no
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: no
Posted by zeugma on October 25, 2006, at 18:22:26
In reply to blocked for 3 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenducky on October 24, 2006, at 8:56:42
These are strange times.
-z
Posted by henrietta on October 26, 2006, at 19:22:40
In reply to blocked for 3 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenducky on October 24, 2006, at 8:56:42
Posted by Declan on October 27, 2006, at 17:48:16
In reply to blocked for 3 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenducky on October 24, 2006, at 8:56:42
You didn't do the maths at the end.
I know it's difficult to follow.
Posted by tealady on October 28, 2006, at 3:10:47
In reply to Re: blocked for 3 weeks » zazenducky, posted by Declan on October 27, 2006, at 17:48:16
You mean there really is a pattern one can decipher??? Oh My I really am slipping...I was thinking it was just gobblygook arbitrarily pulled out of the atoms of the cosmos or something!... and I majored in maths once... sigh
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.