This American Life on the Lancet study

Who did Garlasco ask to give him such a false response?

A "really accurate" method? Not even the Lancet study itself claims such a lie.

Yes, yes, more of the same. Sounds like a statistician who didn't read the fine print of the study, took a look at "33 clusters" and "990 households" and called it a day.

The whitewash continues.

Ah yes, all statisticians everywhere are involved in a vast conspiracy to hide the elephant from Seixon.

Lambert,

Please, go on the record and claim that the Lancet methodology is "really accurate". Come on, do it. Cluster sampling by nature isn't particularly accurate. I do believe you made such a point earlier yourself. Will you now repent and suscribe to the statement made that the Lancet methodology (or hell, even cluster sampling in general) is "really accurate"?

As the Nike commercials say, Just Do It.

About a year ago, a study estimated the number of Iraqi casualties since the war began. It came up with a number - 100,000 dead - that was higher than any other estimate, and was mostly ignored.

Yeah. I didn't even see it here. Or here. Or here. Definitely not here. Totally being ignored here. An elephant could fit in the void of it not being here.

ignore
tr.v., -nored, -noring, -nores.
To refuse to pay attention to; disregard To refuse to promote with overbearing, continuous, and uncritical coverage.

The "reality-based" community strikes again.

For those who swallow the transparent myth of the 'basic benevolence' of the US, I suggest reading parts one and two of David Edwards' excellent piece at Media Watch: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php
For starters, re: the coverage Seixon alludes to in his links: how long did this coverage persist? Fact is, it was sent down the Orwellian memory hole pretty fast, because it conflicts with the carefully cultivated myth that the US and UK governments actually care about civilian deaths. As I have said before, the only scintilla of concern expressed by the 'DC axis of evil' over Iraqi civilians is what the effects of the mass slaughter might have on public opinion, hence why they've waged a relentless public relatioons campaign through the corporate-state media to legitimize the war and the coterie of lies they've used along the way (WMD, Saddam's alleged links to terror groups, 9-11 and finally, bringing democracy to Iraq).

In particular, one should pay attention to the comments of Dennis Halliday, the senior UN official who exposed the genocidal nature of the US-UK sponsored sanctions against Iraq in 2000. I don't recall seeing his voice getting prominent coverage in the western media. When David Edwards states that "'Professional' journalism accepts that powerful interests - the political and economic allies of the corporate media - should be allowed to set the news agenda" he is spelling out why western atrocities - as well as the countless examples of hypocrisy in US actions (e.g. preventive attacks on defenseless nations, the harboring of terrorists and war criminals and support for vile regimes etc) get scarce metion in the corporate media.

How long did this coverage persist?

Goal posts..... moved! First it was "buried". Then it was "ignored". Then it was "not persistent". Geeeez.

As if the constant press coverage of bombings, deaths, violence, terrorist attacks, and all the like every single day in the media isn't persistent enough coverage of civilian deaths in Iraq.

Give me a break. Yeah, the American public is completely protected from knowing about the civilian casualties happening in Iraq. I mean, they don't hear about them everyday. Nope.

How many articles do you want me to pull up from today alone citing civilian deaths in Iraq?`

The media doesn't consistenly refer to a specific number for civilian deaths in Iraq because there is no reliable number to use. They have a reliable number for US deaths, and they constantly use it. That's the only reason why, and you know it.

The sanctions on Iraq were genocidal? They were at the behest of the US-UK? Really? I seem to recall the UN authorizing those sanctions. I also seem to recall Saddam Hussein rejecting the humanitarian Oil-For-Food program when it was proposed to him from the beginning. I also recall that once he finally accepted the program in 1996, it was only because the UN let him do the deciding on who was going to sell him what, and who he was going to sell oil to. We all now see what that led to: massive corruption of a UN humanitarian program.

Who's to blame? The US and the UK?

Yes, of course, nothing is Saddam's fault. Pretty little angel boy did nothing wrong. He didn't prevent the humanitarian aspect from 1991-1996. Nope, it was Bush! He didn't game the humanitarian program from 1996-2003, it was Bush! He didn't starve his people while building palaces and importing rocket engines, it was Bush!

Geez Jeff, people like you make me...

If you're going to blame anything on the US and the UK (and the rest of the UN who voted on it, wink wink) for anything, it should be that they were dumb enough to think that Saddam Hussein would take care of his own people if they gave him the chance to do so.

I also wonder what you would have done to get Saddam Hussein to comply with weapons inspections if not for sanctions. I'm sure you have some genius plans that we could have used, why don't you just bring em on out?

You talk the talk, can you walk the walk?

First it was "buried". Then it was "ignored". Then it was "not persistent". Geeeez.

Geeeez indeed. Someone is playing dumb. Yes, the study got some press - we all heard about it either directly or indirectly through the press. The thing is (as you must know) that for such an important piece of evidence in an issue that should be fundamental to policy making, it got very little press.

Here is a little experiment to illustrate - my local library gives me access to a database of newspaper articles from the New York Times. I searched for NYT articles that have the words "Lancet" and "Iraq" in them - there are 3 news items which discuss the study and one opinion piece.

Compare this to the steady pro-invasion media drumbeat: Searching for NYT articles with the phrase "aluminum tubes" and "Iraq" in the period 1/1/02 - 3/1/03 yields 33 articles and 4 opinion pieces. Searching for "Iraq" and "nuclear program" in the same period yields 101 news items and 25 opinion pieces.

Note that whatever doubts you have regarding the strength of the evidence in the Lancet study, there was no evidence at all presented for the existence of the Iraqi nuclear program (and we now know why). The whole basis for discussion was assertions made by officials.

What determines the level of coverage of a news item is not the evidence, it is whether the news is convenient or inconvenient to powerful interests.

Seixon,

I am quoting from Hans von Sponeck and Dennis Halliday, both senior UN officials in charge of distributing humanitarian aid to Iraq in the 1990's. Both resigned over what they decreed was a western policy of 'deliberate genocide'. Halliday has spoken out on this topic many times since, but where is the media coverage? Hell, the guy was second in charge at the UN and a very senior international figure, but his statements are met with a resounding silence by the western media.

The simple reason that he is ignored is that his views conflict with the carefully cultivated image of western benevolence - the one way moral-legal screen that Richard Falk has alluded to. What is remarkable, give the evidence, and the people involved, is that dupes like you have somehow twisted the murderous effects of sanctions onto either the UN or Saddam Hussein. No one denies that Saddam was a ruthless tyrant, but the failure to ship 5.4 billion dollars of goods already paid for by the Iraqi people from warehouses in New York was an international crime. There is ample evidence to show that the Iraq authorities distributed goods that arrived there very efficiently among the populace (this again is verified by Halliday). Who do I believe? An ex pat in Norway with a chip on his shoulder or two senior UN officials, two UN aid agencies and a number of journalists who have lived in Iraq?

What really shocks me is that you actually apear to think that the US and UK governments care about human life in Iraq. Did they care when they sold Saddam billions of dollars of chemical, biological and conventional weapons to wage war with Iran? We know that the US and UK actually extended loan guarantees and provided diplomatic cover for Saddam's regime after the gassing of Kurds at Halabja in 1987. "Human rights" only appears on western radar screens when it usefully coincides with western business interests. Where was the 'concern' fr human rights when Suharto was slaughtering up to a third of the population of East Timor between 1976 and 1998? There's no way he cod have continued the carnage without full US-UK backing. Clinton called him 'our kind of guy' back in 1996; this, for a tyrant, perhaps the biggest torturer and mass murderer of the second half of the twentieth century, who makes even Saddam look mellow by comparison. What about continued support for the brutal regimes of Uribe in Colombia? Obesanjo in Nigeria? Algeria? Guatemala? Honduras? The list goes on and on. Learn some history, man!

Historian Mark Curtis has poured through hundreds of planning documents from the 1960's and earlier that were declassified under the Official Secrets Act in the UK. Nowhere in these documents is there even a vague notion of concern for 'human rights'. Instead, British planners express concern that countries with resources the elites in the UK wish to repatriate (or covet) may embrace nationalist governments/forces who wish to use the profits of their resources to improve the standards of living for the citizens in their own countries. Ths lays out western foreign policy as nakedly and predatorily as you can lay it out. Our planners don't support nationalism in other lands because it may interfere with the profit making capacities of western (in these files British) interests who covet the resources of these countries!! Far from supporting it, they openly express concern for it! What has changed? The US-UK did not invade Iraq to bring democracy to these people (and Iraqis know it - 1% believed this was the aim in a poll taken last year). As always, our institutions and elites covet Iraq resources, especially oil. As Curtis points out, most people who stand in the way of these interests are effectively 'unpeople'. Ths explains why human life is so expendable to the political and corporate establishment.

*[Post deleted. Violate my comment policy yet again and you will be banned. Tim]*

Hi Tim,
In case you'd be interested, I wrote a story back in March in The Chronicle of Higher Education very similar to the one on This American Life (although I had fewer words to play with and spent less time on Marc Garlasco):
http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i22/22a01001.htm

I also did an opinion piece on the same topic in Columbia Journalism Review:
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/2/voices-guterman.asp

Tim,

Please justify deleting that whole comment. I did not write a single expletive, and did not have one personal attack in there. This is getting to be ridiculous.

Oh wait, can I say ridiculous? ......

Jeff,

I had a good long post explaining many things, among them that I think it unfair of you to cast me as a ruthless pro-American that will defend every action taken by the USA throughout the ages.

I also challenge you to step out of the world of absolutes and see that for all the "evils" you see the USA conducting these days, that there might be something good hidden in there as well.

If the USA wasn't intent on democracy in Iraq, why are they fighting tooth and nail for it? Democracy in Iraq benefits us, as well as them. You seem to forget that.

Anyways, I won't rehash the long post I did earlier, as Tim is bound to delete it again because I am "attacking" something or someone.

Apparently pointing out faulty logic and factual inaccuracies are not welcome around here.

Seixon wrote, If the USA wasn't intent on democracy in Iraq, why are they fighting tooth and nail for it?

How do you know it's democracy the US is fighting for?

Democracy in Iraq benefits us, as well as them.

Not so clear. What if, through democratic processes, Iraq ends up as a strong ally of Iran, as seems quite plausible?

"If the USA wasn't intent on democracy in Iraq, why are they fighting tooth and nail for it? Democracy in Iraq benefits us, as well as them. You seem to forget that."

Yow. fighting tooth and nail, perhaps in the sense of the Iraqis' teeth and nails, or the teeth and nails of the few Americans unlucky enough to be sent there. From the American point of view, it's a war fought with an underfunded, underequipped, undertrained, understaffed according to the requests of the military commanders involved army consisting largely of essentially involuntary conscripts from the National Guard with no effort whatsoever to elicit proper intelligence data, let alone international cooperation, in order not to threathen the heroic stance of the administration, the all important tax cuts, or the access of the voting public to unlimited supplies of artificially low priced gasoline.

As for being intent on democracy: in a way; the problem being that it's apparent to all that upon given access to a democracy, the majority of Iraqis would immediately install a Shiite theocratic quasi-puppet state of Iran and in all likelihood start instituting reprisals on the Sunnis. Which would not benefit us, and we like to think would not benefit them (although in their benighted unEuropean ignorance, they foolishly fail to see this). Until this tiny complication is somehow solved, or solves itself in some magical fashion, Iraqi democracy will have a Coming Soon sign in the window.

Iran is only Iran because of the insane regime they have there. If you guys are scared of a Muslim-controlled Iraq, then I can't see you guys as anything but racists or something comparable. You guys seemingly have no confidence in Iraqis ability to create and maintain their own democracy. You guys seem to think that they will automatically become like Iran once we blink our eyes. That is some of the most pathetic defeatism there is to read about this topic.

Are you guys scared of Iraq being a Muslim nation? There's nothing wrong with a Muslim democracy. Sure, there will be some problems that are a given all over the Muslim world. Such as treatment of women, and other things that are all about tradition and nothing else. We can't force them to change themselves on this, THAT would be imperialism.

The only thing we want in Iraq is that they elect their leaders democratically, and that their government is democratic. If they want a theocracy, fine, that's their choice, as long as it is democratic. We can't impose our form of democracy and way of life on them, and we are not doing so, contrary to most anti-war theology.

z,

Do you seriously think Russia, France, China, and the others who aren't or never were in Iraq would by any reason help us out there? If you do, you are just a brainwashed Kerry-fan. Those countries were not going to help us in Iraq no matter what. Japan, Spain, Poland, Italy, the UK, South Korea.... many countries have or are helping us there. I don't follow this logic that we are "alone" just because France isn't helping. How many nations were involved in the Kosovo operation? Were we "alone" there too? Give me a break.

underfunded, underequipped, undertrained, understaffed

Bla, bla, bla, we hear this stuff from the media all the time. Kerry didn't even vote for the $87B, so I think some people are throwing stones in glass houses once again. We haven't even used all the money allotted to the war, we're having a hard time using it all like we were supposed to. Underequipped? Sure, have the media pick out a few anecdotes about certain troops being underequipped, and then project it onto the entire military. That a boy!

You seem to believe all the spin the media comes up with to sell themselves. Like... not having armor on a marine vehicle. Even though that would totally defeat the purpose of the damn thing because it is supposed to be quick. Now I read newly that the Norwegian army has started moving from tanks to lightly armored Jeeps. Why? It has to do with the tactics of warfare, and that tanks are slower and less flexible than Jeeps. Which one do you think works better in a guerilla war environment? Are you going to tell me that the Norwegian military is "underfunded, underequipped" now? The country with one of the highest per GDP spendings on military?

If you believed the media, that's what you would think. Some of us know better, that the media hypes EVERYTHING just to sell their papers and get you to watch the TV.

If they found a mouse dead in my basement, they could write headlines like "SIGNS OF BUBONIC PLAGUE FOUND IN SEIXON'S NEIGHBORHOOD, COULD SPREAD".

Yet it seems that you would gulp that up and say it was the truth.

>You guys seemingly have no confidence in Iraqis ability to create and maintain their own democracy.

This guy at least is painfully aware that:

a. all previous attempts to establish democracy in the arab world (and there have been a number of them) have failed - usually bloodily. Examples include the constitutional monarchy in Iraq prior to 1956, the attempt at multi-party democracy in Egypt in the 1930's and pre-civil war Lebanon.

b. western regimes have a long and shameful history of declaring their support for democracy in the arab world whilst supporting dictatorships and actively opposing democratic movements that threaten western interests. (The west's tacit support for the Algerian dictatorship's cancellation of democratic elections in the early 90's is one exampel of this. Support of the recent military coup in Mauretania is another.)

There is nothing easy or inevitable about democracy. It took the nations of Europe and North Ameirca up until the start of the 20th century (or later) to achieve what we'd consider the basic elements of genuine democract (universal adult suffrage, equal value for all votes.)

Turkey took 60-70 years from the overthrow of the Sultanate to achieve something approaching a genuine secular democracy.

South Korea took 40-odd years (and thousands of lives) to establish the same.

Taiwan took 50-odd years.

The idea that you can march into a country hand out a few flags and preach a couple of sermons and that those silly brown people will realise that western secular democracy is the perfect ideal society for them and that all their silly religious and cultural baggage should be tossed away is the really racists one.

Ian,

a. Never has anyone attempted something in the Middle East like the USA is now attempting in Iraq. Never. If you compare knocking off regimes in Iran, Afghanistan, and so forth as the same thing, you're missing an invasion, an occupation, the presence of hundreds of thousands of troops, the setting up of internationally supervised elections, a national assembly, a constitution.... I could go on, but I think you'll see that you made a grave error here.

b. Exactly. Except this time, we are doing everything differently, in both Afghanistan and Iraq. When have we ever done this kind of thing in the Middle East before? Never. We have supported one dictator against the other, overthrown dictators with minimal presence, and not ushered them into any kind of political process at all. That is what is so different about the policies we are attempting now compared with the ones in the past.

The idea that you can march into a country hand out a few flags and preach a couple of sermons and that those silly brown people will realise that western secular democracy is the perfect ideal society for them and that all their silly religious and cultural baggage should be tossed away is the really racists one.

Apparently you didn't read where I said that we shouldn't be forcing them to change their religion and their cultural "baggage". That would be imperialism, and that's not what we are doing. Quite telling that you regard their religion and culture as "baggage". You sure you want to project racism? You're after all the one who doesn't think the "silly brown people" want a system where everyone can vote, and retain their religion and culture.

Sure, it will take a long time. So you want us to start the process at a later time then, or what? The sooner the better. No?

You're all washed up.

>a. Never has anyone attempted something in the Middle East like the USA is now attempting in Iraq. Never.

>I could go on, but I think you'll see that you made a grave error here.

No, the errror, as usual is yours. All the elements you refer to were present in Iraq in the inter-war and post-war period. See also the French colonial presence in Lebanon and Syria.

Ian,

So the French set up democracy in Lebanon and Syria, leading to parliamentary elections, a referendum on a constitution, without imposing it on them?

From a quick dash through Wikipedia, it doesn't seem like that was the situation between France and Syria, as Syria wasn't even considered its own free sovereign self until the French got kicked out by the nationalists in 1944. The situation with Lebanon seems to have been entirely different as well, as I cannot see the French having given them any elections what so ever, and they were not even recognized as sovereign states until France withdrew.

So please, if you have information pointing to France setting up a transitional government, setting up for parliamentary elections, setting up for the drafting of a constitution, a referendum on the constitution, and all the while them being considered a sovereign country.... please do pass it along.

>if you have information pointing to France setting up a transitional government, setting up for parliamentary elections, setting up for the drafting of a constitution, a referendum on the constitution, and all the while them being considered a sovereign country. please do pass it along.

Sure and while I'm doing that explain to me how the British occupation of Iraq doesn't meet your criteria.

>The situation with Lebanon seems to have been entirely different as well, as I cannot see the French having given them any elections what so ever, and they were not even recognized as sovereign states until France withdrew.

Your dash through wikipedia must have been pretty quick.

for example, you obviously missed the article "History of Lebanon"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lebanon#League_of_Nations_Manda…

> Modern Lebanon's constitution, [b]drawn up in 1926[/b], specified a balance of power between the various religious groups, but France designed it to guarantee the political dominance of its Christian allies.

Or the one on the history of Syria:

> Continuing pressure from Syrian nationalist groups forced the French to evacuate their troops in April 1946, leaving the country in the hands of a republican government that had been formed during the mandate.

Hardly conclusively in either case but it does tend to show the flaws in your normal process of working from divine revelation of the preferred truth to the much lesser task of finding facts to support that truth.

More to come.

http://www.syrialive.net/Tourism/history/history_flg.htm#1932

"A constituent assembly summoned by France and enjoying nationalist majority drafted a Constitution not recognising the French mandate and was thus rejected. The French introduced a Constitution which was approved May 14th 1930, establishing Damascus and Aleppo as the 'Syrian Republic'."

"Elections were held in 1932 and a Treaty acceptable to both parties was concluded in 1936, ..."

As to the recognition of Syrian and Lebanese sovereignty, from wikipedia once again:

>The first group or Class A mandates were areas fomerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire deemed to "...have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory..." The Class A mandates assigned to France were Syria and Lebanon;...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations_mandate

Yes, clearly you see that the French were IMPOSING those things on them, instead of letting them work it out themselves. Were there two elections? Was there a parliamentary election? Did the parliament draft the constitution? Did the constitution pass a democratic referendum?

I don't think so.

>I don't think so.

In the case of Lebanon there was a Constitution drafted by an elected Lebanese constitutional assembly and ratified by a referendum in 1926.

There were several roudns of elctions under that constitution between then and independence.

Now let's see what nonsense you've fantasised about Iraq.

Ian,

Was Lebanon considered an independent sovereign state at the time? Or was it still under French mandate?

Meanwhile, on 23 May 1926, the State of Greater Lebanon received a Constitution which transformed it into the Lebanese Republic.

Thus the two sister republics came into being, Lebanon and Syria; both under French mandate, sharing the same currency and customs services, but flying different flags, and run by separate native administrations under one French High Commissioner residing in Beirut.

Same as the situation in Iraq, was it?

"If they want a theocracy, fine, that's their choice, as long as it is democratic."

S, I don't mean this to be provocative, but many of your arguments seem to rely on simultaneous acceptance of mutually exclusive opposites.

"If you believed the media, that's what you would think. Some of us know better, that the media hypes EVERYTHING just to sell their papers and get you to watch the TV."

OK, well then maybe we're doing terrifically well in Iraq and the good guys are going to win. One man's tooth is another man's nail.

z,

Sorry, what I meant was that if they want a government highly infused with religion, then that's up to them. The only requirement I think we should have for them is that they maintain a democracy, and their constitution has that already incorporated.

No z, we are not doing "terrific" in Iraq, but we aren't in Vietnam either. There is something in the middle, you know. I guess that might be hard for highly partisan people as yourself to see. It's got to be all black or white with you, I guess.

The good guys will win if the media, and people like you, put the value of human life and the progress of human kind above partisan politics. Also if you offer constructive criticism and ways to solve problems, instead of hindsight sniping and whining.

"The good guys will win if the media, and people like you, put the value of human life and the progress of human kind above partisan politics. Also if you offer constructive criticism and ways to solve problems, instead of hindsight sniping and whining," says Seixon.

I'm sorry - I know it's not an original thought - but my irony meter just exploded.

Warbo,

I'm sure that is because you see Americans as bloodthirsty animals that love slaughtering innocent civilians. Right?

Valuing human life is also about trying to make things better for them. People often say that killing a certain amount of people to make things better for a much larger amount should not be done.

Alright then, but how do you make it better for those people then? This is where I was talking about coming with constructive criticism and better alternatives.

I have not heard a single alternative for dealing with Saddam Hussein from the peace crowd that would have alleviated all the problems without innocent blood being spilled.

The only difference I see between the alternatives that have been floated is that instead of Americans killing x amount of Iraqis to get the job done, then it would have been Iraqis killing y amount of Iraqis to accomplish the same thing.

There are also those who naively believe there could have been a bloodless revolution in Iraq. I'm not so sure Saddam Hussein would have agreed with them.

So if you thought my comment was highly ironic, please do explain yourself.

Sitting and saying NO NO NO without providing realistic alternatives has become the signature of the Democratic Party in the USA, and also for anti-war people. I have been soliciting for these anti-war personalities to tell me what their grand plan for Iraq would have been if given the choice. They never give an answer. They just repeat "things could have been done better, there must be another way". Alright, it's been a few years now. Still nothing?

It's really funny, since if we had listened to them, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and no problems would be solved for Iraqis, nor would the future look any brighter.

There are problems in Iraq to be sure, but I find that anti-war people aren't too concerned with trying to solve them. They are rather too busy using the problems for partisan politics.

It's like a ship filling with water, the captain is trying to plug up the hole, while the wannabe captain is yelling to everyone how horrible the captain is and trying to get them to select him as their captain instead - all without proposing how they are actually supposed to stop the ship from sinking, or helping the captain stop the ship from sinking while he is levying criticism.

That is the anti-war movement in a nutshell.

"I have not heard a single alternative for dealing with Saddam Hussein from the peace crowd that would have alleviated all the problems without innocent blood being spilled."

I believe NOT invading the country and NOT subjecting the inhabitants to a war was suggested at one point.

I don't understand how our drive to improve the lot of the suffering Iraqi jibes with

"Well, we've made the decision to defeat the terrorists abroad so we don't have to face them here at home. And when you engage the terrorists abroad, it causes activity and action."
—GWBush, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005

I don't believe the average Iraqi was consulted on this policy; or even a representative sample.

I believe NOT invading the country and NOT subjecting the inhabitants to a war was suggested at one point.

Yes, and I bet the Iraqis would just love that. The majority of them said that it was worth toppling Saddam, although obviously most of them don't like how things are right now.

So we should just look at Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and all other places where people are oppressed and hurting and say sorry but you are destined to be screwed?

Do you think leaving Saddam in power would have solved ANY problems in the future instead of creating new ones?

That is exactly the kind of mindset that led to Kim Jong Il now sitting with nukes, and that has led to the stand-off with Iran. We could have prevented all of these dangerous situations from happening long ago if we had just been smart about it. That is precisely what the war in Iraq is about: preventing the world from further escalating into an insanely dangerous place.

"So we should just look at Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and all other places where people are oppressed and hurting and say sorry but you are destined to be screwed?"

I believe that is the current administration policy, yes.

z,

Yes, because North Korea has nukes, Iran has a bitch of a terrain plus a strong army, Syria is about to be taken to the cleaners, and Saudi Arabia's royal family will meet their demise once we get less dependent on their oil which the Iraq war is a part of. Things take time.

I love that pretzel logic. On one side, you say not to invade Iraq. When I ask you why not, you say, "well you're not invading all the other countries!"

Not all regimes have to come down with a war, either. With Iraq, that was the only way to ensure our goals because Saddam had that country wrapped around his finger. Hell, he had the UN, France, Russia, and China wrapped around his finger. Oil money sure does go a long way.

Seixon Says:
November 9th, 2005 at 2:55 am
"The majority of them [Iraqis] said that it was worth toppling Saddam, although obviously most of them don't like how things are right now.
So we should just look at Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and all other places where people are oppressed and hurting and say sorry but you are destined to be screwed?"

z Says:
November 9th, 2005 at 5:41 am
"I believe that is the current administration policy, yes."

Seixon Says:
November 9th, 2005 at 6:22 am
"Yes, because North Korea has nukes, Iran has a bitch of a terrain plus a strong army, Syria is about to be taken to the cleaners, and Saudi Arabia's royal family will meet their demise once we get less dependent on their oil which the Iraq war is a part of. Things take time."

Once again, I marvel at your ability to firmly hold to two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.

z,

I marvel at the ability to deny reality. In other words, in order for me to be "consistent" then the USA must invade and topple every single regime in the whole world at the same time. You won't even allow for this process to be carried out over a period of time. Nope, it has to be all done simultaneously or else I am "contradicting" myself...

Now I can see why you don't even understand what you are talking about in the Lancet threads. It's a logical disconnect.

Let me guess, if my policy is to feed all the kids in Africa, then you will say I am contradicting myself by only feeding one kid at a time.... Or finding different ways of feeding different kids...

That is basically what you just said.

"In other words, in order for me to be "consistent" then the USA must invade and topple every single regime in the whole world at the same time. You won't even allow for this process to be carried out over a period of time. Nope, it has to be all done simultaneously or else I am "contradicting" myself"

Ah. I thought when you asked

"So we should just look at Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and all other places where people are oppressed and hurting and say sorry but you are destined to be screwed?"

your answer would have been "NO!". I stand corrected.

z,

Apparently the phrase "destined to be screwed" doesn't resonate with you as something that can happen across a longer period of time. Look up destiny and see what it means. Thanks. The more you know...

So... only Saddam's regime required being toppled Right Now to save the inhabitants from the etc. etc. etc., and the loss of life and general horror ongoing, not to mention the ill will towards the US and the West in general, are the unavoidable price to be paid because if we had left it any longer, it would have gotten so much worse for them; but Iraq, North Korea, etc. are a different matter, they can sit for a while. Have I got it now?

z,

If you actually sat back and thought for a minute, you might even discover why we went to Iraq instead of all those other places. Let me toss some words at you and see if you get it.

Weak. Inspections. UN violations. No nukes. Oil-For-Food. Secular regime.

Anything coming to you yet? If not, read on:

A. We had Iraq on a long list of UN violations; not so for all those other countries I mentioned

B. Iraq was the weakest of all the countries I mentioned, with the possible exception of Syria

C. Iraq had no nukes, such as North Korea

D. Iraq was gaming a UN humanitarian program, none of the others were/are

E. The sanctions on Iraq were falling apart because Saddam could buy too much influence with his oil; sanctions work well on North Korea since they have no oil to sell/smuggle/hussle

F. Iraq had a secular regime; Saudi Arabia and Iran do not, attacking them would be seen as more of a religious war; Saudi Arabia is the holy land of Muslims

G. Iraq is very strategically positioned in the Middle East, neighbor to three of the countries I mentioned (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran)

You want me to go on for why we did something about Iraq first?

It is all very logical if you just take a step back and look at all the facts.

"It is all very logical if you just take a step back and look at all the facts."

Well, it certainly explains why you can't believe an estimate of 100,000 extra deaths.

Z,
I see your last statement as giving up since it is completely off topic? But then again, I can see why someone who'd say this would quite:

Yow. fighting tooth and nail, perhaps in the sense of the Iraqis' teeth and nails, or the teeth and nails of the few Americans unlucky enough to be sent there [Only that they all volunteered for the Army]. From the American point of view, it's a war fought with an underfunded, underequipped, undertrained, understaffed [only when compared to what the generals want, not when compared to any other army on the face of the Earth] according to the requests of the military commanders involved army consisting largely of essentially involuntary conscripts [conscripts? They were drafted? That's probably news to everyone but you.] from the National Guard with no effort whatsoever to elicit proper intelligence data [I'll grant the CIA is full of idiots], let alone international cooperation [Oh right, no one is helping the US. Almost every intelligence agency in the world is feeding the US.], in order not to threathen the heroic stance of the administration, the all important tax cuts [Wow, look at the US growth rate, maybe Europe should try some tax cuts], or the access of the voting public to unlimited supplies of artificially low priced gasoline [What? The US pays less for oil than the rest of the world? When did this happen?].

"Only that they all volunteered for the Army"

Except, of course, for the very large fraction of those now in Iraq who volunteered for the National Guard, believing that they would be serving the oft quoted "2 weekends a month", serving their fellow Americans domestically in disasters such as the oft referred to Hurricane Katrina and given the option of leaving the Guard after a year, rather than being sent overseas to a shooting war and retained for ***up to 25 years*** in order to provide freedom to the Iraqis ***right friggin now***, on a low budget plan.

"[only when compared to what the generals want, not when compared to any other army on the face of the Earth]"

Well, we wouldn't want to listen to generals when it comes to war planning. Note, however, that Pappy Bush took 500,000 American troops and 300,000 nonAmerican troops to push Saddam out of Kuwait back into Iraq, whereas the Young Bushies had the belief that they could actually go into Iraq and accomplish a regime change with a total of 150,000 troops.

"conscripts? They were drafted? That's probably news to everyone but you."

Well, then this is probably news to you:

"Army expanding 'stop loss' order to keep soldiers from leaving

By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Army will announce as early as Tuesday new orders that will forbid thousands of soldiers from leaving the service after they return this year from Iraq, Afghanistan and other fronts in the war against terrorism, defense officials said Monday.

As well as the aforementioned National Guardsmen who find themselves suddenly in the middle of an overseas war for up to the next 25 years, as well as the retired 55 year old female VietNam era officers who find that since they did not formally resign their commission, they are now being called up again.

"Like many Army officers, Mary signed up for eight years -- four years active duty, and four years in the Ready Reserves. She received her discharge certificate in 1998, but she was called up this past June to serve as a transportation officer.

"I called the Delay and Exemption Board. And the young lady that I talked to said that date [on my contract] meant nothing. That my new date is 2018," says Mary.

"I was in shock. I was like, 'What do you mean? I have a piece of paper that tells me that that's my obligation.' And for them to just send me orders and disrupt my life and pull me back, it's disheartening and I feel betrayed, I guess you could say. The military is betraying me, because I served my time."

What Mary didn't realize is that, as an officer, she remained in the Ready Reserve -- even after her eight years were through -- because she hadn't resigned her commission as an officer.

But she's not alone. Many officers say they were never made aware of that -- that no mention is made of it in the enlistment agreements they signed. The Army, which declined a request by 60 Minutes for an interview, counters that the requirement is referred to in the agreements - if ever so obliquely.

"It's a six-digit reference to an Army regulation, that that's put in a remark section in these agreements," says Mark Waple, a lawyer who specializes in defending soldiers. "It borders on being a deceptive recruiting practice. I'm not suggesting it was intended that way."

Waple is a graduate of West Point and was once a judge advocate general in the military himself. "

"Oh right, no one is helping the US. Almost every intelligence agency in the world is feeding the US"

Oh right, almost the entire world is behind the US in this drive to bring freedom to Iraq, except for the Bad People on this blog.

"Wow, look at the US growth rate, maybe Europe should try some tax cuts"

I see your last statement as giving up since it is completely off topic?

"unlimited supplies of artificially low priced gasoline
[What? The US pays less for oil than the rest of the world? When did this happen?]"

Well, since no sane person would attempt to win a debate by deliberately pretending to be this ignorant, I will assume that you really are this ignorant, and will do you the favor of educating you on this important matter:

Countryaverage gasoline price, cents per litre, 2004

United States54

Iceland164

Netherlands162

Norway161

United Kingdom156

Finland154

Italy153

Denmark151

Sweden151

Belgium150

Germany146

France142

Portugal138

Austria132

Hungary130

Ireland129

Liechtenstein129

Switzerland129

Croatia124

Albania123

Spain121

Belize120

Montenegro120

Poland120

Luxembourg119

Malta118

Macedonia, FYR117

Slovak Republic117

Kosovo116

Greece114

Uruguay113

Peru112

Slovenia112

Cyprus (south only)108

Czech Republic108

Lithuania103

Serbia100

Bosnia and Herzegovina97

Romania96

Cuba95

Estonia94

Latvia94

Bulgaria92

Haiti88

Chile85

Dominican Republic85

Brazil84

Barbados82

Honduras81

Costa Rica78

Guyana74

Grenada73

Colombia72

Nicaragua69

Antigua and Barbuda68

Canada68

Guatemala68

El Salvador65

Argentina63

Jamaica63

Paraguay62

Belarus62

Mexico59

Ukraine55

Bolivia54

Ecuador54

Panama54

Puerto Rico51

Suriname50

Trinidad and Tobago35

Venezuela, RB4

(Other countries of Africa, Asia, et al deleted for reasons of Tim's disk space.

As usual, somebody else expresses it better than I can:

Daou Report
by Peter Daou

It's the Proportionality, Stupid: With the debate about the Iraq debate raging, the lying about the lying, the rationalizing of the rationale, the rewriting of the rewritten, the un-American accusations of un-Americanism, the entire Iraq issue is really much simpler than the uproar would suggest. In a word, the administration's actions and words were out of proportion to the magnitude, urgency, and primacy of the threat.

It wasn't about how many people believed Saddam had WMD. Many did. It wasn't about the world changing after 9/11. It did. It wasn't a question of Saddam's brutality. Everyone knew how brutal he was. It was about the b.s. It was about the rhetoric not matching the reality. Sometimes it doesn't take access to classified material or secret memos or intelligence briefings, or abstruse arguments about foreign policy and national security and military strategy. Sometimes it just takes a good b.s. detector to know you're being conned. During the run-up to the invasion, the war's opponents operated on a simple principle: if it walks like a bull and snorts like a bull, it's probably bull.

Bush, Condi, Cheney and Rummy's grim-faced, apocalyptic pronouncements were like something out of a third rate horror flick. Talk of mushroom clouds from Iraq while North Korea and Iran flaunted their nuclear programs unanswered defied credulity. And talk of an enormous invasion and occupation - starting with shock and awe - on humanitarian grounds, while places like Darfur experience mass slaughter and children starve and die of preventable diseases unaided across the planet and other dictators rule unchecked, well, that wasn't believable then and it isn't now..

A couple of weeks ago, I explained the position of the anti-war crowd like this: "Here we were, more than a decade after the first gulf war, two years after 9/11, and Saddam hadn't attacked us, he hadn't threatened to attack us. And then suddenly, he was the biggest threat to America. A threat that required a massive invasion. A bigger threat than Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Bin Laden. A HUGE, IMMEDIATE threat. It simply defied belief. What's amazing is that anyone bought into it." There were moments during Bush's wild-eyed speeches that many Americans wanted to look him in the eye and say, "you really expect us to believe that?" If you make doomsday predictions and take the country to war on the basis of those predictions, at least make them realistic.

Now that millions more Americans have copped on to the con job, and cold, hard reality has turned their gaze inward, we're seeing pro-war bloggers and pundits and politicians come unhinged. We're getting heart-tugging rhetoric about terror and freedom and liberation. We're being warned not to rewrite history. We're seeing a furious effort to stop the inexorable solidification of conventional wisdom.

But in the end, it boils down to proportionality. The mark of a false statement is the dissonance between the statement and reality. The greater the dissonance, the bigger the falsehood. Millions of Americans sensed the disconnect between the administration's hair-raising Iraq prognostications and what they saw with their own eyes. And millions more are seeing the disconnect now. Sadly, it's too late for the thousands who've lost their lives....and the thousands more who will until this nightmare is brought to an end.
http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=5e6c1beb-6d3b-4058…