Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Shministim
Pilots
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network


Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile



Google
Web antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Blogs

Sites




Previous Posts



Powered by Blogger

 


Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Counting the cost

Andrew Cockburn, Counterpunch, January 9:

"President Bush's off-hand summation last month of the number of Iraqis who have so far died as a result of our invasion and occupation as '30,000, more or less' was quite certainly an under-estimate. The true number is probably hitting around 180,000 by now, with a possibility, as we shall see, that it has reached as high as half a million."

18 Comments:

Blogger Wombat said...

Compunded with the estimates that the war could results in financial cost to America of between 1 and 2 trillion, and this war is becomming even more absurb and criminal - if that's at all possible.

I am sure that the number of US casualties wil lalso be shown to be far higher than the 2,200 number as it stands at the moment.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:46:00 am  
Blogger Shabadoo said...

Let's call this the Katrina Factor, where every hysterical lefty estimate of a death toll that can somehow be pinned on Bush is multiplied by a factor of 10. (I.e., the 10K allegedly killed by Hurricane BushHitlerZionazi last year).

30K may have been a lowball, but if Cock-burn is saying 500K, it's probably around 50K. And how many of those were killed by Michael Moore's brave Minutemen insurgency?

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:26:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Don't you mean 50K give or take a few K?

Sad as it might be, it will be interesting to hear Bush spin why 3 thousand Aemrican in Iraq had to die to avenge the deaths of 3 thousand American's from 911, as a result of attacking a country that had nothing to do with 911.

KNowing Bush's subtlety, he's likely to turn to the Secretary of Defense and say "Rummy, you're doing a hell of a job".

And the death toll from Katrina is still rising. The humanitarian crisis is far from over.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:44:00 pm  
Blogger Shabadoo said...

Gosh, Addamo, it sounds almost like you're hoping for more Katrina deaths!

Bush did not invade Iraq to avenge 9/11, and the fact that you are changing from the normal Lefty spin that it was all about WMDs or oil reveals that you'll change reasons whenever it suits you - the same thing you accuse Bush of doing. It's not even worth rehashing the tripartite reasons for invasion as outlined in SOTU.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:26:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Gee wizzz, you're not tryhing the strw man trick are you Shab?

20% of Americans still think Iraq had something to do with 911, and SOTU or no SOTU, they didn't arrive at that conclusion ont their own. Bush had them believing it before the war was launched. I haven't changed my reasons, just thought it woud make one fo those golden moments.

The right does have a problem grappling with irony.

Anyway, the SOTU has been shown not to be worth the paper it was printed on, not to mention the 16 words of Texan sized BS.

Lefty spipn you say? Correct me if I'm wrong but lfty's didn't buy the WMD crap and anyway, haven't you chickenhawks been proven 100% wrong? Gotta hand it to you mate, you guys have the swagger and the false bravado nailed down.

Having to swallow your pride and say you were wrong must be tough. I sympathise.

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:41:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

20% of americans probably aren't certain about the round earth theory. 80% of americans think you're full of addamo.

Most Americans do not believe that the US overthrew Saddam for 9/11.

You don't sympathize, you just know how it feels, since you feel it often.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 12:53:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Prior to the invasion, polls showed that a signiifciant number of Americans believed Saddam was either linked or directly behind 911.

One could hardly blame them with Cheney hardpin on about a supposed meeting nbetween Atta and and Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague etc etc.

That number has obviously dwindled since then as facts came to bear.

A recently as December 2005, at a press conference, Bush was asked by an audience memebr why he continued to link the invasion of Iraq with 911, iin sppirte of envidence and reports to the contrary. His answer was that 911 changed the way he viewed foreign policy. Interestingly, he did not deny the allegation.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 1:46:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

9/11 does change the way americans view foreign policy. Not for the better, either.

Regardless, most Americans do not believe that the US overthrew Saddam for 9/11. There is no poll in existance that states they did.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 2:59:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Polls were taken that suggest otherwise:

This link is broken, though I have had it for a while, but it did state that accroding to this poll 70% thought Hussein was linked to 9/11.

http://msnbc.msn.com/news/962627.asp?0na=x2314230

This poll suggested 45% believed there was an alleged link between 9/11 and Iraq
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10006998/

Here is a link about he alledged Prague meeting and how Cheney was pushing this onto the public:

Dubious Link Between Atta and Saddam
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3741646&p1=0

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 3:11:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

The poll suggesting a link is not a poll assessing the thought of the American public as to the supposed reason for overthrowing the tyranical murderous Iraqi regime. The one that murdered 500,000 to thumb its nose at the US.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 4:48:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

It's up to 500,000 now is it? I thought it was 300,000. Irrespective of the facts, it makes a mockery of the fact that the only charges being made against him are in connection with the killing of 140 Shi'ite Muslims in the village of Dujail, north of Baghdad, in 1982.

It's no coincidence that this is one of the eents that took place long before Rumsfled was filmed shaking hands with the guy and declaring him an ally of the US. Saddam threattened to call Rummy ot the stand if charges from later in the 1980's was brought against him.

As for the war itself, the support from the public was garnered on the premise that Iraq posed a threat to the US and other countries in the region.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:00:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Aren't you the one who claims 500,000 died because of the sanctions?

Indeed the support from the public was garnered on the premise that Iraq posed a threat to the US and other countries in the region. But not because of 9/11.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:31:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

I thought you were referring to pre-1991.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:33:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

No.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:22:00 am  
Blogger Wilbourne said...

I am not ashamed of the fact that I believe Saddam deserved the Ceausescu treatment.

It's amusing seeing people complain about Saddam having his human rights being violated, in the face of a patently fair trial where he is represented by a star-studded team of lefties led by Wesley Clark, when had they been given the choice Saddam would still be in power murdering and terrorrizing his own population.

Surely they see the moral inconsistency there. They believe, in the face of all reason, that Saddam deserves better. But not that the Iraqi people deserve better, because they would have left him charge.

Have the Iraqi people recieved better? Debatable, and the short span of Iraq's latest history doesn't allow for a definitive judgement just yet. Time is on everyones side.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 9:23:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

That's the lamest straw man argument I have ever heard. Who goives a damn about Saddam? Let the fucker fry. But if we are seriosu abotu putting him on trial, should we not also trial his enablers?

What more productive? Trying a drug user or a drug pucher?

The quesrion is, does Saddam=the Iraqi people? Was nabbing him worth the chaos, the cost, the tens of thousand of lives, the lives destroyed to get him?

Time is on no ones side. The costs are continuing unabated in all respects.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:00:00 am  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

Shabadoo: "Gosh, Addamo, it sounds almost like you're hoping for more Katrina deaths!"

Gosh, Shab, that is one of the most common and fallacious ad hominem non-arguments of the 101st fighting keyboardists. Good one.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:10:00 am  
Blogger orang said...

(swagger, swagger) Heh, heh, we're bad, heh heh. Now where did those WMD's get to? Over here? Noooo...
Over here? ....Noooooo Hehehheh... What's that ma? They're poor so this is good for them? Sure, don't bother your beautiful mind.....Bring em on!!!..heheheh

What we really need is for The Idiot to get a taste of violence so he'll know what it all means.
A friend of mine has this Pulp Fiction fantasy for The Idiot.
"......I'ma call a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' niggers, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talkin', hillbilly boy? I ain't through with you by a damn sight. I'ma get medieval on your ass."

he might like it.

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 6:20:00 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home