Bahaha...my town made the news...

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

01/30/2006 01:54:52 PM · #76

Originally posted by Gatorguy:

The numbers are bad enough without you making stuff up. Open your eyes to see the whole picture, not just what you want to see.

So I say to you: Please "get your stats right before posting !"

Regards

ok here are some stats..

Casualties in Afghanistan & Iraq
222,914 KILLED, 476,776 SERIOUSLY INJURED
stats

I think those numbers are a bit more accurate for americans, since it's from "Operation Iraqi Freedom," which is the Pentagon's public-relations name for the invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq.

and since the number of casualties amongst the coalitions troops are very low, most of those casualties are civilians killed by the coalition army.

I do see both sides of the story, but I only hear one side from the americans, and the other from everybody else, and I belive more of what I hear from everybody else, even though some of what I hear from the american side is also true, but not nearly all !

Gatorguy

Nikon D700

01/30/2006 02:40:37 PM · #77

Originally posted by DanSig:

ok here are some stats..

Casualties in Afghanistan & Iraq
222,914 KILLED, 476,776 SERIOUSLY INJURED
stats

I think that your "facts" come from someplace called "unknown news" speaks volumes.
I also find it interesting that you choose to use the figures estimated by "The Lancet", figures many times higher than anyone else is estimating - other that include BBC and Iraqi sources themselves. The Lancet even claims to use the Iraqi Body Count reference that I provided before but do some funny statistical methodology to multiply the numbers. Have you read it? You need to so you can try to follow the fuzzy math for yourself. Throughout the discussion in the article they are protecting themselves by stating that they are using gross extrapolations and that the numbers may not be correct. (???)

But whatever, your position is known and there shall be no confusing you with facts so I will sign off this discussion.

Regards

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

01/30/2006 03:23:23 PM · #78

I actually do agree, those stats might be wrong, but it's the same method used by the American Goverment when they display stats calculated by the lancet method, so if they are accurate enough for the US goverment when they do the calculations, then they should be accurate enough who ever does the calcualtions...

but it's just that this time the stats are not in favor of the coalition, so they will not admit to these stats, but if they were the other way around, 222,914 americans killed, then those numbers would come up every time anyone spoke of this issue.

may those Iraqis rest in peace, and this boring thred.....

milo655321

Nikon D70

01/30/2006 03:48:12 PM · #79

Originally posted by DanSig:

ok here are some stats..

Casualties in Afghanistan & Iraq
222,914 KILLED, 476,776 SERIOUSLY INJURED
stats

Those statistics seem overly high. From what I've read, I would be more inclined to view the figures listed on Iraq Body Count as more acurate. I believe the President agreed with an approximation of these numbers not too long ago during a press conference.

Minimum - 28,267
Maximum - 31,871

ETA: I failed to mention that these statistics included Iraqis killed by other Iraqis and foreign non-coalition forces (e.g., roadside bombs, various executions of accused "collaborators", Iraqi police and military in-training, etc.).

Message edited by author 2006-01-30 15:57:37.

01/30/2006 04:46:50 PM · #80

wow. this post is extremly boht sided, we all have such political views,
DanSig, your post about U.S soldiers Raping and piliging women and children well i dont feel that you are wrong, yes im sure they did, IN VIETNAM AND BEFORE< because those soldiers were forced to be there,and didnt care about what they did, im not saying it was correct for them but thats what hapend, and if you think that your countries army wont rape and pillage in the same circumstances is wrong,
i can tell you from EXPERIENCE, that everyday in Iraq, we filled our humvee with water and food and gave it to the iraqi, people as did our whole company because it was standard opperating procedure, i know that in iraq my company helped build a school, and give supplies to the children and teachers,
I can say that my company helped train hundreds of Iraqi Army troops, I can say that on any given day, we employed 1000 iraqi civilians in our camp, and fed them also,
i can go on and on, my point is that NO NEWS source in all of the world is reporting the good stuff, only the bad stuff, wich just helpes people negative views,

Message edited by author 2006-01-30 16:47:51.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

01/30/2006 06:06:32 PM · #81

Originally posted by TroyMosley:

I never said ALL soldiers were bad, but the few rotten apple spoil the rest !

and my country doesn't have an army, my country has over 1000 years of peace, and the only fighting we've done is the cod war agains Britain, 3 "wars" and we won them all, without an army !

Iceland has never had any sort of an army in the 1100 years it has been populated, bt for the past 50 years the US Navy has been in Iceland, with a small sector of land barred so they don't bother us and we don't bother them, and the soldiers can only go off base dressed as civilians and while off base Icelandic laws apply to them, and they will be arrested and prosecuted if they break our laws.

I think Iceland is the only free country in the world without any army or secret agencies, it has been that way for over a millenium, and it will stay that way fo another millenium, we are the most peaceful country in the world and we do not want to engage in war against any country, and we do not want to help any country at war, but we do send our specialized search & rescue teams all over the world where help is needed.

I am a very peacful man, I just don't like it when people try to defend the killing of people, no matter what they've done.

if you kill a terrrorist, does that make you a better person than the terrorist you just killed ?

milo655321

Nikon D70

01/30/2006 06:11:36 PM · #82

Originally posted by DanSig:

and my country doesn't have an army, my country has over 1000 years of peace, and the only fighting we've done is the cod war agains Britain, 3 "wars" and we won them all, without an army !

But ... but ... but ... who would want Iceland?

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

01/30/2006 06:26:12 PM · #83

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by DanSig:
and my country doesn't have an army, my country has over 1000 years of peace, and the only fighting we've done is the cod war agains Britain, 3 "wars" and we won them all, without an army !

But ... but ... but ... who would want Iceland?

if you look at a world map and see where we are located you'd see who...

in wwII Iceland was strategically the most important place in the world, in those times airplanes couldn't cross the atlantic with heavy loads excepl land and refuel in Iceland or on Azor islands, since the Azors had a rather bad airport and was close to the submarine route Iceland was the better choice.

the Germans wanted to invade Iceland, so did the Russians and the French. the Brits invaded Iceland in 1940 and a year later the Americans came and took over.

so I wouldn't say who wants Iceland, rather who doesn't :)

and now that airplanes can cross the Atlantic without refueling the US Navy wants to leave Iceland.. figures.. they sign a contract that they will defend us in case we get invaded so they can build a base here, but now that they don't need us anymore, they just want to leave...

but now it's the DPC fashion.. anyone can take good pictures in Iceland.. so now all photographers wants to invade us with their "guns" ;) but in this case.. you're welcome :)

milo655321

Nikon D70

01/30/2006 07:37:23 PM · #84

Originally posted by DanSig:

Originally posted by milo655321:
But ... but ... but ... who would want Iceland?

if you look at a world map and see where we are located you'd see who...

(psst ... it was a joke.)

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

01/30/2006 08:18:29 PM · #85

the main point to my topic was that,
really no one has the faintest idea of what happens in Iraq, if you believe all the news says then you are a very narryow minded person, all these damm politicians talking about how bad iraq is, well, they havent been there, they see the news, and may have inside source, but what do they really know, just as much as much as you.
like i said in my other thread, i hate U.S based news, but still bbc doesnt report good stuff either, they just dont have a censor like U.S news.

David Ey

Nikon D80

01/30/2006 08:38:20 PM · #86

I believe US news has more of an agenda than a censor.

jsas

Sony Mavica CD250

01/30/2006 09:34:03 PM · #87

So there was a cod war? Didn't know fish was coveted as oil is.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

01/30/2006 09:53:53 PM · #88

Never heard of the "Great Cod Liver Oil Wars" of the 1860's ? Where you been man? btw, the US and GB will be there for you should the need arise my Icelandic friend.

01/31/2006 02:38:41 AM · #89

Originally posted by jsas:

So there was a cod war? Didn't know fish was coveted as oil is.

HERE is some info about the Cod Wars

01/31/2006 05:05:36 AM · #90

Originally posted by milo655321:

From what I've read, I would be more inclined to view the figures listed on Iraq Body Count as more acurate. I believe the President agreed with an approximation of these numbers not too long ago during a press conference.

Minimum - 28,267
Maximum - 31,871

There is a very important quote from that website that appears to have been overlooked:

Originally posted by iraqbodycount.org:

Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media.

From memory, the Lancet study was based around a statistical analysis. People were sampled in several randomly chosen areas. One randomly chosen area (Tikrit) was discarded as being statistically misleading, because of the extremely high post-war level of death due to high levels of fighting. People in the areas used were interviewed and asked to relate names and details of relatives who had died (for any reason) during the preceding 10 years. A statistical analysis could then be carried out in respect of the pre-war period death rate and the post-war death rate, from which figures can be extrapolated with a calculable degree of accuracy. It is an indiscriminate survey, in that it does not identify combatant death from death caused by civil breakdown or insurgency. However, it does identify the cost of the war over the background rate of death previously suffered under Saddam.

The cost was at least 100,000 people killed who would probably be alive but for the war (this uses the most conservative of estimates). That figure does not include people who would have died in the ordinary course of events. The count by iraqbodycount.org is in accordance with these figures: it records an absolute minimum of between 28k and 31k deaths related to the invasion where there have been multiple credible journalistic reports of the same death.

The perhaps more shocking and often overlooked statistic relates to those injured: injured rarely means a cut or a bruise, but a missing limb or serious injury.

Message edited by author 2006-01-31 05:23:54.

01/31/2006 07:59:35 AM · #91

Interestingly, using the extrapolated position from the Lancet report posited by the Unknown news site, the effect of the war has been to leave 1 in 42 Iraqi people killed or seriously injured. That is a lot.

01/31/2006 10:12:06 AM · #92

these counts you are all coming up with, those are really high numbers, you got to understand that the people who did this count are estimating, and they are probably Iraqi, so they are definetly going to add a few to help out there agenda
yes plenty of civilian get hurt, but i would estimate more civilians have been hurt by there own iraqi counterparts ie: insurgents then they have from American bombs.

01/31/2006 10:18:59 AM · #93

Originally posted by TroyMosley:

Try English, academics, and making conservative estimates as to the consequences of the war (regardless of the reason for each death itself). The upper limit of the estimate was 280,000 killed by December 2004.

Message edited by author 2006-01-31 10:20:57.

01/31/2006 10:24:13 AM · #94

these english you speak of, where they there? or did they ask the Iraqi people how many people they think were killed, or wounded,
if thats the case, these Iraqi, most of them are un educated and have no idea how big of a difference there s between 1000 and 2000,
these people ALWAYS over exagurate, no matter what the cause,

01/31/2006 10:26:47 AM · #95

and to add, you can give these people a carton of ciggerets and a jug of water and they will tell you whatever you want to hear.

01/31/2006 11:19:21 AM · #96

As I posted earlier, Iraqi individuals were asked to relate details of deaths of their close relatives over the preceding 10 years. No-one other than their own relatives. This is information that most people can remember fairly accurately and have no reason to lie about. No estimates or exaggerations came into it.

The figures, composited, show the average number of familial deaths experienced by people for each year for the preceding 10 years. The figures post-war were higher than the pre-war figures. Ie, on average, more people had a death in the family after the war started to Dec 2004 than in the same period before.

These increased post war mortality rates can be extrapolated take into account the population as a whole. This determined the likely number of postwar dead over the peacetime number to be between 100,000 and 280,000.

The sampling was conducted in a variety of randomly selected (but populated) areas. Everyone within a certain radius is interviewed, and statistical anomalies are disregarded (as happened in for a randomly chosen area of Tikrit).

A number of control and double blind measures are taken to achieve a degree of objectivity, though in practice this is an imprecise analysis: hence the large range of between 100,000 to 280,000.

01/31/2006 11:29:03 AM · #97

well lets just put Saddam back into power, or better yet leave Iraq withe a civil war and have Al Qeda take over, so that in ten years we would have to go back and clean up the mess no one wants to finish, so we can spend more money and lives later then now.

01/31/2006 11:51:37 AM · #98

Originally posted by TroyMosley:

Why? Of course we have a moral obligation to prevent those things happening. As I posted earlier,

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

after:

embroiling the country in an illegal war;
demolishing public infrastructure;
disbanding the army and all forms of civil control;
inciting fundamentalists to populate the country;
exacerbating existing national tension;
imposing a temporary puppet ruler;

there is something of a moral obligation not to just leave an entire nation to fall apart, be invaded, and/or allow Saddam to be replaced by a truly despotic leader (Taliban or Al Quaida sponsored).

The US (and the West) must remain in Iraq and accept the consequences of its actions.

This point on number arose because petrakka suggested that the invasion of Iraq was proportionate to the "millions" killed in the terrorist "invasion" of the US. DanSig posted some figures in response, which were criticised as being too high. I am merely pointing out that DanSig's figures are backed by some serious analysis, and the preferred, lower, count admits that it probably does not record the majority of war related deaths.

I note that a number of people object to the higher figure. Does it matter if the higher number is the more accurate, and up to 300,000 Iraqi people have been killed rather than 30,000?

01/31/2006 12:01:13 PM · #99

NOPE, i feel the war was completely justafiable,
only those who have not been there can say its a wast of time and that we are wrong for doing so. but why dont you go there, and see what has been done, the infastructure you talk about that has been destroyed, well it has been rebuilt, and its better then it was before, the army that was disbanded, well its better trained then it was before, the school system is better then it was before, the working class is providing for their families more then they were before.