655,000
That's the number of Iraqi dead due to the illegal invasion by the United States, according to this study.
However, as the "president" explains to us, that level of carnage only goes to show you how much the Iraqis love democracy:
However, as the "president" explains to us, that level of carnage only goes to show you how much the Iraqis love democracy:
I do know that a lot of innocent people have died and it troubles me and grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to — you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate.Mr. "President": My Frist Diagnost-o-tron tells me you are a sick fuck. There is not enough water in the world to wash away the blood on your hands.
posted by Antonius at 9:32 PM
2 Comments:
Pliny,
it is pretty obvious you have neither read the Lancet paper, nor any of the reporting on it, but refuse to see the blood on our hands and just dismiss this, well, just "because."
The Lancet article tries to estimate the excess deaths that occurred from the start of the invasion until now versus what would have likely happened "normally." And all the difference really establishes is "correlation"; because, you must admit, that the single biggest difference between Iraq pre- and postinvasion was the invasion, no???
Table 2 of the Lancet article is very clear about this--it divides deaths into "non-violent" and "violent" and compares the rates pre- and postinvasion.
Non-violent deaths are not the kind that "pile up in the street," which I'm sure you know already, but the rate has definitely worsened in the past 2003 years.
So my advice to you: read the actual report instead of LGF, Malkin, etc.
In my last post, I said:
"Non-violent deaths are not the kind that 'pile up in the street,' which I'm sure you know already, but the rate has definitely worsened in the past 2003 years."
I should have said:
"Non-violent deaths are not the kind that 'pile up in the street,' which I'm sure you know already, but the rate has definitely worsened in the past 3 years."
Neither I nor The Lancet know the change in death rates for the past 2003 years!!
Post a Comment
<< Home