A study shows that about 655,000 Iraqis have died since the beginning of the war; Bush says that this study is not credible -- that only about 50,000 have been killed. Here's the story My questions -- who do you believe and and how could these numbers be sooo far off?
Posts: 5569 | Location: south of Cincy | Registered: 07-12-02
The Johns Hopkins University/ Bloomberg School of Public Health, versus George W, Bush ???? Now, Who you gonna believe? Who has never steered you wrong ? Sold you a bill of goods ? Has a vested interest? I think it's a no-brainer.
Just being a bit facetious, Frankvan, but then you knew that. How many times is this guy going to lie to us? How can anyone find him credible at all? Yet I know that there are those of you who still know and I can't imagine why. Please enlighten me if you do.
Posts: 5569 | Location: south of Cincy | Registered: 07-12-02
Iraq Body Count currently has a maximum figure of 48,693. This figure is based on 'two or more independent approved news sources' for each death. The actual number is surely higher.
I believe the Commanders that are on the ground in the Country.
That explains a lot. The commanders on the ground ought to be better occupied than out there counting Iraqui bodies. IMHO. Perhaps they'd meet with a little more success than they have in their war winning efforts.
The 'commanders on the ground' don't seem to be counting. In fact they've said that they don't; and the commander quoted in the Reuters story said, "I've not seen a number higher than 50,000." Where did that figure come from? Is it actually the Iraq Body Count one?
The commanders on the ground, at least the ones that are left, will say what they are told to say. That has been obvious since before the invasion. They want their promotion and medal, too.
Posts: 17034 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
The commanders on the ground, at least the ones that are left, will say what they are told to say. That has been obvious since before the invasion. They want their promotion and medal, too
Oh, of course. All of our Commanders are liars. Like I said 600.000 bodies would be very hard to miss.
Posts: 3165 | Location: From the Mountains to the Sea. | Registered: 06-08-02
I doubt they're all helpfully stacked in one obvious heap. And it's not like there's a dedicated team of UN inspectors looking for them.
"I've not seen a number higher than 50,000" may not be a lie, but it sounds like weasel words. The guy must be aware, like us, that Iraq Body Count has a figure of about 50,000 which - being comprised of deaths confirmed by two news accounts - is a minimum. The real figure is almost certainly higher than 50,000.
Baghdad had a pre-war population of about 5.8 million, about twice the size of Chicago. How much damage did it receive in the opening shots of the war? Could a few hundred thousand people die in a city of almost 6 million during a war and it not be noticed by the other side? How many are still buried under the rubble? How many would die if Chicago were subjected to what Baghdad went through in those opening days?
Posts: 17034 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
With U.S. and British forces on the move, and after a day in which Baghdad was bombarded with more than 60 cruise missiles, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, "Things are going very well. The pressure is continuing on the Iraqi regime, and [the regime] will not be there in the period ahead." - CNN
And yet Scotty says that he "doubt(s) if you find one day when 512 have been killed."
If "more than 60 cruise missiles" hit a crowded city of almost 6 million, and less than 512 people died, it seems we would have been better off dropping diseased cows and just waiting a while.
Posts: 17034 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
