I can understand why the Islamic terrorist don't do body counts, why al Quaida doesn't want anyone to go there.

110 innocent Iraqis and 7 contractors are killed by Islamic Terrorist, and only ! U.S. soldier, Who are al Quaida, and the Islamic terrorist waging war against?

How are they liberating Iraq? By killing all of the Iraqis?

Today in Iraq;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/16/iraq.main/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A suicide truck bomber ripped through a busy commercial district in Kirkuk on Monday afternoon, leaving a large crater surrounded by dozens of mutilated bodies, police and military officials said.

An Iraqi soldier inspects a crater left by a suicide car explosion in the oil-rich city of Kirkuk on Monday.

At least 80 people were killed in the blast and another 170 were wounded, according to officials.

Several people were killed in a string of attacks Monday morning, a day after police reported finding 22 bullet-riddled bodies around the capital, an Interior Ministry official said.

Meanwhile, five people were killed and 25 were wounded when a suicide car bomber targeted a national police checkpoint in the Harthiya neighborhood of western Baghdad.

And in the northern part of the capital, in the Bab al-Mouadham district, gunmen opened fire on garbage collectors Monday afternoon, killing two people and wounding three.

Another person was killed and three more were wounded in the capital's Karrada district when a car bomb detonated on a commercial street just before 9 a.m., the official said.

All for;

• In Ninewa province, in northern Iraq, a U.S. soldier assigned to Task Force Lightning died from injuries sustained in a Sunday explosion, the U.S. military said. The death brings the number of U.S. troops killed in the war to 3,608. Seven civilian contractors also have been killed.

Sunni insurgents? Funded and armed by the U ASS of Ay?

http://www.drien.com.br/477930___blue_pill__.jpg

"How are they liberating Iraq? By killing all of the Iraqis?"

Do you mean the Americans slaughtering Iraqis? Of course the Americans can't 'liberate' Iraq if they are the invaders themselves. the Amerians haven't killed all Iraqis....just tens of thousands of them...thousands of women and children. thee's millions of Iraqis left for the Americans to kill.

Even the big bombs that the Americans drop on houses can't kill everyone. The USA can kill lots of insurgents in the 1 to 12 year age group but not all of them.

"How are they liberating Iraq? By killing all of the Iraqis?"

Do you mean the Americans slaughtering Iraqis? Of course the Americans can't 'liberate' Iraq if they are the invaders themselves. the Amerians haven't killed all Iraqis....just tens of thousands of them...thousands of women and children. thee's millions of Iraqis left for the Americans to kill.

Even the big bombs that the Americans drop on houses can't kill everyone. The USA can kill lots of insurgents in the 1 to 12 year age group but not all of them.

I have to wonder at your reading and comprehension skills.

We'll give you pictures to make it easier for you to understand.

http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/rape.html

Unfortunately the 'real' war isn't seen on American television so I can understand how you are so ill-informed of American rape and murder of Iraqi civilians.

It's sad to hear Americans, asking 'how can THEY do that' while not being shown mutilated bodies of children killed by U.S. bombs.

'x' number of 'insurgents' lilled today... Ya, half of them under the age of ten.

Sunni insurgents? Funded and armed by the U ASS of Ay?

http://www.drien.com.br/477930___blue_pill__.jpg


A yes, 117 innocents killed and S.A.M. goes the Sunni backed by the Americans route, yes S.A.M. day after day, the Moslems kill hundreds of their fellow Moslems in Iraq to free Iraq from the dastardly Americans. And from the way you go after the Sunni, I would assume you are a follower of the Shia'?

We'll give you pictures to make it easier for you to understand.

http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/rape.html

Unfortunately the 'real' war isn't seen on American television so I can understand how you are so ill-informed of American rape and murder of Iraqi civilians.
You must have no fuckin clue about war. Unfortunately my firewall has blocked that site, but I'm sure any bullshit in that article has probably happened during any war.
Shit happens. As I mention below, it's nice that you have left out the information and pictures of the carnage that is caused by suicide bombers. Please.

It's sad to hear Americans, asking 'how can THEY do that' while not being shown mutilated bodies of children killed by U.S. bombs.
Nice to see you conveniently failed to mention how many children and innocents that are killed by suicide bombers. :rolleyes:
Oh, it's a fuckin war. And I'm not inclined to be very sympathetic to civilians when they
1. harbor the insurgents we're looking for and
2. will deliberately lead coalition forces into ambushes/deliberately give false or withhold information from them.
ANY civilian, IMO, who will lead a U.S./coalition unit deliberately into an ambush is just as guilty as the p.o.s. insurgents we're looking for.


'x' number of 'insurgents' lilled today... Ya, half of them under the age of ten.
If I'm out on patrol with my unit and I see a 10 year old with an AK, and he raises it up and points it at me, I would not think twice about putting a bullet in that little boy's head. If he knows how to use it and I deem that if I don't kill him, he might kill me or one of my teammates, it's a done deal for him.

If I'm out on patrol with my unit and I see a 10 year old with an AK, and he raises it up and points it at me, I would not think twice about putting a bullet in that little boy's head. .

Wow, phoney Rambo at it again. :rolleyes:

Americans have reached a low point.

Wow, phoney Rambo at it again. :rolleyes:

Americans have reached a low point.
You just don't get it do you? You really have your head up your ass don't you? There are children over there that wield weapons. They will raise their weapon and shoot at you just like the adults will. You can call me a fuckin Rambo wannabe all you want. But when it comes down to his life or mine and my buddies, there you have it.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that anyone in the military, any military not just the U.S.'s will tell you the same thing.
Oh, nice response btw there Captain Wit. I'm so humbled now that I will never post here again.

Can anyone explain why when:

1. the al-Qaeda are Sunnis
2. Most of the car and suicide bombers are Sunni
3. the government in Iraq is Shia
4. Saddam's Baathists are Sunni

the US army is arming the Sunnis?

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/8385122.html

Can anyone explain why when:

1. the al-Qaeda are Sunnis
2. Most of the car and suicide bombers are Sunni
3. the government in Iraq is Shia
4. Saddam's Baathists are Sunni

the US army is arming the Sunnis?

Sure. Not all Sunnis are terrorists or insurgents or vicious killers, Sam. Or didn't you know that?

Baron Max

PS - I don't believe that the government of Iraq is Shia, is it? If so, when did that happen?

We'll give you pictures to make it easier for you to understand.

http://www.vialls.com/myahudi/rape.html

Unfortunately the 'real' war isn't seen on American television so I can understand how you are so ill-informed of American rape and murder of Iraqi civilians.

It's sad to hear Americans, asking 'how can THEY do that' while not being shown mutilated bodies of children killed by U.S. bombs.

'x' number of 'insurgents' lilled today... Ya, half of them under the age of ten.


Yes, I have to second mikenostic, You really have your head up your ass don't you? I guess you haven't been in the military, and you have never been on the wrong end of a gun, bomb, or in a really personnel up close fight for your life, and how about the fact that since yesterday the Islamic terrorist have killed 117 innocent people, to 1 U.S. soldier, 1 Iraqi Police Officer, and 5 Iraqi soldiers, sounds like a real Iraqi Liberation Movement.

http://eng.irib.ir/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=968&Itemid=42


Updated: 5:09 p.m. CT July 8, 2007
BAGHDAD - Prominent Shiite and Sunni politicians called on Iraqi civilians to take up arms to defend themselves after a weekend of violence that claimed more than 220 lives, including 60 who died Sunday in a surge of bombings and shootings around Baghdad.

The calls reflect growing frustration with the inability of Iraqi security forces to prevent extremist attacks.

The weekend deaths included two American soldiers — one killed Sunday in a suicide bombing on the western outskirts of Baghdad and another who died in combat Saturday in Salahuddin province north of the capital, the U.S. command said. Three soldiers were wounded in the Sunday blast.

I can understand why the Islamic terrorist don't do body counts, why al Quaida doesn't want anyone to go there.

110 innocent Iraqis and 7 contractors are killed by Islamic Terrorist, and only ! U.S. soldier, Who are al Quaida, and the Islamic terrorist waging war against?

How are they liberating Iraq? By killing all of the Iraqis?

Today in Iraq;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/16/iraq.main/index.html?eref=rss_topstories











All for;

this is ludicrous. the american came to free iraq and the world from saddam, and the iraqis are blowing each other up to "get rid of the americans".

they actually want him back. :wtf:

this is ludicrous. the american came to free iraq and the world from saddam,
Quite simply, the Americans didn't gives a rats ass about Saddam, just Iraqs resources.

Quite simply, the Americans didn't gives a rats ass about Saddam, just Iraqs resources.

i disagree. the americans for starters dont lack resources, the second is the public opinion was pro war, get rid of saddam free iraq. i guess freedom and middle east dong go along.

i disagree. the americans for starters dont lack resources
They depend on them. And the ability to control the most important resource (remember - CONTROL) is vitally important for US interests.

i guess freedom and middle east dong go along.
Freedom doesn't equal: "Do what we, the US, tell you to do."

They depend on them. And the ability to control the most important resource (remember - CONTROL) is vitally important for US interests.



they dont just depend on them, they have them. the US dosent need to spend all those dollars on something its already have. you dont get control by setting up democracy.

Freedom doesn't equal: "Do what we, the US, tell you to do."

thats nonsense. they thought that democracy is what everybody wants, they miss judged the iraqis. they dont know what it is.

they dont just depend on them, they have them. the US dosent need to spend all those dollars on something its already have.
I said control - read my post. A resource they control is a resource others do not get access to, unless they agree to US imposed terms. Get it?

thats nonsense. they thought that democracy is what everybody wants, they miss judged the iraqis.
You dont deliver democracy at the end of a barrel of a gun.

A true democracy in Iraq may throw up an anti-Israel government, thats something the US will never allow to happen. You forget (or ignore) the fact that the most successfull parties in the elections were the ones that called for an end to occupation.

I concur with Mr. Spock, he is right and true. There is no real sense here because the Iraqi's want Saddam back instead of dead. It's a complete and utter loss on our side, we should've left saddam there but taken him out with snipers or some such thing. Then he'd be dead, the would have a new ruler, and maybe we would get along better with'm.

As for the photos in the link, umm... is that real or fake? I can't tell cuz I'm no analyst. It looks real, but how do I know they're Americans doing it to those chicks?

Besides those chicks were kinda hot ya know

Thinking this is "Islamic extremists" against "us, and the nacent government of Iraq" ignores the complex nature of this war. Various sectarian groups are fighting to retain control of their respective areas, at the same time carve out a place in Iraqi government. Al-quida is just one group of many. Obviously no one group wants to liberate Iraq, they want just the opposite, they want to control their own portion of Iraq.

I said control - read my post. A resource they control is a resource others do not get access to, unless they agree to US imposed terms. Get it?


You dont deliver democracy at the end of a barrel of a gun.

A true democracy in Iraq may throw up an anti-Israel government, thats something the US will never allow to happen. You forget (or ignore) the fact that the most successfull parties in the elections were the ones that called for an end to occupation.

bush himself just said that he is against the occupation, so your premises are wrong.

I concur with Mr. Spock, he is right and true. There is no real sense here because the Iraqi's want Saddam back instead of dead.
The truth is that they want neither Saddam or the US. But they have little chance of true democracy.

Its quite obvious that the US has contempt for democracy when it doesn't go its way. The run-up to the Iraq war made that clear. Countries like Turkey, France and Germany that stuck to the anti-war stance (reflecting the majority of the population) were demonised, where as the countries like Italy and Spain, whose leaders agreed to follow orders from Washington over the opposition of maybe 90 per cent of their populations, were praised.

The US didnt spend billions of dollars and sacrifice thousands of lives just for Iraqis to elect someone the US didnt like! They are in it for the long term, the positioning of large permanent military bases in the region is proof of that.

Oh man, seeing those pictures in that link pissed me off so much. Seeing innocent Iraqi women get gangraped by those pussy American soldiers is worse to me than the women getting killed in a bombing.

I wish those bitch soldiers tried raping an innocent girl without fifty other soldiers with weapons backing them up in front of me. Fucking cunts.

bush himself just said that he is against the occupation, so your premises are wrong.
Bush wants to see and end to violence, because the deaths of US soldiers is playing badly at home.

That website is a propaganda outlet, pure crap. Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Abu Grabe? Ridiculous.

Bush wants to see and end to violence, because the deaths of US soldiers is playing badly at home.

he was speaking on the israeli occupation.

he was speaking on the israeli occupation.
So? Thats doesnt mean he's willing to risk an anti-Israel government take control in Iraq, no matter how popular they are.

The truth is that they want neither Saddam or the US. But they have little chance of true democracy.

Its quite obvious that the US has contempt for democracy when it doesn't go its way. The run-up to the Iraq war made that clear. Countries like Turkey, France and Germany that stuck to the anti-war stance (reflecting the majority of the population) were demonised, where as the countries like Italy and Spain, whose leaders agreed to follow orders from Washington over the opposition of maybe 90 per cent of their populations, were praised.

The US didnt spend billions of dollars and sacrifice thousands of lives just for Iraqis to elect someone the US didnt like! They are in it for the long term, the positioning of large permanent military bases in the region is proof of that.

then they wouldnt set a democracy in the first place.

That website is a propaganda outlet, pure crap. Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Abu Grabe? Ridiculous.

I don't care about the website's content. The pictures are very self-explanatory.

So? Thats doesnt mean he's willing to risk an anti-Israel government take control in Iraq, no matter how popular they are.

all governments in the middle east are anti israeli. they deal with us for political interests. they dont like us in case you didnt know. and i dont think your premise of an anti israeli government as part of the US considerations is true.

then they wouldnt set a democracy in the first place.
Your mistake is in assuming they are. A true representative democracy is one that has complete control over its own resources free from foreign influence.

In fact the election were conducted during an ongoing military occupation by the US. Imagine US elections taking place with Iraqi troops occupying the US!

I don't care about the website's content. The pictures are very self-explanatory.

pictures can be faked.

all governments in the middle east are anti israeli. they deal with us for political interests. they dont like us in case you didnt know. and i dont think your premise of an anti israeli government as part of the US considerations is true.
Israel is one consideration, but I agree its not the main consideration. Oil is the main concern, as I stated earlier.

Your mistake is in assuming they are. A true representative democracy is one that has complete control over its own resources free from foreign influence.

In fact the election were conducted during an ongoing military occupation by the US. Imagine US elections taking place with Iraqi troops occupying the US!

a true democracy is the one the people elect. the iraqi government was new and needed help from the US. if by any, its shows that democracy is not suited to iraq, a calculation mistakes by the americans. one that cost them dearly.

Israel is one consideration, but I agree its not the main consideration. Oil is the main concern, as I stated earlier.

i think oil is a dividend, not the main concern. they probably saw saddam as a threat. they wanted to overthrow him establish a democracy, and put pressure on saudi arabia the real sponsors of terror. they failed so far.

a true democracy is the one the people elect.
And they elected parties that called for an end to occupation. That happening anytime soon? Nope.

pictures can be faked.

Don't fucking BS me. Those photos are completely real, as are the rapes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,1220673,00.html

http://www.aztlan.net/worst_photos_not_released.htm

http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=1564

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2071

Even AMERICAN FEMALE GIs have been raped by American soldiers.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0125-08.htm

i think oil is a dividend, not the main concern. they probably saw saddam as a threat.
The threat of Saddam was overblown. In fact Iraq was one of the weakest countries after a military defeat in the first war and 10 years of sanctions. A country that could easily be toppled. Heck Saddam was hardly a threat to his neighbors let alone the US. If all Iraq exported was tea and rice the US would simply not give a damn.

The threat of Saddam was overblown. In fact Iraq was one of the weakest countries after a military defeat in the first war and 10 years of sanctions. A country that could easily be toppled. Heck Saddam was hardly a threat to his neighbors let alone the US. If all Iraq exported was tea and rice the US would simply not give a damn.

thats true. the real danger is countries like north korea, iran and suadi arabia that sponsor terror and each other, though iran is more complicated.

but i have no doubt, saddam is why they went in in the first place.

Don't fucking BS me. Those photos are completely real, as are the rapes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,1220673,00.html

http://www.aztlan.net/worst_photos_not_released.htm

http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm

http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=1564

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2071

Even AMERICAN FEMALE GIs have been raped by American soldiers.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0125-08.htm

aztlan? didnt they published "the protoclos of the elders of zion" a few years back?

aztlan? didnt they published "the protoclos of the elders of zion" a few years back?

Attacking the sources, not the content, are we? What about the other links? Want me to post more? There are tons. Iraqi women and American GIs have been raped by American soldiers in many cases. What part of this do you deny?

Attacking the sources, not the content, are we? What about the other links? Want me to post more? There are tons. Iraqi women and American GIs have been raped by American soldiers in many cases. What part of this do you deny?

im raising questions to one of your sources legitimacy yes. only aztlan from your links reported of this rapes by american soldiers on iraqi women, and i doubt that source very much. the other one was about abu gharib, from the guardian, and another about american GIs. im not not denying anything, im saying pics can be faked.

Oh man, seeing those pictures in that link pissed me off so much. Seeing innocent Iraqi women get gangraped by those pussy American soldiers is worse to me than the women getting killed in a bombing.

I wish those bitch soldiers tried raping an innocent girl without fifty other soldiers with weapons backing them up in front of me. Fucking cunts.

CNN: with attitudes like these?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/15/marines.iraq.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

Then the talking head generals will spew on about 'what a fine bunch of soldiers we have'.

im raising questions to one of your sources legitimacy yes. only aztlan from your links reported of this rapes by american soldiers on iraqi women, and i doubt that source very much. the other one was about abu gharib, from the guardian, and another about american GIs. im not not denying anything, im saying pics can be faked.

1) The other links did talk about Iraqi women getting raped, or else I wouldn't have quoted them. The female detainees in Abu Ghraib have been raped by American soldiers. And what questions did you raise? This?

didnt they published "the protoclos of the elders of zion" a few years back?

Don't make me laugh.

Bottom line: Do YOU believe Iraqi women have been raped by American soldiers in Iraq?

CNN: with attitudes like these?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/15/marines.iraq.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

Then the talking head generals will spew on about 'what a fine bunch of soldiers we have'.

I agree, oreodont. It is sick how many people are SO opposed to Iraqis and SO in favor of the US, that they deny/okay the gangraping of innocent women.

1) The other links did talk about Iraqi women getting raped, or else I wouldn't have quoted them. The female detainees in Abu Ghraib have been raped by American soldiers. And what questions did you raise? This?

didnt they published "the protoclos of the elders of zion" a few years back?

Don't make me laugh.



sorry, i dont trust a "news" agency that publish the protocols of zion as an evidence of a jewish takeover.


Bottom line: Do YOU believe Iraqi women have been raped by American soldiers in Iraq?

i dont really know.

sorry, i dont trust a "news" agency that publish the protocols of zion as an evidence of a jewish takeover.

Then read the other sources I linked to. If you wanted, I could link to more.

i dont really know.

I honestly don't know what to say. All the proof in the world...

I agree, oreodont. It is sick how many people are SO opposed to Iraqis and SO in favor of the US, that they deny/okay the gangraping of innocent women.

you should be more careful, you said i deny this, where i didnt. should i take it you oppose to the US?

you should be more careful, you said i deny this, where i didnt. should i take it you oppose to the US?

Not acknowledging the pictures/reports of Iraqi/American GIs being raped by American soldiers would be what I considered denying. If you don't think it happened, then obviously you don't believe it (deny it).

Then read the other sources I linked to. If you wanted, I could link to more.


i have addressed them.

I honestly don't know what to say. All the proof in the world...

im just a bit cautious when it comes to "proof" this day and age.

Not acknowledging the pictures/reports of Iraqi/American GIs being raped by American soldiers would be what I considered denying. If you don't think it happened, then obviously you don't believe it (deny it).

just beacuse i dont jump on the carriage like you do, deosnt mean i deny the events took place. i never said i dont think it didnt happen. the media is just another war zone.

all governments in the middle east are anti israeli. they deal with us for political interests. they dont like us in case you didnt know. and i dont think your premise of an anti israeli government as part of the US considerations is true.

Yes, and the Israeli government is vehemently anti-Arab and anti-Muslim.

Muslim hatred of Israel has more to do with the extermination and genocide committed on Palestinians than Judaism (which Islam deems a holy religion), whereas Israel has shown itself to be anti-Muslim and anti-Arab from its formation.

The proof: many of the anti-Islamic websites on the internet are funded and even established by Israelis, invasion of Gaza, West Bank, and Lebanon, Israeli support for and justification invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq, supporting India against Pakistan, and now pushing for war against Iran.

There are few innocent people in war. You have those who would defend their homeland and way of life thinking americans are not out for their best interest. You have their own killing their own. You have american soldiers who do immoral acts because they don't care about these people.

i have addressed them.

No you haven't. I saw your user profile, and you responded to my five or so links in a minute. Obviously, you didn't read a thing in them. It talks about rapes in Abu Ghraib, in undisclosed locations, and towards American female GIs as well.

im just a bit cautious when it comes to "proof" this day and age.

Yes, my ample sources and photos are difficult to believe. There's videos on youtube about Iraqi women admitting to being raped. Check them out.

Not acknowledging the pictures/reports of Iraqi/American GIs being raped by American soldiers would be what I considered denying. If you don't think it happened, then obviously you don't believe it (deny it). The most likely situation is that some American soldiers have been raping Iraqi women,

and that those pretty unrealistic and unlikely photos were faked, most likely as porno for perverts, possibly as inflammatory agitprop.

It isn't all of nothing, after all.

Yes, and the Israeli government is vehemently anti-Arab and anti-Muslim.


of course it is.

Muslim hatred of Israel has more to do with the extermination and genocide committed on Palestinians than Judaism (which Islam deems a holy religion), whereas Israel has shown itself to be anti-Muslim and anti-Arab from its formation.

BS. there is much htred and racism towered jews in islam and in the muslim world. the lie of a fictional genocide where it is israel who keeps the palestinians from completely sinking, is just another tool by the payed anti jewish propaganda.

The proof: many of the anti-Islamic websites on the internet are funded and even established by Israelis, invasion of Gaza, West Bank, and Lebanon, Israeli support for and justification invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq, supporting India against Pakistan, and now pushing for war against Iran.

that isnt close of making sense. but at least you admit one thing, muslims hate israel. :rolleyes:

No you haven't. I saw your user profile, and you responded to my five or so links in a minute. Obviously, you didn't read a thing in them. It talks about rapes in Abu Ghraib, in undisclosed locations, and towards American female GIs as well.


and you know i didnt read them how? i read the one abu gharib, yes. i was speaking of the photos you took as evidence.

Yes, my ample sources and photos are difficult to believe. There's videos on youtube about Iraqi women admitting to being raped. Check them out.

who conducted the interview and under what circumstances?

Qa Dark,

What exactly is the point you are trying to get across?
Is it the validity of the pictures? If so, we get it. Servicemembers raped local national women. It's not the first time it's happened. Marines raped a 12 year old girl in Okinawa back in 1996. They were tried and convicted. They are now in jail.
This shit happens. It's very unfortunate. As a former Marine myself, I especially loathe it because it makes the rest of us look like that. Which brings me to my next point. If you are trying to stereotype the U.S. military just by your views/opinions of this matter, then you need to knock that shit off right now. The U.S. has its problems, and the military, like any other fuckin group on this planet, including any group, country you belong to, has its share of turds.
If a servicemember breaks the law (whether it be local law, or our own Uniform Code of Military Justice), he/she will be tried fairly just like anyone else.

Fortunately atrocities won't be forgotten. Sites like Wikipedia will asure that crime scenes of torture and murder will be available for future generations.

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

This will act as a restraint on the frenzied actions of future invading powers.

and you know i didnt read them how? i read the one abu gharib, yes. i was speaking of the photos you took as evidence.



who conducted the interview and under what circumstances?

Are you honestly denying americans haven't raped in iraq?

If the chinese were at war with iraq and there was accusation that some of them raped, even I would be inclined to believe it because there are always people who have bad character who would commit these acts. Even I, as an asian, would not think that incredulous or deny it.

Fortunately atrocities won't be forgotten. Sites like Wikipedia will asure that crime scenes of torture and murder will be available for future generations.

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

This will act as a restraint on the frenzied actions of future invading powers.

it says he was trialled and sent to prison.

Sure. Not all Sunnis are terrorists or insurgents or vicious killers, Sam. Or didn't you know that?

Baron Max

PS - I don't believe that the government of Iraq is Shia, is it? If so, when did that happen?

On October 15, 2005, more than 63% of eligible Iraqis came out across the country to vote on whether to accept or reject the new constitution. On October 25, the vote was certified and the constitution passed with a 78% overall majority, with the percentage of support varying widely between the country's territories.[12] The new constitution had overwhelming backing among the Shia and Ķurdish communities, but was overwhelmingly rejected by Arab Sunnis. Three majority Arab Sunni provinces rejected it (Salah ad Din with 82% against, Ninawa with 55% against, and Al Anbar with 97% against).

Qa Dark,

What exactly is the point you are trying to get across?
Is it the validity of the pictures? If so, we get it. Servicemembers raped local national women. It's not the first time it's happened. Marines raped a 12 year old girl in Okinawa back in 1996. They were tried and convicted. They are now in jail.
This shit happens. It's very unfortunate. As a former Marine myself, I especially loathe it because it makes the rest of us look like that. Which brings me to my next point. If you are trying to stereotype the U.S. military just by your views/opinions of this matter, then you need to knock that shit off right now. The U.S. has its problems, and the military, like any other fuckin group on this planet, including any group, country you belong to, has its share of turds.
If a servicemember breaks the law (whether it be local law, or our own Uniform Code of Military Justice), he/she will be tried fairly just like anyone else.

1) The point I'm trying to make is that American soldiers have raped their very own female GIs, and innocent Iraqi women.

2) I like how you acknowledge this fact, and that's all I ask for.

3) I absolutely agree that the people doing these rapings are a small percentage of the whole army. I know there are good soldiers, but these actions should not be taken lightly.

Are you honestly denying americans haven't raped in iraq?

If the chinese were at war with iraq and there was accusation that some of them raped, even I would be inclined to believe it because there are always people who have bad character who would commit these acts. Even I, as an asian, would not think that incredulous or deny it.

where have i denied? i think that the media has a vital role in modern day war, which the enemy likes to use.

Ryan Lenz for the 'Inependent"

"US soldiers accused of raping and murdering a 14-year-old Iraqi girl drank alcohol and played golf before the attack, and one of them grilled chicken wings afterwards, an investigator told an American military."

On October 15, 2005, more than 63% of eligible Iraqis came out across the country to vote on whether to accept or reject the new constitution. On October 25, the vote was certified and the constitution passed with a 78% overall majority, with the percentage of support varying widely between the country's territories.[12] The new constitution had overwhelming backing among the Shia and Ķurdish communities, but was overwhelmingly rejected by Arab Sunnis. Three majority Arab Sunni provinces rejected it (Salah ad Din with 82% against, Ninawa with 55% against, and Al Anbar with 97% against).

Question: if so many of Iraq's people turned out to support this new government - which is Shia - then why do you seem to press support for groups that are trying to restore the previous situation where the Sunni tail wags the Shia dog?

Ryan Lenz for the 'Inependent"

"US soldiers accused of raping and murdering a 14-year-old Iraqi girl drank alcohol and played golf before the attack, and one of them grilled chicken wings afterwards, an investigator told an American military."

if its true, there is only one place in which they can go to.

1) The point I'm trying to make is that American soldiers have raped their very own female GIs, and innocent Iraqi women.

2) I like how you acknowledge this fact, and that's all I ask for.

3) I absolutely agree that the people doing these rapings are a small percentage of the whole army. I know there are good soldiers, but these actions should not be taken lightly.

I have no problem acknowledging it. It's because of shit like the raping of the 12 year old in Okinawa that normal Marines like me are pretty much on lockdown when we do get stationed over there. Actions like that give the local nationals a bad view of us, just for one little thing that a couple of retards did for some fun, or whatever they want to call it. :mad:

And they never should be taken lightly.

If you get a chance, and you haven't already, watch the movie 'Casualties of War' with Michael J. Fox. The whole story is about this kind of shit.

I will say, and I'm in NO WAY advocating this, but being in the combat zone can really mess someone's mind up, sometimes irreversibly. It can make people crazy, mean and ruthless. I can see why shit like this could happen but I wish there was a way to keep it from happening.

I believe American people don't realize just how serious this crime is in the Islamic world.

Rape is considered something worse than death, dishonor of the whole family and of all Iraqi women.

Often, men who are charged with rape and found guilty are executed in Islamic nations.

There are several factors which contribute to this, not all of which people like to admit. First, saying that war is stressful is an understatement. Second, many people are already racist before they step on foreign soil. Third, the combination of stress and feeling resentful for having to put your life on the line for a group of people you could care less about makes it much easier to take that stress out on them. This is a fact and the ugly side of this type of war. Many soldiers have gone to war in iraq soley for the reasons of gungho american posturing and defense and not everyone has the most upstanding motivations. I remember one person telling me their brother was all ready to sign up after the 9-11 attacks to 'get them foreigners and show them who's boss' so to speak. There are different motivations for these types of crime.

I believe American people don't realize just how serious this crime is in the Islamic world.

Rape is considered something worse than death, dishonor of the whole family and of all Iraqi women.

Often, men who are charged with rape and found guilty are executed in Islamic nations.

they dont blame the woman?

they dont blame the woman?

No, women are not to blame for rape, this is ridiculous.

Who would punish a victim?

No, women are not to blame for rape, this is ridiculous.

Who would punish a victim?

Islamic law, where four witnesses are not provided. Without the requisite four witnesses (and male ones, too, not females), the crime then becomes "zina", which is "illegal sexual relations" - adultery - where both perpetrator and victim are prosecuted. Normally the "fine" is beating or public beating (lashes and the like); I've heard of death being the penalty also, and sometimes punishment of female relatives, even. But that's islamic jurisprudence for you: and why separation of religion from social responsibility is so desperately required. I recommend even just the wikipedia link:

"There must be four male witnesses (or pieces of evidence) to support the accusation (of sexual penetration). "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_%28Arabic%29

DH won't respond to this post; can't, really. Be thou forewarned.

No, women are not to blame for rape, this is ridiculous.

Who would punish a victim?

The only thing that worries me about that is some woman who dislikes some guy for whatever reason 'crying wolf' to the authorities saying that a man raped her when he didn't. They believe the girl, guy goes to prison (or gets dead in your society) for something he didn't do.

The only thing that worries me about that is some woman who dislikes some guy for whatever reason 'crying wolf' to the authorities saying that a man raped her when he didn't. They believe the girl, guy goes to prison (or gets dead in your society) for something he didn't do.

True, that's a problem. That's why biological evidence is really necessary. There's always something to be collected: the "small and unusual" DNA sampling crowd will tell you the same. ;)

Basing legality on this though, is the maddest thing imaginable:

Q 2: 24 The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.

The only thing that worries me about that is some woman who dislikes some guy for whatever reason 'crying wolf' to the authorities saying that a man raped her when he didn't. They believe the girl, guy goes to prison (or gets dead in your society) for something he didn't do.

Unfortunately, that will happen but that also happens to women. Far more women are raped with no justice for them. It's a denial or lying on the part of the perpetrator.

I believe American people don't realize just how serious this crime is in the Islamic world.

Rape is considered something worse than death, dishonor of the whole family and of all Iraqi women.

Often, men who are charged with rape and found guilty are executed in Islamic nations.

How often?

True, that's a problem. That's why biological evidence is really necessary. There's always something to be collected: the "small and unusual" DNA sampling crowd will tell you the same. ;)

Basing legality on this though, is the maddest thing imaginable:

That's for older women, but more victims are younger and easily intimidated into silence or guilt.

That's for older women, but more victims are younger and easily intimidated into silence or guilt.

I agree to the last part (didn't follow the former): Can one even imagine to what extent this system is open to exploitation and abuse? Can it even be conceived how bizarre and extreme such a legal system is? Can it be called anything other than insane?

I agree to the last part (didn't follow the former): Can one even imagine to what extent this system is open to exploitation and abuse? Can it even be conceived how bizarre and extreme such a legal system is? Can it be called anything other than insane?

"There must be four male witnesses (or pieces of evidence) to support the accusation (of sexual penetration). "

Yes, that is of course, insane. It is also more than obvious why it's in place, sexism and to keep the power base on the side of men.

Question: if so many of Iraq's people turned out to support this new government - which is Shia - then why do you seem to press support for groups that are trying to restore the previous situation where the Sunni tail wags the Shia dog?

What groups are these?

I love the shift in subject, the Thread is about ISLAMIC TERRORIST KILLING MORE IRAQIS THAN THEY DO AMERICANS, in Iraq, in what is Claimed to be a EFFORT TO DRIVE OUT THE AMERICANS, AND FREE IRAQ.

DiamondHearts, oreodont, Qa`Dark, S.A.M. have a great propaganda machine going to excuse their Islamic Terrorist Brethren from any action that they commit, Blame the Americans.


I looked at that site, and I found a bunch of pictures with no context, and a lot of word of mouth stories.

The women are in possession of photos of their own rape? They had a photo documentary of themselves being raped? I find that very obliging of the Rapist, yes the supposed rape victims have their own documentary crew following them around.


in fact so sickening that even as a retired combat veteran myself, they turned my stomach. After receiving the images through Jordan from women's refuges in Iraq

In a fairly extensive Google search, I found innumerable reference to Mr. Vialls, most of which are copyrighted works by him.

Joe Vialls claims to be an expert on everything from aeronautics and conspiracy theories to cancer and vitamins.

Joe variously described himself, (and these are direct quotes) as:

1. an expatriated US military analyst based in Australia
2. an ex-British private security expert
3. a British aeronautical engineer
4. an Australian-base freelance journalist with over 30 years direct experience in international military and oilfield operations
5. a former member of the Society of Licensed Aeronautical Engineers (London).
if you check 1 and 3, how can you be a (Australian-base freelance journalist with over 30 years direct experience in international military and oilfield operations) and retired from the military?

Many of Vialls' investigations blamed significant world events - such as the 2004 Asian Tsunami - on joint CIA/Mossad operations, and Vialls maintained in disclaimers on his site that his reports were written in the interest of public safety. In other investigations, Vialls supposedly proved that such esoteric happenings as the death of Diana, Princess of Wales and a scandal involving the wearing of a swastika by Prince Harry were Zionist plots.

Vialls claimed that many of his articles were hacked off his website years ago,[9] and that he was banned by Yahoo! and Paypal. Indeed, his original Yahoo! site remains unavailable today. However, Vialls' new site still boasts 170 articles starting with The Crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in Queens and ending with Bush, Blair & Howard Photo Atrocities. Vialls was an avowed anti-Zionist, alleging for instance that Zionists used a nuclear device in Bali. He also claimed most kidnapping of hostages in Iraq was done by the CIA and Mossad.

Many of Vialls' investigations blamed significant world events - such as the 2004 Asian Tsunami - on joint CIA/Mossad operations, and Vialls maintained in disclaimers on his site that his reports were written in the interest of public safety. In other investigations, Vialls supposedly proved that such esoteric happenings as the death of Diana, Princess of Wales and a scandal involving the wearing of a swastika by Prince Harry were Zionist plots.

The purpose of the site is foward Anti Jewish Propaganda, as can be seen in these statements Those 600+ tortured souls down at Camp Delta are the only visible hard proof of the phony Zionist-manufactured "War on Terror". The entire camp is an 'icon' used to distort reality for the American public, and thus permit gross totalitarian excesses at home in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York.

As for sexual assault, it seems in the Islamic word everybody is fair game, if you don't convert it's bung hole city.

The Dissident News
Man Sexually Assaulted in Pakistan After Refusing to Convert to Islam. Christian Pakistani man gang raped by Muslim neighbors for refusing to convert to ...
http://dissidentnews.blogspot.com/

Drive out the Americans? They have NO RIGHT to be in Iraq. Would you like the equivalent number of armed Iraqis in the US?

Drive out the Americans? They have NO RIGHT to be in Iraq. Would you like the equivalent number of armed Iraqis in the US?

you see sam, that is the problem. its not about americans in iraq or not, its about who is in power there.

saddam was a evil dictator that killed 2,000 people per year and lived in luxury while hes people were starving. the US overthrow him, killed him, and tried to establish a democracy. and what the iraqis are doing? blowing each other up. what a mess.

you see sam, that is the problem. its not about americans in iraq or not, its about who is in power there.

saddam was a evil dictator that killed 2,000 people per year and lived in luxury while hes people were starving. the US overthrow him, killed him, and tried to establish a democracy. and what the iraqis are doing? blowing each other up. what a mess.

No one cared about Saddam while he was actually killing the people. Nor about the 500,000 children who died from sanctions. No one cared anything about Iraq until Saddam changed oil to euros. Then suddenly it became necessary to kill Iraqis by the thousands to save them.

No one cared about Saddam while he was actually killing the people. Nor about the 500,000 children who died from sanctions. No one cared anything about Iraq until Saddam changed oil to euros. Then suddenly it became necessary to kill Iraqis by the thousands to save them.

sure they did. the american government didnt want to go to war, unless it had to. saddam was top news even before 9/11 and was considered a threat. you maybe dont remember that, but i do.

sure they did. the american government didnt want to go to war, unless it had to. saddam was top news even before 9/11 and was considered a threat. you maybe dont remember that, but i do.

Uh please...

Baghdad’s refusal to allow UN experts to inspect the presidential sites on which chemical and biological weapons were allegedly hidden was taken to justify a new bombing campaign on Iraq last month. Times have changed. Ten years ago, the systematic gassing of the Kurdish population of northern Iraq had far less impact on America. Only six months after the slaughter at Halabja, the White House lent Saddam Hussein another billion dollars. And in 1991, at the end of the Gulf war, US troops stood idly by while Saddam’s presidential guard ruthlessly suppressed the popular uprising by the Kurds for which the American president had himself called.

http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn

the american government didnt want to go to war, unless it had to. saddam was top news even before 9/11 and was considered a threat. you maybe dont remember that, but i do.

Ha! Ha!

The U.S.A. was chomping at the bit to go to war. :bugeye: So eager they fabricated reasons. Cripes, it's amazing anyone can still beat the old war drum.

Now go finish your Freedom Fries and have a piece of Yellow Cake. :p

I can't figure out what the issue is, here.

The Americans came in and set up the Shia against the Baathist Sunni, with the Kurd Sunni allowed to cleanse their own neighborhoods (of Turkmen, etc), the front door left open for the Saudis and Iranians, and the back door left open for AQ.

Then the Americans set up counterinsurgency operations, advised by the Israelis and the people who brought us El Salvador and Honduras, and soon we had death squads and paramilitaries running around in police uniforms with high class radios and weapons.

Now there is supposed to be something particularly bad about the Iraqis killing each other. Say what? It's just a divide and conquer strategy that got out of hand. Can you blame the Kurds for not stopping at Turkmen removal, and setting their sights on Kirkuk as well?

Uh please...


http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn

the article make it sounds as if the americans are responsible not saddam.

if he was right, then the US would have invaded and killed saddam then instead of letting him live, even though that alone isnt enough, as they should have killed him then.

you cant argue they didnt do anything then, and then blame them why are they doing something now.

funny, but you suggested israel should give money to hamas, saddam look alikes, who killed their own people as well.
further consistent, the US government decided to give more money to abu abbas, not hamas.

the article make it sounds as if the americans are responsible not saddam.

if he was right, then the US would have invaded and killed saddam then instead of letting him live, even though that alone isnt enough, as they should have killed him then.

you cant argue they didnt do anything then, and then blame them why are they doing something now.

funny, but you suggested israel should give money to hamas, saddam look alikes, who killed their own people as well.
further consistent, the US government decided to give more money to abu abbas, not hamas.

Like I said, no one cared anything when Saddam was actually killing the people.

Like I said, no one cared anything when Saddam was actually killing the people.

obviously they did, they invaded iraq and overthrow saddam in the end. you people want to enjoy both worlds do you? criticize and blame the US when they help and criticize and blame the US when they dont.

obviously they did, they invaded iraq and overthrow saddam in the end. you people want to enjoy both worlds do you? criticize and blame the US when they help and criticize and blame the US when they dont.

Why did the US build 12-14 military installations in Iraq?

Which Iraqis have they protected so far? How?

Why did the US build 12-14 military installations in Iraq?

Which Iraqis have they protected so far?

beacuse they needed the US army to work as a providing force for the new iraqi government. they foolishly dismantled the iraqi army. and made serious errors about the iraqis.

beacuse they needed the US army to work as a providing force for the new iraqi government. they foolishly dismantled the iraqi army. and made serious errors about the iraqis.

They trained the Iraqi troops and armed the Sunni insurgents. And if the people elected the Iraqi government why do they need the US troops?

They trained the Iraqi troops and armed the Sunni insurgents.

beacuse they dont want to stay there. they are trying to correct their errors, build a new army and leave. its not working.

beacuse they dont want to stay there. they are trying to correct their errors, build a new army and leave. its not working.

I don't believe it. There was no reason to attack Iraq that did not exist 20 years ago. There is no necessity for a permanent miliatry installation let alone 14 in Iraq. This war is nothing about Iraq (we don't do body counts)

I don't believe it. There was no reason to attack Iraq that did not exist 20 years ago. There is no necessity for permanent miliatry installation let alone 14 in Iraq. This war is nothing about Iraq (we don't do body counts)

you forget 9/11. 9/11 proved to the US government that they must take actions.

you forget 9/11. 9/11 proved to the US government that they must take actions.

9/11 was a result of US actions. And had nothing to do with Iraq.

9/11 was a result of US actions.

if you are referring to carter, that is not precise, though he is a moron. it took place beacuse of crazy terrorists. one that are funded and supported by some regimes in the ME.

9/11 was a result of US actions. And had nothing to do with Iraq.


On one point you are correct, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but it had everything to do with the Cease Fire agreements Saddam signed and then failed to live up to.

Timeline of UN-Iraq-Coalition Incidents, 1991–2002
1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002


1991

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date United Nations Actions/
Security Council Resolution Iraqi Action Coalition Response
2 Mar UNSC adopts RES 686 ordering cessation of hostilities
3 Mar Iraq accepts RES 686
3 Apr UNSC adopts RES 687 outlining provisions of cease-fire and setting up inspections
5 Apr UNSC adopts RES 688 ordering cessation of Baghdad's repression of Iraqi civilians
5 Apr UNSC adopts RES 688 ordering cessation of Baghdad's repression of Iraqi civilians
6 Apr Iraq accepts RES 687 US, UK, France begin enforcing no-fly zone covering territory north of 36th parallel
19 Apr UNSCOM is created to carry out RES 687
15-21 May IAEA conducts first nuclear inspection in Iraq
20 May UNSC adopts RES 692 establishing UN Compensation Fund / Commission
9-15 Jun UNSCOM conducts first chemical weapons inspection
17 Jun UNSC adopts RES 699 approving UN Secretary-General plan to eliminate Iraq's WMD programs
17 Jun UNSC adopts RES 700 approving guidelines for monitoring Iraqi arms embargo
23-28 Jun Iraq caught attempting to conceal nuclear equipment
28 Jun UNSC presidential statement condemns Iraq for flagrant violations of RES 687 in denying inspectors access
30 Jun-7 Jul UNSCOM conducts first missile inspection
2-8 Aug UNSCOM conducts first biological weapons inspection
11 Aug UNSCOM begins reconnaissance flights over Iraq
15 Aug UNSC adopts RES 705 stating that Gulf War compensation paid by Iraq shall not exceed 30% of annual value of oil exports
15 Aug UNSC adopts RES 706 authorizing 6-month export of Iraqi petroleum products to finance purchase of humanitarian supplies Iraq has never accepted RES 706
15 Aug UNSC adopts RES 707 demanding that Iraq halt all nuclear activities and provide full disclosure of weapons programs
16 Aug Iraq objects to RES 705 and 707
6-24 September Iraq blocks UNSCOM's use of helicopters on inspections, accepts on 24 Sept
19 Sep UNSC adopts RES 712 addressing various aspects of Iraqi petroleum sales in RES 706 Iraq has never accepted RES 712
21-30 Sep Iraq refuses to allow IAEA inspectors to leave inspection site with nuclear documents
11 Oct UNSC adopts RES 715 approving plans for system of ongoing monitoring to verify Iraqi compliance and to detect WMD reconstitution
11 Dec Iraq releases information on its nuclear program
1992

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date United Nations Actions/
Security Council Resolution Iraqi Action Coalition Response
19 Feb UNSC presidential statement endorses visit of UNSCOM chairman to Iraq to obtain unconditional Iraqi acceptance of UN resolutions
28 Feb UNSC presidential statement deplores Iraq's failure to disclose WMD programs
11 Mar UNSC presidential statement reviews Iraqi noncompliance with UN resolutions Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz discusses compliance with UNSC
19 Mar Iraq agrees to provide UNSCOM full, final and complete declaration of its weapons program
19 Jun UNSC presidential statement notes concern over Iraqi statements critical of boundary demarcation
5-26 Jul Iraq refuses to provide UNSCOM with access to the Ministry of Agriculture until the UNSC president's statement
6 Jul UNSC presidential statement declares that Iraq is in material breach of RES 687
26 Aug UNSC adopts RES 773 endorsing the work of the UN Iraq-Kuwait boundary demarcation commission
27 Aug No-fly zone covering territory below 32nd parallel in southern Iraq is created by coalition states in response to renewed Iraqi airstrikes against its civilian population
2 Oct UNSC adopts RES 778 designating proceeds of Iraqi petroleum sales to UN escrow account
23 Nov UNSC presidential statement reviews Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz addresses UNSC and claims Iraqi compliance, criticizing RES 687


1993

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date United Nations Actions/
Security Council Resolution Iraqi Action Coalition Response
8 Jan UNSC presidential statement terms Iraqi restrictions of UN aircraft a material breach of RES 687 Iraq announces it cannot guarantee the safety of UN aircraft flying over Iraqi territory
10 Jan Iraq removes equipment from the Kuwaiti side of DMZ
11 Jan UNSC presidential statement condemns Iraq for material breach of RES 687 in preventing UNSCOM from flying its own aircraft
13 Jan US, UK, France conduct air raids on Iraqi anti-aircraft missile sites and radar bases in southern Iraq
17 Jan US fires missiles at industrial complex in suburban Baghdad
18-21 Jan US and UK launch air raids against radar sites in southern and northern Iraq
5 Feb UNSC adopts RES 806 allowing UNIKOM to take direct action to prevent or redress violations in DMZ
27 May UNSC adopts RES 833 reaffirming Kuwaiti border issues in RES 733; guarantees inviolability of border
10 Jun Iraq refuses to allow emplacement of UN monitoring cameras at weapons facilities
18 Jun UNSC presidential statement terms Iraq's refusal of cameras material breach of RES 687, warns of serious consequences
27 Jun US launches cruise missile at Iraqi intelligence headquarters in retaliation for assassination plot against former President Bush
28 Jun UNSC presidential statement criticizes Iraqi statements on boundary demarcation
19 Jul Iraq agrees to emplacement of monitoring cameras following Rolf Ekeus visit to Baghdad
16-20 Nov Iraqi demonstrators cross into Kuwaiti territory protesting border demarcation
23 Nov UNSC presidential statement terms Iraqi border violations breach of RES 687
26 Nov Iraq accepts RES 715
1994

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date United Nations Actions/
Security Council Resolution Iraqi Action Coalition Response
4 Mar UNSC adopts RES 899 stating that compensation may be made to Iraqi citizens for loss of assets from demarcation of Iraq-Kuwait border
6 Oct Iraq threatens to cease cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, moves troops towards Kuwaiti border
7 Oct US buildup of forces in region begins
8 Oct UNSC presidential statement expresses grave concern over Iraqi actions toward UNSCOM and Kuwait
15 Oct UNSC adopts RES 949 condemning Iraq's large-scale deployment of military units toward Kuwaiti border
20 Oct US, UK issue demarche to Iraq prohibiting "enhancement" of military capabilities south of 32nd parallel, establishing no-drive zone
10 Nov Iraq formally recognizes Kuwait and UN border demarcation in compliance with RES 833
16 Nov UNSC presidential statement welcomes Iraqi recognition of Kuwait


1995

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date United Nations Actions/
Security Council Resolution Iraqi Action Coalition Response
14 Apr UNSC adopts RES 986 offering Iraq another opportunity to export petroleum products and to use proceeds to meet humanitarian needs
15 Apr Iraq rejects RES 986
14 Jun Iraq threatens to halt cooperation with UN by August if UNSCOM report is unfavorable
1 Jul Iraq admits for the first time existence of offensive biological weapons program
4 Aug Iraq submits "full, final, and complete declaration" on its biological weapons program
8 Aug Hussein Kamal—Saddam's son-in-law and figure in charge of Iraq's WMD effort—defects
17 Aug Iraq withdraws June deadline and admits that its biological weapons program is more extensive than previously acknowledged
7 Nov Iraq submits new declarations on its BW and CW programs to UNSCOM
10 Nov Under UN mandate, Jordan intercepts shipment of Russian-origin missile gyroscopes intended for Iraq


1996

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date United Nations Actions/
Security Council Resolution Iraqi Action Coalition Response
8 Mar Iraq refuses UNSCOM access to Ministry of Irrigation for 18 hours
11 Mar Iraq refuses UNSCOM access to Republican Guard training facility for 12 hours
27 Mar UNSC adopts RES 1051 establishing export-monitoring mechanism and review for dual-use goods
20 May Iraq accepts RES 986
11 Jun Iraq denies UNSCOM access to Republican Guard facility and refuses to allow UNSCOM helicopter to monitor site
12 Jun UNSC adopts RES 1060 demanding that Iraq grant immediate access to sites and terms Iraqi actions as clear violations of UN resolutions
13 Jun Iraq blocks UNSCOM access to two additional facilities
14 Jun UNSC issues presidential statement sending Rolf Ekeus to Baghdad to secure access
24 Jun UNSCOM reaches agreement with Iraq establishing procedures for inspections
16 Jul Iraq refuses UNSCOM access to two facilities
23 Aug UNSC issues presidential statement terming Iraqi obstruction gross violation of Iraq's obligations
3 Sep US and UK expand southern no-fly zone to 33rd parallel and strike targets in response to Iraq's 31 August move into Kurdish-held territory
16 Nov Iraq refuses to allow UNSCOM removal of missile remnants
30 Dec UNSC presidential statement deplores Iraqi refusal to allow removal of missile engines from Iraq


1997

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date United Nations Actions/
Security Council Resolution Iraqi Action Coalition Response
23 Feb Iraq allows UNSCOM to remove Scud missile engines from Iraq
early Jun Iraq interferes with UNSCOM's aerial operations in four separate incidents
10 Jun Iraq blocks UNSCOM access to site for seven hours
12 Jun Iraq denies UNSCOM access to two sites
13 Jun UNSC presidential statement deplores Iraq's interference with UN aerial inspections
21 Jun UNSC adopts RES 1115 condemning "clear and flagrant violations" of relevant resolutions, suspends sanctions reviews
17 Sep UNSC press statement expressing concern over Iraqi interference with inspections Iraqis video-taped burning documents at sensitive sites as inspectors wait at gate
Sep/Oct Iraq blocks UNSC access to presidential site
23 Oct UNSC adopts RES 1134 condemning Iraq's noncompliance and threatens travel ban for Iraqi officials
29 Oct UNSC presidential statement condemns Iraq's announcement and demands that it reverse its decision unconditionally Iraq states it will no longer accept US personnel in UNSCOM and demands that U-2 flights end
2 Nov Iraq warns that UNSCOM U-2 missions will fly "at their own risk"
12 Nov UNSC adopts RES 1137 banning travel of Iraqi officials responsible for Iraq's obstruction of UNSCOM inspections
13 Nov UNSCOM withdraws all personnel except for only a skeleton staff in Baghdad; UNSC presidential statement condemns Iraq Iraq demands that all US inspectors leave within 24 hours
20 Nov Iraq agrees to reverse decision to expel US UNSCOM inspectors
22 Dec UNSCOM inspects "sensitive sites" after Iraq delays entry; UNSC presidential statement terms Iraqi obstruction a clear violation of relevant UN resolutions
Timeline of UN-Iraq-Coalition Incidents, 1991–2002
1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002


1998

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date United Nations Actions/
Security Council Resolution Iraqi Action Coalition Response
12 Jan Iraq announces that it will bar further inspections by UNSCOM team led by Scott Ritter because of "imbalance" of US and UK inspectors
14 Jan UNSC presidential statement declares Iraqi actions a clear violation
16 Jan UNSCOM team led by Scott Ritter leaves Iraq
20 Feb UNSC adopts RES 1153 expanding oil sales to $5.2 billion
20-23 Feb UN Secretary-General visits Iraq and reaches an agreement with Baghdad for limited inspections of presidential sites
2 Mar UNSC adopts RES 1154 endorsing agreement between UNSCOM Chief Ekeus and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Aziz, warns of severest consequences if Baghdad fails to heed agreement
26 Mar-3 Apr UN inspectors accompanied by diplomats inspect presidential sites
4 Apr Iraq allows access to presidential sites
14 May UNSC presidential statement on transition of IAEA to long-term monitoring
19 Jun UNSC adopts RES 1175 authorizing the allocation of $300 million for oil spare parts
5 Aug Iraq's RCC and Ba'ath Party Command halt cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA, end no-notice inspections; monitoring activities are allowed to continue
9 Sep UNSC adopts RES 1194 condemning Iraq and suspending reviews of sanctions until UNSCOM is permitted to resume full operations
31 Oct UNSC press statement condemns Iraq, calls move a flagrant violation of UN resolutions Saddam ends all cooperation with UNSCOM
5 Nov UNSC adopts RES 1205 ordering Iraq to resume cooperation with UNSCOM
14 Nov Saddam allows UNSCOM to return to Iraq US airstrikes aborted after Saddam allows UNSCOM's return; US and UK threaten without full cooperation, they will strike without warning
9-14 Dec UNSCOM team obstructed during inspections of suspect sites
15-16 Dec UNSCOM reports to UNSC that it is unable to perform disarmament mandate, withdraws inspectors
6-19 Dec Operation Desert Fox
19 Dec Iraq declares that UNSCOM will never be allowed back in Iraq


1999

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date United Nations Actions/
Security Council Resolution Iraqi Action Coalition Response
4 Jan Iraq advises UN that it will not renew visas for US and UK Oil-for-Food monitors because it could not guarantee their safety
27 Jan Hans von Sponeck visits southern Iraq and reports on damage caused by air strikes
3 Feb UN Secretary-General Annan orders all US and UK Oil-for-Food monitors out of Iraq
Mar Iraq rejects UN proposal for Hajj pilgrims
Oct UNSC adopts RES 1266 allowing Iraq to exceed oil sales ceiling
17 Dec UNSC adopts RES 1284 specifying conditions under which sanctions would be suspended; establishes United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to continue UNSCOM's mandate; eliminates cap on Iraqi oil exports Iraq has yet to accept RES 1284


2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date United Nations Actions/
Security Council Resolution Iraqi Action Coalition Response
27 Jan Hans Blix is appointed chairman of UNMOVIC
Mar Iraq rejects UN proposal for Hajj pilgrims
31 Mar UNSC adopts RES 1293 doubling allocations for oil spare parts
7 Apr UNMOVIC chairman Blix submits organizational plan to UNSC
13 Apr UNSC approves UNMOVIC organizational plan
8 Jun UN Secretary-General reports that Iraq has sufficient revenues to take care of food and nutrition and solve health problems; UNSC adopts RES 1302 improving implementation of humanitarian program
9 Nov Iraq attempts to gain direct control over some oil
20 Nov UN Sanctions Committee rejects Iraqi oil surcharge proposal
30 Nov Iraq rejects UN Secretary-General offer to discuss weapons inspections
1 Dec Iraq temporarily halts oil exports


2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date United Nations Actions/
Security Council Resolution Iraqi Action Coalition Response
2 Mar UN Secretary-General reports Iraq's underproduction of oil is affecting critical humanitarian programs
7 Mar UN-Iraq talks in NY on renewing weapons inspections
8 Apr Iraq suspends oil production
18 Apr UN-Iraq talks in NY on renewing weapons inspections
20 Apr US, UK strike mobile early warning radar in response to increasing Iraqi acts against coalition aircraft in the southern no-fly zone
1 May UN-Iraq talks in NY on renewing weapons inspections
1 Jun UNSC adopts RES 1352 to revise economic sanctions to improve flow of civilian goods into Iraq
3 Sep Iraq orders 5 UN Oil-for-Food workers to leave Baghdad without consulting UN


2002

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date United Nations Actions/
Security Council Resolution Iraqi Action Coalition Response
11 Feb UN Special Rapporteur visits Baghdad
14 May UNSC adopts RES 1409, revised 300-page Goods Review List
12 Sep UNSC begins discussion on Iraqi non-compliance with UN resolutions
17 Sep Iraq says it will permit UN weapons inspections
8 Nov UNSC adopts RES 1441 outlining provisions for enhanced weapons inspections
13 Nov Iraq accepts RES 1441
18 Nov UNMOVIC and IAEA chairman in Baghdad for technical talks



And pray tell what American Actions justified the 9/11 attacks? 3,800 innocent Civilian dead, and a large number of those were foreign national.
As usual the Cowards of Islamic Terror go for the civilian target, and to date they still haven't change their spots, killing innocent civilians in the name of Allah.

That makes it alright then; its a relief the 500,000 children and 600,000 Iraqis were not killed on some trumped up excuse to get control of oil and build permanent military installations to keep up the SUV lifestyle of the Americans and prop up their worthless dollar.

Buffalo Roam is akin to the Nazis justifying the holocaust.

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqatrocities.html

Buffalo Roam is akin to the Nazis justifying the holocaust.

Better watch it, Buffalo Roam knows where the WMDs (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=62201) are. :p

Buffalo Roam is akin to the Nazis justifying the holocaust.

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqatrocities.html

you dont like BR thats fine, but compare him to nazis????

thats insults not only him, but me as well!

That makes it alright then; its a relief the 500,000 children and 600,000 Iraqis were not killed on some trumped up excuse to get control of oil and build permanent military installations to keep up the SUV lifestyle of the Americans and prop up their worthless dollar.


Please cite proof of the numbers, as for the Lancet article;


Convenience Isn't a Good Basis for Sample Selection

The biggest problems with the study originate in how they select their data. Presumably because of the difficulties of geography and the ongoing conflict, they make their job easier by gathering their data from 'clusters', 50 selected locations spread all over Iraq and distributed based on the population of the governorates, but located only in places where their field agents can easily get to a lot of people. The locations were clearly picked based on where they could find the largest number of participants most easily in neighborhoods and apartment complexes, so the clusters are located where population is concentrated, in the major urban areas of each region.

This creates the first problem with the study. Although 37% of the population of Iraq lives in rural areas and a similar number live in small towns and villages, the data clusters are located solely in major urban areas and the data is drawn exclusively from the third of the population who lives in those cities - cities like Baghdad, Ramadi and Falluja and Tikrit and Samara.

For the convenience of the researchers on the ground - who come from urban hospitals and universities and NGOs - the study overseers have chosen their data clusters in such a way that they are gathering data from the most violent areas in the country and ignoring other areas which are far less impacted by post-war violence. Then from that data, based on the experiences of a sample which represents less than 40% of the population, they are extrapolating numbers for the entire nation.

When You Round Your Numbers 18 Times they Get Very Fuzzy

The next problem is purely mathematical. With a population of 27 million people in Iraq and 50 data clusters, they allocate one cluster per 540,000 people. That's fine. The problem is that they then distribute the data clusters based on the governorates, which are political divisions and do not have evenly distributed populations. This means that when a governorate's population is not evenly divisible by 540,000 they round up or down to determine how many clusters to locate there.

This creates an instant problem because the areas where they round down the number of clusters will be underrepresented and the areas where they round up will be overrepresented in the final numbers. As it works out, the most overrepresented governorates are two of the most violent and most populous, Diyala (+28%) and Anbar (+36%) and the most underrepresented are some of the most peaceful, Wassit (-45%), Qadissiya (-41%) and Tameem (-37%). The pattern is similar but less dramatic with the other governorates, plus two entire governorates in the more peaceful regions failed to return results at all. Only about 3 of the total of 20 regions are at all accurately represented. This leads to a cumulative effect of more violent areas likely being overrepresented by a rough figure of at least 20%.

As Always, Perception is Everything

Another problem with the study which can't entirely be blamed on the authors is one of perception. As happened with the first study, the estimate of 'excess deaths' is going to inevitably be interpreted in the media as civilian casualties, and they do very little to discourage this. What they present is a raw number for how many more people died during this period than would have died in a similar three-year period before the war. What they fail to emphasize is that these deaths are mostly not the result of coalition action and are overwhelmingly not casualties of innocent non-combatants.

Iraq is currently torn by terrorism, insurgency, and fighting between religious and political factions. A great many Iraqis of military age are involved in these conflicts as part of militias or criminal gangs or terrorist groups. They are either fighting each other or fighting the coalition, and it is primarily these young men who are dying. Very few of the recorded casualties in the study are women, children or older men.

The Iraqi population is split about 50-50 between men and women, yet 91% of the violent deaths are men. Of those, 76% are men of military age (15 to 44 years). Of those deaths, 56% are firearm deaths, suggesting active involvement in combat.

What we're talking about here are definitively not civilian casualties. 26-36% of the total deaths are clearly combatants of one kind or another. Split the difference and it's reasonable to guess that at least 30% of the total deaths are combatants, but those who latch onto these figures on the left will go to great lengths to make sure the casualties are presented in the media as innocent civilians.

Another area of confusion once the media and partisan groups get hold of this data is that the dramatic raw number of 654,965 excess deaths is sort of out of context. It needs to be looked at in terms of the normal death rate. The more relevant statistic, which will not be picked up on in the media is the rate of death per 1000 population, which the study claims has risen from 5.5 to 13.3. This is, of course, assuming that all their raw numbers are correct, which the problems noted above suggest is very unlikely.

Finding a Real Number for Civilian Casualties

If you take the whopping big estimate of deaths from this study and adjust it for the flaws pointed out above, you end up with a much more believable number which is surprisingly close to estimates from other reliable sources which have developed casualty counts based on actual death reports rather than estimation and statistics.

Start with 654,965 estimated excess deaths from the study and then adjust that based on the three very conservative percentages of error discussed earlier. First adjust it for the problem of locating all the clusters in urban areas (-30%). Then adjust it for rounding errors (-20%). Then take out the portion of the dead who were likely military combatants (-30%). What you end up with is about 130,000 civilian casualties over three years.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006577.php
Lancet Editor,

I recommend that this article be accepted for publication, provided the authors extensively rewrite certain parts of it. Under the circumstances, to require additional fieldwork is to effectively reject the paper; I have not done so here. If the authors are unwilling to satisfactorily address the points raised here, I would urge that The Lancet decline publication.

1. Readers must be given a more complete view of the data. As this article is sure to generate controversy, Roberts should collate the survey results by cluster, and submit the results as Supplementary Online Material, as an Excel spreadsheet. It should be accompanied by an online supplement to the Methods, describing the relevant intermediate calculations that led to the best-estimate of excess deaths and its 95% confidence interval. In addition, within the paper itself, the authors must include additional summary information, in particular the number of interviews attempted and completed, and the numbers of individuals covered. Fallujah-cluster data must be provided separately from data for the other 32 clusters.

2. [The authors? statistical approach, as designed, was not able to accommodate the mortality survey results from Fallujah. So many people died from violence there that this cluster couldn?t be incorporated int the overall analysis. Was this ?statistical outlier? an example of ?Wild Data? that can?t be anticipated, as pro-Roberts statistician dsquared suggested (timestamp 3/28 05:45)? Or, as Roberts skeptic Heiko Gerhauser claimed (timestamp 28/3/2005 21:40), was a simple alternative available to the surveyers, but neglected? Since I don?t know, I provisionally withdrew this criticism. See this classic 1960 essay by William Kruskal for plain-spoken background.]

3. The Summary and certain paragraphs of the Discussion must be rewritten. Conclusions drawn from the statistical analysis of the survey must not be conflated or juxtaposed with conclusions drawn from treatments of raw numbers. By definition, conclusions supported by statistical analyses are more likely to be widely correct. As written, the MS is misleading on key points. All assertions based on non-statistical summaries that include data from the Fallujah cluster must be explicitly labeled as such.

4. The authors comment extensively on the implications of their findings for Coalition military policy without providing statistical analysis for the excess deaths calculated to have resulted from Coalition action. The authors have implicitly disaggregated their data in raising certain issues in the Discussion. Therefore, they must provide estimates of excess deaths and 95% CIs for the subsets they choose to discuss, or explicitly justify why they have not done so. The Lancet Editor should urge the authors to perform and present such additional analyses in any case, as the public-policy implications of the study?s results are critically dependent on the causes of the excess mortality. I would suggest subsets of (A) Diseases, incl. Infant Mortality; (B) Accidents; (C ) Violence not caused by Coalition; and (D) Violence caused by Coalition forces. Other approaches to disaggregation would also be acceptable.

5. The authors must alert readers to the sensitivity of excess-death calculations to initial circumstances. For the total figure and for subsets A, B, and C suggested immediately above (not an issue for subset D), excess deaths are the subtraction of a pre-war estimate from a post-war estimate, where each estimate has a large uncertainty. Figures so calculated can have particularly large uncertainties associated with them. There is little expert consensus on certain pre-war mortality rates in Iraq, preventing a robust check of study-generated pre-war estimates with independently-derived figures.

In conclusion, if I had been a reviewer whose advice had been followed, the Roberts study would have been published in the Lancet, perhaps on the same schedule. Working from the same data set, the message imparted by such an article to non-statisticians would have been very different from that delivered by the actual paper.

For those who argue that the Roberts article, as published, was not easily misinterpreted, here is the opening of the Invited Comment that was published alongside it (Bushra Ibrahim Al-Rubeyi, "Mortality before and after the invasion of Iraq in 2003," Lancet v. 364, # 9448, p. 1834, 20 Nov 2004):

In this week's Lancet, Les Roberts and colleagues show that the death toll from the invasion and occupation of Iraq is about 98000 civilians, and it might be considerably higher. The deaths are mostly related to air strikes.

To conclude: this non-expert?s analysis took a lot of time.

Does it display common-sense--and how important is that, anyway?
Do the links supply the necessary background? Is it properly recounted in the post?
Can the reader link the strongest arguments against what the writer?s arguing?
Is it good enough to help a ?lay? person to come to a conclusion?

We don't do body counts, remember?

The Lancet has more peer reviewed authority than any other publication on Iraqi deaths right now.

As such it will always be the official figure, the one by which the Americans will be judged, whether they like it or not.

For those unaware of the science behind cluster sampling:

http://www.stats.org/stories/the_science_ct_dead_oct17_06.htm

Buffalo Roam is akin to the Nazis justifying the holocaust.

Even Hitler refused to use poison gas.

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqatrocities.html



Last edited by oreodont : Today at 09:14 PM. Reason: Removed references to Buffalo's low I.Q.

Holocaust: Auschwitz, Birkenau, Belzec, Treblinka, Sobibor, Dachau ...
Holocaust: NAZI Concentration Camps and Death Camps. ... Auschwitz The infamous Holocaust death camp Auschwitz-Birkenau; Bergen-Belsen · Buchenwald ...
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/camps/

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9033460

Nazi German concentration camp that specialized in the mass annihilation (Vernichtung) of unwanted persons in the Third Reich and conquered territories. The camps' victims were mostly Jews but also included Roma (Gypsies), Slavs, alleged mental defectives, and others. The extermination camps played a central role in the Holocaust.

The major camps were in German-occupied Poland and included Auschwitz, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka. At its peak, Auschwitz, the most notorious of the camps, housed 100,000 persons. Its poison-gas chambers could accommodate 2,000 at one time, and 12,000 could be gassed and incinerated each day. Prisoners who were deemed able-bodied were initially used in forced-labour battalions or in the tasks of genocide until they were virtually worked to death and then exterminated.

Killing at each of the centres was by poison gas. Chelmno, the first of the extermination camps, where gassing began on December 8, 1941, employed gas vans whose carbon-monoxide exhaust asphyxiated passengers. Auschwitz, the largest and most lethal of the camps, used Zyklon-B.
It would seem that I have the intelligence to do the research to show that Hitler had many extermination camps, did use gas in his extermination camps, and as for justifying the Nazis and the Holocaust, I would have to say that yours is the lowest I.Q. because your statement would tend to minimize the depravity of the Holocaust and in doing so dismiss the culpabilities of the Nazis for their action. Now please post any thread, post, or reference, where I have ever made justification of Nazi actions during the Holocaust, and show were I have condoned the actions of any Service Man if he broke the code of the UCMJ, of Civil Laws for not only are you a liar, your a bad liar.

Last edited by oreodont : Today at 09:14 PM. Reason: Removed references to Buffalo's low I.Q.

Where the Lancet study method is most frequently used

http://www.cdc.gov/

Please cite proof of the numbers, as for the Lancet article; If you take every word of that criticism as gospel truth, the US forces have been killing about 1000 completely innocent Iraqis per week in the major cities of Iraq.

Although the critique does raise some good points, if also overlooks others: such as the greater prevalence of aerial bombing and rocketing by US planes in the rural areas. That would raise the toll from that minimum number.

And of course the military could straighten the whole thing out by providing better stats - but they do not bother, apparently, so they say, to keep track of how many innocents their tactics kill.

How that squares with the claim that the US military is doing all that it can to avoid killing civilians I don't know. I would think that adjusting one's tactics to avoid killing innocents would require some tracking of innocents killed, but what do I know?

We don't do body counts, remember?

The Lancet has more peer reviewed authority than any other publication on Iraqi deaths right now.

As such it will always be the official figure, the one by which the Americans will be judged, whether they like it or not.

But it appears that the peer's don't agree with the methodology;



http://heikoheiko.blogspot.com/2006/10/latest-lancet-estimate-on-iraqi-excess.html

Heiko

Friday, October 13, 2006
Latest Lancet estimate on Iraqi excess deaths
I have commented extensively on the first Lancet study, just type my name into google and within the top 10 you'll find several links.

I don't intend to go through the new study in the kind of excruciating detail I did previously, because I don't think it is worth the effort.

The Lancet is responsible for several headline grabbing scare stories:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1658807,00.html

BRITAIN’S premier medical journal is endangering public health by publishing unfounded scare stories, 30 of the country’s leading scientists say today.

Poor editorial judgment at The Lancet has fuelled panic over issues such as the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, hormone replacement therapy and genetically modified (GM) crops, the eminent medical researchers charge in a letter that the journal has refused to publish.

The signatories, thirty fellows of the Royal Society, two of whom are Nobel laureates, accuse it of favouring “desperate headline-seeking” over sound science, to the detriment of public health. “Under the editorship of Richard Horton, the publication of badly conducted and poorly refereed scare stories has had devastating consequences for individual and public health, in the UK and abroad, and carried a high economic cost,” they say.

It also grates that the new study has come out in October of an election year, just like the previous one. Considering that the previous study, which has now been updated, came in for heavy criticism because the Lancet fast tracked peer review to ensure publication just before the 2004 presidential election, it is hard to think of worse timing.

The studies are also quite small, which seriously affects their reliability.

http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2005/05/civilian_deaths.html

The above UN study conducted at about the same time as the first Lancet study covered 20,000 clusters of 10 households each, rather more than the 33 clusters of 30 households each covered by the Lancet.

The UN study was large enough to cut down random error (when there are only 300 births and 8 infant deaths in a sample it's quite hard to estimate infant mortality, even assuming perfect sampling, but with 10000 births and 300 infant deaths that problem largely goes away).

What it showed me was that systematic problems, things like recall bias, data colllection issues and so forth, make even their estimates quite unreliable.

Peer reviewers don't check the detailed field work of papers, they can't really, and author bias can creep in many ways. In the case of the first Lancet study, it amazed me how Fallujah, the most dangerous place in all of Iraq at the time, was sampled, but whole Kurdish governorates were not.

How can I check the way interviews were conducted? Household membership defined? etc.

I can't, I can't even easily verify how efficient government data collection for death certificates is (an important issue, as it is claimed that death certificates are issued in Iraq in 90% of cases, but only 10% of those issues death certificates get recorded by the central government - or at least something along these lines is claimed by defenders of the latest study).

Given this, and the fact that the results from the first study were near meaningless (what they did tell us with some certainty we already knew anyway from other sources, and for other claims there was no good support), I'll stick with the official government numbers.

If you take every word of that criticism as gospel truth, the US forces have been killing about 1000 completely innocent Iraqis per week in the major cities of Iraq.

Although the critique does raise some good points, if also overlooks others: such as the greater prevalence of aerial bombing and rocketing by US planes in the rural areas. That would raise the toll from that minimum number.

And of course the military could straighten the whole thing out by providing better stats - but they do not bother, apparently, so they say, to keep track of how many innocents their tactics kill.

How that squares with the claim that the US military is doing all that it can to avoid killing civilians I don't know. I would think that adjusting one's tactics to avoid killing innocents would require some tracking of innocents killed, but what do I know?

Not your spin, cite proof, and verifiable site reference.

Too bad, those peers are obviously substandard, since even the CDC uses the same methods as do all epidemiologists. Its a standarised method for estimating casualties.

Better watch it, Buffalo Roam knows where the WMDs (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=62201) are. :p

Must be beside his cut and paste key ;)

"There must be four male witnesses (or pieces of evidence) to support the accusation (of sexual penetration). "

Yes, that is of course, insane. It is also more than obvious why it's in place, sexism and to keep the power base on the side of men.

This is not the only criteria. If found guilty of this crime in a secular or religious court, the crime of execution is the same.

Please don't assume these things so readily.

Not your spin, cite proof, and verifiable site reference. Proof of what?

That the US military claims to not count civilian kills? Do you not know that already ?

That the Lancet study was biased away from rural areas, where the bombing has been heaviest ? That was in the thing you just posted yourself.

That 150,000 over three years is about what is left after "correcting" the Lancet survey ? You just posted that.

That about 150,000 divided by about 150 weeks is about 1000 per week ? Do I have to link that for you?

You tell me how the military adjusts its tactics to avoid killing civilians without counting the civilians its tactics kill. Or explain why we can't get that number from them, if they are counting.

Who cares how many dies... Pfft. The point is how many more will have to die on both sides before US pulls their ass out and admit that staying is not going to make the region love them more than they already do?

Buffalo,
Secretary General Kofi Annan declared the war a violation of UN Charter. The Security Council is the ultimate body to determine whether a violation of international law was conducted (not president Bush). [wiki]

Buffalo,
Secretary General Kofi Annan declared the war a violation of UN Charter. The Security Council is the ultimate body to determine whether a violation of international law was conducted (not president Bush). [wiki]

the same kofi?

The chain of events which lead up to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide unfolded while Annan was heading up Peacekeeping Operations. In his book Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda, Canadian ex-General Roméo Dallaire, who was force commander of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda, claims that Annan was overly passive in his response to the incipient genocide. Gen. Dallaire explicitly asserts that Annan held back U. N. troops from intervening to settle the conflict, and from providing more logistical and material support. In particular, Dallaire claims that Annan failed to provide any responses to his repeated faxes asking him for access to a weapons depository, something that could have helped defend the endangered Tutsis.

Proof of what?

That the US military claims to not count civilian kills? Do you not know that already ?

That the Lancet study was biased away from rural areas, where the bombing has been heaviest ? That was in the thing you just posted yourself.

That 150,000 over three years is about what is left after "correcting" the Lancet survey ? You just posted that.

That about 150,000 divided by about 150 weeks is about 1000 per week ? Do I have to link that for you?

You tell me how the military adjusts its tactics to avoid killing civilians without counting the civilians its tactics kill. Or explain why we can't get that number from them, if they are counting.


So far the only thing that has been sited by you is a Lancet Report that has a suspicious release date, and dubious methodology, and has been panned by many from the academic community.

That 150,000 over three years is about what is left after "correcting" the Lancet survey ? You just posted that.

That about 150,000 divided by about 150 weeks is about 1000 per week ? Do I have to link that for you?

Now how many of those deaths are caused by the Americans? How many of those are deaths are caused by Islamic Terrorist?
When you look at the last weekend;

and how about the fact that since yesterday the Islamic terrorist have killed 117 innocent people, to 1 U.S. soldier, 1 Iraqi Police Officer, and 5 Iraqi soldiers, sounds like a real Iraqi Liberation Movement.

Yes show proof that the Americans are the one killing these people in such numbers.

You want to make the claim that there is a major American bombing campaign going on in the rural area, yet there is nothing in the news about such a campaign being conducted, The only major bombings going on in the country side now is from the Terrorist who have been kicked out of Baghdad, and now are killing innocent Iraq Farmers to salve their ego, and win a false pride of winning a battle against defenseless civilians.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6902024.stm

Iraqi river carries grotesque cargo
Five hundred mutilated bodies dumped into the River Tigris have been washed up in two years in the town of Suweira, 100km (62 miles) south of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. The BBC's Mona Mahmoud and Sebastian Usher have spoken to the community through an Iraqi journalist to find out how they cope.

Up to now, we have received about 500 bodies," he says.

"They range from 20 to 45-year-olds - most are male. We have received about 10 women aged between 20 and 35."

"Most of them have been shot or tortured. They are in an advanced state of decomposition, so you can't stand to be close to them for long."