During the campaign there was released a "study" (found to be paid for by Soros) that was posted consistently saying that since the US invasion (at that time) there was over 600K deaths in Iraq?
You know, this study:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/w...6b1d070ff83c15&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Well, the World Health Organization, rather than George Soros, gives us a different number more than a year later. In fact one so different it gives me pause....
Exaggeration for effect? I mean, less than 1 in 5 and almost two years later?
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr02/en/index.html
155,000 dead. And the report informs us that 9 of 10 are caused by Iraqi on Iraqi violence.... And the numbers of Iraqi civilians killed by our bombs? Well, they have to number in the 15,500 that could be killed by US troops. Yes, somewhere under 15,500. That is one very careful "carpet" bombing, considering that there must be high numbers of combatants killed by direct fire.
I have seen on this board posts stating that the US has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Not so unless every single person killed by violence, whether caused by the US or not, was a child. Then it still isn't "hundreds of thousands". The idea was to give a picture of the nasty US troops outright targeting and killing as many civilians possible and purpusefully dismissing the accuracy of the arms used in Iraq.
While I think the invasion was wrong, I think it is also wrong to pretend our way into hating the troops because they "kill indiscriminately with bombs" when it now becomes clear that they don't at all kill indiscriminately, even with bombs. The numbers do not support that at all. Not even close. The US isn't going in and slaughtering people without regard to their action, and that is reflected by this new study.
This brings estimates to a totally different figure. Still terrible but certainly not the huge exaggerated number given us by Soros' marked "study" that just happened to appear just in time for the election, and is still erroneously repeated on here as if it is sooth.
I present this not as evidence that the war was the right thing to do, but as evidence that the troops are certainly not the uber-ignorant ruthless killers that they have been painted to be, that the US did not "indiscriminately" fire at any time, even during "Shock and Awe" we were clearly very careful, as careful as possible to not kill indiscriminately. As a whole the military deserves our respect and, IMO, admiration for the amazing job they have done regardless of being led by a President who promised no Nation Building but has led us into two such wars in as short a period as I have ever seen all without ever declaring that we were at war....
Keep the troops in mind, give them a bit of the benefit of the doubt.
May the Grand Architect of the Universe keep the troops safe during a dusty, and according to reports from our own Marine, boring war.
You know, this study:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/w...6b1d070ff83c15&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Well, the World Health Organization, rather than George Soros, gives us a different number more than a year later. In fact one so different it gives me pause....
Exaggeration for effect? I mean, less than 1 in 5 and almost two years later?
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr02/en/index.html
155,000 dead. And the report informs us that 9 of 10 are caused by Iraqi on Iraqi violence.... And the numbers of Iraqi civilians killed by our bombs? Well, they have to number in the 15,500 that could be killed by US troops. Yes, somewhere under 15,500. That is one very careful "carpet" bombing, considering that there must be high numbers of combatants killed by direct fire.
I have seen on this board posts stating that the US has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Not so unless every single person killed by violence, whether caused by the US or not, was a child. Then it still isn't "hundreds of thousands". The idea was to give a picture of the nasty US troops outright targeting and killing as many civilians possible and purpusefully dismissing the accuracy of the arms used in Iraq.
While I think the invasion was wrong, I think it is also wrong to pretend our way into hating the troops because they "kill indiscriminately with bombs" when it now becomes clear that they don't at all kill indiscriminately, even with bombs. The numbers do not support that at all. Not even close. The US isn't going in and slaughtering people without regard to their action, and that is reflected by this new study.
This brings estimates to a totally different figure. Still terrible but certainly not the huge exaggerated number given us by Soros' marked "study" that just happened to appear just in time for the election, and is still erroneously repeated on here as if it is sooth.
I present this not as evidence that the war was the right thing to do, but as evidence that the troops are certainly not the uber-ignorant ruthless killers that they have been painted to be, that the US did not "indiscriminately" fire at any time, even during "Shock and Awe" we were clearly very careful, as careful as possible to not kill indiscriminately. As a whole the military deserves our respect and, IMO, admiration for the amazing job they have done regardless of being led by a President who promised no Nation Building but has led us into two such wars in as short a period as I have ever seen all without ever declaring that we were at war....
Keep the troops in mind, give them a bit of the benefit of the doubt.
May the Grand Architect of the Universe keep the troops safe during a dusty, and according to reports from our own Marine, boring war.
