How Iraqi Civilian Casulaty Estimates Get Inflated
by Big Dog on May 9, 2007 at 10:50 Uncategorized
We have all heard the anti war crowd and its claim that 600,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed in the war. These numbers persist despite no evidence to support the claims. Now I know how these numbers get inflated. It is just a matter of creative math by Democrats. Nine people have died in the tornadoes this past week but according to one presidential hopeful the number was more than 1000 times that.
“In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died—an entire town destroyed,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser. Breitbart
Though Obama claims to be tired and weary it would appear that he was in such a rush to get to the part where he gets to talk badly about the president and the deployment of the national guard that he misspoke.
Liberals opening opening their mouths before their brains are engaged is how we get inflated war numbers (as well as any of the large number of misstated “facts”).
And we let politicians take our money and spend it…
Tags: Commentary
Mr. President, Mr. Preident. Two Brazilian soldiers were killed in a border incident.
That’s terrible! Uh, how many is a brazillion?
Big Dog,
How many Iraqis have died since we invaded, anyway?
One of the reasons we invaded is because Saddam had killed something like 500,000 of his own people.
If more end up dying after we invaded then what would that mean to you?
[…] [Discuss this post with the Big Dog…] Share Article Iraqi, Democratic Sphere: Related Content Trackback URL […]
It depends on whose numbers you look at and the methodology used to calculate. Somewhere just shy of 100,000 and I imagine that if you took out the ones killed by their own people it would be less.
Big Dog,
Well what about your numbers and the methodology? Would you care to actually share them with us? It might help us get a sense if their accurate, don’t you think? I don’t mean to inconvenience you, but if you’re going to assert that numbers on the left are wrong/inflated, presumably you can present a compelling alternative viewpoint.
FWIW, Saddam (one of them) killed his own people before we invaded so why would that be different from them killing each other now (when I doesn’t seem to bother you)?
Dear Bart,
I did look at his record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus
I saw that he was awarded the Combat Action Badge:
“The Combat Action Badge (or CAB) is a military badge worn in the U.S. Army.” … “The Combat Action Badge may be awarded to any soldier after the date of September 18, 2001 performing duties in an area where hostile fire pay or imminent danger pay is authorized, who is personally present and actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy,” … “This was to be a combat award only for soldiers who did not hold the infantry military occupational specialty (MOS), but who were deployed specifically to fulfill an infantry duty. This was in response to the large number of non-infantry (tank crews, for example) who were deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and whose units were reorganized to function as infantry (motorized or light) due to the lack of need for tanks and shortage of infantry.”
He was also awarded the Bronze Star Medal (with “V” Device).
“The medal may be awarded for Valor (ie courage under fire), in which case it is accompanied with an attached V or it may be awarded for Meritorious Achievement (ie doing one’s job well) in which case the medal does not have a valor component and does not have an attached V denoting Valor. Most of the bronze stars awarded are for non valor and do not have the V device.” … “When awarded for bravery, it is the fourth-highest combat award of the U.S. Armed Forces… “.
Bart, if you are going to reference sources it is a good idea to check them out yourself.
Regards,
Roy
BJ, I did not claim a number, just that the number used was inflated. However if you look at the Brookings Institute report you can not find where 600,000 Iraqis have been killed by us troops.
There are certainly a great number killed by the bad guys but killed by us added up is no where near 600k. There are many links to other sources should you care to look around.
As for killed before and after our invasion. At least now they have a chance to fight. They are able to fight back against the tyranny. When Hussein was there they could not fight back and any misspoken words ended in death. Quite a difference but I hardly expect you to agree.
You’re right, Big Dog. I don’t agree. Your thinking is muddled, again, as usual.
You don’t seem to have any idea or even care how many people have died in Iraq since we “freed” them. How then, can we decide if the invasion has been a success or failure based on the criteria that Saddam was killing his own people? You may recall that was one of the many reasons offered for invading. You’ve probably even used it to justify the invasion yourself. But it’s impossible to tell if our invasion has been a success when people like you refuse to even find out how many people have been killed in Iraq since Saddam was deposed. It’s pretty obvious that the Administration doesn’t want to talk about it and their lapdogs in the blogosphere, who’ve never had a thought that hasn’t been spoonfed to them by Rove/FOX, sure as hell aren’t applying themselves to it, as you have proved.
One thing is for sure though. Before we invaded, Iraqis lived in fear of their despotic ruler who bought chemical arms from Reagan/Bush Sr./Rumsfeld. Now they live in fear of everyone because there is now a civil war and up to 2 million of them have fled their homes (and often their country) altogether. I guess that’s success to you – just like more Americans dying from terrorism since Bush took office than under any other US President in history is success to you.
Republican bizarro world: failure = success.
Nothing is flawed Billy Troll. I do not know the number but estimates that include a process where the group says 100,000 people lived here and they are gone so they must have been killed is a wrong way to do things.
I also know that the bad guys have killed a great deal more than we have and that number is no where near what Hussein had killed based on any ESTIMATES available (ignoring those that lack credibility).
Are you now saying that we went in to prevent people from being killed, not for WMD? Can you guys ever get it right? Also, the fact that the people were killed on Bush’s watch does not mean he was responsible for them. This attack was in the making for quite some time and the inaction of the previous administration allowed it to happen.
You can keep drinking your kool aid but this is just the reality of the situation. The last thing anyone needs is Clinton apologizers trying to rewrite history and focus blame on Bush. Clinton was a dismal president and Bush has had to clean up his mess.
At least you acknowledge that we were attacked and are not espousing the 9/11 inside job conspiracy. I give you credit for avoiding that kool aid cup.
This is war. People die in war. The US goes out of its way to avoid killing non combatants. If we did not there would be a hell of a lot more dead people and we would be done with this by now. I know it is tough for you to see the dangers. I only hope that if we cut and run it is your family that is attacked and killed and not mine.