Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Report:U.S. Shipping Arms ahead of strike on Iran « previous next »
Page: 1 2

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7028
Offline
#15 : March 18, 2010, 08:56:29 PM

Civilian deaths may top 1 million, poll data indicate

A British survey offers the highest estimate to date of nonmilitary fatalities. In Sadr City, a car bombing kills 4.
THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ: ESTIMATE ON NONMILITARY TOLL; U.S. ALLY SLAIN
September 14, 2007|Tina Susman, Times Staff Writer

BAGHDAD � A car bomb blew up in the capital's Shiite Muslim neighborhood of Sadr City on Thursday, killing at least four people, as a new survey suggested that the civilian death toll from the war could be more than 1 million.

...
Based on Iraq's estimated number of households -- 4,050,597 -- it said the 1.2 million figure was reasonable.

There was no way to verify the number, because the government does not provide a full count of civilian deaths. Neither does the U.S. military.

Both, however, say that independent organizations greatly exaggerate estimates of civilian casualties.

....


Yea, that's one of those little "facts" that have crap written all over it. They interviewed about 1,400 households, about 500 of which were in Baghdad and 200 in Fallujah, 2 of the most violent districts in Iraq. They then extrapolated that through the whole of Iraq, including the Kurdish areas where there was little to no violence. Even the UN which has a habit of extorting things to suit their purposes, and is hardly a bastion of US love and kisses put the deaths somewhere in the region of 100,000 (if I recall).  That is a lot of dead people do not get me wrong, I don't want to diminish it for one second, but it is a far cry from over 1million+.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#16 : March 18, 2010, 10:12:04 PM

At most there were 160,000 US military in Iraq. well over half were non-combat support personnel. I find it very hard to believe that each US Combat personnel was responsible for over 12 civilian deaths each. Sorry but that 1 million number just doesn't add up.

I find it very hard to believe more civilians died in Iraq than in Stalingrad (400-600,000) or Leningrad (700k-1.1 million) in WWII were the German Military was intentionally targeting civilians and where there was a very heavy use of indiscriminate carpet bombing of residential and commercial areas.

100,000-200,000 if you include the sectarian (Iraqi v Iraqi) violence (which is well over 2/3rds of the casualties) is hard to fathom and very shocking, but over a million is absurd and an obvious exaggeration.


John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#17 : March 18, 2010, 10:35:33 PM

In 2003 the population of Iraq was estimated by the UN to be 25,175,000 and in 2009 it was 31,234,000. Iraq's pop. growth rate was 2.23% in 2003 and 2.66% in 2009. Using the median pop. growth of 2.45% means the population should have increased by 1.1563 so the population should be 29,109,936-1,000,000= 28,109,936 but the population is 11% higher than the numbers predict. If 1 million had died then how do you explain the higher than expected pop. growth???



Obamessiah

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1219
Offline
#18 : March 19, 2010, 12:54:30 PM


Every time you kill one, ten more pop up.

aquilus

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1802
Offline
#19 : March 19, 2010, 01:06:03 PM

I dont see WW3 happening but I do see a conflict a la Iraq on the horizon

Then again Obama knows history and FDR needed WW2 to get us out of the depression

I wouldnt put it past him in a second


kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
#20 : March 19, 2010, 01:33:07 PM

Good. Just because you put them there doesn't mean you are going to use them, but putting them there means that those that would be the recipients are fully put on notice. Diplomacy at its best.

\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#21 : March 19, 2010, 02:23:04 PM

I dont see WW3 happening but I do see a conflict a la Iraq on the horizon

Then again Obama knows history and FDR needed WW2 to get us out of the depression

I wouldnt put it past him in a second

Contrary to the popular mis-conception, wars don't end recessions, they cause them. We were fully and completely out of the Great Depression well before 1939 let alone Dec. '42. The longest sustained periods of growth are the periods between wars. The wars themselves cause miss-allocation of labor and resources which always leads to a recession at the end of the war.

IF BHO knew history he would avoid all conflicts possible, but NOTHING he has done indicates any knowledge of economics or history.


aquilus

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1802
Offline
#22 : March 19, 2010, 04:56:47 PM

The only real winners from WW2 were the United States. More countries were using our currency and we were king cow. We were the 2010 China in terms of money. If you read somewhat into what historians say (the non progressive ones) FDR's New Deal almost brankrupt this country. FDR's "New Deal" drove us deeper in the hole. If it were not for WW2 FDR would have been seen in a much much different light. He doubled the deficit and foreclosures shot through the roof. Hoover almost brought us out if he would have been elected again economists said we would have been out about 3-4 years earlier.



John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#23 : March 19, 2010, 05:24:06 PM

The only real winners from WW2 were the United States. More countries were using our currency and we were king cow. We were the 2010 China in terms of money. If you read somewhat into what historians say (the non progressive ones) FDR's New Deal almost brankrupt this country. FDR's "New Deal" drove us deeper in the hole. If it were not for WW2 FDR would have been seen in a much much different light. He doubled the deficit and foreclosures shot through the roof. Hoover almost brought us out if he would have been elected again economists said we would have been out about 3-4 years earlier.



Not disagreeing that FDR's New Deal was a really bad deal. But despite FDR's meddling, in 1936 GDP ROSE 13.0% and in 37 it ROSE 5.1% and it rose every year but one right thru 1941. The Depression was over before WWII started.

Wars in general cause recessions because the main source of demand shifts from consumers to the Govt. and resources and labor are shifted from manufacturing consumer products (which are long term self sustaining) to manufacturing military products (which are paid for with borrowed or taxed funds which cannot be sustained for very long). When the war ends, all those in the military are suddenly jobless, and all the plants making military products have to lay off workers while they shift back to consumer products. Lots of jobless ex-GIs + jobless ex-military contractors= recession.

All wars lead to post-war recessions and massive govt. debt. unless the war is very small and quick like Panama or Grenada. Even Desert Storm which only lasted weeks had an economic fallout bad enough to cost Bush Sr. a re-election.

Page: 1 2
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Report:U.S. Shipping Arms ahead of strike on Iran « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools