Join The Debate!

"Hurry Up, He's Dead!"

That's the title of the Biggest TV show in Iraq.
It's all about IRONY and IRONY is the biggest business of all these days.
They get to read the dizziness from faraway business strategists about the boom of their cellphone industry while they use their own phones to reassure loved ones that they made it back home alive after a day's run to the office.
They get to read the nonsense of their own versions of Jerry Falwell, OBL and the Mullahs.
They are sick of it all and some choose to LAUGH.
Kevin McCullough, you need to laugh at yourself.

Personally

I can't wait for two new fiction books called, "The Fall of the Neo-con World Destruction and The Aftermath" and "How The Jews Ruined World Peace Through the Greatest Hijacking of US Policy"

by Tanabear
Illustrations by Smoky the Bear
Foreword by the Chicago Bears
Copyrights reserved by the Russian Bear

Acknowledgments
I am grateful to the following publication in which these stories originally appeared: Wikipidea.

All rights reserved. No part of these books may be reproduced in any form without permission by the publisher, the Neo-Con anti-press.

A satellite dish on every hut.

I have been in and out of Iraq since Sept 03 and the thing that strikes me funny is the amount of satellite dishes on every building you can see. Even the crappiest mud brick hut. The Iraqis are also buying Airconditioners and refrigerators by the truck load from Jordan. It has gotten so bad that they have put a new strain on the power grid. People who claim that the electricy hasn't improved since we invaded do not understand that even though we improved the grid all the thousands of new appliances bought have raised the demand for power. Also more Iraqis are traveling through BIAP(Baghdad International Airport). So the question has to be asked if this is a failing country where are these people getting the money to buy all this stuff. They aren't all working for the U.S. Government.
We still have a long way to go here, but as I tell everyone at home it has gotten better every year since 2003. Don't believe me? Ask anyone who has been here more than one tour and see what answer you get.
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

A Christmas Wish

All I want for Christmas is one day without "neo-con" conspiracy blech from the usual suspects!

Merry Christmas everyone!

Sorry

To all the others(Peppermint, JackH,Artic, and the rest) who will post here today, sorry for my rant but I have had it with that crap attitude.

Merry Christmas, Arctic and thanks for the "rest" I get every night because of what you're doing. I don't forget. This is the best country in the world.

Merry Christmas!

Iraqna phones

Perhaps all those cell phones are being bought to be used as bomb detonators? Remember terrorists are consumers too!

Tanabear

Check the sources of your quotes
When the article has quotes from sources like the UK guardian and Al Jazerra (via Reuters), their objectivity is questionable. It's like asking the DNC to rate Richard Nixon's legacy.

Cut and post

Snce the anti-neo-cons love to cut and paste

Conservative commentator David Brooks has said that, in his opinion, Perle's influence in the Bush administration is exaggerated. In a 2004 New York Times article Brooks' wrote that; "There have been hundreds of references ... to Richard Perle's insidious power over administration policy, but I've been told by senior administration officials that he has had no significant meetings with Bush or Cheney since they assumed office. If he's shaping their decisions, he must be microwaving his ideas into their fillings". 'The Neocon Cabal and Other Fantasies', 2004 New York Times Co.

Thought we could cut and paste in a rebuttal from a "conservative commentator".

Knowledge Supposed

Hearsay evidence is suspect--everyone has an agenda and everyone has the capacity for biased interpretation of events. Myself included. What is the truth? Name calling? Does that shed light? Blind obedience to one's ideology? Supporting a political party and signing on to its philosophy doggedly? None of these are rational ways to accrue knowledge. In all matters "the trend is your friend". You cannot attain knowledge from one article, or one writer, or one group of writers with a like intent; you must wander the campus of thought and look for commonality. Look for trends, determine who you can trust, be open minded to new information, and never fail to search for an agenda or ask "why" is this being written. If you have never been to Iraq, you are not an expert. If you have never been to war, you have never lived intensely. Don't be a spreader of a false set of facts, guard your integrity, be objective and if you must give an opinion, clearly identify it as a musing. Iraq is not easy, fortunes can and will turn, let's hope it may ultimately turn in a way we like. Merry Christmas to you all.

Kevin McCullough is full of it

After reading this propaganda I got a little curious about some of these statistics so I went to the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, a branch of the Brookings Institute, and did a little digging.

Here's what I found:

Potable water is down from pre-war levels from 12.9 mil/day to 9.7 mil/day.

Baghdad averages about 7 hrs of electricity per day.

GDP was down 41.4% in 2003, up 46.5% in 2004, and up 3.7% in 2005. (Mr. McCullough would probably look at this and say "Over the last two years, GDP is averaging an astonishing 25.1% growth rate)

The total GDP for 2005 was 29.3 billion, and from what I can tell, almost all of it is from oil revenues. (This calls McCulloughs assertion that oil revenues are 41 billion, into question.) Also, one has to wonder how much of their GDP is due to the fact that we, the citizens of the United States, are spending 1.5 billion dollars per week over there.)

In terms of the overall economy, you can either take Mr. McCulough's word for it, or you can take the Iraqi people's word for it.

When asked "How would you rate the economic conditions in Iraq today?", 1% of respondents said excellent, 10% said good, 26% said fair, 59% poor, and 4% didn't know.

I guess Mr. McCullough would say that most of these people are liars.

Another poll shows that the number of Iraqis who believe that things will be better in Iraq in the next six months has steadily declined from April of 2005 to June of 2006.

Oh, on the poistive side, Nouri Al Malaki has a much higher approval rating than George Bush––55%

Oh, and another thing, it's not surprising that the cell phone company had a record year in 2004; Iraq did not have a cellular phone system under Saddam. I guess that's why Mr. McCullough used ONLY the cell phone company as an example of the astonishing success of the Iraqi economy.

Phylo out.

In Iraq

the water infrastructure was not even there until our troops got there and started building. Same for electrical infrastructure. Iraq was in a shambles before we got there. Saddam was using all his money for other nefarious means.
So Phylo your statistics mean nothing.

response to peppermint

Please tell me where you are getting your information from and try backing your assertion up with some facts from a credible source. And, also, are you saying that none of what I just posted is true?

Phylo out.

Typo

That should be "liberal" not "liveral"! Oops!

Phylo Outthere

I get my information from the troops on the ground.

In answer to your other question I will quote Primus 54:

"And Phylo, before you chastise me for not debating your "facts", I will concede the point. I have watched and read posters here at TH with far more patience than I consistently rebut your arguments to no avail... you are intransigent in your viewpoints... no matter how misplaced they may be."

No thanks, Phylo, I don't wish to play the masochist of the day to your sadism.

Merry Christmas! :-}

Sorry, but I grew up . . .

. . . thinking our country could achieve great things and, if not, certainly wouldn't go around whining some wussy excuse about how we can't succeed because some group (i.e. "The Left") has criticized us.

Waaaaaaaaaaaah! They're saying bad things about me! Waaaaaaaaah!

response to peppermint

Sorry but "the troops on the ground" doesn't cut it as a credible source of information. How many troops have you talked to? Where were the troops? Were they there to see the conditions on the ground before we invaded? Might they have a natural bias? Besides, I've read that most of the troops on the ground over there believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

And I find it revealing that you're willing to take Kevin McCullough's word for what's happening over there. When was the last time he was over there?

I cited my sources and offered facts to back up my assertions. All you can do is tell me that I'm intransigent. Like you're not!

And of course I'm intransigent when I'm right. Why should I agree with someone who is so clearly wrong, like you and Mr. McCullough.

Try responding with an intelligent argument rather than just name calling––if you're capable, that is.

Phylo out.

This will put some things

in perspective about what Iraq was like prior to the latest war due to sanctions that were not working and Saddam had violated for 12 years.

"The UN-imposed economic sanctions have been in place since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. While the sanctions have had little effect on the policies of the Iraqi Government, they have taken a chilling toll on the civilian population.

During the Gulf War, US-led Coalition forces dropped 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq, more than were dropped on Europe during WWII. Targets included electrical generating plants, water treatment facilities, and sewage treatment plants. Because of the sanctions, Iraq has been unable to repair or replace these facilities which are vital to the health of the entire civilian population. As a result, disease has been rampant.

The Iraqi Ministry of Health estimates that 109,720 persons have died annually between August 1990 and March 1994 as a direct result of the sanctions.

>From The Children are Dying: Reports by UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Since August 1990, 567,000 children in Iraq have died as a consequence of the sanctions.

THE LANCET, Volume 346 Number 8988. Saturday December 2, 1995.

After the sanctions, there was a two-fold increase in infant mortality and a five-fold increase in under-5 mortality.

The LANCET Volume 346, Number 8988. Saturday December 2, 1995.

There are 4,500 children under the age of 5 dying each month from hunger and disease. In Central/Southern Iraq, 27.5 percent of Iraq's three million children (some 900,000) are now at risk of acute malnutrition.

UNICEF Report

Due to the hazards of the water supply, government statistical office figures show 1,819 cases of typhoid fever in 1989 and 24,436 cases in 1994. Similarly, there were no reported cases of cholera in 1989, but 1,345 cases in 1994.

>From "The Children are Dying": Reports by UN
Food and Agricultural Organization.

Fifty percent of rural people have no access to potable water.

Waste-water treatment facilities have stopped functioning in most urban areas.

UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs

In rural areas, only half the people have access to a water supply from a network, public tap, or well, and only 34 percent have a sanitary type of latrine."

Another perspective prior to the war

in Iraq of 2003:

USCR Country Report Iraq: Statistics on refugees and other uprooted people, Jun 2001


There were more than 127,700 refugees and about 700,000 internally displaced persons in Iraq in 2000. Known refugees in Iraq included about 23,900 from Iran and 12,600 from Turkey - in both cases, mostly Kurds. The total also included about 90,000 Palestinians and about 1,200 refugees of other nationalities, including Eritreans (600), Somalis (300), Sudanese (200), and Syrians (100).
The estimated 600,000 internally displaced persons in the three northern governorates of Dohuk, Erbil, and Suleymaniyah included not only long-term internally displaced persons and people displaced by Kurdish factional infighting, but also as many as 100,000 people, mostly Kurds, Assyrians, and Turkomans, more recently expelled from central-government-controlled Kirkuk and surrounding districts in the oil-rich region bordering the Kurdish-controlled north. At least another 100,000 persons were internally displaced elsewhere in Iraq, mostly in the southeastern marshlands.

Between one and two million Iraqis with a well-founded fear of persecution were estimated to be living outside of Iraq, although only about 550,000 had any formal recognition as refugees or asylum seekers in 2000. About 510,000 Iraqi refugees were living in Iran and about 5,200 refugees remained in the Rafha camp in Saudi Arabia at year’s end. In 2000, some 34,700 Iraqis applied for asylum in Europe. The largest number, 11,721, applied for asylum in Germany, followed by the United Kingdom (7,080) and Sweden (3,518). Many, such as the 50,000 to 180,000 Iraqis in Jordan and about 23,000 Iraqis in Syria, remained undocumented and were not formally recognized - or protected - as refugees. Elsewhere, some Iraqis were firmly settled and, therefore, were no longer counted as refugees in need of assistance and protection.

During the year, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) assisted in the resettlement of 413 Iranian refugees from Iraq to other countries.

General Conditions

The international community maintained increasingly leaky economic sanctions against Iraq for the eleventh year. Although surreptitious violations of the sanctions and humanitarian exceptions through the UN oil-for-food program improved Iraq’s economic situation during the year, the more vulnerable elements of Iraqi society continued to suffer disproportionately the effects of the sanctions.

A May-June 2000 report jointly issued by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Food Program (WFP), and the World Health Organization (WHO) noted that about 800,000 Iraqi children under the age of five were chronically malnourished and that ten percent of children under age five in Baghdad, Kerbala, and Diyala indicated "wasting" (low weight for height). On the other hand, the three Kurdish-controlled northern governorates appeared to be enjoying relative prosperity, both as a result of receiving a UN-mandated 13 percent of all oil-for-food revenues as well as "taxes" the Kurds impose on the lucrative smuggling operations across the Turkish and Iranian borders.

Internal Displacement, Central Iraq

In 2000, Baghdad continued its systematic efforts to "Arabize" the predominantly Kurdish districts of Kirkuk, Khanaqin, and Sinjar at the edge of government-controlled Iraq near the Kurdish-controlled zone. To solidify control of this strategically and economically vital, oil-rich region, the government expelled Kurds, Assyrians, and Turkomans - at times, entire communities - from these cities and surrounding areas. At the same time, the government offered financial and housing incentives to Sunni Arabs to persuade them to move to Kirkuk, Mosul, and other cities targeted for Arabization. New Arab settlements were constructed on expropriated Kurdish land holdings.

Under the Arabization program, known as "nationality correction," the government forces ethnic minority civil servants to sign a form "correcting" their nationality. Persons refusing to sign the forms - for example, a Kurd refusing to "correct" his nationality and list himself as an Arab - are subject to expulsion to northern Iraq or the no-fly zone in the south. During the year, Kurds and Turkoman families in Mosul and Kirkuk were reportedly expelled to northern Iraq for failure to sign the forms.

In August, the UN special rapporteur on Iraq reported that forced deportations of non-Arab families living in the Kirkuk area were continuing on "a large scale." The special rapporteur said that he had received reports of more than 94,000 persons being expelled from Kirkuk and surrounding areas from 1991 through June 2000. Adding together reports from various sources, none of which presented full-year counts for all three northern governorates, it appeared that at least 400 families were displaced as part of the Arabization campaign in 2000, representing at least 2,500 people.

Most expellees moved north to the Kurdish-controlled governorates where they had relatives and the support of persons sharing their language and culture. However, they paid a price: those going north could not take their belongings. Few victims of internal deportation could sell their properties and belongings or receive a fair price for them in the brief time before expulsion. Kurds were forbidden to sell their homes to other Kurds or non-Arabs. The few who opted to move to predominantly Shi’a southern Iraq could take their belongings. In 2000, some were reportedly expelled to the western desert of Anbar Governorate.

In late November 1999, the Interior Ministry reported that it had expelled from Baghdad about 4,000 families (about 24,000 people) who, it said, had migrated there "illegally" as a result of the 1991 Gulf War. The regime said that the expulsions, mostly to Wasit Governorate in the east, Dhi Qar in the south, and Qadisiyah in the center, were intended to return internally displaced persons to their areas of origin and to relieve congestion in Baghdad.

Opposition sources, however, contended that most of the expelled families were Kurds and Shi’a, many from the Al-Thawra neighborhood, the scene of an anti-regime riot in February 1999. They said that the expulsions were aimed at preventing political unrest in the capital. They noted that persons displaced from Iraqi president Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit were not included in the expulsion order.

Northern Iraq

Many residents of northern Iraq have been displaced multiple times. In 1998, the UN Center for Human Settlements (UN-Habitat) estimated that more than 1 million people (out of a population of 3 million) had been internally displaced in the three northern governorates at one time or another. In December 2000, the New York Times cited officials in northern Iraq as saying 805,000 people remained internally displaced there. It is difficult to arrive at an accurate estimate for the number who remained internally displaced at the end of 2000. Many continued to live in tents or with other families. It was also clear, however, that return movement within northern Iraq was occurring, and that some of the 4,500 Kurdish villages destroyed by Baghdad forces during the "Anfal" campaign of the late 1980s were being rebuilt and reoccupied.

Approximately 100,000 of the displaced in the north are people from the government-controlled regions of Kirkuk, Khanaqin, and Sinjar bordering the north who have been expelled into the north in recent years, including in 2000. Roughly another half-million Kurds, some of whom had fled to the north in 1991 and some of whose original homes in northern Iraq were destroyed during the "Anfal" campaign, remained displaced. They were unable to return to their homes because of a combination of factors, including the impasse between the Kurdish political parties, insecurity along the border areas, and lack of resources to rebuild destroyed homes and villages. The U.S. Committee for Refugees (USCR) estimates the number still displaced in northern Iraq to be approximately 600,000.

The economy in northern Iraq improved in 2000, and the Kurdish population appeared to be faring better economically than the Iraqis to the south. Health and nutrition in the northern governorates showed improvement. For example, UNICEF reported that malnutrition rates among children under age five dropped from 18.3 percent in 1999 to 14.5 percent in 2000.

A 1998 peace agreement signed by the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), formally ending four years of factional fighting, held through 2000, although northern Iraq remained essentially split between the two parties. The KDP controlled Erbil and Dohuk governorates, and the PUK controlled Suleymaniyah. Although the two parties agreed in October 1999 to the return of displaced people within northern Iraq to their places of origin, a year later, neither side had allowed more than token returns.

In April, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) observed that the displaced were still living in tents or in open, unheated public buildings and that "the need for humanitarian aid is still acute." The ICRC was providing relief assistance to persons displaced for less than three months.

Despite relative calm between the two main Kurdish factions, northern Iraq continued to be insecure, as each faction battled other parties during the year. The KDP engaged in skirmishes with the Iraqi Turkoman Front; the PUK battled the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), a Kurdish opposition group in Turkey with bases in PUK-territory in northern Iraq. Further complicating the security situation in northern Iraq, Turkish armed forces waged incursions into northern Iraq in pursuit of the PKK at various times throughout the year.

Southern Iraq

The Iraqi government has long been openly hostile to the Marsh Arabs, or Maadan, people living in the marshlands between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in a triangle-shaped region formed by the cities of Amarah, Basra, and Nasiriyah. Following the suppression of the 1991 Shi’a uprising in southern Iraq, many opponents of the Baghdad regime fled to the marshes, and the Iraqi government intensified a pacification campaign it had been directing toward the Maadan since 1989.

Since 1991, government forces have burned and shelled villages, and built dams to divert water from the marshes to depopulate the area. Although there are no reliable sources on the number of displaced people in southern Iraq, USCR conservatively estimates that about 100,000 are internally displaced from and within the southern region.

Following the February 1999 assassination of Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al Sadr, the spiritual leader of Iraq’s Shi’a population and a vocal critic of the central government, there were reports of widespread rioting, as well as allegations of summary executions and arrests. The Iraqi authorities also reportedly burned houses as collective punishment against rebellious villages and neighborhoods.

Little information was available in 2000 regarding displacement of Shi’a villagers in southern Iraq, because of a news blackout on the region.

Refugees from Turkey

About 12,640 Kurdish refugees from Turkey, most of whom arrived in 1994, remained in Iraq in 2000. After the 1997 closure of the Atrush camp, its occupants split into two groups. The larger faction, numbering about 9,100 in 2000, moved to the Makhmour camp in Iraqi government-controlled territory. Another 3,500 Kurdish refugees from Turkey were living in five local settlements in Dohuk Governorate and one settlement in Erbil, on land provided by the KDP.

In 2000, 263 refugees voluntarily returned to Turkey with UNHCR assistance. Since 1997, 2,200 have repatriated. UNHCR assists in their return. They pass through the Habur border gate and stay temporarily in tents near the border until they can be returned to their places of origin.

Iranian Refugees in Government-controlled Iraq

About 20,500 Iranian refugees resided in government-controlled Iraq in 2000. Most of the Iranians (13,600) lived in the Al-Tash camp in western Iraq, about 70 miles (110 km) from Baghdad. During the year, UNHCR assisted in the resettlement of 372 refugees from government-controlled Iraq. Iraqi refugees were resettled in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. UNHCR was not able to reach its planning figure of 1,300 Iranian refugees to be resettled in 2000 due, in part, to a lack of resettlement offers.

In Al-Tash, refugees were not permitted to work, and their movement was restricted. All of the refugees at Al-Tash are Iranians; most are Kurds, although the camp also includes Persians and Arabs from Ahwaz Province. While the great majority of camp residents are Sunni Muslim, more than 1,000 camp residents belong to the Ahl-e-Haq religious minority.

Another 7,000 Iranian Ahwazi refugees who fled southern Iran during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s lived in Misan, Kumeit, and Basra governorates in southern Iraq. UNHCR and the Iraqi authorities conducted a joint needs assessment, and reported in April that this population, which had been unassisted, in fact had considerable needs. In June, UNHCR began assisting with health care, sanitation, education, and income-generation projects. The mission also found the Ahwazi refugees to be keenly interested in repatriation, but, by year’s end, had yet to work out an arrangement with the Iraqi and Iranian governments for their return to Iran.

Iranian Refugees in Northern Iraq

An estimated 3,400 Iranian Kurdish refugees resided in northern Iraq in 2000. The majority were believed to be ex-peshmergas (guerrillas) of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran. UNHCR recorded 852 new refugee arrivals to northern Iraq from Iran during the year.

UNHCR conducted 147 refugee status determination interviews in northern Iraq in 2000, representing almost 400 individuals, and recognized 240 Iranians and 48 Syrians as refugees.

Northern Iraq remained very dangerous for Iranian refugees in 2000. In recent years, unknown assailants have assassinated about 300 Iranians. The refugees claim that agents of the Iranian regime in northern Iraq have been responsible for these killings. UNHCR was aware of the killing of one Iranian refugee under suspicious circumstances in northern Iraq in 2000. In December, the KDP forcibly returned two Iranian refugees to Iran.

Resettlement from northern Iraq became increasingly difficult in 2000. UNHCR assisted in the resettlement of 41 Iranian refugees from northern Iraq in 2000, a marked decline from the 632 Iranian refugees resettled in 1999. In 1999, the Iraqi government announced that it did not regard Iranians in northern Iraq as refugees and called upon UNHCR to suspend resettlement. Difficulties in obtaining exit clearances for Iranians in northern Iraq accounted, in part, for the drop in resettlement in 2000.

Because of the lack of diplomatic missions in northern Iraq, potential resettlement countries must review case dossiers of resettlement candidates prepared by UNHCR rather than interview the refugees directly. Refugees accepted for resettlement must obtain an exit visa from the Iraqi government. Iraqi government officials and UNHCR then escort them through Iraqi government-controlled territory to the Jordanian border. In coordination with the International Organization for Migration and the UNHCR office in Jordan, refugees are then flown from Amman to their countries of destination.

In addition to political and logistical obstacles to resettlement, UNHCR funding shortfalls also contributed to the problem. UNHCR reported that it had to "explore additional funding possibilities within the organization, through repetitive prioritization exercises, to meet the expenditures in sending the accepted cases to third countries." This affected refugees from both northern and government-controlled Iraq. Budget deficits also caused UNHCR to cancel, curtail, and postpone certain assistance programs, especially programs directed toward improving conditions for refugee women and children and to improving camp environments throughout the country.

In February, 170 Iranian refugees staged a sit-in at the UNHCR office in Suleymaniyah, calling for reviews of rejected cases and for resettlement outside the region.

Other Groups

Approximately 91,200 refugees of other nationalities were in Iraq in 2000, about 90,000 of whom were Palestinians. Information on their living conditions was not available. UNHCR had also registered about 600 Eritreans, 300 Somalis, and 200 Sudanese. During the year, 127 Syrians sought asylum in Iraq.

Little is known about some 100,000 stateless Arabs from Kuwait, called Bidoon, who were expelled from Kuwait into Iraq after the Gulf War. In October, about 1,000 Bidoon protesters crossed into the demilitarized zone (DMZ) between Iraq and Kuwait, demanding the right to return to their homes in Kuwait. They erected 38 tents inside the DMZ in violation of the UN Iraq-Kuwait Observers Mission border rules.

Iraqi Refugees Outside Iraq

According to a leaked, unpublished Iraqi government document reported by a London-based Arabic newspaper in March 2000, the government estimates that 1.5 million Iraqis have sought asylum outside Iraq during the past ten years. The largest recognized group, about 510,000, lived in Iran; another 5,166 were living in the Rafha camp in Saudi Arabia.

In June 1999, Iraq announced an amnesty for certain Iraqis who had been expelled for specific periods of time or who left the country illegally, including university teachers who had left the country without exit permission, or who had not returned home after representing Iraq in official delegations. In November 1999, the government issued a new law imposing prison terms of up to ten years on persons attempting to leave the country illegally.

UNHCR-Baghdad recorded 2,214 voluntary repatriations of Iraqi refugees from Iran in 2000. (UNHCR-Tehran reported that 3,637 Iraqis repatriated during the year. The discrepancy could be accounted for by the preference of many returnees not to report their whereabouts upon return in order to remain as inconspicuous as possible, particularly among the 2,277 Iraqi Kurds that UNHCR-Tehran said returned to northern Iraq.) UNHCR did not record any returns from Saudi Arabia or other countries. On the other hand, press reports in July alleged that an unspecified number of Iraqi refugees were forcibly returned from Iran to Iraq.

The KDP says that it provides financial support and other assistance to returnees from Iran, and that "governmental institutions" in northern Iraq provide housing and other essential services for the returnees.

Copyright 2001, USCR





With the exception of public UN sources, reproduction or redistribution of the above text, in whole, part or in any form, requires the prior consent of the original source.
Print Print Email E-mail Save to My ReliefWeb S

Another perspective for Phylo and ilk

The Fog of Stats
Lies, damn lies, statistics, and Iraq.

By Mark Goldblatt

I’m guessing about a nanosecond passed between the moment the British medical journal The Lancet published a study claiming that roughly 600,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war and the moment critics of the war began quoting the figure as gospel truth. The study, conducted by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Heath (JHBSPH), is based on a “scientific” methodology in which household surveys were conducted, census numbers examined, death certificates tabulated and data extrapolated from the results. “Since March 2003, an additional 2.5% of Iraq's population has died above what would have occurred without conflict,” the study concludes.


Now let me see if I’ve got this straight. The JHBSPH study attempts to calculate the number of civilian deaths “above what would have occurred without conflict.” I wonder, therefore, if the survey group was taking into account the effects of United Nations sanctions on Iraq prior the invasion — which, if the conflict hadn’t occurred, would logically still be in place. According to U.N. studies using similar methodologies to those utilized by JHBSPH, roughly 150,000 civilians, more than half of them children, were dying every year as a direct result of U.N. sanctions. Since the sanctions ended in May 2003 after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, that means that in the 3.5 years since then, roughly 525,000 lives were spared. If we compare that number with the JHBSPH’s estimate of 600,000 lives lost as a result of the conflict, we’re led to conclude that George W. Bush’s decision to oust Saddam has cost roughly 75,000 Iraqi civilian lives. But the JHBSPH researchers acknowledge a huge margin for error; their low end estimate is 426,369. That means Bush’s decision to invade may actually have saved almost 100,000 lives.

What was it Mark Twain once said about “lies, damn lies and statistics”?

The manipulation of information is part of the fog of war, of course. That’s a point worth remembering whenever you’re confronted with ludicrous numbers like those put out by the JHBSPH. Indeed, that’s a point worth remembering whenever anyone starts talking about the civilian body count in Iraq. Agendas abound. On the political Left, peace activists and opportunistic Democratic politicians invariably cite high-end statistics in order to justify their attacks on the Bush administration. For that reason, they favor U.N. figures. According to the U.N., for example, 3009 Iraqi civilians were killed in August 2006 (the last month for which U.N. has published data) in the ongoing terrorist insurgency, down from 3590 in July.

Skeptical American military commanders point out that the U.N. numbers are based on combined reporting from the Iraqi health ministry, which is controlled by supporters of anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and Baghdad’s central morgue, which apparently designates every unidentified corpse as a victim of the war. Indeed, the U.N. numbers feel inflated since 3,000 killings per month averages out to over a 100 every day — a total that far exceeds daily media accounts. By contrast, Reuters reports the civilian toll in August at 769, down from 1065 in July. (In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that Reuters reports the body count in September as 1,089, a sharp rise in fatalities from August.) The Reuters figures are derived from combined data provided by the Iraqi ministries of health, interior, and defense — dubious sources, to be sure — but not data from the Baghdad morgue.

Again, when it comes to assessing Iraqi civilian casualties, you’re always dealing with a world of murky numbers. That inconvenient reality has never stopped critics of the Bush administration from spouting high-end estimates in order to argue that the war is an unmitigated disaster, and that Bush himself must be held accountable for the carnage.

Notwithstanding the motives and methodologies of Bush’s detractors, there is an undeniable logic to the idea that the Bush administration should be held accountable for the death toll of Iraqi civilians. By toppling the brutal Hussein regime, America undermined the strong central authority which had kept Sunnis and Shiites from one another’s throats for decades. But unless we’re willing to concede that Iraqis were better off under the genocidal thumb of Saddam, and then his sons Uday and Qusay, and afterwards their sons, and so on, in perpetuity, then we must conclude that freedom for Iraqis always entailed a transition period of religious bloodshed.

If, in any event, the Bush administration is to be held accountable for the current civilian body count in Iraq, then, in a broader sense, the president should also be credited with the deaths that aren’t occurring — which brings us back to the effects of U.N. sanctions. Recall that the sanctions were in place because of Saddam’s failure to comply with the terms of the 1991 ceasefire agreement that ended the first Gulf War. According to the World Health Organization and UNICEF, roughly 5,000 Iraqi children under the age of five were dying each month as a direct result of the sanctions. Again, that’s the body count just for children under the age of five.

Certainly, that 5,000 number was always a grotesque exaggeration; Saddam’s own Health Ministry was providing the raw data on which it was based. More realistic estimates range between 1,200-2,000 dead Iraqi children per month. But if you’re going to trust U.N. numbers, then trust them consistently. If today’s critics of the Bush administration continue to damn the war in Iraq based on the U.N.’s hyper-inflated Iraqi civilian casualty figures, or based on the new super-duper-hyper-inflated JHBSPH numbers, then fairness demands they also remember the U.N. data on the effects of the prewar sanctions.

Indeed, the U.N. estimate of 5,000-dead-Iraqi-children-per-month was regularly cited throughout the late 1990s by knee-jerk celebrities such as Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell, Bonnie Raitt, Mike Farrell, Joan Baez, Ed Asner, Jackson Browne, Pete Seeger, Richard Dreyfuss and Richard Gere; by Democratic politicians such as John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, John Lewis, Cynthia McKinney and Debbie Stabenow; and by don’t-confuse-us-with-the-facts commentators such as Ralph Nader, Howard Zinn, Ward Churchill, Ramsey Clark, Arundhati Roy, and Noam Chomsky.

All of the above, predictably, howled in opposition to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.

Now that the sanctions have ended, no one on the political left ever mentions the U.N. figures on the prewar child-mortality rate in Iraq — like portraits of disgraced Soviet leaders, the dead children have been conveniently “disappeared” from the collective memory of critics of the Bush administration.

History will remember them however. Even if JHBSPH researchers, and the rest of the political Left, do not.

—Mark Goldblatt is author of Africa Speaks, a satire of black urban culture.

He forgot

to mention the 'booming' used car market, or the Makita drill franchises that are springing up all over the place.

response to peppermint

I quoted you statistics from the Brooking Institute that show that potable water is down from pre-war levels.

You responded by saying that

"water infrastructure was not even there until our troops got there and started building. Same for electrical infrastructure. Iraq was in a shambles before we got there. Saddam was using all his money for other nefarious means. So Phylo your statistics mean nothing."

This is not an argument. This is a baseless opinion. "Shambles"? What does that mean precisely? Is it a technical term I'm not familiar with?

I asked you to offer some facts to support your assertion and you tell me that you're getting your information from "troops on the ground". Do you know the difference between a credible source and an uncredible source? The troops on the ground might be a good source for such information as Are you well fed? Are things safe in your area? But they cannot tell us much about pre and post war levels of potable water in the whole country of Iraq.

Then you post a long and meaningless piece about Iraqi refugees.

What does this have to do with potable water?

And, for the record, I have never, not once, claimed to be smarter than anyone else. I do, on occasion, claim to have a better, sounder argument. If I'm wrong you have the opportunity to prove it. And so far, you are doing a lousy job of defending your position that our invasion has made Iraq an economic success.

Phylo out.

Before we rush to get out of Iraq, why

don't we develop an "exit strategy" for Germany? Why aren't all the Lefties whining about that? Or about our troops in Korea, 50 years after the war there?

And especially why weren't the Lefties whining about all the troops Bill Clinton sent here and there all over the world while he was in office. I never heard them whining about "exit strategies" back then.

The reason is because they want to keep turning Iraq into a political football. They don't care if leaving endangers the lives of millions of Iraquis who want to breathe freely without the yoke of oppression from a demented distortion of their religion.

All they care about is emasculating our country so that they, as Marxists, no longer hiding their true nature, can take over and have a John Lennon paradise, that they only now "Imagine."

Phylo.....

"And, for the record, I have never, not once, claimed to be smarter than anyone else...."

Agreed. You have never expressly made this claim.

But the "implication" is evident whenever you bless us with your wisdom.

Mountain Rose... excellent post that exposes the motivations of the leftist critics and their gross hypocracy. Thanks for the reminder!

- Primus54

P.S. To Phylo.

I know how correct you try to be on these threads, so I have a question.

Wouldn't it be more accurate for you to sign off with "Phylo Over" until such time as you are done for the day, at which time you could write "Phylo Over & Out"? You know... like they do it in the movies? :-)

Feel the Shame, Feel the Humility!

Peppermint,
You're not fighting, Honey! Be Supportive but not Obtuse.
HEY, on one point I'll bet we agree: WE MUST FIND SUCCESS IN IRAQ!!!
But to pretend as Kevin does that it is already there, Is Absurd and will not lead us to peace and stability.
Hear me Carefully: LET'S NOT CUT AND RUN......BUT LET'S NOT PRETEND CHAOS IS VICTORY EITHER!!!

Phylo

I thought you were "smart".

You so disdainfully decline to read my posts on the statistics prior to our going into Iraq. I wonder why that is.

My posts point out the "perspective" of what Iraq was like before we went in there. Iraq was in really bad shape prior to the war. So, you can quote all the statistics you want about what is going on there today, but it is still better than it was before 2003, especially for the children. That is not saying things are great in Iraq, but there is a difference.
That's the point, Mr. Phylo.

And yes I know the difference between a credible source and one that is not. That's why what you say means nothing to me. Go back to Moveon like
Mountain Rose said.

Quite frankly I am sick of people like you who only wish to look at every negative aspect and never see anything positive. You and many like you are so hateful all you want to do is run this country down into the ground. Were mistakes made in Iraq? Sure, just like any other war we've fought. Are things a mess in parts of Iraq? Sure, just like the other wars we've fought.

Do you recall the landing on Normandy, D-Day?
Do you have any idea what a huge blunder was made there? Do you have any idea how many troops were killed there? I doubt it.

Do you have any idea what shape London was in during the WWII? Do you know how destroyed Germany was after the WWII? And how long the US stayed there to fix it? In fact, we still have troops there. We still have troops in Korea.

Whether one agrees with this war or not, we need to find a victory. You can keep going on the negative over and over and maybe your greatest wish will come true and the US will fail. Then, you can celebrate for the rest of your life if you wish most likely under Islamic rule. I hope your glee maintains itself then. Apparently there is little else you get so much glee from than hoping and wishing our troops suffer another humiliation like Vietnam. It seems there is no other greater glee you could possibly attain other than seeing the US lose.

And, we aren't even losing, that's the sad part.

ImprecisePsychic

Nowhere in any of my posts did I ever say things were going "well" in Iraq.
You do have a habit of putting words into my posts that I have not written.

You, sir are neither my better nor my lesser, so I will not humble myself before you.

I will feel no shame whatsoever for supporting our troops and my country.

I do not like your insults either. I hope you feel better about yourself by calling me "obtuse".

Perhaps it is you who needs to be ashamed of yourself for putting words into my posts that I have not said and casting insults on me.

Primus54 and Reagan

That great Reagan line "It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant. It's that so much of what they know just isn't so." of course is plagarized. The punch line is a famous Mark Twain quip. Remember, he was an actor backed by an army of speachwriters.
The greatest Presidents this of the 20-th Century were, in order of greatness, FDR, JFK, Clinton, Carter (the only honest one).

As for Iraq, read http://juancole.com to find out what an actual expert thinks. It's not pretty. Oil production is below pre invasion lows. Then there's the violence.

response to peppermint

I glanced at your posts and saw that they were irrelevent to our disagreement.

My point was that the amount of potable water in Iraq has gone down since we invaded, I saw nothing in your statistics that would prove otherwise.

And as far as wishing we would lose, you're wrong. I remember driving to work the day that NPR reported on Saddam's statue falling. I got chills. I was proud of what we had done.

Since then, I have seen George Bush get almost everything wrong while blaming the left for not supporting him. I have also since learned that the White House lied about the strength of the intelligence. ("No doubt" is supposed to mean "no doubt").

And all along I've watched people like you continue to willfully blind yourselves to the reality of what's going on over there. McCullough's column today is a shining example of this. People who claim that there really were WMDs are another example.

The reason I come to this site is to try and get people like you to put aside partisanship and see reality clearly. I do this by being provacative; I'm hoping to provoke you into an argument so that you might see for yourself that your arguments are very weak and ill-informed.

I don't want us to lose this war, but unlike you, I'm no longer suffering from the delusion that this war is winnable in any meaningful sense of the word. I think the fact that we're going to lose is this war is a disaster for our country. But we're not going to make the situation better with wishful thinking.

Phylo out.

Failure is easy

Unfortunately,many so called conservative thinkers go along with the "convetional wisdom" that says Iraq is a disaster and in so doing, legitimate the driveby medias constant attack on the psyche of decent Americans who rely on them("conservative" commentators)for bold insite as they don't have time to read fine columnists like Mr. McCullough here and all of the informative links he provides.

And that is what leads to my greatest frustration: If even 50% of the USA was actively united against the enemy,and the other 50% would just stop saying terrible things about us,our militsry,our President,then we would be unstoppable and the enemy would know it.

And that is what leads to my greatest anger: Those who speak out in public,ie:Democrat senators,congressmen,unexplainably respected celebrities and your occasional republican turncoat, claim to be speaking in the best interests of the nation by telling the truth of how evil WE are(while never even mentioning the truly evil acts of the enemy,let alone condemning them,but that's a whole other subject),are NEVER confronted with the simple question,"If you are really concerned for the good of the nation,wouldn't it be best to try and affect change behind the scenes and directly at the source,as in,the President,the Pentagon etc.?" And then the inevitable follow up,"Who else can it possibly help but the enemy when America is seen as a divided country,that with just enough sensless killing will eventually lean all the way over and fall into full surrender,now that so called U.S. leaders are willing to show more allegiance to the stance of our enemy than to their fellow countrymen and women in uniform?"

Our own war to maintain the Union was a "disaster" that should've been aborted.
WWII was in doubt for years and America was not even the preeminent superpower that she now is.
The Revolutionary War was "A terrible idea" that would only lead to needless death and destruction of property.
We were through in "The war of 1812".
The first Gulf War "Would require 100,000 body bags".

I guess things never change.If it were easy and everyone agreed,I guess this wouldn't be America. It just seems to me that there is an unprecedented tally of LEADERS in CONGRESS who openly show disdain for their own country and its leadership during time of war and I can't help but wonder if this not the time when we have finally pushed our preference for freedom of EVERYTHING,including sedition and out and out treason(see:NY Times/their sources,Joe Wilson,Pros.Fitzgerald etc.),over a natural desire for self preservation.

Iraq IS doing good,relatively good.
We lost thousands on "D-day",we were doing good.
Antietam was horrific,we still had 3 more years of more horror.America didn't quit because the cause was virtuous.Now people who believed in this mission enough to make a fully informed vote for it,are savaging the effort and giving the enemy their biggest I.E.D. by sanctioning their evil work. Because if the enemy were to lose,(You know,as in America wins?)then everything the democrats say would be proven wrong,thus illustrating why they must speak as loudly and as publicly as possible so as to bring about the failure of this effort,because if it's one thing a politician cannot be seen as,it's wrong.

Yes,we need more positiveness like this work by Mr. McCullough,but we also need a whole lot of shame directed at the forces of defeatism as their way is spreading and can only lead to the REAL worst thing about Viet Nam: Acquiescing to a great evil.

p.s. IF YOU HAVE A HARD TIME READING THIS,OR EVEN WANT TO,I'M REPOSTING IT AT MY BLOG

Not Buying It

Phylo writes:

"I remember driving to work the day that NPR reported on Saddam's statue falling.... "

You'd like to convince Peppermint and the rest of us that you have arrived at your conclusions from some kind of "fair and balanced" approach.

If it was NPR you were listening to when you heard the news, that tells me and other conservatives on whom you rely for your "balanced" opinions.

I only wish these comment threads went back far enough so we could read your prideful words from the day the statue fell.

It might also do for you and your like-minded compadres to notice that the columnist has not said EVERYTHING in Iraq is a success (yet).

But I DO know such broad success is not achievable by men who are so small-minded that they think or say things such as:

"I'm no longer suffering from the delusion that this war is winnable in any meaningful sense of the word...."

Fortunately, I have a great deal more optimism about the creative power of free men who are not influenced by naysayers and pessimists. I will thank God tonight that the latter aren't calling the shots... at least not yet.

C'mon Santa!

Santa! I really HAVE been good this year!

Yesterday... all I asked for Christmas was for one day without a Tanabear "neo-con" comment!

Well... it still isn't Christmas yet. I need to be patient!

:-)

Phylo

Don't you see your problem. Your trying to hard to make the "lie" stick.

Zinni is one man who may have looked at the intelligence and seen no WMD. Certainly, there were other doubters, but there were countless others who did believe that Saddam had them. So, one man, or even a few men with a different OPINION from Bush does not make Bush a liar.

oh please

rd: "Zinni is one man who may have looked at the intelligence and seen no WMD. Certainly, there were other doubters, but there were countless others who did believe that Saddam had them. So, one man, or even a few men with a different OPINION from Bush does not make Bush a liar."

Phylo: One problem: Zinni is just one man, but there is almost no one in the world who knew more about WMD in Iraq than General Anthony Zinni.

And there may have been people who believed it, but no one had any defintive proof that he had WMD. And believing he has WMD is a far cry from knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has WMD, which is what the White House told us over and over again.

Phylo out.

Phylo

Phylo, old buddy... I dare say you've got the "maturity shoe" on the wrong foot... "Boy".

As to "winning arguments"... sorry to disappoint you. You aren't "winning" anything in a debate without an opponent. In essence, I guess you're just "playing with yourself"!

If being "right" is so important to you... then be "RIGHT", also known as "Conservative".

Boy...

Presidential Plagerizing

So the Lefties accuse Reagan of plagerizing Mark Twain?

Better not throw the first stone in this arena, since John F. Kennedy plagerized Goerge Bernard Shaw:
http://www.bored.com/findquotes/cate_27_Patriotism.html

And so did his brother, Robert:
"Some look at things that are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?"
-George Bernard Shaw
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_bernard_shaw.html

What's the matter boys?

It's been a while. Looks like Primus and rd couldn't take the heat.

Funny, this is what happens every time I try to argue with righties about whether or not the White House lied.

Just so you know Primus, I don't think it's because I'm smarter than you. It's easy to win an argument when the facts are on your side.

Phylo out.

Phylo...

Guess you should have waited just one more minute, eh?

No matter, my 4:33 PM post still stands.

:-)

reponse to Primus

Primus: "Zinni is one man with one opinion based upon what HE read into the intelligence estimates."

Phylo: He's not reading something into the intelligence estimates. This wasn't his opinion. He going strictly by what the intel said. The intel never, not once, said He has WMD.

And yes he is one man, but this one man knew more about Iraq WMD than any one else on the planet. So it's a bit disingenuous to dismiss his assesment as just one man's opinion. And of course, other people, were saying the same thing. People like Hans Blix, who was on the ground in Iraq until March 18th.

Primus: There are HUNDREDS of others exposed to this intelligence who saw it a different way... including Clinton and Kerry in the late 90's. Now... they (and probably you) want us to believe that the 90's vintage "WMD" was identified by the inspectors and the U.N. did its job of getting rid of it. But the question nobody with this viewpoint seems to be able to answer is "where'd it go?" If there were WMD then, and it was discovered and destroyed... why no accounting for the spoils? And if there wasn't any WMD then... were Clinton and Kerry willfully lying?

Phylo: You right wingers love to trot this stuff out but you have no idea what you're talking about. Clinton did say he has WMD in 1998. But then he rained 400+ cruise missles on his suspected weapons sites which left Saddam with nothing.

And, yes, a lot of other people believed that there were WMD but many of these people were simply assuming that the President wouldn't lie. I didn't think he would lie about something like that. Apparently you still refuse to believe that he would lie.

Also, don't forget the Downing St memo that said "the intelligence is being fixed around the policy" of going to war.

You should really read that book FIASCO. It will undermine the web of lies you've been told about this whole misadventure. But Ricks is a first rate reporter and his sources are solid. Really, you should be most angry at the pundits like Medved and Prager and Hewiit who have done everything they can to keep people like you in the dark.

Phylo out

response to 2spotleftie

To answer your other question:

2spotleftie: "Can you say that our enemy is a horrible evil enemy and that America is basically a good and decent country that has liberated millions?"

Phylo: Who exactly are we talking about when we talk about "our enemy" the Sunnis? the Shiites?

And yes, I would say that America is basically a good country that has helped to liberate millions of people around the world. George Bush, however is a good and decent man who had way too much faith in his ability to change the world and because of his arrogance we are in danger of ruining all of the good things we have done in this world.

Phylo out.

Refreshing, indeed,

it is to some good news out of Iraq. Of course, it goes against the MSM's template that "Bush is a boob. The war was unnecessary. There were no WMDs found and Saddam wasn't that bad. The U.S. military are sadistic killers who love to torture people for the fun of it. Look how they treated the poor little darlings who in Abu Ghraib and the Guantanamo hellhole where they were brutaized and their Koran's were flushed down toilets. We can't win the war, anyway, all we're doing is killing innocent Iraqi civilians. We're spying on Americans and monitoring every phone call in the U.S., blah,blah,blah..."

If in 1941 we had a treasonous, weenie MSM press like this in the pocket of a diabolical democrat party, we never would have prevailed in WWII or, later, in Korea. Merry Christmas to the New York Times, CNN, and the alphabet newtwork loons for assisting our enemies in a time of war.

Phylo

Phylo: "And, yes, a lot of other people believed that there were WMD but many of these people were simply assuming that the President wouldn't lie."

Primus: I'm not talking about people who merely listened to the president. I'm talking about people with access to the intelligence and who drew the same conclusions.

I'm not being disengenuous about Zinni. You have to remember that all things having to do with intelligence has to do with available evidence and "assessments" based upon it. No intelligence is iron-clad guaranteed.

The Brits still stand by their assessment of Saddam seeking yellow cake in Nigeria.

If the 400+ cruise missiles did take out Saddam's WMD... I'm sure our military has the ability to inspect those targets and find some kind of forensic evidence of what was there and what was destroyed. Haven't heard anything about that... hmmmm.

I WILL read the book and with an open mind, then I will assess it in the same way I assess all political tomes, no matter who writes them.

Finally, the lighting is just fine here! Bright Christmas lights and a nice fire.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. And now I must get on with the "real" world of friends and family on this fine Christmas Eve.

I was being sincere, Phylo. I hope you have a very Merry Christmas.

- Primus54 ("OUT" until next time!)

Mountain Rose, keep going

Being an educated Catholic, JFK would have learned Latin and read Cicero. The "Ask not" line is there. I read it in high school Latin. I guess there's nothing new under the sun (challenge: what work of middle eastern philosophy did that line come from?).

My point was just to slip a little reality into the Reagan koolaid that wingnuts pour onto everything they write. Reagan was not better than JFK or even Carter. He might be better than Coolidge and definitely is better than Bush, Jr.

Good News

I do believe we (the U.S.) is winning in Iraq, But not WINNING! This is just some more seldom heard good news.

Body counts of dead Iraqi's or americans (the later being very few), has seldom been a good barometer of progress until the end. I care much less if the casualties are iraqi sunni and shia; they are a uncivilized barbaric bunch of tribal cavemen. Un educated in the decency of life, their culture has rendersd them cold blooded to the extreme, just like most all of islam.

That is why you can have a college professor who's nephew kills his sister because she was raped...and it is OK with him. That is not culture, or educated, it is barbaric and it would be refreshing to see some heads of state come right out and say so. Remember the public circular saw comes out to the town squares all over Iran every Saturday.

11h

PEPPERMINT

Loved your prose....sock it to them!

kevin, reality is calling.

we would like you to visit reality soon. powell, says we are losing, president bush says we are not winning , gates says we are not winning, doug feith and yoo say we are not winning in iraq, 80% of the american people say we are not winning in iraq, but we are going to believe kevin because he has such a reputation for telling the truth? please.

"Freedom!!", or ...security?

Musclehead Writes:

"But some things are more valuable than life, and freedom is just such a treasure."

Tell you what Kevin: If you really believe this, how about joining me in calling for the repeal and abolishment of the Patriot Act?? Sure it might be a little dangerous, but what's wrong with risking our lives for a "treasure" that's "more valuable than life"??

Or do you REALLY mean that freedom is more valuable than IRAQI lives, but over here we can dispense with it in the name of security?