Update: Bullshit anti-war propaganda looks to be...bullshit propaganda.

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#1
For ages now, anti-war activists have argued that the infamous Lancet study "proved" that America was responsible for over half a million Iraq deaths in the Iraq War.

Well, some new info has come out as to who funded that little study.

Anti-War Billionaire George Soros Funded Iraq Study.

A study that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the nearly $100,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead.

The study, published in 2006, was hailed by antiwar campaigners as evidence of the scale of the disaster caused by the invasion, but Downing Street and President George Bush challenged its methodology.

New research published by The New England Journal of Medicine estimates that 151,000 people - less than a quarter of The Lancet estimate - have died since the invasion in 2003.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
“The authors should have disclosed the [Soros] donation and for many people that would have been a disqualifying factor in terms of publishing the research,” said Michael Spagat, economics professor at Royal Holloway, University of London.

The Lancet study was commissioned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and led by Les Roberts, an associate professor and epidemiologist at Columbia University. He reportedly opposed the war from the outset.

His team surveyed 1,849 homes at 47 sites across Iraq, asking people about births, deaths and migration in their households.

Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 of the approximate $100,000 cost of the study had come from Soros’s Open Society Institute.

Roberts said this weekend: “In retrospect, it was probably unwise to have taken money that could have looked like it would result in a political slant. I am adamant this could not have affected the outcome of the research.”

The Lancet did not break any rules by failing to disclose Soros’s sponsorship.
SHOCKING - a study funded by an anti-war zealot just so happens to show, by an exponentially large margin, more Iraqi deaths than pretty much any other comparable research.

Good to see this disgusting little piece of propaganda lose what tiny shred of credibility it had left.
 

DanaReevesLungs

I can keep rhythm with no metronome...
Donator
Jun 9, 2005
9,134
2,535
681
Louisiana
#3
151K dead is still a large fucking number for civilians.
 

Butter Nuggets

Registered User
May 29, 2006
275
0
221
#4
It didn't get much traction the first time around anyway because no one on either side is really concerned with how many Iraqis die.
 

mendozathejew

Registered User
Mar 12, 2005
6,749
0
0
jersey
#5
It didn't get much traction the first time around anyway because no one on either side is really concerned with how many Iraqis die.
plenty on the left, especially the far left talk about how many iraqis have died.

funny how they didnt say shit about the number of people starving to death, mostly children, in Iraq due to the way saddam twisted the sanctions on his own people. they werent too concerned about innocent iraqis dying, in much higher numbers, back then when that hillbilly was on office
 

Jim T.

Calmo, calmo...
Jul 12, 2005
1,327
0
0
#6
The only thing that makes this newsworthy is that it was just half.

151K dead is still a large fucking number for civilians.
People die every day, even when they're not killed by Americans.
 

TheDrip

I'm bi-winning.
Jan 9, 2006
5,051
3
228
#7
151,000 isn't enough of them.
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#8
151K dead is still a large fucking number for civilians.
It absolutely is, and it's horrible that 151,000 people have died.

Of course, compared to the Amnesty International figures from BEFORE the war, it's relatively little.

AI had as many as 100,000 Iraqis dying PER YEAR from '91-'03 between Hussein and the UN sanctions. 151,000 dying in the five years since the '03 invasion means we bombed the ever loving shit out of them, took over their fucking shithole of a country, shot up the desert for five years, and SAVED 349,000 lives.

We drop bombs, and more people live as a consequence. Go figure.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,628
5,081
568
Wyoming
#9
We drop bombs, and more people live as a consequence. Go figure.
George Soros and Hillary Clinton will be sending someone for you. Please stay where you are and don't resist when they arrive. You will have an firearm "accident" and be placed in a public park to be found.
 

d0uche_n0zzle

**Negative_Creep**
Sep 15, 2004
46,670
6,859
693
F.U.B.A.R
#10
Soros is a piece of fucking shit, always looking to steal our Liberty.

Death to all tyrants!
 

Treat_Yourself

Registered User
Nov 17, 2006
548
0
0
#11
Who cares how many Iraqis die? What bothers me is how much US taxpayer money is being wasted on this war.
 

Plunkies

Registered User
Jun 28, 2006
5,908
2,671
543
#13
It absolutely is, and it's horrible that 151,000 people have died.

Of course, compared to the Amnesty International figures from BEFORE the war, it's relatively little.

AI had as many as 100,000 Iraqis dying PER YEAR from '91-'03 between Hussein and the UN sanctions. 151,000 dying in the five years since the '03 invasion means we bombed the ever loving shit out of them, took over their fucking shithole of a country, shot up the desert for five years, and SAVED 349,000 lives.

We drop bombs, and more people live as a consequence. Go figure.
So what you're saying is we should nuke Iraq to save millions? Sir, I like the way you think.
 

Fr. Dougal

Registered User
Feb 17, 2004
5,853
0
216
#14
plenty on the left, especially the far left talk about how many iraqis have died.

funny how they didnt say shit about the number of people starving to death, mostly children, in Iraq due to the way saddam twisted the sanctions on his own people. they werent too concerned about innocent iraqis dying, in much higher numbers, back then when that hillbilly was on office
Exactly. Let's look at other hotspots now. Is anyone saying anything about the atrocities in North Korea? Iran? Hell, even Darfur? (Besides celebrities)

Now lets say in 3 years time, we go in to help out in one of those three hotspots. Imagine the outrage?

When did this country start focusing on the negativity in everything in life?
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,836
5,181
763
Wilmington, NC
#16
Exactly. Let's look at other hotspots now. Is anyone saying anything about the atrocities in North Korea? Iran? Hell, even Darfur? (Besides celebrities)

Now lets say in 3 years time, we go in to help out in one of those three hotspots. Imagine the outrage?

When did this country start focusing on the negativity in everything in life?
Seems like the one thing you and I don't agree on is what hockey team to root for. :)

But you're exactly right. I couldn't even imagine the amount of outrage there would be towards this country if we were to drop a couple a-bombs today like we did in the 1940's. The climate has changed, but the desire for more power remains the same. And while the reasons for invading Iraq were skewed, I absolutely think we'll be better off in the long run. Even with Saddam gone, his sons would more than likely take over and they were more ruthless than their father. There's no telling what we would be up against for that next generation. After more years of slaughter and genocide of it's people, we may eventually be forced into a much larger war with Iraq and the end result would be scores of Iraqi citizens and servicemen dead. Obviously, that may not have happened eventually, but judging by the Hussein family's desire for torture and power, I wouldn't be shocked.

Sometimes diplomacy and "letting by-gones be by-gones" doesn't work with these unstable dictators and force is necessary in some circumstances. Just ask Neville Chamberlain who, after signing the Munich Agreement with Hitler stated..."My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." He forgot to add that "peace for our time" was only about 13 months...Hitler invaded Poland a little over a year later and eventually came within striking distance of Chamberlain's country. Some tend to forget what country ended up bailing them out.

I'm not trying to imply that any one of the ruthless dictators in the world today are capable of being Hitler 2.0. It's just much easier today to exterminate millions of people than it was back in the day now with sophisticated nuclear and chemical warfare. It's frightening to think that, had Hitler had an arsenal of these weapons, what could have transpired during WW2.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
141,477
49,798
644
#17
Can we just accept that we'll never learn the truth about anything?
 

VMS

Victim of high standards and low personal skills.
Apr 26, 2006
10,309
2,650
586
#18
Who cares how many Iraqis die? What bothers me is how much US taxpayer money is being wasted on this war.
Let me guess: you also thought/think "fuck, why do those guys waste time and money going to college when they can just get a job now?"

It's an investment in time, money, and yes, lives. If (and I grant you that it's far from easy) Iraq is able to become a stable, multicultural (ie- Sunnis, Shi'ia, and Kurdish), democratic republic, the "Middle East Problem" is effectively solved. Oh, it'll take decades, and there'll probably be a few brushfire wars there in the meantime, but the Middle East effectively goes from shithole to contributing member of international society.

It's ambitious as all get out, and it may well be TOO ambitious, but that's the plan. If you want to simply say "sand naggers are too fucking stupid to get democracy, so stop fucking trying", go right ahead. There's plenty of evidence that you would be right. But it's not like anyone with half a brain is really expecting Iraq to look like the US with a shitload of sand: Japan is a functioning democratic republic, and it's political structure and discourse looks NOTHING like that of the US.
 

Treat_Yourself

Registered User
Nov 17, 2006
548
0
0
#19
Let me guess: you also thought/think "fuck, why do those guys waste time and money going to college when they can just get a job now?"

It's an investment in time, money, and yes, lives. If (and I grant you that it's far from easy) Iraq is able to become a stable, multicultural (ie- Sunnis, Shi'ia, and Kurdish), democratic republic, the "Middle East Problem" is effectively solved. Oh, it'll take decades, and there'll probably be a few brushfire wars there in the meantime, but the Middle East effectively goes from shithole to contributing member of international society.

It's ambitious as all get out, and it may well be TOO ambitious, but that's the plan. If you want to simply say "sand naggers are too fucking stupid to get democracy, so stop fucking trying", go right ahead. There's plenty of evidence that you would be right. But it's not like anyone with half a brain is really expecting Iraq to look like the US with a shitload of sand: Japan is a functioning democratic republic, and it's political structure and discourse looks NOTHING like that of the US.

Yeah, it's too ambitious. You can't force the changes you want from outside. What do we have now in Iraq? We have a shi'ite controlled government that is going to get cozy with the Iranians. Not a multicultural society, not a democratic republic where everyone's rights are guaranteed like in the US, just a democracy run by majority Shi'ites who have already sent death squads against their sunni neighbors and have run many if not most of the Christians out of the country.

It's not our job to create the governments we like overseas. It's also most likely not something we can actually achieve. In the process we're wasting something like twelve billion dollars of US taxpayer money every MONTH in Iraq. How long can we keep that up with our economy underperforming? How long will we continue to be a superpower if our economy tanks and we can't afford to develop the cutting edge technology we rely on?

What happened in Japan was a very different situation. It was a culturally and religiously uniform population that didn't have foreign sunni and shi'ite populations surrounding it and destabilizing it. In addition to that the population was decimated and demoralized by a major bombing campaign and long shortages of just about everything.

As for your time line, yeah, if we can pull off the change we want in Iraq it will take decades. It will also be undermined by every major power in the region with the exception of Israel. If you want to transform the whole region it will take centuries and cost way too much.
 

Vyce

Light-skinned, with no Negro dialect.
Feb 11, 2006
8,171
10
496
Washington D.C.
#20
It's not our job to create the governments we like overseas.
It is when doing so will (or at least, has a good chance of) disrupt or destroy our enemies, thus ensuring security for our own nation and interests abroad.

And right now, our enemies are Muslims.

[I suppose I should get politically correct here and say "radical Muslims", but I'm really more of the opinion of Sam Harris, who thinks there's a lot more Muslims who support the jihad than most people realize.]

So that means, unfortunately, we need to keep a foot in the Muslim world. Up until we somehow figure out this alternative energy thing, making fossil fuels obsolete, and the fucking Arabs go broke and are no longer capable of funding terrorism.
 

Treat_Yourself

Registered User
Nov 17, 2006
548
0
0
#21
It is when doing so will (or at least, has a good chance of) disrupt or destroy our enemies, thus ensuring security for our own nation and interests abroad.

And right now, our enemies are Muslims.

[I suppose I should get politically correct here and say "radical Muslims", but I'm really more of the opinion of Sam Harris, who thinks there's a lot more Muslims who support the jihad than most people realize.]

So that means, unfortunately, we need to keep a foot in the Muslim world. Up until we somehow figure out this alternative energy thing, making fossil fuels obsolete, and the fucking Arabs go broke and are no longer capable of funding terrorism.
Saddam did a great job of keeping the religious muslims in line. He didn't want some religious fuck challenging his power. Sure he gave a donation now and then to some Palestinian family who's house was bulldozed because their kid was a suicide bomber, but does that really threaten our security? It's necessary in that region to pretend to support the muslim cause.

I do agree that we need to be able to act to protect our oil and we need to work on fossil fuel alternatives so we don't need to rely on oil in the future, but right now Iraq's oil isn't flowing into my gas tank. This war, at least in the short term, hasn't helped the oil flow.
 

mendozathejew

Registered User
Mar 12, 2005
6,749
0
0
jersey
#22
Sure he gave a donation now and then to some Palestinian family who's house was bulldozed because their kid was a suicide bomber, but does that really threaten our security? It's necessary in that region to pretend to support the muslim cause.
you have the order slightly mixed up. early in the intifada, saddam promised 20 thousand dollars, or more to the families of suicide bombers. and he did, as suicide bombers became more and more active. israel's response to girls and elderly on buses getting blown literally to pieces was to destroy the house of the family that is suddenly 20K richer.

Iraq actually did affect affect us, especially in regards to Al Qaeda. their main reasons for attacking us was US presence in the Middle East Since dealing with Saddam in the first place, the israeli palestinian conflict, and the sanctions in Iraq that saddam turned on his own people, and were killing hundreds of thousands. Saddam was fueling each one of those. Is that enough to go to war? its a very legitimate position to say no. but dont put your head in the sand about the total issue.
 

Treat_Yourself

Registered User
Nov 17, 2006
548
0
0
#23
you have the order slightly mixed up. early in the intifada, saddam promised 20 thousand dollars, or more to the families of suicide bombers. and he did, as suicide bombers became more and more active. israel's response to girls and elderly on buses getting blown literally to pieces was to destroy the house of the family that is suddenly 20K richer.

Iraq actually did affect affect us, especially in regards to Al Qaeda. their main reasons for attacking us was US presence in the Middle East Since dealing with Saddam in the first place, the israeli palestinian conflict, and the sancti0on in Iraq that were killing hundreds of thousands. Saddam was fueling each one of those. Is that enough to go to war? its a very legitimate position to say no. but dont put your head in the sand about the total issue.
Sorry about getting the order mixed up. Yeah, Saddam was sponsoring terrorism against Israel, but that didn't require the US to go to war.

Al Qaeda and Iraq are kind of separate issues though. Sure one of the reasons Al Qaeda hated us a little more is because US troops were in Saudi Arabia during the first Iraq war, but Saddam wasn't responsible for Al Qaeda's actions. I have no problem with waging war to destroy Al Qaeda, but I didn't see why we needed to attack Saddam.

It would make more sense to attack the Saudis who were funneling money to Al Qaeda and spreading Al Qaeda's ideology through their wahhabi mosques and the madrassas and "cultural centers" that they fund around the world. Saddam's gone, but crazy wahhabis are still funding mosques in Pakistan, Southeast asia, even in the US.
 

mendozathejew

Registered User
Mar 12, 2005
6,749
0
0
jersey
#24
Sorry about getting the order mixed up. Yeah, Saddam was sponsoring terrorism against Israel, but that didn't require the US to go to war.
Agreed completely. I was pointing out the total picture though.

Al Qaeda and Iraq are kind of separate issues though. Sure one of the reasons Al Qaeda hated us a little more is because US troops were in Saudi Arabia during the first Iraq war, but Saddam wasn't responsible for Al Qaeda's actions. I have no problem with waging war to destroy Al Qaeda, but I didn't see why we needed to attack Saddam.
yes he wasnt responsible for Al Qaedas actions. He was just responsible for the 3 major issues they recruited upon, and were motivated by.

It would make more sense to attack the Saudis who were funneling money to Al Qaeda and spreading Al Qaeda's ideology through their wahhabi mosques and the madrassas and "cultural centers" that they fund around the world. Saddam's gone, but crazy wahhabis are still funding mosques in Pakistan, Southeast asia, even in the US.
yes, but again, they spent the 1990's fundraising for those madrassas/terrorism by using those 3 main issues that all involved Iraq. meanwhile they were literally training to hit us as we did nothing about neither side of the problem. these are problems that spun out of control during the late 90's, not the fall of 01. As much as Bush fucked up this war in all regards, there is no honesty about the problems that had piled upon each other as he walked into office, and unlike his predecessor, he tried to do something about it.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#25
Iraq actually did affect affect us, especially in regards to Al Qaeda. their main reasons for attacking us was US presence in the Middle East Since dealing with Saddam in the first place, the israeli palestinian conflict, and the sanctions in Iraq that saddam turned on his own people, and were killing hundreds of thousands. Saddam was fueling each one of those. Is that enough to go to war? its a very legitimate position to say no. but dont put your head in the sand about the total issue.
No, the main reason for them attacking us is that we funded and supported them when they were fighting Russia for us, then when Russia fell we bolted with our middle fingers in the air and militant groups took over.

And yes, I knew this before I saw Charlie Wilson's war.

Terrorism and WMDs were an excuse for Dubya to go get the bad man to make daddy proud. If you think anything else, honestly, I have zero respect for your intelligence as a functional human capable of rational thought. (And I mean "your" in a general sense, not directed at anyone individually) Bringing Democracy to the region to bring stability is just the new press secretary line of bullshit reinforcing why going into Iraq was a good idea all along.

It was a bad idea, stop trying to come up with new excuses. It's like they're asking which excuses we'll buy with question marks on the end...

Terrorism?
WMDs?
Saddam's killing his own people?
Spreading Democracy?
Stability in the Middle East?

No, they're all shit reasons to occupy Iraq.

I want to move to Australia.