Because this is a wearisome and inane political blog?

Report comment to moderator

“…George Soros funded the survey. The U.S. authors played no role in data-collection, and did not apply standard anti-fraud measures. The chief Iraqi data-collector had earlier produced medical articles to help Saddam’s anti-sanctions campaign in the 1990s, and said Allah guided the prior 2004 Lancet/Johns Hopkins death-survey. Some of the field surveyors were employed by Moqtada Sadr’s Ministry of Health. The Iraqis’ numbers contain evidence of fakery, and the Lancet did not check for fakery….”

The actual body count is closer to 50,000.

But why does every topic have to turn to wearisome and inane political posturing? We were talking about praying for earthquake victims and it didn’t last two posts.

Chi-chi political edginess is boring and predictable, and before hijacking a topic, one should consider whether one isn’t a bit of a Johnny One Note. Let’s see some other sides of you, folks.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

And I thought I was a cynic. “those” — ie the human beings who lived there. My dad used to whack me every time I referred to my mom as “she”. I thought it was an extreme form of politeness but he had a point. A pronoun without reference to a living breathing person allows for greater disrespect.

The direct body count is 80 – 90K and the indirect count by Lancet is 600,000. Since you seem to think Saddam would have been worse, please inform me of the body count. I lean towards the indirect count since Saddam had the decency to provide Iraq with clean water and a reliable supply of electricity.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

As for civilians, how many of those would have died anyway under Sadaam’s deadly regime?

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

I will not. I cited Arcadia’s exact sentiments from the earlier post.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator