You know, you get to a certain point in talking about mass human death where the differences in figures just starts to become meaningless. 20,000, 100,000, 500,000 - what context do I have for making fine-grained emotional distinctions between those numbers? It's suffering on an absolutely unimaginable scale. To be honest, I'm not nearly as interested in the figure itself (650,000) as I am in the methodology behind it.
Agreed. I think the methodology should be debated...
But for what?
To prove that there are manipulative academics with political axes to grind? I'd rather debate whether or not the sky is blue.
Or...
To prove that only 30,000 Iraqis have died [sic] because we invaded their country based on an untested political science theory wrapped in a pack of lies and executed with the greatest level of incompetence (on the part of civilian leadership) in US history?
Great. If that's the case, we should all feel better. I know I do.
Yeah, cuz 30,000 dead men, women and children is hardly any dead people at all...right....?
We're not leaving until we get kicked out. Japan, Phillipines, Korea, Etc etc... We have a history of staying where we go. The only reason we don't have military bases in Vietnam is because we pulled out. As long as you call the posts "camps" instead of "forts" then you are set. The US wants a foothold in the middle east. Iraq is prime property to build up a nice military presence like we did in Korea.
This is of course only my opinion and I have no facts or data to back it up. But if history is any measure, we're going to be there for a long while.
Comments
(i'm getting queezy.)
,
This is of course only my opinion and I have no facts or data to back it up. But if history is any measure, we're going to be there for a long while.
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf