If you wait long enough, the truth will come out, as is the case concerning a new study that estimates the number of Iraqis who have perished since the war began in 2003. Surprisingly (especially for liberals who actually believed the preposterous conclusions earlier studies reached), the number of estimated deaths is much lower than was previously expected.
But, wait – weren’t there 601,000 Iraqi deaths as of November 2006?
If you recall, a study was (conveniently) released just prior to the 2006 Congressional elections that made this monstrosity of a claim. While there has been an unbelievable amount of carnage in the war-tattered region, the claim seemed then, as it does now, to cite a gross overestimate.
The new estimate – 151,000 – seems much more on target, while bearing realism and practicality in mind. And if you think that my analysis is simply conservative spewing, consider the fact that my opinions on the matter are in line with the consensus that has been reached among research professionals:
The process of triangulation is essential when conducting research, especially when studying the effects of war. If one wants to obtain a well-rounded perspective, he or she must consult a number of sources and aggregate data in a matter that makes sense, whilst painting a realistic and accurate portrait of what is occurring. I am of the opinion that the researchers who concluded with confidence that the 601,000 number was accurate either failed methodologically speaking to properly triangulate, or were blinded by political bias (bear in mind the convenient release of the aforementioned study just prior to the 2006 election). And no, I’m not going to name or link to the 601,000 study; why give it needless promotion?
Bearing in mind the quality that human life holds, 151,000 is still a lot of innocence lost. With this said, it is a more accurate representation of what has been occurring in Iraq. It is ironic to consider that many ultraliberals will question the American government, yet when a study that seems implausible is released just before a major election, these same skeptical individuals (who could previously be found protesting in New York City’s Union Square while sporting “9/11 was an inside job� t-shirts) do not bat an eyelid; they remain idle.
It is time we wake up to the realities facing our world. Whether we stay in Iraq or exit prematurely, radical Islamic fascists are not going to stop. Luckily, we had a president teamed with just enough sensible congressional leaders to ensure that our troops stayed in Iraq and continued working toward a viable conclusion to this previously mismanaged, yet worthy debacle. Their mission is essential: To protect our nation and the world from the radical tyranny that reached our borders on 9/11.
War means sacrifice. At some point between World War II and Vietnam, American liberals lost their sense of responsibility – their ability to see the full picture. It is my fear that we will fully accept this inability to see the antisystemic forces that are threatening our liberty.
Luckily, some of us are still willing to be skeptical of the skeptics.
My God, what a crock.
Somehow, in the warped logic of your alternative universe, 151,000 Iraqi deaths is dismissable compared to an ephemeral 601,000 deaths.
These are human beings you’re talking about, not dogs in China.
This jejune and sophomoric ‘analysis’ would be rejected in the teenage nether regions of MySpace.
“Process of triangulation”, my ass.
It takes a lot more than a few “whilsts” and polysyllabic words to construct a cogent argument.
“150,000 is still a lot of innocence lost.”
Yeah, doesn’t that pretty much wipe out the whole premise of this exercise in fatuousness?
So, you don’t get it, then? You don’t see a problem with a report that escalated the death toll times four…a report that was released a month before a major U.S. election?
I am aware that these are lives. This is a war. While I am saddened that 151,000 people are dead, logic tells me that this number is much better than a 601,000 death toll.
I never used the word “dismissable.” So what is it you liberals think happens during a war, anyway?
First of all, you meant to say innocents lost, not “innocence” lost.
Seriously, you should can the “Billy”, and use the formal nominative.
I believe doing so would have a transforming salutary effect on your writing.
No one said you used the word “dismissable”, but you certainly treat the numbers that represent innocent human lives as throw-away statistics.
Here you show the same flip and casual attitude toward the loss of human life as our own estimable wants-to-be a dictator (I remember his churlish and monstrously unfunny response when asked what he thought the man whose death warrant he had just signed as governor of Texas would say to him).
Not only do you not link to a copy of that study you condemn, you don’t even bother to cite the source or provenance of the new survey you quote and use as the foundation on which you build your whole case.
Our nation and the rest of the Western world are far more at risk of attack by radicalized Jihadists after the bumbling and incompetent prosecution of this war by Bush & Co.
I’m sure that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda praise Allah everyday that they were so fortunate as to have the assistance of these arrogant solipsists in radicalizing Muslim youth the world over.
Thanks for the advice on the name, but I’ll stick with “Billy” for now. Actually, I did intend to use “innocence” as a collective measure.
I wasn’t flipping a casual attitude…I was stating factual occurrences. There is no need to cite the studies. If you are an avid media hound, you’ve seen them, no?
And as far as your last statement goes, you seem to be in line with the Clintonian “just let it sit and fester,” which worked out really well for us on 9/11 (sarcasm). We’re containing the chaos — or at least diverting it from our soil.
How ironic that this chaos was created when our military resources and attention were directed to Iraq rather the present and greater threat represented by Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan at the time.
Bin Laden thumbs his nose at us still after all these years and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted.
And now we have our erstwhile dictatorial “ally” who sits on the powder keg of Pakistan, the nuclear weapons-brandishing country with the second largest population of Muslims in the world, playing host to Al-Qaeda.
You’ll never persuade me or anyone who respects reason in political discussion with this arrogant and puerile non-argument.