Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Jesse MacBeth: an interesting case study
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, May 23, 2006

We're watching the Jesse (or Jessie) MacBeth thing unfold and unravel. Actually it is an interesting case study. Apparently, until this video was released, MacBeth had a nice little side career going for him under the radar of national attention. A darling of the anti-war left, he was praised in various venues for his conscience, for speaking 'truth to power', for standing up and being counted.

Of course, as has been amply shown, the man is a complete and utter fraud.

But while he was "golden" there was some serious joy in leftsville over his "testimony":
MacBeth, a slim man with a crew cut, served 16 months in Iraq before being wounded and discharged from the military. Now the disillusioned man speaks out for Iraq Veterans Against the War. If the video gets widespread exposure, it is unfathomable that support for a US troop presence in Iraq could be sustained, and surely Iran would fall off the chickenhawks’ table of targets. It is a video that should number the days of the Bush administration.
Well yeah, I'd agree if MacBeth were what he says he is. But you can feel the incredible hope this "slim man" has ignited within the writer, who goes on:
Macbeth gives first-hand, on-the-ground credence to the study published in The Lancet in 2004 that estimates approximately 100,000 Iraqis killed. [1] Macbeth asks, "You know the death toll of Eye-raqis? It’s not what they say on the news. It’s like hundreds of thousands of people. I didn’t know that many people could die and be hidden from, from the world."
I have to tell you I laughed out loud. Here we have the writer (who didn't bother to find out MacBeth was a fake) using the testimony of a fake Ranger to verify a widely discredited study. Doesn't that say it all?

So willingly fooled is the writer that he pens the following in conclusion:
Macbeth comes across as very human. With wide eyes he confesses to his own war crimes, and this gives his words the ring of genuine honesty. The video closes with his poignant plea on behalf of his fellow soldiers: "Bring us home, man; bring us home."
That is wanting to believe what is being said so badly that you ignore any obvious signs which should have raised the BS flag. But what he had to say was just to useful to the anti-war agenda. No one involved in the anti-war side who has used this guy and his testimony seems to have done even the most rudimentary check into MacBeth's bona fides. Nothing. DD 214? What's that? Walk into an army recruiters office and show them the picture and get an opinion? Wouldn't be caught dead near one (well except at night to toss paint on it and spray paint anti-war slogans).

This was a guy who the anti-war left wanted to believe so badly that they simply accepted out of hand what he claimed. Hey, when you can get a "Ranger" to say stuff like this, well, what's the old saying about looking gift horses in the mouth?
Anything else you want to say?

Yeah. The news here is controlled. The military lets information out that serves their purposes. We slaughtered a sovereign nation. Reporters got killed.

When I was growing up, everyone thought I'd be a criminal, but they were wrong. I'm gonna be one of the leaders of the revolution.
Exactly what happened 30+ years ago with the Winter Soldier fraud.

As is obvious, this is easy stuff to check out. I mean, before you commit yourself and your movement to credibility issues by using an unvetted source, wouldn't it make sense to FOIA his name? How long could that take? Or something as easy as "does he have a criminal record" (yes). That would have taken care of the "I'm a Soldier" routine right there. Or at least cast doubt on it.

Many left wing sites are now modifying or deleting their references to MacBeth. Here for instance is one who has deleted a story on him. But just as many don't accept that MacBeth isn't genuine (read the comments here) or just don't care ... at all.
In any event it should be remembered that whilst many of Jesse's claims were outlandish many of the things he speaks of almost certainly are being carried out right now and in our name. If this video can have any positive effect at all it will be to remind people that's wars aren't pretty, children and innocents get killed and that to make the decision to go to war is one of the gravest decisions that can be made ...

... and should not be made on the back of a bunch of half truths, downright lies, and pinch of post 9/11 hysteria added to a shedload of Fox News propaganda.
MacBeth himself hasn't been heard from yet, but apparently he's been busy modifying his "military.com" site to drop references to awards and badges he would never be able to explain. However his stated time-line, which even the most inept journalist could have checked on Google, remains irrevocably wrong.

Before an unwarranted assumption is made, let me say this isn't about all of the left. Some have been very responsible:
Last night, I posted a link to a video interview with Jessie Macbeth, regarding atrocities he says he participated in while serving in Iraq. It appears, however, that there are a number of reasons to question his veracity, so I've pulled the post. I should have been more skeptical. My apologies.
I've been very careful to say "anti-war left". As commenter Tito - a left of center reader - points out, for many on the left, it's been more of a disagreement as to whether he's a "poser" or a "poseur".

Bottom line: It is going to be interesting to see how the anti-war left is going to handle this. But make no mistake, this is something which, if ignored, will relegate the movement to an insignificant side-show, moreso than it already is. I plan on following it, because, you see, I've watched this sort of thing unfold before, and, unlike then, I can actually do something about it this time.

UPDATE [1413]: Terry Portinga, the self-described "volunteer social justice cameraperson/video editor" who put the film on the website, has left this message on the peacefilms.org site in the guest book:
The Jessie interview will be taken down as soon as possible at the request of Iraq veterans Against the War pending their further investigation.

For further information, please see: www.ivaw.net

Thank you all for your comments in the Guestbook. Freedom of speech is the foundation of all other freedoms.
Checking the Iraq Veterans Against the War website, nary a word. Checking the film's availability on the peacefilms.org site, it still plays. Will check again later (thus the time stamp on the update).

UPDATE II: The "world" has found MacBeth's "My Space" site and are showing him some love.

UPDATE III [1704]: Iraq Veterans Against the War have put the following up on their website:
IVAW Statement on MacBeth Video

Iraq Veterans Against the War recently learned of a video interview with Jesse MacBeth that directs viewers to IVAW’s website and phone number. IVAW was not made aware of the creation of this video program and our input on it was never sought. Jesse MacBeth is not a spokesperson for IVAW and any claims made by MacBeth about his service have not been verified by IVAW. We are investigating claims made in this video program and will have a full statement upon its resolution.
Information Clearing House (peacefilms.org) has now pulled the video:
[Ed Note: This item has been removed - Some readers suggest Jessie Macbeth, may not be as he portrays himself. Many have cast doubt as to the validity of his experiences.]
Heh ... and even with all of this the truth of this matter is still irrelevant to some (click on reader comments):
Millions of people will see this.

That's all that matters.

You don't like pretenders? I myself don't really care, because ranger or not - every word he said about what is happening there is true.
It is also down at YouTube

Well, millions won't see it now ... at least for a while.

UPDATE IV: Well apparently the love on MySpace got a little too intense for Jesse so he pulled his "my country sent me to kill Iraqis" diatribe and substituted it for a two line shot at those who've been so kind as to go by and visit today:
"f*ck all u haters" & "u all can go to hell"
His pic with his backward beret has also gone missing. So have most of the sweet messages people have left. Heh ...

And yes, I have to admit it ... I'm enjoying seeing this lying little puke go down the tubes.

UPDATE V:
Michelle Malkin does the "Vent" thing on Jesse.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Interesting as well that Iraq Veterans Against the War doesn’t have any mention of him.

And that if he "speaks out for Iraq Veterans Against the War" that he would follow their "official" civilian death toll of between 37 and 42 thousand.

So, one has to wonder who was doing the embelishing on this issue, the reporter or MacBeth.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
BTW I’ve got an email out to IVAW to see if there is any actual connection between them and Jesse MacBeth. I’ll post if I see anything from them.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Congradulations. This guy seems to be a fraud.

If you’re trying to make a point about the failings of the anti-war left in vetting their sources, again, congradulations.

If you’re trying to make a point that somehow, that this guy’s general observations and persepective are generically incorrect, simply because this guy seems to be a liar, you’re urinating in the wind.

The very existence of the "Iraq Veterans Against the War" group itself is rather strong evidence that even if this particular messenger is a fraud, the message has wings.

For example, if the Iraq Body Count website can provide essentially ironclad double-sourced verification of 30,000 specific Iraqi civilian deaths, it’s factually obvious that the number of real civilian deaths is a multiple of that.
Historians never take the official count at face value - they always account for the circumstances and information gaps and multiply by numbers, sometimes as large as 10 or 20x.

So, I guess intellectual dishonesty is available on all sides of this debate, ain’t it?






 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
For example, if the Iraq Body Count website can provide essentially ironclad double-sourced verification of 30,000 specific Iraqi civilian deaths, it’s factually obvious that the number of real civilian deaths is a multiple of that.
Well since we usually depend on "verification" no, it’s not "factually" obvious. You may be right, but without proof there is nothing factual involved.
So, I guess intellectual dishonesty is available on all sides of this debate, ain’t it?
Maybe you ought to ask yourself that question. But in this case, the Lancet study is the one cited. So who, other than you is playing games here?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
" if the Iraq Body Count website can provide essentially ironclad double-sourced verification of 30,000 specific Iraqi civilian deaths, it’s factually obvious that the number of real civilian deaths is a multiple of that."

An experiment ... Apply the "double-source" IBC rules (from public mainstream media reports) to the body count at the New Orleans Superdome during the Katrena aftermath.

How many "iron-clad" deaths get "verification" under that method?

Now multiply that by a factor of 2, or 10, or 20.


And how does that compare with the number of bodies actually pulled out of the freezer?




 
Written By: pouncer
URL: http://
shorter glasnost (oxymoronic name in this case):
I know you are, what am I!!
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I think that the Left?progressives will ract with the "Fake but true" meme... as evidenced by the little blurb that mcQ used. EVEN IF MacBeth is a fraud, STILL these things happen in our name... we have nO proof of it, but WE KNOW, just as Glasnost KNOWS that the Body Count in Iraq figure is much, much higher than 30,000.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Obviously faith is not exclusive to religious people.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Historians never take the official count at face value - they always account for the circumstances and information gaps and multiply by numbers, sometimes as large as 10 or 20x.
Why does it strike me that Glasnost speaking for Historians is rather like a book on Urban Planning for Gypsies?
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
If you’re trying to make a point that somehow, that this guy’s general observations and persepective are generically incorrect, simply because this guy seems to be a liar, you’re urinating in the wind
FAKE BUT ACCURATE!
FAKE BUT ACCURATE!
FAKE BUT ACCURATE!
FAKE BUT ACCURATE!
KARL ROVE WAS INDICTED!
FAKE BUT ACCURATE!
FAKE BUT ACCURATE!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
If you’re trying to make a point that somehow, that this guy’s general observations and persepective are generically incorrect, simply because this guy seems to be a liar, you’re urinating in the wind
Oh goody! I’ll remember you said this next time you try to play the "Bush lied" meme.

Because, "If you’re trying to make a point that somehow, Bush’s general observations and persepective regarding Saddam’s ambitions and designs were generically incorrect, simply because Bush seems to be a liar, you’re urinating in the wind"

You cannot have it both ways, and I won’t LET you have it both ways.



 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Beware the wide-eyed!
 
Written By: slickdpdx
URL: http://knownunknowns.blogspot.com
Apparently, the guy has a Muslim background. What a surprise...wonder what his motivation might be...NOT. His name was originally Jesse Adam Al-Zaid. (Found at Pima County Clerk of Superior Court...credit to LGF)
 
Written By: RationalLady
URL: http://
Thanks for providing the link to his myspace.com entry! Here’s what it says:
About me:
I served 16 months in iraq as an army ranger had to kill alot of innocent iraqi women and children and civilians becouse my country ordered me to i come back home and my country forgets about me the va tells me i am cant get service for my ptsd so i will tell america the truth about iraq the stuff america doesent want u to know. Also, I am a pathological liar.
That last line says it all, doesn’t it?

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
 
Written By: Daniel in Brookline
URL: http://www.daniel-in-brookline.com
These guys deserve the "Dan Rather Award for Speaking Truth to Power," presented by glasnost.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
These guys deserve the "Dan Rather Award for Speaking Truth to Power," presented by glasnost.
And here is the award statuette.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
I would not assume that the myspace page is actually his page.

Anyone can get a page there. Using any names and text they want.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Why isn’t this illegal? I _know_ that one cannot impersonate a police officer, outside of a costume party. Why is it legal to impersonate a member of the armed forces?

This is a question I asked my congressman today. I suggest others to do the same, if you are so inclined.
 
Written By: Blueguitarbob
URL: http://
This shouldn’t be partisan. McQ, who may not like my message but to his credit, doesn’t attempt to use word games and insults to avoid serious statements on what is or is not real, you may notice, has responded to my post as follows:

"You may be right".

Now he may have meant, "I don’t know that you’re wrong, but I think it’s extremely unlikely" - but I don’t think that’s what he meant. Call it a gut feeling. He’s free to correct me.

As for pouncer: Can casualty counts be inflated in both directions? Sure. Katrina was obviously a case of overinflation. So were the initial reports on 9/11. Both of those events were short-term episodes of localized chaos within a civic stable democracy. It’s common for one-time disaster estimates to be high at first and then come down. Because they are usually wild guesses and/or worst case scenarios.

On the other hand, the Iraq case is a five-year period of civil war in an area the size of California, with minimal native mechanisms for credibly reporting information. Double-sourced Western media face extreme language, credibility, security and underresource constraints in reporting casualties among Iraqis - whereas US solider deaths are reported correctly - through channels as solid as counting bodies in the freezers of katrina. That’s why you see Iraqi casualty reports from major events fluctuate all the time. Nevertheless the 37K double-sourced count is vetted several different ways to reduce the possibility of inflation to a very small number. Because of all of the above constraints, the extremely strong likelihood is that every death in this country does not get reported on by two credible western sources. There has already been extensive reporting about Iraqi authority figures interested in suppressing death counts.

That 37K count isn’t even intended to be an estimate of how many Iraqi civilians have been killed. It’s intended to be the minimum number verified lock, stock and smoking barrel. Casualty estimates in civil and guerilla wars never use anything like the verified number. Double-source media counts weren’t used in WWII. They weren’t used to estimate Vietnamese deaths in the Vietnamw war. They weren’t used to get Iraqi death figures from sanctions. They aren’t used to estimate deaths in the Rwandan genocide or the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. The people playing cheap games to underepresent the number of Iraqis dying in Iraq due to circumstances we have set in motion are, in fact, the right wing, in general, and McQ/Q & O has done nothing to correct this widespread and dishonest representation.

pouncer, that was a cute example you gave. let’s try an example that more closely matches our event. How many double-sourced deaths in Darfur do we have in a database? I went and looked at about 10 different sites, and I can’t even find a listed number. That means, essentially, that the number is negligible - criminally small - probably in the hundreds or single thousands. However, the estimates of Darfur deaths in the media range from 70,000 to 300,000. So where, where, where is the massive blowback against those criminal stooges in the media making up Darfur deaths that they can’t absolutely verify????

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/VBOL-6CRJK3?OpenDocument

All the media estimates use spot sampling and clustering, as do the serious studies by the UN and NGO’s that provide the estimates. The Lancet used essentially the same methods to produce a figure of 100,000 civilian deaths in the first 1.5 years of this five year war. You all swallow 30,000 because it gets you to sleep at night, but the number is a joke. There hasn’t been a civil war in decades that ever used the double-sourced number. Conflicts happening right now aren’t using the double-sourced numbers. They are using numbers ten and twenty times that large.

So, McQ, I don’t have the capability of factually proving how many Iraqi civilians have died between 2003 and 2006, but I can use basic deductive reasoning and attempt to be consistent in the methods I use between conflicts. Any attempt to apply even somewhat normal methods of estimation in Iraq - double or triple is conservative - comes up with numbers of civilians dying in Iraq that dwarfs the number of people that were dying in the last five years of Saddamn’s rule.

This is one important part of the responsibility that a moral US citizen has to face - our war in Iraq has caused more suffering than existed before it. You can draw your conclusions about the war’s validity any way you want from there, but anyone who denies this is, for me, exercising that self-interested complicity so common in the world - that self-interested complicity behind every heinous act in our times.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
This is one important part of the responsibility that a moral US citizen has to face - our war in Iraq has caused more suffering than existed before it.
Snort, Sure it did. When the numbers start to match the number killed by Saddam’s regime then I will agree with but until then, No.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Shark, we have mountains of evidence on what Bush knew about, I assume, Iraqi WMD’s and what turned out to actually be there. Any time you’d like to present me any form of evidence, or even a credible logical argument supported by historical comparison, that the US media is reporting 100%, or 99%, or 90%, or 75% of the Iraqi civilian casualties that are actually occuring, I will take it into consideration. There’s no faith here. There is, however, a burning anger at people who have made no attempt whatsoever to check their convenient facts against reality - An anger probably similar to McQ’s anger at anti-war soldier frauds.

Go ahead, bring on the flood of other scenarios - civil wars and guerilla wars, please where the double-sourced media reports of specific violent events were taken as the actual number of people killed. I’d love to see one, or three, or five. You might even find them. If you’re even trying to be honest, however, you will find hundreds in this half-century where guestimates and spot sampling are the going assumptions used, essentially to brand reality, forever.

If I could find five people actually interested, period, in how many Iraqis are dying in the situation in Iraq that we have created, I’d give a pass to the whole Gomorrah.
But you don’t care. And most of you would be the first to admit that you don’t care. You used the smallest number you hear because it’s a useful tool in an argument on a blog when people are taking shots at you. I have no vested interest in knowing that our war in Iraq has created massive human suffering. Once upon a time, I might have been interested in democracy-promoting military action that saved more civilian lives than it killed. Maybe I still would be, in that situation.

This is not that situation. Even if we suspended all logic, investigation, historical comparison and used 37K, our war has killed more people than it’s saved, in any honest estimation. But I won’t use that number. I don’t believe it. I don’t have any reason to believe it. There is no logical case for it. I’m waiting for someone to make one. I got one weak, but at least honest attempt, from pouncer. Everyone else, you’re the talking puppets in Masterpiece Theatre. You’ve said nothing of substance.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Capt Joe:

It’s pretty hard to find estimates on Iraqis killed by Saddamn in 1998-2003: but

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/VBOL-6CRJK3?OpenDocument

this Amnesty International report discusses three incidents in 1999 with estimates of killed/dissapeared in the 100-200 range. Let’s play fair, bump that number up to 1000 rather arbitarily, and then double it to account for the cases we don’t know.

That’s 2000 deaths a year. Hell, why don’t we double the number again. After all, that happens all the time in media reports. Let’s call it 4000 a year.

Now take the all-but-cetainly under-by-50%-200% number from Iraq body count for 2003-2006: 30K. Divide by three years. 10K per year.

If we’d invaded in 1991 or 1994, when Saddamn was kills tens of thousands of people, we would probably have been saving more people then we were killing.

Looking at 2000-2003 in Saddamn’s Iraq and 2003-2006, we’ve killed more people than we’re saving. By very large margins.

If anyone thinks I’m understimating violent government-sponsored deaths in Saddamn’s Iraq between 1998 and 2003, I’m thrilled to see the evidence, or hell, even the rough logic trail.

In the meantime, open your d*mn eyes. We didn’t intervene to stop a genocide in progress: we intervened in a very unpleasant but basically stable country. If you started a multi-year guerilla/antiterrorist war in Syria and killed 30,000 people, would you try to pretend that less people were dying than under Assad?
What percentage of a civilian population is it okay to kill so that they may be free? Shouldn’t the civilian population make that decision themselves?
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Glasnost, you’ve written many words here to say what you could’ve said much more simply:

You don’t believe MacBeth is a liar because he’s saying what you want to hear.

If you want to be a hypocrite go ahead but not to be so long-winded about it, m’kay?

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Shark, Macbeth is a liar. Please try again.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Well I’m glad we agree! So if he’s a liar why are you placing any credibility in him?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Jesus, H., Christ, shark. I’m not placing any credibility in Macbeth, specifically, whatsoever. This is not a discussion when only one person is reading what the other person is saying. You’re wasting my time.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
You all swallow 30,000 because it gets you to sleep at night, but the number is a joke. There hasn’t been a civil war in decades that ever used the double-sourced number. Conflicts happening right now aren’t using the double-sourced numbers. They are using numbers ten and twenty times that large.
I don’t "swallow" anything. People get killed in wars and I know perfectly well all of those 30,000 weren’t killed by the US. In fact, I’d feel safe in saying most weren’t.

And I’m quite familiar with estimating casualties. But regardless of how one estimates, it isn’t a fact until it is confirmed. It remains an estimate. We estimated Saddam killed X thousands of his own people but we have only recently confirmed that by uncovering mass graves.

One is an estimate, and the bodies in the grave make it a fact. And it is much easier now to find those graves ... so where are the bodies hidden, glasnost.

Now we can play this game all we want. For instance, I can point to the fact that given all the reports, we should have found massive caches of WMDs in Iraq. After all that’s what all the paperwork said and Saddam had a bunch of stuff left over from GWI that he hadn’t accounted for. I can make very good estimates. But hey, guess what, no WMDs in Iraq. I can only surmise they must be the same place as all the estimated bodies you’re talking about.
So, McQ, I don’t have the capability of factually proving how many Iraqi civilians have died between 2003 and 2006, but I can use basic deductive reasoning and attempt to be consistent in the methods I use between conflicts. Any attempt to apply even somewhat normal methods of estimation in Iraq - double or triple is conservative - comes up with numbers of civilians dying in Iraq that dwarfs the number of people that were dying in the last five years of Saddamn’s rule.
Well then it isn’t "factual", as I said, it is an estimate based on whatever arbitrary numbers you choose to use in your estimate. As you can imagine, I’m not impressed nor particualary swayed by your argument.
This is one important part of the responsibility that a moral US citizen has to face - our war in Iraq has caused more suffering than existed before it.
Absolute bollocks. In your opinion, that is ’true’. In mine it is utter nonsense.

People who are suffering more than before don’t work as hard as the Iraqis are to vote and get their government off the ground.

And it appears poll after poll dispute your contention ... and make no mistake, that’s all it is:
Most applaud the destruction of the Baathist regime. By 52 percent to 29 percent they rate their lives as better post-Saddam, and by 48 percent to 18 percent they expect their lives to improve over the next year. Asked, “Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?” 77 percent answer “worth it.” This includes 91 percent of the Kurds surveyed and 98 percent of Iraqi Shiites.
Government:
By contrast, most Iraqis consider the new regime both legitimate and democratic. The idea of democratic government wins the assent of 74 percent of Iraqis polled. Sixty-six percent of Iraqis, including 89 percent of the majority Shiites, characterize the December parliamentary elections as “free and fair.” Sixty-eight percent of Iraqis, including 81 percent of Kurds and 90 percent of Shiites, consider their parliament “the legitimate representative of the Iraqi people.”
Even the coalition forces:
The surveys show that Iraqis want Coalition forces to leave — but no time soon. In a January 2006 poll, Iraqis preferred a withdrawal framework lasting two years or more to one of six months or less by 64 percent to 35 percent. Seventy-eight percent of Shiites and 85 percent of Kurds preferred the slower timetable.


And then there’s that horrid concept of freedom of the press we’ve forced on the poor Iraqis:
Iraqis are able to see the progress their country is making firsthand, even as it goes largely unreported in the pan-Arab media. In addition, Iraqi media are much more diverse than those of other states in the region. They have swelled from three TV stations, three radio stations, and ten newspapers — all state-owned — to 44 commercial TV stations, 72 commercial radio stations, and over 100 independent newspapers. Opinion ranges from apocalyptic Shiism to classical liberalism to Marxism-Leninism. Some of these papers are friendly to the Coalition forces; others publish screeds blaming the U.S. for any and every problem. In short, the Iraqi press is free.


As you can tell, it’s infinitely worse, isn’t it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"we’ve killed more people than we’re saving."

WHAT? What you mean "we", white man?

WE are not killing civilians - the terrorists are. They are car bombing, suicide bombing, beheading, shooting, torturing dozens of people very day.

THE TERRORISTS ARE DOING THAT.

And WE ARE FIGHTING THE TERRORISTS.

I think we are doing EXACTLY THE RIGHT THING.

What kind of INSANITY are you offering us here?

 
Written By: Tom C
URL: http://
I clicked on that link to Information Clearinghouse comments.

What a cesspool. I need a shower now...
 
Written By: equitus
URL: http://
One is an estimate, and the bodies in the grave make it a fact. And it is much easier now to find those graves ... so where are the bodies hidden, glasnost.

They’re not hidden anywhere, except in the numerous instances reported regularly where they keep showing up, in rivers, alleys, and patches of desert, and in the places not reported regularly - i.e.: outside of Baghdad, and whenever a militia or a government agency, or an insurgent group successfully hides them without anyone noticing them or successfully intimdates/kills witnesses. I doubt you’d find even 1000 in one place at any time. Mass graves are easier to find. They’re mass.

It also helps that the WMD hunt, unlike the Iraqi casualty hunt, is being conducted by the US military.

You’ve made the rhetorical point that estimates can be wrong, McQ. You’re right.
So do you really think 37K Iraqis have died in this war at the hands of all violent parties? I don’t think that you think that. What’s your estimate?
Or will you not make one? Why won’t you make one? Do you never make them about anything? Or do you simply not want to look at the question of how many Iraqis have died in the past three years? Why not? Isn’t it a relevant question? Isn’t it sort of irresponsible to not even try to answer that, or to use a double-sourced count that you yourself are not attempting to deny is very likely to be undercounting quite significantly?

But the suffering argument doesn’t even rest on the circumstantially strong but not objectively provable argument that casualties are much higher than 37K.
Take the crazy 37K number. Using my best estimates - uncertain, but not biased, of violent deaths under Saddamn in 98-03, you’d come up with the fact that between two and five times as many Iraqis have died from this war as would have otherwise, each year. That’s, again using the 30K number, about 25 or 20K extra deaths.

Here’s a question for you: we lost about 2800 people in 9/11. What would 10 times that number of deaths, in America, be like? Would you pay that many deaths to overthrow a dictator here at home? Would you pay that many deaths to have let’s say, China, overthrow that dictator for you, if it meant giving Chinese soldiers indefinite extra-legal authority over you? If the government they set up in return led to civil war and economic paralysis? Would you pay that many deaths for a freer media? What about 20 times that number of deaths?

I would shoot down your poll in depth,but a) I can’t get to it and b) I’m blogging too much. but c) If I really believed that Iraqis felt their lives were better post-Saddamn by a 2-to-1 margin - let’s say consistent results across 75% of pollsin the 3-year span - I’d have to adjust my opinion on this particular aspect of why the Iraq war was a bad idea.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
I would shoot down your poll in depth,but a) I can’t get to it and b) I’m blogging too much. but c) If I really believed that Iraqis felt their lives were better post-Saddamn by a 2-to-1 margin - let’s say consistent results across 75% of pollsin the 3-year span - I’d have to adjust my opinion on this particular aspect of why the Iraq war was a bad idea.
Yeah, and lord knows we can’t have that, can we ... even in the face of polls which say it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Jesus, H., Christ, shark. I’m not placing any credibility in Macbeth, specifically, whatsoever. This is not a discussion when only one person is reading what the other person is saying. You’re wasting my time.
If you’re trying to make a point that somehow, that this guy’s general observations and persepective are generically incorrect, simply because this guy seems to be a liar, you’re urinating in the wind.
You’re saying he’s accurate. How you can say the man is A) a liar and B) accurate shows quite the disconnect...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I would shoot down your poll in depth,but a) I can’t get to it
The old, "ooh I could destroy you with a single thought, but I shall spare you today because I am late to the polo field" argument. Good thing he spared McQ of his furious wit, it could have been messy. ooh, aah


Glassknot uses the now classic ratherian argument, ergo fake but true.
if this particular messenger is a fraud, the message has wings.
So after shark calls him on it, ...
Jesus, H., Christ, shark. I’m not placing any credibility in Macbeth, specifically, whatsoever. This is not a discussion when only one person is reading what the other person is saying. You’re wasting my time.
Someone is wasting our time.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Glasnost, use your deductive reasoning algorithms or whatever slide rule kabbalah formula you use here.....answer these questions

1) How many Iraqis were being killed either directly by Saddam (being gassed or fed into paper shredders etc or just by being starved to death in the oil for food scam per year? You can use all those handy mass graves we’ve found as a baseline if you want.

2) If we didn’t remove Saddam, how many more years would he and his sons have had in power to continue that state of affairs?

3) Can you multiply figure 1 by figure 2?

4) So you can sit there and tell me that we’ve "killed" more than we’ve saved?

Go ahead, I’ll wait
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I was once told ..

the more a guy claims that he is a ex-seal, green bret or other special forces,
the more it is likely that he is lying
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
On the other hand, the Iraq case is a five-year period of civil war in an area the size of California,
Well, personally I prefer Michael Yons explaination of the situation better...

But 5 YEAR...

heh

2003
2004
2005
2006

Where do you get 5 years from???

And if you want to look at comparitive results.

How many people died per year as a result of Saddams direct actions?

How many people died per year as a result of sanctions (Saddams indirect actions?)

Now compare that to the number per year who are dying now?

You will see, by most reasonable estimates, that less people are dying now then died during Saddams tenure.

But that really isn’t the issue. The real issue is can we do better.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Carnival of the Duped
 
Written By: Tim
URL: http://4rwws.blogspot.com/
In regards to the Lancet study, it is painfully obvious that those on the left should have taken Statistics rather then advanced Basket Weaving.
 
Written By: William Teach
URL: http://www.thepiratescove.us
glasnost-

sanctioning a repeated lie because it furthers a "good" cause... hmmmmmm- oh, yeah, Joe Stalin.
 
Written By: Glenn Bowen
URL: http://
Glasnost, who knows what the body count of Iraqis are but you are missing the HUGE point. Most of the Iraqi casualties are caused by the TERRORISTS, or insurgents if you want to whitewash it. Does anyone actually read or pay attention to the news when IRAQIS or ZARQAWI’s people kill 100 civilians in one sitting at a MOSQUE or a wedding or a market place? How about those 15 CHILDREN the TERRORSTS killed when they drove a VBIED into a group of IRAQI kids getting candy from a MARINE. The Marine was killed also not that that would bother anyone. Where’s the outrage from the peace activists on that one? The Iraqis are committing the massive atrocities. What’s a stress position or having your picture taken in your underwear compared to being beheaded with a dull knife? Wake up people!
 
Written By: carrie
URL: http://
glasnost,

I find it hard to believe people are still citing the Lancet "study". Ignorance dies hard, I guess. That paper has been thoroughly debunked. It was a piece of political activism & junk science. For the record, the data colection was flawed, the statistical analysis was weak and the conclusions laughable. I’ll give you just a few examples of the junk:

First, the study found that deaths prior to the invasion included zero killed by the Saddam regime! Given the fact that Saddam’s thugs often killed entire families, it stands to reason nobody was at home to answer the Lancet’s survey teams knock at the door. And those who did loose family members to the regime were rather reluctant to divulge that fact. By the way, the Lancet team did not visit Halabja or any of the other towns & villiages Saddam marked for genocide. Statistical oversight? The figures they did collect are just as questionable as the numbers they missed. For some reason, the vast majority of deaths reported to the LAncet study were caused by "bombing from F16s" Over and over, that phrase is used, despite the fact that most of the fighting in Iraq has been by small groups of slodiers using small arms. Also, hardly any reports of deaths by suicide bombers or car bombings or terrorist attacks of mortar fire on hostpitals & schools. Yet, we have seen many examples of those attrocities in the news, so why did they not show up in the Lancet study? More statistical oversight maybe?

Secondly, the dubious statistical analysis produced a range of numbers between 9,800 and 98,000 deaths, with a very high uncertainty factor. Yet, instead of picking a number in the middle, say 45000, the authors claim 100,000 deaths. This is like saying you took a poll of US voters, found that somewhere between 8.9% and 98% voted for Kerry, and then concluding that Kerry won the election with 100% of the vote.

And finally, the paper was rushed to print just weeks before the US election, circumventing the usual peer review process that every other paper the Lancet has ever published is subjected to. Why the special treatment for this paper? Should one conclude this shows some political bias?

The only honest conclusion is the Lancet study on Iraqi deaths is bogus science and political activism.

Furthermore, your claim the the US invasion clearly increased the suffering of the Iraqi people is also false. During the 25 years of Saddam’s rule, his regime caused the deaths of 4,300 Iraqis every month on average. Furthermore, one must remember that Saddam murdered mostly civilians, including genocidal attacks on the Kurds, Shias & Marsh Arabs.

The current figures are about 30,000 total deaths since the invasion, which is aproximately 1/5th the "Saddam" rate. If Saddam were still in power and slaughtering Iraqis as he had for 25 years, there would be some 160,000 more Iraqi dead today, and they would be mostly civilians.

The 30,000 deaths include those killed by the terrorists as well as those killed by US forces. Those killed by US forces are mostly armed military aged males, killed during fighting. Tragically, the US has killed civillians but the civilians were not deliberately targetted. Those killed by the terrorists are mostly civilians, and they were deliberately targeted with car bombs, mortar attacks & small arms fire. What all this means is the terrorists and Saddam loyalists are still at work tormenting the Iraqi people.

 
Written By: Kenneth
URL: http://
Hey, Kenneth, don’t forget about the study by a Jordanian doctor that stated that up to 50,000 children a year were dying under sanctions.

Now that Saddam is gone, that isn’t happening.

Of course, that means nothing to the left in their BDS.
 
Written By: William Teach
URL: http://www.thepiratescove.us
>I find it hard to believe people are still citing the Lancet "study". Ignorance dies hard, I guess. That paper has been thoroughly debunked

Not so...

What’s in a Number?
This American Life, WBEZ in Chicago
October 28, 2005; Episode 300

About a year ago, a study estimated the number of Iraqi casualties since the war began. It came up with a number – 100,000 dead – that was higher than any other estimate, and was mostly ignored. This week, Alex Blumberg revisits that study to look at the reality behind it. In Act One he reports that not only is the study probably accurate, but it says that most of the deaths were caused by Coalition forces (despite concerted efforts to avoid civilian casualties). In Act Two, we hear U.S. forces trying to cope in the aftermath of some of those deaths.

Prologue. We’re a nation at war, but it hardly feels like it. That contrast is especially jarring for people like Hannah Allam, who just returned home to Oklahoma after two years in Baghdad running the Knight-Ridder Newspapers bureau there. Ira talks with Hannah, and Army Captain Chuck Ziegenfuss about what it feels like to come home from a war that nobody’s paying much attention to. (6 minutes)

Act One. Truth, Damn Truth, and Statistics. About a year ago, a John Hopkins University study in the British medical journal The Lancet estimated the number of civilian casualties in Iraq. It came up with a number – 100,000 dead – that was higher than any other estimate, and was mostly ignored. This week, Producer Alex Blumberg tells the remarkable story of what it took to find that number, why we should find it credible and why almost no one believed it. (The original Lancet study is online; free registration is required). (36 minutes)

...
Click here to listen to the full story.

"Ignorance dies hard, I guess."
 
Written By: TK
URL: http://
The Jessie interview will be taken down as soon as possible at the request of Iraq veterans Against the War pending their further investigation.
Wouldn’t "further investigation" imply that they’d investigated it in the first place?
 
Written By: Jim Treacher
URL: http://jimtreacher.com

glasnost... try this.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Did anyone notice Jesse’s "occupation" at myspace?
iraq veteran... oh. it is a profession... good to see daft hippie chicks still go for the fake war vet/protestors. I grew up in the sixties so I have fond memories of daft hippie chicks

IVAW says he isn’t one of theirs... OK, he is in a photo carrying their banner. He appeared at the Haliburton shareholders meeting a week and a half ago as one of theirs... with one of their all-stars from the 82 Airborne (who must have known the guy was wrong)
 
Written By: Steve
URL: http://
dont make asians look bad MICHELLE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrXxoi3sFdk&search=jessie%20macbeth
 
Written By: Cal
URL: http://
The sad thing about the anti war crowd is that they truly want to believe that these things are happening. When real vets tell them that it’s not even close to that, they either ignore it, dismiss it, or assume that we’re "part of the massive cover up of war crimes" Does anyone ever wonder if this whole movement was started by the same anti war hippies from the 60’s, looking to recapture their lost glory with a new generation?
 
Written By: Combat Jump Star
URL: http://
Ken, Iraq Body Count.org has a very good seven-page discussion of casualty statistics, mostly geared towards defending their 37000-42000 double-sourced number, and also evaluating a number of other studies, most of which they dismiss as c***.

Their final conclusion is that their double-sourced number undercounts by a factor of two, rather than a factor of three as the Lancet suggests. Fine.

Your understanding of the Lancet survey is riddled with ignorance. The number of people killed by Saddamn’s regime is minute because Saddamn’s regime wasn’t killing a lot of Iraqis in the immediate run-up to the invasion. The F-16 deaths are there because, contrary to your statements, quite a lot of aerial bombing was used in the invasion phase, which fell within the sampled period. I haven’t looked at the sample data carefully enough to show how many people were being killed in all of those types of events, but I seriously doubt that the number is zero. It’s worth noting that those events were a lot less common in early 2004, when the study was conducted. The study estimates civilians killed in Iraq since the invasion. Not civilians killed specifically by the US military, but all sources.

Meanwhile, with all your c*** about Hussein’s regime, the mass killings peaked in the late 80’s and early 90’s. If we’d invaded in 1988 or 1993, we might have arguably been saving people. In the five years before the invasion, the anecdotal evidence from the scale of the violations documented by the human-rights groups is that violent deaths from the regime per year were in the hundreds or low thousands. I’m still waiting for someone to intelligently dispute that.

So, 10000 civilian deaths per year, 2003-2006, lowball #, 25000 highball number
1000 violent deaths, Saddamn’s regime, 1999-2003, lowball number, 3000 per year, highball number.

Do the math. Thanks.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Carrie:

Sure, the Iraqis are doing most of the killing.
They’re also doing a whole lot more of it now, 2003-2006, then they were in 1999-2003.

You want to ask yourself what role our actions have played in this change of behavior? Could we have perhaps not taken actions, such as invading the country and toppling its government, that created conditions under which this change in behavior occured?
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Here’s a note on the Iraqi civilian death statistics. If we’re talking about the body count on iraqibodycount.org, those numbers are bogus and inflated, if not totally invented. It seems convincing because you can go into the database and see where and how people died. There’s the rub. I was personally in locations at the times specified and no one died. Very routine days. They certainly could not have died in the manner listed in my presence. Based on my observations, the real body count is likely to be one tenth of what is listed on the web site.
 
Written By: Jared McLaughlin
URL: http://sweatingbullets.eponym.com
Isn’t 30,000 people enough? That is the number George Bush himself estimated in a public speech.Even half that number is too much. If there was "iron-clad proof" that the number was actually closer to 100,000 then the left would argue that it’s 500,000 while the right would argue that it is actually closer to 80,000.

Who gives a ****? How many people have to die before politicians will step up and do the right thing.
You cannot argue that over 2,000 Americans have died.
I will vote for whoever will stop this war. I don’t care if he/she is republican, democrat, left right or whatever.
I am sorry that there are lies, sick people embellishment and bull **** on both sides. But there are also facts and truth on both sides. So stop being so nit-picky and focus on the facts.
 
Written By: Patricia
URL: http://
Isn’t 30,000 people enough?
For what Patricia? For the false premise that the Iraqis were better off before the war? The Iraqis don’t think so:
Most applaud the destruction of the Baathist regime. By 52 percent to 29 percent they rate their lives as better post-Saddam, and by 48 percent to 18 percent they expect their lives to improve over the next year. Asked, “Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?” 77 percent answer “worth it.” This includes 91 percent of the Kurds surveyed and 98 percent of Iraqi Shiites.
It they accept it as being "worth it", why can’t you?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I will come back to you with a pushback on this convenient poll, McQ.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
glasnost,

The underlying assumption for most of your arguments, "our war in Iraq has caused more suffering than existed" under Saddam’s regime, is tempting but fatally flawed.

As you have noted, the Iraq Body Count database does not distinguish causation. Thus a terrorist or insurgent beheading 11 Iraqis is therefore "counted" in the total number (check out a 9 May 2006 entry in the IBC database). Your assumption is what provides the causation: Americans are responsible for those 11 deaths, because we invaded Iraq and caused this war. Had we not invaded, presumably these 11 poor souls would not have been beheaded.

This causation is tenuous at best, and silly in many respects. Although I am not familiar with this specific incident, I can say with 99.999% certainty that no American beheaded those 11 Iraqis. Who did? Insurgents or more likely foreign terrorists or jihadis. Is your position that Americans are responsible for the actions of those (presumably) terrorists who chose to behead 11 Iraqis? Is it also your position that American foreign policy somehow "caused" the terrorists of 9/11 to fly airplanes into the WTC and the Pentgon?

This type of thinking is akin to a schoolchild thinking that, because he walked a certain way to school or wore a certain type of clothing, that he forced the bully to beat him up and steal his lunch money. It takes responsiblity away from the bully? Where is his culpability?

Terrorists choose to detonate carbombs in the presence of innocent Iraqi women and children. That is not a decision an American would make, nor is it his/her responsiblity. I do not agree that Iraq was relatively bloodless pre-war but I will agree that there was no insugency under Saddam. There was no dissent of any kind, period. Totalitarian regimes will do that.

The current violence in Iraq has more to do with Iraqi culture and the Muslim faith than it has to do with US policy. And if you ask me, it is long overdue. If you are a pacifist, or at the very lease desire peace, then the people you need to be focusing on are the ones who kill indescriminantly in the name of religion. The ones you should focus on are those who believe that matyrdom in the name of Allah is the one true path to heaven. The ones you should focus on are those who do not believe in freedoms, be they religious, gender, or racial, but believe in "submission" not just for Muslims but for the entire world.

There is a clear "bad guy" in the current struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its not, repeat not, the US forces there.
 
Written By: faoac
URL: http://
faoac,

I appreciate an actual attempt to address the substance of my arguments.

I don’t know how many of the undercounted number from Iraq Body Count are the direct result of American bullets. We haven’t been doing many beheadings, nor have we been using many car bombs. I don’t know how morally superior that makes us in itself, because we deliver ordinance in different platforms, but sure, our target selection on a tactical level is more ethical than the insurgents. No contest. Obviously. Of course, we don’t need to use brutality to when, whereas arguably they do, but that’s also off in left field and does not deny that the responsible for people killed by insurgents and terrorists lies with insurgents and terrorists.

But after that, it also lies with us. To deny it is to deny casuality - is to say, basically, that no matter what the heck our foreign policy was, there would be a vicious civil war in Iraq right now killing "37,000" Iraqis in the past 4 years.
Obviously not true. Our decades of misguided foreign policy in the Middle East have shaped that culture and contributed to it. We didn’t create it: but in what direction did our actions contribute?

But leaving aside the long-term picture, moral responsibility is a lot more complicated than whether your hand is holding the gun. Advanced societies basically accept and acknowledge this, in concepts such as criminal negligence reckless endangerment, hate speech and any number of passive crimes.

But leave aside law, as well, because I’m not neccesarily talking about illegal behavior - just ethically shameful.

Let’s use an example from the social sphere. Let’s take an ex-felon, once criminal and a drug addict. Let’s give him five years of sincere attempts to clean up his act and a temporarily successful recovery. Let’s say on his five-year anniversary party, his daughter gets run over by a guy fiddling with his radio station, and said ex-felon goes home and immediately sticks a needle in his upper arm, and rides the train into the heroin sunset.

What the careless driver directly responsible for? Just the girl. But if the girl had somehow been untouched, just a mistake, was the man’s carelessness now okay, because he didn’t make that ex-junkie go home and shoot up, in his moment of trauma?

Of course not. He may not be guilty in a strict sense, but to deny that his actions created the circumstances in which a terrible event occured is foolish.

This connection is more tenous when someone says, hey, failed agricultural subsidy reform in the west led to the Rwandan genocide, because at least the acts are not of the same kind. But to say that our hands are washed clean of a civil war that we, last time I checked, are active participants in, and initiators of, because we’re not always pulling the trigger - and then to call my connections tenuous, I think that’s hubris.

We didn’t go into this civil war after it started by for reasons completely unrelated to us. We deposed the regime, and then the regime struck back. Now we’ve pulled the Sunnis into it. The end result is that non-combatants are being brutalized by all kinds of people. We’re the most moral of all of those groups, but we very clearly started this.

Like Colin Powell said:
We broke it.
We own it.
It is on our hands.

On a side note, that’s why I at least have no righteous anger at the people who say: "this whole thing was a screw-up and we never should have done it, but now we have to stay to make it better." I don’t agree that we can make it better through our current means, but we agree on the moral calculus.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
This is certainly the funniest "controversy" I’ve seen in recent years. Jesse Macbeth, who appears to be mentally unstable, made a ludicrously inept fake video, which was posted on an obscure website in Washington state. The video was linked by a handful of equally obscure blogs, and was taken seriously be pretty much nobody — until it came to the attention of the eagle-eyed Michelle Malkin. Now, it’s supposed to have something profound to teach us about the perfidy of the "anti-war left" — in spite of the fact that almost every google hit on "Jesse Macbeth" turns out to be from a right-wing blog trying to drum up some publicity for the poor guy. And after all this effort, it appears that even now nobody is paying any attention. Ah, well...
 
Written By: Bill Anderson
URL: http://
Good lord, Anderson ... did you miss the part about what was said on the video?

Hello in there.

And the IVAW connection?

No?

What can I say then to someone who’s given a pencil and still can’t connect the dots even when they’re patiently put before him and numbered?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/
glasnost,

I think we will have to agree to disagree on a number of things, but I do want to challenge a couple of your assertions.

On several occasions you call the current conflict a "civil war." This is a popular rhetorical device lately, but it does not accurately portray the conditions on the ground. The US and, increasingly, the Iraqi military are fighting an insurgency, which is quite different. Check out the Wikipedia definition of civil war as just one source.

And its not a distiction without a difference, either. Those who use the term "civil war" want to conjure an image of an intractable quagmire, one in which we must surely lose, or should at least have no part in.

Insurgencies are much different than civil wars, and are fought in much different ways. Of all of the elements of national power (Diplomatic, Information, Military, Economic) the military plays a much smaller role in a counterinsurgency strategy. Insurgencies are defeated through the heavy use of D, I, and E, with a smaller dose of M. Because of how the media works, the picture we see at home is almost all M, which is not representative of the whole picture. This is why, almost to a man, my friends have come home and told me that the picture being told by the media does not reflect conditions on the ground. Have you heard, for instance, that the Mayor of Tal Afar was recently in Colorado to personally thank the Brigade for their work over the past year? That work was mainly not shooting people and breaking things, but rebuilding.

Second point. Again, you come back to the "because we caused it, all of that blood is on our hands" theme. Let me try to put it to you another way. Would you rather live in a just society or a peaceful one? Say you were a Jew living in Nazi Germany (or for a more current example, Iran), would you be content to live your life under the thumb of that tyranny, or would you prefer to fight and possibly die for freedom? I am currently learning Arabic, and my instructor is an Iraqi national who lived under Saddam’s regime for 40 years. I never had a full appreciation for we have done in Iraq until I heard this man speak about his experiences, and this is a man who has lost two members of his family to the insurgency (one was beheaded) in the last year. He was literally in tears thanking us for what the US had done, not at all angry that we had invaded and disturbed his "peaceful" existence. This is anecdotal to be sure, but there are similar stories throughout Iraq that are not as sensational as insurgents blowing up bombs.

Lastly, I never suggested that our hands are clean. But they are much, much cleaner than a brutal dictator or a bunch of religious zealots. And the tortuous bit of logic you had to go through to explain your position reminds me of the "nuanced" position taken by Kerry during the campaign. As I said earlier, its very clear who is "good" and "bad" in Iraq — if the definition of "good" includes a desire for peace, freedom, and justice, and the definition of "bad" includes a desire for submission, religious oppression and death. I’ll let you do the math and figure out which side you’re on.
 
Written By: faoac
URL: http://
What the careless driver directly responsible for? Just the girl. But if the girl had somehow been untouched, just a mistake, was the man’s carelessness now okay, because he didn’t make that ex-junkie go home and shoot up, in his moment of trauma?
You have just absolved the ex-junkie from his own decision to shoot himeself up. The careless driver didn’t stick the needle in the ex-junkie’s arm. The ex-junkie did.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
As much as I love hearing people talk about what is really going on in Iraq, I ask, have any of you been there? Have any of you spent anytime serving there? Becasue I’ve been serving here in Baghdad for roughly 7 months now. Now the death toll issue is obviously a pointless one. The number we (Multi-National Force - Iraq) report is the number CONFIRMED. That means if 5 people get smoked by a VBIED (car bomb) in rural Al Anbar provience, its not going to get confirmed. We don’t have the troops nor the time to confirm all of these. Now I will say that in Baghdad it is quite obvious that the insurgents are targeting civilian and not making as much of an attempt to hit the military with anything except IEDs. In Ramadi its different. They probley have a better civilian death count than in other places simply because its a constant shot out with insurgents there. Therefore we are sadly responsible for the majority of civilian deaths. Simply because the insurgents don’t target the civilian population out there. But trust me its not like we kill innocent people for fun. We wacked 15 insurgents a little while ago. They were more then happy to shoot RPGs and AK fire at us, but afterwards some newspaper said that it was 15 college students.

Now with the civil war thing. No its not an all out civil war, but come on guys. The insurgents blow up the holy golden mosque simply to tick off the Shi’ites off. Thats what they did. So then the Shi’ites form death squads and attack the Sunni. They don’t really care for them anyways seeing how they were the opressed majority under Saddam. Then the Sunni retaliate and it take the US to tell Al Sadr that if he doesn’t stop his men then we are going to wip the crap out of his precious Mahdi Army. So he, since he is the king of the Shi’ites in Baghdad, tells them to back off. And the Kurds just stay on the sidelines making big money and prospering while the other two fight.

For the point of us doing more harm then good. Well to me only time will tell with this subject. The Shi’ites have hope that this storm will pass and that there will be a brighter tomarrow for their children. I can’t say for a fact but I think the Kurds are pretty happy with the new government too. The Sunnis are MAD though. They once ruled Iraq simply because they were Sunni. No education? No problem! Your Sunni. And so now that they are in the lap of luxery anymore they hate it.

I will say that there are problems that we created that we really should have done a better job on. i.e. preparing for the insurgency, and even greater I think is the lack of jobs in this country. I know the State Dept. want to build from the ground up a capitalist free economy but rally guys. If we would just hire everyone to do something. ANYTHING. I think we would find a big drop in violence.

One more thing. I’m sure you all heard or will hear about the Marines in Haditha who apparently killed 24 innocent people. I want to say that if this is true. HANG THEM. Its one thing to blow your top and shoot someone who could very well be an insurgent. Its a whole new ball game when you start killing kids execution style.

Sorry about my spelling. And in short, if you want to blame someone, blame the French.
 
Written By: Jeremy
URL: http://
You people are all genuinely retarded. MacBeth is a little man - he’s a twerp trying to get his 15 minutes by pretending to be someone he’s not. Who cares ? It’s not new. Happens all the time. Get over it.
Blame the French, blame the Canadians, blame the UN, blame Bush... BLAME EVERYBODY !!!


Who cares ? Going into Iraq, despite Fox News reports, was not justified by the reasoning given by Bush et al. The person who mentioned the 44 tv channels and 73 radio stations ? You are truly an idiot. There is no such thing over there as of yet. The infrastructure has been torn apart with "smart weapon technology." The people fighting US forces are not TERRORISTS, they are people who don’t appreciate the US coming into their country and taking it over. They are not fundamentalists, a large majority of them are moderates that had no ill will towards the US.

Grow up, all of you. You’re running your country into the ground and being a pain in everyone else’s ass. Shut up and enjoy your riches. Simple.

Stop interfering where you don’t belong and aren’t wanted.
 
Written By: Mark
URL: http://
I was a ranger with 75th rgr regiment...the 1st thing i noticed was his f*cked up beret...every ranger..when i say ranger i mean one who dons the tan beret wears them sharp...not one who has a tab..but one who wears the scroll..real rangers know what the scroll is...this guy looks like a crack head using IVAW to get crack money

The 2nd thing i noticed was he had a black shirt under his bdu top...nobody wears a black shirt



If i met him IRL i was punch him directly in the face for disgracing the Ranger Regiment like that...

RLTW..
 
Written By: W. Washingon
URL: http://
This is not a lie.
You guys are lying.
This government is disgusting and grotesque.
Your counterattacks are too weak.
I suggest you people do some more research.
 
Written By: Elizabeth
URL: http://
This is not a lie.
You guys are lying.
This government is disgusting and grotesque.
Your counterattacks are too weak.
I suggest you people do some more research.
I want what you’re smoking!
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
You site very nice. Thanks owner.
 
Written By: Gleb Anisin
URL: http://www.geocities.com/hurteromi/spyware-and-virus-scanner.html
You very site very nice. Thanks owneros. Best.
 
Written By: Ewelina Bartosz
URL: http://aminosrusker.tripod.com/anti-virus-software-ratings.html
I think you are all missing the point and being blinded once more.

It does not matter if this individual is a fake or not... What matters is what he describes within this Video is ACTUALLY HAPPENING!

I have heard similar stories from others returning home from duty and the look in their eyes when telling what they had been through is very very moving.

What is really disturbing are the ones who can’t even talk about it because they are suffering from POST TRAUMATIC STRESS and can’t even find the words to explain their experiences and when asked about what happened... the also began to Stutter or just shake their heads with tears in their eyes.

A couple I have come across carry a Bible clutched to their chest trembling while speaking.

Please take off the blinders of confusion. Seems to me every-time someone says something against Our Great Country and believe me when I say I LOVE THIS COUNTRY, a campaign to discredit and steer us away from the main issue at hand immediately begins.

Instead of trying to find out if this Man real or fake, has anyone of those responding to his credibility put any energy into finding out if there is any truth to what he has described in the video? I did not just research it today and nor do I need to research Web Post accounts and testimonials. I tend to go straight to LIVE humans who where their and getting their TRUTHS and FACTS in any situation. Have you not figured it out yet. The Web Stops human contact, and fills your brain with the opinions of others and not your own.

Of all the Websites I have read today in regards to the video I have not read one that presented any information on any of the issues presented. They all were about who was giving the interview. He is again simply one of thousands of people who could tell stories that say exactly what he has said here that were actually there.

NOTE: IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THE VIDEO IS REAL, WHAT MATTERS IS IF WHAT HE HAS SAID IS ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE.

Much Love/Light to all of you and PLEASE keep focus on the issues and don’t let them keep the mind control of you.

 
Written By: NOT THE ISSUE
URL: http://
It does not matter if this individual is a fake or not... What matters is what he describes within this Video is ACTUALLY HAPPENING!
As I pointed out in the other thread, a person who spent about a month in the Army, was never a Ranger and never in Iraq wouldn’t know what is "ACTUALLY HAPPENING", would he?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider