Bish Fish: The 100 thousand (much higher now) you dispute is an established figure, the quarm is that it includes deaths 'indirectly' related to the invasion. But the fact remains, were it not for the invasion, those deaths would not have occured.

Another indisputable and obvious fact is that the USA is directly responsible for more civilian deaths on foreign soil than any other country ever. Yet not many Americans realise it. Considering this, I think it's not just reasonable, but absolutely necessary to try to increase awareness any way you can - if I was a celebrity, I would definitely say something.

This is getting to be a fairly tired subject. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, yah yah yah. I was saying the same stuff two years ago. I also said: 'You watch, there'll be no weapons, they'll get stuck in a quagmire, and the public will gradually turn against it.' The person I had debated with at the beginning of the war has now long since conceded I was right on every point I made. Not to blow my own horn or anything, but...

I was right this time, I'll be right next time. But everyone will have forgotten about this one by then.

Spendocrat,

As I am open to being proven incorrect (I am only in it for facts) If you can direct me to the information that gives this 100,000+ dead I would no mind seeing this to judge for myself.

Thanks for your help.

Eek! That was harder to find than I thought.

Now. Obviously I don't stake my reputation on this study - in fact to be honest, since I had a look around, I'm significantly less convinced than I was (The article I originally read glossed over the part which says: 'excess deaths from all causes', whatever that means).

I guess the point is it's nearly impossible to get an accurate gauge on what qualifies as an 'indirectly' related death - not to mention, the USA has a policy (which they make no secret of) of NOT keeping count of civilian deaths, leaving it up to independent sources, none of which can be assumed to be 100% accurate. To say the least.

http://theage.com.au/news/iraq/new-study-raises-iraq-death-toll/2005/07/12/1120934238541.html?oneclick=true

Ok, so maybe it's not as established a figure as I thought - I guess I'm guilty of not enough research. On the same token though, it certainly is not a discredited figure as you said - that much I stand by.

Here was my passage of rationalisation:

Those deaths occured. Whether they were an indirect cause of the occupation or not, there certainly has been a massive surge of violence and death since the occupation...so I can't deny I put 2 + 2 together and got 5. It doesn't change the core of my argument though, that the USA is still the biggest killer of civilians off their own soil by a very convincing margin.

Let this be a lesson to the rest of you posters - you are allowed to be wrong once in a while! And if you are big enough to admit it, we can all make progress.

Spendocrat

"Another indisputable and obvious fact is that the USA is directly responsible for more civilian deaths on foreign soil than any other country ever."

Ive never done any research into how many civilian deaths the US has been responsible for, however, i've read figures that puts the number of civilians killed as a result of the German invasion of Russia during WWII as high as 17million. Are you claiming that the US has been responsible for more civilian deaths than Germany was responsible for during WWI and WWII. If so, please point me in the direction of evidence.

What's your point? So the US is responsible for causing x amount of deaths, what does this lead you to conclude? What are the lessons to be learnt? No war, ever, there is no justification?

"This is getting to be a fairly tired subject. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, yah yah yah. I was saying the same stuff two years ago. I also said: 'You watch, there'll be no weapons, they'll get stuck in a quagmire, and the public will gradually turn against it.' The person I had debated with at the beginning of the war has now long since conceded I was right on every point I made. Not to blow my own horn or anything, but..."

Ha ha. Gloating anonymously on the internet, i hope it does something for you.

Yawn, I already admitted mistake, it’s a little petty (not to mention predictable) to be pointing it out. At least I don’t stubbornly cling to selective statistics no matter what, like most posters here. And I’m aware of the irony of the gloat in the previous post (as I, like most, have a tendency to get carried away, and that was particularly bad timing), but what I was gloating about wasn’t particularly closely related to the mistake I made. Anyway, laugh it up. I can take a little self deprecating humour.

And I don't think I need to mention it was only one statistic I messed up on.

The point of it, of course, was related to the article (remember the article? Ahhh, yeah!). I was using it as a reason as to why certain people may be compelled to speak out. Make sense?

Anyway not my best moment on the forum so I’m gonna bail before I dig a deeper hole. As you were, everyone…

Really does not matter what a lot of us say, or the celebrities, or any reporter, the final say about Iraq will be told by the Iraqis themselves in the future.