AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@parados,

parados wrote:

If this is any indication of the number of people killed before and after Saddam was removed, it seems Bush did NOT save hundreds of thousands.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=iz&v=26

According to your own link, Parados, Bush did save lives, as the death rate dropped in Iraq. How about that, good for Bush. We can quibble over the exact number later, but I'm glad at least we agree on one thing, Bush saved alot of lives. And your chart doesn't show prior to 2000, so the death rate could have been much higher still, and probably was, as Hussein killed alot of people following the first Gulf War.

1 Reply

@okie,

LOL.. there is no indication that the drop in death rates is the cause of Bush.

The more likely cause of the drop in death rates per 1000 is the increase in population meaning MORE young people so a lower death rate.

0 Replies

Quote:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3889&R=C495A28
“A lifesaving War
The death toll in Iraq would have been vastly higher over the last year if Saddam had remained in power.
By Gerald Alexander
03/29/2004, Volume 009, Issue 28
…
How many Iraqis were saved by the use of force against Saddam can be counted in several ways. At a bare minimum, several thousand Iraqis were saved from being killed in individual political murders. This includes political prisoners (including children) who poured from Saddam's dungeons at liberation, Shia activists, other dissenters, and military men suspected of disloyalty. Toppling Saddam also saved several thousand more at dire risk from his gradually rising violence against the Shia. If the Shia or Kurds were targeted with wholesale murder, as seemed increasingly likely, the regime could easily have resumed killing at its historic rate of 15,000 to 20,000 deaths a year. Specifically, the West's already existing threat to use force inside Iraq to protect Kurdistan--a threat whose credibility might well have collapsed if the Coalition had crumbled last year--saved tens of thousands more from certain death every year it was in place.
U.N. economic sanctions were also killing civilians. Critics regularly claimed sanctions caused 4,000 to 5,000 Iraqi children to die per month from poor nutrition and health care. UNICEF attributed some 500,000 unnecessary deaths to the sanctions in the 1990s. The sanctions remained in place as long as Saddam's regime refused to comply with international requirements. Liberation made it possible to lift the sanctions almost immediately--thus saving approximately 60,000 lives a year, if we use UNICEF's numbers.”
…

In Iraq, 1979 through 2002 according to Gerald Alexander:
Killing Deaths = 20,000 per year x 24 years = 480,000
UN Unnecessary Deaths due to Sanctions = 500,000

* Total = 480,000 + 500,000 = 980,000

===========================================================================

Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Year for 1979 - 2002 wrote:

YEAR ..... IRAQ TOTAL .......ANNUAL .. ANNUAL ................................... ANNUAL
.............. POPULATION ....DEATHS .. NonViolent ………………………….... Violent
................................................................ Deaths ....................................... Deaths
2002 24,002,000 144,012 128,987 ........................................ 15,025
2001 23,332,000 144,658 125,386 ........................................ 19,272
2000 22,676,000 145,126 121,861 ........................................ 23,265
1999 22,427,000 165,960 120,523 ........................................ 45,437
1998 21,722,000 182,465 116,734 ........................................ 65,731
1997 22,219,000 208,859 119,405 ........................................ 89,454
1996 21,422,000 222,789 115,122 ........................................ 107,667
1995 20,413,000 206,171 109,700 ........................................ 96,471
1994 19,869,000 194,716 106,776 ........................................ 87,940
1993 19,435,000 158,395 104,444 ........................................ 53,951
1992 18,838,000 122,447 101,236 ........................................ 21,211
1991 18,317,000 128,219 98,436 ........................................ 29,783
1990 17,754,000 133,155 95,410 ........................................ 37,745
1989 17,215,000 137,720 92,514 ........................................ 45,206
1988 16,630,000 136,366 89,370 ........................................ 46,996
1987 16,476,000 138,398 88,542 ........................................ 49,856
1986 15,946,000 137,136 85,694 ........................................ 51,442
1985 15,676,000 136,381 84,243 ........................................ 52,138
1984 15,358,000 133,615 82,534 ........................................ 51,081
1983 15,040,000 130,848 80,825 ........................................ 50,023
1982 14,722,000 128,081 79,116 ........................................ 48,965
1981 14,404,000 125,315 77,407 ........................................ 47,908
1980 14,086,000 122,548 75,698 ........................................ 46,850
1979 13,768,000 119,782 73,989 ........................................ 45,793
TOTALS ...................... 3,603,162 2,373,952 ................................... 1,229,210

* Average = (980,000 + 1,229,210) / 2 = 1,104,605

Violent deaths per month 1979 through 2002 = 1,104,605 / (24 * 12) = 1,104,605 / 288 = 3,835

===========================================================================

Quote:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
Documented civilian deaths from violence since January 1, 2003 to February 28, 2009, were 91,077 to 99,452.

Monthly table
.....2003.....2004.....2005.....2006....2007.....2008.....2009
Jan.....3.......568.....1035.....1430.....2806.....742.....275
Feb.....2.......604.....1201.....1449.....2536.....1007.....281
Mar.....3976.....957.....786.....1789.....2611.....1538
Apr.....3437.....1256.....1025.....1590.....2422.....1260
May.....545.....619.....1226.....2103.....2734.....759
Jun.....593.....833.....1215.....2426.....2086.....669
Jul.....650.....762.....1444.....3159.....2536.....583
Aug.....790.....823.....2165.....2743.....325.....591
Sep.....553......943.....1330.....2408.....1221.....535
Oct.....493.....947.....1201.....2924.....1185.....527
Nov......478.....1533.....1208.....2969.....1043.....472
Dec.....529.....906.....996.....2662.....903.....521
Year.12,049...10,751...14,832...27,652...24,408...9,204...556

Approximately 90% of these deaths were murders by al-Qaeda and other terrorists trying to end the new Iraq government. The remaining approximate 10% were mistakenly killed by coalition and Iraq government troops.

Violent deaths per month March 20, 2003 thru February 28, 2009 = 99,452 / ((6 x 12) - 20/31) = 99,452 / 71 = 1394

Ratio of average monthly violent Iraqi deaths, pre 2003, and post 2002 = 3835 / 1394 = 2.75

That is, on the average, Saddam murdered 2.75 times as many Iraqis per month as were killed after the US invaded Iraq.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican, Why must you believe that the death toll anywhere in the world is the US's responsibility? There are many countries that are/were worse than Iraq in 2003 when Bush started his war based on WMDs, not the number of Iraqi deaths. It was never Bush's interest to keep a tally on Iraq casualty counts.

Your misinformation and ignorance have become legend, and every post you make only proves the point - that you are clueless.

0 Replies

In the world of media, I've found that it usually is wise to check more than one source before believing any. Two articles this week--one correcting the other--should be a thumbs up for Fox News that is so frequently scorned, maligned, ridiculed, and dismissed by assorted numbnuts (and a few others) on A2K.

I have been avidly reading all the News that is fit to print for weeks now trying to keep abreast of what is actually happening out there. I am convinced that Fox is doing the best job right now of providing a fair and balanced view of all sides, and no, I haven't been able to detect any blatant bias when they do it.

But this is one of those things that it might be wise to be aware of:

Quote:

EDITORIAL: Guns on a plane
Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns
Tuesday, March 17, 2009

After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.

The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/17/guns-on-a-plane-obama-secretly-ends-program-that-l/

The Fox rebuttal:

Quote:

Officials Deny Report That Obama Seeks to End Pilot Gun Program
By Joshua Rhett Miller
FOXNews.com
Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Federal officials are denying a report that the Obama administration is seeking to end a program that allows trained airline pilots to carry guns.

In an editorial published Tuesday in The Washington Times, the newspaper wrote that "President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology."

Sterling Payne, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, denied the report and said the program that oversees a reported 12,000 federal flight deck officers (FFDO) is actually expanding.

"It's inaccurate, this program continues to grow," Payne told FOXNews.com of the editorial. "TSA continues to recruit and put new FFDOs on planes, and we continue to train them and do recurring training."

Payne said TSA officials have recently opened a training center for FFDOs in Atlantic City, N.J., with others planned to open in Texas and other states. She declined, citing security concerns, to say how many federal flight deck officers are authorized by the agency, citing security concerns.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/federal-officials-deny-report-pilot-gun-program-end/

0 Replies

So, it's the right-wing media keeping itself honest, is it? Ain't no "liberal bias" here. It's far-right absence of fact-checking, but then we've seen that repeatedly in all the Weekly Standard stuff that's proven inaccurate. You're aware, aren't you, Fox, that the Washington Post, the source of that EDITORIAL (not news reporting), is, as wikipedia says, known for its conservative stance on political and social issues", and is an offshoot of the right-wing cult, Rev. Moon's Unification Church. Not exactly a respected journalistic source.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

So, it's the right-wing media keeping itself honest, is it? Ain't no "liberal bias" here. It's far-right absence of fact-checking, but then we've seen that repeatedly in all the Weekly Standard stuff that's proven inaccurate. You're aware, aren't you, Fox, that the Washington Post, the source of that EDITORIAL (not news reporting), is, as wikipedia says, known for its conservative stance on political and social issues", and is an offshoot of the right-wing cult, Rev. Moon's Unification Church. Not exactly a respected journalistic source.

No I don't know that. I do know that the Washington Post is not the Washington Times though. Smile

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Thanks for pointing out that Fox piece, Fox. MJ is correct however, the WashTimes are ran by Moon's church.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Very VERY embarrassing. The Washington TIMES, the source of your editorial, is the Moonie paper and the right wing rag. The Washington POST is well-respected, but NOT the source. The TIMES should do some fact-checking, but then the right wing media isn't known for that. And I'm not known for my proof-reading, unfortunatelhy.

1 Reply

Here's another story that you have to scrounge to find much information on, but given the concern expressed with the Obama administration said that the White House would provide 'oversight' of the 2010 census via Raul Emmanuel. This struck a lot of us as unusual opportunity to make mischief should the administration be so inclined.

And this should raise red flags for everybody who wants an honest census count:

Quote:

ACORN to Partner With Government for 2010 Census
Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:07 AM
By: Dave Eberhart Article Font Size

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN) is now a “national partner” with the U.S. Census Bureau, soon to help the White House find 1.4 million workers to canvass for the country’s 2010 census.

If the acronym rings a bell, it’s because the organization has a history of voter fraud charges in the last election cycle, according to a report by FOXNews.com.

ACORN will be joining with more than 250 national partners, including TARGET and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), to assist in the hiring of census workers around the country.

ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson told FOXNews.com, “ACORN as an organization has not been charged with any crime,” adding that concerns that the organization will unfairly influence the census are unfounded.

The U.S. Census Bureau has also gone on the defensive.

“The Census (Bureau) is a nonpartisan, non-political agency and we’re very dedicated to an accurate account,” bureau spokesman Stephen Buckner told FOXNews.com. “We have a lot of quality controls in place to keep any kind of systemic error or fraudulent behavior to affect the counts.”

Buckner said 140,000 census taker jobs must be filled to complete the first phase of the effort. Each applicant, he emphasized, must take a basic skills exam and is also subject to an FBI background check.

But there are many who remain concerned about the organization’s role.

"ACORN has been accused of voter fraud, embezzlement, and more... and yet this is a group that the federal government wants helping with the census?" asks Bobby Eberle of GOPUSA.

“It’s a concern, especially when you look at all the different charges of voter fraud. And it’s not just the lawmakers’ concern. It should be the concern of every citizen in the country,” Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, R-Ga., vice ranking member of the subcommittee for the U.S. Census, told FOXNews.com. “We want an enumeration. We don’t want to have any false numbers.”

ACORN came under assault in 2007 when Washington State filed felony charges against several paid ACORN employees and supervisors for more than 1,700 fraudulent voter registrations. In March 2008, an ACORN worker in Pennsylvania was sentenced for making 29 fraudulent voter registration forms.

Meanwhile, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a member of the House census subcommittee, said, “I feel fairly confident that the penalties for an individual manipulating the count are pretty severe,” noting that the penalties would certainly deter any fraud in the counting by workers. The penalty for any fraudulent activity can be up to five years in jail.

The census count is critical to both politicians and states because it not only determines congressional allocation, but it also provides the raw data by which government spending is allocated on everything from roads to schools.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/acorn_census_partner/2009/03/18/193218.html?s=al&promo_code=7C64-1

Quote:

ACORN to Play Role in 2010 Census
The U.S. Census Bureau is working with several national organizations to help recruit 1.4 million workers to produce the country's 2010 census, including one with a history of voter fraud charges: ACORN.
Cristina Corbin
FOXNews.com
Wednesday, March 18, 2009

The U.S. Census is supposed to be free of politics, but one group with a history of voter fraud, ACORN, is participating in next year's count, raising concerns about the politicization of the decennial survey.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now signed on as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau in February 2009 to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States -- currently believed to be more than 306 million people.

A U.S. Census "sell sheet," an advertisement used to recruit national partners, says partnerships with groups like ACORN "play an important role in making the 2010 Census successful," including by "help[ing] recruit census workers."
More here:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/17/lawmakers-concerned-role-acorn-census/

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Fox,

From your article -

Quote:

ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson told FOXNews.com, “ACORN as an organization has not been charged with any crime,” adding that concerns that the organization will unfairly influence the census are unfounded.

Per your reasoning in the 4th amendment argument the other day, there has been no charges filed against ACORN (let alone a conviction); therefore no proof they committed any crime and no reason to suspect them. Right?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Gee Fox.. You wouldn't want to nitpick, would you?

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Very VERY embarrassing. The Washington TIMES, the source of your editorial, is the Moonie paper and the right wing rag. The Washington POST is well-respected, but NOT the source. The TIMES should do some fact-checking, but then the right wing media isn't known for that. And I'm not known for my proof-reading, unfortunatelhy.

Yes I am aware that the Unification Church is the primary stockholder of the newspaper. I am also aware that the managing and editorial staff of the newspaper are not tied to or accountable to the Unification Church and all come to the Newspaper with quite impressive (and secular) credentials. Unlike the Post which is decidedly left leaning in editorial emphasis and slant, but will never admit that, the Times is up front and honest about their conservative bias which is intentional.

Reference for the Post being liberal: http://www.impactlab.com/2008/10/05/ucla-study-media-bias-is-real/

Which does the better research and journalism is highly debatable. I have not found the Times to be any more inaccurate or subject to error than the Post nor have I found them to be any less fair in their evaluation of persons and/or issues. They did revamp their editorial staff to include a lot more African Americans after Obama was elected.

As for needing to check their facts better here, possibly, but remember that so far the Times has not been refuted by anybody other than the Obama administration. I suspect they will be found to be incorrect on this particular point and if so, if they follow their previous MO, they will acknowledge that.

And I am not assigning my favorite (and usually only) ad hominem term to you just yet, MJ, but as you are relatively new to the thread, here is my definition of it:

Numbnut:
1) S/he who blindly parrots the conventional wisdom or the party line but is unwilling or unable to articulate a logical reason to support that.

2) S/he who is unable to disagree with others without condemning them.

3) The troll, idiot, and/or exercise in futility who shows up only to interrupt the discussion with insulting or really stupid remarks that s/he think make him/her look smart and intelligent or funny.

4) S/he who considers it valid debate to say a) your source sucks and therefore what you say is wrong b) I'm right because I say I am and I am ever so much more logical, intelligent, virtuous, and informed than you are. (But they never seem to be able to rise to the challenge to dispute what you say.)

5) The Kool-ade drinkers who see nothing but virtue in their chosen heroes and ideology and nothing but evil in anybody elses.

Now 'numbnut' is my own word though others are certainly free to use it as they choose. As you can and usually do explain why you hold the opinion that you do, I don't think you quite make the grade for numbnut here. At least not yet. Smile

But be grateful for the greatly outnumbered conservative media sources and blogs out there. Right or wrong, they present a side of the news that the leftwing sources usually sit on until they are forced to deal with them in order to save what is left of their reputations. It is the only way that we are likely to be informed on much that is being done on our behalf.

A free people won't be long free without ability to have such information.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fox,

From your article -

Quote:

ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson told FOXNews.com, “ACORN as an organization has not been charged with any crime,” adding that concerns that the organization will unfairly influence the census are unfounded.

Per your reasoning in the 4th amendment argument the other day, there has been no charges filed against ACORN (let alone a conviction); therefore no proof they committed any crime and no reason to suspect them. Right?

Cycloptichorn

Are you prepared to say that there have never been allegations, accusations, indictments, and/or convictions resulting from ACORN activities? Have you ever seen the Demorats complain that ACORN is throwing out Democratic registrations or blatantly favors one candidate over another or one political party over another? Are you prepared to say that there have been no IRS problems or FBI investigations of ACORN? No fraudulent activity detected? No lawsuits filed?

But even if the organization is plagued with unintended and unwanted rogues out there gathering hundreds of thousands of fraudulent ballots, you think ACORN's participation generates confidence that the 2010 Census will be conducted impartially, competently, and without political influence?

Would you be happy if you found out that a highly partisan Republican group would recruit the census takers?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533169940482893.html

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Fox, does your earlier logic hold across multiple cases or not?

You claimed the lack of a conviction in court was proof positive that there was no violation of 4th amendment rights and that our suspicions were not good enough evidence.

Now, you're claiming that people who haven't been charged - let alone convicted - should be viewed with suspicion. Where's the consistency?

ACORN has not been convicted or even charged with any crime. People who work for ACORN have, but for defrauding ACORN, not for the company itself acting in an illegal manner.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

No, that is not what I said about the 4th Amendment issue. What I said is that no charges were brought. The investigations which were exhaustive revealed no crimes committed. Some practices were deemed inappropriate, but no charges were filed that there was any criminal intent or practice. I did not use the term 'proof positive' and made no claim other than those accusing the President and/or his administration of high crimes cannot support their accusations.

And I have not claimed that people who haven't been charged - let alone convicted - should be viewed with suspicion. I am claiming that people with a track record of activities that HAVE been investigated and activities that have resulted in accusations, charges, indictments, an convictions should not be trusted. Did you read that WSJ piece I linked? Have you googled for ACORN indictments and convictions? The organization itself probably has not been charged with any crime, but some of those working on its behalf certainly have.

Again, if it was a highly partisan rightwing group that was given the responsibility to recruit census workers, would you be happy about that?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, I've contributed my mite to that study.

When you read it in full (in German), you'll be surprised how many of your American conservative ideals are here thought to be a parameter for the neo-Nazi label ...

Oh? Do they have freedom fries with their schnitzel?

McGentrix, I actually agree with you re the concern about rising numbers of teens in Germany who are drawn towards neo-Nazi groups. But Walter is right, much of what is grouped into "neo-Nazi ideology" in Europe would still be part of mainstream conservatism or Republicanism in the United States.

Tom Tancredo's political platform during the Republican primaries, for example, included not only the suggestion that all illegal immigrants should be rounded up and deported, but also that a moratorium on all legal immigration should be put into place, prohibiting legal immigration for a number of years in order to allow those legal immigrants in the country to "assimilate". He was opposed to any kind of guest worker program, wanted to institute English as the only official language of the United States, and said that the "survival of the nation" depended on immigration reform. In regard to Islam, he described the religion as a "a civilization bent on destroying ours", and he suggested that, in return for any kind of future terrorist attack on the United States, America should destroy Muslim holy cities like Mecca...

Similar rhetoric exists in German politics, of course, but you won't find it as a political platform within mainstream political parties. Something comparable to Tancredo's platform is limited to "neo-Nazi" parties. For example, the extremist Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands posted these in 2004:

http://denktag2006.denktag.de/typo3temp/pics/8faed72ee6.jpg

Their political program describes assimilation of legal immigrants as "highly problematical", and called for measures to facilitate their voluntary return to their original countries. They campaigned on a moratorium for legal immigration, on deportation of asylum seekers and against teaching Turkish in German schools, saying that "Germany must become German once again."

So, in summary, a lot of what Americans view as legitimate rightwing policies or at least acceptable, if somewhat extreme, rightwing positions is labelled "neo-Nazi" ideology in Germany. Sure, many Americans see Tancredo or the minutemen as nutjobs, but even they don't immediately make the leap to call them neo-Nazis.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

If I am not mistaken German is the only "legal" language of Germany, and highly restricted immigration has been a characteristic of the German government for many decades and continues today. These are not the positions of some "Republican-like" lunatic fringe, but rather long established policies of the state.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

If I am not mistaken German is the only "legal" language of Germany, and highly restricted immigration has been a characteristic of the German government for many decades and continues today. These are not the positions of some "Republican-like" lunatic fringe, but rather long established policies of the state.

I think you probably meant to direct this to OE instead of me.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

If I am not mistaken German is the only "legal" language of Germany, and highly restricted immigration has been a characteristic of the German government for many decades and continues today.

We don't have a "legal" (or official or national) language, 'officially' (= noted in the Basic Law [constitution]).

German certainly is the official language in Germany - but it's nowhere written down in our constitution (Basic Law).
It's the 'legal' language as defined in Section 184 of the German Judicature Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz - GVG).
However, in this section, especially Sorbian is quoted as 'legal' language in the Sorbian districts, too. (Section 185 says that all the court procedure can be done in a foreign language with an interpretor - the protocols can be written in this foreign language as well.)

Though Sorbian is the only language mentioned there, it actually is High Sorbian and Low Sorbian.
Both languages are recognised by law as minority languages and have (in the districts where spoken) the same legal importance as German.
But it's not only the two Sorbian langaes but Danish, Northern Frisian, Sater Frisian and the Romany language which have the same status as German: being an "official" language.

You are certainly correct about the "highly restricted immigration" (leaving out immigration from the [most] EU countries).
This is a conservative (CDU) position, which has been fought be the liberal party as from the left since decades.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know