THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Top Iraqi clergyman says conditions grim for Christian minority in Iraq
BY DAVE GOLDINER
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Friday, November 30th 2007, 4:00 AM

A top clergyman in Iraq says things have never been so grim for the embattled Christian minority - and they're getting even worse as Christmas approaches.

The Rev. Canon Andrew White tells CBS News' "60 Minutes" the once-thriving community has been decimated by kidnappings and killings - and things were much better under the rule of Saddam Hussein.

"There's no comparison between Iraq now and [under Saddam]," says White, an Anglican cleric known as the vicar of Baghdad. "Things are the most difficult they have ever been for Christians - probably ever in history."

Terrorized by extremists, 90% of Iraqi Christians have either been killed or fled into exile, including countless church leaders.

"They are mainly killed. Some are kidnapped," White said. "Here in this church, all of my leadership were originally taken and killed."

Once a million-strong minority, Iraqi Christians are suffering unprecedented attacks from powerful fundamentalist Islamic militias. They are also targeted for their perceived links to the Saddam dictatorship and the American occupation.

Now, services are often held in secret and clergymen are forced to bury empty coffins after victims disappear without a trace. "I regularly do funerals here, but it's not easy to get the bodies," White said.

[email protected]

0 Replies

Daily Average Violent Deaths in Iraq--PRE and POST January 1, 2003:

PRE = 1/1/1979 - 12/31/2002 = 1,229,210/ 8,766 days = 140 per day;

POST = 1/1/2003 - 11/10/2007 = 84,502/1,775 days = .. 48 per day;

PRE / POST = 140/48 = 2.95.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Our discussion re: the Lancet study really only confirmed the fact that you are not a statistician, and are more interested in looking for 'gotchas' in order to try and attack a situation, then in actually performing study and research pertaining to said situation. There were no 'obvious flaws,' which somehow only were found by you, and the rest of those who chose to attack the lancet study - and those who chose to publish it - were somehow not able to do so. It is nothing more then hubris combined with an amateurish knowledge of statistics which leads you to make the claims you do, and that's a dangerous combination.
...
Cycloptichorn

(1) Lancet Study alleged in their page 4:"We estimate as a result of the coalition invasion 3/18/2003 about 655,000 (654,965) Iraqis have died above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation."

(2) Lancet Study alleged in their graph, page 6, Figure 4, for the period March 2003 thru June 2006, about 132,000 violent Iraqi deaths occurred.

(3)Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Years 2004 thru 2007 alleged that for the years 2003 thru 2006, ALL Iraqi deaths were:
2003= 24,683,000 x 5.8/1000 = 143,162
2004= 25,375,000 x 5.7/1000 = 144,638
2005= 27,818,000 x 5.5/1000 = 152,999
2006= 28,513,000 x 5.6/1000 = 159,673
Total = 600,472

Concluding Lancet's allegation (1) is valid is IRRATIONAL.
Concluding Lancet's allegation (2) is RATIONAL.
Concluding Encyclopedia Britannica's allegations (3) are valid plus or minus 9% (546,430 to 654,515) is RATIONAL.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Our discussion re: the Lancet study really only confirmed the fact that you are not a statistician, and are more interested in looking for 'gotchas' in order to try and attack a situation, then in actually performing study and research pertaining to said situation. There were no 'obvious flaws,' which somehow only were found by you, and the rest of those who chose to attack the lancet study - and those who chose to publish it - were somehow not able to do so. It is nothing more then hubris combined with an amateurish knowledge of statistics which leads you to make the claims you do, and that's a dangerous combination.
...
Cycloptichorn

(1) Lancet Study alleged in their page 4:"We estimate as a result of the coalition invasion 3/18/2003 about 655,000 (654,965) Iraqis have died above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation."

(2) Lancet Study alleged in their graph, page 6, Figure 4, for the period March 2003 thru June 2006, about 132,000 violent Iraqi deaths occurred.

(3)Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Years 2004 thru 2007 alleged that for the years 2003 thru 2006, ALL Iraqi deaths were:
2003= 24,683,000 x 5.8/1000 = 143,162
2004= 25,375,000 x 5.7/1000 = 144,638
2005= 27,818,000 x 5.5/1000 = 152,999
2006= 28,513,000 x 5.6/1000 = 159,673
Total = 600,472

Concluding Lancet's allegation (1) is valid is IRRATIONAL.
Concluding Lancet's allegation (2) is RATIONAL.
Concluding Encyclopedia Britannica's allegations (3) are valid plus or minus 9% (546,430 to 654,515) is RATIONAL.

As I said - nothing but 'gotchas' and bad understanding of statistics. I am forced to conclude that you don't understand the Lancet study at all.

Your slavish belief that Encyclopedia Britannica is the authoritative source for death statistics in Iraq is indicative of your willingness to Appeal to Authority when you don't have a good logical argument.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bush must be proud!

0 Replies

Cyclo,
What makes you so positive that the Lancet study is the " authoritative source for death statistics in Iraq"?

Will you not even concede that the Lancet study may also be wrong?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Cyclo,
What makes you so positive that the Lancet study is the " authoritative source for death statistics in Iraq"?

Will you not even concede that the Lancet study may also be wrong?

Of course I will concede that they may be wrong. But their methodology was statistically correct, so there's a great deal of evidence that their conclusion - which was presented as a window of possibility, btw, not necessarily the 600k number which falls in the middle - is a valid one.

I have seen no other studies which have presented any actual evidence for their mortality figures at all, except for the Iraqi body count, which is low - much lower then the actual amount, as they readily admit.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Still no way out of Iraq

Published: November 30, 2007

There has been so much horrible news out of Iraq for so long that it is natural to want to celebrate better news. Sending another 30,000 American troops into Iraq has made life better: attacks are down, as are the number of American and Iraqi casualties. Some refugees are even venturing home. The news has cheered Americans and dampened Democrats' enthusiasm for keeping up the pressure on Iraq policy.

Unfortunately, it is just as important to look at what has not happened since President George W. Bush announced his surge: Iraq's leaders are no closer to making the political deals that are the only hope for building a self-sustaining peace.

Without a serious effort at national conciliation, American troops are just holding down the lid on a pressure cooker. Iraq's rival militias, the insurgents, the bitter sectarian resentments and the meddling neighbors haven't gone anywhere. Consider this all too familiar horror: on Thursday, police said they pulled six bodies from the Tigris River about 25 miles south of Baghdad. They were handcuffed and showed signs of having been tortured. And five, including a child, had been beheaded.

Perhaps 160,000 American troops could hold down the overall casualty numbers indefinitely, but they cannot wipe away that sort of hatred. That's the job of Iraq's leaders. Either way, the American military doesn't have enough troops for such an occupation without end, and the American Treasury can't keep spending $10 billion a month to maintain it.

Bush's escalation was sold as a way to buy Iraqi politicians breathing room to finally address the problems driving the sectarian violence: by agreeing on an equitable division of oil wealth, rules for provincial elections and ways to bring more Sunnis and former Baath Party members into the Shiite-dominated government.

Instead, Iraq's politicians - and their American backers - have squandered the time and the best efforts of American troops. Bush's generals are so frustrated that they've begun to complain publicly about the fecklessness of Iraq's leaders. The ever-feckless White House, rather than looking for ways to compel Iraq's leaders to perform, is lessening the pressure.
The New York Times reported this week that the Bush administration has scaled back its goals for political progress. Its newest low bar: Iraq's dysfunctional government manages to pass a budget and approves legislation to allow former Baath Party members to rejoin the government. (That was before the Iraqi Parliament dissolved into a shouting match over the Baath reconciliation bill and decided to put it off again.)

At least part of the recent good news can be traced to a new collaboration between American troops and Sunni fighters that last year were trying to kill Americans in wholesale numbers. The question is how long that collaboration will last if the Shiite-dominated government continues to deny the Sunnis access to basic government services and jobs.

There are also suggestions that Iran may be exercising more restraint. Fewer roadside bombs are apparently making their way across the border and Tehran's allies in the Mahdi Army are lying low. But Bush and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, still have not begun a serious dialogue with Iran and all of Iraq's neighbors about what they're willing to do to help contain Iraq's chaos.

Bush still sees no need for a strategy to get all 160,000 troops in Iraq safely home. And as long as they know that this is the case, that Bush is willing to go on paying the bills - and protecting the Green Zone - Iraqi politicians will see no reason to compromise.

Americans need to ask themselves the questions Bush is refusing to answer: Is this country signing on to keep the peace in Iraq indefinitely? If so, how many American and Iraqi deaths a month are an acceptable price? If not, what's the plan for getting out?

0 Replies

Actually what's the price of staying forever?

0 Replies

The Iraqi government is still broken; humpty dumpty.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
Our discussion re: the Lancet study really only confirmed the fact that you are not a statistician, and are more interested in looking for 'gotchas' in order to try and attack a situation, then in actually performing study and research pertaining to said situation. There were no 'obvious flaws,' which somehow only were found by you, and the rest of those who chose to attack the lancet study - and those who chose to publish it - were somehow not able to do so. It is nothing more then hubris combined with an amateurish knowledge of statistics which leads you to make the claims you do, and that's a dangerous combination.
...
Cycloptichorn

(1) Lancet Study alleged in their page 7*:"We estimate as a result of the coalition invasion 3/18/2003 about 655,000 (654,965) Iraqis have died above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict situation."

(2) Lancet Study alleged in their graph, page 7* Figure 4, for the period March 2003 thru June 2006, about 114,000* violent Iraqi deaths occurred.

(3)Encyclopedia Britannica Books of the Years 2004 thru 2007 alleged that for the years 2003 thru 2006, ALL Iraqi deaths were:
2003= 24,683,000 x 5.8/1000 = 143,162
2004= 25,375,000 x 5.7/1000 = 144,638
2005= 27,818,000 x 5.5/1000 = 152,999
2006= 28,513,000 x 5.6/1000 = 159,673
Total = 600,472

Concluding Lancet's allegation (1) is valid is IRRATIONAL.
Concluding Lancet's allegation (2) is RATIONAL.
Concluding Encyclopedia Britannica's allegations (3) are valid plus or minus 9% (546,430 to 654,515) is RATIONAL.

Note: * = corrections made 12/01/2007

As I said - nothing but 'gotchas' and bad understanding of statistics. I am forced to conclude that you don't understand the Lancet study at all.

Your slavish belief that Encyclopedia Britannica is the authoritative source for death statistics in Iraq is indicative of your willingness to Appeal to Authority when you don't have a good logical argument.

Cycloptichorn

This last post of yours is a childish avoidance of reality.

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
Lancet Article's Title = "Mortality Rates after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cross sectional cluster sample survey."

From the article's page 7, Figure 4: "Trends in number of deaths reported by Iraq Body Count, MultiNational Corps-Iraq and the mortality rates found by this study."
From the article's page 7, next to last paragraph: "We estimate that almost 655,000 people--2.5% of the population in the study area--have died in Iraq."

From page 7, Figure 4, Violent Deaths versus Time Periods:
............. Mar2003-Apr2004 .. May2004-May2005 .. Jun2005-Jun2006 .. Totals
Lancet........... 23,000 .................. 35,000 ................... 56,000 .............. 114,000
Lancet'sIBC .. 15,000 .................. 26,000 ................... 41,000 ................ 72,000
ActualIBC ...... 14,000 .................. 15,000 ................... 17,000 ................ 46,000

From the article's page 6, Figure 3: "Death rates due to violent causes per Governorate"
...
"Deaths from violent causes = 601,027"

0 Replies

from the BBC
----------------
while there is currently a downward trend in sectarian violence in iraq , the U.S. deputy secretary of state , mr . negroponte , is concerned that if the iraqi government should fail to take advantage of this somewhat more quiet period , there is a danger of sliding back to more violence .
The US deputy secretary of state has said Iraq's leaders must take advantage of the improved security situation to make progress towards reconciliation.
it remains to be seen if the iraqi government has much influence over what's going on around them .
TIME WILL TELL !
hbg

Quote:

US calls for Iraqi reconciliation

The US deputy secretary of state has said Iraq's leaders must take advantage of the improved security situation to make progress towards reconciliation.
John Negroponte warned that if they failed, Iraq risked "falling back to the more violent patterns of the past".

Mr Negroponte was speaking in Baghdad at the end of a six-day visit to Iraq.

Earlier, Sunni Arab MPs boycotted parliament for a second day in protest at what they said was the house arrest of leading politician Adnan al-Dulaimi.

Mr Dulaimi, a prominent member of the country's main Sunni Arab bloc, was later moved from his house in Baghdad to a hotel in the capital's heavily-fortified Green Zone, officials said.

The Iraqi government said it had decided to move Mr Dulaimi in order to provide him with "better security" after one of his guards was found with the keys to a car containing a bomb on Friday.

'Consolidate gains'

Mr Negroponte took advantage of a news conference in Baghdad to point out that the US troop surge had delivered "significant results" since it started in February.

Data released by the Iraqi interior, defence and health ministries on Saturday showed that 606 Iraqi civilians and security personnel were killed in bombings and shootings in November, continuing the downward trend of recent months.

The figure, if confirmed, would be the lowest since February 2006, when an attack on the revered Shia shrine in Samarra set off a wave of sectarian violence in which thousands died.

Mr Negroponte said the improved security situation in Iraq should buy the government time to secure a settlement between the country's rival political and sectarian groups.

"Now progress on political reconciliation, including key national legislation as well as economic advances, is needed to consolidate the gains," he said.

"If progress is not made on these fronts we risk falling back toward the more violent habits of the past."

However, the BBC's Crispin Thorold in Baghdad says that reconciliation seems a distant prospect.

A number of key issues are still unresolved, our correspondent says, including the re-integration of former members of the Baath party into the government, the allocation of oil revenues and the status of the Kirkuk region.

'House arrest'

Sunday also saw Sunni Arab members of the Iraqi Accord Front boycotting parliament for a second day in a row over claims that Mr Dulaimi was under house arrest.

Mr Dulaimi has accused the Iraqi government of trying to silence him by deploying soldiers around his house for three days and stopping anyone from visiting him.

Later, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Mr Dulaimi had been taken to a hotel in the Green Zone in central Baghdad for his own safety.

"This move by the Iraqi government aims at protecting Mr Dulaimi and making sure he is safe because all his bodyguards were arrested," he said.

Mr Dabbagh told the AFP news agency that seven of the Sunni politician's bodyguards had tested positive for handling explosives after being detained in a joint Iraqi-US operation on Friday.

One of the bodyguards was also found with the keys to a car containing a bomb.

Mr al-Dulaimi has denied any connection with the bomb, which he says could have been part of an attempt to kill him.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7123872.stm

Published: 2007/12/02 16:15:28 GMT

source :
RECONCILIATION ?

0 Replies

History tells us it's a foregone conclusion that the Iraqi government is broken into too many pieces for it to repair all the damage done.

0 Replies

c.i. :
remember what alexander pope said :

Quote:

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

-Alexander Pope,
An Essay on Man, Epistle I, 1733

ex·pa·ti·ate (ĭk-spā'shē-āt')
intr.v., -at·ed, -at·ing, -ates.
To speak or write at length: expatiated on the subject until everyone was bored.
:wink:

0 Replies

It's only a hunch, but I'm a realist before an optimist on Iraq.

0 Replies

c.i. :
unfortunately , at our age we've heard too many slogans , promises and what have you !
i'm not even a realist any more but a cynic !
hbg

Quote:

The word derives from the Greek word for Dog, "Κύνος", and the Cynics would declare that "... what separates us from the other dogs is that we bite to teach lessons."

i like that description , unfortunately my bark is worse than my bite :wink:

0 Replies

Some people think pessimism and realism are equivalent. They are not equivalent.

pessimism = an inclination to emphasize adverse aspects, conditions and possibilities or to expect the worst possible outcome.

realism = concern for fact and reality and rejection of the impractical and visionary.

optimism = an inclination to put the most favorable construction upon actions and events or to anticipate the best possible outcome.

cynic = a fault finding captious critic.

captious = marked by an often ill-natured inclination to stress faults and raise objections.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Quote:

Some people think pessimism and realism are equivalent. They are not equivalent.

i'm learning something new every day :wink:
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

Quote:
Some people think pessimism and realism are equivalent. They are not equivalent.

i'm learning something new every day :wink:
hbg

Smiling and winking doesn't hurt. It only hurts when you laugh. :wink: Smile

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know