blog roll
|
Currently Old Issues:
10 worst stacks of paper, 2004...,
2005-01-27 11:06:47
| Main |
cnn...,
2005-01-28 12:10:59
Things that make you go hmm:
the only beef I would have is that the Lancet study did not differentiate between military and civillian deaths, but gave a trend for additional deaths over the previous year's "normal" pre-invasion total: that is, shit is a whole lot worse now with Saddam gone and the Coallition of Liberty occupying his chintzy palaces with all the Boris Vallajero posters.
Numerous basketcases - e.g. what members of the conservative and liberal punditocracy that bothered to address the study - devoted themselves to undermining the Lancet study but generally did and continue to justify the war with the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam - figures estimated by similar, probably far shakier extrapolations - have demonstrated the well worn imperialist's double-standard of worthy and unworthy victims: for we are forthright and humanitarian in our convictions, spreading liberty abroad, marred only by the imperfection of believing in freedom too much - such tolls simply aren't possible as the result of our actions, therefor.
update: There's a long thread by d-squared on this, and the old round-up of DEVASTATING critiques, should confusion persist. [via]
:: posted by buermann @ 2005-01-28 11:54:55 CST |
link
|
|