Baghdad car bombs leave 60 dead

[Maximus Zeebra]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Baghdad car bombs leave 60 dead

I see these headlines pretty often now and have started to conclude that average deaths in Iraq is at least 100 people.

That makes a realistic death toll of 36500 deaths every year of the conflict or 180.000 over five years. Thats is close to estimates of the Iraqies while far above the deathcount American rate and far below lancet.
I would not be surprised if up to 400.000 people have died as a consequence of the Iraq war and an additional 1.5 million wounded, of which 1/3rd suffered heavy injury and parts of those suffered unrecoverable injuries.
This would mean that 1 million, or 1 out of 40 Iraqies have been mutilated or died because of the Iraq war.
However, this is just my guess, read more about it here.

BBC NEWS | In Depth

 

[RightinNYC]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Baghdad car bombs leave 60 dead

I see these headlines pretty often now and have started to conclude that average deaths in Iraq is at least 100 people.

That makes a realistic death toll of 36500 deaths every year of the conflict or 180.000 over five years. Thats is close to estimates of the Iraqies while far above the deathcount American rate and far below lancet.
I would not be surprised if up to 400.000 people have died as a consequence of the Iraq war and an additional 1.5 million wounded, of which 1/3rd suffered heavy injury and parts of those suffered unrecoverable injuries.
This would mean that 1 million, or 1 out of 40 Iraqies have been mutilated or died because of the Iraq war.
However, this is just my guess, read more about it here.

BBC NEWS | In Depth

hahahahahahahaha

your methodology leaves something to be desired.:doh

 

[CurrentAffairs]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Baghdad car bombs leave 60 dead

I see these headlines pretty often now and have started to conclude that average deaths in Iraq is at least 100 people.

That makes a realistic death toll of 36500 deaths every year of the conflict or 180.000 over five years. Thats is close to estimates of the Iraqies while far above the deathcount American rate and far below lancet.
I would not be surprised if up to 400.000 people have died as a consequence of the Iraq war and an additional 1.5 million wounded, of which 1/3rd suffered heavy injury and parts of those suffered unrecoverable injuries.
This would mean that 1 million, or 1 out of 40 Iraqies have been mutilated or died because of the Iraq war.
However, this is just my guess, read more about it here.

BBC NEWS | In Depth

With numbers like that, you have plenty to celebrate, huh?

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

With numbers like that, you have plenty to celebrate, huh?

It seems the US have plenty to celebrate..

For 3000 dead in WTC, they mix up the reasons and go off killing 200.000 people in Iraq, while spending money that could have taken care of poverty for decades. It could have fed all the poor people in the world for perhaps 100 years.

The price given for curing hunger and malnutrition around the world every year is 19 billion $..
• $12 billion: Provides education for every kid on earth.
• $15 billion: Provides access to water and sanitation.
• $23 billion: Reverses the spread of AIDS and Malaria.

COST OF ENDING POVERTY

This makes 69 billion $ a year, which makes me think Americans are complete morons or have a different motive for going to Iraq.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

It seems the US have plenty to celebrate..

For 3000 dead in WTC, they mix up the reasons and go off killing 200.000 people in Iraq, while spending money that could have taken care of poverty for decades. It could have fed all the poor people in the world for perhaps 100 years.

The price given for curing hunger and malnutrition around the world every year is 19 billion $..
• $12 billion: Provides education for every kid on earth.
• $15 billion: Provides access to water and sanitation.
• $23 billion: Reverses the spread of AIDS and Malaria.

This makes 69 billion $ a year, which makes me think Americans are complete morons or have a different motive for going to Iraq.

I can't wait to read your links on all this information.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

hahahahahahahaha

your methodology leaves something to be desired.:doh

Its interesting to read this in depth report about death tolls in Iraq.
BBC NEWS | In Depth

Methology is very different. Iraq body count estimate 50K deaths, which is the lowest one.
Iraqi health ministry estimates between 100-200k deaths.
While Lancet an organization of American scientists estimate it could be as much as 700.000 dead as a consequence of the US Iraq war.

Me personally would estimate by all I have read that the death toll is between 200.000-400.000, this is not unrealistic.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

I can't wait to read your links on all this information.

Sorry, forgot to include it..

Here it is...

COST OF ENDING POVERTY

 

[RightinNYC]

It seems the US have plenty to celebrate..

For 3000 dead in WTC, they mix up the reasons and go off killing 200.000 people in Iraq, while spending money that could have taken care of poverty for decades. It could have fed all the poor people in the world for perhaps 100 years.

The price given for curing hunger and malnutrition around the world every year is 19 billion $..
• $12 billion: Provides education for every kid on earth.
• $15 billion: Provides access to water and sanitation.
• $23 billion: Reverses the spread of AIDS and Malaria.

COST OF ENDING POVERTY

This makes 69 billion $ a year, which makes me think Americans are complete morons or have a different motive for going to Iraq.

This is great, even your own sources lie.

The site you link to claims to get its information from two places.

One is "costofwar.com" which doesn't explain how it arrives at the figures it claims. Great source there.:roll:

The other is a World Bank Working paper that discusses the costs of implementing the Millenium Priorities.

To address your claims:

The price given for curing hunger and malnutrition around the world every year is 19 billion $..

Nowhere in any of your sources is a cite offered for this claim. The only evidence offered for it is the "Borgen Project" which doesn't explain how they arrived at this figure.

• $12 billion: Provides education for every kid on earth.

Wrong. The World Bank Paper claims it will cost between $10 and $30 billion ANNUALLY in order to meet this goal by 2015. That means between $110 and $330 Billion, not $12 billion.

• $15 billion: Provides access to water and sanitation.

Wrong again, according to the World Bank paper, it will cost $30 billion ANNUALLY in order to meet complete universal coverage by 2015, which totals $330 billion, not $15 billion.

• $23 billion: Reverses the spread of AIDS and Malaria.

Wrong again. Nothing in the World Bank Paper even claims this figure. Nowhere in your cited source is this even addressed.

 

[RightinNYC]

Its interesting to read this in depth report about death tolls in Iraq.
BBC NEWS | In Depth

Methology is very different. Iraq body count estimate 50K deaths, which is the lowest one.
Iraqi health ministry estimates between 100-200k deaths.
While Lancet an organization of American scientists estimate it could be as much as 700.000 dead as a consequence of the US Iraq war.

Me personally would estimate by all I have read that the death toll is between 200.000-400.000, this is not unrealistic.

Hahahahaha, even the reporting of Lancet is biased. Let's take a look at this graph:

What do we see here? For both the Iraqi ministry figures and the Body count project, the graph lists their minimum and maximum figures.

Yet for some reason, it doesn't do that for Lancet. It only lists the center figure. Why is that? Could it possibly be because if they included the Lancet Study's gigantic margin of error (Somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636), it would highlight the fact that the study is a crock?

But no, honestly, go on and tell me how the BBC is unbiased. Right after you explain why they would deliberately leave the easily accessible minimum/maximum figure off the graph, but only for that survey.

 

[Devils.High]

How about we just take a permenent marker and scribble the middle east out, tell them no one cares about them. If we hear from them again we bomb them. That would cheapen the cost to cure everyone right?

And if you educate them they will only make the soilders lives harder because they will be fighting smarter people.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

This is great, even your own sources lie.

The site you link to claims to get its information from two places.

One is "costofwar.com" which doesn't explain how it arrives at the figures it claims. Great source there.:roll:

The other is a World Bank Working paper that discusses the costs of implementing the Millenium Priorities.

To address your claims:



Nowhere in any of your sources is a cite offered for this claim. The only evidence offered for it is the "Borgen Project" which doesn't explain how they arrived at this figure.



Wrong. The World Bank Paper claims it will cost between $10 and $30 billion ANNUALLY in order to meet this goal by 2015. That means between $110 and $330 Billion, not $12 billion.



Wrong again, according to the World Bank paper, it will cost $30 billion ANNUALLY in order to meet complete universal coverage by 2015, which totals $330 billion, not $15 billion.




Wrong again. Nothing in the World Bank Paper even claims this figure. Nowhere in your cited source is this even addressed.

I have seen figures well below 50 billion a year for stopping hunger and malnutrition.. Never seen any above 40 billion, this is annual cost.
Compared to war, feeding world’s hungry has modest price tag

This source for example says halfing hunger and malnutrition is 24 billion a year, which means that stopping hunger could be as "cheap" as 50 billion a year. Which is 1/10th of American military budgets for example.

The Borgen project i agree have low estimates.. I would say from all the stats I have seen that a realistic tag of ending hunger is 50 billion a year.. Thats not much compared to 400 billion wasted in unnecessary war.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

This is great, even your own sources lie.

The site you link to claims to get its information from two places.

One is "costofwar.com" which doesn't explain how it arrives at the figures it claims. Great source there.:roll:

The other is a World Bank Working paper that discusses the costs of implementing the Millenium Priorities.

To address your claims:



Nowhere in any of your sources is a cite offered for this claim. The only evidence offered for it is the "Borgen Project" which doesn't explain how they arrived at this figure.



Wrong. The World Bank Paper claims it will cost between $10 and $30 billion ANNUALLY in order to meet this goal by 2015. That means between $110 and $330 Billion, not $12 billion.



Wrong again, according to the World Bank paper, it will cost $30 billion ANNUALLY in order to meet complete universal coverage by 2015, which totals $330 billion, not $15 billion.




Wrong again. Nothing in the World Bank Paper even claims this figure. Nowhere in your cited source is this even addressed.

So, according to your number 60 billion a year will provide everyone on earth with water and get every kid education.. Thats much more prevantative for terrorism for example than going to a fake war..

Cheaper is it also.

 

[RightinNYC]

I have seen figures well below 50 billion a year for stopping hunger and malnutrition.. Never seen any above 40 billion, this is annual cost.
Compared to war, feeding world’s hungry has modest price tag

This source for example says halfing hunger and malnutrition is 24 billion a year, which means that stopping hunger could be as "cheap" as 50 billion a year. Which is 1/10th of American military budgets for example.

The Borgen project i agree have low estimates.. I would say from all the stats I have seen that a realistic tag of ending hunger is 50 billion a year.. Thats not much compared to 400 billion wasted in unnecessary war.

So, according to your number 60 billion a year will provide everyone on earth with water and get every kid education.. Thats much more prevantative for terrorism for example than going to a fake war..

No, according to your own source, it would cost somewhere between $440 billion and $660 billion to do those two things by 2015.

And why are you criticizing the US? Come on, as you and several other Europhiles have repeatedly pointed out, the EU just surpassed the US in terms of GDP. So why doesn't the EU step up and put that $$$ on the table to do that? If we can afford to "waste" $2 trillion on war, then you guys should surely be able to "waste" $500 billion on providing clean water and universal education, what with your superior economy and all.

Like your signature says...(aside from the fact that you spelled millennium wrong)

That is 14.1238($) trillion reasons.
America of the past, Europe is the new millenium.

So c'mon. Let's see it.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

No, according to your own source, it would cost somewhere between $440 billion and $660 billion to do those two things by 2015.

And why are you criticizing the US? Come on, as you and several other Europhiles have repeatedly pointed out, the EU just surpassed the US in terms of GDP. So why doesn't the EU step up and put that $$$ on the table to do that? If we can afford to "waste" $2 trillion on war, then you guys should surely be able to "waste" $500 billion on providing clean water and universal education, what with your superior economy and all.

Like your signature says...(aside from the fact that you spelled millennium wrong)


So c'mon. Let's see it.

Nothing would be better, but I wish everyone would contribute.. War contributes nothing as long as the root of horror is not fought. I would be perfectly fine with spreading democracy and fighting injustice as long as the fight was not so hippocrate that we dont care about the poor and suffering anymore.

I agree, the EU should do more, but so should the US. The war on terrorism and the money spent on it make world contribution towards helping the poor seem like a joke.

 

[RightinNYC]

Nothing would be better, but I wish everyone would contribute.. War contributes nothing as long as the root of horror is not fought. I would be perfectly fine with spreading democracy and fighting injustice as long as the fight was not so hippocrate that we dont care about the poor and suffering anymore.

I agree, the EU should do more, but so should the US. The war on terrorism and the money spent on it make world contribution towards helping the poor seem like a joke.

As I said on another thread, fine. You go harass the EU, and we'll bother with the US. No need for you to butt in our affairs until you get your own house in line.

 

[Maximus Zeebra]

As I said on another thread, fine. You go harass the EU, and we'll bother with the US. No need for you to butt in our affairs until you get your own house in line.

I will do that, but you guys are not getting your house in order either, its currently on fire, burning down very slowly, you and yours need to fix that. My house is being built quickly, and it seems it could become one or even the nicest house in the world.