What are the Long-Term Effects of US Occupation in Iraq?

  • News
  • Thread starter amp
  • Start date
  • Tags
    article
I've got to get ready for work now but if you're still interested later I'll try to come up with some. You could look at average daily deaths, or look at the number of deaths as a fraction of the population per year, then use the population growth rate to see how long it would take to kill off the population. You could also use the average life expectancy to get some idea of how many years of life are being lost per person, etc. I'll try to come back to this later, but right now I've got to get dressed and go to work. There are lots that you could use... I've got to get ready for work now but if you're still interested later I'll try to come

After reading the article whats your opinion.


  • Total voters
    5
  • #1
amp
People Resist Conquest and Occupation
The Empire in Denial and the Denial of Empire
By SAUL LANDAU

here : http://www.counterpunch.org/landau04272004.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The people who are resisting the liberation of Iraq are gradually being eliminated. We will prevail in the end.
 
  • #3
Well in light of the news being reported by other than US media, I wonder who will be the majority of the population.

1. American

2. Iraq native

3. US mercenary

4. Non-Iraq Arab
 
  • #4
the "liberation of iraq"...)=($"#!(!...lemme clear out of the politics and world affairs forum, else i'll probably be kicked out.
 
  • #5
hughes johnson said:
The people who are resisting the liberation of Iraq are gradually being eliminated. We will prevail in the end.
So, you suggest the "elimination" of half the population, give or take? Wow, that's freedom, alright, after you murder anyone who disagrees.
 
  • #6
There doesn't seem to be a general consistent perspective on the situation coming from the Administration- Cheney says one thing, GWB says another, and they change their stories like clockwork. "Freedom" & "Democracy" are just words (to them) used to coerce people like us into believing that it's OK to go git the Bad guys, even when that means murdering thousands of civilians, and when the real purpose is to loot their oil, loot the treasury and replace the Republic here at home with Tyranny.
The ironic thing is that the army in Iraq is not allowed to hoist the flag; war was never declared; victory was just propaganda. The fact is that liberation is over, occupation is on for a long time, and it's going to continue to be Israeli style prison camp. It's just reprehensible that the House will not start impeachment hearings.
 
  • #7
Zero said:
So, you suggest the "elimination" of half the population, give or take? Wow, that's freedom, alright, after you murder anyone who disagrees.

so 50% are resisting the liberation of Iraq?? please show me this.
 
  • #8
Zero said:
So, you suggest the "elimination" of half the population, give or take? Wow, that's freedom, alright, after you murder anyone who disagrees.

What are you talking about? Where did all this come from? Are you on crack?
 
  • #9
What a crock. Why don't you people stop listening the the Iranian propogandist, pro-baathist minority and the well greased palms of their mouth pieces?


The majority population will be the same as it has been for ages, the question should be whether the minority population will once again be allowed to oppress and terrorize that majority.
 
  • #10
No Kat, Zero has a point. I joked in my post with those options - 1,2,3,4 - but the way things are going in Iraq it appears from the outside as though 50% or more of the population will become casualties.
 
  • #11
amp said:
No Kat, Zero has a point. I joked in my post with those options - 1,2,3,4 - but the way things are going in Iraq it appears from the outside as though 50% or more of the population will become casualties.


Oh really, based on what facts? from which source? and, please be sure that those facts and figures include nationality and affiliation. Be sure it's not based on Sadr the Iranian's or his compatriots figures or I for one will call "foul!"
 
  • #12
Neither Kat, let me ask for your help. How many civilians have died as a result of the US offensive, a conservative estimate will do. Find the (rough) average per month. At that rate per month, about how long will there be natives born in Iraq living there?
 
  • #13
amp said:
Neither Kat, let me ask for your help. How many civilians have died as a result of the US offensive, a conservative estimate will do. Find the (rough) average per month. At that rate per month, about how long will there be natives born in Iraq living there?

Simple math here. At current rates there will be plenty of Iraqis for all of us to enjoy for millions of years.

The last poll I heard said 96% of Iraqis were glad that we overthrew Saddam,
glad that we were staying to help with the transition, and would be glad when we went home. I guess your average Iraqi is a lot more level headed than your average democrat.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Wow, you must get your stats from Bushco.com,LOL, Kat? Anyways, I think all the Iraq people save a few wh prospered under Saddam are glad he is out. The other two, well they certainly will be glad to see the US leave but it appears that a rather large number are not so glad we're staying and they recognize that the transition effort is chaotic.
 
  • #15
Source - http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Lets see, 8000 dead divided by 12 months is about 667 killed per month from a population of about 17,000,000 gives you about 25,500 months. So they have some 2,123 years before they are all killed. I guess your right Hughes.
 
  • #16
amp said:
Neither Kat, let me ask for your help. How many civilians have died as a result of the US offensive, a conservative estimate will do. Find the (rough) average per month. At that rate per month, about how long will there be natives born in Iraq living there?

Well over 2000 years. And that's if you include civilian deaths from the invasion itself while calculating deaths per month. For just the occupation, it would be 10's of thousands of years.

BTW, Saddam was killing Iraqi civilians at over 5 times the rate of the occupying forces.

Njorl
 
  • #17
Njorl said:
BTW, Saddam was killing Iraqi civilians at over 5 times the rate of the occupying forces.

Njorl
And we've had this conversation before as well...
 
  • #18
Thanks Njorl, I'm enlightened. Does that mean that my method of calculating this was wrong? I sort of generally did - Total deaths (8000 min 10000 max) so far / 1 yr to get the per month avg. then used 17000000 as a round pop. figure and divided.
 
  • #19
amp said:
Thanks Njorl, I'm enlightened. Does that mean that my method of calculating this was wrong? I sort of generally did - Total deaths (8000 min 10000 max) so far / 1 yr to get the per month avg. then used 17000000 as a round pop. figure and divided.
There are lots that you could use depending on how you want to make the outcome look. Your method was fine. Your conclusion about the meaning of the number on the other hand...
 
  • #20
Russ, my conclusion is just a bit on the sarcastic side, I don't literally think that genocide is the goal.
 
  • #21
amp said:
Source - http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Lets see, 8000 dead divided by 12 months is about 667 killed per month from a population of about 17,000,000 gives you about 25,500 months. So they have some 2,123 years before they are all killed. I guess your right Hughes.

You're not expecting anyone to be born in Iraq during the next 2000 years? How could you possibly miss this? I guess "we just don't understand the facts" would be my choice after all.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
hughes johnson said:
Simple math here. At current rates there will be plenty of Iraqis for all of us to enjoy for millions of years.

The last poll I heard said 96% of Iraqis were glad that we overthrew Saddam,
glad that we were staying to help with the transition, and would be glad when we went home. I guess your average Iraqi is a lot more level headed than your average democrat.

That number doesn't mean anything at all, and you know it. I'd bet 100% of women with breast cancer are glad to have the tumor removed...how many are happy about losing their breast? Hating Saddam does not mean loving the US...I believe phatmonky posted a poll that said that only a slim majority of Iraqis were glad for US occupation.
 
  • #23
Zero said:
That number doesn't mean anything at all, and you know it. I'd bet 100% of women with breast cancer are glad to have the tumor removed...how many are happy about losing their breast? Hating Saddam does not mean loving the US...I believe phatmonky posted a poll that said that only a slim majority of Iraqis were glad for US occupation.

Yes that is true. And I think that poll should be watched, however, both you and hughes are ignore that these polls are done right now, a year after the fall of the previous government.

It took 3 years for S Korea to have elections. If Iraq does it in January, then they are almost twice as far along as the Koreans were.
I supported this war because I believe in a free and prospering Iraq. Whoever is elected next election better make good on that - if not, I will be launching my own all out personal campaign against them and all those that support anything but such a prospering country. I also believe that if we make good on this, and I know we have the means to do so, that the opinion polls will be vastly different...that is until a younger generation comes in and forgets what was done for them to be born free (a la S Korea, but that's a whole different thread ;) )
 

FAQ: What are the Long-Term Effects of US Occupation in Iraq?

What is the "Sweet Article" in Counterpunch about?

The "Sweet Article" in Counterpunch is an opinion piece written by a journalist or columnist on a current topic or issue.

Who wrote the "Sweet Article" in Counterpunch?

The author of the "Sweet Article" in Counterpunch is typically listed at the beginning or end of the article. It is important to note that Counterpunch is a platform for multiple authors, so the writer may vary for each article.

Is the "Sweet Article" in Counterpunch fact-based or opinion-based?

The "Sweet Article" in Counterpunch is typically opinion-based, as it is written by a journalist or columnist expressing their personal views and perspectives on a given topic or issue. However, the article may also include factual information and evidence to support the author's argument.

How is the "Sweet Article" in Counterpunch different from other news articles?

The "Sweet Article" in Counterpunch is unique in that it provides a more critical and alternative perspective on current events and issues. It often challenges mainstream media narratives and offers a platform for marginalized voices and perspectives.

Can I trust the information presented in the "Sweet Article" in Counterpunch?

As with any news source, it is important to critically evaluate the information presented in the "Sweet Article" in Counterpunch. While the article may offer a different perspective, it is still important to fact-check and consider multiple sources before forming an opinion on a topic or issue.

Similar threads

Replies
229
Views
21K
Replies
102
Views
14K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
235
Views
21K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
193
Views
21K
Replies
298
Views
70K
Back
Top