Four Soldiers Killed, Eight Wounded in Iraq

---

Albert Marnell May 15, 2007 9:46 am (Pacific time)

Rosenberg, Stop walking around Tara II like the grounds of a rest home and watch the videos on google that deal with 9/11. You might learn something instead of always blowing hot air.

---

Rosenberg May 4, 2007 6:49 pm (Pacific time)

Keith your sources are as dated and as relevant as Marnell's. The fact is people need to have as accurate information that is available. At first I thought you were being intentionally obtuse, but now I see that was wrong on my part. Note: Ms. Anonymous, your syntax gives you away...

---

Albert Marnell May 3, 2007 11:20 pm (Pacific time)

Keith, Armstrong is Rosenberg. Ignore him.

---

Keith May 3, 2007 9:34 pm (Pacific time)

“The President vetoed our troops and the American people,” says retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste. “His stubborn commitment to a failed strategy in Iraq is incomprehensible. He committed our great military to a failed strategy in violation of basic principles of war. His failure to mobilize the nation to defeat world wide Islamic extremism is tragic. We deserve more from our commander-in-chief and his administration.” Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton: “This administration and the previously Republican-controlled legislature have been the most caustic agents against America’s Armed Forces in memory. Less than a year ago, the Republicans imposed great hardship on the Army and Marine Corps by their failure to pass a necessary funding language. This time, the President of the United States is holding our Soldiers hostage to his ego. More than ever [it is] apparent [that] only the Army and the Marine Corps are at war — alone, without their President’s support.”

---

Anonymous May 3, 2007 6:41 pm (Pacific time)

Cho, Son of Sam, Tim McVeigh, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and Charles Whitman were other psychos also proficient in weapons. Not Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Rice, Wolfowitz, or Perle, however. What exactly did that have to do with the topic? As I said before, it is not believeable that you went to grad school when you don't have the grammar of the average sixth-grader. I also don't know what this has to do with the subject, but I was very good in basketball, track, football, tennis, baseball, etc. Pat Tillman liked Chomsky---do you think that made him poor in sports? Look up "projection" in a psychological dictionary. And, as I said before: Go "Cheney" yourself! I don't know if you are some sort of sick cult religion follower or this is just your idea of humor. I do know that some cult followers adore the idea of thousands of people dying.

---

Armstrong May 3, 2007 4:35 pm (Pacific time)

Bravo Keith! I see you are unfettered with objective thinking skills. No doubt this allows you to ramble on without being concerned with those things called facts. Regarding various statistical courses and applicable research designs to fit the hypothesis/problem, you seem to lack good critical skills to allow you to make even a preliminary critique. It's always a good idea to be a skeptic after you read a study's summary, then go back and pull the study apart, don't take the studys' author(s) conclusions as gospel. Most study's are self-serving, as you plainly are Keith when it comes to making an objective assessment(s). As you stumble in that dark world of yours, if you see some light, go towards it Keith, go towards it. So how well did you qualify with the M16? M1,M14, M79, M60, etc. ? P.S. I have finished a number of graduate and post-grad courses and programs. The more I learn Keith, the more I realize how very little I do know. It seems to me it's those individuals that lack in self-esteem who seem to try to over-compensate with a superiority complex that really shows how utterly inferior they are. Emotionally stunted dunderheads. So, you always get picked last Keith?

---

Keith May 3, 2007 3:32 pm (Pacific time)

If people die because of disease due to our destruction of water treatment facilities and the lack of electricity to make them operate, then they have died as a result of our illegal invasion and occupation. Also, half the doctors have fled the country and there is a severe shortage of medical supplies. These reasons plus the extra nine months since the 655,000 estimate make some people think the total is close to one million. The morgues ARE overflowing and this could not happen with a small increase. Johns Hopkins University does not have an agenda---Bush, Blair, and Murdoch do.

---

Keith May 3, 2007 3:04 pm (Pacific time)

You have exhibited every personality disorder in the book. I have experienced tens of thousands of people in nine countries. I lived in Europe for 12 years. I have lived on the East coast and the West coast. You are the most condescending repulsive moron there could ever be. You sound far from sensitive. At University I had ten sociology, eight history, and five political science courses. My university was fourth in the nation in sociology, top ten in history, and top ten in political science. I was dean's list before grade inflation. I took a full tough schedule and also worked a 20-hour week. In my logic course, I was the only one to make a "100" on every test. You lie when you say you went to graduate school. Why do you use different fake names? Personality disorder?

When the Iraqi death figure given is something like 68,000 they are using a source that requires two different media sources for each death (as I have already said). This is very unreasonable given the great chaos in the country (as I have already said). The figures of 655,000 deaths only goes through July 2006. Odds become quite high against the figure being lower than 450,000 (due to standard deviations from the mean). I had a university course in social science research methods (not as much as the scientists from Johns Hopkins and the Lancet, but more than Bill O'Reilly) I studied standard deviations from the mean and the law of averages.

Why have Fox as a source of information? It is run by an Australian billionaire who made his money in sleazy newspapers and mags. Does he have the interests of the American people at heart, or just making more billions at heart?

Everyone should read the following essay titled "One Day You Gonna Wake UP": http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Articles/One_Day_You're_Gonna_Wake_Up.html

---

Armstrong May 3, 2007 8:25 am (Pacific time)

Attention: For those of you who would like to have another published source re: "Iraqi civilian deaths"...please see the Oregonian, Wedesday edition (5/2/07) on page A6. They provide considerable types of "sourced" data, including a count of slightly more than 63,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, right around 1/10th the number of deaths some posters have provided here. I don't expect to change the minds of those poster's who use the extremely controversial high count, but just an alternative count for others to consider. Peace, and may the madness soon conclude.

---

Armstrong May 3, 2007 7:37 am (Pacific time)

Hi Keith. Maybe if you spent more time reviewing objective sources, than say diagraming Bill O'Reilly's sentences, you would be better informed. Note: Within three years prepare yourself for a climate cooling trend. P.S. Keith have you noticed that those people out there who talk about peace and how we should be more sensitive to other people in the world (something I agree with!), when they deal with people who have a different opinion, well then they simply demean those people, call them really hurtful names, and essentially tell them to head down the food chain. These are very hateful people Keith, why do you think these "types" act out like that? Is it possibly a personality disorder? The 1st Amendment only applies to them? Maybe some childhood trauma precluded them from maturing emotionally?

---

Albert Marnell May 2, 2007 9:24 pm (Pacific time)

Armstrong-Rosenberg, The number of civilian deaths are plastered all over every major paper including the New York Times, so what in the hell are you talking about? Keith-don't bother with people like him. He is such a minority of a certain type that always will be around like roaches and dumb animals. He does not even deserve respect for the lies and cruelty he is trying to propagate. The enemy is not in Iraq, it is right here under some fake name.

---

Keith May 2, 2007 8:48 pm (Pacific time)

Wrong again, I am most certainly not a big follower of The phone sex abuser who had to pay a huge sum to stop the lawsuit from his producer. And those are not MY numbers---they are the numbers of many excellent scientist who were going door-to-door in Iraq and using tried, tested, and robust social science research. The Bush administration has quoted the same methodology as accurate when used in Rwanda, Congo, and the Indonesian Tsunami. Obviously, they do not want to admit that their fiasco led to almost a million lives lost. Why don't you go "Cheney" yourself?

---

Keith May 2, 2007 8:42 pm (Pacific time)

You are the most condescending repulsive moron I have ever experienced. And I have experienced many, many thousands of people.

---

Armstrong May 1, 2007 12:51 pm (Pacific time)

Keith I have noticed after many many years (decades actually) that when certain types of people cannot debate an issue with logic and facts, they go down the path where that person or group is stupid or Nazi, or some other demeaning comparisons. It does appear, as per your own admission that you're a big follower of Bill O'Reilly, asserting that my comments are verbatim to his (they are not though). Congrats Keith! I'm glad you are employing more lattitude in your informational gathering process. Now if you can just learn how to evaluate it correctly. Good luck with that Keith. P.S. Your high numbers re: Iraqi civilian deaths is wrong.

---

Keith May 1, 2007 9:20 am (Pacific time)

You are the one disrespecting the family members of the fallen with your sick little stupid jokes. You even ended one post with "LOL". Some of these thoughts you are putting forth as your own are verbatim from Bill O'Reilly.

---

Armstrong May 1, 2007 12:39 am (Pacific time)

It does appear, Keith, that only you on whatever side you are on, are the only ones running with these high numbers. I do not know why the British military does not agree with you either Keith? Maybe we all know something you don't?! Well I gotta go now, getting some oil shipped in from Iraq.

---

Matt Johnson April 30, 2007 8:42 pm (Pacific time)

Keith: Of course you are right, this guy must just be trying to get your goat, he can't be serious or believe any of that mumbo-jumbo. Really, let it roll off. It is sort of like getting frustrated in driving; you can only preserve yourself sometimes and venting and growling only affects you. I hope that makes sense. You know right from wrong, of course Bush and his people are the most unimaginably bad and evil leaders in recent history. Every common sense person liberal and conservative alike knows FOX is a biased voicebox for the Bushies. It isn't like he and his boys have killed more than Stalin or Hitler or anything like that, but they have ruined the finest country that ever existed. Matt Johnson; the Malibu crew, live to surf-surf to live

---

Keith April 30, 2007 8:33 pm (Pacific time)

You are extremely disrectful and condescending. It is a terrible shame that probably close to a million people have died and many millions more have suffered due (not do) to countless lies by people you still follow. If the British military does like Fox (I wouldn't trust you on anything) it is because Fox says how wonderful the war is. Fox and just about all of the mainstream media led people to believe that Iraq was tied to 9/11 and al Qaeda, and had WMD. All lies. I know extremely well what the above article deals with---you asked a very specific question about the true number of Iraqi civilian deaths and I answered it. The British Defence Ministry would not say it was robust, tried, and tested if it were not true. Bush and Blair would say it was flawed if it were not true. People do not admit blunders and lies that cost hundred of thousands of lives, $2.3 Trillion, and (according to our 16 intelligence agencies) have made us LESS safe. Maybe the myth about the mainstream media is not true. Maybe they don't like to feel responsible for all the cheerleading towards the war that they did. You probably think the New York Times and Washington Post are liberal, but they printed on the front page any B.S. the administration fed them leading up to the invasion.

---

Armstrong April 30, 2007 6:33 pm (Pacific time)

Keith it's not my intention to be disrespectful to anyone, unless of course they give me reason, then I would just say a prayer for them and hope that they would in time see the light that I'm shining for them, it's a Plato thing. Though you have been insulting, I am sure in time you will see that more objective information will become available for you to re-assess your perspective. I was wondering Keith, do you know why the mainstream media is not incorporating the Lancet data? If it's that accurate and stands up to good research design and statistical analysis, you'd think they would be using it?! Oh by the way Keith, did you know that a significant percentage of the British military do not care to listen to the BBC and instead opt for the FOX Network. I wonder why? Go figure. P.S. Keith the above article deals with our soldiers that have died in battle. Oh and I'm glad you got the "Lancelot" name, for I was going for a mythical comparison, i.e. , mythical Knight for mythical numbers. Jolly good.

---

Keith April 30, 2007 5:29 pm (Pacific time)

I am disrespectful to Armstrong because he is an apologist for those responsible for the suffering of our military and their family members. Plus the 26 million Iraqis. He just sits at his typewriter and calls people with a mountain of evidence on their side "ignorant". His condescension is worse than anyone I have ever experienced.

---

The Editor April 30, 2007 3:44 pm (Pacific time)

Be respectful, stop being accusatory. All people can have their opinion if they stay out of attack mode. I know this is an upsetting subject, but family members of these soldiers will visit the site, so please be decent.

---

Keith April 30, 2007 3:15 pm (Pacific time)

You claim to have studied in graduate school, yet you write: "I imagine that in do time" This is contradictory. I would not have made that mistake in the sixth grade. Did I mention how repulsive you are?

---

Keith April 30, 2007 2:09 pm (Pacific time)

It is so extremely repulsive to hear someone that is so wrong and so condescending at the same time about life and death for close to a million people and the loss of over $2 Trillion by US taxpayers. All the reasons given for the illegal invasion and occupation were lies. Tenet said so last night. The Downing Street Memos said so. Richard Clarke said so. The UN weapons inspectors said so. Common sense, logic, and reasoning say so. My education has been excellent since the 1950's. You are the one in need of learning since you choose your own ignorance over the experience and hard work of the scientists from Johns Hopkins and The Lancet. The morgues in Iraq are overflowing. There are four million refugees. These would not be happening if it were just the equivalant of US urban violence. It is sick people like you that enable the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings. Take a long look in the mirror.

---

Armstrong April 30, 2007 1:10 pm (Pacific time)

Keith thanks so much for your comments. It's been my practice (and training) since Grad school to be skeptical of data that shows such an extreme variant from other data sources. The Lancet and BBC are not organizations that I deem objective. Suffice Keith, I think it's just super that you have such passion with your information, it does sadden me that you are wrong, but that will only enhance the learning process for you, and I guess in a way, I am so happy for you. In due time, the floodgates of info will open for you, just try to prepare yourself Keith. Remember, learning is a good thing. Hey have you heard that the Federal Reserve Bank has been screwing us since 1913? I would not have know that without A Marnell letting me know, I always thought it was 1918, and the info didn't hurt a bit...remember: lies, damn lies, and then you have statistics. Then you have the Lancet and BBC! Where does it end? Hint: moveon.org and the International Redcross...

---

Keith April 29, 2007 8:19 pm (Pacific time)

The figure of 655,000 is not total violent civilian deaths---but the INCREASE in violent civilian deaths in Iraq during the 40-month period over what it normally would be. Iraq's population is 26 million. Ours is 300 million. Therefore, it is like the US having an increase in violent deaths of 7.6 million in a 40-month period. Two million Iraqis have fled the country and another two million are internal refugees. A study by a Nobel Prize economist (Stiglitz) says the eventual total cost of the war to US taxpayers will be $2.3 Trillion: http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/01/08/economists_say_cost_of_war_could_top_2_trillion/?page=full US military deaths: 3,347. Wounded: about 30,000. Contractors not counted. Every reason given by the Bush administration for an urgent invasion was a known lie at the time it was given. They wanted to control that part of the world and the main reason they did is OIL.

---

Keith April 29, 2007 4:56 pm (Pacific time)

You have obviously never heard of the foremost medical journal in the world, because you are calling it "the Lancelot" instead of The Lancet. I'm not talking about the mythical knight! Of course the British government in its public pronouncements will say that the study is "flawed" because it reveals the disastrous results of Blair's policy. It IS possible for governments to lie, you know. But privately, The British Defence Ministry says its methodology is robust, tried, and tested. Did you bother to read the links? You cannot compare Iraq's increase in violent deaths to a US urban area, because the US has not had an increase in violent deaths of 7.6 million human beings over a 40-month period! Johns Hopkins School of Public Health is about the best in the world. The BBC is one of the best media outlets in the world. This study had people going door-to-door in Iraq. 92% of the time the reported death was backed-up by a death certificate. The methodology is the same as that used all over the world for many years (Rwanda, Congo, Indonesian tsunami, etc.). Noone ever said it was flawed before. You are the one with an agenda, not these scientists. It is not lack of fortune that causes us to be there, but countless lies by leaders you still follow. There will be less fighting if we leave, because they do not like our invasion, occupation, and selling off of their oil. Even the Iraqis who joined the security forces say they hate the US, but need the income due (not "do") to 50% unemployment. They do not want to side with the foreign occupiers. Would you? You can pray for a miracle all you want, it won't make up for Bush's catastrophe. These numbers don't even include deaths from lack of clean water and half the doctors leaving the country. That would increase the total by hundreds of thousands. If you already had your own talking points ready to refute anything I said, then why did you even ask the #@!$%and* question?

---

Armstrong April 29, 2007 1:07 pm (Pacific time)

Keith, the British government rejects the Lancelot as being statistically flawed. Appears the IBC is less controversial, as is the ICCC, both the latter two also reject the Lancelot. No matter what, a lot of people have died. The Kurds in the north seem to be pretty peaceful and the area south of Baghdad (relatively so). Seems that we can find some urban area's here in the states that are nearly as violent as per the data put out by Lancelot, and you can do an actual body count here rather than the "cluster-sampling" technique used by many others who seem to prefer that methodology so they can gin up the numbers for whatever their agenda may be? I imagine that in do time, a better and more accurate analysis will come out, but certainly way less than 150,000 civilians have been killed, which is 150,000 too many. Unfortunately we are there, if we leave, the resulting bloodbath will far overshadow the millions killed in S.E. Asia. My prayers for a miracle, otherwise, we need to get the Iraqi military capable to handle their internal needs. At this time we have no choice, from a humanitarian perspective. Unfortunately we are in a situation that will get worse, regardless of what we do, but it would be far better if we get the Iraqi's up and running real soon. Our internal problems that have yet to surface, will take your mind off the problems of others, like the Iraqi's, count on it! Thanks for the info Keith.

---

Keith April 29, 2007 10:21 am (Pacific time)

A team of researchers in Iraq from Johns Hopkins University and The Lancet Medical Journal came up with the figure of 655,000 extra deaths in Iraq as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. This is a middle figure in an estimate. The real figure may be somewhat lower (maybe 450,000 in July 2006) but it also may be higher (maybe 850,000 in July 2006). They saw a death certificate in 92% of the reported deaths. The British Defence Ministry said their methodology is robust, tried, and tested.

Iraqbodycount.org say from 62,570 to 68,593 civilians killed. But they require two separate media sources for each death which is unreasonable given the chaos in the country. It is not even safe for the media to travel outside the Green Zone.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6495753.stm

www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html

---

Armstrong April 29, 2007 9:30 am (Pacific time)

Marnell I'm pretty open to various sources, but since when does a "primary source" request cause a problem, unless one has an agenda to deceive? Put you cards on the table, what's the problem Marnell or any other person? If you are going to put out numbers, where did you get them? Rosie O'donnel, Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan? International Red Cross? Where? Your non-response will mean that you don't have a reliable source. Tip: Do some research on the APA research method!

---

Albert Marnell April 28, 2007 11:09 am (Pacific time)

Armstrong, Why don't you come up with the figure? Most people get reports from various sources. I would not suggest them to you because you would just try to discredit them. Maybe you would like to believe there are 20 or 30 civilians killed so far. Your supposedly a big man, believe what you want: nobody cares.

---

Armstrong April 28, 2007 8:18 am (Pacific time)

Does anyone out there have a primary resource that provides an accurate count of war related deaths of civilians in Iraq?

---

Albert Marnell April 27, 2007 11:07 pm (Pacific time)

Keith, I keep pushing the lecture of Professor Michel Chossudovsky on google video. You may find it helpful to ad to your already existing insight. I believe it is titled "The Truth Behind 9/11. Remember one thing. There are a group of a few thousand of people called the "Global Elite". They do not care about their countries and are only loyal to each other and maintaining and gaining power.

---

Keith April 26, 2007 5:53 pm (Pacific time)

Albert, the evidence looks like the White House at least let it happen. Average response time to intercept any plane off course (except 9/11) is 7 minutes. On 9/11 there was up to 100 minutes after first plane hit the tower and none were intercepted. Jets were sent over the Atlantic. Some believe 9/11 was carried out by Pakistani intelligence. Some historians say evidence shows US let Pearl Harbor happen to get public to back WWII. By the way, I read today (at consortiumnews.com) that one of bin Laden's top lieutenants wrote that prolonging the war in Iraq is in al Qaeda's interests.

---

Albert Marnell April 25, 2007 4:56 pm (Pacific time)

Keith, I am glad there are a few people like you who do research. Isn't it sad how many just go along with a half-baked level of knowledge? I believe 100% that 9/11 was the New Pearl Harbor and was all orchestrated by various covert intelligence organizations. Why is it so, hard for people to accept that governments lie because they are controlled by big corporations and get financially taken care of by them? But they easily accept that a husband did murder his wife. That is not hard for them to believe.

---

Keith April 24, 2007 9:12 pm (Pacific time)

I agree Albert. PNAC put it all down in writing in the 90's. They said the US should take control of the Middle East because of the oil, but that it would take "a new Pearl Harbor" before the people would go along. If it were about terrorism, then we would have gone after bin Laden and his men in PAKISTAN. Pakistan actually has nuclear weapons now. They sold technology to North Korea. Pakistan funded Islamic fundmentalists along with the Reagan-Bush administration. The head of Pakistani intelligence sent money to the ones who did 9/11. But it is about controlling oil either directly or through puppets. That is why we are now in the #2 oil country (Iraq) which sits in between #1 (Saudi Arabia) and #3 (Iran). Barrel of oil under Clinton: $18. Barrel of oil today: $64. Oil reserves of top oil corporations now worth $2.3 Trillion. Also, a study says the true total cost of the Iraq war to the US taxpayers will be $2.3 Trillion.

---

Albert Marnell April 24, 2007 10:49 am (Pacific time)

Armstrong, It has more to do with things like, The Project For A New American Century, which is an ugly euphemism. To one degree or another people have to wake up to the fact that both major parties are beholden to large multinational interests. Both parties lie and you can not survive unless you are a pimp for big oil, defense, the military (most people there do not even know the scoop, but I only blame the ones that do not want information yet they profess to thrive on it). There are other interests that the Europeans have, the Chinese etc. My main concern is that the facts have not been brought to the surface often enough to the masses here. They are victims; civilian or military. The U.S. is also now by observation and definition a police state. Achtung! Heil any number of the people that Keith mentions but the Democrats are pimps too. You need to be connected to the most powerful industrialists, political and military officials to be the next figurehead. Bush is just a figurehead, he does not even know where Afghanistan is. Until people get away from this Dem. vs. Rep., things will never change. All people in Congress know and have the documents as to what is the truth. Many of them do not even bother to read what is available to them, they either do not want to rock-the-boat, do not have the time or brains, or just do not care out of self interest. You would be surprised if you write to your congress person how many will write back and thank you for throwing a spotlight on an issue that often they should really know about. Do not put anyone on a pedestal.

---

Keith April 23, 2007 3:41 pm (Pacific time)

Armstrong, First you are saying something without the slightest idea if it is true or false. Secondly, you are falsely assuming I agree with all wars in a Democratic administration. You don't know me in the slightest. I am often very critical of Democrats. Thirdly, Iraq was strongly suppressive of the people who committed 9/11. They were no threat whatsoever to the US or anyone. The invasion, occupation, and selling off of their resources is illegal. It has cost the lives of about 660,000 human beings (including 3,377 American military), will cost $2.3 Trillion, and according to all our intelligence agencies has harmed our security and increased the number of terrorists.

---

Armstrong April 23, 2007 2:56 pm (Pacific time)

Keith all those people you mentioned are certainly more experienced than you. Tell me war in the 20th century was not on a democrats administration watch? LOL

---

Keith April 23, 2007 9:12 am (Pacific time)

It is a terrible shame that they and the 660,000 others have died. How experienced are Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz. Rove, Perle, Rice, Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, Hannity, Nugent, Scarborough, DeLay, Lieberman, and Reagan?

---

Armstrong April 23, 2007 7:19 am (Pacific time)

These are men, you are the boy, and a highly inexperienced one at that.

---

Albert Marnell April 22, 2007 5:03 pm (Pacific time)

These are boys. I do not understand how the people that profit from these deaths can live with themselves or rationalize what they promote and allow to occur. At 18 I thought I knew it all and was grown up. Now that I am over 50 these deaths really sickens me.

[Return to Top]

---

©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.