h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Are you ready? I'm posting this here, not on the Forum, not on Ask H2G2. If somebody else wants to post it to one of those places that would be great. But I want to just have people see it, first. And hopefully before the thread drifts too far, it will get posted far and wide.


"Public-health experts from the USA and Iraq estimate that around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the March 2003 invasion-the majority being violent deaths among women and children relating to military activity. Results of the research, done among clusters of Iraqi households last month, is published online by THE LANCET at 0001 H (London time) Friday 29 October 2004."

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/507991/

Yes. 100,000 have been killed by Bush. 100,000 have died because Bush said "f*&^ you world, I'm goin' in!" 100,000 lives terminated by Bush, the "pro-life" psychopath.

Americans who vote for Bush are voting for a mass-murderer, a war-criminal, a new Saddam for the Iraqi people.

If Bush gets a single vote in the upcoming election, the world will rightly wonder what the Hell people are thinking.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/28/iraq_deaths041028.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4E1656B7-910A-4C25-9647-2A850523A762.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

CNN doesn't seem to have noticed the story yet.

The world should have been wondering that on the day that Bush invaded Iraq I'm still at a loss to understand why they aren't

The rest of the world was wondering that on the day Bush invaded Iraq. And they've been wondering it ever since. Fortunately, most countries had leaders who also wondered. Unfortunately for the Spanish, their election was a little too late to get rid of their idiots. And I'll never figure Blair out. I guess, to quote Bush in the first debate, "let's not forget Poland!"

This Lancet story should be posted at the entrance to every polling booth in the U.S.

A couple of things interest me about this.

One is that when did we start thinking that war wasn't going to kill civilians? How can you use airstrikes and not kill innocent people? I'm sure in the past it would have been assumed that there would be civilians killed, so when did we start trying to hide that - the Gulf War? or earlier?


The other thing is that I am impressed that the Lancet editorial is stating it's position quite plainly - that war is a public health issue and that people who wage war need to change what they are doing. I'm not familiar with Lancet editorials and would be interested to know if they are usually this outspoken.

" when did we start thinking that war wasn't going to kill civilians?"

We stopped thinking it with Guernica. We started again with "smart bombs".

This is an appalling figure, anhaga, and I am so glad you found that link... I agree with you about Bush and Saddam, and I wish that figure could be got out to every American voter, including the ones who don't want to know!

CNN still has no mention of it on their web page. I'm surprised the Kerry bunch haven't started screaming it from the rooftops.

Maybe someone should make them aware of it

Perhaps it would be best if it came from someone in that Democratic hotbed, Texas.



Surely someone in the Kerry camp glances at the BBC, the CBC, or even Al Jazeera.

Surely someone in the Kerry Camp would glance at at least one of these:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&tab=nn&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm%3FstoryID%3D3605297%26thesection%3Dnews%26thesubsection%3Dworld

F19585?thread=514361&post=6029061#p6029061


az

But doesn't it come back to the age-old problem that if it's not happening on our doorstep, we don't take it seriously?

So long as Americans feel safe in their own country - and consider that Bush is more likely to keep them safe than Kerry - they'll vote for him.

It's human nature at its most basic, to look after those you love, the places you cherish, no matter what happens to anybody else.

I do not support this point of view, I hasten to add I consider Bush to be the most dangerous man alive.

But I'm afraid that most voters next Tuesday will be thinking about their own safety and security, not that of millions of Iraqis, thousands of miles away.

Before I read this thread, I DID see the story on the front page of the CNN web site. I quickly went through the "Camapign trail" to see if Kerry had picked up on it yet.

I just looked again, and it's gone from the front page: not even a link from the World section. But if you click on World, it's there.

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/

Awu

CNN now has this as the big story on their World section http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/ of the International edition of their web page, but it is still missing from the main page of the International edition http://edition.cnn.com/

It is also missing from the main page of the U.S. edition but it is on the World section of the U.S. edition http://us.cnn.com/WORLD/

Yasser Arafat ill and 11 Iraqis killed by millitants seem to have knocked 100 000 dead off the front page.

simulpost.

"Asked to comment on the study, a Defense Department spokesman said that there is no accurate way to validate the estimates of civilian casualties by this or any other organization. He added the Iraq war was prosecuted in the most precise fashion of any conflict in the history of modern warfare and that multinational and Iraqi security forces work painstakingly to avoid civilian casualties." from Voice of America http://www.voanews.com/english/2004-10-29-voa1.cfm


Bitter comment:

Just imagine if the war hadn't been prosecuted in such a precise fashion; there'd be no Iraqis left, for goodness sake.

Obviously tis isn't the same spolesman I quoted elsewhere who said "We'll use a sledgehammer to crush a walnut."

spokesman... yeesh