IS BUSH SAVING IRAQ or KILLING THEM?
Answer:
March 2007 -
U.S. soldiers take cover during a firefight with insurgents in the Al Doura section of Baghdad March 7, 2007
U.S. soldiers take cover during a firefight with insurgents in the Al Doura section of Baghdad March 7, 2007
A March 7, 2007 survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis commissioned by the BBC and three other news organisations found that 51% of the population consider attacks on coalition forces "acceptable", up from 17% in 2004 and 35% in 2006. Also:
* 64% described their family's economic situation as being somewhat or very bad, up from 30% in 2005.
* 88% described the availability of electricity as being either somewhat or very bad, up from 65% in 2004.
* 69% described the availability of clean water as somewhat or very bad, up from 48% in 2004.
* 88% described the availability of fuel for cooking and driving as being somewhat or very bad.
* 58% described reconstruction efforts in the area in which they live as either somewhat or very ineffective, and 9% described them as being totally nonexistent.[90]
By mid-March 2007, violence in Baghdad was reported by US sources close to the military as having been curtailed by 80%.[91] However, independent reports have raised questions about such assessments. An Iraqi military spokesman claims that civilian deaths since the start of the troop surge plan were 265 in Baghdad, down from 1,440 in the four previous weeks. The New York Times (NYT) has found more than 450 Iraqi civilians were killed during the same 28-day period, based on initial daily reports from Interior Ministry and hospital officials. Historically, the daily counts tallied by the NYT have underestimated the total death toll by 50 percent or more when compared to studies by the United Nations, which rely upon figures from the Iraqi Health Ministry and morgue figures.[92]
Moqtada al-Sadr issued a statement which urged Iraqis not to cooperate with U.S. forces, and to remain united against occupation.[93] This was followed by what appears to be a protest by thousands of residents of Sadr City,[94][95] and by the imposition of a curfew in Hilla south of Baghdad, apparently designed to prevent a similar large protest there.[96]
Late March, 2007, the US congress passed supplemental funding authorisation bills to pay $122 billion for emergency war operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, including requirements that the US withdraw its troops from Iraq by August, 2008. Bush threatened to veto any bill including such a withdraw provision.[97]The United States Senate approved on March 30, 2007 the goal of getting all combat soldiers out by March 31, 2008. The Senate's shorter timetable is a goal, not a requirement on Bush and is designed to win the support of centrist Democrats.[98]
Despite a massive security crackdown in Baghdad associated with the "surge" in coalition troop strength, the monthly death toll in Iraq rose 15 percent in March. 1,869 Iraqi civilians were killed and 2,719 were wounded in March, compared to 1,646 killed and 2,701 wounded in February. In March, 165 Iraqi policemen were killed against 131 the previous month, while 44 Iraqi soldiers died compared to 29 in February. US military deaths in March were nearly double those of the Iraqi army, despite US claims that Iraqi forces led the security crackdown in Baghdad. The death toll among insurgent militants fell to 481 in March, compared to 586 killed in February. However, the number of arrests jumped to 5,664 in March against 1,921 in February.[99][100]
Iraqi
U.S. General Tommy Franks reportedly estimated soon after the invasion that there had been 30,000 Iraqi casualties as of April 9, 2003.[144] After this initial estimate he made no further public estimates.
In December 2005 President Bush said there were 30,000 Iraqi dead. White House spokesman Scott McClellan later said it was "not an official government estimate", and was based on media reports.[145]
There have been several attempts by the media, coalition governments and others to estimate the Iraqi casualties:
* A national survey of mortality in The Lancet estimates 654,965 Iraqi deaths (range of 392,979-942,636) from March 2003 to July 2006.[25][26] That total number of deaths (all Iraqis) includes all excess deaths due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, etc, and includes civilians, military deaths and insurgent deaths. Although the British Government initially tried to dispute the accuracy of this report, the UK Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser later said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".[146] This is the only figure presented here which is intended to show the total excess deaths (rather than lower limits, provided by surveys of only those deaths reported to authorities or media agencies). An article in British newspaper, "The Times", challenged this number in their March 5, 2007 issue[147]. Professor Michael Spagat, an economist from Royal Holloway College, University of London, says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of mortality figures suggested by other organisations, an inaccurate graph, the use of the word “casualties” to mean deaths rather than deaths plus injuries, and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen.
* The UN found that 34,452 violent civilian deaths were reported by morgues, hospitals, and municipal authorities across Iraq in 2006.[148][149]
* A January 2, 2007 AP article[150] reports: "the Iraqi ministries of Health, Defence and Interior, showed that 14,298 civilians, 1,348 police and 627 soldiers had been killed...last year." Another Jan. 2, 2007 article[151] reports that the Iraqi government does not count deaths classed as "criminal", nor those from kidnappings, nor wounded persons who die later as the result of attacks.
* On January 2, 2007 The Australian reported: "A figure of 3700 civilian deaths in October [2006], the latest tally given by the UN based on data from the Health Ministry and the Baghdad morgue, was branded exaggerated by the Iraqi Government."[151]
* The Iraq Body Count project states for the week ending December 31, 2006:[152] "It was a truly violent year, as around 24,000 civilians lost their lives in Iraq. This was a massive rise in violence: 14,000 had been killed in 2005, 10,500 in 2004 and just under 12,000 in 2003 (7,000 of them killed during the actual war, while only 5,000 killed during the ‘peace’ that followed in May 2003). In December 2006 alone around 2,800 civilians were reported killed. This week there were over 560 civilian deaths reported." Only deaths reported by respected media agencies are included in these figures.
Iraqi healthcare deterioration
A November 11, 2006 Los Angeles Times article reports:[153]
The [Iraq] nation's health has deteriorated to a level not seen since the 1950s, said Joseph Chamie, former director of the U.N. Population Division and an Iraq specialist. "They were at the forefront", he said, referring to healthcare just before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. "Now they're looking more and more like a country in sub-Saharan Africa."
Iraqi refugees
As of November 4, 2006, the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees estimated that 1.8 million Iraqis had been displaced to neighboring countries, and 1.6 million were displaced internally, with nearly 100,000 Iraqis fleeing to Syria and Jordan each month.[154]
Bush is killing Americans! The middle East have been fighting for years and years! What makes Bush thing he can stop them! We need to pull our troops out this is no longer our war.
Good question ... but why post in Green Living?
I don't think he's saving them or killing them. They are killing themselves and he's not stopping them. Who he IS killing is our own people. Bush is a very dangerous man and if I were old enough to vote at the time I would have voted againts him.
At this point, who is doing the shooting?
This is not a war but a police state.
These are not acts of terrorism but crimes against home owners and shop keepers and people walking the streets.
Bush isn't killing them anymore. They are killing themselves and our troops as well for being there.
Bush made a promise when this whole thing started to help the middle east rid itself of terrorism . That promise was a treaty. We leave and we brake that treaty, so in the meanwhile we end up playing policeman to the middle east.
I love all the people who ignore this fact.
If you want to get out of this situation you have to make it look like the war is on terror is over and that is really hard to do when they keep killing one another.
Bush is not saving IRAQ Hi killing Them Bush! **! Bush **!
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: