It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US planes violate Iranian airspace: reports

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:44 PM
Guess it would be hard to track down an exact figure. Here is one point of view on the 100 000 figure, and how it was determined. The link is, but I've reproduced the whole thing below without editing.


100,000 Dead—or 8,000
How many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 3:49 PM PT

The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.

The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:56 PM
I'd say 100,000 is low-balling it. Don "Dr. Strangelove" Rumsfeld's yes-men have done everything in their power to hide actual figures - even if its meant killing independent journalists and film crews.

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 02:12 PM
Err what I meant is we had a total ACTIVE military of over 400,000 before Afghanistan and Iraq.

Every National Guard unit I know of has been activated or put on alert to be activated. I'm really not sure how many that is but I'm guessing hundreds of thousands more. (Mainly Ground Troops)

Also Retired ground troops are being called up which can add to hundreds of thousands more.

In all reality not including deaths that could put us around 900,000 active troops at the moment. Take away "confirmed" deaths and wounded and that would leave 870,000 or so.

We are rotating troops anywhere from 6 months to 1 year in and out of "combat zones" and sometimes home. When they do return home they are left on active status. So they are still active military ready to be deployed.

Someone explain to me how we need that many troops for Iraq/Afghanistan when the best numbers show there are under 175,000 on the ground. I'm also not sure that is the figure for just us and not the entire coalition. Even though I'm sure the majority is US troops 500 here, 1000 there adds up.

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 03:43 PM
Do you really think that Russia and China are going to keep their mouth shout if the US attacks Iran?

I am afraid this will be a nuclear war and it may well be the end of Israel.

There are very high chances that the US gets into very serious trouble by attacking Iran.

posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 12:37 AM
No I beleive Russia and China would definatly enter into the conflict if we had a full scale attack on Iran without having a reason.

Now if Iran attacked us, say shot down a jet it would open up the possibility for us to knock out a few air defenses along the Iraqi border and say that we had to to protect our planes.

It would also feed the political media machine in the US to pump up domestic support for more strikes against Iran.

Once we had struck at AA sites I would see Iran retaliating in some fashion though I'm not sure how.

If we were attacked first we could possibly pull the UN into trying to sanction them at which Russia and China either could veto the resolution. With Russia or China vetoing a resolution we would have yet more reasons to feed the public for pulling out of the UN which is already highly popular.

If UN resolutions fail to put a stop to a nuclear Iran the US and Israel will almost assuredly strike at their facilities. If Iran has any assets capable of hitting either of we would be sure of it shortly after.

It is in neither the US or Irans interests as a country to have a war. It is however on the agenda of the current US goverment. I do beleive we will attack Iran, I also believe Russian and Chinese weapons will suddenly appear in Iranian hands in massive quantities.

I'm still not sure if Russia or China would add actual troops to the mix, but I wouldnt doubt it. Iran is a large provider to both of crude oil. Also I beleive in debt to both.

new topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in