… and well into them.
The candidate was on Letterman and this is a piece of it (via Crooks & Liars):
Letterman: 4,000 American men and women soldiers dead since we went into Iraq. Another 30,000 wounded. Untold Iraqis dead. We rarely hear that number. What would that number be? A quarter of a million? Half a million?
McCain: It’s hard to make these estimates, but it’s in the hundreds of thousands, obviously.
This site pushes to seven figures.
Natch, the msm trots out conservative lackeys to laugh at the Lancet suggesting it’s 600,000. Wait, the president also dismissed it. Well, never mind.
If you accepted the Iraq Body Count: only the documented deaths, it would be the equivalent of the US losing a metro area in the mid-20’s, a place like Kansas City.
If you take McCain at his “obvious” word, a US equivalent would be killing the population of the state of Arizona. If the Lancet, then you’re talking tossing in New Mexico to round off the number.
So this would be the US map after losing Arizona’s people and seeing about one-thirteenth of our population on the homeless trail (let’s take an assortment of the upper midwest and some plains states:
Two million dead? That’s about 7-8 percent of Iraq’s population. Texas would cover that estimate. Can you imagine if the Lone Star State just disappeared? Then factor in refugees by a million or two and consider the equivalent happening in the US. You’d have New York State’s population on the move.
I don’t know about you, but red state or blue, these maps would get me pretty angry if they were the reality imposed from the outside.
3 April 2008 at 10:52 am
Hey! It will be worth it to keep “them” fighting over there rather than over here …. right? They are all infidels so who cares how many die. We need to protect the good US Krystyuns, don’t you know? Our souls are destined for heaven. Islamic soulds are predestined to hell, and it is Amurrica’s job to assist them on their way.
3 April 2008 at 1:17 pm
It is worth noting that US forces aren’t the ones targeting civilians — Islamist terrorists are. The vast majority of civilian deaths have not been caused by the US military — they have been caused by jihadists, the ones Jimmy Mac doesn’t want to fight, over there or over here.
A good point is made at this site, “The Real Iraq Body Count”:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/IraqBodyCount2006.htm
“The wide moral distinction between collateral damage against terrorists and the intentional murder of civilians is not done justice merely by counting bodies. Anyone who pretends not to understand this is either a fool or a liar.
“Since the terror campaign in Iraq is fueled by propaganda, publicizing the truth about the extraordinary measures that American troops are taking to protect civilian life would almost certainly prevent more civilians from being killed. In 2006, the number of civilians who died in encounters between the Americans and the terrorists was about four times lower than the number of U.S. troops killed.
“In short, civilians in Iraq aren’t dying from the war. They are being murdered by Islamic terrorists.”
3 April 2008 at 1:40 pm
Consequences that were not difficult to foresee. Mark, you make a great case for the inept execution of the Iraq War. The neo-cons seemed to look no further than military might. The civil war in Iraq has shown there are other losses to be inflicted on the world’s good order. Unless, of course, it was the plan all along to destabilize the Middle East and give arms manufacturers a field day of supplying weapons to both sides.
“In short, civilians in Iraq aren’t dying from the war. They are being murdered by Islamic terrorists.”
Really? No problem from infrastructure being destroyed, shortages of potable water and food, or the spread of disease?
3 April 2008 at 5:32 pm
And no problem that we created the chaos there with an unnecessary and criminal invasion, based on lies? We are responsible for the deaths there; we are the murderers, and anyone who says different is immoral or stupid or both.
3 April 2008 at 6:55 pm
“Based on lies.”
“We are the murderers, and anyone who says different is immoral or stupid or both.”
Michael, such certitude. And such nonsense! Do you really believe that?
3 April 2008 at 7:45 pm
While I’m sure Michael can speak for himself, the falsehoods are pretty much established. The only alternative is incompetence–neither one a good quality for leadership.
Despite his baggage, McCain’s natural tendency for straight talk does shine through from time to time. Too bad the GOP handlers have toned him down. I’m sure his civilian death toll numbers won’t be let out of the bag again.