SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (327179)2/23/2007 9:17:09 PM
From: TigerPaw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577019
 
If anyone would know, it would be you.

If he knew he would stop being one.



To: tejek who wrote (327179)2/24/2007 8:26:40 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1577019
 
But I bet they know every detail of the Anna Nicole soap opera...

Americans underestimate Iraqi death toll
By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer

Americans are keenly aware of how many U.S. forces have lost their lives in Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll. But they woefully underestimate the number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed.

When the poll was conducted earlier this month, a little more than 3,100 U.S. troops had been killed. The midpoint estimate among those polled was right on target, at about 3,000.

Far from a vague statistic, the death toll is painfully real for many Americans. Seventeen percent in the poll know someone who has been killed or wounded in Iraq. And among adults under 35, those closest to the ages of those deployed, 27 percent know someone who has been killed or wounded.

For Daniel Herman, a lawyer in New Castle, Pa., a co-worker's nephew is the human face of the dead.

"This is a fairly rural area," he said. "When somebody dies, ... you hear about it. It makes it very concrete to you."

The number of Iraqis killed, however, is much harder to pin down, and that uncertainty is perhaps reflected in Americans' tendency to lowball the Iraqi death toll by tens of thousands.

Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 54,000 and could be much higher; some unofficial estimates range into the hundreds of thousands. The U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq reports more than 34,000 deaths in 2006 alone.

Among those polled for the AP survey, however, the median estimate of Iraqi deaths was 9,890. The median is the point at which half the estimates were higher and half lower.

Christopher Gelpi, a Duke University political scientist who tracks public opinion on war casualties, said a better understanding of the Iraqi death toll probably wouldn't change already negative public attitudes toward the war much. People in democracies generally don't shy away from inflicting civilian casualties, he said, and they may be even more tolerant of them in situations such as Iraq, where many of the civilian deaths are caused by other Iraqis.

"You have to look at who's doing the killing," said Neal Crawford, a restaurant manager in Suttons Bay, Mich., who guessed that about 10,000 Iraqis had been killed. "If these people are dying because a roadside bomb goes off or if there's an insurgent attack in a marketplace, it's an unfortunate circumstance of war — people die."

Gelpi said that while Americans may not view Iraqi deaths through the same prism as American losses, they may use the Iraqi death toll to gauge progress, or lack thereof, on the U.S. effort to promote a stable, secure democracy in Iraq.

To many, he said, "the fact that so many are being killed is an indication that we're not succeeding."

Whatever their understanding of the respective death tolls, three-quarters of those polled said the numbers of both Americans and Iraqis who have been killed are "unacceptable." Two-thirds said they tend to feel upset when a soldier dies, while the rest say such deaths are unfortunate but part of what war is about.

Sometimes it's hard for people to sort out their conflicting emotions.

"I don't know if I'm numb to it or not," said 86-year-old Robert Lipold of Las Vegas. "It's something you see in the paper every day there. And how do you feel when in the back of your mind it's unnecessary?"

Given a range of possible words to describe their feelings about the overall situation in Iraq, people were most likely to identify with "worried," selected by 81 percent of those surveyed.

Other descriptive words selected by respondents:

_Compassionate: 74 percent.

_Angry: 62 percent.

_Tired: 61 percent.

_Hopeful: 51 percent.

_Proud: 38 percent.

_Numb: 27 percent.

Women were more likely than men to feel worried, compassionate, angry and tired; men were more likely than women to feel proud, a finding consistent with traditional differences in attitudes toward war between the sexes.

For women, said Gelpi, "there is an emotional response to casualties that men don't show. ... It could be some sort of socialization that men get about the military or combat as being honorable that women don't get."

Charlotte Pirch, a lawyer from Fountain Valley, Calif., said she's "always appalled and just very upset at hearing about more casualties, whether it's U.S. troops or troops from another country."

Pirch said two of her nieces are married to men who served in Iraq and she doesn't live far from Camp Pendleton, which has sent many U.S. troops to Iraq. But she added, "Whether I knew someone personally or not, I would still feel it as a citizen of our country."

Perhaps surprisingly, the poll found little difference in attitudes toward the war between those who did and did not know someone who had been killed or wounded. There was a difference, however, in their opinions on whether opponents are right to criticize the war.

About half of those who know someone who has been killed or wounded felt it is right to criticize the war, compared with two-thirds of those who don't have a personal connection.

The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,002 adults, conducted Feb. 12-15, had a 3 percentage point margin of error.

___

AP writers Natasha Metzler and Ann Sanner and AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this story.



To: tejek who wrote (327179)2/25/2007 10:00:05 AM
From: jlallen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577019
 
True. I have become all too familiar with many like you on SI. Lots of experience recognizing losers...



To: tejek who wrote (327179)2/26/2007 7:57:05 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1577019
 
Sparks Rise From a Time Bomb

Mohammed A. Salih

ARBIL, Feb 26 (IPS) - The security situation in Iraq's northern oil rich-city Kirkuk has deteriorated over the past few weeks as a constitutional deadline approaches to determine the fate of the city.

The city is home to a mix of Kurds, Turkomens and Arabs, with the population of each hotly disputed.

Bombings on Feb. 3, 6 and 16, and three more Feb. 21 rocked the disputed city. The bombings coincided with a move by an Iraqi government committee to implement Article 140 of Iraq's constitution that seeks to reverse demographic changes brought about in Kirkuk by the regime of former president Saddam Hussein.

Under Saddam, tens of thousands of Kurds and Turkomens were deported from Kirkuk and were replaced by Arab settlers from the south to tighten the regime's control over the northern oil fields of the country.

That move eroded the traditional dominance of Kurds. But the new move to reverse the changes threatens also the Turkomens, a local people of Turkish origin.

"Without doubt the situation is very bad, and it has been become worse recently," Nazhat Abdulghani, a senior official of the Iraqi Turkomen Front (ITF) told IPS.

Iraq's new constitution sets out a three-phase plan to "normalise" the situation in Kirkuk.

In the first phase, Kurdish and Turkomen refugees will return to Kirkuk, and Arab settlers will be given financial incentives to return to their areas of origin. The Iraqi government is offering each of these Arab families 15,000 dollars and a piece of land. The returning settlers can transfer jobs to the areas they return to.

Also, in this first phase, predominantly Kurdish districts that were cut off from Kirkuk, like Kalar, Chamchamal and Kifri east of Kirkuk, will be re-attached to Kirkuk province. This phase is due to be completed by April this year.

Those settlers who do not want to leave will not be forced to, but will lose the right to vote, and denied other forms of participation in official decision-making.

The second phase provides for a census. That will then be followed in the third and last phase by an official referendum by the end of this year in which the population will vote on the destiny of the province.

Officials told IPS that the questions to be raised in the referendum have not been agreed yet. Some speak of a choice whether Kirkuk should be a part of the northern autonomous Kurdistan region or under the central government. Others say there must be a third choice whether Kirkuk should stand as a separate federal region similar to Baghdad.

The International Crisis Group, an international organisation that works on conflict resolution, recommended in a report released last summer that Kirkuk must stand "as a stand-alone federal region falling neither under the Kurdish federal region nor directly under the federal government for an interim period."

Based on Article 53 of Iraq's post-war interim constitution, many Turkomens and Arabs also demand the status of an independent federal region for Kirkuk. But that is strongly opposed by Kurds.

The debate on Kirkuk's fate has gone beyond Iraq's borders. Turkey, that has a sizeable Kurdish population, vehemently opposes Kurdish control of Kirkuk, fearing it would embolden its own Kurds.

At a meeting with Iraq's Shia vice-president Adel Abdul-Mahdi, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Teyyip Erdogan called for postponing the referendum on Kirkuk. "The conditions for holding the referendum in Kirkuk have not materialised yet," Erdogan told Abdul-Mahdi.

With outside and inside pressures increasing, some Kurdish circles now speak of a compromise to appease the city's Turkomens, who would be the second major ethnic group after Kurds if and when Article 140 is implemented.

"We are ready for dialogue with the ITF or any Turkomen party on Kirkuk," Arez Abdullah, member of the Kurdistan regional parliament in Arbil told IPS.

A Kurdish compromise with Turkomens could be in the form of some power-sharing formula and "safeguarding their national and cultural rights," Abdullah said.

"For example, they can run the administration in the areas where they constitute the majority of the population...and can have more effective participation in Kurdistan government institutions and parliament."

Kurdistan parliament speaker Adnan Mufti said last year that Turkomens should be given autonomy in areas where they make up most of the population. That statement was intended to encourage Turkomens to vote for bringing Kirkuk within the Kurdistan region.

With ethnic tensions rising, and given the short period of time left and the security problems on the ground, many doubt the Iraqi government's ability to implement Article 140.

"From a practical point of view, implementing Article 140 is impossible; there are many technical problems on the ground which have to be worked out," said Abdulghani.

He said his party is working "first for annulling, second postponing and third modifying" the constitutional article.

Many Iraqis see Kirkuk as a time bomb that might go off at any moment and drag Iraq into a real civil war. Several urge a delay in implementing Article 140. Kurds see it differently. "The real bomb will explode if Article 140 is not executed," said Abdullah. (END/2007)

ipsnews.net