not sharing the rep for opsec, what should I say to them gamers :sicko-blur:
this is the one, but be prepared for them to not answer the question directly. I would find a friend to ask them again and call them out for ignoring the question's premise
Actually incredible technology if you get to do the 1-2 punch. Make sure that the friend is somewhere else in the audience.
EDIT: This covers more time and accounts for more deaths, but imo the Lancet citation sounds more reputable in a soundbite, so maybe stick with the Lancet.
SECOND EDIT: On the other hand, the Lancet study was semi-famous, and the speaker tomorrow might have arguments prepared against it.
https://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/HOW%20MANY%20DIED,%20BUSH.html
IN THE BUSH PRESIDENCY: HOW MANY DIED?We are now able to estimate the number of Iraqis who have died in the U.S.-instigated war during George W. Bush’s presidency. Looking at the empirical evidence of his war legacy will put his claims of victory in his final days in perspective.
Even by his own standards—“stability” in Iraq—the jury is out. Most independent analysts would say it’s too soon to judge the political outcome. Nearly six years after the invasion, the country remains riven by sectarian politics and major, unresolved issues like the status of Kirkuk.
We have a better grasp of the human costs of the war. For example, the U.N. estimates that there are about 4.5 million displaced Iraqis—more than half of them refugees—or about one in every six citizens, a very high number. Only 5 percent have chosen to return to their homes over the past year, a period of reduced violence from the high levels of 2005-07. The reliable availability of health care, clean water, functioning schools, jobs, and so forth remains elusive. According to UNICEF, many provinces report less than 40 percent of households have access to clean water. In major cities like Basra and Baghdad, about half or more of children cannot attend schools.
Those conditions—chronic and showing few signs of change for the better—are one legacy of the war. Their effects will persist for many years, not least in the malnutrition and lack of education for children. Many of those same children are without one or more parents, too, because the mortality caused by the war is also high.
How high? Several household surveys were conducted in Iraq between 2004 and 2007 to gather data on mortality. While there are differences among them—as one would expect in the midst of war—the range suggests a general congruence of estimates. But none has been conducted for 18 months, and the two most reliable surveys were completed in mid-2006. The higher of those found 650,000 “excess deaths,” mortality attributable to war; the other survey’s data yields 400,000 excess deaths.
The war remained ferocous for about 12-15 months after those surveys were finished and then began to subside, though violence remains at troubling levels in many parts of the country. Iraq Body Count (IBC), a NGO in London that uses English-language press reports from Iraq to count civilian deaths, provides a means to bring the 2006 estimates up-to-date. While it is known to be an undercount, because press reports are incomplete and Baghdad-centric, IBC nonetheless provides useful trends.
The trend line is rather striking. IBC’s estimates are now nearing 100,000. In June 2006, it was about 45,000. That indicates a doubling of the total deaths attributable to violence among civilians. (It does not count non-violent excess deaths—from health emergencies, for example—nor deaths of insurgents.) If this is an acceptable marker, a plausible estimate of total deaths can be calculated by doubling the totals of the two 2006 household surveys, which used a much more reliable and sophisticated method for estimates that draws on long experience in epidemiology.
So we have, at present, between 800,000 and 1.3 million “excess deaths” in this war as we approach its six-year anniversary.This gruesome figure tracks closely to what we know from other wars, in which the number of deaths compared with the number of displaced typically hovered around 1-to-5 or less. It also makes sense when reading of claims by current Iraqi officials that there are between one and two million war widows in Iraq (reaching back to previous conflicts), and 5 million orphans.
This constitutes direct empirical evidence of total excess mortality and indirect, though confirming evidence of the displaced, the bereaved, and general insecurity in the country. These are the results of the war that we know. And the overall figures are stunning: 4.5 million displaced, 1-2 million widows, 5 million orphans, about one million dead—in one way or another, affecting nearly one in every two people in Iraq with tragically life-altering (or ending) impacts.
By any sensible measure, it would be difficult to describe this as victory of any kind. It speaks volumes about the repair work we must do for Iraqis, and in the Arab and Muslim world more generally. And it should caution is against the savage wars we are prone to, even as the drum roll for attacks against other countries picks up.
Now that Bush is gone, perhaps the United States can face honestly the damage we have wrought, and the responsibilities that we must learn from it.
--John Tirman
A version of this article appears in The Nation, February 16, 2009
They'll just deflect by saying the fact Iraq is now a democracy is totally worth it
It's abundantly clear that the American Imperial propaganda machine was not to be trusted in 2002, why should it be trusted now?
I'm not sure it's a great question because something they say might actually resonate with parts of the audience, but if they fumble and fail to produce any good explanation or evidence that things have changed (as they haven't), it could be an eye opening moment.
this could be a cool opportunity to get thrown out of a room for speaking truth :party-sicko:
whatever you say, rehearse it. its easy to get flustered even when youre right and politicians are generally fast on their speaking-feet and will try to trip you up.
unless you just scream murderer and chuck a shoe at them of course
Ask them if they feel any sort of shame or remorse for their choices, obviously. Or at least how to get the adrenochrome recipe
This isn't a bad question, but maybe too easy an out. I'd add an "and if so, what have you done to materially ease the harm your vote caused?"
Yes, just like I wear my Retired Drug Dealer hat when I go out grocery shopping
Pair them with some darker chinos and some nice white shoes and you will look :chefs-kiss:
o7 Looking forward to literally only being approached by extremely online left comrades and super angry or confused chuds. I cannot believe how fucking funny these are. Also extremely likely to get me shot in my area but so is going near a walmart or school so I might as well be hilarious about it.
Half of all proceeds made today will go directly the 9/11 Memorial Museum.
cringe
Did you trust there were WMDs? Does knowing the government lied about WMDs make you question the US' involvement in other conflicts abroad?
It's pretty well the set of questions true believers can't talk their way out of.
intelligence about who broke my vase
might be a little too jokey. unless you ask them about specific "methods".
If they are also part of the "cancel culture" grift, ask them about the anti-Iraq war cancel culture. The only time when that term really applies, since it was coordination between mainstream media and the government to lie about the facts AND also cancel people who wanted to tell the truth.
CW: Self-harm/suicide
"If I had voted for a war which resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths on obviously false premises, I'd kill myself. How do you shave in the morning without using the blade to cut your wrists and give the Iraqi people the justice they deserve?"
This is only if you REALLY want to be kicked out.
Sorry I should have put a content warning on that one.
Seriously though, suggesting self-harm is about as close as you can legally get to telling these war criminals exactly what they deserve.
Whatever you do, make sure you aren't visible in the audience until you ask the question. If this takes place in a library you might be able to wedge yourself into an alcove somewhere.
You want the politician to be confused and off-balance when you ask the question, so they can't default to a bland script.
Ask your question in a normal tone so they have to respond normally instead of pretending like you're crazy. I guess they could still pretend like you're crazy.
You could go with a classic :shoe:
This is a farewell kiss from the Iraqi people you dog!
Is he a lib or a hog? If he's a hog, is he a COVID denier? If so, then ask if he thinks the Patriot Act laid the groundwork for the initial mask mandates.
