April 29, 2007
— Ace Did America buy itself a big, verifiable pile of Collateral Damage Offsets?
INFANT mortality in Afghanistan has fallen dramatically since the demise of the Taleban, according to a new study, with 40,000 fewer babies dying every year.Improvements in women's access to medical care since the Taleban were ousted from power five years ago was cited as the main reason for the death rate becoming significantly lower.
Grim infant and maternal mortality rates have been regularly cited as evidence of Afghanistan's backwardness after decades of war.
They were also seen as a sign of the slow progress of the internationally funded reconstruction effort.
According to the preliminary results of a Johns Hopkins University study, the infant mortality rate has declined to about 135 per 1,000 live births in 2006, down from an estimated 165 per 1,000 in 2001.
...
Benjamin Loevinsohn, a World Bank health specialist, said the survey results probably underestimated the improvement in infant mortality.
"It's a conservative estimate. This is the situation two and a half to three years ago ... It should be better than that now," Mr Loevinsohn said.
A-ha! A conservative estimate. I knew it must be neocon propaganda.
It's a point that seems glib but isn't -- how do 40,000 fewer infant deaths per year factor into the left's "war never solved anything" and "war is bad for the health of puppies and flowers and other living things" slogans?
Posted by: Ace at
08:15 AM
| Comments (33)
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.
So if a conservative estimate is 40,000 per year for the past years, that means the allied intervention has SAVED 120,000 people who otherwise would have died.
You're right, Ace; that's a huge offset.
Posted by: goddessoftheclassroom at April 29, 2007 08:22 AM (5FKfs)
Babies come out the vagina, right?
We're taking a huge hit in blog credibility due to your obsession with all things vaginal, Ace. Maybe a vagina moratorium would be good at this time.
P.S. Phew! It's a good thing that they never dug up your post about breast feeding.
Posted by: Bart at April 29, 2007 08:32 AM (uw8mP)
Posted by: viperdisorder at April 29, 2007 08:35 AM (bgQWi)
Posted by: Bart at April 29, 2007 08:45 AM (uw8mP)
When Hilary! walks in the Oval Office in 2009 you can bet we'll reverse this unwelcome news when women in Afghanistan finally have a choice when it comes to their reproductive health.
Damn Bush and all you rabid vagina-loving neocon Rethuglicans!
Posted by: MoonbatOneAlpha at April 29, 2007 08:46 AM (Xj2Ev)
Posted by: eman at April 29, 2007 08:52 AM (FWrFx)
Posted by: richard mcenroe at April 29, 2007 09:03 AM (VRjm9)
/moonbat
Posted by: someone at April 29, 2007 09:09 AM (TXnhk)
Posted by: sherlock at April 29, 2007 09:41 AM (sLXi3)
If we just got France more involved there'd probably have been been a 100,000 infants saved.
So in reality, we are responsible for 60,000 infants not being saved.
If the MSM could just find some UN or NGO official say that it would be front page news.
Posted by: Drew at April 29, 2007 09:53 AM (gNyUT)
Carlotta Gall, NYT: "Infant mortality has dropped by 18 percent in Afghanistan, one of the first real signs of recovery for the country five years after the fall of the Taliban regime, health officials said Thursday."
sherlock, AoSHQ: "the NYT actually carries a story that infant mortality has dropped by 18 percent in Afghanistan, one of the first tentaive signs of a re-discovery of 'reporting' since this paper became an apologist for oppressive regimes worldwide."
On the other hand, notice how "...one of the first real signs of recovery for the country in five years..." is artfully blended into the lead sentence so as to imply that it is a quote from the "health officials", but in a way that also allows deniablity that it was an attempt to insert the headline-writer's opinion as a quote. Very nuanced.
Posted by: sherlock at April 29, 2007 10:24 AM (sLXi3)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 29, 2007 10:28 AM (ivi7/)
Posted by: wiserbud at April 29, 2007 10:30 AM (56ssE)
Posted by: ushie at April 29, 2007 10:42 AM (s3gta)
I fucking hate not just the MSM but the sort of liberals who are responsible.
Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 29, 2007 10:46 AM (faxKj)
Posted by: Tushar D at April 29, 2007 01:31 PM (9ULFg)
I fucking hate not just the MSM but the sort of liberals who are responsible.
I second that emotion.
Posted by: captkidney at April 29, 2007 01:38 PM (CUVj3)
Posted by: Hypodermic Ass at April 29, 2007 02:54 PM (41Dd+)
never solved anything" and "war is bad for the health of puppies and
flowers and other living things" slogans?
My good man, your naivete is charming and, in a fashion, enviable! If you take a moment to reflect, you will recall that the leftists are America's foremost cause of infant mortality.
Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at April 29, 2007 03:22 PM (K4xpG)
Posted by: max at April 29, 2007 04:56 PM (CAV4d)
Yea, that women going to school shit just don't count.
Quite so, Purple. I guess that OEF tour of mine was still a waste, help to the Parwan Ministry of Health aside...
Posted by: Major John at April 29, 2007 05:29 PM (ouelG)
I hope you understand that we all actually support you.
Not that liberal "support"-thingy either.
God Bless!
Posted by: Nom de Blog at April 29, 2007 06:47 PM (faxKj)
Posted by: Major John at April 30, 2007 03:28 AM (2MrBP)
Posted by: Dave in NYC at April 30, 2007 04:17 AM (rHk+W)
Posted by: monkeyboy at April 30, 2007 04:24 AM (exWkL)
Afghan winter, graveyard of empires, use native forces, err, use US troops. The left supported it the way they support any military action: how ever we're currently doing it is always misguided..
Tob
Posted by: Toby928 at April 30, 2007 04:41 AM (ATbKm)
40,000 Afghani women denied their right to choose.
Gloria Steinhem just cried a little.
You made me spew cranberry juice on my screen.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at April 30, 2007 04:51 AM (6RG25)
Um, most people on the left supported the war in Afghanistan. The main complaint was that we didn't devote the resources towards finishing the job.
Why do most of your presidential candidates deny that they'd use force if Al Qaeda attacked us again? In the recent presidential debate, Hillary was the only one still willing to use force.
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at April 30, 2007 04:54 AM (6RG25)
Posted by: adolfo_velasquez at April 30, 2007 05:02 AM (6RG25)
Posted by: exdem13 at May 01, 2007 06:36 AM (I4jEf)
There are now 20 combat brigades in the country, a number that is scheduled to drop to 15 by next summer. Mr. Gates has previously expressed hope that if security conditions in the country continue to improve, force levels in Iraq could drop to 10 brigades by the end of 2008.
Mr. Gates gave no timetable for reaching that force level or for how long the forces would be required to stay. He added that there had been no detailed planning by the Pentagon about what level of forces would be required on a more or less permanent basis.
A combat brigade has 3,500 to 4,500 soldiers, leaving a minimum of 17,500 combat troops in Iraq under the plan Mr. Gates described. The total American force required would probably end up being at least twice that, because of the need for support troops and other related personnel.
Afghan winter, graveyard of empires, use native forces, err, use US troops. The left supported it the way they support any military action: how ever we're currently doing it is always misguided..
Posted by: bubba at September 26, 2007 06:07 PM (AwW9r)
Posted by: Friv at October 15, 2011 09:28 AM (7O/1Q)
Thank you for all of your hard work on this web site. Debby really likes setting aside time for research and it is simple to grasp why. We notice all relating to the dynamic manner you deliver helpful ideas on this blog and therefore cause participation from some others about this area while our own princess is now discovering a whole lot. My Blog เที่ยวสิงคโปร์ foods high in fiber list อุปกรณ์คอมพิวเตอร์
Posted by: อุปกรณ์คอมพิวเตอร์ at January 24, 2012 04:00 AM (Gvw//)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.









