Bush needs to clean up his mess

Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo wrote:


The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
this as a 'terrorist'.


So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
reprisal?

If you answered none, you'd be correct.

How many did the Germans execute?

If you answered, a hell of a lot more than none, you'd be correct.

Don't compare us to Nazis kid, it just belittles those who actually lived
through German occupation.

And you lived through it?

Most recent news on the subject:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle13637.htm


Think what happened to the French, at the hands
of their fellow countrymen who did collaborate with the Nazis of the
1940s, when they got their country back!

With over 250,000 Iraqi civilians dead it's small wonder that those with
any guts have decided to fight the oppressor.


Got any other numbers you'd like to pull out of your ass?

In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
narrow it down further.


Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
just not worth keeping figures!

We're nearly two years on now. Try this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11674.htm

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:11:33 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:06:15 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:48:08 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:

Have you ever worked at a job where you had to clean up someone else's
mess?
Someone who was paid by the same people as you to do it themselves?
Since your point is political, can you point out any--repeat
ANY--administration that left office with nothing to clean up for the
next administration? And, who precisely determines what is a mess? Has
the economy recovered from the impact of 9/11? How is unemployment?
What about inflation and interest rates? Did Truman, Eisenhower,
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter finish up the Soviet mess? Get
the picture?
This is a mess that if it is possible to be cleaned up it can be cleaned
up
the end of Bush's term. Either the plan that is in place can be completed
by the Iraqi's with Bush's help by 1-19-09 or they won't be able to
accomplish it at all

Just how long were you prepared to fight in Vietnam, Ed? How many coups
did
South Vietanam have?
We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
distracting the politicians so that we could have won.
So we could still be there today, eh?

No, we would have been out by 1968. Review the effect on
"negotiations" of the period 18-29 December 1972 for a concrete
example.

Ed, with all due respect the "dolchstoss" theory didn't wash then and it
doesn't wash now. For whatever reason our proxies , the south Vietnamese
, would not fight with the same intensity as the Russian and Chinese
proxies, the north Vietnamese. Since both sides had nuclear weapons we
were constrained to fight a limited war. As a result "we" could not
win. Only the south Vietnamese could win and they did not want to fight.

This was obvious to the world in the late 60s.

Vince

Vince

In article , Paul J. Adam
wrote:

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
distracting the politicians so that we could have won.

In semi-modern parlance, US domestic opinion was a centre of gravity,
and keeping public opinion on-side was a key enabling factor that North
Vietnam successfully attacked.

Well, yes. It's that "attention deficit" again. Something that US
allies have learned to worry about. For a distressingly long time.


Or, flipping it around, if the "fight" crowd in the US had made a better
case for "why we fight" then things might have been very different.

Hmmm. Yes, but. At the risk of pushing this more-than-somewhat OT topic
into an arid wilderness, we are faced with the fait accompli of the
destruction of the liberal arts education in the US and much of the
anglosphere in favour of some kind of bizarre, historically-ignorant,
posturing self-loathing that passes for "the Left". Which has gained
itself a stranglehold, a bit like Russian ivy, all over the bloody
place, especially the meeja.

Me, when I need leftwing guidance, I ask myself what Lenin would have
done. The answer rarely involves gender politics or queer studies, but
tends towards, shall we say, more robust solutions. From which, as the
most liberal and tolerant of men, I am usually obliged to distance
myself. Still, it's always there as a thought.




This is one reason I get very, very angry with anyone who dismisses "the
media". They may be ill-informed (and many are), they may be downright
hostile (and many are), but they have to be worked with and dealt with.
Ignore them or annoy them and they will hurt you badly.

Another "yes, but." The thing I can't forgive the meeja (by which I
mean overwhelmingly tv) is their utter incapacity to avoid telling
lies. Indeed, their complete epistemological inability to tell one from
the other: only what makes "good" tv and what does not. They're quite
smart at that.
From bitter personal experience, I'd never give a tv interview unless
it was live: they will cut you up into what they fancy in the editing
room, every time. Reminds me of the fable of the frog and the scorpion.
Indeed (well, I *was* speaking of Lenin) the most effective
revolutionary act I can think of in 2006 is to blow up every television
transmitter and send ballbearings into reverse Clarke orbit.



And when they _are_ properly handled, they can become ambassadors:
embedded journalists, having to live alongside the troops, tend to
become evangelists for "where do we get these men?".

Yes, but. Or, in this instance, perhaps, "but, yet." Embedded
journalists, though, are rarely of the Looneymouth Flakjacket
persuasion, broadcasting with authority in a shirt of many pockets not
too dangerously far from a well-supplied bar. As for tv "journalism":
"Does my bum look big in this?" is its only honest contribution to
anything.


Hence, the hard work required of a J3 Media Ops staffer.

Thankless in success, worse in failure.


rest snipped, all good points with which I more or less entirely agree.

--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" Ibn Khaldun

My .mac.com address is a spam sink.
If you wish to email me, try atlothian at blueyonder dot co dot uk

"Ricardo" wrote in message
. uk...




Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
just not worth keeping figures!

We're nearly two years on now. Try this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11674.htm

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

These statistics are about as plausible as these:
http://www.area51central.com/aliens/...ons/facts.html

And since I found this on the internet it must be true!

Jarg

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:47:36 -0400, Vince wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:11:33 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:

We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
distracting the politicians so that we could have won.
So we could still be there today, eh?

No, we would have been out by 1968. Review the effect on
"negotiations" of the period 18-29 December 1972 for a concrete
example.

Ed, with all due respect the "dolchstoss" theory didn't wash then and it
doesn't wash now.

No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
had the political will to do so.

For whatever reason our proxies , the south Vietnamese
, would not fight with the same intensity as the Russian and Chinese
proxies, the north Vietnamese.

And, we were woefully ignorant of culture other than our own. The
agrarian south was not quite as easily mobilized as the industrialized
(and hence Marxist prone) north. Yet we could have "contained" the
communist threat readily had we not gradually fell victim to political
posturing and pacifism at home.

Throw in a draft, a Spock-raised generation with expectations of a
life of privilege, a rising expectation of equality for our
minorities, and a propensity increasingly for politicians to pander
for votes rather than doing what is arguably painful but better for
the nation in the long run.

Since both sides had nuclear weapons we
were constrained to fight a limited war. As a result "we" could not
win. Only the south Vietnamese could win and they did not want to fight.

Exactly the issue. We were still woefully uncertain of how to keep
wars "limited" and how to stem escalation.

This was obvious to the world in the late 60s.

Up until that line we had significant agreement. Not much of all of
this was obvious to the world in the late '60s. And, I would forecast
that in 2040, not much of what will be then obvious about jihadists
and dealing with them will have been known now.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:47:36 -0400, Vince wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 15:11:33 -0700, "Leadfoot"
wrote:

We were prepared to fight as long as it took, IF--repeat IF--the
give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
distracting the politicians so that we could have won.
So we could still be there today, eh?
No, we would have been out by 1968. Review the effect on
"negotiations" of the period 18-29 December 1972 for a concrete
example.
Ed, with all due respect the "dolchstoss" theory didn't wash then and it
doesn't wash now.

No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
had the political will to do so.


You need to read up a bit
"The Dolchstoßlegende, (German "dagger-thrust legend", often translated
in English as "stab-in-the-back legend") refers to a social mythos and
persecution-propaganda theory popular in post-World War I Germany, which
claimed a direct link between Germany's defeat with German citizens who
nationalists claimed had sabotaged or otherwise lacked dedication to the
promoted cause of the war —ie. "to unify the German nation."

Der Dolchstoss is cited as a important factor in Adolf Hitler's later
rise to power, as the Nazi Party grew its original political base
largely from embittered WWI veterans and those sympathetic with the
Dolchstoss interpretation."

It's precisely on point to your claim that:

IF--repeat IF--the
give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
distracting the politicians so that we could have won.

and

We had the military power to impose our will if we
had the political will to do so.

"Conservatives, nationalists and ex-military leaders began to speak
critically about the peace and Weimar politicians, socialists,
communists, and Jews were viewed with suspicion due to their supposed
extra-national loyalties. It was rumored that they had not supported the
war and had played a role in selling-out Germany to its enemies. These
November Criminals, or those who seemed to benefit from the newly formed
Weimar Republic, were seen to have "stabbed them in the back" on the
home front, by either criticizing the cause of German nationalism,
instigating unrest and strikes in the critical military industries or
profiteering. In essence the accusation was that the accused committed
treason against the "benevolent and righteous" common cause."

"Other wars have been viewed as winnable but lost due to some sort of
homefront betrayal. For example, some believe this had happened to the
United States during the Vietnam War. However, some believe that the
so-called "Vietnam Syndrome" is also a myth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchsto%C3%9Flegende

For whatever reason our proxies , the south Vietnamese
, would not fight with the same intensity as the Russian and Chinese
proxies, the north Vietnamese.

And, we were woefully ignorant of culture other than our own. The
agrarian south was not quite as easily mobilized as the industrialized
(and hence Marxist prone) north.

It was not able to fucntion at all, and in both countries the majority
of the population were farmers.


Yet we could have "contained" the
communist threat readily had we not gradually fell victim to political
posturing and pacifism at home.

Ah yes, more dolchstoss

The official birth of the term itself possibly can be dated to mid 1919,
when Ludendorff was having lunch with a British general Sir Neil
Malcolm. Malcolm asked Ludendorff why it was that he thought Germany
lost the war. Ludendorff replied with his list of excuses: The home
front failed us etc. Then, Sir Neil Malcolm said that "it sounds like
you were stabbed in the back then?" The phrase was to Ludendorff's
liking and he let it be known among the general staff that this was the
'official' version, then disseminated throughout German society. This
was picked up by right wing political factions and used as a form of
attack against the hated Weimar regime, who were the exponents of the
German Revolution.

great excuse when you've lost a war.



Throw in a draft, a Spock-raised generation with expectations of a
life of privilege, a rising expectation of equality for our
minorities, and a propensity increasingly for politicians to pander
for votes rather than doing what is arguably painful but better for
the nation in the long run.



Like avoiding 50,000 plus dead Americans?

Since both sides had nuclear weapons we
were constrained to fight a limited war. As a result "we" could not
win. Only the south Vietnamese could win and they did not want to fight.

Exactly the issue. We were still woefully uncertain of how to keep
wars "limited" and how to stem escalation.
This was obvious to the world in the late 60s.

Up until that line we had significant agreement. Not much of all of
this was obvious to the world in the late '60s. And, I would forecast
that in 2040, not much of what will be then obvious about jihadists
and dealing with them will have been known now.


I was inside the beltway all through the Vietnam War. I recall talking
to French paratroopers who had been at Dien Ben Phu. The duplicity of
the US government, the a lack of a meaningful game plan for
Vietnamization , The corruption of the south Vietnamese government , the
over estimation of the effect of bombing, the reduction in quality of
the conscript infantry and the political problem of bombing the North
and risking Russian nuclear attack were matters of daily conversation.
I remember the skillful means by which the vast majority of the "rich,
well born OR emphasize OR able" avoided the Jungles and rice paddies.

Jarg wrote:
"Ricardo" wrote in message
. uk...



Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
just not worth keeping figures!

We're nearly two years on now. Try this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11674.htm

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."


These statistics are about as plausible as these:
http://www.area51central.com/aliens/...ons/facts.html

And since I found this on the internet it must be true!

Jarg



--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:05:17 -0400, Vince wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:47:36 -0400, Vince wrote:

Ed, with all due respect the "dolchstoss" theory didn't wash then and it
doesn't wash now.

No "dolchstoss" involved here. There was certainly no knife in the
back in '64-'68. We had the military power to impose our will if we
had the political will to do so.


You need to read up a bit
"The Dolchstoßlegende, (German "dagger-thrust legend", often translated
in English as "stab-in-the-back legend") refers to a social mythos and
persecution-propaganda theory popular in post-World War I Germany, which
claimed a direct link between Germany's defeat with German citizens who
nationalists claimed had sabotaged or otherwise lacked dedication to the
promoted cause of the war —ie. "to unify the German nation."

Der Dolchstoss is cited as a important factor in Adolf Hitler's later
rise to power, as the Nazi Party grew its original political base
largely from embittered WWI veterans and those sympathetic with the
Dolchstoss interpretation."

It sounds like you found a term and are dedicated to making it apply.
The conspiracy theory for Germany doesn't hold much water for WW I or
II and it doesn't get traction for the US experience in SEA.

It's precisely on point to your claim that:

IF--repeat IF--the
give-up rather than fight crowd in the US would have stopped
distracting the politicians so that we could have won.

and

We had the military power to impose our will if we
had the political will to do so.

"Conservatives, nationalists and ex-military leaders began to speak
critically about the peace and Weimar politicians, socialists,
communists, and Jews were viewed with suspicion due to their supposed
extra-national loyalties. It was rumored that they had not supported the
war and had played a role in selling-out Germany to its enemies. These
November Criminals, or those who seemed to benefit from the newly formed
Weimar Republic, were seen to have "stabbed them in the back" on the
home front, by either criticizing the cause of German nationalism,
instigating unrest and strikes in the critical military industries or
profiteering. In essence the accusation was that the accused committed
treason against the "benevolent and righteous" common cause."

"Other wars have been viewed as winnable but lost due to some sort of
homefront betrayal. For example, some believe this had happened to the
United States during the Vietnam War. However, some believe that the
so-called "Vietnam Syndrome" is also a myth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchsto%C3%9Flegende

"Some believe" is a load of crap. There's been a lot of work written
since 1975 to describe what went right and what went wrong. Much has
been written by politicians on the scene (i.e. Kissinger, McNamara,
etc.) and much be military historians. A lot of research has been done
by political analysts in universities on both the pro and con sides of
the war. (For that matter, there's been a lot of first-person
participant writing on the topic--even I wrote two published books on
the air war.)

Not many proponents except possibly on the fringe who suspect some
sort of conspiracy or betrayal. It goes a lot deeper than that.

For whatever reason our proxies , the south Vietnamese
, would not fight with the same intensity as the Russian and Chinese
proxies, the north Vietnamese.

And, we were woefully ignorant of culture other than our own. The
agrarian south was not quite as easily mobilized as the industrialized
(and hence Marxist prone) north.

It was not able to fucntion at all, and in both countries the majority
of the population were farmers.

You probably didn't get the view of Hanoi, Haiphong, Thai Nguyen, Cam
Pha, Viet Tri, Pho Tho, and other urban areas that I did.


Yet we could have "contained" the
communist threat readily had we not gradually fell victim to political
posturing and pacifism at home.

Ah yes, more dolchstoss

None of the sort. Politicians seldom transcend the base selfishness of
the re-election motive. One need only examine the tax structure of the
US and the redistribution schemes of the IRS to see proof of catering
to the majority of the electorate. Welfare sells for votes and
anti-war is always more convenient than combat in terms of popular
appeal.

The official birth of the term itself possibly can be dated to mid 1919,
when Ludendorff was having lunch with a British general Sir Neil
Malcolm. Malcolm asked Ludendorff why it was that he thought Germany
lost the war. Ludendorff replied with his list of excuses: The home
front failed us etc. Then, Sir Neil Malcolm said that "it sounds like
you were stabbed in the back then?" The phrase was to Ludendorff's
liking and he let it be known among the general staff that this was the
'official' version, then disseminated throughout German society. This
was picked up by right wing political factions and used as a form of
attack against the hated Weimar regime, who were the exponents of the
German Revolution.

great excuse when you've lost a war.

A fairly anecdotal and arguably revisionist view of the seeds of
Nazism. One might look at the reparations of Versaille as a more
concrete causative factor.



Throw in a draft, a Spock-raised generation with expectations of a
life of privilege, a rising expectation of equality for our
minorities, and a propensity increasingly for politicians to pander
for votes rather than doing what is arguably painful but better for
the nation in the long run.

Like avoiding 50,000 plus dead Americans?

The number is a bit over 58,000, but why quibble. Better for the
nation would be winning conflicts decisively as quickly as possible.
Better for the nation is doing what needs to be done before the nation
suffers another terrorist attack of the magnitude of 9/11. Better for
the nation is a stable Middle East (rather than an abandoned one under
control of the jihadists.)

Since both sides had nuclear weapons we
were constrained to fight a limited war. As a result "we" could not
win. Only the south Vietnamese could win and they did not want to fight.

Exactly the issue. We were still woefully uncertain of how to keep
wars "limited" and how to stem escalation.
This was obvious to the world in the late 60s.

Up until that line we had significant agreement. Not much of all of
this was obvious to the world in the late '60s. And, I would forecast
that in 2040, not much of what will be then obvious about jihadists
and dealing with them will have been known now.


I was inside the beltway all through the Vietnam War.

Passing through town or with a job relevant to the policy-making
process?

I recall talking
to French paratroopers who had been at Dien Ben Phu.

Most every officer I knew had read Bernard Fall. "Street Without Joy"
has more relevance than "Hell in a Very Small Place." I've seen Dien
Bien Phu. It's a poor site for a defensive battle--inaccessible,
surrounded by high ground and supportable only by air. The French must
have read George Custer's tactics manual.

The duplicity of
the US government,

Eisenhower provided logistic, but not military support to the French.
He accepted the Geneva Accords. Kennedy had more Laos on his plate
than Vietnam. LBJ, unfortunately was saddled with McNamara and might
have been duplicitious. Nixon initiated Vietnamization and wrapped up
the treaty that got us out and got the POWs returned. At the same time
he opened up trade and relations with the PRC.

the a lack of a meaningful game plan for
Vietnamization ,

The term was coined by Nixon in 1968. We were four years (more
actually) into it by then. In his first term he brought troop levels
down from half a million to about 65K in the summer of 1972. What
wasn't "meaningful" about that game plan?

The corruption of the south Vietnamese government , the
over estimation of the effect of bombing,

I suspect I've got a more immediate estimation of the effect of
bombing on N. Vietnam than you, unless you were some sort of child
protege in your position inside the beltway.

the reduction in quality of
the conscript infantry and the political problem of bombing the North
and risking Russian nuclear attack were matters of daily conversation.

The draft reflected the increasing lack of education, morality,
ethics, integrity, and self-sacrifice of the population at large.

The "political problem of bombing the North" apparently was pretty
minimal. We did it from 1964 to 1968, intermittently from 69-71 and
then resumed it with impunity in '72.

I remember the skillful means by which the vast majority of the "rich,
well born OR emphasize OR able" avoided the Jungles and rice paddies.

It seemed to work for you. I served with a large number of "rich,
well-born" and decidedly "able" folks in combat.

That canard about who went to war and who went to the Guard has been
discussed at length in R.A.M. Flying single seat, single engine
tactical jets for 4.5 years trumps driving a fishing boat upriver for
six months and then calling everyone you served with a war criminal in
the balance of most of the folks I deal with.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Jarg wrote:
"Ricardo" wrote in message
. uk...



Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
just not worth keeping figures!

We're nearly two years on now. Try this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11674.htm

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."


These statistics are about as plausible as these:
http://www.area51central.com/aliens/...ons/facts.html

And since I found this on the internet it must be true!

Jarg


Not necessarily, but that is only one source of many making exactly the
same allegations, including national and international news networks.
Your belief in 'alien abduction' is entirely up to you, but it is
probably a better bet for survival than a CIA abduction, even if you are
totally innocent.

Once the killing machine starts, manned by people who regard all races
other than their own as 'inferior', it is very difficult to stop. The
many and varied comments about 'ragheads', 'towelheads' and they're all
'terrorists' on these American dominated newsgroups gives an interesting
insight into the national psyche - as is the abuse hurled at anyone who
doesn't support the American war on a poor hapless people who don't
deserve what is happening to them. Further, there is the worrying
inability to understand that if you invade someone else's country, on
whatever pretext, the inhabitants thereof are going to get ****y about it!

It was my understanding that America had a 'Republican' government, yet
following the thread with regard to well reported actions of certain
American marines, many posters would have us believe that their actions
are entirely the fault of a group called 'Democrats'. Very strange.

Unfortunately it is becoming universal - the UK's ruling party, having
been in power for nearly 10 years, claim every problem is the fault of
their predecessors.

Ricardo
--
"Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice, and fear, walk hand in hand ..."

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:40:29 GMT, Ricardo wrote:



Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo wrote:


The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
this as a 'terrorist'.


So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
reprisal?

If you answered none, you'd be correct.

How many did the Germans execute?

If you answered, a hell of a lot more than none, you'd be correct.

Don't compare us to Nazis kid, it just belittles those who actually lived
through German occupation.

And you lived through it?

So now you have to live through something to comment on it?

You're not living in Iraq.

Got any other numbers you'd like to pull out of your ass?

In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
narrow it down further.


Oh, sorry, you're an American - they're just 'collateral damage' so it's
just not worth keeping figures!

We're nearly two years on now. Try this:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle11674.htm

I know you're stupid but it appears that you can at least read. Should you
have actually read the cite you posted you would be aware that the article in
question references the Lancet article. You know, the one where they are 95%
sure the number is between 6,000 and 194,000 but are either unwilling or unable
to narrow it down with any real confidence.

Just because you found it two years later doesn't make it recent news kid.