Bush: "30,000 iraqis dead but I'd do it again"

[baxter]

Unbelieveable. Point F, G, and H demonstrate some of the hypocrasy on this board. You complain about America being involved where its not wanted but then say that we could've funded global anti-hunger programs, fund some sort of AIDS program, and give immunization shots to every child for 75 years?So the world is allowed to just use our resources whenever they feel like it? Come and knock on our door whenever they want something? So we are not allowed to do anything for ourselves except be the world's bitch pretty much. I agree, we should've spent more money on the education and helping the future generation rather than spend huge amounts of resources on this war but I am opposed to FOREIGNERS telling us how to spend OUR money. Especially spending on things like point F, G, and H.

Who the bloody hell are you to call anybody a hypercite?
The examples I quoted was putting to context the vast amount spent on a pointless war, where thousands have been killed.
Of course you cannot see that this vast amount of money could have been put to better use, since you have you head so far up your own backside.
I could have quoted hundreds of different uses for this money, from manned flights to mars, to any number of other worthy and good cause.
Come knocking on your door? Again who the **** do you think you are?, some great provider of justice and sanity.
People bitch because the US is involved in a pointless, senseless war which has cost billions.
Sure do what you want with you money, kill thousands more you bloody idiot.

 

[southernman17]

I can call any body anything I want! I just elect not to.

The examples I quoted was putting to context the vast amount spent on a pointless war, where thousands have been killed.
Of course you cannot see that this vast amount of money could have been put to better use

I said I agree it could've been used for education, did I not?

You said that the U.S. should've used the money to help out others nation's problems, not me.

Once you live, work, and pay taxes here, you can have a say in where our taxes go, until then, no one here cares.

you bloody idiot

A personal attack is the hallmark of a poor arguement.

 

[CptStern]

what? it's not like americans had any say in whether they wanted to invade iraq, the choice was made for them.

 

[baxter]

A personal attack is the hallmark of a poor arguement.

Of course, it's kind of like calling people hypocrites.
We will never agree on this war simply because we are at the opposite ends of the spectrum on it.
You are correct it is US tax payer’s money but that does not give the US the right to ignore opinions from outside.
The human cost alone is enough to make anybody feel uneasy about this entire affair, this added with the Hugh Financial cost simply highlights how unnecessary it was/is.
You may not like foreigners telling you what to do with your own domestic issues, but hey isn't that exactly what the US is doing inside Iraq?

You said that the U.S. should've used the money to help out others nation's problems, not me.

Why would this be such a big problem?

 

[Mr Stabby]

you bloody idiot

A personal attack is the hallmark of a poor arguement.

:rolling:

 

[Solaris]

Solaris wrote: Whilst I have the utmost respect for IBC(iraqbodycount), they do not claim (and nor should they) to be 100% definitive and accurate.
They have been recording and tabulating civilian deaths as reported in the media from nearly the start of the invasion, when no-one else would even consider doing so. The pertinant part of this is "as reported in the media" , if your death isnt reported by two sanctioned media outlets, you dont get counted by IBC. For that reason the IBC tally should only be used as a baseline of minimum Iraqi civillian deaths, not as a definitive total of casualties.

From their own words:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.htm#methods

There are so many factors that will lead to underreporting in Iraq that methods other than those of the IBC need to be employed to even get close to a true figure of the loss of life in that country.

So, you were saying 30,000 was too big a number and stern should have a source to back up such a claim (or at least thats how I read it). Ive given you a minimum.

 

[SAJ]

No, the person quoted was Glirk Dient, not Stern.
And youre right, 30,000 is an absolute minimum.
Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Glirk Dient]

So, if The US had given its permission to use its weapons against his own people, then it would be ok?
Alternatively, are you saying that using the chemical agents against their intended target, say Iran, would be somehow less of an atrocity?
There just isnt a favourable interpretation to that remark.

He wouldn't be the dictator he is if he didn't murder his own people. His image wouldn't be nearly as bad. I don't know about you but I would rather kill my enemy than my own people.

Tell us please how the lancet study is biased, staticians around the world will be waiting with baited breath.
And your own figure (30,000) seems to be coming straight from G.W Bush`s mouth, we would all prefer a more credible source.

Do a google search...the highest number from all the liberal sites I can find is 100,000, whereas the lowest from conservative sites is 10k. That is a major difference there. Seeing as how there hasn't been an official body count with names of all of them that is 100% accurate we can only guess as to the total. When you go to one morgue and multiply that by the rest of the moruges there are that is very very innacurate.

 

[SAJ]

Do a google search...the highest number from all the liberal sites I can find is 100,000, whereas the lowest from conservative sites is 10k. That is a major difference there. Seeing as how there hasn't been an official body count with names of all of them that is 100% accurate we can only guess as to the total. When you go to one morgue and multiply that by the rest of the moruges there are that is very very innacurate.

So your figure of 30,000 is a random figure between the lowest and the highest available? And yet its the same as the figure just recently used by Bush? Thats some coincedence.

 

[Glirk Dient]

So your figure of 30,000 is a random figure between the lowest and the highest available? And yet its the same as the figure just recently used by Bush? Thats some coincedence.

That seems to be the most commonly accepted number, as I have said there really is no way to be certain. So we can't say how many deaths there have been since a real study has been conducted. Lancet isn't very accurate...taking a small sample and multiplying isn't an accurate method. It can give you an estimate...but if the small sample you took is exponentially higher than the average it will throw your numbers way off. So until there is an official number released we can't really say how many have been killed. In the mean time I like to stay away from the optimistic(10k) and the pecimistic views(100k) of the death total...the number besides those that is most commonly accepted is 30k and that seems like a logical number to me.

 

[SAJ]

That seems to be the most commonly accepted number, as I have said there really is no way to be certain

the number besides those that is most commonly accepted is 30k and that seems like a logical number to me.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it. " Joseph Goebbels.

The 30k figure seems to have taken on a life of its own, which is why I was interested in where you were taking it from. Bush himself is unlikely to have plucked the figure out of thin air, and its equally unlikely that the US government arrived at the exact same figure as the IBC (Iraqbodycount.net) without reference to it as a source.
As I have said before, I have no problem with IBC nor their methods or results. In fact I dont see any contradition between the figures from the IBC (30k) and the lancet report (98k).
The IBC have recorded civillian deaths from armed forces only , while the lancet attempts to estimate excess Iraqi deaths from all causes, the excess being a comparison with the death rate among Iraqi`s in the previous year.
Futhermore, the IBC method uses meticulous double checking of all reported deaths and only includes sources that they consider credible. Whilst this method establishes a very solid minimum "body count" , it does mean that the total has to be higher and cant possibly be any lower.
There are dozens of reasons why Iraqi deaths go unreported by mainstream media(or indeed any media) , I would refer you to Stern`s thread on the targeting of journalists for just one of them.

So we can't say how many deaths there have been since a real study has been conducted.

A real survey has been conducted, the lancet report.

Lancet isn't very accurate...taking a small sample and multiplying isn't an accurate method.

Well theres more science to it than that, but its not the methods of the survey that were controversial, just the results .

Les Roberts ,the author of the report has never been criticised for his methodology, in fact his earlier reports have been cited by the UK and US governments.....

a similar study he led in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2000. In that case, he reported that about 1.7 million people had died during 22 months of war, and as he says, "Tony Blair and Colin Powell quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity." In fact, the U.N Security Council promptly called for the withdrawal of foreign armies from the Congo, and the U.S. State Department cited his study in announcing a grant of $10 million for humanitarian aid.

Roberts conducted a follow-up study in the Congo that raised the fatality estimate to 3 million, and Tony Blair cited that figure in his address to the 2001 Labor Party Conference.

So we begin to see that it was not the report that was the problem, nor was it the methods that were unscientific, it seems that it was just the numbers that were unpalatable to the occupying forces in Iraq.

In the mean time I like to stay away from the optimistic(10k) and the pecimistic views(100k) of the death total...

I`ll let you in on a secret, the 100k figure is optimistic. The report self-censored the worst of the data fearing that it would skew the results upwards.

Roberts himself wrote in a letter to the Independent, "Please understand how extremely conservative we were: we did a survey estimating that 285,000 people have died due to the first 18 months of invasion and occupation and we reported it as at least 100,000." The survey actually excluded data from Anbar province, Falluja(prior to the the nov `04 siege) and half of the child mortality rate increases. All of which would have put the estimated total to 285k.

No one has said that the Lancet is a complete and 100% accurate total of deaths in Iraq, its just the best and most honest assessment we have to work with in the present circumstances.
Still think that 30k is "logical" and optimistic ?

 

[Top Secret]

what? it's not like americans had any say in whether they wanted to invade iraq, the choice was made for them.

Sigged

 

[bryanf445]

haha yea saw this oin the daily show, quite terrible thing to say...

 

[Uriel]

If you lived in Iraq, what would you rather have?

Tyranny under Saddam?
Or an American trying to give you freedom and is doing a pretty dang good job at it?

Think of your family BTW.

 

[CptStern]

If you lived in Iraq, what would you rather have?

Tyranny under Saddam?
Or an American trying to give you freedom and is doing a pretty dang good job at it?

Think of your family BTW.

in less than 3 years the occupation will have kiled more iraqis than saddam did in 30.

 

[Ikerous]

in less than 3 years the occupation will have kiled more iraqis than saddam did in 30.

Is that actually true? Cuz thats really really sad...

 

[CptStern]

yes ..taking a conservative number of 100,000 (recent small arms figures put it close

"Please understand how extremely conservative we were: we did a survey estimating that 285,000 people have died due to the first 18 months of invasion and occupation and we reported it as at least 100,000."

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1713573&postcount=51


saddam is responsible for between 200,000-300,000 deaths, some during war with iran

 

[SAJ]

Heres something even more scary, the numbers only represent half the timescale of the invasion/occupation.
If you take the Lancet figures and bring them up to date you end up with 175,000 to 650,000 dead. Of those, 120,000 to 500,000 will be due to coalition forces and 50,000 to 250,000 will have been under fifteen years old.
Its an extrapolation of an estimate, but its important that people keep an open mind beyond what is fed to them from leaders and their stenographers.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

"Please understand how extremely conservative we were: we did a survey estimating that 285,000 people have died due to the first 18 months of invasion and occupation and we reported it as at least 100,000."

That's already been discovered as a false arguement. Saddam indirectly killed 500,000 people, and thats CNN's record.

I believe the 30,000 figure, but I think 6,000 people were added to the 24,000 figure just for good measure.

 

[MorneHeru]

F. Have fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 9 years.

Not an American problem.

G. Have fully funded world-wide AIDS programs for 22 years.

See above.

But getting rid of a dictator was?

H. Have ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for 75 years.

Not with my tax dollars.

The children will love you...

 

[CptStern]

That's already been discovered as a false arguement.

source?

Saddam indirectly killed 500,000 people, and thats CNN's record.

source?

I believe the 30,000 figure, but I think 6,000 people were added to the 24,000 figure just for good measure.

you dont seem to understand what he's saying, re-read the thread from the beginning or just read this

 

[SAJ]

"Their crimes are bigger than our crimes" and other false arguements:

That's already been discovered as a false arguement. Saddam indirectly killed 500,000 people, and thats CNN's record

I dont have any issue with those numbers, but is it enough to say that the bigger number excuses the smaller?
Is it justification enough to say that "we" are the lesser of two evils?
Does the number of dead from poison gas that "we" supplied go into the credit or deficit column in the accounting book of atrocity?

How about the hundereds of thousands (conservative) that died needlessly under cruel and inhuman sanctions? Against whom do we tally those rows and columns of gravestones?

- Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" US Ambassador at the United Nations (soon to become Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it." CBS - "60 Minutes", May 12, 1996

- Denis Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq (1997-98) said: “I had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that had effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults.” After thirty-four years with the United Nations, he resigned in protest over the effects of the embargo on the civilian population. (Source: The New Rulers of the World, by John Pilger, Verso, 2002)

- Hans Von Sponeck, who had succeeded Denis Halliday as UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq (1998-2000), resigned on February 13, 2000. He asked: “How long should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?” Like Halliday, he had been with the United Nations for more than thirty years. (Source: The New Rulers of the World, by John Pilger, Verso, 2002)

 

[K e r b e r o s]

source?

The fact that extremely left-wing Bill Maher is skeptical about these arguements says a lot to me ... and not only that ... but these do aswell.

Cluster sampling can be valid if it uses reliable data, rather than on inherently unreliable self-reporting. But it can also be easily skewed by picking out hotspots -- like determining how much of a nation's population wears dentures by surveying only nursing homes.

In fact, intentionally or otherwise, that's pretty much what The Lancet did. Most of the clusters had no deaths whatsoever. But here's the real bombshell: "Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja," the journal reported. That's it; game over; report worthless.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/dveathby.htm

But what evidence we have tells us these pre-war death rates were actually much higher. Dated United Nations figures suggest the overall death rate was well over seven in every 1000 – or close to, if not higher than, the present rate of 7.9 in every 1000 that the Lancet survey suggests. This is more than three times higher than the Lancet survey claims was the case – and double what even the survey claims is the infant mortality rate today.

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/

The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.

The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board. Continue Article on Site

Continueing on with your ... post.

source?

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/09/content_288443.htm

The survey, which the polling firm planned to release on Tuesday, asked 1,178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime. According to Gallup, 6.6 percent said yes.

The polling firm took metropolitan Baghdad's population — 6.39 million — and average household size — 6.9 people — to calculate that 61,000 people were executed during Saddam's rule. Past estimates were in the low tens of thousands. Most are believed to have been buried in mass graves.

The U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed.

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

By contrast, taking at face value Iraq's Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf's recent claims of 500 Iraqi civilian deaths since the start of the campaign we are left with the tragedy of 38 civilian deaths daily since the start of the war.

In other words, even accepting the Iraqis own numbers and the highly-suspect assertion that all were caused by US weapons, and discounting the numbers of humanitarian organizations, the civilian death toll has, in fact, fallen since the start of the war. Indeed, it has fallen precipitously.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/bayati.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-stewart120501.shtml

EPIC board member Ramzi Kysia wrote recently that "UNICEF estimates that sanctions — not Saddam Hussein — have been the cause of at least 500,000 deaths among Iraqi children under the age of five." He has also written that sanctions created conditions "that have resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths." But that's not quite true. The claim is based on faulty information and partial surveys, and parrots information trumpeted by the Iraqi government — information based on extrapolations from small, unscientific samples.

But according to George Lopez and David Cortright, proponents of lifting the sanctions and coauthors of The Sanctions Decade: Assessing U.N. Strategies in the 1990s, the numbers in the reports are grossly inflated. "The most frequently cited studies," they claim, "rely primarily on official Iraqi information sources." The Food and Agricultural Organization study, for example, contains an estimate by the Iraqi Ministry of Health that 109,000 people died annually due to sanctions, though the ministry admitted it had no objective method to confirm this figure.

you dont seem to understand what he's saying, re-read the thread from the beginning or just read this

No, I do ... and I've already read that thank you and the scope of "30,000" dead don't blind me not to see how such figures could arise from miscalculations to simply ... disease. Some of the reasons for people dying have nothing to do with military action, yet there still counted as casualties ... odd.

 

[SAJ]

Cluster sampling can be valid if it uses reliable data, rather than on inherently unreliable self-reporting. But it can also be easily skewed by picking out hotspots -- like determining how much of a nation's population wears dentures by surveying only nursing homes.

In fact, intentionally or otherwise, that's pretty much what The Lancet did. Most of the clusters had no deaths whatsoever. But here's the real bombshell: "Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja," the journal reported. That's it; game over; report worthless.

As has been said earlier, the Falluja data was not included in the the reports findings. If it had the upper-most figure would have been 285,000 excess deaths.
By the way, that guy(Michael Fumento) sounds like a cross between Rush Limburgh and Howard Stern.

Fix your links please, I wouldnt mind having a look at the rest.

 

[CptStern]

The fact that extremely left-wing Bill Maher is skeptical about these arguements says a lot to me ... and not only that ... but these do aswell.

you give me an oil industry website? that's your source? :upstare: surely there's no bias there ..can you back it up with somewhat reputable sources?

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/dveathby.htm

? that's a source? please, any idiot could have wrote that ..look at the crap this "source" pushes out ...it's completely anti-muslim


he cant even spell Muslim ..Moslem hasnt been used in decades

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/

Slate is a republican rag ..just like fox"news" ..the article does NOTHING to disprove the 100,000 figure

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/09/content_288443.htm

that supports my contention not yours ..61,000 is hardly 500,000 as you claimed CNN had reported ...where is that CNN report btw?

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

you must be joking ..this is how it starts "At church last Sunday..." that's a source? where do you get this crap from?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/bayati.html

he works for the Iraqi National Congress along with other paid CIA stooges

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-stewart120501.shtml

this about the sanctions ..I dont see how it is relevent

No, I do ... and I've already read that thank you and the scope of "30,000" dead don't blind me not to see how such figures could arise from miscalculations to simply ... disease. Some of the reasons for people dying have nothing to do with military action, yet there still counted as casualties ... odd.

39,000 died due to small arms alone

 

[K e r b e r o s]

you give me an oil industry website? that's your source? surely there's no bias there ..can you back it up with somewhat reputable sources?

I don't think I owe you the responsibility of continueing to post what other sources I have. As of this point, you can't even refute what I've given you. The spotlights on you my friend, and thus far, you've not challenged any of the sources I've brought to table.

this about the sanctions ..I dont see how it is relevent

"this about the sanctions" ?

No, Jeb, this ain't about the sanctions. *spits in can*

39,000 died due to small arms alone

Its 2005 small arms survey generally concludes that conflict deaths from small arms have been vastly under-reported in the past, not just in Iraq but around the globe.

Following a formula developed at the United Nations, the small arms survey covers a broad range of hand-held arms, ranging from pistols and rifles to military-style machine guns, small mortars and portable anti-tank systems.

Your source cites a completely different "survey", not the Lancet, and does'nt add its number to the Medical Studies figure, which honestly, does'nt serve your position any better then it does mine. Reading the page, I see the author make no link that this small-arms figure could be included with the Lancet, or has had consideration in involving itself with the surveys documentation of casualties.

As for the Lancet itself, it's been discredited by both Pentagon Officials and a large number of anti-war groups who've also had time to review the studies arguement, which I think its even remarkable you continue to hold onto such things. I've posted sources who've been extremely meticulous about the Medical Studies methods to produce its casualty figures, and yet they all came to the conclusion its bias was one all too overwhelming, why can't you?

Need I remind you that the Lancet has done this before ...?

http://www.fumento.com/disease/measles.html

Organized international efforts to scare the living tar out of parents of small children have just been dealt a stunning setback with the retraction of an influential but fraudulent article in a major medical journal.

To the extent the retraction is publicized, it should prevent sickness and possible death in kids and help shove anti-vaccination groups back into the conspiracy theory cesspool from whence they arose.

The study appeared in1998 in Britain's most prestigious medical journal, the Lancet. It implicated the measles- mumps-rubella vaccination (normally given at age 1) as the cause of an allegedly soaring increase in autism. This disorder primarily affects boys and often prompts constant rocking motions, though more importantly it prevents both verbal and non-verbal communication. It appears by the age of 4, though it may be diagnosed later.

When the Lancet piece appeared, new anti-vaccination groups popped up like toadstools after rain. (One just hired the disgraced lead author of the study, Dr. Andrew Wakefield.) Older ones such as the National Vaccine Information Center were reinvigorated. The sharks in suits, who get referrals from the center and its sisters, swarmed in to bite off hunks of flesh from vaccine producers and government compensation programs.

Your Lancet caused quiet a scare ... course, for someone who is such a fan of the medical journal, you most certainly should remember the Lancets infamous years of 1998-1999 ...

Read the source I've posted. Its official, and oh, not "right-wing".

http://www.fumento.com/disease/antiox.html

Here's another goof the Lancet did. It's earning quiet a reputation, as the excerpt gives us ...

According to the Associated Press (AP), in the October 2 issue of the British journal The Lancet, "Scientists pooled the results of 20 years of research [in what's called a "meta-analysis"] involving more than 170,000 people considered at high risk of developing gastrointestinal cancers. Antioxidant supplements investigated included vitamins A, C and E, as well as selenium, in a total of 14 trials."

In a statement, team leader Dr. Goran Bjelakovic boldly declared: "The antioxidant pills except selenium are useless for prevention of gastrointestinal cancers." Yet in the report itself the conclusion was simply that "antioxidant supplements might not be beneficial for cancer prevention." That doesn't seem to translate into "useless;" but this may reflect bias that Bjelakovic brought into his research. For if anything, it's his report that was useless.

One problem is that, despite the AP's assertion, the length of the studies ranged from only one to 12 years. Yet the massive laboratory evidence that antioxidants prevent cancer indicates they act by preventing mutations that lead to tumors. And we know it usually takes a 5-40 years for a growing tumor to become detectable.

It's inane to expect to see statistically significant results, positive OR negative, in a study lasting just a few years or less.

Care to debunk the following?

In fact, intentionally or otherwise, that's pretty much what The Lancet did. Most of the clusters had no deaths whatsoever. But here's the real bombshell: "Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja," the journal reported. That's it; game over; report worthless.



But why stop there? Consider also that 98,000 deaths during the time in question averages out to over 180 daily. Have you heard anyone claim we killed anywhere near that number on one day, much less every day? Even the insurrectionists wouldn't try to pull that off. They left it to The Lancet.



Consider also that even various self-styled human-rights groups have proclaimed the Lancet numbers outlandish. "The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting," Marc Garlasco, told the Washington Post. "These numbers seem to be inflated." Garlasco is senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, which has repeatedly been a thorn in the Pentagon's side during the Iraq war.

I'm interested to see how you attempt at, "debunking my sources" without mere hand waving. Good luck, and don't choke.

 

[SAJ]

In fact, intentionally or otherwise, that's pretty much what The Lancet did. Most of the clusters had no deaths whatsoever. But here's the real bombshell: "Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja," the journal reported. That's it; game over; report worthless.

Already debunked earlier on. Mr.Fumento cleary hasnt grasped the report, the Falluja data was not included in the final report. This obvious mistake(?) casts a shadow over his claim to objective and reasoned analysis.

But why stop there? Consider also that 98,000 deaths during the time in question averages out to over 180 daily. Have you heard anyone claim we killed anywhere near that number on one day, much less every day? Even the insurrectionists wouldn't try to pull that off. They left it to The Lancet.

The whole point of studies like the one in the Lancet is to look at the impact of events without relying on official sources.
The "Iraq Body Count" studies , take the opposite approach, they end up with numbers that cannot possibly be any lower, but can easily be higher.
Just because its not reported it doesnt follow that it didnt happen (especially in a warzone).

Consider also that even various self-styled human-rights groups have proclaimed the Lancet numbers outlandish. "The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting," Marc Garlasco, told the Washington Post. "These numbers seem to be inflated." Garlasco is senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, which has repeatedly been a thorn in the Pentagon's side during the Iraq war

This one is just too much fun.
Ready?
Marc Garlasco , hadnt read the report when he made his comments !

The Washington Post, perhaps most damagingly to the study's reputation, quoted Marc E. Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch, as saying, "These numbers seem to be inflated."

Mr. Garlasco says now that he hadn't read the paper at the time and calls his quote in the Post "really unfortunate." He says he told the reporter, "I haven't read it. I haven't seen it. I don't know anything about it, so I shouldn't comment on it." But, Mr. Garlasco continues, "Like any good journalist, he got me to."

Mr. Garlasco says he misunderstood the reporter's description of the paper's results. He didn't understand that the paper's estimate includes deaths caused not only directly by violence but also by its offshoots: chaos leading to lack of sanitation and medical care.

http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i22/22a01001.htm
Mr.Garlasco is no idiot though, I dont believe they hire idiots at the pentagon:

Mr. Garlasco’s biography reads:
Before coming to HRW, Marc spent seven years in the Pentagon as a senior intelligence analyst covering Iraq. His last position there was chief of high-value targeting during the Iraq War in 2003. Marc was on the Operation Desert Fox (Iraq) Battle Damage Assessment team in 1998, led a Pentagon Battle Damage Assessment team to Kosovo in 1999, and recommended thousands of aimpoints on hundreds of targets during operations in Iraq and Serbia. He also participated in over 50 interrogations as a subject matter expert.

http://www.motherjones.com/radio/2005/10/garlasco_bio.html
Quite different to being a thorn in the side of the establishment wouldnt you say?

Edit: still waiting for you to fix those links.

 

[CptStern]

I don't think I owe you the responsibility of continueing to post what other sources I have. As of this point, you can't even refute what I've given you. The spotlights on you my friend, and thus far, you've not challenged any of the sources I've brought to table.

you promised me cnn but delivered excerpts from Oil-reader-monthly and Church-Pulpit-Digest. Deliver or shut up

"this about the sanctions" ?

No, Jeb, this ain't about the sanctions. *spits in can*

what the hell does that mean? oh wait you're not suggesting saddam was responsible for the deaths due to sanctions are you? ...dont make me pull out the Albright quote

Your source cites a completely different "survey", not the Lancet, and does'nt add its number to the Medical Studies figure, which honestly, does'nt serve your position any better then it does mine. Reading the page, I see the author make no link that this small-arms figure could be included with the Lancet, or has had consideration in involving itself with the surveys documentation of casualties.

Latteral thinking kerberos ...the study supports the idea that a shitload of people died in iraq

As for the Lancet itself, it's been discredited by both Pentagon Officials

ooooh big surprise there ...so how exactly did the pentagon discredit it? did they do their own casualty survey and came up with another figure? surely they've published a document detailing civilian deaths in iraq ..wait let me look it up ...ahh here

and a large number of anti-war groups who've also had time to review the studies arguement,

"a large number of anti-war groups "? this is news to me ....... source? if it's a "large" number shouldnt be too hard to find ..cant seem to find anything. Unless by "reviewing" you mean "supporting" cuz here's a group that started a bell ringing ceremony to commemorate the deaths in iraq ..they call it the 100,000 Rings ceremony

which I think its even remarkable you continue to hold onto such things. I've posted sources who've been extremely meticulous about the Medical Studies methods to produce its casualty figures, and yet they all came to the conclusion its bias was one all too overwhelming, why can't you?

bias? they lowballed the figure ..the problem here is that you only read your right-wing rags on the subject. You're getting an interpretation of the survey. Why not read the actual survey and disprove the figures yourself

Need I remind you that the Lancet has done this before ...?

http://www.fumento.com/disease/measles.html



Your Lancet caused quiet a scare ... course, for someone who is such a fan of the medical journal, you most certainly should remember the Lancets infamous years of 1998-1999 ...

oooh the "infamous" years where a rogue medical journal took the world by storm .. :upstare: damn some of the things you say are just .... to be polite ..silly. There's an obvious ribbing there for the "fan of lancet" comment but I'll leave that unsaid.

Read the source I've posted. Its official, and oh, not "right-wing".

http://www.fumento.com/disease/antiox.html


Here's another goof the Lancet did. It's earning quiet a reputation, as the excerpt gives us ...



Care to debunk the following?



I'm interested to see how you attempt at, "debunking my sources" without mere hand waving. Good luck, and don't choke.

I think SAJ did an admirable job of "debunking my sources" with more than just a "hand waving"

 

[OvA]

i hope we kill 30 thousand more.

/me gives e-high five

 

[Glirk Dient]

Holy quote wars batman!