See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit
Source:
The Independent
URL Source: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/118356
Published: Feb 14, 2007
Author: Les Roberts
Post Date: 2007-02-14 09:58:38 by leveller
Keywords: None
Views: 37221
Comments: 457
The US and Britain have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide 14 February 2007 On both sides of the Atlantic, a process of spinning science is preventing a serious discussion about the state of affairs in Iraq. The government in Iraq claimed last month that since the 2003 invasion between 40,000 and 50,000 violent deaths have occurred. Few have pointed out the absurdity of this statement. There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate. First, if it were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq. For those of us who have been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems simply ridiculous. Secondly, there have to be at least 120,000 and probably 140,000 deaths per year from natural causes in a country with the population of Iraq. The numerous stories we hear about overflowing morgues, the need for new cemeteries and new body collection brigades are not consistent with a 10 per cent rise in death rate above the baseline. And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10. There are several reasons why the governments involved in this conflict have been able to confuse the issue of Iraqi deaths. Our Lancet report involved sampling and statistical analysis, which is rather dry reading. Media reports always miss most deaths in times of war, so the estimate by the media-based monitoring system, http://Iraqbodycount.org (IBC) roughly corresponds with the Iraq government's figures. Repeated evaluations of deaths identified from sources independent of the press and the Ministry of Health show the IBC listing to be less than 10 per cent complete, but because it matches the reports of the governments involved, it is easily referenced. Several other estimates have placed the death toll far higher than the Iraqi government estimates, but those have received less press attention. When in 2005, a UN survey reported that 90 per cent of violent attacks in Scotland were not recorded by the police, no one, not even the police, disputed this finding. Representative surveys are the next best thing to a census for counting deaths, and nowhere but Iraq have partial tallies from morgues and hospitals been given such credence when representative survey results are available. The Pentagon will not release information about deaths induced or amounts of weaponry used in Iraq. On 9 January of this year, the embedded Fox News reporter Brit Hume went along for an air attack, and we learned that at least 25 targets were bombed that day with almost no reports of the damage appearing in the press. Saddam Hussein's surveillance network, which only captured one third of all deaths before the invasion, has certainly deteriorated even further. During last July, there were numerous televised clashes in Anbar, yet the system recorded exactly zero violent deaths from the province. The last Minister of Health to honestly assess the surveillance network, Dr Ala'din Alwan, admitted that it was not reporting from most of the country by August 2004. He was sacked months later after, among other things, reports appeared based on the limited government data suggesting that most violent deaths were associated with coalition forces. The consequences of downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq are profound for both the UK and the US. How can the Americans have a surge of troops to secure the population and promise success when the coalition cannot measure the level of security to within a factor of 10? How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of resentment in Iraq if they are not sure if, on average, one in 80 families have lost a household member, or one in seven, as our study suggests? If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide, and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will they credibly be able to criticise Sudan or Zimbabwe or the next government that kills thousands of its own people? For longer than the US has been a nation, Britain has pushed us at our worst of moments to do the right thing. That time has come again with regard to Iraq. It is wrong to be the junior partner in an endeavour rigged to deny the next death induced, and to have spokespeople effectively respond to that death with disinterest and denial. Our nations' leaders are collectively expressing belligerence at a time when the populace knows they should be expressing contrition. If that cannot be corrected, Britain should end its role in this deteriorating misadventure. It is unlikely that any historians will record the occupation of Iraq in a favourable light. Britain followed the Americans into this débâcle. Wouldn't it be better to let history record that Britain led them out? The writer is an Associate Professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2268067.ece
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-251) not displayed.
.
.
.
#252. To: BeAChooser (#193)
so if Goldi booted you and TLBSHOW off LP for being a kooks, how come she hasn't booted badeye too? isn't he as big a kook as you guys?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Really fast homing pigeons?
BAC is being 'out-sourced' from ElPee as a disinformationist. That's a good sign, indicating that his slime is in short supply.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! So now BeAChooser what do you say about having said no one in the US administration said this?? Oh wait, the word "missile" was not used, so are you going to say that this doesn't count? This goes beyond spin. I would call it a deliberate, knowing lie on choosers part.
.
Carrying "Bird Flu!" Oh my God, it was true!
if they're male GOPers, you can probably count on it. :P
$$$???
It won't explain itself. It may take on an injured air for a while, then it may return to spin some other web of bullshit on some other topic. Or it may be begging Goldi for another chance, having gotten a rather cold reception here...
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
That was our very own Scrapper2, tearing it up. always...she's a very sharp gal. She really is!
BAC is doing better than my last experiences with him on ElPee. He could be working with a team again. Not that it matters; deceit is his only life- function. You look up the accurate data or shrug off his mass-postings. I'm impressed with the percentage of people on this forum who are of the caliber to successfully take him on. When I was at him on ElPee, it was getting rather lonely, at the end. The rest of his "BAC Pack" are awfully quiet. Omigod - were they 'outed?'
a. Here's my response to your post #123. And if you don't like what you read from this 10/11/06 updated report from Johns Hopkins U, then take up your complaints with the authors directly. I am sure they would love to hear from you, BAC, along with your high browed "support" from Weekly Standard etc. This is the last time I'm fiddling with your ghastly attempts to down grade Iraq's civilian losses due to our invasion and occupation a nation which posed absolutely zero threat to our national security. You should be ashamed of yourself for trivializing the Iraqi losses that are a direct result of our aggression on their sovereign nation. http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2 006.html "Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates: Mortality Trends Comparable to Estimates by Those Using Other Counting Methods" October 11, 2006 Some cut and paste of key findings: - The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations. These same survey methods were used to measure mortality during conflicts in the Congo, Kosovo, Sudan and other regions. - The results from the new study closely match the finding of the group’s October 2004 mortality survey. - According to the researchers, the overall rate of mortality in Iraq since March 2003 is 13.3 deaths per 1,000 persons per year compared to 5.5 deaths per 1,000 persons per year prior to March 2003. - This amounts to about 2.5 percent of Iraqi’s population having died as a consequence of the war. b. And here's a response by one of the John Hopkins researchers to the WSJ opinion piece that questioned the findings. It appears that Les Roberts had comments falsely attributed to him. Hmmm.... http://www.j hsph.edu/refugee/research/iraq/wsj_response.html Response to the Wall Street Journal's "655,000 War Dead?" October 20, 2006 Dear Friends: I submitted a letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal on October 18 regarding an opinion article by Steven E. Moore (“655,000 War Dead?,” October 18, 2006). Les Roberts submitted his own letter to address some of the statements inaccurately attributed to him by Mr. Moore in his article. We hope the paper will publish both responses shortly. Mr. Moore did not question our methodology, but rather the number of clusters we used to develop a representative sample. Our study used 47 randomly selected clusters of 40 households each. In his critique, Mr. Moore did not note that our survey sample included 12,801 people living in 47 clusters, which is the equivalent to a survey of 3,700 randomly selected individuals. As a comparison, a 3,700-person survey is nearly 3 times larger than the average U.S. political survey that reports a margin of error of +/-3%. Our study also produced a range of plausible values that reflect the margin of error in our estimate. These values are included in our study, which was published Oct. 11, 2006, in the peer-reviewed, scientific journal, The Lancet. Using our 47 clusters, we estimated that 655,000 excess deaths have occurred in Iraq since March 2003 within a range of plausible values from 393,000 to 943,000 deaths. Even our lowest estimate indicates that a significant amount of death has occurred in Iraq, which is not being measured by other surveillance methods, such as news accounts or counting bodies in morgues. It is clear that using more clusters would have given our estimate a greater degree of precision, assuming we also increased our sample size. For example, had we used 470 clusters, our range of plausible values would have been about 3 times narrower. However, there is a trade off between obtaining meaningful data and ensuring the safety of our surveyors. Surveying more clusters would have also meant more risk to the survey team. In addition, Mr. Moore claimed that the Hopkins study did not include any demographic data. The survey did collect demographic data, such as age and sex, related to violence, although they are not the same details Mr. Moore’s company would have collected for public opinion polls. The characteristics of households in our study are similar to other accounts of households in Iraq and the region, though the household size for the 2006 study is smaller (6.9) than found in the 2004 survey (7.9). Mr. Moore apparently agrees with us that a cluster survey is the preferred approach to quantifying post-invasion violent deaths in contrast to counts of deaths from newspaper articles and morgues or not counting at all. We hope he will join us in our recommendations that an independent body with adequate resources monitor deaths among civilians in conflict—using scientific methods, as was done in our survey. Sincerely, Gilbert Burnham c. Also I'm putting you on notice that I will not address ever again your idiotic comments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that did not exist except in the fictious essays written by Doug Feith and his like minded IsraelFirster war mongering goons. For the latter, pls. refer to the 09/08/06 report submitted to the Select Committee on Intelligence. I referred you to this 151 page report earlier on this thread. If you have lost this link, here it is again - also maybe some lurkers will learn something new today: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt109-331.pdf "Postwar findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments" 09/08/06
Well, there's a couple of problems with the caliber of people on this forum. As a general thing (and not tooting my own horn) the people here are a lot smarter and, as a consequence, more cynical than at other sites. Hence they are less likely to be blind partisans, so we don't have the fun of knocking an idiot like BAC around very often. There isn't much tolerance for fools. Not saying that a fool can't say what he wants (as I often do), but he can expect a pretty rigorous cross-examination. Hell, Burkeman1, aristeides and leveller alone can humble even the most rabid partisan. The other problem is that we've reached a consensus on a lot of issues, like the war. Nobody in their right mind would come to Freedom4um and try to convince rational people that this war was a good idea, is going well, or that the surge has good prospects, for example. Such things are glaringly false, so there isn't much debate about them. Anyone contending otherwise is an idiot whose idiocy would rather quickly be exposed. Additionally, political correctness has no place here, and a person making a weak argument cannot hide behind the accusation that his opponent is a racist or an anti semite or a sexist or whatever, unless it is so glaringly obvious that nobody can dispute it. I can, for example, call Zionism by the name "Zionazism" and nobody's going to ban me here, because rational people beyond the web of PC thinking recognize that Zionism, in its claim of racial exceptionalism, bears a tragic resemblance to Nazism. As a result of these factors, stupid people tend to avoid this site, or leave rather quickly. The downside is that it is something of an echo chamber. I rather miss the days of matching wits with Badeye, for example. He was a smart, deceitful, rabid partisan. Folks like that don't last here. OTOH, I very much value the research that is done here, the variety of postings, and the free and open exchanges. This is my very favorite site, and I've been on quite a few. And this site has it all over El Pee.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Praise God; it's true! This is a cool-aid zero tolerance environment.
I love you.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
I love you. me too, well done scrapper
In Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's book about the Iraqi war, Plan of Attack, Lt. Gen. Tommy Franks, who was in charge of the operation, famously called Feith the "dumbest f****** guy on the planet."
Great reply to the likes of BAC! He loves to use a data snow-storm. He's so obvious that he's to be commended, in that regard. I don't think the numbers are all that vital, against the obvious War Crimes of the Bush Cabal. My heart goes out to the Iraqis, but I'm selfish enough to spend more time worrying about the sensless devastation to our troops and the magnitude of War Crime reparations, which we will ultimately have to pay. It will come out of the VA budget, no doubt. "Praise be to Boy George!"
hey, blue, pretty accurate 4 description...maybe i'll put this post up on the home page. :P
Sure. Just send me a royalty check.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Correct. I am not here to re-invent the wheel with BOTS who don't live in reality- who think Iraq is going fine but the "librul media" is to blame for not showing Sovietesque like propaganda images all day long. And I refuse to debate with pettifogging nitpickers who sieze upon irrelevant hyperbole, pretend that is the main issue, and who generally are sophists of the highest order. I won't do it. I won't entertain those who do it. And the fact of the matter is that most lurkers are not stupid and they don't fall for it. And if they do- then they are too stupid to talk to as well. My time is limited. I am not going to "debate" people who think black is white and up is down. Waste of my time. There are posters who have been wrong about Iraq every step of the way- about literally everything- but yet instead of admit that they were wrong have instead constructed elaborate fantasy worlds - alternate realites in which the WMD are in Syria, AQ and Saddam were best buddies, Iraq is a paradise but the evil libruals who hate America and apple pie won't show us. They are Kuckcoo. Nuts. It is pointless to engage these people. They hold onto a reality that even Bush and Co. are not shameless enough to advance or lie about. Its pathetic. Its chasing your own tail to engage these nuts. And I won't.
And the first team weighs in. You should look up this thread. We had a lot of fun today.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
I don't have to look at the thread. I am quite familiar with the sophism of this poster and his overall schtick. I don't find it amusing or even mildly entertaining. I find it sad and pathetic.
Well, I found it both amusing and entertaining, as well as sad and pathetic. It also reaffirmed my belief in this site and what we talk about here, as well as cluing me in to a really great movie I watched over the lunch hour from Information Clearinghouse/Move On. Scrapper2 found it up above somewhere. Have a good weekend, Burkee.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
I wasn't aware this wasn't an official tally. OK, if there is an official death tally of civilians in Iraq, what is it?
God is always good! There is no question that Iraq was still working on ballistic missiles. There's also no question that those missiles couldn't reach the US. So I bet if you quoted where Bush actually mentioned ballistic missiles he was referring to the former and not the latter.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-7.html "President Bush Discusses Iraq with Congressional Leaders, Remarks by the President on Iraq ... snip ... The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given." http://www.downingstreetsays.org/archives/000205.html "Thus, the Prime Minister and the Government clearly believed that Saddam had had WMD and that he had been able to deploy them in a tactical and strategic way. We had never claimed in the Dossier that the 45-minutes had referred to ballistic missiles of this sort. The vast majority of media reporting after the publication of the Dossier had not made that link. This matter had not really featured until it had been made an issue in May. The Government believed that Saddam had had WMD and that he could deploy it. Irrespective of whether it was battlefield or strategic, it was a false distinction to say that if WMD was deployed in one way, it would not have the same effect if it was deployed in another. We were still talking about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Moreover, under UN Resolutions, Saddam should not have been able to possess any of this material in the first place." http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/16/1063625031302.html " Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, told the Hutton inquiry via an audio link that the intelligence used in last September's dossier had been accurate and reliable. But the claim that Saddam could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes had been open to "misinterpretation" and, in hindsight, overemphasised. "The original report referred to chemical and biological munitions and that was taken to mean battlefield weapons," Sir Richard, known in MI6 as "C", said. "I think what subsequently happened to the reporting (was) it was taken that 45 minutes applied to weapons of a larger range than just battlefield." Use your browser. URL after URL says that Bush said Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. But I can't find a single one that claims he said missiles, much less missiles that could reach the US. Where oh where are you actually getting the claim that Bush said missiles could launch from Iraq and hit the US in 45 minutes ... as Diana alleged?
Strange. That doesn't mention missiles or using them to hit the US from Iraq.
He didn't actually say it, he implied it. He did say however that they could launch drone remote controlled planes over here to deliver a chemical/biological attack though.
God is always good! well aren't you the clever little slickyboy, knowing all these links by heart...
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
ROTFLOL! You're an open book. And you are under the mistaken impression that I'm trying to sway you. I'm not because I know that is hopeless. I'm just trying to keep the next poor soul who stumbles onto FD4UM and a thread like this from making the mistake of thinking truth is the goal of folks like you and the others at FD4UM. And I think they will all note that I've proven some very serious flaws in the study, bias in it's authors and blindness in its proponents. You don't like the commentary I've supplied so far? You don't want to read it? Suit yourself. Don't delude yourself into thinking folks haven't noticed the failure of ANYONE on this thread to address the points I made in post #123. Each one of them is valid and provable. Take, for instance, the study's estimate of pre-war mortality being dramatically different than previous studies ... bigger studies, in fact ... that the Lancet also blessed. And yet Les Roberts and the peer reviewers never addressed that. Take, for instance, the missing death certificates. The study cannot possibly be statistically valid unless the death certificates could be found for about 92% of the claimed 655,000 deaths. Even the LATimes, who was undoubtedly trying to prove that huge numbers of Iraqis had been killed because they too are against the war, could not come up with more than 50,000. Even if the LATimes missed 2 or 3 times that number, there still are an awful lot of death certificates missing for the Hopkin's estimate to be remotely believable. Now you can stick your head in the ground. That's your privilege. But don't think readers (at least the readers I'm interested in reaching) won't notice. And by the way, I'm going to post even more URLS to sources that are critical of the John Hopkins/Lancet study. There are plenty that I still haven't linked. I'll do it as I respond to others on this thread. This time I think I'll actually quote the articles themselves. Perhaps if you won't go Mohammed, Mohammed can come to you. And maybe you'll notice there's a few statisticians amongst the authors of these criticisms. ROTFLOL!
Too cheap to subscribe? You want to know what the economist article said? Here: ********* http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3352814 ... snip ... The bedrock on which the study is founded is the same as that on which opinion polls are built: random sampling. ... snip ... The best sort of random sampling is one that picks individuals out directly. This is not possible in Iraq because no reliable census data exist. For this reason, Dr Roberts used a technique called clustering, which has been employed extensively in other situations where census data are lacking, such as studying infectious disease in poor countries. Clustering works by picking out a number of neighbourhoods at random—33 in this case—and then surveying all the individuals in that neighbourhood. The neighbourhoods were picked by choosing towns in Iraq at random (the chance that a town would be picked was proportional to its population) and then, in a given town, using GPS—the global positioning system—to select a neighbourhood at random within the town. Starting from the GPS-selected grid reference, the researchers then visited the nearest 30 households. ... snip ... They interviewed a total of 7,868 people in 988 households. But the relevant sample size for many purposes—for instance, measuring the uncertainty of the analysis—is 33, the number of clusters. That is because the data from individuals within a given cluster are highly correlated. Statistically, 33 is a relatively small sample (though it is the best that could be obtained by a small number of investigators in a country at war). That is the reason for the large range around the central value of 98,000, and is one reason why that figure might be wrong. ... snip ... **********
post #280, and what in the world is your point? that nobody's died in Iraq, except of natural causes? or people aren't really dead until a government (in this case, what government?) issues an official death certificate? I'm having a hard time seeing exactly what you're arguing for or against. Iraq is not a great place to be right now - can we all agree on that?
You could be insane, just based on the above statement alone. And I am one who is receptive to you arguments.
This is a REALLY good reference, Christine. Take note: http://www.janegalt.net/archives/009511.html "Frankly, I've been skeptical of the prior Lancet study for a long time given that a separate study, by the UN Development program, with a much larger, more reliable data set, found that the 2004 Lancet study was off by about a factor of 4. The UN found after the first year that there were 24,000 war-related deaths (18,000-29,000, with a 95% confidence level), which is approximately Check out that link, Christine. Might be an eyeopener.
So sending in more American troops is a good because...?
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
No, the explanation is much more mundane, Fay. This debate has been going on for years with folks just like you and the Economist, like lots of journals, eventually moves material into archives that you have to pay to see. As the quotes I supplied prove, I did read the article. The early bird gets the worm.
So who pays you to post here?
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
************** http://www.fumento.com/military/lancetscripps.html " Cluster sampling can be valid if it uses reliable data, rather than inherently unreliable self-reporting. But biased researchers, knowingly or unconsciously, can easily pre-determine outcomes by cherry-picking survey sites – like determining denture use in the general population by surveying only nursing homes. But medical researchers and their editors are above all that, especially at so prestigious a publication as The Lancet. Right? Never mind that Roberts admitted to the Associated Press that "I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea." Forget that Lancet editor Richard Horton told the BBC "Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths not fewer," in Iraq, and that he proclaimed coalition efforts "a failure." Ignore that he said "the evidence we publish today must change heads as well as pierce hearts." Want more evidence the researchers knew their paper wasn't worthy of wrapping fish? The 100,000 figure is allegedly the excess over pre-war Iraqi mortality, which they claimed was 5.0 per 1,000 people annually. Not only is that far below the U.S. rate of 8.5 per 1,000, it's even below Saddam's own 2001 propagandist figure of 5.66! Consider, too, that 100,000 deaths during the survey period averages out to over 180 a day. Have you heard anyone even claim we killed anywhere near that number on one day, much less every day? The bad guys wouldn't even try to pull that off. They left it to The Lancet. Even anti-war and anti-American groups and individuals have indicated the Lancet figure is outlandish. "These numbers seem to be inflated," due "to overcounting," Marc Garlasco, of Human Rights Watch told the Washington Post. The website http://www.iraqbodycount.com estimates about 14,000-16,000 deaths since the war began. The Evil One himself, bin Laden, in his pre-election video, made reference to the Iraq war and stated "over 15,000 of our people have been killed." How pathetic that a formerly great medical journal, in its desperate effort to out-propagandize both Saddam and bin Laden, is now just Al-Jazeera on the Thames. ****************
This statement by you: "Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies." clearly points the finger at the Bush administration. And my challenge to you is quote ANYONE in the Bush administration actually claiming that "Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes". More than likely it was said by someone on the left trying to create an issue ... just as it was the left who created the issue of Iraq being an "imminent" threat. The Bush administration never said that and Bush specifically said in his pre-war SOU speech that Iraq was NOT an "imminent" threat. No they haven't. I dare you. QUOTE exactly what Bush (or any administration official) said in this so-called proof by other posters. For some reason, none of those who are *helping* you on this matter seem willing to do that. ROTFLOL!
Maybe you'll like this one to bluedog. To bluedogtxn - *********** Here's a source with a good observation (just what I've been saying): According to the phony survey, they recorded 629 deaths since the start of the war (p4 of the PDF). In 545 cases, they bothered to ask for death certificates, and for those 545 requests, 501 times they were shown the death certificates. So Mr. Pittelli notes, at least 80% of all the deaths in the sample (501/629), and possibly as many as 92% (501/545) were recorded by the government. Let's repeat that: According to the anti-war propagandists who are responsible for this blatant dishonesty, 80 to 92% of all deaths in their sample were recorded in the Iraqi government's own official figures. What this means, as Pittelli points out, is that the official death figures should record at least 80% of the deaths since the Iraq war. Taking the bogus figures at face value, simply for the sake of To take the Johns Hopkins/Lancet figures seriously, you have to believe that the Iraqi government recorded deaths occurring since the invasion with an accuracy of at least 80%, but then suppressed 85-94% of those recorded deaths when releasing official figures, with no one blowing the whistle on them. You also have to believe that 85-94% of the dead bodies were unnoticed by the MSM, the funeral homes, and everyone else trying to keep track of the war casualties. Alternatively, you have to believe that the Iraqi govt. only issues death certificates for 6-15% of all deaths, but this random sample got 80% certificate hits by pure chance. Can you say bogus? **************
ROTFLOL! Did I deny that? I don't think so. And now that that is settled, that anyone can try to deny that Les Robert's studies are bogus is absurd. Here: ************** http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066 The more I think about the Lancet article, the more obviously bogus the results are. The claim is 654,965 excess deaths caused by the war from March 2003 through July 2006. That's 40 months, or 1200 days, so an average of 546 deaths per day. To get an average of 546 deaths per day means that there must have been either many hundreds of days with 1000 or more deaths per day (example: 200 days with 1000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1000 days with an average of 450 deaths), or tens of days with at least 10,000 or more deaths per day (example: 20 days with 10,000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1180 days with an average of 381 deaths). So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths? Where are the news accounts of hundreds of days with 1000 deaths or more? This article claims that there are perhaps 100 Iraqis a day now being killed in sectarian violence--and this is described as escalating violence. This horrifying article talks about 65 bodies found around Baghdad--with the claim that the day was "notable in its number." Either the news media have been ignoring hundreds of days with 1000 or more deaths--or tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths--or the Lancet article is utterly wrong. *********************
Comments (292 - 457) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#253. To: bluedogtxn (#247)
As if there were some other form of attack that Saddam could launch that would hit us in 45 minutes.
#254. To: Morgana le Fay, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#252)
#255. To: Diana (#243)
HAAAAAAA!!
#256. To: Diana, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Kamala, All (#253)
Really fast homing pigeons?
#257. To: Hayek Fan (#216)
These other people could be hair stylists, political hacks or child molesters as far as I know.
#258. To: Morgana le Fay (#252)
#259. To: Diana (#249)
I wonder how he will explain all the evidence he denied.
#260. To: christine (#250)
To: bluedogtxn, scrapper2
#261. To: bluedogtxn, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#259)
#262. To: BeAChooser, Diana, bluedogtxn, leveller, robin, christine, Brian S., Burkeman1, SKYDRIFTER (#185)
#263. To: SKYDRIFTER, leveller, Burkeman1, aristeides, Diana, Minerva, all (#261)
I'm impressed with the percentage of people on this forum who are of the caliber to successfully take him on.
#264. To: bluedogtxn, (#263)
And this site has it all over El Pee.
#265. To: scrapper2 (#262)
This is the last time I'm fiddling with your ghastly attempts to down grade Iraq's civilian losses due to our invasion and occupation a nation which posed absolutely zero threat to our national security. You should be ashamed of yourself for trivializing the Iraqi losses that are a direct result of our aggression on their sovereign nation.
#266. To: bluedogtxn, scrapper2 (#265)
This is the last time I'm fiddling with your ghastly attempts to down grade Iraq's civilian losses due to our invasion and occupation a nation which posed absolutely zero threat to our national security. You should be ashamed of yourself for trivializing the Iraqi losses that are a direct result of our aggression on their sovereign nation.
#267. To: scrapper2 (#262)
#268. To: bluedogtxn, Zipporah (#263)
(Edited)
#269. To: christine (#268)
hey, blue, pretty accurate 4 description...maybe i'll put this post up on the home page. :P
#270. To: bluedogtxn (#263)
Such things are glaringly false, so there isn't much debate about them.
#271. To: Burkeman1 (#270)
Correct. I am not here to re-invent the wheel with BOTS who don't live in reality- who think Iraq is going fine but the "librul media" is to blame for not showing Sovietesque like propaganda images all day l
#272. To: bluedogtxn (#271)
#273. To: Burkeman1 (#272)
I don't find it amusing or even mildly entertaining. I find it sad and pathetic.
#274. To: BeAChooser (#180)
Actually, the OFFICIAL totals do not say 50,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS have been killed.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#275. To: bluedogtxn, ALL (#203)
It mentions ballistic missiles.
#276. To: bluedogtxn, Diana, ALL (#206)
Diana, if you retract that claim, I'll find you and horsewhip you. There was nothing false about your claim. Bush said it, it's on tape, in front of the whole goddamn world.
#277. To: leveller, Diana, ALL (#209)
"The danger to our country is grave. The danger to our country is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons. And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order were given."
#278. To: BeAChooser (#276)
Where oh where are you actually getting the claim that Bush said missiles could launch from Iraq and hit the US in 45 minutes ... as Diana alleged?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#279. To: BeAChooser (#276)
#280. To: Hayek Fan, ALL (#216)
You are right in that I won't bother to read them.
#281. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#219)
you posted a link to an advertisement asking me to subscribe to the economist.
#282. To: BeAChooser (#280)
#283. To: BeAChooser (#280)
Take, for instance, the missing death certificates. The study cannot possibly be statistically valid unless the death certificates could be found for about 92% of the claimed 655,000 deaths.
#284. To: christine, Morgana le Fay, Hayek Fan, ALL (#221)
BeAChooser Reference Database
lol
4x (BAC - he meant 1/4th) the number of excess deaths the Lancet found with their survey. Of course, the UN used similar techniques - clusters, etc. - but with a much larger data set. (link) To me, the hallmark of a good study is if the results are able to be duplicated. The UN basically tried with respect to the first Lancet study and found the Lancet off by a factor of 4. I'd say that's probably how much this Lancet study is off by too..."
#285. To: BeAChooser (#284)
#286. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#224)
did you notice that he did a google search and then cut and pasted the articles as sources without opening them and reading them? it is on my last post.
#287. To: BeAChooser (#286)
#288. To: bluedogtxn, Hayek Fan, ALL (#227)
I liked having it around.
#289. To: Diana, ALL (#232)
I did not say specifically who said this as I didn't know.
I just know it was said on FOX and other media outlets to scare the American public into thinking we were under an immidiate threat of being hit by Saddam's super missles which he didn't have.
However other posters have now given you proof that it was said and by whom.
#290. To: christine, bluedogtxn, Hayek Fan, ALL (#237)
To bluedogtxn - he's on full status.
And I thank you for that status. To bluedogtxn - i'm thoroughly enjoying your posts to him.
argument entertainment, I calculate the estimates based on official figures should be between 314,000 and 867,000. They aren't. The "official figures estimate" is about 49,000.
#291. To: bluedogtxn, Diana, Hayek Fan, ALL (#242)
Diana - He was trying to play word tricks with me again, he was making my post mean something different, something he is expert at.
I was sure missles was said, that Saddam was going to shoot us with those missles that travel from Iraq to the US in 45 minutes.
I don't know if it was ever explicitly stated
That anyone can try to deny now that the administration was pimping the possibility of Saddam nuking us with missiles is such a palpable re-writing of history as to be absurd.
.
.
.