Study: 655,000 Iraqis died due to war

[TheGoodShepherd]

A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.

"They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.

"This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.

A private group called Iraqi Body Count, for example, says it has recorded about 44,000 to 49,000 civilian Iraqi deaths. But it notes that those totals are based on media reports, which it says probably overlook "many if not most civilian casualties."

Speaking of the new study, Burnham said the estimate was much higher than others because it was derived from a house-to-house survey rather than approaches that depend on body counts or media reports.

For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July.



When top Iraqi political officials cite death numbers, they often refuse to say where the numbers came from.

The major funder of the new study was the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_death_toll


-----------------------

MIT is a most credible source. I have no reason yet to doubt the authenticity of this study.


Way to go America!!!

You're now officially the biggest bucthers on the planet.

Hey didn't someone on this message board predict there would be something like 500,000 casualites from this war,before it began?

Hey shiva do you remember the name of the poster????

I do.

[micknaboz]

How many days since mission accomplished?

[Jetsy]

Way to go America!!!

You're now officially the biggest bucthers on the planet.

Hey didn't someone on this message board predict there would be something like 500,000 casualites from this war,before it began?





Spoken like a true Canadian. You're a joke Chimp.

[Gibby]

No jetsy actually monkeyboy is also from Detroit. I understand they drove him to Canada after disdain for him.

[sukie]

Nice useless article. No data just a premise.

[TMR2006]

Nice useless article. No data just a premise.

Does raise an interesting point though.

We know exactly how many of our troops have fallen (down to the single digit). When it comes to the civilians no one seems willing or able to provide an accurate number of the casualties. Why is that ?

[sukie]

Show me one military conflict that has ever.

[chickie]

And how many of the casualties is because of the damn crazy muslims strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up their own people??

You know what I am trying to say...it is still early and I am working on my first cup of coffee!

[rob on the job]

BULLETIN: Number of Threads Started by Chimp that Attacked America as Mass Murderer Now Estimated at 665,000, Far Higher than Previously Thought

[shiva2999]

Mass murderers and war criminals.

Good job America.

Nice to see you're not embarrassed assuming the mantle of the world's biggest bad guys.

You're # 1!

[deconstruction]

And how many of the casualties is because of the damn crazy muslims strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up their own people??

You know what I am trying to say...it is still early and I am working on my first cup of coffee!

Yeah, but how many wars were begun with the premise that precision munitions would spare as many as possible?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Nice useless article. No data just a premise.


That's because it's an article about the study genuis.

Do you want a link to the MIT study?

I'm not sure if it's online. But I can check.

[sukie]

It's an article about a number with no real reference to the study except that the numbers... could be... underestimated. Maybe alot higher with a number sucked outta someone's butt.

[TheGoodShepherd]

It's an article about a number with no real reference to the study except that the numbers... could be... underestimated.


That's because it's a news article.

Like I said. I can try and look for the actual study. Not too sure if it's available online.

[TigerJ]

The number of deaths in Iraq is indeed tragic. But raw numbers don't tell the complete story. I'd like to see how many of those deaths were due to action by western forces (primarily the US) and how many dere due to action by Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda sympathizersimported into Iraq from the outside. It might not make a difference to the Shiva's of the board, but it does to me.

[TheGoodShepherd]

The number of deaths in Iraq is indeed tragic. But raw numbers don't tell the complete story. I'd like to see how many of those deaths were due to action by western forces (primarily the US) and how many dere due to action by Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda sympathizersimported into Iraq from the outside. It might not make a difference to the Shiva's of the board, but it does to me.


Tragic?

It's a freakin war crime.

[TheGoodShepherd]

No jetsy actually monkeyboy is also from Detroit. I understand they drove him to Canada after disdain for him.

GO TIGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[rob on the job]

A news report you may have overlooked ... (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/53893)

[chickie]

GO TIGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tigers SUCK.......

[chickie]

A news report you may have overlooked ... (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/53893)

"For his dear mother's sake, I wish he'd carry out an attack," al-Attas continued. "Just so I know he's all right."

What a great mother!! I will have to remember to say that about my son whenI can't find him.....

Is that even really her in the picture?? Wouldn't she have died of old age by now?? Her hands and eyes looked to young to be his mother.

[Smash]

HOOO RAHHH! That's 650,000 terrorists off the street!

[Ru]

HOOO RAHHH! That's 650,000 terrorists off the street!

You're not a real person, right?

[Smash]

You're not a real person, right?

Don't ask me to cry over the death of the enemy.

[micknaboz]

You're not a real person, right?

He's still typing that shit, and to be cheering on the deaths of so many innocent people is contemptible. **** him, he's a ****en moron.

[Ru]

Don't ask me to cry over the death of the enemy.

The enemy? I thought we were there to help these people. That's what my President said, and I know he'd never lie.

Please tell me that you're not a real person and that you're someone just pretending to be the ultimate right wing, nut job, ignoramus.

[Smash]

The enemy? I thought we were there to help these people. That's what my President said, and I know he'd never lie.

Please tell me that you're not a real person and that you're someone just pretending to be the ultimate right wing, nut job, ignoramus.

WE're at war with the camel ****ers for as long as they want. They can give up at any time, then we'll leave. But they keep atacking our soldiers and Marines, so we keep killing them. You are familiar with the War on Terror, aren't you? This is just one of many battles to be fought.

[nehemiah]

:bigwhoop:

it's not a real war until you hit the million mark.

drop the ****ing bomb and get there, pussy america.

[Ru]

You're disgusting, and you need help if you are serious.

(That was for Smash not Nehe.)

[deconstruction]

Don't ask me to cry over the death of the enemy.

So apparently civilians are the enemy.

[sukie]

There it is again... The so called 650,000 killed were all killed by US troops. Precious.

[micknaboz]

There it is again... The so called 650,000 killed were all killed by US troops. Precious.


I dont see anybody saying that at all. But I will say that because of the total incompetance of the Bush administration in general , and Rumsfeld in particular, in their execution of this occupation, that the blood of all these Iraquis is on their hands.

And I'm not even arguing against the illegal attack on a sovereign nation.
I'm just saying that they totally ****ed up in their decision to not do any post war planning at all before the invasion. As a result so many more people, American soldiers and Iraqui citizens, have unecessarily been killed or been maimed and lost limbs.

[sukie]

When in the history of all human armed conflicts between two sides has there ever been a post war planning period carried out pre war?

[TheGoodShepherd]

When in the history of all human armed conflicts between two sides has there ever been a post war planning period carried out pre war?

I don't understand what you're arguing?

Your just talking in circles. Or creating a strawman.

You haven't said the number is higher or lower than you thought.

Or what it means if the number is accurate or inaccurate.

I cant blame you for not questiong the authenticity of the report, seeing as no one on the Range has seen it yet.... but still...why are you even posting....what exactly are you saying?

[nehemiah]

When in the history of all human armed conflicts between two sides has there ever been a post war planning period carried out pre war?stop being a crackhead.

[TheGoodShepherd]

stop being a crackhead.

Do you think the number is accurate?

[micknaboz]

When in the history of all human armed conflicts between two sides has there ever been a post war planning period carried out pre war?

First off your question makes no sense.

Do you not read the news? Have you not heard what so many generals have been saying the last 4 years? They did no planning for the post inavsion, or if they did they totally ****ed it up.

They thought we would just march in , all the Iraquis and their American liberators would march through Baghdad, hands joined, singing Kumbayha.

If you dont think every competant nation doesnt have plans drawn up for almost every possible contingency, you are sadly mistaken.

Bush ****ed up, and thousands more then necessarry have died.

[TheGoodShepherd]

First off your question makes no sense.

Do you not read the news? Have you not heard what so many generals have been saying the last 4 years? They did no planning for the post inavsion, or if they did they totally ****ed it up.

They thought we would just march in , all the Iraquis and their American liberators would march through Baghdad, hands joined, singing Kumbayha.

If you dont think every competant nation doesnt have plans drawn up for almost every possible contingency, you are sadly mistaken.

Bush ****ed up, and thousands more then necessarry have died.

Most of them never thought that. They had to say that.

[chickie]

When in the history of all human armed conflicts between two sides has there ever been a post war planning period carried out pre war?

I understand what you are saying. Not only that but I think that people need to keep in mind that you really can't have a plan for post war until you even get there. So many dynamics have changed several times during this war that even if they did have one I am sure post-war plan would have constantly changed as well.

[micknaboz]

Not only that but I think that people need to keep in mind that you really can't have a plan for post war until you even get there. .

Yeah right. You really need to get out more. Thats about the stupidest thing I've heard in quite awhile.

Or maybe it suggests you're smart enough to be president, if we go by the standards of this president.

[chickie]

Yeah right. You really need to get out more. Thats about the stupidest thing I've heard in quite awhile.

I do not need to get out more! Common sense....use your common sense!! What do you seriously expect?

You sit here and act like Bush should have made one plan and have stuck to it...and what about all these lives have been taken.....seriouly look who we are at war with. I cannot stand talking to you. You are constanly telling me that I am stupid and I am seriously over it. :Grr:

Tell me what do you think the plan should be......I would love to hear your STUPID logic. You can sit back and talk your freaking smack about what should and shouldn't be done....and until you are in that position your spew is all you have!

[nehemiah]

Do you think the number is accurate?i'm withholding judgment until the methodology is posted.

if you include peripheral causes (for instance, deaths caused by an illness exacerbated by no clean water or electricity), then it wouldn't surprise me if the number was that high.

[nehemiah]

all good campaigns have a plan for the post war.

don't be daft, people.

jeebus ****ing kristamighty.

[TMR2006]

No such thing as a post-war strategy ?

Did I miss something or did the German and Japanese reconstruction efforts never occur ?

[shiva2999]

i'm withholding judgment until the methodology is posted.

if you include peripheral causes (for instance, deaths caused by an illness exacerbated by no clean water or electricity), then it wouldn't surprise me if the number was that high.

10,000, 50,000, 100,000, 650,000.

What's the difference?

[sukie]

No such thing as a post-war strategy ?

Did I miss something or did the German and Japanese reconstruction efforts never occur ?

They weren't thought about pre war.

[micknaboz]

I do not need to get out more! Common sense....use your common sense!! What do you seriously expect?

You sit here and act like Bush should have made one plan and have stuck to it...and what about all these lives have been taken.....seriouly look who we are at war with. I cannot stand talking to you. You are constanly telling me that I am stupid and I am seriously over it. :Grr:

Tell me what do you think the plan should be......I would love to hear your STUPID logic. You can sit back and talk your freaking smack about what should and shouldn't be done....and until you are in that position your spew is all you have!

I'm not saying you're stupid, just that you say stupid things.
And seriously if you start reading more and talking to more people you would know there is constant planning on just such stuff. But lala land is such a lovely place.

And I never said they should have had "one plan and stuck with it". I said they should have a plan period, something that innumerable generals have also said. Yeah their just talking smack too right?

[sukie]

Constant? Now you say constant as opposed to pre war post war planning? Stick with the gripe... stop smearing out the edges.

[smashingt2312]

655,000 is terrible. I guess thats what it costs to get weapons of mass destruction, oh wait a minute.

[nehemiah]

10,000, 50,000, 100,000, 650,000.

What's the difference?morally, there is none.

but from an accuracy standpoint....................

[TMR2006]

They weren't thought about pre war.

Fall of Berlin April 19, 1945



Morgenthau Plan 1944
"The Morgenthau Plan was a plan for the occupation of Germany after the Second World War that advocated harsh measures that would ensure that Germany could never wage war again. This was to be achieved in three steps.

Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states.
Germany's main centres of mining and industry, including the Saar area, the Ruhr area and Upper Silesia were to be Internationalised or annexed by neighbouring nations.
All heavy industry was to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed.
The plan was proposed by American Treasury Secretary Henry MorgenthauJr.

A toned down version of the plan, limited to turning Germany into "a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character", and lacking the requirement for the destruction of the Ruhr mines, was signed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the Second Quebec Conference in September 1944"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan

More plans for German Reconstruction from 1944
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan#Suggested_1944_post-surrender_program_for_Germany

[micknaboz]

tmr2006 1- sukie 0 :)

Great find TMR

[chickie]

World War II
1939-1945



Morgenthau Plan 1944
"The Morgenthau Plan was a plan for the occupation of Germany after the Second World War that advocated harsh measures that would ensure that Germany could never wage war again. This was to be achieved in three steps.

Germany was to be partitioned into two independent states.
Germany's main centres of mining and industry, including the Saar area, the Ruhr area and Upper Silesia were to be Internationalised or annexed by neighbouring nations.
All heavy industry was to be dismantled or otherwise destroyed.
The plan was proposed by American Treasury Secretary Henry MorgenthauJr.

A toned down version of the plan, limited to turning Germany into "a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character", and lacking the requirement for the destruction of the Ruhr mines, was signed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the Second Quebec Conference in September 1944"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan

More plans for German Reconstruction from 1944
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan#Suggested_1944_post-surrender_program_for_Germany

Yes, this was back in the day when we could have real leadership! Now we have to be "politically correct" or we might hurt someones feelings. If someone had the balls in this country to stand up and take action maybe then we would have a plan??

[TMR2006]

Yes, this was back in the day when we could have real leadership! Now we have to be "politically correct" or we might hurt someones feelings. If someone had the balls in this country to stand up and take action maybe then we would have a plan??

Absolutely agree, I really could care less if one of our generals was a former member of the KKK... If he got the job done, more power to him.

[shiva2999]

morally, there is none.

but from an accuracy standpoint....................

the Pentagon took steps to ensure there was no accurate count.

That way the warmongers can quibble everytime a number is mentioned.

[sukie]

tmr2006 1- sukie 0 :)

Great find TMR

Uh... not prewar

[micknaboz]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 12, 2005; Page A01

A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.

.The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.

In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."

[TMR2006]

Right.... I'll concede that I probably wasn't absorbing the full breadth of your original post.

Nonetheless...

There were debates, and conferences trying to determine the plan for the peace. A good deal of foresight went into determining how to keep the Germans from reverting to a facist regime. The Morgenthau plan wasn't even the resolution that had been settled on.

Where was the foresight of the Bush administration ?
Where was the international discourse ?
Where are the stacks of rejected plans ?
Oh right... A hero's welcome, flowers and parades, I forgot.

Cocky Jerks F*ed it all up, moot point now though.

[Meathead]

morally, there is none.

but from an accuracy standpoint....................
since theyre not white they only count about a third of person max anyway

[sukie]

Plan for peace was a term coined by yer buddies Kerry and Edwards.

[micknaboz]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm


WASHINGTON - In March 2003, days before the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American war planners and intelligence officials met at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to review the Bush administration's plans to oust Saddam Hussein and implant democracy in Iraq.

Near the end of his presentation, an Army lieutenant colonel who was giving a briefing showed a slide describing the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war, known in the planners' parlance as Phase 4-C. He was uncomfortable with his material - and for good reason.

The slide said: "To Be Provided."

A Knight Ridder review of the administration's Iraq policy and decisions has found that it invaded Iraq without a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. The administration also failed to provide some 100,000 additional U.S. troops that American military commanders originally wanted to help restore order and reconstruct a country shattered by war, a brutal dictatorship and economic sanctions.

The military's plan to defeat Saddam's army worked brilliantly and American troops have distinguished themselves on the battlefield. However, the review found that the president and many of his advisers ignored repeated warnings that rebuilding Iraq would be harder than ousting Saddam and tossed out years of planning about how to rebuild Iraq, in part because they thought pro-American Iraqi exiles and Iraqi "patriots" would quickly pick up the pieces. The CIA predicted up until the war's opening days that the Iraqi army would turn against Saddam, which never happened.

[Meathead]

yeah leave it to the stupid dems to ask for a plan for peace idiots

[TheGoodShepherd]

the Pentagon took steps to ensure there was no accurate count.

That way the warmongers can quibble everytime a number is mentioned.

Basically.

[sukie]

Silliness abounds from the north left as usual.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Aren't Americans ashamed that they can just write off 655,000 lives as a "mistake?"

Where the hell is your conscious?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Silliness abounds from the north left as usual.

Earth to sukie.

You stil have not mentioned anything as to your positon on this topic.

[sukie]

You mean the mere notion of 650,000 or an actual number other than a random guestimate? Stop legitimizing the number that is unreal.

[TheGoodShepherd]

i'm withholding judgment until the methodology is posted.

if you include peripheral causes (for instance, deaths caused by an illness exacerbated by no clean water or electricity), then it wouldn't surprise me if the number was that high.

That responsiblity lies 100% with the occupiers.

[sukie]

Bullshit. That's like blaming England for our civil war deaths because they lost the Revolution... If they had won there would have been nothing to ceceed from.

[micknaboz]

From the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display-papers.cfm?q=88&title=Pre-War%20Planning%20For%20a%20Post-War%20Iraq


The postwar situation in Iraq following Operation IRAQI FREEDOM was a result of failed planning efforts between the U.S. State Department and Defense Department. The State Department spent over nine months planning for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. OSD assumed postwar planning just two months prior to the invasion; while disregarding the efforts, team, and information already completed by the State Department's Future of Iraq Project. Disagreements and personal beliefs at the heads of the State Department and Defense Department lead to a failed postwar planning effort.


You grasping any of this yet Sukie, or gopchick.

[TheGoodShepherd]

You mean the mere notion of 650,000 or an actual number other than a random guestimate? Stop legitimizing the number that is unreal.

Nope. As usualy you don't get it. Try being civlized for a change. And argue about the actualy topic.


You can't possibly say the number is too high. Nor can i say it's too low. Because we both haven't seen the actualy study.

So assume it's a real number. What would that mean to you?

[sukie]

So there was planning when you stated there was non. What is the gripe now.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Bullshit. That's like blaming England for our civil war deaths because they lost the Revolution... If they had won there would have been nothing to ceceed from.

Wow. this makes no sense.

In short. My answer to your stupid proposition is this.

Yes it is the responsiblity of the occupiers. No it is not anything like blaming England.

[sukie]

So murder by civilians against civilians is the responsibility of the occupiers?
So murder in Canada is the mounties fault?

[micknaboz]

So there was planning when you stated there was non. What is the gripe now.

I love your avatar, it perfectly describes your attempts at comprehension in this case.

:)

[TheGoodShepherd]

So murder by civilians against civilians is the responsibility of the occupiers?
So murder in Canada is the mounties fault?

The US invaded Iraq against the wishes of the world. And by this I mean the actual majority of the world. Not leaders of certain countries.

Everyone said Iraq would become a quagmire. It did.

It is the responsibility of the invader to have the foresight that civil war may break out. And the US did have the vision. Many intelligence reports warned of this. It is therefore an American responsiblity to ensure peace,stability and working infrastruture after invasion and occupation. Otherwise, DONT FREAKIN INVADE A COUNTRY, if you dont think your capable of shouldering such a responsibility.

Trouble is, the US failed to stop the downward spiral for whatever reasons. But it doesnt matter. You failed miserably. America failed miserably. Accept your moral responsibility. Get on your knees an apologize to all Iraqi's for your shameful hatred of a people Americans dont even understand.

Look what you brought to them. Misery, blood and despair.

You're a weak pathetic moping giant of a country.

No wonder North Korea is exposing your hand.

[TMR2006]

Silliness abounds from the north left as usual.

So claiming that finishing a war without having any idea about what you're going to do after is silly, and makes you a liberal ?

What does that make Bush for not starting another pre-emptive war when you know the bastards actually have WMD's ?

[sukie]

And I'm not even arguing against the illegal attack on a sovereign nation.
I'm just saying that they totally ****ed up in their decision to not do any post war planning at all before the invasion. As a result so many more people, American soldiers and Iraqui citizens, have unecessarily been killed or been maimed and lost limbs.

Okay... what am I missing?

[sukie]

TMR, silliness was aimed at the comments about thew pentagon not wanting an accurate account (by the north left). Keep up. Two arguments here.

[ticatfan3]

Nope. As usualy you don't get it. Try being civlized for a change. And argue about the actualy topic.


You can't possibly say the number is too high. Nor can i say it's too low. Because we both haven't seen the actualy study.

So assume it's a real number. What would that mean to you?If it were real,it means that 650,000 died, and if america did not invade,most of them would probably be dead by now anyways. But we all know how the left likes to add a few to make it look good. So did someone go over and actually count the bodies?

[sukie]

No, a number popped into someone's head that likes lotsa zeros.

[TheGoodShepherd]

No, a number popped into someone's head that likes lotsa zeros.

Have you seen the study? Much less read it?

I doubt it.

[sukie]

Of course I read what was available... Was there a mathmatical formula for the 500 per day?

[sukie]

infant mortality of 50 per 1000... is that the occupiers fault?

[shiva2999]

infant mortality of 50 per 1000... is that the occupiers fault?

Yes.

[TheGoodShepherd]

infant mortality of 50 per 1000... is that the occupiers fault?

Could be probably yes.

[TMR2006]

If we take the estimates that between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis died during Saddam's rule (1979 - 2003), it yields an annual death rate of between 25,000 to 50,000 per year under Saddam.

If the estimate of 650,000 is accurate (not saying it is) that would yield a per year death rate of 162,500 per year.

Even an estimate of 300,000 would end up with a death rate of 75,000 per year.

[sukie]

Could be probably yes.

Its down from over 62% since 2000 Is that the occupiers credit then?

[uppy]

The battle in Iraq is not over yet their for the peace plan has not been put
in place.

You can't have peace without Victory and the war on terror is ongoing.

Chimppy take your 600,000 dead and......

[shiva2999]

If we take the estimates that between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis died during Saddam's rule (1979 - 2003), it yields an annual death rate of between 25,000 to 50,000 per year under Saddam.

Since the US fomented BOTH wars that Saddam fought as well as the rebellions of the Kurds and the Shiites after Gulf War 1, you guys are responsible for most of these too.

[sukie]

See the British are responsible for the US civil war death toll. Damn redcoats.

[shiva2999]

Its down from over 62% since 2000 Is that the occupiers credit then?

Please link your data.

[shiva2999]

Chimppy take your 600,000 dead and......

Uppy take your War on Terror and.....

[sukie]

I can
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=iz&v=29

[shiva2999]

I can
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=iz&v=29

:rofl:

Source: CIA World Factbook

[TMR2006]

Since the US fomented BOTH wars that Saddam fought as well as the rebellions of the Kurds and the Shiites after Gulf War 1, you guys are responsible for most of these too.

First I've heard of that actually, any links, or books ?

[uppy]

This 600,000 dead is a straw man argument since the war is on going and
their is no proof any way.

Sukie been kicking the north lefts ass.

[sukie]

What's really funny Shiva is this report that has it lower. Laugh at UNICEF.
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html#20

[TMR2006]

This 600,000 dead is a straw man argument since the war is on going and
their is no proof any way.

Sukie been kicking the north lefts ass.

How is that an invalid argument? I'd genuinely enjoy an explanation.
Are there going to be less dead now than at the end of the war ?

Maybe I'm missing the point completely, but even at 300,000 we're doing more harm to the Iraqi's per year than Saddam.

[uppy]

Uppy take your War on Terror and.....

It brakes my heart that we must ingage in any war....but since thay started

it we must go forward and win it...for the good of the country

[sukie]

No but the dispute is over the 650,000 NOW

[TMR2006]

It brakes my heart that we must ingage in any war....but since thay started

it we must go forward and win it...for the good of the country

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...

[uppy]

How is that an invalid argument? I'd genuinely enjoy an explanation.
Are there going to be less dead now than at the end of the war ?

Maybe I'm missing the point completely, but even at 300,000 we're doing more harm to the Iraqi's per year than Saddam.


I can't tell you the number of dead until the war on terror is over.

The argument chimpie and his puppet master put forward mean crap

since the battle in Iraq is on going.

We can count the dead when the fight is over ...not in middle

[sukie]

Shiva was a bystander,,,Chimpy threaded this.

[shiva2999]

First I've heard of that actually, any links, or books ?

I'll try and find some.

The short story is after Reagan made the deal with the Ayatollah to hold the hostages till after the election in 80 in return for weapons, Reagan/Bush/Rumsfeld/Casey encouraged Saddam to attack Iran. All the better for the US to have both of them beating up on each other.

The first Gulf War was engineered by Bush to make him a "war president" just like Dubya.

Saddam needed money to rebuild his country after the Iran war, Kuwait was keeping prices artificially low with Opec, slant-drilling into Iraqi oilfields and talking some really vicious smack (I'm not kidding).

Saddam asked the American ambassador, April Glaspie, what the US position would be if Saddam was forced to deal with Kuwait.

Glaspie replied the US would be neutral on Arab/Arab conflicts.

Kuwait talked more shit, Saddam invaded, and the rest is history.

The US has been ****ing with Iraq for almost 30 years. The Brits even longer.

The Iraqis have good reasons to be pissed off.

[uppy]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11...

Iraq is in the heart of the middle east we need the bases there to

contune the war on terror.

Also Iraq attacked our planes in the no fly zone over and over...that is an

act of war.

[uppy]

Shiva was a bystander,,,Chimpy threaded this.

Are you telling me chimpie is acting on his own ?

Congrats Chimp...you win a cookie

[Gibby]

If this article by Chimpy is even halfway correct, say three hundred thousand then are on pace to kill far more Iraqis in a decade than Saddam could do in thirty years of unbridled tyranny.

[TMR2006]

If this article by Chimpy is even halfway correct, say three hundred thousand then are on pace to kill far more Iraqis in a decade than Saddam could do in thirty years of unbridled tyranny.

That's what I was saying... it has me a trifle worried.

[shiva2999]

What's really funny Shiva is this report that has it lower. Laugh at UNICEF.
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/iraq_statistics.html#20

From the top of this link sukie...

Under-5 mortality rate (1990)
50

Under-5 mortality rate (2004)
125

Infant mortality rate (under 1) (1990)
40

Infant mortality rate (under 1) (2004)
102

So it looks like infant and child mortality rates are 150% higher under the benevolent occupiers than they were under the devil Saddam.

So once again, WTF are you trying to say?

[sukie]

Again Iraqi on Iraqi murder is not our "pace". That is civilian murder. Sociological happening.

[sukie]

From the top of this link sukie...

Under-5 mortality rate (1990)
50

Under-5 mortality rate (2004)
125

Infant mortality rate (under 1) (1990)
40

Infant mortality rate (under 1) (2004)
102

So it looks like infant and child mortality rates are 150% higher under the benevolent occupiers than they were under the devil Saddam.

So once again, WTF are you trying to say?
But what was it in 2000? to combat the CIA report?

[Gibby]

Again Iraqi on Iraqi murder is not our "pace". That is civilian murder. Sociological happening.

I agree, except that it could be argued that had we not barged in and made a bad situation worse -the American way since Korea- that these civilians would not be dying in such great numbers.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Again Iraqi on Iraqi murder is not our "pace". That is civilian murder. Sociological happening.

God, this post is pathetic.

[sukie]

WHere is the data for # of births in 1990? I laugh at unicef for not including that data.

[sukie]

God, this post is pathetic.

Why?

[sukie]

I agree, except that it could be argued that had we not barged in and made a bad situation worse -the American way since Korea- that these civilians would not be dying in such great numbers.

Could be said but NOT factually stated.

[Gibby]

Could be said but NOT factually stated.

But there is overwhelming evidence that there would not be so many dead if we hadn't stomped in.

[uppy]

Again Iraqi on Iraqi murder is not our "pace". That is civilian murder. Sociological happening.


Great point..it has nothing to do with US military action

[Gibby]

Power vacuums kill whenever they appear and we created one and now terrorists, seperatists, and religious fanatics are all trying to fill the void.

[sukie]

It is a side effect of free choice.

[Gibby]

Great point..it has nothing to do with US military action

Except for the fact that our military created a terrible power vacuum which is being filled by terrorist hacks who are aiming for us and killing innocent civilians.

[uppy]

But there is overwhelming evidence that there would not be so many dead if we hadn't stomped in.


Their is overwhelming evidence that there would not have been 50-100
million dead if hilter had not attacked Poland

[TheGoodShepherd]

It is a side effect of free choice.

And it gets stupider.

[Gibby]

It is a side effect of free choice.

Just a question here, its a good one and I ask it because you brought up the issue of free choice. Suppose the young Iraqi republic chooses fanatical theocratic rule or terror? If the people voted for an oppressive theocracy would we support that government?

[sukie]

No... under iron Fist... people stand in line and cannot protest. Cannot have free thought or action. Freedom also causes crime

[uppy]

Except for the fact that our military created a terrible power vacuum which is being filled by terrorist hacks who are aiming for us and killing innocent civilians.

War is hell gibby.

When its over we can all play monday morning QB.

[sukie]

Just a question here, its a good one and I ask it because you brought up the issue of free choice. Suppose the young Iraqi republic chooses fanatical theocratic rule or terror? If the people voted for an oppressive theocracy would we support that government?

I believe "nope" to the support. I also believe then we say "oh well!"

[TMR2006]

Great point..it has nothing to do with US military action


Under Saddam they had hospitals, running water, and electricity. Many areas in Iraq still lack all three since US invasion... sounds a bit like New Orleans.

[Gibby]

Their is overwhelming evidence that there would not have been 50-100
million dead if hilter had not attacked Poland

Are you comparing us to Hitler? Anyway your logic is also flawed because the Japs were operating independently of Hitler and so were the Itis. Also Stalin was preparring for an apocalyptic showdown for the mid 1940s. The world at that time was filled with way too many madmen for tens of millions of people to not die.

[sukie]

But the madmen should have been left alone is a common attitude toward Saddam.

[Gibby]

Under Saddam they had hospitals, running water, and electricity. Many areas in Iraq still lack all three since US invasion... sounds a bit like New Orleans.

This is true, but to be fair Saddam had a tyrannical and almost comical police state. However this was the wrong war at the wrong time.

[sukie]

I would argue right war wrong time

[TMR2006]

This is true, but to be fair Saddam had a tyrannical and almost comical police state. However this was the wrong war at the wrong time.

Agreed, I shouldn't have brought that up here, my bad.

[TheGoodShepherd]

But the madmen should have been left alone is a common attitude toward Saddam.

No. The argument has always been to leave the madman in place so as not to disrupt the fragile stability his gov't did bring. Because the consequences of disturbing the balance was worse.

[Gibby]

But the madmen should have been left alone is a common attitude toward Saddam.

:tsk: no, not left alone but contained and in isolation. It cost us far less money, prevented Iraq from being a terrorist state, and kept his neighbors safe. Now what we could have done is provided CIA advisors and air support for internal factions to split the country, but containment and isolation would have been the best method.

[sukie]

How can you isolate the oil rich? Please stop it now.

[shiva2999]

But what was it in 2000? to combat the CIA report?

You tell me. It's your link.

And I don't have to combat anything the CIA says.

[uppy]

Under Saddam they had hospitals, running water, and electricity. Many areas in Iraq still lack all three since US invasion... sounds a bit like New Orleans.


Most war zones lack services when peace is won things will change

[shiva2999]

But the madmen should have been left alone is a common attitude toward Saddam.

Saddam was in no ****ing way a madman.

Stop it. It's bullshit.

[uppy]

Are you comparing us to Hitler? Anyway your logic is also flawed because the Japs were operating independently of Hitler and so were the Itis. Also Stalin was preparring for an apocalyptic showdown for the mid 1940s. The world at that time was filled with way too many madmen for tens of millions of people to not die.

The world outside of America is full of madmen today too.

[Gibby]

Most war zones lack services when peace is won things will change

exactly when will that be, I can support a long term war on terror but we ****ed up Iraq so bad that there will be no winning of the peace.

[uppy]

Saddam was in no ****ing way a madman.

Stop it. It's bullshit.

Saddam is a terrorist and is paying the price for his actions

[shiva2999]

The world outside of America is full of madmen today too.

There's more than a few madmen inside the US too.

I could even be replying to one.

[shiva2999]

Saddam is a terrorist and is paying the price for his actions

Bullshit.

[uppy]

exactly when will that be, I can support a long term war on terror but we ****ed up Iraq so bad that there will be no winning of the peace.


It will be over when one side wins the war.

If the demos win the upcomming elections in this country and cut and run

it will just put the fight off ....because no one has won.

[TMR2006]

The world outside of America is full of madmen today too.

That would be the red herring, we've only attacked one of them.

Meanwhile...

Iran is after nukes. North Korea has them. Syria is still a jerk. Given the intense support Bush had shorwn for his policy of preemption prior to the Iraq war why is it we only have one war, in one country ?

What made Iraq special ?
Are we really going take a decade before we actually focus on a country who put together WMD's right under our nose ?
Can you really have a War on Terror by fighting one country at a time ?

[micknaboz]

War is hell gibby.



Which is why one avoids it if at all possible. But this was a war of choice and they have totally bungled the **** out of it. And you sit there like a proud member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists and curtly dismiss thousands upon thousands of deaths with a quaint "War is Hell" comment. Thats ****ed up man, you've lost all your humanity.

[Victor7]

The world outside of America is full of madmen today too.

Say it aint so !!!! :erm:

[uppy]

I could even be replying to one.


lol

The thought has crossed my mind as well when replying to some posts.

[Victor7]

And you sit there like a proud member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists and curtly dismiss thousands upon thousands of deaths with a quaint "War is Hell" comment. Thats ****ed up man, you've lost all your humanity.

He lost it ages ago mick.

[uppy]

Which is why one avoids it if at all possible. But this was a war of choice and they have totally bungled the **** out of it. And you sit there like a proud member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists and curtly dismiss thousands upon thousands of deaths with a quaint "War is Hell" comment. Thats ****ed up man, you've lost all your humanity.

This war is not a choice Mick...thay have been attacking us for years.

The USS Cole,the WTC two times exc...

[Gibby]

It will be over when one side wins the war.

If the demos win the upcomming elections in this country and cut and run

it will just put the fight off ....because no one has won.

this is starting to become a cliche but ....

[uppy]

Say it aint so !!!! :erm:


I put that in the post for Comic Value to appeas you lefties

[uppy]

Which is why one avoids it if at all possible. But this was a war of choice and they have totally bungled the **** out of it. And you sit there like a proud member of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists and curtly dismiss thousands upon thousands of deaths with a quaint "War is Hell" comment. Thats ****ed up man, you've lost all your humanity.

I was in the 82d Airborne ..... MPW, was in the 101s fighting keyboards

[JLB]

Under Saddam they had hospitals, running water, and electricity. Many areas in Iraq still lack all three since US invasion... sounds a bit like New Orleans.

Sounds like you believe they had it made.

[Victor7]

I put that in the post for Comic Value to appeas you lefties

I'm not a leftie dude, I'm more "rightie" than you think. I just disaprove the "war on terror" because its all bs.

[TheGoodShepherd]

I was in the 82d Airborne ..... MPW, was in the 101s fighting keyboards

I doubt you were.

[TMR2006]

Sounds like you believe they had it made.

Not at all.
It was a response to upstart. I believe he said civilian deaths had nothing to do with US military interference. I was simply stating that the destruction of hospitals and public utilities would undoubtedly increase the ammount of fatalities. He said it was a consequence of war...

No, they didn't have it made under saddam, but if the estimates are even 1/2 correct... we are killing more per year than he was. We are also spending an assload of cash to do so. I think we're creating a situation that was worse than the one that existed before. The people we were supposed to be liberating are dying and turning against us.

I don't think we should cut and run, I don't have a better solution. I just get a little ticked when people look at what is going on in Iraq and can not admit we made any mistakes at all.

[uppy]

I doubt you were.


I don't care...lol

[TMR2006]

This just in...

This just in... Troop levels to remain EXACTLY THE SAME through 2010 courtesy Jim Leher. What will another 3 years mean based on current info ?

War Cost 3.1 Trillion Dollars

[JLB]

Not at all.
It was a response to upstart. I believe he said civilian deaths had nothing to do with US military interference. I was simply stating that the destruction of hospitals and public utilities would undoubtedly increase the ammount of fatalities. He said it was a consequence of war...

No, they didn't have it made under saddam, but if the estimates are even 1/2 correct... we are killing more per year than he was. We are also spending an assload of cash to do so. I think we're creating a situation that was worse than the one that existed before. The people we were supposed to be liberating are dying and turning against us.

I don't think we should cut and run, I don't have a better solution. I just get a little ticked when people look at what is going on in Iraq and can not admit we made any mistakes at all.

Thanks for your response that clears it up.
The solution is gonna be tough.
I believe it will be many years before we can go.
Mistakes were made but taking him out wasn't one.
Believe me they would love to get the hell out.

[TMR2006]

Thanks for your response that clears it up.
The solution is gonna be tough.
I believe it will be many years before we can go.
Mistakes were made but taking him out wasn't one.
Believe me they would love to get the hell out.

I don't disagree with you.

[uppy]

What made Iraq special ?
Are we really going take a decade before we actually focus on a country who put together WMD's right under our nose ?
Can you really have a War on Terror by fighting one country at a time ?

What made Iraq special...their location and the fact thay have water and oil.

Once things settel down in Iraq we can move to the next battle..if the country has the politcal will.

[mark3274]

When in the history of all human armed conflicts between two sides has there ever been a post war planning period carried out pre war?

When in History did you have a Rumsfield ******* U* so bad thats it is almost a joke.

Iraq is a total flop and Untill we get our head outta the ****in sand and pick a side and divide IRAQ up properly we will keep losing.

Iraq will never be a democracy and it will never be our friend.

as of now Iran is running the show in Iraq and bushy and rumsfield know it.

[Victor7]

What made Iraq special...<b>their location and the fact thay have water and oil.</b>


But I thought it was about helping those poor guys get rid of the evil tyrant ?? .......... or was it the war on terror because they had WMD ??

Everyone knows its about the oil the rest is made up bs to "justify" taking the oil

[uppy]

as of now Iran is running the show in Iraq and bushy and rumsfield know it.

Bingo !

I bet 1/2 the "Terrorists" in Iraq are Iranian Special Forces.

Thats why Iraq is just a battle in the war on terror.

[JLB]

But I thought it was about helping those poor guys get rid of the evil tyrant ?? .......... or was it the war on terror because they had WMD ??

Everyone knows its about the oil the rest is made up bs to "justify" taking the oil

Part true but what oil did we exactly take?

[uppy]

But I thought it was about helping those poor guys get rid of the evil tyrant ?? .......... or was it the war on terror because they had WMD ??

Everyone knows its about the oil the rest is made up bs to "justify" taking the oil

WMDs where a reason,getting rid of the tyrant was a reason,the free flow of
oil is a reason.

But,the main reason is the war on terror.

[chickie]

WMDs where a reason,getting rid of the tyrant was a reason,the free flow of
oil is a reason.

But,the main reason is the war on terror.

They are never going to get it Uppy.....

[TMR2006]

They are never going to get it Uppy.....

How's that going by the way ?

Let's see....

Iran's after nukes
North Korea has them.
Osama still on the loose.
Pakistan facing off against a ressugent taliban
Iraq's body count and dollar figure increases monthly.

Kind of hard to fight a war that requires you be everywhere when you're STUCK IN ONE STUPID COUNTRY. Oh I know! We'll finish up in Iraq and THEN we'll get to those other troublemakers. If the war on terror wasn't a sham we'd have been fighting those A*holes before they got nukes.

[uppy]

They are never going to get it Uppy.....

Its our job to teach them....It may take decades but for the good of the
Country and humanity we can't give up. :)

[Victor7]

WMDs where a reason,getting rid of the tyrant was a reason,the free flow of
oil is a reason.

But,the main reason is the war on terror.

WMD were not found where there ?? ......... the tyrant was removed a good time ago. The oil belongs to them.

I still dont get this war on terror thing. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I think Iran might be more of a "threat" than Iraq

[shiva2999]

Part true but what oil did we exactly take?

All of it.

[TMR2006]

WMD were not found where there ?? ......... the tyrant was removed a good time ago. The oil belongs to them.

I still dont get this war on terror thing. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I think Iran might be more of a "threat" than Iraq

Where was the Bush Doctrine when N.Korea put together their nukes. Pre-emption my ass.

[micknaboz]

This war is not a choice Mick...thay have been attacking us for years.

The USS Cole,the WTC two times exc...

The war in Iraq was definitely a war of choice . Some of the people around Bush now were also around his dad, and during GulfWar1 wanted to go all the way to Baghdad, but the UN action specified only getting them out of Kuwait. Bush 1, being infinitely more intelligent then his offspring, did the right thing by refusing to listen to some of his advisors. In 1997 the PNAC was formed, with Cheny and Rumsfeld as members, and they set to planning the invasion of Iraq, when they got back into power.
]
In a book, I believe it was a biography, in 1999 Bush talked about invading Iraq.

If you want to know more about the PNAC just google it, or better yet google Cheney Rumsfeld PNAC.

Iraq was not Al Qaeda, if anything Saddam viewed al qaeda as a threat to his power. He was better off left alone till we solved North Korea, or more pressing problems. We had him contained, we were running flyovers all the time watching everything they did, but noooooooooooo........we drop the ball totally in Afghanistan, Bush lets Osama go , and unprovoked proceeds to invade a sovereign nation, and create one giant cluster **** in the most volatile region in the world. WTF Anyone who thinks that is sound foreign policy needs to start going to some NA (neocons anonymous) meetings.

[Victor7]

All of it.

+ 1

Where was the Bush Doctrine when N.Korea put together their nukes. Pre-emption my ass.

exactly

[uppy]

The war in Iraq was definitely a war of choice . Some of the people around Bush now were also around his dad, and during GulfWar1 wanted to go all the way to Baghdad, but the UN action specified only getting them out of Kuwait. Bush 1, being infinitely more intelligent then his offspring, did the right thing by refusing to listen to some of his advisors. In 1997 the PNAC was formed, with Cheny and Rumsfeld as members, and they set to planning the invasion of Iraq, when they got back into power.
]
In a book, I believe it was a biography, in 1999 Bush talked about invading Iraq.

If you want to know more about the PNAC just google it, or better yet google Cheney Rumsfeld PNAC.

Iraq was not Al Qaeda, if anything Saddam viewed al qaeda as a threat to his power. He was better off left alone till we solved North Korea, or more pressing problems. We had him contained, we were running flyovers all the time watching everything they did, but noooooooooooo........we drop the ball totally in Afghanistan, Bush lets Osama go , and unprovoked proceeds to invade a sovereign nation, and create one giant cluster **** in the most volatile region in the world. WTF Anyone who thinks that is sound foreign policy needs to start going to some NA (neocons anonymous) meetings.

one thing at a time Mick....N Korea and Iran will be setteled when the moment
comes.

[uppy]

Where was the Bush Doctrine when N.Korea put together their nukes. Pre-emption my ass.

We only have the forces to deal with one or two battles at a time

[chickie]

Its our job to teach them....It may take decades but for the good of the
Country and humanity we can't give up. :)

Well it may take as long as the war on terror...........

[TMR2006]

one thing at a time Mick....N Korea and Iran will be setteled when the moment
comes.

Right... how much longer are we going to wait ?

Hmmm... we've already waited for N.Korea to assemble nukes and test them, what the hell is this administration waiting for ?

[shiva2999]

I hope Mick and TMR are learning that the only way to fight the devil is to tell him he's wrong.

Telling him he's incompetent will only get you laughed at.

[TMR2006]

We only have the forces to deal with one or two battles at a time

If that's the case, I think we're in real danger right now.

[TMR2006]

I hope Mick and TMR are learning that the only way to fight the devil is to tell him he's wrong.

Telling him he's incompetent will only get you laughed at.

I need a break from this... where's the liquor cabinet...

[sukie]

Is there a published Bush Doctrine? I suspect more lefty mythology at play here.

[uppy]

Right... how much longer are we going to wait ?

Hmmm... we've already waited for N.Korea to assemble nukes and test them, what the hell is this administration waiting for ?

I can't tell you..I have no idea.I bet the US,Japan and S Korea are talking
about it today.

[uppy]

[QUOTE=shiva2999;1406977]the only way to fight the devil is to tell him he's wrong.

No,the only way to fight the devil is through the Lord .

Telling him he's incompetent will only get you laughed at.

The devil loves a good joke

[TMR2006]

Is there a published Bush Doctrine? I suspect more lefty mythology at play here.

Commencement Speech 2002, not published but from the horse's mouth. I do think it's good to keep a man at his word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_doctrine

Dead middle is a good place to be by the way. Just because I think the Iraq war is a mess and disapprove of Bush's handling of the war doesn't mean I'm a lib.

As I said before... Me + liquor cabinet = gone for a while.

[sukie]

The Bush doctrine fails to mention North koreas (already ongoing) Nuke program... Unless I missed it.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Here is the report, with methodology included. This is intersting...

The authors said their method of sampling the population is a "standard tool of epidemiology and is used by the U.S. government and many other agencies."

Professionals familiar with such research told CNN that the survey's methodology is sound.

I also looked at it myself. The methodology looks airtight to me.

Bush never did say why the report wasn't credible. And no reporter asked him. All he said was he talked to some people. Then he comitted a logical fallacy and appealed to authority. Gee Wonder why....

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/11/appendices.human.cost.of.war.pdf

[sukie]

But yet everyone disputes it.
Who says it's the method the US uses... the authors
HEE HEE HEE

[TheGoodShepherd]

But yet everyone disputes it.
Who says it's the method the US uses... the authors
HEE HEE HEE

Who is everyone? Bush, some general and some Iraqi's? Secondly, they never said why they dispute it.

And it is a method rotuinely used by professionals.

Don't believe me. Read it.

[sukie]

You don't read your own links.

[TheGoodShepherd]

But yet everyone disputes it.
Who says it's the method the US uses... the authors
HEE HEE HEE

So you're saying no US agency/other agencies have never used the cluster survey method....LOL


Wow. You know nothing.

BTW, why isn't the method sound sukie?

[sukie]

for civilian deaths in a region outside of conflict? Nope I would say not.

[TheGoodShepherd]

for civilian deaths in a region outside of conflict? Nope I would say not.

Why isn't the method sound sukie?

[sukie]

How many samples used in the cluster? 30? 300?

[uppy]

So you're saying no US agency/other agencies have never used the cluster survey method....LOL


Wow. You know nothing.

BTW, why isn't the method sound sukie?

Riddle Me This Chimpy...is Iraq a war zone ?

Who is in control of the war zone ?

[TheGoodShepherd]

How many samples used in the cluster? 30? 300?

You claimed it was not sound. So I'll ask again.


Why isn't the method sound sukie?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Riddle Me This Chimpy...is Iraq a war zone ?

Who is in control of the war zone ?

Hi upstart.

We're talking about the study. Glad you could chime in.

Why isn't the method sound upstart?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Hey sukie....just wondering if I can borrow a dollar....oh and why isnt the method sound sukie?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Sukie. I'll let you off easy.

Just admit you were biased to a side before you knew the facts. Then we can all move on.

It's not like it's the first time you stuck your stinky foot in your mouth!

Why isn't the method sound sukie?

[sukie]

Read your PM

[TheGoodShepherd]

*****SUKIE ANSWERS!*****


"If you are sampling 30 clusters in Milwaukee for disease outbreak then it seems to me more valid since a spreadable disease is like a shroud over a certain area. When sampling 63 clusters in Iraq... The death toll is not an even shroud and there is and was a huge transient population. Displacesd families etc.

What if the cluster included areas that have seen no violence? 63 clusters in a country that large is too variable and scant a survey."

[sukie]

Of course I did. Here's a good link on the pitfalls of this type of survey.
http://www.iraqanalysis.org/local/041101lancetpmos.html

[TheGoodShepherd]

Of course I did. Here's a good link on the pitfalls of this type of survey.
http://www.iraqanalysis.org/local/041101lancetpmos.html

????

[TheGoodShepherd]

Of course I did. Here's a good link on the pitfalls of this type of survey.
http://www.iraqanalysis.org/local/041101lancetpmos.html

Ummmmm. That link you sent actually the states the opposite of what you're arguing.

It's actually trying to expose people like you. You know. People who lie, mislead and try to blame the methodology.

Just thought you should know.


Maybe you posted the wrong link?

[sukie]

No I posted it for the questions. Not the responses to it because I don't by them. 63 samples... 1850 households... not enough. that was from the first survey BTW. Same conditional questions as to accuracy apply.

[TheGoodShepherd]

No I posted it for the questions. Not the responses to it because I don't by them. 63 samples... 1850 households... not enough. that was from the first survey BTW. Same conditional questions as to accuracy apply.

No. You posted it before you read it.

LOL


Shiva.....OMG....are you reading this...?

[sukie]

No I read it. It was the old report. How can you sample a country and extrapolate regional events?

[sukie]

BTW Chimpy... MIT funded the study... they didn't conduct it.

[35Pete]

Here is the report, with methodology included. This is intersting...

The authors said their method of sampling the population is a "standard tool of epidemiology and is used by the U.S. government and many other agencies."

Professionals familiar with such research told CNN that the survey's methodology is sound.

I also looked at it myself. The methodology looks airtight to me.

Bush never did say why the report wasn't credible. And no reporter asked him. All he said was he talked to some people. Then he comitted a logical fallacy and appealed to authority. Gee Wonder why....

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/11/appendices.human.cost.of.war.pdf

You do realize that epidemiology is one of the biggest areas of junk science over the past 30 years, right?

[JLB]

You do realize that epidemiology is one of the biggest areas of junk science over the past 30 years, right?

The Doctor is in.......................go get em Pete!!!:arizona:

[35Pete]

The Doctor is in.......................go get em Pete!!!:arizona:

It's the "Everything Causes Cancer" liberal do-gooder scare source.

[JLB]

It's the "Everything Causes Cancer" liberal do-gooder scare source.

EXPOSED!!!

[deconstruction]

It's the "Everything Causes Cancer" liberal do-gooder scare source.

What does cancer have to do with liberalism? Sometimes I wonder if you guys keep much track of what you blame on liberals. Even the shit that contradicts the other shit!

[Mouldsie]

And how many of the casualties is because of the damn crazy muslims strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up their own people??

You know what I am trying to say...it is still early and I am working on my first cup of coffee!

incroyable

[Mouldsie]

The number of deaths in Iraq is indeed tragic. But raw numbers don't tell the complete story. I'd like to see how many of those deaths were due to action by western forces (primarily the US) and how many dere due to action by Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda sympathizersimported into Iraq from the outside. It might not make a difference to the Shiva's of the board, but it does to me.

unbiased christian compassion

[Mouldsie]

im already sick of this thread after 1 page....


sarah michelle gellar is still hot

[Jetsy]

No jetsy actually monkeyboy is also from Detroit. I understand they drove him to Canada after disdain for him.

You're priceless Phantom ! ;)

[Jetsy]

Tigers SUCK.......

So does the chimp so now everything makes sense. :D

[Jetsy]

Mass murderers and war criminals.

Good job America.

Nice to see you're not embarrassed assuming the mantle of the world's biggest bad guys.

You're # 1!

YUP we're #1 , but don't worry Commie. The USA will be there to bail out you Canadians next time you need us. That's what makes us the "world's biggest bad guys" :phaser:

[35Pete]

What does cancer have to do with liberalism? Sometimes I wonder if you guys keep much track of what you blame on liberals. Even the shit that contradicts the other shit!

OMG. It is so obvious.

Cancer is liberalism. And liberalism is a cancer.

[Soviet_Canuckastani]

"For his dear mother's sake, I wish he'd carry out an attack," al-Attas continued. "Just so I know he's all right."

What a great mother!! I will have to remember to say that about my son whenI can't find him.....

Is that even really her in the picture?? Wouldn't she have died of old age by now?? Her hands and eyes looked to young to be his mother.

Lordy Lordy Lordy

[TheGoodShepherd]

You do realize that epidemiology is one of the biggest areas of junk science over the past 30 years, right?

No I dont.

Care to tell us why?

[sukie]

He's at work... He'll respond later I'm sure.

[rob on the job]

A look at the problem with guessing the number of Iraqi dead:

EXCERPT:
... The first issue here: Iraq's pre-war mortality rate. The first John Hopkins study from 2004 pegged it at five per every 1,000 population, based on what those interviewed recalled. This one was 5.5/1,000.

But UN reports had suggested Iraq's crude death rate was higher than this in the 1980s and '90s. It was in at least the 6.8/1,000 range and rising, which would make the difference between normal deaths and what the researchers called "excess deaths" brought about by the war quite a bit smaller.

The other issue here is what statisticians call the "confidence interval."

In their first study in 2004, the confidence interval was huge: The John Hopkins team basically concluded that it had 95-per-cent confidence the war had caused somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000 extra deaths by that point. Its 100,000 figure was the most probable number on this large continuum, which of course assumes violent deaths in Iraq can be plotted on the same bell curve as, say, breast cancer rates in North America.

That earlier study interviewed 30 households in each of 33 neighbourhoods. This one roughly 40 households in each of 50 sites and as a result the confidence continuum has narrowed considerably to between 426,369 and 795,663 — which is still quite a range.

If this was a political poll, it would be like saying a prime minister's popularity was anywhere between 35 and 65 per cent.

link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realitycheck/sheppard/20061012.html

[TheGoodShepherd]

A look at the problem with guessing the number of Iraqi dead:

EXCERPT:
... The first issue here: Iraq's pre-war mortality rate. The first John Hopkins study from 2004 pegged it at five per every 1,000 population, based on what those interviewed recalled. This one was 5.5/1,000.

But UN reports had suggested Iraq's crude death rate was higher than this in the 1980s and '90s. It was in at least the 6.8/1,000 range and rising, which would make the difference between normal deaths and what the researchers called "excess deaths" brought about by the war quite a bit smaller.

The other issue here is what statisticians call the "confidence interval."

In their first study in 2004, the confidence interval was huge: The John Hopkins team basically concluded that it had 95-per-cent confidence the war had caused somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000 extra deaths by that point. Its 100,000 figure was the most probable number on this large continuum, which of course assumes violent deaths in Iraq can be plotted on the same bell curve as, say, breast cancer rates in North America.

That earlier study interviewed 30 households in each of 33 neighbourhoods. This one roughly 40 households in each of 50 sites and as a result the confidence continuum has narrowed considerably to between 426,369 and 795,663 — which is still quite a range.

If this was a political poll, it would be like saying a prime minister's popularity was anywhere between 35 and 65 per cent.

link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realitycheck/sheppard/20061012.html

(35%)426,369 and 795,663 (65%)

Which is why they chose 601,000 to be the most accurate.

This is probably the most accurate study done to date.

[rob on the job]

(35%)426,369 and 795,663 (65%)

Which is why they chose 601,000 to be the most accurate.

This is probably the most accurate study done to date.

You missed the point.

If any poll came out and said a politician's popularity ranked between 35 and 65 percent, said pollster would be hooted out of the business.

It simply isn't done.

You've got to come in with a hard, concrete number .... not waffle by 30 percentage points.

[shiva2999]

If you go with the low end it's only 425,000 or so.

Peanuts.

Okay, now go back to arguing methodology like rob wants you to.

[Mouldsie]

lmao

[TheGoodShepherd]

If you go with the low end it's only 425,000 or so.

Peanuts.

Okay, now go back to arguing methodology like rob wants you to.

I love how they keep linking to sites that strengthen or supplement the opposite of what they're saying.

I don't get the strategy...do you?

[shiva2999]

I love how they keep linking to sites that strengthen or supplement the opposite of what they're saying.

I don't get the strategy...do you?

They have issues chimpy.

I'm still laughing about sukie linking to the CIA world factbook yesterday.

[uppy]

They have issues chimpy.

I'm still laughing about sukie linking to the CIA world factbook yesterday.

Thank God the KGB is not around...you would be burning up the range's

bandwidth with hunderds of links a week.

At least the CIA factbook deals with facts.

[shiva2999]

Thank God the KBG is not around...you would be burning up the range's

bandwidth with hunderds of links a week.

At least the CIA factbook deals with facts.

You mean the KGB?

[uppy]

Yup, Kgb

[TheGoodShepherd]

You missed the point.

If any poll came out and said a politician's popularity ranked between 35 and 65 percent, said pollster would be hooted out of the business.

It simply isn't done.

You've got to come in with a hard, concrete number .... not waffle by 30 percentage points.

425,000, the low end like shiva said, is still larger than 30,000.

Another thing. On your waffling point. You're attacking, I assume, the method the researchers used to get the 601,000 number.

What did they do wrong there?

[35Pete]

Wow. You guys don't get it. With a confidence interval that large the thing appears statistically random.

I guess would have more accuracy.

It's crap. Toss the whole study out.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Wow. You guys don't get it. With a confidence interval that large the thing appears statistically random.

I guess would have more accuracy.

It's crap. Toss the whole study out.

Why?

[35Pete]

Why?

Because. The confidence interval is so damn high. Tells me that they don't have a handle on their sample. That they are unsure of how representative it is. And if it is not representative than it cannot be used as an indicator. Then you just need to toss the damn thing out and call it worthless garbage.

I mean gallop polls are usually +/- 3% with 95% confidence interval. This is what? +/- 35% or somewhere in that ballpark?

[35Pete]

No I dont.

Care to tell us why?

It's long so it would be rude to expect you to read it all but have a skin through this if you so desire. Killer foods resulting in dangerous health situations is an epidemiological subscience. And most of it is BS.

http://www.junkscience.com/falsealarm.pdf

[TheGoodShepherd]

Because. The confidence interval is so damn high. Tells me that they don't have a handle on their sample. That they are unsure of how representative it is. And if it is not representative than it cannot be used as an indicator. Then you just need to toss the damn thing out and call it worthless garbage.

I mean gallop polls are usually +/- 3% with 95% confidence interval. This is what? +/- 35% or somewhere in that ballpark?


But this isn't a gallop poll question.

It's a calculation of the body count.

So I do not understand what you're saying. If this report is such garbage. Then why did it get published in the prestigious British Lancet?

[TheGoodShepherd]

It's long so it would be rude to expect you to read it all but have a skin through this if you so desire. Killer foods resulting in dangerous health situations is an epidemiological subscience. And most of it is BS.

http://www.junkscience.com/falsealarm.pdf


You do realize you just linked me to a former columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and ExxonMobil don't you.

[35Pete]

But this isn't a gallop poll question.

It's a calculation of the body count.

So I do not understand what you're saying. If this report is such garbage. Then why did it get published in the prestigious British Lancet?

Bwhaha. A body count study in a medical journal. Are they qualifying this under epidemiology?

[35Pete]

You do realize you just linked me to a former columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and ExxonMobil don;t you.

Why not attack the contents? Your immediate dismissal is lazy and cheap tactic.

[TheGoodShepherd]

It's long so it would be rude to expect you to read it all but have a skin through this if you so desire. Killer foods resulting in dangerous health situations is an epidemiological subscience. And most of it is BS.

http://www.junkscience.com/falsealarm.pdf

Bwhaha. A body count study in a medical journal. Are they qualifying this under epidemiology?

You do realize there is a rigorous process involved before publication in the Lancet is allowed right?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Why not attack the contents? Your immediate dismissal is lazy and cheap tactic.

Because it is not on topic.

One step at a time pete.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Another thing too pete, you do realize Milloy went to John Hopkins right?

They are the school that did the research for this study.

[TheGoodShepherd]

Milloy also said smoking doesn't cause cancer

[TheGoodShepherd]

Because. The confidence interval is so damn high. Tells me that they don't have a handle on their sample. That they are unsure of how representative it is. And if it is not representative than it cannot be used as an indicator. Then you just need to toss the damn thing out and call it worthless garbage.

I mean gallop polls are usually +/- 3% with 95% confidence interval. This is what? +/- 35% or somewhere in that ballpark?

What should their sample have been?

How do you now they dont have a handle on their sample?

BTW, in the first paragraph of the report it CLEARLY says the larget the number, the more accurate the result.

It was based on a house-to-house survey of 1,849 households with 12,801 residents in 47 random neighbourhoods.


Oh and btw, in the first page of the report. The researchers actually say the complete and total opposite of what you're claiming.

"It is usual for a survey to be designed with a 95% confidence that the result is
within 80% (or some number that we chose for other reasons) of the true value for the
whole (precision). Using such formulae, we can determine how many persons we would
have to survey to satisfy the criteria set for the confidence and precision of the results.
This is called the sample size. The more confidence we desire for our results, and the
more precision we want, the larger the sample must be. Sometimes this involves just
more people and more training, but as in the case of the Iraq study, it involves increasing
the exposure to danger. Survey takers have been killed in Iraq, but fortunately none from
our teams."



So tell me. Do you really think a smaller sample paints a more accurate picture?

[TheGoodShepherd]

Pete, do you agree with Milloy that smoking doesn't cause cancer.....yes or no?