BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:59 PM

Hyw do you lslep so badly al lthe tine, Bobert? Is it deelibarate or is it an affliickshun? Are yew dislectsick or are hou just ttarying to driv everyone crazeY?

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 08:56 PM

Hey, I had one semester of Satts in college so I ain't all that qualified to debate "best practice" or "ropbust" on the end of a pin but...

...the folks at Johns Hopkins ain't no slouches so it they say it 650K we can safely assume that thye "official" (estimated) DoD figures are a joke...

But like I've pointed out before, it really doesn't make much different to the war-mongin' Bushites here 'cause tno matter now many Iraqis have died they couldn't care less...

Yep, there is no number... Not 650,000, not 1,000,000, not 10,000,000 that would make any difference to these folks...

They just want ***their*** war and they have ***their*** war and so they are happy...

That is the botto line here and arguing the numbers is nuthin' more than an academic exercise that somehow makes the war mongin' Bushites feel all warm and fuzzy inside because they don't have to deal with the ***very real*** reality that there is kids, and women, and old folk's blood on their hands...

We tried to stop them but they had the ***power** and now they have used the *** power*** and things have turned out very badly for them and now their is no arguing that these war monging Bushites are accomplices to genocide...

...and the blood is on their un-Christain and in-human hands...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Arne
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 08:42 PM

Teribus:

[282RA's Guardian quotes]: "The Ministry of Defence's chief scientific advisor said the research was "robust", close to "best practice", and "balanced". He recommended "caution in publicly criticising the study".

Now nowhere in any of that do I see the words "accurate" or "reliable" -TRUE?

Ahhh, splitting hairs, IC. "Robust", "best practise", and "balanced" tend to imply "accurate" and "reliable" as well. A "robust" study is both more accurate and reliable as one that is less "robust". You need to learn some stats, and learn what statisicians mean by "robust". Hint: It doesn't mean "fat". "Balanced" also goes to accuracy (although not precision). "Best practise" is less precise as a description, but implies that the research methods are the best available in determining the results, which would also imply they are most likely to get the most accurate and reliable results.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 07:55 PM

LIke I said, congrates....

"Independent" thought from the Bushites these days is an oximoron... Heck, "thouhgt" in itself is pushing the envelope...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 07:40 AM

Thanks for the praise, Bobert. I like to think independent of any party line and if I am alone I rather like to think that is not my fault.

No, I am not bent nor do I intend to bend and forgo critical thinking.

Wolfgang Hell

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:59 PM

Well, Wolfy, that makes you about the only one here who is Hell bent of discrediting the Johns Hopkins study that isn't a die-hard Bushite ot Blariite war supporter...

Congrates...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:01 AM

"A search for truth has nothing to do with political leanings."


Except it has to be the "correct truth- any old truth just won't do.(sarcasm)

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 09:44 AM

if it wouldn't matter to you how many were killed???

Well, that's in a nutshell the muddleheaded thinking that does not separate different categories.

(1) If I would had been for that war, the number would likely not matter much for my opinion.
(2) Viewed from the human angle, any death matters irrespective of the total number for I can feel how a parent, friend, child would feel.
(3) Viewed from a scientist's angle, the total number matters for I'd like to know the best estimate. I have no prior preferences at what estimate I would like better than any other.

Most of my contributions come from (3). I like to debate numbers, which way people have come to them and what are potential biases that may threaten the validity of numbers.

That is in no way an argument for war supporters. That would be as stupid as saying that those researchers who say that the number of killed Jews may be less than 6 Million and may be perhaps 5.5 Million do support Nazis. A search for truth has nothing to do with political leanings.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:47 AM

Well, then why do you argue about the numbers, Wolfy, if it wouldn't matter to you how many were killed???

That's the real question... And it isn't "stupid question" at all but a very ***logical*** question...

Why the big argument fero the war supporters???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 07:34 AM

Back to the real question... How mmany lost lives would make you admit you and yer buds were wrong??? (Bobert)

What a stupid question to ask, Bobert. If someone was for that war why should one particular number of dead people invalidate the prior reasons? That is just as stupid as some Mudcatters asking immediately after the war whether those who were against the war were not glad then that Hussein could no longer torture his opponents. One could be glad about that (McGrath has pointed that out) but still be against the war. Would there have been a lowest number of war deaths that would have made you change your mind about the war afterwards? Say fewer than Hussein killed in half a year? Would you then have said it was worth it? No, and you would have been right.

You have that softheaded thinking I often observe in left leaning people in which the soft heart dictates the brain. The number of war related deaths can and must be discussed in a purely rational way without any involvement of emotions. Just the facts, Mister. The evaluation thereafter may and should involve the heart as well. What is and what we infer from that should be serial processes without the second step influencing the first.

You jump to the highest number for propaganda purposes in the same way as Bush insists on the lowest number. Bush does not realise that a low number does not make that (in my eyes) stupid war any less stupid. You do not realise that a high number does not invalidate the reasons someone had for a war before it had started.

Which is the highest number of deaths that should have told the allies in WWII that they better had given in to all of Hitler's wishes? If there are good reasons for a war in the minds of the supporters they accept that in that war and its aftermath people will die. To tell them that people have died has no effect.

I'm not a pacifist and I accept people dying in a war. I was for the Afghanistan war and against the Iran war for different reasons. The number of deaths in both wars has no influence on my positions.

I wish we could sometimes discuss facts separated from political leanings. I'm fed up that I can predict from knowing the political leanings of Mudcatters which number they will accept blindly in questions of war, politics, environment without looking at the quality of the data.

I'm fed up as well about the usual sequence of arguments I see in Mudcat lefts. (I tend to watch their arguments more closely for I have the bias that they should be the better arguers for I share much of their world view) Whether it was war deaths, deaths of starving children in Iraq from the sanctions before the war (that's forgotten now), or deaths from DU munition from the first Iraq war.

(1) Someone posts an outrageously inflated number from a blog, or (the Lancet study) the highest serious estimate. (2) This number is criticised. (3) The Mudcat lefts doubt the motives of the critics instead of addressing the methodological or technical issues (4) After some search the critics find better counter arguments against the first estimate than just conservative blogs. (5) Now the Mudcat lefts say that it doesn't matter, for even the lower numbers are much too high to be acceptable. (6) They post that those who debate the numbers have sinister motives or are paid by doesn't matter who.

You have a good heart, Bobert (no irony here), but you and several other lefts here don't realise when the time in a debate comes where only the head should be used.

I close with a very slightly adapted quote ("Why I do not attend case conferences") from Paul Meehl, psychoanalysist and statistician, in a rant against the social workers, nurses and fellow psychologists with a soft science background:

While there is surely no logical connection between having a sincere concern for the suffering of the individual...(roughly, being "softhearted") and a tendency to commit logical or empirical mistakes in diagnosis...and the like (roughly: being "softheaded"), one observes (people) who betray a tendency to conflate the two.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 05:05 AM

Wrong side Bobert? what on earth are you wittering on about.

The US and it's coalition partners were right to invade Iraq in 2003.

This is what William Rees-Mogg, former Editor of "The Times" had to say about it recently:

"Tony Blair had several reasons for his decision to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq; I found them convincing at the time, whatever errors may have been made since. He wanted to maintain the Anglo-American alliance for defence; he was right to think that the United States is both the most advanced defence power and the most reliable ally. The European powers of Nato have been reluctant to accept their fighting responsibilities in Afghanistan. That supports Mr Blair's judgment that he should rely on the United States rather than them.

Mr Blair wanted to drive al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan; he was convinced that Saddam Hussein was a threat to peace throughout the region. The strengths of the post-Saddam insurgency tend to confirm that judgment. Presumably, Mr Blair was also concerned about the future of oil supplies from the Middle East, which is a permanent economic interest for the United Kingdom. He believed that Saddam was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction; he may have used that argument as propaganda, but there is no reason to doubt that he believed it at the time — almost everyone else did, even President Chirac of France.

The more closely one considers the original arguments for supporting US policy, the more weight they seem to have. At the very least, these were reasons for going to war that could have been accepted in good faith by a responsible and rational statesman."

I tend to agree with what the man says.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 06:44 PM

Yo, T,

How many folks would have to have died before you'd admit you have been on the wrong side of this from Day 1???

I mean, you seem to take the position that the Johns Hopkins study was flawed as if it were correct then maybe you'd have to admit that you were wrong??? I mean, why argue it all if you couldn't care less how many folks have died???

Get the point???

No, you probably don't...

You just like to argue with anyone who was on the correct side during the days when we were being told that the war was about WMDs... What ever happened to those rationilizations for war???

The goal posts have been moved so many time by your side that if it didn't involve the loss of so many innocent lives it might be comical...

But, really... Back to the real question... How mmany lost lives would make you admit you and yer buds were wrong???

Fill in your number here:_____________...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 04:51 PM

>>Just wondering--do the US casualty figures include Blackwater personnel?<<

No. "Contractors" (i.e. mercenaries) are not included in the official death toll.

>>The advice to ministers was not that the report was accurate and reliable. The recommendation was that ministers should exercise "caution in publicly criticising the study", they definitely did not recommend that the study should not be challenged or criticised.<<

You do that by presenting evidence, Sherlock. Bush and Blair are simply dismissing it without bothering with little annoyances like evidence--as usual. The truth is, they have no evidence to the contrary. They concede the methodology used is sound. It is therefore accurate until somebody can PROVE it isn't. True?

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:54 PM

No, as far as I know.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:14 PM

Just wondering--do the US casualty figures include Blackwater personnel?

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 06:20 AM

No TIA just breathtakingly simple. The advice to ministers was not that the report was accurate and reliable. The recommendation was that ministers should exercise "caution in publicly criticising the study", they definitely did not recommend that the study should not be challenged or criticised.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: TIA
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 05:32 AM

Oh my gawd.

That is just breathtakingly ridiculous:

The scientists said the research is robust, balanced, close to best practice, somewhat-beyond crtitique, etc. BUT since they did not use the exact words "accurate" and "reliable", it must all be bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 02:38 AM

"This week, the BBC reported that the government's own scientists advised ministers that the Johns Hopkins study on Iraq civilian mortality was accurate and reliable."

No they did not 282RA. What is quoted above is a perfect example of old-fashioned totally impartial BBC "Dykes-Gilliganesque" spin. The British public have been subjected to this non-stop for the last five years.

As you correctly quote further down in your post what they actually was:

"The Ministry of Defence's chief scientific advisor said the research was "robust", close to "best practice", and "balanced". He recommended "caution in publicly criticising the study".

Now nowhere in any of that do I see the words "accurate" or "reliable" -TRUE?

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 09:14 PM

Our collective failure has been to take our political leaders at their word. This week, the BBC reported that the government's own scientists advised ministers that the Johns Hopkins study on Iraq civilian mortality was accurate and reliable. This paper was published in the Lancet last October. It estimated that 650,000 Iraqi civilians had died since the American- and British-led invasion in March 2003.

Immediately after publication, the prime minister's official spokesman said that The Lancet's study "was not one we believe to be anywhere near accurate". The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, said that the Lancet figures were "extrapolated" and a "leap". President Bush said: "I don't consider it a credible report".

Scientists at the UK's Department for International Development thought differently. They concluded that the study's methods were "tried and tested". Indeed, the Hopkins approach would likely lead to an "underestimation of mortality".

The Ministry of Defence's chief scientific advisor said the research was "robust", close to "best practice", and "balanced". He recommended "caution in publicly criticising the study".

[snip]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_horton/2007/03/counting_the_cost.html

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 08:25 PM

The operative word here is "estimated".... Just who is doing the estimating??? Bush??? Rumsy??? Donald Duck???

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 08:05 PM

>>Cost of Iraq War since 2003, including pending funding Bills: almost $500 billion.

Confirmed US deaths: 3,210

British deaths: 124

Iraqi civilian deaths: 68,000 (estimated)

Sources: US Department of Defence, AP, ICasulaties.org<<

You forgot the 24,000+ American wounded. I have no idea what that figure is for the Brits.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 07:54 PM

TIA,

I've had this discussion with the 3 Stooges and their position is that unless you, or I can ***prove*** that the Johns Hopkin's Tudy is accurate then they are going to stick with the company story...

They have posted with their usual flat-earth ***authorities*** (haha) who have done their usual flat-eart blah, blah, blahs and so the 3 Stooges feel all smug in using the governemnt's figures, which if we learned nothing from the Vietnam quagmire, is a bunch of lies....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: TIA
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 07:08 PM

600K if we believe British govt. scientists (as opposed to British Politicians)

(...and American politicans)

There is a pretty systematic difference between science and politics on this issue. Makes one very suspicious.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 05:51 PM

Like I said before, when we let the Dod do the counting we're gonna always get a watered down figure...

Actually, I thought that if the Iraqi death count was, as still perhaps may be, closer to the Johns Hopkins study's, then maybe some here might rethink their ***blind support*** for the invasion and now occupation of Iraq but...

...these folks are so steeped in partisanship the body count could gp to a confirmed 5M and they wouldn't care less as long as they were being given the words to the new company fight song, which seems to change daily...

Well, I for one, do care... This crime against humanity is now being carried out in the name of my country!!!

Yeah, I cared about the deaths from Saddams goons, too and would never, ever excuse them... The problem is that Bush (with his puppet Blair) had ***other options***... They could have assinated Saddam... They could have done what they had done in the past and puffed him up as some big shot player as Rymsfeld had down with him in the 80's and better controlled him... They could have signed onto the World Court and had him arrested, of killed while trying to arrest him... They could have let the ispectors, who said that Saddam was cooperating, ***finish*** the job... They could have used diplomacy... They could have endorsed the "Saudi Proposal"...

Yeah the Bush/Blair Axis of Stupid copuld have done a lot of things other that kill the first innocent person but...

...that didn't fir Karl Roves plan fro Bush to saty in power and...

...that didn't play into Cheney and his ***oil buddies*** hands and...

...that isn't the way that Paul "The Evil" Wolfowitz and Richard "The Evil II" Pearle had drawn what has now become the worst policy decision by any American president ever on paper...

Yeah, ayone want to squabble over body count sign up for "Body Count 101", and have a ball... You'll love the course 'cause it takes you away from the reality that our leaders should in reality be brought up on crimes against humanity...

Screw Bush and screw Blair for having done this to our othwerwise fine and noble nations...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 04:16 PM

Cost of Iraq War since 2003, including pending funding Bills: almost $500 billion.

Confirmed US deaths: 3,210

British deaths: 124

Iraqi civilian deaths: 68,000 (estimated)

Sources: US Department of Defence, AP, ICasulaties.org

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 03:11 PM

150,000 if we believe the Iraqis themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 09:43 PM

On this, we agree...

"The only reliable estimate we have at this time is the ICB count which is a really good estimate of the ***lowest possible*** number of deaths...

Emphasis mine.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Mar 07 - 12:46 PM

TIA,

you can't be serious, can you? There is one bunch of scientists, the good guys. They have political motives (like all humans including scientists), but with them science has transcended our perspectives. Therefore, the results are fine. There is another bunch, the bad guys, who are motivated more by politics than by science. True, they use arguments from research methods and not from politics, but with them science does not transcend their perspectives and therefore mentioning political motivation is a valid argument against a methodological critique.

That's complete rubbish. Scientists have motives and perspectives but a discussion about methods has to remain free of such arguments. And if one wants to argue about motives, it has to go both ways and not just one way.

In a more general sense (I mean many more Mudcatters than just you), the debaters here too often use science and scientific results in a way a drunk uses a lantern: they do not seek light, only support (I have adapted a quote here). I hate that approach. I think the Iraq war was wrong and Bush's politics disastrous but from that does not follow that I have to accept the highest published number of casualties as true. The IBC scientists are outspokenly against the war and still do not buy the Lancet results.

The Lancet study has problems and I do not at all care (nor do I know) if those who have pointed out the problems are Bushists, war mongers, conservatives or whatever. A debate about methods can only suffer from a chase for motives.

It is still true that the same methods are widely used, and unchallenged, in other studies. (TIA)

TIA,

if you really have read and understood the discussion, you should know that this argument is completely irrelevant to the main critique. The main critique was not the use of that method but a very specific point (biases in data collection inflating the estimate) re that particular study. It is not a critique that can be applied to the other studies. Therefore, the argument that other studies with that method have not been challenged, is irrelevant, because the other studies had not the (potential) sources of bias this study has.

as of many months later, the objections remain on editorial pages, blogs, emails, letters, interviews and "personal communications". There is scant (if any?) peer-reviewed criticism (TIA)

TIA,

I don't know enough about other parts of science to be completely sure, but in those parts I know it is impossible to publish a peer-reviewed critique in such a short time. A lack of peer-reviewed critique at this moment in time means nothing at all and is not worth being mentioned.

It is a long post, I know, but in addressing you I address a more general tendency I see in these discussions. One can predict from knowing the political leanings which numbers a participant finds convincing or not. I dislike that the "peace mongers" will always jump to the highest available estimate irrespective of potential problems. I dislike as well when I see the "war mongers" quoting the ICB estimate and "forget" to add the two words "at least".

The only reliable estimate we have at this time is the ICB count which is a really good estimate of the lowest possible number of deaths. The real numbers must be higher as the ICB people never fail to point out. Factor 2 or 3 higher is their guesstimate if they are pressed, but nowhere near to factor ten.

The Lancet study has been shown to have been biased in a way that can have inflated the final estimate. There is no way to know how much (or even: if at all) that bias has inflated the result. So it's time to move on and forget these results. They may be true, slightly inflated or grossly inflated. Since we don't know we have to wait for other studies with more reliable data. Well, perhaps their lowest number may be used as an upper bound estimate in the way of "surely less than...".

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 06:10 PM

Yes, I have read that statement...

Here is the full email with full context (and editorial comments form the wiki author of course):

"The results of the study were politically sensitive, since a heavy death toll could raise questions regarding the humanitarian justifications on the eve of a contested US presidential election. Critics objected to the timing of the report, claiming it was hastily prepared and published despite what they perceived as its poor quality in order to sway the U.S. electorate. On this topic, Les Roberts stated "I emailed it in on Sept. 30 under the condition that it came out before the election. My motive in doing that was not to skew the election. My motive was that if this came out during the campaign, both candidates would be forced to pledge to protect civilian lives in Iraq. I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea, but I think that our science has transcended our perspectives."[20][17] He replied to criticisms by Professor John Allen Paulos of the Temple University Math Department of "an expedient rush to publish" with

Dear Dr. Paulos,
I read your note below with some sadness. FYI, there was a rush to publish as I have said in every major interview I have given.
A) I have done over 20 mortality surveys in recent years and have never taken more than a week to produce and release a report (because people dying is important) until this article. Thus, this was the least rushed mortality result I have ever produced.
B) We finished the survey on the 20 Sept. If this had not come out until mid-Nov. or later, in the politicized lens of Baghdad (where the chief of police does not allow his name to be made public and where all the newly trained Iraqi soldiers I saw had bandannas to hide their faces to avoid their families being murdered…) this would have been seen as the researchers covering up for the Bush White House until after the election and I am convinced my Iraqi co-investigators would have been killed. Given that Kerry and Bush had the same attitude about invading and similar plans for how to proceed, I never thought it would influence the election and the investigators never discussed it with each other or briefed any political player.
C) if you have information about how and why people in New Orleans were dying today, would you rush to release it? The Falluja downfall happened just one week after the study came out and whether you believe the 500 or the 1600 or the 3600 estimates of associated Iraqi deaths, that alone was probably more than will occur from this moment on due to Katrina.
So, we rushed to get it out, I do not understand why the 'study's scientific neutrality' is influenced or the likelihood that the sample was valid, the analysis fair… What does neutrality mean? Do people who publish about malaria deaths need to be neutral about malaria?
Yours in confusion and disgust,
Les Roberts[21]
On the contrary, Roberts views critics of his study as motivated more by politics than by science; "It is odd that the logic of epidemiology embraced by the press every day regarding new drugs or health risks somehow changes when the mechanism of death is their armed forces."[22]

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:36 AM

I strongly suspect that those finding fault are driven by politics (TIA)

We do not disagree in this point. Politics often is the motivation for one group to make the study, and for another to criticise. But the arguments against the study do not come from politics.

I emailed it in on Sept. 30 under the condition that it came out before the election. ...I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea, but I think that our science has transcended our perspectives (one of the authors of the older Lancet study)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 10:14 PM

And as of many months later, the objections remain on editorial pages, blogs, emails, letters, interviews and "personal communications". There is scant (if any?) peer-reviewed criticism (feel free to provide a link if I am missing some).

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: TIA
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:40 AM

Not entirely Wolfgang.

Yes, there is a terribly misleading graph in study 2, and yes there are actual scientists who find fault with the method, but I strongly suspect that those finding fault are driven by politics. Their objections have been publicly defended by the authors (Wikipedia, among others, has an extensive analysis -- and one should read the arguments between Wikipedia editors as well as the current form of the article to get the full flavor). It is still true that the same methods are widely used, and unchallenged, in other studies.

I have read widely on this, and still believe that this argument is a political one.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Mar 07 - 08:23 AM

This study impacts rather strongly upon politics, so methods that are lauded in other sciences are in this case derided. (TIA)

I disagree. The political impact leads to more scrutiny than another study might have, but the arguments that this study is flawed come from methodological problems that are different from other studies that use this method.

But I'm glad you no longer claim that there is no critique from scientists as you did initially.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 04:44 PM

"Can we at least agree that "what has been verified" is undoubtedly an underestimate?"

Absolutely TIA, could not agree more.

As to - "This then begs the question of underestimated by how much? And how should one go about answering that question?" - TIA.

That I believe was the question asked by TTR at the start.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: TIA
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 02:02 PM

From the actual second report:

"Gunshot wounds caused 56 percent of violent deaths, with car bombs and other explosions causing 14 percent, according to the survey results. Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said."




As to Teribus' statement:

"I would tend to go on what has been verified, as opposed to what has been projected."

Statistical projections are used all the time in the sciences (not just social science) when phenomena cannot actually be verified. These methods are almost never questioned in other sciences. This study impacts rather strongly upon politics, so methods that are lauded in other sciences are in this case derided.

Can we at least agree that "what has been verified" is undoubtedly an underestimate?

This then begs the question of underestimated by how much? And how should one go about answering that question?

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: pdq
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 12:34 PM

...with (Dr.) Les Roberts, this is the other person behind the (flawed) Johns Hopkins (via Lancet) reports:

(Dr.)Gilbert M. Burnham is the co-director of the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response at Johns Hopkins. He has extensive experience in emergency preparedness and response, particularly in humanitarian needs assessment, program planning, and evaluation that address the needs of vulnerable populations, and the development and implementation of training programs. He also has extensive experience in the development and evaluation of community-based health program planning and implementation, health information system development, management and analysis, and health system analysis. He has worked with numerous humanitarian and health development programs for multilateral and non-governmental organizations, regional health departments, ministries of health (national and district level), and communities in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe. A major current activity is the reconstruction of health services in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:58 AM

Guest TIA,
There have been two "Studies" carried out by John Hopkins. The results of which were published on 29th October 2004 (Comes in handy for 2004 Presidential Election) and second with an estimated mid-point figure of 650,000 on 11th October, 2006 (Comes in handy for 2006 mid-term Elections).

Two quotes relating to the 2004 "Study":

"The study makes the controversial conclusion that: "Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces." and "Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths."

While Newsday reported:

"The most common causes of death before the invasion of Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and other chronic diseases. However, after the invasion, violence was recorded as the primary cause of death and was mainly attributed to coalition forces—with about 95 percent of those deaths caused by bombs or fire from helicopter gunships".

Iraq Body Count puts the figure much lower and provides least and worst cases. Figures given for the former have been confirmed and verified by two sources, figures for the latter have only one source.

I would tend to go on what has been verified, as opposed to what has been projected.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: pdq
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 11:11 AM

...from a series of biographies of physicians:


Les Roberts
Les Roberts has a Masters degree in public health from Tulane University and a Ph.D. in environmental engineering from Johns Hopkins.  He did a post-doctorate fellowship in epidemiology at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention where he worked for 4 years.  In 1994, he worked as an epidemiologist for the World Health Organization in Rwanda during their civil war.  At present, Les is Director of Health Policy at the International Rescue Committee, an NGO based in New York that provides relief to victims of war.  He is a lecturer at the Johns Hopkins University Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering where he teaches each fall.
 

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: pdq
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:56 AM

According to Amnesty International, Saddam Hussein was responsible for 1.4 million deaths in his 24 years of rule. That is about 159 per day.

Had we not booted the bastard out and his killing went on at the same rate, there would have been over 232,000 dead in the last four years. Those would be directly from actions by Saddam.

Deaths by Saddam since we pulled him out of a hole in the ground: 0. Deaths due to civil war since Saddam left: about 38,000, or about 26 per day. Not good, but still better than it was. As soon as some of the waring factions start to believe that they cannot win through violence, it will stop.

About the Lancet (online) article: "'The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions,' contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. 'They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated.' The paper had 'no scientific standing'. Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? 'No.'

If you factor in politics, the heat increases. One of The Lancet authors, Dr Les Roberts, campaigned for a Democrat seat in the US House of Representatives and has spoken out against the war. Dr Richard Horton, editor of the The Lancet is also antiwar..."             {recent Times Newspapers Ltd. (England)}

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:16 AM

Estimates run everywhere from 50,000 to 500,000. I haven't seen any that are reliable. But let me ask all you peace lovers this: Isn't 50,000 enough? Some of you choose to go with the lower figure to argue against Teribus. He chooses to use the higher figure. Neither can be proven at this point. So why don't y'all just back up a bit and give a good look at what you're saying. If it IS the lower figure, that's five of the towns I live in. If it's the higher, it's fifty of the towns I live in. Either way, my kids would be dead.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:09 AM

Whatever the disputes over the Lancet study might be, I haven't seen anyone ever claim that 500,000 plus deaths were all the result of the brief "shock and awe" bombing campaign. That's a Teribus conflation, and with it, he has quite handily kicked the living shit out of a straw man.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:00 AM

IIRC when this "Study" first came out the number was 500,000 and that the bulk had been caused by US Air Strikes. They hadn't of course because the figures arrived at were wrong.

To give an idea of what extremely basic air power can do, take a look at about one weeks effort during the Second World War. Some say the worst bombing raid of the WW II was Hiroshima, or Nagasaki, or Dresden - It wasn't - the worst was Hamburg late July to early August 1943.

It's effect - this is what Adolph Galland wrote about it:

"A wave of terror radiated from the suffering city and spread through Germany. Appalling details of the great fire was recounted. A stream of haggard, terrified refugees flowed into the neighbouring provinces. In every large town people said: "What happened to Hamburg yesterday can happen to us tomorrow". After Hamburg in the wide circle of the political and the military command could be heard the words: "The war is lost".

The raids carried out by RAF Bomber Command consisted of "1000" Bomber missions over a series of nights. In total they dropped:
- 3,000 block-busters (4000lb & 8000lb bombs);
- 1,200 land-mines;
- 25,000 H.E. varying sizes;
- 3,000,000 incendiaries;
- 80,000 phosphorus bombs;
- 500 phosphorus drums.

Out of a population of approximately 2,000,000 people in Hamburg (Germany's second largest city) The above resulted in the following casualties:
- 40,000 killed;
- 40,000 wounded;
- 900,000 homeless.

The so called "Shock and Awe" campaign of the Iraq War ran from 19 March 2003 until 14th April 2003. A total of approximately 1700 air sorties were launched, 504 of those using cruise missiles.

That amounts to a fraction of what was thrown at Hamburg yet we are asked to believe that this fraction caused sixteen and a half times the number of casualties - please note there was no firestorm in Iraq as there was in Hamburg (i.e. oxygen sucked out of the air so that those presumed safe in bomb shelters died of asphyxiation).

The John Hopkins "Study" that Bobert & Co defend so persistently is an unreliable and shoddy piece of work at best.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Mar 07 - 07:54 AM

Could 650,000 Iraqis really have died because of the invasion? (link to THE TIMES article reporting critiques of the 650,000 figure and responses)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 05:48 AM

Donuel--


That can't be so. After all, according to Teribus, every day in every way, Iraq is getting better and better.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 05:35 PM

MSNBC:
Iraq has lost about one third of all their physicians during this war.

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 01:05 AM

Here's a new figure thats being trotted out by the New York Times... please pardon the cut-n-paste... but I think the url was too long to fit into the little box on the blue clicky thingy...

BAGHDAD, Jan. 16 — The United Nations reported Tuesday that more than 34,000 Iraqis were killed in violence last year, a figure that represents the first comprehensive annual count of civilian deaths...

This latest figure was the first attempt at hand-counting individual deaths for an entire year. It was compiled using statistics from local morgues, hospitals and municipal authorities across Iraq and was nearly three times higher than an estimate for 2006 compiled from Iraqi ministry tallies by The Associated Press earlier this month.

sounds legit so far...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:29 AM

Well, well, well...

Once one gets beyonds the academic squabbling then we have the Vietnam War as perhaps the best model on how body counts get manipulated by a US administration involved in an unpopular war...

So while some here are ready and willing to sing the company fight songs, it will be historians who will come closer to sorting out the real truth..

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 04:05 AM

Why does he persist Bizarrely for probably the same reason as young Terry; because I'm not entirely gruntled with the way truth has been pushed aside and facts manipulated to make capital over the war in Iraq.
Unfortunately we come from diametrically opposed sides. He believes that Bush is right and that there is a wilfull conspiracy by lily-livered liberals to lie and confuse the issue which will deny him his status as a giant among statesman.
I believe there has been a policy of lies and half-truths from the neo-cons which will one day show the Bush administration to be moral and intellectuall pigmies.

As such, the position here mirrors the position in the grown-up world outside, and that means that you are never going to get accurate figures. It's the nature of stupid, evil of just plan controversial acts that the truth about them is often quickly fudged. More than 60 years after the event, we still don't know how many people died in Dresden. How many people did Stalin murder? We'll never know. Just as I fear we will never know the final butcher's bill for Iraq.

One of the reasons I adopt the tone I do with Teribus is because of his tendency to patronise and to belabour any opposing viewpoint with a barrage of selectively cut-and-pasted received opinion and because, in his pomposity, he often gets things plain wrong. In the past he has also made much of his naval background to imply that he has been vouchsafed a knowledge of strategic matters denied to us mere landlubbers.
And, as is my childish wont, I quite like pricking windbags.

As for the original question, looking back over an awful lot of windbaggery, I see Is this confusing or what?
My answer, unequivocally, is YES!

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 09:52 PM

So... the confusion remains.

It doesn't help the situation in Iraq to exagerate the numbers in either direction... or to ad hominem the 'opposition' here at home. We need to know what is really going on in Iraq in order to make qualified policy decisions... because we are there. No objective is attainable... whether it be peace and/or domination... without verifiable facts and statistics.

We must know what is happening in Iraq. It's in the job description for 'citizens of a Democracy'... no matter what your political persuasion... to be informed. This holds true for the US media... but it is much more important for Iraq as a whole. Democracy can not and will not grow without popular belief in the governing principles that must sustain a government's integrity. It may very well be the case that democracy needs to be created and supported from 'below'... with engouragement and protection from above. However, it is doubtful whether Democacy can be 'imposed'... especially if the population as a whole is skeptical as to the intentions behind the occupation.

The most valuable assets to any democracy are accurate reporting, and verifiable sources. This is made all the more poignant by the Bush administration's insistance that Iraq must continue to be the 'keystone' of US foriegn policy... and perhaps... of his presidency.
As we channel enough money to have guarenteed all Americans complete health care for many years... into this war...is it unreasonable to ask for obtainable goals and clear unbiased reporting? No.

Otherwise... it is all 'spin'... and consequentially, confusion that is probably being taken advantage of by someone...
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 06:56 PM

Personally, I am astounded that Teribus even responds to the ever so smarmy cat house calls, sleazily and unwantedly displayed by Captain Ginger. 'His' swingin' 'tenderloin' is about as welcome here as sausages in a 'whole earth' catalogue... Why does he persist?

Suppose I just ask him real nicely to take it back to the spa where he found it?

...and just answer the original query... instead of displaying, like a mock peacock... his petrified and heterophobic aimlessness.
ttr