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

08 Jan 07 - 09:55 PM (#1930963)
Subject: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Thomas the Rhymer

This is from The Washington Post


"The Health Ministry's full-year death toll of 22,950, although incomplete, is higher than the 13,896 violent deaths of civilians, police officers and soldiers reported Jan. 1 by Iraq's ministries of defense, health and interior. The United Nations, in a November report, estimated that more than 28,000 Iraqi civilians had died violently in the first 10 months of 2006, but that count was disputed by the government. The differences in the numbers could not be reconciled."


Many people here have been siting ten times this amount... yet even this many seems like a lot to me.

Is this confusing or what?
ttr

---

08 Jan 07 - 10:25 PM (#1930998)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST

The Associated Press has again put out an Iraq story detailing events that did not happen. This time, it involves an airstrike that, " killed a family of four during a firefight." However, according to the press desk of Multi-National Forces-Iraq, no air strike happened during that firefight, and MNF-I also reported that which six insurgents were killed by American troops in Baghdad on January 1. This is the second time in roughly six weeks that the AP has been caught fabricating events.

In November, the AP's report of six people being burned by in an attack on a mosque, cited a Captain Jemil Hussein of the Iraqi police. This report was challenged by Central Command and the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior, who pointed out that they had no record of a Jemil Hussein in their initial searches. The AP has stood by the story, yet this questionable Iraqi police official has not been quoted once since the story was questioned – despite being used in dozens of stories prior to the controversy. After several weeks of investigating, several blogs, including Flopping Aces, found very little evidence that Captain Hussein existed – until the AP reported that an arrest warrant was issued by the Ministry of the Interior for Hussein, whose phone has conveniently been turned off.

This is the latest media scandal involving phony news. In August, Reuters had to pull photographs that had been doctored to create the appearance that Israeli air strikes in Lebanon were doing more damage. Other photos taken during the summer fighting were discovered to have been staged by Hezbollah. In 2005, media reports that guards at Guantanamo Bay had flushed a Koran turned out to have no basis in fact (the actual flushing was done by detainees).

This pattern of misreporting is being noticed by blogs, most notably Flopping Aces (www.floppingaces.net). One of the Iraqi reporters for the AP, Quais Abdul Raazzaq was recently interviewed, and made statements that appeared to be biased. Other blogs have been digging deeper into some of the reporting. And the skepticism about media reporting about Iraq seems to be increasing. In December, the Gallup Poll reported that 56 percent of Americans believe the mainstream media's reporting of the situation in Iraq is inaccurate.

---

09 Jan 07 - 03:12 AM (#1931135)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger

Indeed, it has been shown that the whole Iraq war has been faked by the gay liberal media. The only deaths have been a few unfortunate road accidents where excited children waving flags have momentarily distracted convoys of US Marines distributing toys to deprived neighbourhoods, although there is also an unconfirmed report of one teenaged girl being killed with kindness.
We owe people like the Guest above an infinite debt of gratitude for leading us down the path of the right.

---

09 Jan 07 - 05:28 AM (#1931184)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus

Typical, interesting topic raised by ttr, illicited a response from a GUEST poster that provided some examples of how reported and actual figures may diverge and how sources reporting deaths should be viewed with care. Now because this second post could possibly be read as being "pro-MNF", which it is not, if anything it is extremely neutral, it merely points out that the the world's Press are not above creating sensational stories where in fact none exist, we get the attempted sarcastic "piss-take" by CG, that attacks Guest's post without challenging any of the examples stated and adds absolutely nothing the point of discussion raised by ttr.

From the article linked to the original post:
"The Associated Press count for last year, assembled from its daily dispatches, is roughly 13,700 civilians, police and soldiers. But the news service has said that it believes its figures are substantially lower than the actual number of deaths because it lacked access to government data. Iraq Body Count, a British-based research group that reports on civilian deaths in Iraq, says the number is at most roughly 58,000 since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The group relies on deaths reported by the news media, and suggests on its Web site that its totals are an underrepresentation because "many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported." Critics have accused the group of grossly underreporting Iraqi deaths.

A study on Iraqi mortality rates published in October by the Lancet medical journal estimated that more than 600,000 Iraqis had died from violence since the invasion. That number was extrapolated from population surveys rather than a compilation of actual deaths. The U.S. and Iraqi governments, as well as Iraq Body Count, dismissed the Lancet findings as inaccurate."

I believe that the main cause is very well indicated in the The Washington Post's article as the AP figure of 13,700 roughly agrees with the 13,896 reported by Iraq's ministries of defense, health and interior. But those are only the deaths caused by "political/sectarian" violence. IraqBodyCount, literally, minute by minute provides two sets of figures showing a least and worse case, but they complain of "unreported" deaths, but it should be remembered that they too restrict themselves to deaths caused by "political/sectarian" violence.

The Iraqi Ministry of Health issued a second figure for deaths of just under 23,000 for 2006 while the UN reported 28,000 deaths for the period Jan to October. So where do the differences come in:

- Difference between casualties reported and deaths reported
- The lower figures (13,700 and 13,896) are those actually killed in reported incidents (i.e. the deaths), in incidents involving roadside bombs and car bombs there are many people injured, a number of those casualties die days after the incident and those deaths are not attributed to any incident and by and large go unreported
- The larger figure (22,950) supplied by the Iraq Health Ministry includes all deaths (Natural causes, Road deaths, Accidental death, Criminal deaths) so they should be higher than those figures made up of only those attributed to "political/sectarian" violence.

It should also be pointed out, as it is not clear from the The Washington Post's article the Lancet (John Hopkins Study) and IraqBodyCount figures start from the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

---

09 Jan 07 - 06:34 AM (#1931208)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger

Terry, Terry; liebschen...
Let us, for a moment, take the lowest figure as the correct one (by way of conjecture - personally I have my doubts, but, like you, have no way of verifying it).
That is, 13,700 people dead in reported roadside bombs and car bombs. That, I take it, does not include those killed as a direct result of Coalition action - just from 'internal causes' that you insist do not represent an incipient civil war.
Since April 2003 that amounts to nearly 700 people a month. With your military experience, do you consider this an acceptable bodycount for what has been achieved in Iraq?
13,700 people. By your own admission, at least 13,700 people. It is as if the entire population of a town like Sidmouth had been removed from the map. And for what?
Please, Terry, do remind us what - apart from the removal of the Ba'ath party from power - has been achieved in Iraq?
What were the monthly body counts from similar causes in Germany in the three years after it was liberated from dictatorship?
And would such rates justify our attacking Ahmadinejad in Iran, or Kim jong Il in North Korea?
Sorry to keep asking all these questions, but in the absence of another latter-day Clausewitz here, you are my only hope!

PS: Any chance of answers to some of my earlier questions, poppet?

---

09 Jan 07 - 06:36 AM (#1931209)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang

The 22,950 figure can't include all deaths (by natural causes). It is much too low for that. The Iraq overall death rate per year is a bit larger than 5 in 1000. Iraq has roughly 27,000,000 inhabitants. That makes roughly 130,000 to 150,000 dead people per year from natural causes alone.

Wolfgang

---

09 Jan 07 - 08:51 AM (#1931299)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: artbrooks

Thomas, there are various agencies (Iraqi, US and UN and NGO) keeping (or at least reporting) casualty counts, using different statistical modalities and with a variety of axes to grind. Since it is Muslim custom/law to immediately bury the dead, it is unlikely to the point of impossibility that there will ever be an accurate count.

---

09 Jan 07 - 09:09 AM (#1931308)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus

My apologies Wolfgang, that is a very good point and you are perfectly correct the figures issued are only for those Iraqi's who have died violent/unexpected deaths and does not cover those who have died from natural causes. I believe that overall yearly death rate given for Iraq is 5,37 in 1000, and projecting ourselves forward to March 2007 so that we have four years to consider, the following figures would result. In the period between March 2003 and March 2007 the total number of Iraqi's from all causes would expected to be 575,664.

---

09 Jan 07 - 09:17 AM (#1931322)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger

Er, Terry....?

---

09 Jan 07 - 09:45 AM (#1931355)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST

How's the war on terror going? That's a difficult question to answer, because there is wide disagreement on exactly what the war is. For example, there are many Islamic terrorist groups active, many of them were in action long before September 11, 2001. This includes the violence between Sunni Arabs, and everyone else, in Iraq, and the war between the Taliban, and various opponents inside Afghanistan. Outside of those two areas, where al Qaeda declares itself a participant, there has not been a lot of al Qaeda activity. In 2005, al Qaeda attempted nine attacks, and succeeded in seven of them. But last year, al Qaeda attempted seven attacks, but only one succeeded.

Islamic terrorism has always been around, just look at the history of areas where Moslems and non-Moslems live close together. This terrorism began to intensify in the 1980s. The 1980s war in Afghanistan is often described as the birthplace of al Qaeda and the current round of Islamic terrorism, but that's not the case. The violence began in the 1970s, and that outbreak culminated in a 1979 attack, by Islamic radicals, on the Islamic holy of holies in Mecca. At about the same time, the leadership of Pakistan (a military dictatorship at the time) decided to back Islamic radicalism. In that same year, Islamic radicals took over in Iran. It was al Qaeda, an organization formed by failed Islamic radicals, forced to flee Saudi Arabia (Osama bin Laden), Egypt (most of the other senior leaders) and other Arab nations. It was al Qaeda that decided to attack the West. Before that, Islamic radicals were trying to take control of the nations they lived in. That, however, proved difficult. It only worked in Iran and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda blamed the difficulty in overthrowing Moslem government on the West. This resulted in bringing the West into the war, against the Islamic radicals. Not a wise move, as the violence against Moslems in Iraq has caused al Qaedas popularity to plummet across the Moslem world. Attacks on the West also led to the overthrow of the Islamic government (the Taliban) in Afghanistan.

The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 would appear to have been a plus for al Qaeda, as Saddam Hussein, and his Baath Party, had long been an enemy of Islamic radicalism. But Saddam got religion after his defeat in the 1991 Gulf War. During the 1990s, Saddam became a major supporter of Islam, building many mosques and proclaiming himself a major defender of the faith. Al Qaeda was wary of this, but did enter into negotiations with Saddam. After all, Saddam and al Qaeda shared a hatred for the West, and especially the United States. A major fear was that Saddam would provide a refuge for al Qaeda, and supply them with chemical or nuclear weapons (if not a bomb, then radioactive material.) The fighting in Iraq is basically between the Sunni Arab minority, assisted by al Qaeda, against the majority Kurds and Shia Arabs. While much is made about Iraq becoming a "school for terrorists," few of the "graduates" have shown up anywhere else, pulling off successful attacks. On the other hand, many known Islamic terrorists have gone to Iraq, and gotten themselves killed or captured. So Iraq has to be seen as a net loss for al Qaeda.

Same story in Afghanistan. Most of the recent al Qaeda activity in Afghanistan is from bases in Pakistan. For nearly three decades, Pakistan has been a base for Islamic radicals and terrorists. Pakistan joined the U.S. as an ally in the war on terror largely to get some help in clearing out its own Islamic terrorists. Most senior officials in the Pakistani government regret their earlier support for Islamic radicalism, but getting rid of the problem is proving difficult. There's a similar situation in Saudi Arabia. That sort of thing can be considered an "internal problem." That said, the al Qaeda "war on the West" is not going well at all.

---

09 Jan 07 - 09:59 AM (#1931368)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger

That said, the al Qaeda "war on the West" is not going well at all.
I think you're probably right there. The trouble is, al Queda is a loose-knit, barely-structed 'organisation' that seems to exist largely to inspire others to do the dirty work. Remember that in Arabic the name merely means 'the base' in the sense of a springboard or foundation.
Al Queda itself does not plant bombs, hijack vehicles or kidnap people; it has legions of wannabes to do that, many of whom are prepared to act on the indirect inspiration of al Queda and therafter claim the attrocity for al Queda.
The other problem is that, although the 'war on the west' may appear torpid from al Queda's point of view, the war against terror (twat) is proving to be extraordinarly costly, in terms of human lives, materiel and the liberty and human rights of civilians across the globe.
More US personnel have now died in Iraq than on 9/11, and in pursuit of a war that has had the net result of having more terrorists today than existed in April 2003.
In August 2000 the USA was hated by a small group of essentially crackpot hardline militants calling themselves al Queda. Today it is probably fair to say that the USA is hated by millions.
And the tragedy is that that is not down to al Queda; that is entirely down to George W Bush. In that sense, George's war on the west is going remarkably well!

---

09 Jan 07 - 10:04 AM (#1931370)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST

In Iraq, 600-700 U.S. troops are evacuated from the country each month for medical reasons. Only 23 percent of these, on average, are for combat wounds. The rest are for non-combat injuries (21 percent) and diseases (56 percent). Only the most serious cases are evacuated. Each month, another 3-4,000 troops are treated locally, and nearly all return to service quickly. So far, there have been 27,000 combat casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of that number, 12 percent died, and 2.7 percent lost a limb, or part of one (a third lost a finger, toe or part of a hand or foot).

Troops are much more likely to get sick in Iraq or Afghanistan, than to get injured in combat. This reverses a trend that began about a century ago. Back then, for the first time in history, wars saw more men die from combat than from disease. During World War II, for example, two thirds of the deaths were from combat, the other third were from accidents and disease. But now, combat deaths are lower than they've ever been in the history of warfare. About twenty percent of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are from non-combat causes (mostly vehicle accidents). This was the same ratio as in Vietnam, but you were three times as likely to get killed or wounded, from any cause, in Vietnam.

---

09 Jan 07 - 10:11 AM (#1931378)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger

Yes, and the point is?
Are you saying that today things get screwed up with more efficiency than in the past? 3,000 dead US personnel is still 3,000 dead US personnel. You're not trying to say that, had they stayed at home, they'd still be dead, are you?

---

09 Jan 07 - 10:14 AM (#1931380)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger

I fear this thread, with the word 'statistics' in the title, is going to encourage a random and inchoate outpouring of figures with little in the way of analysis. As such, it could very rapidly become quite meaningless.

Terry, are you able to come to our rescue with some hard, crunchy facts?

---

09 Jan 07 - 10:42 AM (#1931401)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bee-dubya-ell

The bureaucracy of death is so broken in Iraq that nobody's figures have any real credibility. There may be a legal requirement that death certificates be issued, but it's probably ignored more often than not.

If a Suni Iraqi is shot dead, it makes far more sense for the family to have a guiet, unannounced, undocumented funeral than to turn the body over to a morgue and risk having other family members killed when they come to claim the body.

---

09 Jan 07 - 10:52 AM (#1931409)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST

What is your point in conducting a futile discussion?

---

09 Jan 07 - 11:03 AM (#1931430)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger

Futile? It may help to remind people of the things for which they voted.

---

09 Jan 07 - 12:52 PM (#1931524)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Arne

Guest said:

In November, the AP's report of six people being burned by in an attack on a mosque, cited a Captain Jemil Hussein of the Iraqi police. This report was challenged by Central Command and the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior, who pointed out that they had no record of a Jemil Hussein in their initial searches. The AP has stood by the story, yet this questionable Iraqi police official has not been quoted once since the story was questioned – despite being used in dozens of stories prior to the controversy. After several weeks of investigating, several blogs, including Flopping Aces, found very little evidence that Captain Hussein existed – until the AP reported that an arrest warrant was issued by the Ministry of the Interior for Hussein, whose phone has conveniently been turned off.

So he existed, he's been charged with actualy talking to reporters (what a crime!), and the RW foamer blogs are all wrong....

Thanks.

---

09 Jan 07 - 02:22 PM (#1931616)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Greg F.

How many? Way too goddamned many. I think that pretty much sums it up.

---

09 Jan 07 - 02:48 PM (#1931639)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Shaneo

The man who makes the body-bags is laughing all the way to the bank ,while Bush sends more lambs to the slaughter

---

09 Jan 07 - 05:37 PM (#1931771)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST

The AP reported???? you believe them??? the man did not exist in the first place... who issued an arrest warrant? anyone check the validity of their claim???

---

09 Jan 07 - 05:53 PM (#1931790)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Thomas the Rhymer

Got it in one, Greg!

Yo! Teribus... Thanks for the back-up.

Common sense sure is distinctive around here sometimes...
ttr

---

09 Jan 07 - 07:05 PM (#1931855)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus

Thank you for making those points Guest 05:37PM in resonse to Arne's post you have saved me the trouble.

---

09 Jan 07 - 07:16 PM (#1931865)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: 282RA

The count has to be very high. Before the 2004 election, Bush himself put the number at roughly 30,000. Assuming he had good intelligence this time, we can surmise this number was already inaccurately low. It is unlikely Bush would report an accurate figure when we remember this administration's obsession with secrecy. The real number of dead is likely far higher than that.

So the accurate count by now is anyone's guess, I would think. It will be years before we really get any handle on the magnitude of this thing. Assuming, of course, we won't still be there.

---

09 Jan 07 - 07:27 PM (#1931868)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Thomas the Rhymer

282RA... 'We' may not agree.
ttr

---

10 Jan 07 - 02:46 AM (#1932049)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger

Thank you for making those points Guest 05:37PM in resonse to Arne's post you have saved me the trouble.
Aye, it's usually young Terry who makes the messy ejaculations around here, marked by excitable punctuation and an absence of joined-up words and thinking. It's useful to have another guardian of the truth on standby. Maybe, my love, you could take it upon yourself to answer some of the questions that our Terence is being so shy about?

---

10 Jan 07 - 03:51 AM (#1932079)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: dianavan

Whatever your final tally may be; add another 10,000 displaced Iraqis and you get a far better idea about the devastation in Iraq.

...and lets not forget the wounded.

---

10 Jan 07 - 05:33 AM (#1932128)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus

"Whatever your final tally may be; add another 10,000 displaced Iraqis and you get a far better idea about the devastation in Iraq." - dianavan

News of further improvement must be welcomed - on the other thread where displaced Iraqi's are mentioned it was hundreds of thousands, it's now ten's of thousands but that is surely better than the millions that existed under Saddam's rule.

In that other thread, dianavan mentioned the contribution made by Iran in sheltering refugees and referred to the Iranian census taken in 2001. The refugee's sheltering in Iran in that census in 2001 mentioned by dianavan would primarily have been made up of:
- Kurdish refugees fleeing from Saddam Hussein
- Ma'adan Shia (Marsh Arabs) refugees fleeing from Saddam Hussein
- Tajik Afghan refugees fleeing from the Taleban

As for Ciggy's "questions"

Ciggy Question 1:
"That is, 13,700 people dead in reported roadside bombs and car bombs. That, I take it, does not include those killed as a direct result of Coalition action - just from 'internal causes' that you insist do not represent an incipient civil war."

Answer to Ciggy Question 1:
No Ciggy go and take the trouble to read The Washington Post article. The figures given by AP and a collection of Iraqi Ministries identifies those killed in all types of reported incidents on the day of the incident. Those incidents include road side bombings and car bombs, but they do not include those people injured in such incidents who died later (i.e. not on the same day - OK Snaps)

Ciggy Question 2:
"Since April 2003 that amounts to nearly 700 people a month. With your military experience, do you consider this an acceptable bodycount for what has been achieved in Iraq?"

Answer to Ciggy Question 2:
All things considered, I would say that given the potential for taking life, 700 a month is very much on the low side of what it could be - after all Ciggy, if Saddam held to his lower average the number killed per month would be 4620.

Ciggy Question 3 (Complete with two question marks):
"13,700 people. By your own admission, at least 13,700 people. It is as if the entire population of a town like Sidmouth had been removed from the map. And for what?
Please, Terry, do remind us what - apart from the removal of the Ba'ath party from power - has been achieved in Iraq?"

Answer to Ciggy Question 3:
Now let's see Ciggy, how about closure of all outstanding matters relating to United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to Iraq? How about one less sponsor of international terrorism in the area? Tell me Ciggy what do you think Saddam's reaction would have been to what is happening in Iran at present if he was still in power?

Ciggy Question 4:
"What were the monthly body counts from similar causes in Germany in the three years after it was liberated from dictatorship?"

Answer to Ciggy Question 4:
No idea Ciggy, although hunger, disease and weather conditions must have taken a toll, there was no armed insurrection. Now had you asked me about Greece Ciggy, there's a completely different story, and much nearer as a point of comparison. In the four years following 1945, in Greece there was an insurrection, there was a civil war. The "body counts" were as follows:
- Killed 50,777
- Wounded 37,732
- Missing 4,526

Ciggy on the killed body count alone that amounts to a monthly total of 1058. Oh yes Ciggy, on this "civil war" in Iraq, could you please enlighten us as to who the combatants are?

Ciggy Question 5:
"And would such rates justify our attacking Ahmadinejad in Iran, or Kim jong Il in North Korea?"

Answer to Ciggy Question 5:
As far as I am aware neither Ahmadinejad in Iran, or Kim jong Il in North Korea have been threatened by anyone let alone attacked. Apart from which what on earth would monthly fatality figures in Iraq have to do with either?

---

10 Jan 07 - 07:11 AM (#1932185)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger

Thanks Tel,
Now, let's have a game of tennis...

1) I've read the Washington Post article. It does not make clear the make-up of the lowest body-count. However, the interior ministry's figures, from which dey drawm "do not include the wounded who die later from their injuries, those kidnapped and later killed, armed men who die in clashes with U.S. or Iraqi forces, unidentified bodies, and other categories of deaths."

2) Would you have regarded that figure as 'very much on the low side' compared to, say, Northern Ireland? Would that have been an acceptable figure in the six counties? After all, there was significant 'potential for taking life' there.

3) Correct me if I'm wrong, but Iraq was not a sponsor of interntional terrorism before 2003, and now houses quite a number of international terrorists. AS for the UNSC resolutions, with the exception of the controversial 1441, they were largely concerned with the 'oil for food' programme. Of course they was closure, you chump, as the regime was removed.

4) I asked about Germany because that is a close comparison - removal of a dictator and d-nazi/baathification by an occupying power gradually handing over to a german/iraqi government. Greece is entirely different.
And I would have thought the combatants were fairly obvious. It is a split on sectarian lines between Sunni and Shia factions. The Washington Post article refers to "politically motivated bloodshed " and "sectarian strife". To quote Edward Wong, who wrote "A Matter of Definition: What Makes a Civil War, and Who Declares It So?" in the New York Times November 26, 2006: A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.

5) As I understand it, the US went to war with Iraq because Saddam allegedly possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed a threat to peace. The US announced a 'coalition of the willing' to rid Iraq of its WMDs and invaded without the consent of the UNSC. Given that we know both Iran and North Korea actually have WMDs and are run by oppressive regimes, is it not logical to assume that the US would like to do the same in their case? The US says Iran is an active sponsor of terrorism. It has also efused to exclude the use of force to stop perceived Iranian nuclear ambitions. Need I go on...?

Your go, poppet.

---

10 Jan 07 - 08:29 AM (#1932229)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus

1) That in a nutshell is the topic under discussion the variance in the figures and what categories those figures comprise of. So glad that you've caught up.

2) Now that I don't know, maybe you should ask someone who was playing, or directing the game on behalf of your team, they after all killed almost 60% of the total, and certainly killed most of the civilians. Actually looking at the stats for those killed in that conflict over the 30 years we have:

British Security 362
Irish Security 5
Loyalist Paramilitary 1020
not known 80
Republican Paramilitary 2056
TOTAL 3523

Significant potential? Certainly, but all paramilitary groups in terms of internal security were as leaky as rusted collanders, so tip-offs and intelligence on forth-coming operations tended to be pretty good.

There were effective and efficient emergency services on hand - remember Bloody Friday "Ginge". What was Gerry Adam's and the PIRA's contribution to the protection of the population of Northern Ireland on that particular day. I recall it took the form of 22 bombs planted indiscriminately in the centre of Belfast, timed to go off between 14:09 and 15:30, spaced evenly that would be one explosion every 3 minutes 40 seconds, bombs placed in such a way that as the civilians were cleared from one threat they went towards the next bomb to be set off. In order to wrong-foot, confuse and over-extend the task of the already stretched emergency services in saving life, hoax bomb threats were called in. What was the final tally for the day "Ginge"? - 9 dead and 130 injured, so ultimately not too successful a day for the bomber - but it spoke volumes for the courage, dedication and professionalism of the Police, Security Forces and Emergency Services though.

Yes "Ginge" the potential within the PIRA for taking innocent life was there, certainly the will and intent within the PIRA for taking innocent civilian life was there, thankfully for the people of Northern Ireland at the time the Police, Security Forces and Emergency Services were more than up to the task.

Readers should note that throughout this period there is not one instance of any member of any paramilitary group operating in Northern Ireland ever sacrificing his/her life in order to save a single innocent bystander - unless of course you count the clowns who blew themselves making and transporting their own bombs.

Before anyone complains about thread drift I happen to answering a specific question.

3) Iraq most certainly was a sponsor of international terrorism during the reign of Saddam Hussein. His sponsorship of suicide bombers was extremely well documented.

With regard to United Nations Security Council Resolutions relating to Iraq you are very much mistaken:

Resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990,
Resolution 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990,- WMD & WMD Programmes
Resolution 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, - Hey "Ginge" - Abduction of 605 Kuwaiti Nationals
Resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, - Hey "Ginge" - International Terrorism - Safwan Conditions for "Ceasefire"
Resolution 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, - Hey "Ginge" - repression and lack of humanitarian monitoring
Resolution 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991,
Resolution 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991,
Resolution 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, - Hey "Ginge" - Oil For Food
Resolution 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999,- Hey "Ginge" - Abduction of 605 Kuwaiti Nationals - all subsequently murdered by Saddam
Resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001

So other than 1441 all UN resolutions had to do with Oil for Food did they Ginge. Well there's the list Ginger, ould son, apart from 1441, 1382 and 1284 all other resolutions predate the Oil for Food Resolution which was 986 from 1995.

4) Germany/Iraq - No comparison at all Ginger. Sorry, no civil war in Iraq as yet "Ginge". What you do have is an insurrection that is rapidly running out of steam, instances of sectarian violence and criminal activity.

5) As far as I am aware neither Ahmadinejad in Iran, or Kim jong Il in North Korea have been threatened by anyone let alone attacked. Please prove otherwise- establish the fact. And I repeat my question:
What on earth have monthly fatality figures in Iraq to do with the justification for any supposed attack on Iran or North Korea?

Or are y' just blatherin'

---

10 Jan 07 - 08:55 AM (#1932251)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger

Terry, my love, you're in danger of vanishing in a puff of smoke up your own freckle!
1) Can't really see your point, but carry on.
2) Playing with fire here, aren't you?! But not answering the question.
3) Read, laddie: The most recent and relevent were largely concerned etc.
4) The WP article expresses concern at a sharp rise in deaths. Running our of steam, eh?
5) Ahmadinejad has been widely condemned for perceived threats to Isreal. Korea represents about as big a risk as Iraq did.

As for the relvance of figures - the Iraqi figures probably don't matter a bean, but the US figure of 3,000 might have a bearing on Bush's intentions elsewhere!
Your turn to blather, honeybunch.

---

10 Jan 07 - 09:02 AM (#1932258)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Paul from Hull

*SIGH* Here we go...

---

10 Jan 07 - 09:15 AM (#1932268)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus

State of the game so far:

1) Closed

2) You asked about Northern Ireland, playing with fire? Hardly, nobody will refute a single thing I have said about it above, those facts are very well known.

3) No Ciggy old son, YOU READ - What you did say on this was - "AS for the UNSC resolutions, with the exception of the controversial 1441, they were largely concerned with the 'oil for food' programme." As you have been shown they clearly were not. Now If you wish to change and qualify your initial remarks to state "the most recent and relevant were largely concerned etc" then just say that that is what you want to do.

4) What has the Washington Post article got to do with your illogical comparison between Germany and Iraq?

5) Since when has being widely condemned for remarks made equated to a threat of military action?

As to how the so-called Axis of Evil were ranked in terms of potential threat you should ask the Joint House Security Committee, they studied the problem in relation to Iraq, Iran and North Korea between 1998 and 2002.

My personal reckoning remains as before, Iran will implode without any interference from outside and North Korea poses no threat whatsoever beyond international blackmail. It has most to fear from it's immediate neighbour, China, if it ever makes any serious move with regard to nuclear weapons.

---

10 Jan 07 - 09:15 AM (#1932269)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,Dick Cheyney

"...What you do have is an insurrection that is rapidly running out of steam..."

In its last throws if you will.

---

10 Jan 07 - 11:46 AM (#1932410)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger

Germany - a country ruled by a tyrant with dreams of megalomania and a record of massive persecution and repression, defeated militarily and occupied under an interim government until such time as it was deemed able to govern itself.
Iraq - er, ditto.

As for Northern Ireland, I don't dispute your figures for a moment, my love. I was expressing surprise at your view that 700 deaths a month from sectarian and internecine violence was acceptable, and asking if you would have accepted the same in Northern Ireland. Your cut and paste of the figures - depressing as they were - was in aid of what exactly?

As for the UN resolutions, how far back do you want to go? I went back as far as September 2001, which seems to have been when the US started jumping up and down about Iraq for some reason. If you want to go further back, does that mean you'd like to accept that Iraq was on the Republicans' 'to do' list before then? UNSC resolution details here if you need to refresh your memory, poppet.

And as for military action, either directly or by proxy, 'cannot rule out military action' is surely sabre-rattling. Oh, and have a read of this, or this or even this - from a bunch of limp-wristed know-nothing morons without your grasp of the issues admittedly, but still food for thought.

Shall we play on for two more sets and then end the game, Terry m'dear?

---

10 Jan 07 - 12:12 PM (#1932432)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus

Ah "Ginge", me ol' mate starting to struggle a bit are we?

By the bye "Carrots" - please point out exactly where I expressed any view at all that 700 deaths a month from sectarian and internecine violence was acceptable - in fact I am on record for stating exactly the opposite.

Don't put words in my mouth then attempt to take me to task for them.

Your Blog links I will get round to later, the first of which in relation to a possible US/Israeli attack on Iran I think I have ripped to shreds before, Scott Ritter, well what can one say? The third from FP, I haven't yet read.

Got to go now got things musical to do.

---

10 Jan 07 - 12:20 PM (#1932440)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger

Struggling sweetie? Don't make me bark, you silly sausage; swivel-eyed pointy-heads pose no fears for me!

"All things considered, I would say that given the potential for taking life, 700 a month is very much on the low side of what it could be". I think the man on the Clapham omnibus would infer "acceptable". Your actual meaning?

BTW, have you offered your services to HMG or the State Department? I'm sure your ability to rip arguments to shreds woul dbe hugely appreciated, as they don't seem to have your skills.

---

10 Jan 07 - 12:34 PM (#1932453)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST

PROOF TECHNIQUES

written by Armen H. Zemanian, published in The Physics Teacher, May 1994.

The usual techniques for proving things are often inadequate because they
are merely concerned with truth. For more practical objectives, there are
other powerful - but generally unacknowledged - methods. Here is an
(undoubtedly incomplete) list of them:

Proof of Blatant Assertion: Use words and phrases like
"clearly...,""obviously...,""it is easily shown that...," and "as any fool
can plainly see..."

Proof by Seduction: "If you will just agree to believe this, you might get
a better final grade."

Proof by Intimidation: "You better believe this if you want to pass the
course."

Proof by Interruption: Keep interrupting until your opponent gives up.

Proof by Misconception: An example of this is the Freshman's Conception of
the Limit Process: "2 equals 3 for large values of 2." Once introduced, any
conclusion is reachable.

Proof by Obfuscation: A long list of lemmas is helpful in this case - the
more, the better.

Proof by Confusion: This is a more refined form of proof by
obfuscation. The long list of lemmas should be arranged into circular
patterns of reasoning - and perhaps more baroque structures such as
figure-eights and fleurs-de-lis.

Proof by Exhaustion: This is a modification of an inductive proof. Instead
of going to the general case after proving the first one, prove the second
case, then the third, then the fourth, and so on - until a sufficiently
large n is achieved whereby the nth case is being propounded to a soundly
sleeping audience.

More proof methods: Proof by passion: The author gives the proof with a lot
of passion,
expressive eyes and vigorous movements...

Proof by example: The author gives only the case n = 2 and suggests that
it contains most of the ideas of the general proof.

Proof by intimidation: 'Trivial.'

Proof by vigorous handwaving: Works well in a classroom or seminar
setting.

Proof by cumbersome notation: Best done with access to at least four
alphabets and special symbols.

Proof by exhaustion: An issue or two of a journal devoted to your proof
is useful.

Proof by omission: 'The reader may easily supply the details.' 'The other
253 cases are analogous.' '...'

Proof by obfuscation: A long plotless sequence of true and/or
meaningless syntactically related statements.

Proof by wishful citation:
The author cites the negation, converse, or generalization of a
theorem from literature to support his claims.

Proof by funding: How could three different government agencies be
wrong?

Proof by personal communication: 'Eight-dimensional colored cycle
stripping is NP-complete [Karp, personal communication].'

Proof by reduction to the wrong problem: 'To see that infinite-
dimensional colored cycle stripping is decidable, we reduce it to
the halting problem.'

Proof by reference to inaccessible literature: The author cites a simple
corollary of a theorem to be found in a privately circulated memoir
of the Slovenian Philological Society, 1883.

Proof by importance: A large body of useful consequences all follow from
the proposition in question.

Proof by accumulated evidence: Long and diligent search has not revealed
a counterexample.

Proof by cosmology: The negation of the proposition is unimaginable or
meaningless. Popular for proofs of the existence of God.

Proof by mutual reference: In reference A, Theorem 5 is said to follow
from Theorem 3 in reference B, which is shown from Corollary 6.2 in
reference C, which is an easy consequence of Theorem 5 in reference
A.

Proof by metaproof: A method is given to construct the desired proof.
The correctness of the method is proved by any of these techniques.

Proof by picture: A more convincing form of proof by example. Combines
well with proof by omission.

Proof by vehement assertion: It is useful to have some kind of authority
in relation to the audience.

Proof by ghost reference: Nothing even remotely resembling the cited
theorem appears in the reference given.

Proof by forward reference: Reference is usually to a forthcoming paper
of the author, which is often not as forthcoming as at first.

Proof by semantic shift: Some standard but inconvenient definitions are
changed for the statement of the result.

Proof by appeal to intuition: Cloud-shaped drawings frequently help
here.

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

[Top of page] [Bottom of page] [Index] [Send comment]

Even more Proof Techniques

Methods for getting people to believe you (as good as, if not better than,
proof). A collection of proof techniques that will prove invaluable to
both mathematicians and members of the general public.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #1 - 'Proof By Induction'

    1. Obtain a large power transformer.
    2. Find someone who does not believe your theorem.
    3. Get this person to hold the terminals on the HV side of the
         transformer.
    4. Apply 25000 volts AC to the LV side of the transformer.
    5. Repeat step (4) until they agree with the theorem.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #2 - 'Proof By Contradiction'

    1. State your theorem.
    2. Wait for someone to disagree.
    3. Contradict them.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #3 - Fire Proof

    1. Summon all your inferiors for a departmental meeting.
    2. Present your theorem.
    3. Fire those who disagree.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #4 - The Famous Water Proof

    1. State your theorem.
    2. Wait for someone to disagree.
    3. Drown them.

    NB. This is closely related to the 'bullet' proof, but is easier
    to make look like an accident.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #5 - Idiot Proof

    1. State your theorem.
    2. Write exhaustive documentation with glossy colour pictures
         and arrows about which bit goes where.
    3. Challenge anyone to not understand it.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #6 - Child Proof

    1. State your theorem.
    2. Encapsulate it in epoxy and shape it into an ellipsoid.
    3. Put it in a jar with all the other proofs (one with one of
         those Press-to-Open lids).
    4. Give it to a professor and challenge him to open it.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #7 - Rabbit Proof

    1. Generate theorems at an altogether startling rate, much
         faster than anybody is able to refute them. Use up every
         body else's paper. Run away at the slightest sign of danger.
    2. Leave any crap in small, easily identified piles, in
         prominent places where you no longer are, and it cannot in
         fact be proven that you ever were.

PROOF TECHNIQUE #8 - Fool Proof

    1. State your theorem.
    2. Invite colleagues to comment.
    3. If they don't agree, exclaim loudly, "You Fools!"

---

10 Jan 07 - 01:26 PM (#1932500)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Greg F.

And then there's "Proof By Bloviation"......

---

10 Jan 07 - 09:47 PM (#1932821)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus

Not at all Greg F there is proof by boredom.

"Jesus-H-come-dancing-Christ", please give give me a reasoned arguement. And once again I would say to Ciggy, please do not put words into my mouth then take me to task on what you have said that I have said.

I ask you once again please quote where I have said that ANY civilian deaths are acceptable.

If you cannot please acknowledge that you are in error, apologise and withdraw in good grace. I imagine that you are incapable of either course of action, being neither honourable nor honest, that is the mark of a true PIRA apologist.

It doesn't matter a jot, because within this forum you will plainly be seen for what you are, irrespective of what others in this forum think of me.

---

11 Jan 07 - 02:47 AM (#1932971)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger

PIRA apologist?
From where do you draw that inference? Here is not the place to discuss this, but that is be priceless coming from a lard-arsed armchair matelot who sat out his service careet in a prefab box in Pompey, and whose most direct experience of the paramilitaries was scratching his head over bikini codes and trying to remember to look under his car every morning.
Reread my post, you Saddam apologist. I inferred. As any sensible person would in the face of your verbiage. To repeat, for the hard of thinking: "All things considered, I would say that given the potential for taking life, 700 a month is very much on the low side of what it could be". I think the man on the Clapham omnibus would infer "acceptable". Your actual meaning?
And rather than make poiontless (no pun intended) Aquinean arguments over individual words, please stick to the argument. The death toll in Iraq is growing unacceptably and the situation is not submitting to control. Agreed?

---

11 Jan 07 - 03:46 AM (#1932992)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus

Once again Ciggy, please do not put words into my mouth then take me to task on what you have said that I have said.

Please quote where I have said that ANY civilian deaths are acceptable.

If you cannot, then come on out and say so.

What you infer I say, in order to suit your arguement is very different from what I have actually said. I believe that that being the case you owe me an apology.

---

11 Jan 07 - 10:47 AM (#1933344)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger

Apologise? Don't make me bark! I have put no words into your mouth, my little bundle of fluffy pomposity, so there is no reason to apologise.
And could you tell me what you actually meant when you said "All things considered, I would say that given the potential for taking life, 700 a month is very much on the low side of what it could be" when I said it was too high a price to pay for what has been 'achieved'?
Any thoughts on firing squads, by the way, sweetiepie, or has that been put in the little trouser shiner's plastic 'pending tray'? Any chance of an apology from you for being wrong on that score as well?
And as for your silence on the PIRA slur, I infer from that that even you now accept that you went too far on that one and feel suitably chastened. A ripe remark about dicharged seamen springs to mind, but I'll refrain...

---

11 Jan 07 - 06:56 PM (#1933757)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Thomas the Rhymer

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

---

11 Jan 07 - 09:52 PM (#1933897)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Thomas the Rhymer

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

---

12 Jan 07 - 04:05 AM (#1934054)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Captain Ginger

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!

---

12 Jan 07 - 08:29 AM (#1934223)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert

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..

---

17 Jan 07 - 01:05 AM (#1939089)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Thomas the Rhymer

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

---

17 Jan 07 - 05:35 PM (#1939869)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Donuel

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

---

18 Jan 07 - 05:48 AM (#1940287)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Ron Davies

Donuel--


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

---

06 Mar 07 - 07:54 AM (#1988019)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang

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

---

06 Mar 07 - 10:00 AM (#1988139)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus

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.

---

06 Mar 07 - 10:09 AM (#1988147)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,TIA

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.

---

06 Mar 07 - 10:16 AM (#1988155)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Peace

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.

---

06 Mar 07 - 11:58 AM (#1988266)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus

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.

---

06 Mar 07 - 02:02 PM (#1988440)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: TIA

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?

---

06 Mar 07 - 04:44 PM (#1988628)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus

"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.

---

07 Mar 07 - 08:23 AM (#1989347)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang

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

---

07 Mar 07 - 08:40 AM (#1989370)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: TIA

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.

---

07 Mar 07 - 10:14 PM (#1990159)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,TIA

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).

---

09 Mar 07 - 11:36 AM (#1991575)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang

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

---

09 Mar 07 - 06:10 PM (#1992002)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,TIA

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]

---

13 Mar 07 - 12:46 PM (#1995533)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang

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

---

13 Mar 07 - 09:43 PM (#1995963)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,TIA

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.

---

19 Mar 07 - 03:11 PM (#2001313)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,TIA

150,000 if we believe the Iraqis themselves.

---

19 Mar 07 - 04:16 PM (#2001390)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Amos

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

---

19 Mar 07 - 05:51 PM (#2001435)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert

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

---

27 Mar 07 - 07:08 PM (#2008933)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: TIA

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.

---

27 Mar 07 - 07:54 PM (#2008959)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert

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

---

27 Mar 07 - 08:05 PM (#2008967)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,282RA

>>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.

---

27 Mar 07 - 08:25 PM (#2008976)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert

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

---

27 Mar 07 - 09:14 PM (#2008996)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,282RA

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

---

28 Mar 07 - 02:38 AM (#2009169)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus

"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?

---

28 Mar 07 - 05:32 AM (#2009254)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: TIA

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.

---

28 Mar 07 - 06:20 AM (#2009269)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus

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.

---

28 Mar 07 - 01:14 PM (#2009649)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: dick greenhaus

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

---

28 Mar 07 - 01:54 PM (#2009671)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang

No, as far as I know.

Wolfgang

---

28 Mar 07 - 04:51 PM (#2009890)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: GUEST,282RA

>>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?

---

28 Mar 07 - 06:44 PM (#2010002)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert

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

---

29 Mar 07 - 05:05 AM (#2010396)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Teribus

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.

---

29 Mar 07 - 07:34 AM (#2010470)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang

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

---

29 Mar 07 - 07:47 AM (#2010478)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert

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~

---

29 Mar 07 - 09:44 AM (#2010623)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang

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

---

29 Mar 07 - 10:01 AM (#2010643)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: beardedbruce

"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)

---

29 Mar 07 - 01:59 PM (#2010912)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert

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~

---

02 Apr 07 - 07:40 AM (#2014244)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Wolfgang

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

---

02 Apr 07 - 07:55 PM (#2014821)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert

LIke I said, congrates....

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

B~

---

02 Apr 07 - 08:42 PM (#2014849)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Arne

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,

---

02 Apr 07 - 08:56 PM (#2014856)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Bobert

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

---

03 Apr 07 - 07:59 PM (#2015675)
Subject: RE: BS: The statistics on Iraq... How many?
From: Little Hawk

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?

---