Killers of Iraq

[zinkyusa]

To me this article really sums up the reality of Iraq today.



"New York Post

October 24, 2006

Terror Rules Streets

'P.C.' cowardice dooms fight against Iraq's killers

By Ralph Peters

Whether the issue is domestic law and order or fighting foreign wars, the great fallacy of the left is the belief that protecting the "human rights" of killers is more important than the elementary human right of the vast majority - the innocent - to live unmolested by murderers and fanatics.

Whether the cry is "Free Mumia!" or "Close Guantanamo!" or "Bring the Troops Home Now!" the consistent purpose is to rescue killers from justice - no matter the cost to law-abiding citizens here or to the millions of Iraqis who truly desire peace.

This situation was bad enough when save-the-cop-killers/pity-the-terrorists ideology only infected the left. But political correctness has insinuated itself so deeply into our collective thinking that even the chest-thumping Bush administration refused to take on Iraq's fanatical killers - with the result that Iraq is now frankly ungovernable.

The administration ignored an ironclad rule of conflict in failed societies: A fraction of 1 percent of the population, armed and determined, can destroy a fragile state. If you are not willing to kill that fraction of a percent, the remaining 99-plus percent will suffer terror, massacre and chaos.

Our weakness of will and wishful thinking made Iraq safe for our enemies. They can walk the streets unarmed. We can't.

We did the right and virtuous thing by deposing Saddam Hussein. There's no reason even now to regret that act. But history will condemn us - justly - for the moral cowardice we revealed after the fall of Baghdad: We would not kill the handful of men who needed killing. Now they've converted tens of thousands to their cult of violence.

Imagine how different the situation would be had our forces been allowed to plan for a military occupation with rational rules of engagement, if looters had been shot and if we had taken on the militias as they were forming. Had we occupied the Sunni Triangle with sufficient numbers of troops and had we killed the Shia provocateur Muqtada al-Sadr as he began assassinating peaceful rivals in mid-2003, Iraq would've had a chance.

Now it's too late. Too late for more troops. Too late for the massive crackdown that would be required. Too late to restore the rule of law after we enabled the spread of lawlessness. Too late for the average Iraqi to live in peace.

It's up to the Iraqis now. And they appear to be their own worst enemies.

I wish the world were as innocent as intellectuals pretend. But we're far from the Peaceable Kingdom. If we're unwilling to behave ferociously toward terrorists and thugs, they'll behave with greater ferocity toward the innocent. That's a consistent equation in humanity's moral algebra.

The core problem of the political correctness crippling our policies is that both the left's on-line commissars and Bush's brain trust (such as it is) are guilty of the same error: Safe in America, they insist that the world is as they wish it to be, rather than as it is. Such self-deception paves the paths to Auschwitz, Srebrenica and Balad.

There are few platitudes more cringe-inducing than hearing yet another American political leader or general claim that "the only answer in Iraq is a political solution." That's just plain nonsense - it's reality-avoidance as a strategy. It may be too late for any good solution in Iraq, but political dialogue doesn't have a prayer.

Permitted to run rampant, Iraq's Shia and Sunni fanatics are now stronger than the government and have no incentive to compromise. If Shia gangsters-for-god believe they can win a total victory over their age-old enemies, why share power? The same applies to Sunni extremists.

Political compromise is not a tradition of the Middle East - life and power are viewed as zero-sum games.

And the ugly truth is that some men love to kill. Torture and murder are addictive. The lifelong loser empowered to kill for a cause becomes a little god. And when the violence ends, the party's over.

The butchers our timidity unleashed are enjoying themselves. They're having the time of their lives executing unarmed civilians.

How many American - and foreign - lives must we sacrifice to stay within our privileged comfort zone, clinging to the lie that "all men want peace"? A compromise peace is the last thing Iraq's killers want.

It's one thing to ask our soldiers and Marines to die for our national security, but sending them off to die for platitudes is unforgivable.

The government in Baghdad is on the verge of failure. There is no civil war - civil war would be easier to deal with. What we see in the streets is the rule of the gunmen.

We gave them Iraq. Instead of imposing the rule of law, we empowered the lawless.

Responsibility begins, of course, with the Iraqis, who have chosen old hatreds over new possibilities. The next layer of guilt encompasses the Bush administration, which lacked the guts to finish what it started. But the get-Bush-at-any-cost Americans who encouraged our enemies will have the blood of countless innocent Iraqis on their hands.

The left may get its wish: Iraq may fail. Well, congratulations. The men to whom you yearn to give Iraq will make Pol Pot look like Mr. Rogers.

The only blameless participants are our troops. Each new tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery should read: "Killed By Wishful Thinking."

[Bryn Mawr]

zinkyusa wrote: To me this article really sums up the reality of Iraq today.




I totally agree - but probably not in the way you meant it.

[Clint]

P.c. :-5

[RedGlitter]

The butchers our timidity unleashed are enjoying themselves. They're having the time of their lives executing unarmed civilians.

How many American - and foreign - lives must we sacrifice to stay within our privileged comfort zone, clinging to the lie that "all men want peace"? A compromise peace is the last thing Iraq's killers want.

It's one thing to ask our soldiers and Marines to die for our national security, but sending them off to die for platitudes is unforgivable.





I have been on both sides of the fence on this issue and to some degree I probably still am.

I don't know that it IS a lie that all men want peace. Ok, maybe it is, but could we safely say that "all decent peoples want peace?"

I hear about how America is at fault for every dang thing happening everywhere else in the world. I don't know why some expect us to be the world police and then others hate us when we are. I won't drag my country through the mud any more than I would poop where I eat, but I do live here so I feel justified in saying we make a lot of errors. It's a fact. Because we're human. However, is it actually right for us in a *humanitarian respect* to turn our backs on other humans who are wrongly oppressed? Who are wrongfully killed? Is it wrong to insist on equality and respect for all women, who make up half the world's population?! To say it's not acceptable to set your wife on fire because she burned your dinner or because another man dared look at her?!



I don't think this stuff constitutes platitudes.

For a while I took the stance of "we shouldn't be over there, stupid Bush, not our business, it's all about the oil, what about Osama" etc. I still am able to see that side and I'm not going to fault anyone else who holds that viewpoint as I don't think it's completely incorrect.

But that said, when I shut off my political views and ask myself as just a human being if we have an obligation to be there to help people, then I always come back to yes.

Somebody pointed out to me once, "where was the US when Rwanda asked for help? Where was the US when soandso needed you?" I have no answer for that. On a personal level, I believe and have learned that you have to pick your battles. Maybe this applies to the US.



*steps back and dons asbestos suit*

[RedGlitter]

:wah: Absolutely!

Here are some fire-retardant earmuffs too, Diuretic



@^@

[zinkyusa]

I think he was wrong to say that the problem was that the Bush administration failed to deal with 1% of cold blooded killers.. This is not about them IMO, this is about two ethnic populations who each have a substanial number of men who are intent on settling old scores, setting up a tit for tat mentality of atrocity and reprisal..This seems to be standard operating procedure in the ME and with these cultures who still are living in the middle ages in many ways.. Bush's mistake was in removing a brutal dictator who kept tens of thousands of other wannabe brutal dictactors under heel. It was and is a mistake for the US to be involved anywhere in the ME. I'd rather ride a bike than lose another American life over there. Europeans can continue to wring their collective hands and take care of themselves. They have much more to fear from Islam than the US, at least we have an ocean between us.

[Bryn Mawr]

zinkyusa;440254 wrote: I think he was wrong to say that the problem was that the Bush administration failed to deal with 1% of cold blooded killers.. This is not about them IMO, this is about two ethnic populations who each have a substanial number of men who are intent on settling old scores, setting up a tit for tat mentality of atrocity and reprisal..This seems to be standard operating procedure in the ME and with these cultures who still are living in the middle ages in many ways.. Bush's mistake was in removing a brutal dictator who kept tens of thousands of other wannabe brutal dictactors under heel. It was and is a mistake for the US to be involved anywhere in the ME. I'd rather ride a bike than lose another American life over there. Europeans can continue to wring their collective hands and take care of themselves. They have much more to fear from Islam than the US, at least we have an ocean between us.


Create a power vacuum and this will happen - the removel of Sadam did just that.

You continue to say that this is a problem particular to the Middle East but it is no different to what happened in Yugoslavia after the death of Tito.

[zinkyusa]

Bryn Mawr;440399 wrote: Create a power vacuum and this will happen - the removel of Sadam did just that.

You continue to say that this is a problem particular to the Middle East but it is no different to what happened in Yugoslavia after the death of Tito.


Good point.

[Bored_Wombat]

zinkyusa;439210 wrote: The administration ignored an ironclad rule of conflict in failed societies: A fraction of 1 percent of the population, armed and determined, can destroy a fragile state. If you are not willing to kill that fraction of a percent, the remaining 99-plus percent will suffer terror, massacre and chaos.


I've never seen that ironclad rule I suspect that 1% wouldn't be enough if the occupation wasn't so brutal that there it didn't generate support of indifference from the other 99%
Case in point: the locals can clearly mark the location of IED's in Arabic, and wait for a coalition soldier to blow himself up on it.
The society hadn't failed until it was invaded and occupied.

Being willing to kill 1% of the locals, 260 000 Iraquis, is not a hearts and mind winner. And the will is certainly there.
Case in point: random shootings by secruity contractors on the road from the Baghdad airport.

Another case in point: Killing a helpless Iraqi was a "good feeling". It makes you go "hell, yeah, that was awesome. Let's do it again."
It's far from clear that the instigators of the violence are Iraqis
Case in point: There is a suspicion that western interests are behind some of the Mosque bombings.

Another case in point: There are certainly some attacks performed by coalition soldiers, where the blame is laid upon Iraqis. (That's on top of unit level violence so attributed) zinkyusa;439210 wrote: It's up to the Iraqis now. And they appear to be their own worst enemies.
No, that would be the coalition soldiers who are shooting them, and seeding the chaos and insecurity in which they now live.

zinkyusa;439210 wrote: The core problem of the political correctness crippling our policies ...
Is that it's not remotely present.

zinkyusa;439210 wrote: And the ugly truth is that some men love to kill. Torture and murder are addictive.
Quite.

[Bill Sikes]

RedGlitter;439978 wrote:

How many American - and foreign - lives must we sacrifice to stay within our privileged comfort zone, clinging to the lie that "all men want peace"? A compromise peace is the last thing Iraq's killers want.


About half a million in Iraq, isnt it (so far)??

[RedGlitter]

Hi Bill.

I don't know offhand what the latest tally may be.

But I didn't say that...that was quoted in the original article.

[zinkyusa]

Scrat;442940 wrote: Talk about a half arsed job, this article cruises right past the fact that we LET half of the killers in or PUT them in power.

Chalabi came off the plane with 600 of his men already there. What do you think those 600 men are doing now? Sipping iced tea in the Greenzone or on the Tigris?

This article places the blame on the 1 percenters we should have taken out when we got there. What about the ones we brought with us?

Stupid article.


eheheh, I thought you might like it.

I don't disagree with you about Chalabi. He was Bush/Cheny's chosen crook to take over. I think the article is correct about the "culture of violence" in ME. If you think the US invaision of Iraq caused that I think you are sadly mistaken.

I think the author has failed to appreciate the changing nature of the violence as well. It is now a sectarian conflict with American and British forces trying to keep them apart.

[gmc]

Whether the issue is domestic law and order or fighting foreign wars, the great fallacy of the left is the belief that protecting the "human rights" of killers is more important than the elementary human right of the vast majority - the innocent - to live unmolested by murderers and fanatics.

Whether the cry is "Free Mumia!" or "Close Guantanamo!" or "Bring the Troops Home Now!" the consistent purpose is to rescue killers from justice - no matter the cost to law-abiding citizens here or to the millions of Iraqis who truly desire peace.


That is the kind of sophistry much beloved of those who think they should rule.

Freedom from arbitrary arrest, the right to a fair trial and to face you accusers is the most basic freedom you have.

It's not about protecting the rights of killers it's ensuring that you do not give those in power the right to decide who is guilty or not without being held to account for their actions.

It's not the 1% you need to worry about it's those who say give us the power to arrest who we like and we will protect you.

The core problem of the political correctness crippling our policies is that both the left's on-line commissars and Bush's brain trust (such as it is) are guilty of the same error: Safe in America, they insist that the world is as they wish it to be, rather than as it is. Such self-deception paves the paths to Auschwitz, Srebrenica and Balad.


The first thing hitkler, stalin and those like them do is take the authority to arrest whom they like. All to protect the greater good. Usually it's the ones that insist everybody is entitled to a fair trial they go for first. the liberal opponents that believe in individual freedom.

When did liberalism and the belief in individual freedom and liberty become such a pejorative concept the US? Why does anyone vote for people that don't believe in liberal democracy?

The only blameless participants are our troops. Each new tombstone at Arlington National Cemetery should read: "Killed By Wishful Thinking."

Now there I would agree with the first part wholeheartedly. The second part should be killed by lying hypocritical self seeking politicians.

posted by zinkyusa

I think he was wrong to say that the problem was that the Bush administration failed to deal with 1% of cold blooded killers.. This is not about them IMO, this is about two ethnic populations who each have a substanial number of men who are intent on settling old scores, setting up a tit for tat mentality of atrocity and reprisal..This seems to be standard operating procedure in the ME and with these cultures who still are living in the middle ages in many ways.. Bush's mistake was in removing a brutal dictator who kept tens of thousands of other wannabe brutal dictactors under heel. It was and is a mistake for the US to be involved anywhere in the ME. I'd rather ride a bike than lose another American life over there. Europeans can continue to wring their collective hands and take care of themselves. They have much more to fear from Islam than the US, at least we have an ocean between us.


Good grief I almost agree with most of that. Our mistake (UK I mean) was in letting that arsehole blair con us, once is bad enough that he's still in power is depressing.

We're not worried about the muslims, the last time they tried to conquer europe they got the **** kicked out of them and a whole genre of horror films was spawned.

http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~cckhrb/romania/vlad.htm

let's face it. compared to europeans americans are really a bunch of softies.

[Bored_Wombat]

zinkyusa;443207 wrote: If you think the US invaision of Iraq caused I think you are sadly mistaken.
I was talking to an Iraqi a few months ago. It came up that he was worried about his parents because of the violence that had blossomed since the invasion. How on earth do you come to the conclusion that it was there before the war?

[telephoto lens]

I wish I could blame the 1% of violent people for this mess but I cannot. I blame the people who should be blamed: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the other neocons who started this mess. This article deflects blame away from where it should be and does not address the lack of planning which caused this tragic situation and the deaths on the order of 650,000 people. If you want to get your darts out and lay blame watch the following PBS documentary:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/

I have watched the Iraq situation for quite a while and there were 3 incidents that indicated to me the war and reconstruction was being run by a bunch of incompetitant bunglers.

(Not in any sort of chronological or order of importance.)

1) When the new Iraqi flag was being designed the final product was a radical departure from the previous Iraqi flags and looked an awful like the Israeli flag:

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

The second was when the Americans were training the new police force and they discovered the rations included pork products and used pork products as a form of torture at Abu Ghraib:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... May20.html

Not to mention the fiasco known as Abu Ghraib!!!

The third was when the American assigned to help write the Iraqi constitution was Jewish. I was in a relationship with a Jewish person for 10 years and obviously am not a antisemite, but they should be more sensitive to the people in the middle east because until the Palestinian issue is resolved and they have a state, Israel, Israelis and jewish people in general, are a sensitive subject.

Everyone who had anything to do with the Iraq fiasco should be voted out of office and prosecuted - democrat or republican.

[Accountable]

Bored_Wombat;443499 wrote: I was talking to an Iraqi a few months ago. It came up that he was worried about his parents because of the violence that had blossomed since the invasion. How on earth do you come to the conclusion that it was there before the war?
Mass graves.

http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc1011103.html

[guppy]

acc-that article is terrible. awful. i dont understand how irag is involved in that. did hussein order all those killings?

[Bored_Wombat]

As horriffic as a mass grave of 60 000 to 70 000 is, it does not speak of an increase in security since the invasion, since it is a lot less than the 655 000 excess deaths caused by the invasion.

That excess 655 000 means excess to the death rate under Saddam.

Are you aware of any Sunni-Shiite violence under Saddam?

Is this love story doomed for reasons that under Saddam Hussein's rule, would have amounted to a footnote in matters of the heart: He was a Shiite Muslim; she was a Sunni Kurd, not painting a true picture of Iraq today?

[Accountable]

Bored_Wombat;444793 wrote: As horriffic as a mass grave of 60 000 to 70 000 is, it does not speak of an increase in security since the invasion, since it is a lot less than the 655 000 excess deaths caused by the invasion.You asked a question

Bored_Wombat wrote: I was talking to an Iraqi a few months ago. It came up that he was worried about his parents because of the violence that had blossomed since the invasion. How on earth do you come to the conclusion that it was there before the war?I answered it.



Bored_Wombat wrote: Are you aware of any Sunni-Shiite violence under Saddam?That is a hideously callous scramble to discount the fact that Iraq was cowed by a murderous egomaniac - Saddam Hussein. You should be ashamed of yourself. It's okay if he wipes out one part of the population because the other ethnicities are relatively "stable" and "safe"??

[zinkyusa]

Scrat;444806 wrote: I stopped considering the Kurds side in this legit a long time ago. Here recently they have been finding ways to get under the skin of Turkey and Iran both. It seems they have their share of troublemakers also. Both countries have been using air and artillery strikes to keep the radical Kurds at bay all summer.

Perhaps we should invade both of them AC? Saddam did what he did for reasons you now know. Maybe if we were smart we would put him back in power.


Man I can't believe you said that..If the Kurds had their own homeland and some basic human rights maybe they would be less of a problem for the region. Sadam was a murdering bastard and deserves to be dead in a hole somewhere..

[zinkyusa]

Bored_Wombat;444793 wrote: As horriffic as a mass grave of 60 000 to 70 000 is, it does not speak of an increase in security since the invasion, since it is a lot less than the 655 000 excess deaths caused by the invasion.

That excess 655 000 means excess to the death rate under Saddam.

Are you aware of any Sunni-Shiite violence under Saddam?

Is this love story doomed for reasons that under Saddam Hussein's rule, would have amounted to a footnote in matters of the heart: He was a Shiite Muslim; she was a Sunni Kurd, not painting a true picture of Iraq today?




I don't buy that number..the big headline today was that this was a near record month with about 1,200 Iraqi casualties. So say roughly 1,000 per month; that gives 12,000 per year. For four years that's 48,000; while tragic it is waaaay less than that 650,000 number

[guppy]

zinky-did hussein really order all those people killed like the article says???????

[guppy]

will somebody answer my friggin question??????????:yh_wait

[zinkyusa]

guppy;446000 wrote: zinky-did hussein really order all those people killed like the article says???????


yes he did..

[guppy]

Then We Are Wasting Time On The Trial. Just Take Him Out Back And Kill His Sorry Ass.

[zinkyusa]

guppy;446009 wrote: Then We Are Wasting Time On The Trial. Just Take Him Out Back And Kill His Sorry Ass.


good question..

[Bill Sikes]

zinkyusa;445994 wrote: (very large number of Iraqui deaths) I don't buy that number..the big headline today was that this was a near record month with about 1,200 Iraqi casualties. So say roughly 1,000 per month; that gives 12,000 per year. For four years that's 48,000; while tragic it is waaaay less than that 650,000 number


Hint: It's not just people being shot, or blown up, etc.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/1 ... of.war.pdf

So, why was this action (which wasn't, as far as I know, ever declared as war)

actually commenced in the first place, hmm?

[Bill Sikes]

guppy;446000 wrote: zinky-did hussein really order all those people killed like the article says???????


Isn't he on trial[1] for something along those lines at the moment? Perhaps

it would be better that those conducting it tell us.

[1] Well, in name anyway.

[Bill Sikes]

guppy;446009 wrote: Then We Are Wasting Time On The Trial. Just Take Him Out Back And Kill His Sorry Ass.


That's what normally happens, you see. A trial, that is.

[Bill Sikes]

zinkyusa;446014 wrote: good question..


Well, he's got to be tried by an impartial system, found guilty, and executed

in the proper manner....

Hang on a minute, all this laughing is giving me the stitch.

[zinkyusa]

Bill Sikes;446023 wrote: Hint: It's not just people being shot, or blown up, etc.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/1 ... of.war.pdf

So, why was this action (which wasn't, as far as I know, ever declared as war)

actually commenced in the first place, hmm?


Cluster sampling is a good statistical tool if the sample is sufficiently representative and the responses from the sample are accurate and/or honest.

547/12,800 = 0.0427

1,153,828/27,000,000 = 0.0427

If the Johns-Hopkins study simply extrapolated 650,000 dead from the 547 deaths reported by 12,800 people, they would have come up with over 1 million deaths, not 650,000.

[Bill Sikes]

zinkyusa;446029 wrote: If the Johns-Hopkins study simply extrapolated 650,000 dead from the 547 deaths reported by 12,800 people, they would have come up with over 1 million deaths, not 650,000.


I've no idea what it did. If ICBA I would have a look at Google, rather than guess.

[guppy]

i was against america being in irag up untill i started learning all this. i always thought bush sent our men over there as a show against nine eleven. turns out to be alot more than that . huh.

[zinkyusa]

Bill Sikes;446033 wrote: I've no idea what it did. If ICBA I would have a look at Google, rather than guess.


and so i did

Johns-Hopkins’ 2004 bogus casualty estimate, also dutifully reported by Lancet, used 33 cluster points to estimate 69,000 to 155,000 civilian deaths. Four months prior to this, UNDP had used five times as many cluster points in their survey; which placed the civilian deaths between 18,000 and 29,000.

"What happens when you don't use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP's survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths--four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points."

From the Wall Street Journal / Opinion Journal:



Quote:

655,000 War Dead?

A bogus study on Iraq casualties.

BY STEVEN E. MOORE

Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:01 a.m.

After doing survey research in Iraq for nearly two years, I was surprised to read that a study by a group from Johns Hopkins University claims that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war. Don't get me wrong, there have been far too many deaths in Iraq by anyone's measure; some of them have been friends of mine. But the Johns Hopkins tally is wildly at odds with any numbers I have seen in that country. Survey results frequently have a margin of error of plus or minus 3% or 5%--not 1200%.

The group--associated with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health--employed cluster sampling for in-person interviews, which is the methodology that I and most researchers use in developing countries. Here, in the U.S., opinion surveys often use telephone polls, selecting individuals at random. But for a country lacking in telephone penetration, door-to-door interviews are required: Neighborhoods are selected at random, and then individuals are selected at random in "clusters" within each neighborhood for door-to-door interviews. Without cluster sampling, the expense and time associated with travel would make in-person interviewing virtually impossible.

However, the key to the validity of cluster sampling is to use enough cluster points. In their 2006 report, "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional sample survey," the Johns Hopkins team says it used 47 cluster points for their sample of 1,849 interviews. This is astonishing: I wouldn't survey a junior high school, no less an entire country, using only 47 cluster points.

Neither would anyone else. For its 2004 survey of Iraq, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) used 2,200 cluster points of 10 interviews each for a total sample of 21,688. True, interviews are expensive and not everyone has the U.N.'s bank account. However, even for a similarly sized sample, that is an extraordinarily small number of cluster points. A 2005 survey conducted by ABC News, Time magazine, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel used 135 cluster points with a sample size of 1,711--almost three times that of the Johns Hopkins team for 93% of the sample size.



What happens when you don't use enough cluster points in a survey? You get crazy results when compared to a known quantity, or a survey with more cluster points. There was a perfect example of this two years ago. The UNDP's survey, in April and May 2004, estimated between 18,000 and 29,000 Iraqi civilian deaths due to the war. This survey was conducted four months prior to another, earlier study by the Johns Hopkins team, which used 33 cluster points and estimated between 69,000 and 155,000 civilian deaths--four to five times as high as the UNDP survey, which used 66 times the cluster points.

The 2004 survey by the Johns Hopkins group was itself methodologically suspect--and the one they just published even more so.

Curious about the kind of people who would have the chutzpah to claim to a national audience that this kind of research was methodologically sound, I contacted Johns Hopkins University and was referred to Les Roberts, one of the primary authors of the study. Dr. Roberts defended his 47 cluster points, saying that this was standard. I'm not sure whose standards these are.

Appendix A of the Johns Hopkins survey, for example, cites several other studies of mortality in war zones, and uses the citations to validate the group's use of cluster sampling. One study is by the International Rescue Committee in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which used 750 cluster points. Harvard's School of Public Health, in a 1992 survey of Iraq, used 271 cluster points. Another study in Kosovo cites the use of 50 cluster points, but this was for a population of just 1.6 million, compared to Iraq's 27 million.

When I pointed out these numbers to Dr. Roberts, he said that the appendices were written by a student and should be ignored. Which led me to wonder what other sections of the survey should be ignored.

With so few cluster points, it is highly unlikely the Johns Hopkins survey is representative of the population in Iraq. However, there is a definitive method of establishing if it is. Recording the gender, age, education and other demographic characteristics of the respondents allows a researcher to compare his survey results to a known demographic instrument, such as a census.

Dr. Roberts said that his team's surveyors did not ask demographic questions. I was so surprised to hear this that I emailed him later in the day to ask a second time if his team asked demographic questions and compared the results to the 1997 Iraqi census. Dr. Roberts replied that he had not even looked at the Iraqi census.

And so, while the gender and the age of the deceased were recorded in the 2006 Johns Hopkins study, nobody, according to Dr. Roberts, recorded demographic information for the living survey respondents. This would be the first survey I have looked at in my 15 years of looking that did not ask demographic questions of its respondents. But don't take my word for it--try using Google to find a survey that does not ask demographic questions.

Without demographic information to assure a representative sample, there is no way anyone can prove--or disprove--that the Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths is accurate.

Public-policy decisions based on this survey will impact millions of Iraqis and hundreds of thousands of Americans. It's important that voters and policy makers have accurate information. When the question matters this much, it is worth taking the time to get the answer right.

Mr. Moore, a political consultant with Gorton Moore International, trained Iraqi researchers for the International Republican Institute from 2003 to 2004 and conducted survey research for the Coalition Forces from 2005 to 2006.

[Bill Sikes]

guppy;446034 wrote: i was against america being in irag up untill i started learning all this. i always thought bush sent our men over there as a show against nine eleven. turns out to be alot more than that . huh.


That's a very good basis for concerted action agains large parts of Africa, for

a start, as well as the Far East, South America, and many other places. Have

they got any natural resources worth having?

[guppy]

you tell me. i dont have a clue. personally i think our men should come home.

but i know i dont get the gist of the whole thing.:-2

[Bill Sikes]

zinkyusa;446036 wrote: Johns-Hopkins’ 2004 bogus casualty estimate


So would you say, on the balance of probability, that the only deaths in Iraq

are those by people being shot, etc., as in your earlier posts, or might there

be at least some more, as detailed in the "bogus estimate"?

[zinkyusa]

guppy;446040 wrote: you tell me. i dont have a clue. personally i think our men should come home.

but i know i dont get the gist of the whole thing.:-2


I agree with you guppy..

[guppy]

zinkyusa;446042 wrote: I agree with you guppy..


omg!! be right back. have to mark this day on the calender. guppy and zinky agree!! LOL

[observer1]

guppy;446040 wrote: you tell me. i dont have a clue. personally i think our men should come home.

but i know i dont get the gist of the whole thing.:-2


No offense guppy, but I keep hearing about our "men" being over there. There are plenty of women over there & giving their lives for our country, as well. That slang needs to change.

[guppy]

observer1;446078 wrote: No offense guppy, but I keep hearing about our "men" being over there. There are plenty of women over there & giving their lives for our country, as well. That slang needs to change.


you are quite right and i apologize for being so not in tuned to that fact. all of the americans that are over in iraq jeopordizing their lives need to be brought home.

thanks for bringing that to my attention ocean breeze. i am one of the first women who will jump on the fight for equality for women. oops.

[guppy]

guppy;446098 wrote: you are quite right and i apologize for being so not in tuned to that fact. all of the americans that are over in iraq jeopordizing their lives need to be brought home.

thanks for bringing that to my attention ocean breeze. i am one of the first women who will jump on the fight for equality for women. oops.


i meant observer. (its the brownie i just ate. sugar rush.............:wah: )

[anastrophe]

Bored_Wombat;442088 wrote:

Case in point: random shootings by secruity contractors on the road from the Baghdad airport


you're aware that that's been completely debunked, are you not? apparently not.

[anastrophe]

Bill Sikes;442139 wrote: About half a million in Iraq, isnt it (so far)??


nope. more like 30,000. the half million figure has no credible basis.