Killers of Iraq

[anastrophe]

Scrat;443304 wrote:

What about Americas culture of violence? I know places in this city that if you were to go walking at night you'd end up in a ditch breathing your last. Ican walk down the streets of Moscow or Minsk in the dead of night, any street, any night of the week and feel more at ease than in my own neighborhood here in America. And I LIVE IN A NICE ONE.


the murder rate in moscow is the highest in all of europe. the russian federation's murder rate in 1990 was 9.4/100K in 1990. in 2000, it was 21.9/100K. for comparison, the murder rate in the US was 9.4/100K in 1990. in 2000 it was 5.5/100K (and it remains roughly the same today).





Look at our movies, sex and violence sell and you know it.


and this has to do with your premise....how? it's been shown repeatedly that whatever connection there is between violence as depicted in popular media and actual violence on the streets is tenuous at best. i've seen a million violent movies and played as many violent video games. i've never raped, or murdered, anyone. what idiots generally do is find someone who *has* murdered or raped (or both!), and ask them "have you played any violent video games?" "yes." "there's a connection!". bugger that. ask then 10 million who haven't done so for each one who does. sheesh.



oh, iraq, that's what this is about. i forgot. right. next!

[anastrophe]

Scrat;447276 wrote: It's also quite apparent to me that Saddam kept that country under control and the common people suffered little and actually benefitted in many ways from his rule.


yeah. like the death penalty for having a satellite dish. and not "the death penalty" as we in the west do it - trial, appeal, appeal, appeal, appeal for twenty years. this was death penalty on the spot.



never mind then tens of thousands tortured and killed at abu grhaib under saddam's regime. or the tens of thousands he gassed.



nah. none of that counts. he was their Benificent Leader.

[anastrophe]

gmc;443456 wrote: 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.


respectfully, no, that's completely wrong.



you need to worry about both.

[anastrophe]

Scrat;447323 wrote: Do you have proof of this? Exageration is little better than propaganda.







Once again, where's your proof? Yeah he killed some people perhaps a lot of them but believe me I'm sure some/most of them needed it.


dude, you need to get out more. these things are in the public record. they're not in dispute - except by the extreme lefty conspiracy lunatic fringe (of which we have a handful here in the garden, make no mistake).



You seem to focus your hate very narrowly Anastrophe. Seems this whole thing started in Iraq when he became disobedient. When he didn't toe the line.



Were you a bully as a child Anastrophe? Did you hate it when people stood up to you?



Just wondering. :-3


huh? was i a bully? my hate? what? i guess you're having trouble making an actual argument, so resorting to ad hominem, apparently.



saddam hussein was a ruthless despot. you can equivocate all you want. life under his regime was brutal. oh, fascist regimes do make the trains run on time. political dissent however was non-existent - those who spoke out, died. again, it's a matter of record, it's not new information, it's absurd to have to even point this out.

[Accountable]

anastrophe;447296 wrote: the murder rate in moscow is the highest in all of europe. the russian federation's murder rate in 1990 was 9.4/100K in 1990. in 2000, it was 21.9/100K. for comparison, the murder rate in the US was 9.4/100K in 1990. in 2000 it was 5.5/100K (and it remains roughly the same today).
Decadent capitalist propaganda!!



Off with his head!

[Bored_Wombat]

zinkyusa;446036 wrote: 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.Quote:


Note that the John Hopkins study was for 18 months and the UNDP study was for 12. Note also that the John Hopkins study found which non-violent deaths increased since the invasion as well as violent ones. Only 24% of the deaths were violent. (Although more than 24% of the excess deaths were violent: meaning violent deaths exhibited the greatest increase).

Using the wombat method of ball park statistics, I get from the data:

after the invasion, being 17.8 months - 21 violent mortalities in 7868 people, but two were of unknown origin and seven were criminal murders not directly related to the invasion, so say 13 people killed by coalition or anti-coalition forces in 7868 people over 17.8 months.

Pre invasion gives 1 violent death in 7438 people over 14.6 months.

So an estimate of what the UNDP study would have found if it lines up with the JHB school of public health study is:

[((13/7868)/17.8) - ((1/7438)/14.6)] * 12 * 26 000 000 = 26 000

Which is very good agreement.

PS - I change my mind: We don't need to subtract the 1 dude killed before the invasion, who was certainly not killed by coalition forces or anti-coalition forces.

So: number of dudes and dudesses killed by violence from the invasion would be ((13/7868)/17.8)*12*26M = 29 000

Which is still agreement. (Although no longer very good agreement, especially considering how conservative the JHBSPH study was).

Never mind. I think that the figures are at least within the same ballpark, and it could be that the UNDP didn't have access to very violent areas such as Fallujah in the first year of the invasion.

[anastrophe]

Scrat;447377 wrote: And all you can do is argue.


uh, yeah. didn't you get the memo? that's what we do here.



were you expecting us all to sit around singing kumbaya?

[Bez]

anastrophe;447299 wrote: yeah. like the death penalty for having a satellite dish. and not "the death penalty" as we in the west do it - trial, appeal, appeal, appeal, appeal for twenty years. this was death penalty on the spot.



never mind then tens of thousands tortured and killed at abu grhaib under saddam's regime. or the tens of thousands he gassed.



nah. none of that counts. he was their Benificent Leader.


Suddam is/was a Homicidal Maniac...he surrounded himself with his family in the 'Top' govermental positions...he tricked his son in law into returning to Iraq and then executed him ( he had spoken against Suddam at some point).

When the people of Iraq were suffering due to sanctions , he built numerous palaces and 'aquired' great riches while 'his people' starved.

If he DID do any good, it was far outweighed by the evil.



In 1987 he used chemical warfare against the Kurds and killed tens of thousands.



in 1988 he used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing thousands more.



He condoned the brutal torture of innocent people. EXAMPLE: A young woman, a pharmacology student was arrested because her innocent brother was thought to be anti-Saddam...he had already been tortured and killed although he was innocent. She was taken to Baladiyat prison and suffered daily torture...each day a toenail would be removed...then fingernails, then teeth. Electric shock treatment was a favourite torture technique. One day they attached electrodes to her big toe and ear and bombarded her body with a low voltage sustained for some time. when she was returned to the cell she shared with 17 other women, there was smoke coming from her mouth.....there were MILLIONS of innocents treated in this way.



Millions of people will never know the whereabouts of their loved ones.....very much like Stalins victims and there were more of these than Hitler was responsible for.



I am in no way 'qualified ' to comment much on the terrible situation in Iraq, but the removal of Suddan Hussein HAS to be a good thing, I think the mistake was in NOT having a fullproof 'recovery' plan for Iraq and not having a good enough understanding of the culture and history that they were dealing with.

[Accountable]

Bez;447510 wrote: [...]



I am in no way 'qualified ' to comment much on the terrible situation in Iraq, but the removal of Suddan Hussein HAS to be a good thing, I think the mistake was in NOT having a fullproof 'recovery' plan for Iraq and not having a good enough understanding of the culture and history that they were dealing with.
Qualification (or lack of) hasn't stopped any number of people from posting here, dear. :yh_hugs Good to see you again.

[koan]

One of the questions is 'why just Saddam'? Why him in particular? He is certainly not the only oppressive leader in the world. As soon as a country is invaded there had better be a darn good reason why that particular country was chosen.

This question is often interpreted as saying that the US is responsible for policing the world when it actually implies that policing the world is impossible for one country to attempt. It's like walking into a room full of mafia and shooting only one dude.

[Bez]

koan;447531 wrote: One of the questions is 'why just Saddam'? Why him in particular? He is certainly not the only oppressive leader in the world. As soon as a country is invaded there had better be a darn good reason why that particular country was chosen.



This question is often interpreted as saying that the US is responsible for policing the world when it actually implies that policing the world is impossible for one country to attempt. It's like walking into a room full of mafia and shooting only one dude.


You're right Koan....I bet we could construct quite a list of oppressive leaders and troubled countries.....they just keep their heads down below the parapet most of the time.

[Bez]

Accountable;447521 wrote: Qualification (or lack of) hasn't stopped any number of people from posting here, dear. :yh_hugs Good to see you again.


Hi ACC....I'm always around....sometimes I sit quiet in the corner and watch the world go by.....this thread 'drew' me out of my chair ....I read a lot of 'factual' stuff about other cultures, religions and countries.....the diversity of the human race interests me. I like to dig beyond the politics and power and discover the world of the REAL people.



Good to see you too...:-4

[zinkyusa]

Bored_Wombat;447385 wrote: Note that the John Hopkins study was for 18 months and the UNDP study was for 12. Note also that the John Hopkins study found which non-violent deaths increased since the invasion as well as violent ones. Only 24% of the deaths were violent. (Although more than 24% of the excess deaths were violent: meaning violent deaths exhibited the greatest increase).

Using the wombat method of ball park statistics, I get from the data:

after the invasion, being 17.8 months - 21 violent mortalities in 7868 people, but two were of unknown origin and seven were criminal murders not directly related to the invasion, so say 13 people killed by coalition or anti-coalition forces in 7868 people over 17.8 months.

Pre invasion gives 1 violent death in 7438 people over 14.6 months.

So an estimate of what the UNDP study would have found if it lines up with the JHB school of public health study is:

[((13/7868)/17.8) - ((1/7438)/14.6)] * 12 * 26 000 000 = 26 000

Which is very good agreement.

PS - I change my mind: We don't need to subtract the 1 dude killed before the invasion, who was certainly not killed by coalition forces or anti-coalition forces.

So: number of dudes and dudesses killed by violence from the invasion would be ((13/7868)/17.8)*12*26M = 29 000

Which is still agreement. (Although no longer very good agreement, especially considering how conservative the JHBSPH study was).

Never mind. I think that the figures are at least within the same ballpark, and it could be that the UNDP didn't have access to very violent areas such as Fallujah in the first year of the invasion.


Since the UNDP survey produced 1/5 the casualties as Johns-Hopkins and Johns-Hopkins used the UNDP as a model for extrapolating their smaller data sampling and Johns-Hopkins has now twice produced results five times as large as all other surveys and enumerations, the only logical conclusion is that they are intentionally targeting their clusters to maximize the casualty estimate.

[observer1]

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.


Thanks guppy. I have a friend who was over there. She has the longest fingernails I've ever seen, but could still take apart a rifle & put it back together faster than any man in her unit.

[Bored_Wombat]

zinkyusa;447615 wrote: Since the UNDP survey produced 1/5 the casualties as Johns-Hopkins and Johns-Hopkins used the UNDP as a model for extrapolating their smaller data sampling and Johns-Hopkins has now twice produced results five times as large as all other surveys and enumerations, the only logical conclusion is that they are intentionally targeting their clusters to maximize the casualty estimate.
It's not my conclusion Zinky.)

The UNDP survey is not doing a comparison of before invasion/after invasion, so they are only counting the dead that are actually killed by a bullet or aerial weaponry, or explosive devices. For that subset the 1st JHBSoPH study get about 29 000 extra deaths per year or 1/1.2 of the UNDP study, not 1/5. (As I carefully worked out for you, printing out the original study at work, and pretending to be working on a document on engine brake pollution while I whipped up some figures. So please read the damn thing.

I don't think that they did use UNDP as a model and they certainly didn't extrapolate. They random sampled and produced and estimate based on census data from before the invasion.

Neither is it out of line with other non-passive ways of estimating, such as sampling the number of army and marines that on return from 1 year in Iraq reported being responsible for the death of a non combatant. (20% - which relates to several hundred thousand Iraqis).

A more logical conclusion for me would be that these JHBSoPH studies are about right.

[zinkyusa]

Bored_Wombat;447650 wrote: It's not my conclusion Zinky.)

The UNDP survey is not doing a comparison of before invasion/after invasion, so they are only counting the dead that are actually killed by a bullet or aerial weaponry, or explosive devices. For that subset the 1st JHBSoPH study get about 29 000 extra deaths per year or 1/1.2 of the UNDP study, not 1/5. (As I carefully worked out for you, printing out the original study at work, and pretending to be working on a document on engine brake pollution while I whipped up some figures. So please read the damn thing.

I don't think that they did use UNDP as a model and they certainly didn't extrapolate. They random sampled and produced and estimate based on census data from before the invasion.

Neither is it out of line with other non-passive ways of estimating, such as sampling the number of army and marines that on return from 1 year in Iraq reported being responsible for the death of a non combatant. (20% - which relates to several hundred thousand Iraqis).

A more logical conclusion for me would be that these JHBSoPH studies are about right.




thanks for taking the time and i did read it just disagree;)

so if we are not counting "casualties" from bullets, IEDs, and bombs what are we doing..counting the death rate for the entire country of Iraq. Every death is now somehow related to the invasion..It's a flawed study no way around it.

[anastrophe]

Bored_Wombat;447650 wrote: It's not my conclusion Zinky.)



The UNDP survey is not doing a comparison of before invasion/after invasion, so they are only counting the dead that are actually killed by a bullet or aerial weaponry, or explosive devices. For that subset the 1st JHBSoPH study get about 29 000 extra deaths per year or 1/1.2 of the UNDP study, not 1/5. (As I carefully worked out for you, printing out the original study at work, and pretending to be working on a document on engine brake pollution while I whipped up some figures. So please read the damn thing.



I don't think that they did use UNDP as a model and they certainly didn't extrapolate. They random sampled and produced and estimate based on census data from before the invasion.



Neither is it out of line with other non-passive ways of estimating, such as sampling the number of army and marines that on return from 1 year in Iraq reported being responsible for the death of a non combatant. (20% - which relates to several hundred thousand Iraqis).



A more logical conclusion for me would be that these JHBSoPH studies are about right.


here's some more logic to work on. when you've had multiple surveys and estimates generated for the last three years since the invasion, that all have estimates in a 'cluster' of values near each other in relative terms (20,000 to 30,000), then another survey - using less rigorous sampling methods - comes along estimating more than 20 times those previous estimates - logic, and standard practice, says that you toss out the low and high numbers. because they're likely wrong.



but heck, arguing about this issue is silly - Mr. Moore's article from the wall street journal quite succinctly explains why the 655,000 value is statistically suspect at best, a prevarication at worst.

[Bored_Wombat]

zinkyusa;447700 wrote: Every death is now somehow related to the invasion.
You misunderstand the methodology. It is a frequently used methodology in mortality studies, and estimates of mortality due to conflict that you may have seen in Darfur, in Congo and in the horn of Africa have used this methodology.

The random cluster sample estimates two things.

1) The mortality prior to the invasion.

2) The mortality after the invasion.

Then the excess mortality is calculated.

This means that if Saddam was killing 300 people per week by hanging, and after the invasion 200 people per week were killed by hanging, the results of this survey would show that 100 people per week, or 20 000 people has been saved by the invasion.

So not every death is related to the invasion, but notice that (for instance) deaths in childbirth increased after the invasion. This was expected if it is noted that a greater proportion of births happened in the home because the security situation discouraged vulnerable people from traveling. These deaths are because of the invasion.

zinkyusa;447700 wrote: It's a flawed study no way around it.
On the contrary, there's no way to it. The JHBSoPH are experts in epidemiology, and have performed this type of study in several parts of Africa, and in Yugoslavia.

The Lancet is certainly one of the top three English language medical journals in the world, and might be the top one. Their peer review process is very strict and includes an in-depth statistical review. There is no way that this study could be "flawed", unless you claim that these doctors risked their lives doing interviews, and then made up the data.

On the whole, unlikely.

[Bored_Wombat]

anastrophe;447848 wrote: when you've had multiple surveys and estimates generated for the last three years since the invasion, that all have estimates in a 'cluster' of values near each other in relative terms (20,000 to 30,000).


Name one.

The four non-passive studies that I am aware of agree with the JHBSoPH studys.

The UNDP, the two JHBSoPH studies, and what can be calculated from the interviews with returning soldiers for the NEJM study.

The most quoted study by the Bush administration is the Iraq Body Count, counts by reading English Language News Reports!!!!!

Iraq has very few English language reporters, and they are in a few protected areas in a few cities. The suggestion that the IBC would not be only a few percent of the true value requires a deep misunderstanding of the situation.

anastrophe;447848 wrote: then another survey - using less rigorous sampling methods - comes along estimating more than 20 times those previous estimates - logic, and standard practice, says that you toss out the low and high numbers. because they're likely wrong.
A properly controlled epidemiological study by experts, using strict random sampling techniques and modern statistical treatment made available by current fast computers, and peer reviewed and published in one of the worlds most prestigious academic journals, is not "less rigorous sampling methods" than any mortality study done in Iraq.

The JHBSoPH studies are the only ones with a remotely correct methodology, and are so far more rigorous than any other study in the country that I am aware of that there is no basis for comparison.

The numbers 30000 odd stated by Bush are idiotically low. 50000 odd by the IBC are very easy to destroy in terms of sampling methodology. For crying out loud, they are assuming that deaths are going to be reported to the newspapers in a country without power, much less a local newspaper.

Furthermore, Arabic newspapers aren't included, because of the starkly not statistically valid reason " English is the only language in which all team members are fluent."

I mean the IBC team are all volunteers, and I appreciate what they're doing, but the perception that their count is "rigorous" is totally airhead.

anastrophe;447848 wrote: but heck, arguing about this issue is silly - Mr. Moore's article from the wall street journal quite succinctly explains why the 655,000 value is statistically suspect at best, a prevarication at worst.


Again, where is the best expertise to be found ... The Lancet is one of the worlds most prestigious publications. The planet doesn't produce more than 20 or 30 publications in any field that are more respected, and more carefully reviewed. Valid criticism will be found in letters to the lancet by world leaders in the field of epidemiology or statistics.

The Wall Street Journal is a newspaper for crying out loud. There's no peer review process at all. There's no declaration of conflict of interest.

Note that Moore is currently listed as the executive director of the website truthaboutiraq.

Truth About Iraq.org is a website established to promote a positive view of the U.S. military role in Iraq in contrast to that presented by most other media sources.

Note also that he is a political consultant and partner in the Sacramento-based firm Gorton Moore International, a political consultancy aligned with the Republican Party.

I can find no reference to his qualifications in either statistics or epidemiology.

So it will come as no surprise that he is wrong. The sample size is quite large enough. (see Rapid nutrition surveys: how many clusters are enough? N BINKIN, K SULLIVAN, N STAEHLING, P NIEBURG - Disasters(Print), 1992)

On the basis of this paper 30 clusters has become the standard for epidemiological studies. Moore probably knows this. He is in the employ of politicians and is probably simply lying. If he's not he's certainly very ignorant and his review of articles in The Lancet should quite appropriately be laughed off the forum.

He also simply lies that the team collected not demographic data and that they did not refer to the Iraqi census.

Dr. Roberts Reply Here.

Can I emphasize the "Dr." Part of Dr Roberts one more time.

Moore is an ignorant politically driven hack. His analysis of world class epidemiology is laughable.

[anastrophe]

Bored_Wombat;448224 wrote:

On the contrary, there's no way to it. The JHBSoPH are experts in epidemiology, and have performed this type of study in several parts of Africa, and in Yugoslavia.

The Lancet is certainly one of the top three English language medical journals in the world, and might be the top one. Their peer review process is very strict and includes an in-depth statistical review. There is no way that this study could be "flawed", unless you claim that these doctors risked their lives doing interviews, and then made up the data.

On the whole, unlikely.


you've just used a standard logical fallacy in support of your argument. it makes no difference whether the lancet is "one of the top" medical journals in the world. it makes no difference that the authors have performed similar studies. you're making a call to authority to justify the conclusion. while those ancillary points are helpful in determining the likelyhood that the results are trustworthy, they don't, in and of themselves, have any reflection on the accuracy or lack thereof of the study itself.



as has been pointed out, they used an absurdely small cluster to generate their conclusions. they gathered *NO* demographic data in support of who they interviewed; for all we know, they limited their interviewees to children under the age of ten.



going back to a previous post you made:



Bored_Wombat wrote:

Note that the John Hopkins study was for 18 months and the UNDP study was for 12. Note also that the John Hopkins study found which non-violent deaths increased since the invasion as well as violent ones. Only 24% of the deaths were violent. (Although more than 24% of the excess deaths were violent: meaning violent deaths exhibited the greatest increase).




where do you get this 24% value? the study states:

We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654 965 (392 979–942 636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2·5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601 027 (426 369–793 663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.

601,027 out of 654,965 deaths due to violence is 91% of the total, not 24%.



i'm not very good at math though. maybe i'm figuring it wrong.

[anastrophe]

Bored_Wombat;448278 wrote: Name one.



The four non-passive studies that I am aware of agree with the JHBSoPH studys.



The UNDP, the two JHBSoPH studies, and what can be calculated from the interviews with returning soldiers for the NEJM study.



The most quoted study by the Bush administration is the Iraq Body Count, counts by reading English Language News Reports!!!!!

Iraq has very few English language reporters, and they are in a few protected areas in a few cities. The suggestion that the IBC would not be only a few percent of the true value requires a deep misunderstanding of the situation.





A properly controlled epidemiological study by experts, using strict random sampling techniques and modern statistical treatment made available by current fast computers, and peer reviewed and published in one of the worlds most prestigious academic journals, is not "less rigorous sampling methods" than any mortality study done in Iraq.



The JHBSoPH studies are the only ones with a remotely correct methodology, and are so far more rigorous than any other study in the country that I am aware of that there is no basis for comparison.



The numbers 30000 odd stated by Bush are idiotically low. 50000 odd by the IBC are very easy to destroy in terms of sampling methodology. For crying out loud, they are assuming that deaths are going to be reported to the newspapers in a country without power, much less a local newspaper.



Furthermore, Arabic newspapers aren't included, because of the starkly not statistically valid reason " English is the only language in which all team members are fluent."



I mean the IBC team are all volunteers, and I appreciate what they're doing, but the perception that their count is "rigorous" is totally airhead.







Again, where is the best expertise to be found ... The Lancet is one of the worlds most prestigious publications. The planet doesn't produce more than 20 or 30 publications in any field that are more respected, and more carefully reviewed. Valid criticism will be found in letters to the lancet by world leaders in the field of epidemiology or statistics.



The Wall Street Journal is a newspaper for crying out loud. There's no peer review process at all. There's no declaration of conflict of interest.



Note that Moore is currently listed as the executive director of the website truthaboutiraq.



Truth About Iraq.org is a website established to promote a positive view of the U.S. military role in Iraq in contrast to that presented by most other media sources.



Note also that he is a political consultant and partner in the Sacramento-based firm Gorton Moore International, a political consultancy aligned with the Republican Party.



I can find no reference to his qualifications in either statistics or epidemiology.



So it will come as no surprise that he is wrong. The sample size is quite large enough. (see Rapid nutrition surveys: how many clusters are enough? N BINKIN, K SULLIVAN, N STAEHLING, P NIEBURG - Disasters(Print), 1992)

On the basis of this paper 30 clusters has become the standard for epidemiological studies. Moore probably knows this. He is in the employ of politicians and is probably simply lying. If he's not he's certainly very ignorant and his review of articles in The Lancet should quite appropriately be laughed off the forum.



He also simply lies that the team collected not demographic data and that they did not refer to the Iraqi census.



Dr. Roberts Reply Here.



Can I emphasize the "Dr." Part of Dr Roberts one more time.



Moore is an ignorant politically driven hack. His analysis of world class epidemiology is laughable.


i wouldn't know where to begin to respond. your post is full to the brim with logical fallacies to support your view. you attack criticism based upon *who* is making the criticism, rather than on the merits of the criticism itself. you employ ad hominem and verecundiam, neither of which have the slightest thing to do with *the actual merits of any argument or data*.



feel free to use your skills at informal logical fallacies to explain how laughable these results are:

http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/overview.htm

[Bored_Wombat]

anastrophe;448287 wrote: you've just used a standard logical fallacy in support of your argument. it makes no difference whether the lancet is "one of the top" medical journals in the world. it makes no difference that the authors have performed similar studies. you're making a call to authority to justify the conclusion. while those ancillary points are helpful in determining the likelyhood that the results are trustworthy, they don't, in and of themselves, have any reflection on the accuracy or lack thereof of the study itself.
We know that the methods and analysis have been scrutinized by experts in epidemiology and statistics.

Therefore we know that if there are faults with the survey, they don't lie in either the methodology or in the statistical treatment of the data.

anastrophe;448287 wrote: as has been pointed out, they used an absurdely small cluster to generate their conclusions.
As has been pointed out, with the appropriate academic reference, 30 clusters is the usual numbers in epidemiological studies. the 47 used in the JHBSoPH is mush larger than necessary for conclusions to be drawn. As exemplified by the CI. there is a 97.5% chance that more than 392,979 excess deaths have been caused.

That is a powerfully strong conclusion, and shows that the sample size is adequate to make this powerfully strong conclusion.

anastrophe;448287 wrote: they gathered *NO* demographic data in support of who they interviewed;
That is not even true. I posted the reply by one of the authors to this statement.

Age and gender information was collected.

I don't want to be drawn into repeating myself by feeding the troll. The two points above were made very clearly in my previous post.

anastrophe;448287 wrote: for all we know, they limited their interviewees to children under the age of ten.
If you haven't read the methodology section of the report, please do so.

As it appeared in The Lancet (pdf).

The Report for MIT (.pdf)

We do know how and who they interviewed, and the restrictions on who they did and didn't count as a mortality.

anastrophe;448287 wrote: 601,027 out of 654,965 deaths due to violence is 91% of the total, not 24%;
Your looking at excess deaths, and I was looking at total deaths. I was also comparing the first study with the UNDP study because the time frames were more similar.

Here is the original study.

Looking at table 2, you can see that post invasion, (and excluding the Fallujah cluster), 21 deaths of about 90 were violent.

The excess deaths were of greater proportion violent, because violence was a cause of death that increased the most.

[Bored_Wombat]

anastrophe;448291 wrote: feel free to use your skills at informal logical fallacies to explain how laughable these results are:

http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/overview.htm


As I have explained the UNDP study aligns relatively well with the first JHBSoPH study.

24000 vs 29000 deaths per year in Iraq due to violence from either Coalition or Anti-Coalition forces.

[zinkyusa]

Bored_Wombat;448298 wrote: Is I have explained the UNDP study aligns relatively well with the first JHBSoPH study.

24000 vs 29000 deaths per year in Iraq due to violence from either Coalition or Anti-Coalition forces.


Virtually any study (especially when you know what you want the answer to be before you start) can have any number of spins put on it. A scientifically valid study has an Analysis of Variance (Statistics) probability. Without it the study is worth less than the paper it is written on. Guess what, this study did not follow the scientifically set standards for an impartial survey or have ANY statistical analysis done on it. Which means it is worth....would you believe zero?

and just to repeat



They claim to have used the larger sample from UNDP in 2004 as a model for their extrapolation. However, in 2004, the UNDP survey had already produced a result that was one fifth of Johns-Hopkins' contemporaneous survey.

STATS.org...

Quote:

What the John’s Hopkins survey has in its favor is that it extrapolated its cluster points to the general population using the 2004 "UNDP/Iraqi Ministry of Planning population estimates".

Steven Moore in the WSJ...

Quote:

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."

How is this not using the UNDP as a model?

[anastrophe]

Bored_Wombat;448296 wrote: We know that the methods and analysis have been scrutinized by experts in epidemiology and statistics.

Therefore we know that if there are faults with the survey, they don't lie in either the methodology or in the statistical treatment of the data.




if that were the case, no peer reviewed, published statistical or epidemiological study would ever have been challenged, or contradicted. as we know, that's not the case; there have been numerous instances of surveys and data being either mishandled or manipulated, yet still published in such journals.



That is not even true. I posted the reply by one of the authors to this statement.

Age and gender information was collected.

I don't want to be drawn into repeating myself by feeding the troll. The two points above were made very clearly in my previous post.


dismissing me as a troll - yet another logical fallacy. i overlooked the reference to mr. roberts's (non-peer reviewed) opinion you linked to. problem: he says that they gathered age and gender data of interviewees. the actual published report, unfortunately, states only that they gathered gender data of interviewees. this presents a non-trivial question mark in my opinion.





one of the interesting side issues with this study is this - to me, a non-statistician: they extrapolate 655,000 excess deaths, based upon 629 reported deaths. the *births* reported were 1474 - does that mean that more than 1.5 million births occurred after the invasion? that seems like a hell of a birth rate, particularly in a war-torn nation. i was under the impression birth rates tended to go down dramatically during conflicts such as this.

[koan]

Appeal to authority - Fallacy



This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

Wombat has, imo, convincingly shown his authority to be an expert for the purpose of the discussion. The fallacy belongs to the accuser (which is anastrophe) who put forward his flawed source as a rebuttal

[Bored_Wombat]

anastrophe;448302 wrote: if that were the case, no peer reviewed, published statistical or epidemiological study would ever have been challenged, or contradicted. as we know, that's not the case; there have been numerous instances of surveys and data being either mishandled or manipulated, yet still published in such journals.
Probably about two in papers with this sort of profile in the 183 year history of The Lancet.

It would be dangerous for the careers of the epidemiologists involved. A perusal of graveyards after the war will tell whether violence is killing 1% or 10% of Iraqis.

anastrophe;448302 wrote: he says that they gathered age and gender data of interviewees. the actual published report, unfortunately, states only that they gathered gender data of interviewees. this presents a non-trivial question mark in my opinion.
You think that the estimation of 655 000 deaths might be 10 times the true figure because they didn't explicitly state all the questions that were asked?

If you email JHBSoPH or MIT they'll probably be able to provide the questioneer that was used.

anastrophe;448302 wrote: they extrapolate 655,000 excess deaths, based upon 629 reported deaths. the *births* reported were 1474 - does that mean that more than 1.5 million births occurred after the invasion?


Just a point of language "extrapolate" is when you fit a curve to a set of data and then use that to guess what the value of the data would be outside the range at which the curve was fit. Statistically it's very risky, and the term has lots of negative connotations in terms of reliability. Using a sample to estimate the value of some statistic in the population is not extrapolation.



1.5 million births over 27 000 000 people over three years is about 19 births per thousand people per year. Iran has 17. The CIA 2006 estimate for Iraq was 32. It's not unusually high.

[anastrophe]

Bored_Wombat;448332 wrote:

You think that the estimation of 655 000 deaths might be 10 times the true figure because they didn't explicitly state all the questions that were asked?


again with the fallacies! i said or suggested nothing of the sort. but you concoct a scenario that fits your predisposition then belittle it. this is tiresome.



no, i do not think that the estimation of 655,000 deaths might be ten times the true figure because they didn't explicitly state all the questions that were asked, thank you very much. i never suggested that. what i have suggested is that they did not report accurate demographic sampling *within the body of the published article*, contrary to the claims you have made. why does the article state, specifically, that they gathered the sex of all interviewees - and that's all they state that they gathered? it's a curious discrepancy, at minimum.



let me put it this way. we have no benchmark. there is no accurate count of how many have died due to the conflict. we have surveys and estimates. it is perfectly rational to question the accuracy of a new survey that falls well outside the bounds of other estimates that have come before. if you like, you can 'survey the surveys' - and using sound statistical methods, toss out the surveys with the highest and the lowest estimates. perhaps go with the highest confidence interval across confidence intervals of all the surveys.



the reason people find this survey suspect is because it deviates so significantly from previous estimates. since *all* of these surveys are estimates, i think it's rather silly to say, for example as you have, "The numbers 30000 odd stated by Bush are idiotically low.". for one thing, bush was repeating estimates that others came up with. so 'attributing' it to bush is a canard. furthermore, it's an interesting claim. your basis for determining that the 30,000 figure is "idiotically low"? is that based upon some other statistical system? why is it that the estimates that for a couple of years have been fairly widely accepted as reasonable values for casualties in iraq are suddenly to be ignored in preference of one that's orders of magnitude higher? are you saying that the UNDP estimates are wrong? fallacious? if not, then are you suggesting that both are right? 30,000 is correct, but 655,000 is also correct?

[Bored_Wombat]

zinkyusa;448301 wrote: Guess what, this study did not follow the scientifically set standards for an impartial survey or have ANY statistical analysis done on it.
Gee Zinky, that's a pretty big call for a paper that got into possibly the most respected medical journal in the world.

The Lancet, DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69491-9, pp2-3 wrote:

Statistical analysis:

Data entry and analysis was done with Microsoft Excel, SPSS version 12.0, and STATA version 8. Period mortality rates were calculated on the basis of the mid-interval population and with regression models. Mortality rates and relative risks of mortality were estimated with log-linear regression models in STATA. To estimate the relative risk, we used a model that allowed for a baseline rate of mortality and a distinct relative rate for three 14-month intervals post-invasion—March, 2003–April, 2004, May, 2004–May, 2005, and June, 2005–June, 2006. The SE for mortality rates were calculated with robust variance estimation that took into account the correlation between rates of death within the same cluster over time. The log-linear regression model assumed that the variation in mortality rates across clusters is proportional to the average mortality rate; to assess the effect of this assumption we also obtained non-parametric CIs by use of bootstrapping. As an additional sensitivity analysis, we assessed the effect of differences across clusters by extending models to allow the baseline mortality rate to vary by cluster. We estimated the numbers of excess deaths (attributable rates) by subtraction of the predicted values for the pre-war mortality rates from the post-war mortality rates in the three post-invasion periods. Mortality projections with model rates were applied to 2004 mid-year population estimates for Iraq, minus the population of Dahuk and Muthanna, which were not sampled, to ascertain mortality projections.


They seem to be claiming that they did some statistical analysis.

And we know that The Lancet's peer review process includes a data analysis review:

Every original research manuscript published in The Lancet has at least three clinical reviews and one statistical review.

...

The Lancet sends every paper with data analyses (and the protocol in the case of clinical trials) to statistical advisors who have specific guidelines to assess methods, analysis, reporting and interpretation of data. In addition, a CONSORT table and figure is normally required for all randomised controlled trials.

They certainly reported a bunch of statistical data with the report. Confidence intervals by bootstrapping, the fact that "[t]he pattern of deaths in households without death certificates was no different from those with certificates." And a lot of little graphs and what have you mentioning the confidence of deaths over all and by violent means. I'm thinking that they did do some statistical analysis.

zinkyusa;448301 wrote: They claim to have used the larger sample from UNDP in 2004 as a model for their extrapolation.
I'm sure that they didn't claim to extrapolate anything.

zinkyusa;448301 wrote: However, in 2004, the UNDP survey had already produced a result that was one fifth of Johns-Hopkins'
In Dr Roberts' words:

The UNDP study was much larger, it was led by the highly revered Jon Pederson in Norway, but was not focused on mortality. I suspect that Jon's mortality estimate was not complete. I think we got more complete reporting.

This UNDP survey covered about 13 months after the invasion. Our first survey recorded almost twice as many violent deaths from the 13th to the 18th months after the invasion as it did during the first 12. The second survey found an excess rate of 2.6/1000/year over the same period corresponding to approximately 70,000 deaths by April of 2004. Thus, the rates of violent death recorded in the two survey groups are not so divergent.

I also point out that the UNDP wouldn't have classified all of those 70 000 deaths as "because of the war", since even the subset of violent deaths include a significant proportion that are criminal murders, or by unknown parties.

[Bored_Wombat]

zinkyusa;448301 wrote:

Quote:

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."

How is this not using the UNDP as a model?
It appears that they did indeed get population data from the 1997 Census and from the UNDP study.

[Bored_Wombat]

Thanks Koan!

:yh_hugs

I was starting to feel a bit isolated in here.

[Bored_Wombat]

anastrophe;448347 wrote: again with the fallacies! i said or suggested nothing of the sort. but you concoct a scenario that fits your predisposition then belittle it. this is tiresome.



no, i do not think that the estimation of 655,000 deaths might be ten times the true figure because they didn't explicitly state all the questions that were asked, thank you very much. i never suggested that. what i have suggested is that they did not report accurate demographic sampling *within the body of the published article*, contrary to the claims you have made. why does the article state, specifically, that they gathered the sex of all interviewees - and that's all they state that they gathered? it's a curious discrepancy, at minimum.


Eight pages of The Lancet required a lot of chopping I'm sure. The full questioneer and the raw data would have been interesting to see too, for some people. But that is how these things work. To do further analysis you contact the Authors, and get the data. For a study of this profile, I assume that many have.



anastrophe;448347 wrote: let me put it this way. we have no benchmark. there is no accurate count of how many have died due to the conflict. we have surveys and estimates. it is perfectly rational to question the accuracy of a new survey that falls well outside the bounds of other estimates that have come before.


Indeed it does not. It aligns well with the previous study published by The Lancet in 2004. It aligns okay with the UNDP study. This NEJM paper is not a mortality study, but it does sample soldiers who have killed combatants and non-combatants. It supports a result in the several hundred thousands. What other studies have there been?

anastrophe;448347 wrote: the reason people find this survey suspect is because it deviates so significantly from previous estimates.
I don't see that it does. Is there a particular study that your are referring to?

anastrophe;448347 wrote: Bush was repeating estimates that others came up with. so 'attributing' it to bush is a canard.
Really? Is there a study published with a result that low? Where is it?



anastrophe;448347 wrote: furthermore, it's an interesting claim. your basis for determining that the 30,000 figure is "idiotically low"? is that based upon some other statistical system?
The basis is the IBC, which only counts the dead that occurred in English language newspapers, so forms a horribly low lower bound, is now at 35000-40000. 30 000 is not remotely credible. (Not that it wouldn't be too many).

anastrophe;448347 wrote: Are you saying that the UNDP estimates are wrong? fallacious? if not, then are you suggesting that both are right? 30,000 is correct, but 655,000 is also correct?
30,000 for violent deaths attributable to the coalition and anti-coalition forces in the first year of occupation and 655 000 excess mortalities from all causes in the first three years of occupation it turns out, are not that different.

[anastrophe]

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php



i rather like the point they raise that - based upon the survey results, mind you - half a million death certificates were received by families, yet were never officially recorded as having been issued.



pretty damning. here you have respondents claiming they have an official document recording a death - yet those who generated the official document have no record of it. interesting that a formal mechanism for recording and distributing information would be commendably rigorous in their ability to distribute formal records to the families - yet extraordinarily inept at keeping a formal record of their own.



highly improbable.

[spot]

"highly improbable"? You cannot be serious! In "liberated" Iraq? Why on earth would you find it odd that Iraqi civil servants would issue denials once a story like this explodes in the media, given the sensitivity of the issue.

As a technique, deriving a total of violent deaths in Iraq by counting newspaper and press release reports of events, reaching tens of thousands instead of hundreds of thousands, is comparable to generating a total for injuries in traffic accidents in a less apocalyptic environment. What proportion of traffic injuries do you imagine is reported in your own local press? How many of those reported incidents are published nationally? One in ten or one in twenty would be good going, in my opinion.

Our Oceanian friend has been impressively patient and resilient in the face of deliberate hostility, I'm grateful to him for the effort he's put into this thread.

For anastrophe to say "i rather like the point they raise" is to selectively ignore the subsequent conclusion, which I add here for completeness...

Do the American people need to believe that 600,000 Iraqis have been killed before they can turn to their leaders and say "enough is enough"? The number of certain civilian deaths that has been documented to a basic standard of corroboration by "passive surveillance methods" surely already provides all the necessary evidence to deem this invasion and occupation an utter failure at all levels.

[Bored_Wombat]

anastrophe;448427 wrote: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php



i rather like the point they raise that - based upon the survey results, mind you - half a million death certificates were received by families, yet were never officially recorded as having been issued.
I think the perception that you have of the Iraqi ministry of health being a well organized and although centralized body, nevertheless in good communication, perhaps through a large centralized database of deaths, with the hospitals and medical centers around Iraq, is very much removed from the actuality of the situation.

As Dr. Roberts points out at the end of this interview, the MOH in Bagdad isn't recording so much as 10% of deaths in the country.

"There have to be ~300 deaths per day from natural cause even if Iraq was the healthiest 26 million people in the world. Where are those bodies? When the MOH [ministry of health] in Iraq is perhaps recording 10% of them, why should they be doing better with politically charged violent deaths. Yes, I think almost nothing is getting reported outside of Baghdad where things are worse."

Here's a small picture from 13 hospitals in Iraq, surveyed between April, 2004 and January, 2005.

Essentially, there's a shortage of power, water, equipment, expertise, and funding to the extent that cleaning is not always done, much less the paperwork correctly filed, with one copy sent to Baghdad for MOH records.

Note also that records and even entire hospitals have been destroyed.



anastrophe;448427 wrote: pretty damning. here you have respondents claiming they have an official document recording a death - yet those who generated the official document have no record of it. interesting that a formal mechanism for recording and distributing information would be commendably rigorous in their ability to distribute formal records to the families - yet extraordinarily inept at keeping a formal record of their own.


I really don't think that the MOH issues all the death certificates around Iraq. I think that a local doctor gives one to the family upon confirming death.

I'm sure that if the MOH had a "commendably rigorous" formal mechanism for recording and distributing death information they would be the envy of the world in operating in a war zone without money, equipment, power or people.



anastrophe;448427 wrote: highly improbable.


Not so much.

Certainly not as improbable that the number of Iraqi deaths from violent causes since the invasion is less than 426,369 (being 2.5%).

[Bored_Wombat]

re: The trophy video of security contractors doing random shootings on the road to the Baghdad airport.

anastrophe;447288 wrote: you're aware that that's been completely debunked, are you not? apparently not.
No. I missed that debunking. Do you have any details of it?

[spot]

Bored_Wombat;448497 wrote: No. I missed that debunking. Do you have any details of it?Anastrophe might like to note that the video is still being quoted as authentic up until as recently as two months ago in a mainstream US newspaper. The story broke in the UK Sunday Telegraph under the headline "Trophy Video Exposes Private Security Contractors Shooting up Iraqi Drivers" and was discussed by a TV program, Countdown, on November 28, 2005 between Keith Olbermann and "MSNBC terrorism analyst and the founder of globalterroralert.com, Evan Kohlmann":

OLBERMANN: It looks like private security guards shooting, seemingly at random, at passing vehicles on the road to the Baghdad Airport, all of it captured on video, video that reportedly first appeared on a Web site that is unofficially linked to a British contracting firm called Aegis Defense Services. And you and I are paying Aegis defense services $293 million as part of a contract awarded by the Pentagon last year.

[...]KOHLMANN: I think there are two thing to be said about this video. Number one, I don't begrudge private contractors from the right to self- defense. Supposedly, these videos were taken on the road between Baghdad and Baghdad's Airport, which is probably one of the most dangerous roads on earth.

In one three or four-month period, there were 150 separate attacks on that road, Including Many suicide bombings perpetrated by Abu Musab al- Zarqawi. These attacks target convoys of western vehicles. They look for when vehicles slow down at check points, at stoppage points and they try to attack them.

So look, if you're a contractor, and you have a vehicle headed towards you at 60 miles an hour, you only have a few seconds to make that decision. It is either your life or theirs. It could be a suicide bomber. It could be an Iraqi family rushing to the hospital.

And these incidents happen with the U.S. military as well. Just last week in Iraq, a U.S. military convoy fired on a civilian vehicle, killing four, including two kids north of Diala (ph) because it was a suspected suicide bomber.

That being said, I think that you draw a line when you compose a video, edit it and add music to it. If the people who filmed this video are the same individuals who added music to it, not only are they sick and twisted, but what is more, is that they are doing tremendous disservice to the United States and great Britain in Iraq.

[...]This is sick. It is twisted. And it's absolutely no different from what Abu Musab al-Zarqawi does. He broadcasts suicide bombings and glories the killings of civilians. We should not be a party to that same kind of propaganda.The most recent mention is in the Chicago Sun-Times of September 10, 2006: "5 of the worst war profiteers: There's money to be made - by any means necessary", by Charlie Cray:No. 4: Aegis Defense Services

The General Accounting Office estimates that 48,000 private security and military contractors are stationed in Iraq. The Pentagon's insistence on keeping a lid on military force requirements - thereby avoiding the need for a draft - is one reason for that astronomical growth, which has boosted the fortunes of the "corporate warriors" so much that observers project the industry will be a $200 billion a year business by 2010.

The introduction of private contractors has put "both the military and security providers at a greater risk for injury," the GAO says, because they fall outside the chain of command and do not operate under the Code of Military Justice.

[...]Industry critics, including Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), say that, at a minimum, Spicer's contract suggests that government agencies have failed to conduct adequate background checks. While it's hard to say how often private military contractors have committed human rights violations in Iraq, the Charlotte News-Observer reported in March that security contractors regularly shoot into civilian cars. The problem was largely ignored until a "trophy video" of security guards firing with automatic rifles at civilian cars was posted on a Web site traced back to Aegis.

Although the Army's Criminal Investigation Division says no charges will be filed against Aegis or its employees, critics say that only proves how unaccountable contractors are under current laws. Even the International Peace Operations Association, a fledgling industry trade association that insists the industry abide by stringent codes of conduct has rejected Aegis' bid to join its ranks.

[zinkyusa]

Bored_Wombat;448354 wrote: Thanks Koan!

:yh_hugs

I was starting to feel a bit isolated in here.


Nothing personal Wombat just discussion, thanks for the post on the statisitcal analysis I'm checking that out now..

[zinkyusa]

By Spot

Anastrophe might like to note that the video is still being quoted as authentic up until as recently as two months ago in a mainstream US newspaper. The story broke in the UK Sunday Telegraph under the headline "Trophy Video Exposes Private Security Contractors Shooting up Iraqi Drivers" and was discussed by a TV program, Countdown, on November 28, 2005 between Keith Olbermann and "MSNBC terrorism analyst and the founder of globalterroralert.com, Evan Kohlmann":


What is the point of this post? So we have video of somone shooting at somone else. There are thousands of shootings in Iraq everyday. Are we supposed to draw some sort of general conclusion about something based on one piece of video?

[Bored_Wombat]

zinkyusa;448589 wrote: Nothing personal Wombat just discussion, thanks for the post on the statisitcal analysis I'm checking that out now..
No worries Zinky.

(Whatta cute wee bat)

[spot]

zinkyusa;448597 wrote: What is the point of this post? So we have video of somone shooting at somone else. There are thousands of shootings in Iraq everyday. Are we supposed to draw some sort of general conclusion about something based on one piece of video?I'd have thought it was clear from the context - someone raised the video earlier, anastrophe wrote "you're aware that that's been completely debunked, are you not?" and I posted reasonable evidence that he might be mistaken. I expect he'll explain, when he gets online, where I have erred. My post related to the debunking question, not the relevance question. Zinky, don't you think that maybe there are times when you jump on me for all the wrong reasons?

[Bored_Wombat]

zinkyusa;448597 wrote: So we have video of somone shooting at somone else. There are thousands of shootings in Iraq everyday. Are we supposed to draw some sort of general conclusion about something based on one piece of video?


Of Aegis security contractors, armed with American weapons shooting what look like civilians: And then (hearts and mind winners that they are) posting it on their website.

[zinkyusa]

Bored_Wombat;448618 wrote: Of Aegis security contractors, armed with American weapons shooting what look like civilians: And then (hearts and mind winners that they are) posting it on their website.


It's one video so what? No one denies there are some jack a$$es over there, especially civilian contractors. I repeat what is the point of the post and what does it have to do with this discussion? Who is exploding bombs in the middle of crowded markets and targeting university professors? Most of the violence is Iraqis on Iraqis.

[Bored_Wombat]

zinkyusa;448625 wrote: Most of the violence is Iraqis on Iraqis.
I doubt it. Certainly its mostly since the invasion.

[zinkyusa]

spot;448612 wrote: I'd have thought it was clear from the context - someone raised the video earlier, anastrophe wrote "you're aware that that's been completely debunked, are you not?" and I posted reasonable evidence that he might be mistaken. I expect he'll explain, when he gets online, where I have erred. My post related to the debunking question, not the relevance question. Zinky, don't you think that maybe there are times when you jump on me for all the wrong reasons?


I'm not jumping on you Spot, don't take it personal. I actually kind of like you even though I disagree politically with you about pretty much everything. I think electronic communications are to easy to misunderstand. Sorry if I hurt your feelings (sincere)..

[zinkyusa]

Bored_Wombat;448632 wrote: I doubt it. Certainly its mostly since the invasion.


huh, are you serious Wombat? You really don't think most of the violence is Iraqis on Iragis?

[spot]

zinkyusa;448635 wrote: huh, are you serious Wombat? You really don't think most of the violence is Iraqis on Iragis?You're aware that, during the Iraq-Iran war, the US was supplying satellite imagery to both sides in an attempt to prolong the war indefinitely and weaken both sides? The idea that the Iraqi "liberation" junta and its US paymasters are aiding the ex-Baathist Sunni insurgents in an attempt to weaken the Shia populist majority isn't at all far-fetched and would correspond to previous practice. You might recall Harry S Truman telling a reporter in 1941 "If we see that Germany is winning, we should help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible". It's the American Way.

[Katy1]

Diuretic;440015 wrote: Ah, I love the smell of revisionism in the morning!

Iraq really is Arabic for Vietnam isn't it?

Already the, "the military could have won it if the politicians had taken the gloves off" is starting. Just as "stay the course" is being dumped so the apologists will begin the finger-pointing - in the wrong direction of course.

RG - have you got a spare asbestos suit????


:yh_worshp