Lancet reports Iraq war claims over 650,000 lives

FYI

How important is the Iraq war to Irish people?

How important is the Iraq war to the Irish media?

The Irish Times:
One article printed yesterday in the 'World' Section. Front page has a big picture of Irish manager Steve Stauntan jumping.

The Irish Independent:

One article printed yesterday in the 'International' Section. Front page has a big picture of Irish winger Damien Duff jumping.

The Irish Examiner:

Could not find any reference to the report.

RTE:

Has not mentioned the report. Not even a peep.

Frederico

Also, if it is as claimed that US(& Coalition) forces cause 30% of the deaths, 30% of 650,000 is a very very large number.. almost 200,000 in 5 years, from an occupying force??

Sand

"You then simply posted another opinion about the "supreme crime" to support your initial opinion"

These are not my opinions, they are those of the chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal.

See above, I was making a point about opinion and fact. I could have posted a long and detailed critique of why the OP was wrong, but why bother when you can make the point in 3 words? Shagging pointless either way as it wont be taken on board, so at least 3 words saves time.

See what I mean Bonkey? He doesnt even have an argument, just opinions. I could dig out another opinion that disagrees with the American prosecutor [The American lawyer defending the accused maybe?] but whats the point? The point about opinions not being facts doesnt appear to impact his reliance on quoted opinions...

Since I have explained why the insurgency exists and who caused it, and who knew it would happen, this point is irrelevant.

Youre just unable to come up with an argument to support your view that youre responsible for my actions. Like I said, when you do, let me know.

"This one is based on interviews with 1,800 families as opposed to actual body counts?"

This is the best method of counting excess mortality as used. The method of counting reported deaths is completely different. IBC count completely different things. Many deaths go unreported. There are thousands of articles on this subject. Please look them up.

May deaths are exaggerated - ask Mark Twain.

Its a very questionable estimate, based almost entirely on subjective evidence - 500 people a day? The actual objective deaths are anything up to 2500 or so a month....not 15,000 as that report claims. And no, subjective guesstimates does not trump objective evidence.

This study was correlated with death certificates...of 13000 people

Only 26 days worth of people? Did they then multiply it by 50 to account for their view that only 2% of deaths are confirmed?

...it's easy to get a lower death toll when you are basing your study on what's reported.

Easier to get any figure you like when you base it on subjective evidence as opposed to objective.

Also, if it is as claimed that US(& Coalition) forces cause 30% of the deaths, 30% of 650,000 is a very very large number.. almost 200,000 in 5 years, from an occupying force??

Two most important words there are "if" and "claimed"....

FYI

Sand. Your response is guff. And not worth responding to.

Frederico

Sand wrote:

Two most important words there are "if" and "claimed"....

Fair enough, but personally how many people do you think have died in the past 5 years in Iraq? how come people aren't completely lambasting this GIGANTIC figure of over 600,000 dead in Iraq? there is something very fishy going on here.. its like everyone has suddenly gone quiet as if some truth has emerged.

It must be some weird disgusting government policy that everyone seems blind to, that somehow we don't tally the Iraqi dead, because that doesn't suit the US/Coalition agenda. Everywhere else seems to get an agreed upon bodycount, Rwanda, Kosovo, etc, etc however when its our turn, the bodycount is always blurry.. how many civilians died in gulf war 1? the answer is we didn't count.

FYI

"how come people aren't completely lambasting this GIGANTIC figure of over 600,000 dead in Iraq?"

This is because there is no legitimate scientific basis available to discredit this study.

The same studies are regularly conducted in other war zones and by the same people, and no 'controversy' emerges in the Western press.

Manic Moran

Frederico wrote:

how many civilians died in gulf war 1? the answer is we didn't count.

2,300 Iraqis, according to the Iraqi government.
Some 900 Kuwaitis, and 600 additional as yet still unaccounted for according to the Kuwaitis.
I can find no immediate records of civilian fatalities in Saudi or Israel.

Of interest are the relative civil/military proportions. The number of Kuwaiti soldiers killed is 113. The number of Iraqi soldiers killed is approximately 20-25,000

For better or worse, the US current policy is to avoid body counts like the plague, it's a residual effect from Vietnam.

NTM

Frederico

How many Lebanese died.. we know..

The estimates for Iraqi dead vary alot for the first gulf War from 2000 +, seen some figures of 3500 some higher some lower.

The US military avoids body count like the plague
So does the US administration

The grunts in the field , thats different

When a war is on, we know bodycounts on both sides..

When WE the WEST are involved in a war, its always VERY vague on the other side..

Such a difference between policy and reality.

johnthesavage

Sand wrote:

Its a very questionable estimate, based almost entirely on subjective evidence - 500 people a day? The actual objective deaths are anything up to 2500 or so a month....not 15,000 as that report claims. And no, subjective guesstimates does not trump objective evidence.

Only 26 days worth of people? Did they then multiply it by 50 to account for their view that only 2% of deaths are confirmed?

Easier to get any figure you like when you base it on subjective evidence as opposed to objective.

Sand, that's utter nonsense from start to finish. Firstly the method used is the standard accepted method of measuring mortality where exact numbers are unavailable.

Secondly, 92% of the people interviewed were able to produce a death certificate when asked, so where you are getting your figure of 2% from? Also where are you getting your "actual objective deaths" figure from?

Victor

And remember why the war was started... The bomb that never was

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2393399,00.html

Prisoners of war
Bob Woodward begins exclusive extracts from his new book, which is shaking the White House with its revelations of a dysfunctional presidency that ignored the truth about Iraq

...

Where is WMD?
What a kick if he has none
Sorry about that

...

Second part http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2404311,00.html

Sand

Sand. Your response is guff. And not worth responding to.

I respect your decision not to descend to the level of logic and rationality and retain the high moral ground of opinion unsullied by reason.

there is something very fishy going on here.. its like everyone has suddenly gone quiet as if some truth has emerged.

The method employed has been criticised, the only quiet is the gathering momentum of people leaping behind a wild guesstimate and assuming it as fact - bludgeoning to death any dissent with claims the method hasnt been criticised.

Lets face it, only a post back you were claiming the coalition had killed 200,000 people plus based off this estimate. Like rumours these things take on a life of their own.

This is because there is no legitimate scientific basis available to discredit this study.

See what I mean Frederico?

Theres quite a few points that undermine the study. Ill note them here - not so much for your benefit FYI, but rather to demonstrate why I do not accept the 655,000 figure - see how that works?

Basically the study works like so:

They divides Iraq into 18 regions, and picked a total of 50 clusters from those 18 regions proportionate to population [i.e. 12 from Baghdad, 0 from Dahuk]. They interviewed 40 households at each cluster, based on address rather than co-ordinates as it was too dangerous to be seen with GPS equipment.

That would imply 2000 households, but they only got 1849 because 1 Cluster was seen as too dangerous to enter, and some communication mix up [they each thought the other team was working on a particular cluster] led to two not being interviewed.

4 person teams [doctors, 2 male, 2 female, english & arabic speakers]with 2 days training were sent out to carry out the interviews. The households are interviewed about mortality prior to the invasion [Jan 1 2002-March 2003 IIRC] and after it. The difference between the interviewees responses is assumed to be down to the war.

Weaknesses [imo]:
The pre-war Iraqi mortality rate based of these interviews was assumed by the study to be 5.5 per thousand, or more accurately somewhere between 4.3 and 7.1, with them being satisfied for their puposes that it was 5.5. Based off the interviews they reckon the mortality rate post war is 13.3 [again, more accurately somewhere between 10.9 and 16.1]

The problem is their pre war mortality rate [based on interviewee responses] is quite optimistic, compared to the UN figures. The UN estimated mortality rates for Iraq to be between 8.1 [1980-85] and 6.8 [1985-90]. Im not aware of any solid figures from 1990 onwards, but given the sanctions, internal strife and economic decline of Saddams Iraq post GW1 it can be reasonably assumed the mortality rates could have only increased, not decreased to 5.5 per thousand - and indeed this was the perception and estimation of the "international community" - remember the million dead Iraqi children and the savagery of the UN sanctions that were cited by the likes of Bin Laden in his declaration of Jihad?

Given that the two points of of info [pre war and post war mortality rates] are based purely on subjective interviewee responses then it would have been an interesting control to perhaps use the same method to caculate an estimate of the 1980-1990 mortality rate and compare it to the UN figure to see if it was reasonably close. How and ever, they probably didnt have time.

Im not entirely clear on how they treated houses where everyone had died/left - they apparently made queries with neighbours, but theyre not specific if they counted them.

The study mentions the problems inherent in an interview method - mainly the risk, real or perceived to the interview team impacting selection of clusters, the questions considered "safe" to ask interviewees and what points they might be challenged on, and indeed the verification of information - there was no callbacks to clusters, for the obvious security reasons, and of course they could not spend much time surveying as every minute increased the risk of being shot or abducted. These are all impact on the accuracy of estimates based wholly on subjective interviewee responses.

But the main reason for my...reservation...is that the estimates simply dont match the evidence. 500 people a day average?!? A pre-war base line mortality rate that is significantly less than pre GW1 despite the havoc wreaked on Iraq and the widely publicised humanitarian disaster unfolding there due to the sanction? Sure reported deaths may be under the actual total - but as the report authors claim that 92% of their death figures were backed up by death certs, then that would imply that 92% of deaths are recorded by the government. Only 8% under-reporting [assuming theyre were actual deaths], not 80% as the report seems to claim.

I also tend to distrust deaths without bodies or verifiable evidence of death - the case of the Palestinian boy martyr icon, Al Durah, comes to mind.

We then come to the team themselves. One of the reports authors, Les Roberts [who seems to be the lead] ran for congress for the Democratic Party on what was perceived as a largely anti-war platform and another author, Gilbert Burnham, contributed financially to his campaign. Les Roberts has also admitted that the initial report [the one for 100K deaths] was rushed out in an effort to influence the US Presidential election. Lancets editor, Richard Horton, is apparently a quite committed opponent of the Iraq war and is on record as stating the British government "prefers... the killing of children instead of the building of hospitals and schools." Any reason I should trust their impartiality anymore than I should trust President Bush? Oh wait, theyre The Good Guys [tm] to quote Bonkey.

ISAW

johnthesavage wrote:

Sand, that's utter nonsense from start to finish. Firstly the method used is the standard accepted method of measuring mortality where exact numbers are unavailable.

Secondly, 92% of the people interviewed were able to produce a death certificate when asked, so where you are getting your figure of 2% from? Also where are you getting your "actual objective deaths" figure from?

I am not disagreeing with the Lancet article nor with the lprior Lancet article but here is a site which goes by actual reported deaths. No doubt many more deaths are not reported.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

You can see the sources there for yourself. To date somewhere between 44-48 thousand civilians. This does not include military deaths or non reported deaths.
From that site:
Platitudes about the impossibility of obtaining an accurate count in all instances tend to be repeated whenever strong documentary evidence of specific cases is made available. Rather than engaging with the actual details on the table, the supposed impossibility of achieving a total count of all deaths is somehow presented as an excuse for not accounting for any deaths. The illogic of this argument is extreme. If applied to 9-11 it would have justified not attempting any count of the dead at ground zero – on the grounds that a totally accurate count could never be guaranteed.
...
Smith goes on to conclude: "Surely this is both an inhumane and unacceptable position. As at least part of our aid to postwar Iraq must be targeted at assistance to families left without breadwinners who have been killed or seriously injured by the invasion, then our planners are going to have to calculate the numbers of families left destitute by their loss." (The Independent, 18 September 2003, page 19).

The fourth Geneva Convention is entitled " Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" and its 158 articles spell out the absolute responsibility of occupying powers to protect the life, health, and property of civilians.

Instead of fully accepting that the lack of security since April 2003 is a direct result of the ill-conceived invasion, poorly planned post-invasion occupation, and ill-judged refusal to internationalise of the occupying force under the authority of the United Nations, the CPA has constantly tried to divert the blame for continued and rising civilian deaths on "Saddam loyalists", "foreign infiltrators" and "Al Qaida."

NYT 29oct 2003 wrote:

The mission to specify the number of victims has been a necessary one: partly for history, partly for the distribution of death benefits — and partly to satisfy a communal desire for a number whose exactness might bring some comprehension to the incomprehensible."

We agree with every word of this quote. We think, however, that every word of it also applies to Iraqi deaths in the current conflict.




“Change the channel”
- Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt's advice to Iraqis who see TV images of innocent civilians killed by coalition troops.
[NYT 12th April 2004]

ISAW

Sand wrote:

The method employed has been criticised, the only quiet is the gathering momentum of people leaping behind a wild guesstimate and assuming it as fact - bludgeoning to death any dissent with claims the method hasnt been criticised.

Where has it been criticised? You are suggesting that the method is unsound. First of all the military should release figures or commission independent research themselves. Why don't they?

It isnt a "wild guesstimate" it is backed up by standard statistiucal procedure Confidence intervals and all that stuff.

Then you go on to suggest that either the families were lying or biased or the interviewers were or the people reporting it were. so you think the fact that someone dies of a violent death and a death cert was supplied to verify that is all made up?

You also try to rubbish the death rate before and after the occupation and that maybe the figures before the occupation would have been higher.

Look at page 5 of the Lancet article:
Of the 302 violent deaths 300 of them (thats three hundred of 302) happened after the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Don't you think that the fact that the number of violent deaths among this 12,000 or so people has gone up by a factor of one hundred and fifty just might in some way be related to the invasion? considering the violence was mainly due to 1.AIRSTRIKES 2. BEING SHOT 3. EXPLOSIONS.

Do you really think there would have been a lot of this type of death pre invasion?

Theres quite a few points that undermine the study. Ill note them here - not so much for your benefit FYI, but rather to demonstrate why I do not accept the 655,000 figure - see how that works?

Can you explain how there were 2 (thats TWO) violent deaths before the invasion and it increased to 300 (thats THREE HUNDRED) after the invasion? what do you think might have caused this one hundred and fifty fold increase?

We then come to the team themselves. One of the reports authors, Les Roberts [who seems to be the lead] ran for congress for the Democratic Party on what was perceived as a largely anti-war platform and another author, Gilbert Burnham, contributed financially to his campaign. Les Roberts has also admitted that the initial report [the one for 100K deaths] was rushed out in an effort to influence the US Presidential election. Lancets editor, Richard Horton, is apparently a quite committed opponent of the Iraq war and is on record as stating the British government "prefers... the killing of children instead of the building of hospitals and schools."

So what? Are you saying thast because they oppose the war that they are making up the statistics and lying about statistical surveys? Are you caying they tamopered with the sample and lied abou it? You do know that any peer reviewed journal editor who did such a thing would have his entire academic credability destroyed? But you allege not just one of them but TWO of the authors conspired and made up data and the editor of the journal was also in on it? Bizarre!

Victor

Sand wrote:

The problem is their pre war mortality rate [based on interviewee responses] is quite optimistic, compared to the UN figures. The UN estimated mortality rates for Iraq to be between 8.1 [1980-85] and 6.8 [1985-90]. Im not aware of any solid figures from 1990 onwards, but given the sanctions, internal strife and economic decline of Saddams Iraq post GW1 it can be reasonably assumed the mortality rates could have only increased, not decreased to 5.5 per thousand

What were the relevant birth rates, age profile of the population, etc. Were there hundreds of thousands of war dead from the 1990s (as there were in the 1980s?)

- and indeed this was the perception and estimation of the "international community" - remember the million dead Iraqi children and the savagery of the UN sanctions that were cited by the likes of Bin Laden in his declaration of Jihad?

Now, now siding with Bin Laden's propaganda are we? The political / secutiry situationa and sanctions are associated with 500,000 deaths not 1 million.

Given that the two points of of info [pre war and post war mortality rates] are based purely on subjective interviewee responses

With death certificates.

then it would have been an interesting control to perhaps use the same method to caculate an estimate of the 1980-1990 mortality rate and compare it to the UN figure to see if it was reasonably close. How and ever, they probably didnt have time.

And it might have been rather difficult for people to dig out 26 year old death certificates.

But the main reason for my...reservation...is that the estimates simply dont match the evidence. 500 people a day average?!?

Maybe its the high end. But we have the names of 44,000 civilians, 3,000 foreign soldiers plus we know that very large numbers of Iraqi security services ahve been killed and we know that isn't the total. One American battallion commander indicated that in his tour, his battallion had killed approximately 600 Iraqis, most of them for 'doing the wrong thing' at chekpoints (as opposed to actually being hostile). Thats a rough 1:1 ratio of soliders on tour : Iraqis killed. 550,000 soldiers have served in Iraq, representing abot 1 million tours (marines only do 6 month tours). I realise one can't extrapolate 'just like that', but it helps confirm that Bush is wrong. In fact how can Bush claim any number, when Bush doesn't do bodycounts.

Sure reported deaths may be under the actual total - but as the report authors claim that 92% of their death figures were backed up by death certs, then that would imply that 92% of deaths are recorded by the government. Only 8% under-reporting [assuming theyre were actual deaths], not 80% as the report seems to claim.

Remind me where the 80% comes from?

We then come to the team themselves.

'Its coming from the other side so it must be wrong' - whether the figure is 100,000, 200,000 or 655,000, killing than many people so you can show off 20 old chemical weapon shells (only one with chemicals) and a pair of possible chemical labs / possible photographic labs is obscene.

FYI

Sand:

"the level of logic and rationality and retain the high moral ground of opinion unsullied by reason."

Are you an epidemiologist?

AbusesToilets

FYI,i like how you still haven't given any proper response other than derision and dismissal to the point made by myself and Sand with regards to those committing the murders being responsible for their actions.
Whatever the actual number of people killed in Iraq, it's a tradegy.At the moment the Coalition forces are trying to quell the violence and train up the Iraqi forces to take over policing their own country.Do you have any ideas about what you would do to stop the violence,instead of focusing on what had already happened?

FYI

I understand you would like just to focus on 'the now'.

You want an answer. Try the recent admission by senior army officer:

"leave Iraq" the coalition are exacerbating the situation.

Pay huge reparations to the Iraqi people.

That's a start.

Frederico

Sand wrote:

Lets face it, only a post back you were claiming the coalition had killed 200,000 people plus based off this estimate. Like rumours these things take on a life of their own.

No I said IF the figure is 650,000, then that would mean that the coalition would have killed around 200,000 (based on the 30% figure, actually last I heard it was 37%). Unless I missed something, noone has pointed that out yet.

"Is there water on the moon? discuss", doesn't mean I am claiming there is water on the moon.

Frederico

AbusesToilets wrote:

FYI,i like how you still haven't given any proper response other than derision and dismissal to the point made by myself and Sand with regards to those committing the murders being responsible for their actions.
Whatever the actual number of people killed in Iraq, it's a tradegy.At the moment the Coalition forces are trying to quell the violence and train up the Iraqi forces to take over policing their own country.Do you have any ideas about what you would do to stop the violence,instead of focusing on what had already happened?

Personally I really can't think of anything that would really help the situation, I think if the Coalition forces pull out it will be just as bad as it is now.

I think the only thing that can be done is to keep the public (esp. American public) as much in the dark about it as possible, focus their attention on something else, and then slip out of the country quietly under the pretense that the Iraqi's have full control and now its their problem. Blair is already trying to get us to focus on Afghanistan, which is working to some extent, maybe the US administration will try the same.

johnthesavage

Sand wrote:

The method employed has been criticised, the only quiet is the gathering momentum of people leaping behind a wild guesstimate and assuming it as fact - bludgeoning to death any dissent with claims the method hasnt been criticised.

A respected American university carry out a study using internationally accepted methods and you call it a "wild guesstimate" and accuse them of deliberately fabricating evidence. Your accusation of dishonesty and dismissal of the methodology seem to be based on the fact that the authors oppose the US occupation of Iraq. That is simply absurd.

Strange how nobody questioned the 2000 report on Congo by the same people (indeed, a UN Security Council resolution was passed within weeks following the report.)... As pointed out already the methods are universally accepted and the figures incorporate a large margin of error consistent with the difficulties of obtaining data. The authors are quite clear about the inaccuracies in the study, the reasons for which are obvious, and that the real number may be as low as 400,000.

ISAW wrote:

I am not disagreeing with the Lancet article nor with the lprior Lancet article but here is a site which goes by actual reported deaths. No doubt many more deaths are not reported.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

That website has been widely criticised, although AFAIK they have never claimed to report the true number of people killed, just those deaths verified by western media. Since journalists in Iraq spend most of their time in secure hotels or at military press briefings in the green zone it is safe to assume that only a fraction of deaths can be verified in this way. Of all the estimates produced, Iraqbodycount is by far the lowest, so it's hardly suprising that it is used as the "official" figure by so many.

Manic Moran

FYI wrote:

I understand you would like just to focus on 'the now'.

You want an answer. Try the recent admission by senior army officer:

"leave Iraq" the coalition are exacerbating the situation.

Pay huge reparations to the Iraqi people.

That's a start.

I've been incommunicado over the weekend, who suggested reparations? (And the fact that the US and UK have sunk billions of dollars into Iraq's reconstruction doesn't count for anything?)

As for the CGS's comments, here's a more complete version.

"We have been in Southern Iraq for three and a half years and we have made significant progress, with two of the four provinces now handed over to Iraqi control and our responsibilities are much reduced in one other province. The point that I'm trying to make is the mere fact that we are still in some places exacerbates violence from those who want to destabilise Iraqi democracy.

"Currently Operation Sinbad is trying to make Basra better and a lot of British soldiers are doing a really good job. In that regard, their presence is helping but there are other parts where our mere presence does exacerbate and violence results."

Basically (and this is borne out later in his statements), he's saying that in areas where the control has been handed over to the Iraqi authorities, the presence of British troops does nothing but provide a target for insurgents. In places where the Iraqi authorities are not capable of keeping control on their own, the British troops are still required. Note that as soon as the slightly mis-represented statements went out on the air on Thursday, the Iraqi government immediately released a statement saying "Lads, please don't leave"

NTM

ISAW

johnthesavage wrote:

That website [iraqbodycount] has been widely criticised, although AFAIK they have never claimed to report the true number of people killed, just those deaths verified by western media.

really what is the criticism? They reference every report of every death. Usually the report is cross checkable. Thy have nearly 50,000 and that is only the ones reported in the press! I meqan it is unlikely a journalist was in the bunker when white phosphorus was fired at Iraqis isnt it?

Since journalists in Iraq spend most of their time in secure hotels or at military press briefings in the green zone it is safe to assume that only a fraction of deaths can be verified in this way. Of all the estimates produced, Iraqbodycount is by far the lowest, so it's hardly suprising that it is used as the "official" figure by so many.

I didnt claim it was official. I claimed that it is at the very lease a bottom figure. I am now asking those who are saying "such and such" is not a correct figure whether they accept the figure of at least 50,000 violent deaths due to the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

I admit it is a bit like the revisionists "six million jews didnt die!! claims when they really want to say "nobody died" .

We can certainly verify tens of thousands died and the research does suggest that in this current invasion only that hundreds of thousands died!

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

I've been incommunicado over the weekend, who suggested reparations? (And the fact that the US and UK have sunk billions of dollars into Iraq's reconstruction doesn't count for anything?)

Sure it does. Its counted in the massive profits for American corporations like Haliburton and Bechtel. http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010205X.shtml

Huge amounts of money has been stolen wasted and mis-spent, 9 billion dollars was 'lost' by the Bremner Interim government, and that's just the tip of the iceberg in relation to corruption and theft of reconstruction funds. As it currently stands, the U.S. is still spending far more money on maintaining it's military presence in Iraq than it is on reconstruction.

Akrasia

AbusesToilets wrote:

FYI,i like how you still haven't given any proper response other than derision and dismissal to the point made by myself and Sand with regards to those committing the murders being responsible for their actions.
Whatever the actual number of people killed in Iraq, it's a tradegy.At the moment the Coalition forces are trying to quell the violence and train up the Iraqi forces to take over policing their own country.Do you have any ideas about what you would do to stop the violence,instead of focusing on what had already happened?

Any army that the U.S. helps to train will be viewed by the Iraqis as a proxy force of the west, just like the northern Irish catholics viewed the RUC as collaborators with the British armed forces.

FYI

“US and UK have sunk billions of dollars into Iraq's reconstruction”

As has already been pointed out, huge amounts of this money has gone missing. Reconstruction in Iraq is simply a goldmine for US contractors. While the actual infrastructure remains in ruins.

Let’s not get bogged down in the IBC debate, the truth is these studies measure different things. IBC admit their method probably misses many (many, many) deaths. This should not be used as a viable criticism of the John’s Hopkins study. This can only be reasonably criticised by epidemiologists (or those qualified). Read Russell for an explanation of logical cynicism.

ISAW

Manic Moran wrote:

I've been incommunicado over the weekend, who suggested reparations? (And the fact that the US and UK have sunk billions of dollars into Iraq's reconstruction doesn't count for anything?)

Care to remind me please? Who bombed the country to rubble in the first place?

Who spent 335,000,000,000* dollars of their tax payers money on this "war"?


Have they really sunk 335 BILLION dollars in reparations?

[*source=http://nationalpriorities.org/]

. The point that I'm trying to make is the mere fact that we are still in some places exacerbates violence from those who want to destabilise Iraqi democracy.

the major destabliser has been the invasion and occupation I reckon. And "iraqi democracy" seems a bit of an oxymoron doesnt it? The Us invaded because

1. WMD - I havent seen any have you?
2. Links between Saddam and Al Khyda etc. - there werent any were there?
3. Removing a dictator and supporting democracy - why did the US SUPPORT Saddam when he was a dictator? And why arent they invading North Korea Saudi Arabia or all the other regimes they actively or tacidly support?

Basically (and this is borne out later in his statements), he's saying that in areas where the control has been handed over to the Iraqi authorities, the presence of British troops does nothing but provide a target for insurgents. In places where the Iraqi authorities are not capable of keeping control on their own, the British troops are still required. Note that as soon as the slightly mis-represented statements went out on the air on Thursday, the Iraqi government immediately released a statement saying "Lads, please don't leave"

NTM

I dont get it! What are you saying? One can bomb a country back to the stone age without any valid reason then invade it and claim that the reason the place is overrun by terror is because they have stone age infrastructure and that you will have to stay until the "threat" is gone and the stone age infrastructure is repaired? But if by that stage yo leave and something happens you have to rush back in because they are completly dependent on you and dont know how to run a country? Why didnt you just stay away from the place in the first instance and you would see if they could run a country? And why are you blaiming the lack of infrastructure and fundamentalist presence and insurgency on them? If you didnt bomb the place you wouldnt have those problems and neither would Iraq!

Frederico

You make it sound like manic moran actually bombed the country back to the stone age himself... speaking of stone age, that Pakistan story was buried fairly lively.

mountainyman

ISAW:
Wait a second.
We all accept that the USA invaded Iraq and bombed it (to rubble as you say). The real infrastructural damage was done by GW 1 - do you really believe that the invasion of Kuwait was not a good reason.

Sands point is that the mortality rates used as the baseline for the lancet study are too high. This is a valid (as opposed to correct) point and appealing to tears and verbiage doesn't neutralise it. However I am confused by Sands use of the words 'objective' and 'subjective'. Why is that lancet study subjective. It is the lancet. Probably the best respected peer review journal in the world.

It is possible that Sands is wrong, but no one has not rebutted his point. If no one can do that we have lost the argument. I would suggest looking at the lancet study; the lancet is one of the best respected magazines in the world and they have almost certainly anticipated these criticisms.

EDIT: There is some onus on Sands to provide sources for his claims regrarding the baseline mortality rate. After all the lancet doesn't publish any old rubbish.

MM

MM

ISAW

Frederico wrote:

You make it sound like manic moran actually bombed the country back to the stone age himself... speaking of stone age, that Pakistan story was buried fairly lively.

I dont know if he did. I know he was in the US forces but whether in the Gulf I forget. But what he did and what many do they dio as their job as a professional soldier. this is wholly different as to whether the army should be ther in the first place and is a wholly separate power.

for the record i have never known Moran to be anything other than civil and respectable and I would not like anyone to think I was trying to slur him.

ISAW

mountainyman wrote:

ISAW:
Wait a second.
We all accept that the USA invaded Iraq and bombed it (to rubble as you say). The real infrastructural damage was done by GW 1 - do you really believe that the invasion of Kuwait was not a good reason.

Off topic. The death toll in Iraq under the current occupation has nothing to do with Kewait and has cost 350 BILLION dollars for the US taxpayer alone.

Sands point is that the mortality rates used as the baseline for the lancet study are too high. This is a valid (as opposed to correct) point and appealing to tears and verbiage doesn't neutralise it.

His point is that MAY BE high! But he cklaims we have no way of knowing the real death toll so how can we also know an unknowable death rate? My point is the DIRECT EVIDENCE i.e. before the invasion 2 violent deaths among 12,000 people after the invasion 300 violent deaths dfrom things such as shooting, bombing and airstrikes. Now what do you think might have led to an increase in these deaths? do you think that if the invasion hadent happened that there would have been these 300 extra deaths?

However I am confused by Sands use of the words 'objective' and 'subjective'. Why is that lancet study subjective. It is the lancet. Probably the best respected peer review journal in the world.

He does more than that. He claims tweo of the authors are faking the figures and the editor is in on it all for political reasons.

It is possible that Sands is wrong, but no one has not rebutted his point. If no one can do that we have lost the argument. I would suggest looking at the lancet study; the lancet is one of the best respected magazines in the world and they have almost certainly anticipated these criticisms.

I agree with you and the same rubbishing happened the last time the lancet ran a similar article. I already posted what the military do when such figures are presented.

The situation in Iraq is awful, was it good before?

MM

No. But was it better. appareetly yes. It isnt much use tellin dead people that they are now free.