Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Lancet reports Iraq war claims over 650,000 lives
Options
Comments
-
I dont know if he did. I know he was in the US forces but whether in the Gulf I forget
I'm a tanker, not a pilot, so no bombing by me. I was in Iraq 2004-2005, so I missed the fun and games that caused all the bother, I spent a lot more time drinking tea with the locals than shooting at them.Akrasia wrote: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.
Apparently that's not the case. I'm currently chugging through Ahmed Hashim's "Insurgency and Counter-insurgency in Iraq", (which I have to say isn't exactly light reading) and the situation there makes Northern Ireland look incredibly simple. The author goes into depth about the motivations of the various different insurgent groups (As of when the book went to press a little under a year ago), and it challenges the simplistic precepts of both sides of the argument. For example, did you know that Iraqis hate the UN a lot more than they hate the US? In the case of the view of the US Army, by way of example one Sunni insurgent interviewed said akin to (I don't have the book in front of me to quote verbatim) "The Americans searched my house. If the Americans had come alone, I would have shaken their hand. But they brought Shi'a soldiers with them. This was intolerable"
The problem with the Iraqi Army and the Police isn't who trained them (after all, a bunch of them are trained in Jordan by other Arabs), the problem is over which ethnic Iraqi group is seen to be in the ascendancy within the Army and police. Part of the problem is that Sunnis have been running things there for about 400 years, and that they steadfastly and honestly believe that they are the numerical majority in the country. (A fact which completely bewilders Mr Ahmed)Who bombed the country to rubble in the first place?
No idea. Why would the Americans have wasted their time bombing schools and hospitals, for example? Actually, I don't think they as much as bombed a powerplant beyond shutting them down with carbon-filament warheads, which are a lot less damaging than high explosives.Have they really sunk 335 BILLION dollars in reparations
I doubt it. On an earlier post, I acknowledge the mid-handling of the reconstruction effort and the disappearance of large amounts of money. I believe the GAO is conducting an investigation. That does not mean to say that all the reconstruction money has gone into an American pocket: The physical work is carried out by Iraqis, so they get paid, and the various items get built.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?
1. Nope. But I'm willing to give the coalition the benefit of the doubt over their 'best guess' at the time.
2. Nope.
3. Realpolitik, I'm afraid. Pretty much the default situation of the world at the time was that if a country was supported by the Soviet Union, that country's enemy would be supported by the US, and vice versa. Least worst option. North Korea, probably because it would be extremely messy and the Chinese would be pissed, and Saudi because it's not a particularly threatening regime to anyone outside of Saudi.Why didnt you just stay away from the place in the first instance and you would see if they could run a country?
It seemed that they weren't doing a particularly good job of it over the previous 25 years or so.And why are you blaiming the lack of infrastructure and fundamentalist presence and insurgency on them?
On who?If you didnt bomb the place you wouldnt have those problems and neither would Iraq!
No, we'd have different problems, and so would Iraq.
NTM0 -
The problem is not with Iraqbodycount or their statistics, but rather the misuse that people will put their figures to. People will point to their number and say "there's the total, these other reports are exaggerated".ISAW wrote: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?
Iraqbodycount currently list the numner of civilians killed by military intervention in Iraq as minimum 43937, maximum 48783.
From their website:We put accuracy above speed and do not update the data base until we have located and cross-checked two or more independent approved news sources for the same incident...
...Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.
Now here is General George Casey from the US Military, asked about the Lancet study:GEN. GEORGE CASEY: I have not seen the study. That 650,000 number seems way, way beyond any number that I have seen. I’ve not seen a number higher than 50,000. And so, I don’t give that much credibility at all.
REPORTER: What’s the 50,000 number? Where did you see that from?
GEN. GEORGE CASEY: I don't remember, but I’ve seen it over time.
REPORTER: Is it a U.S. military estimate?
GEN. GEORGE CASEY: I don't remember where I saw that. It’s either from the Iraqi government or from us, but I don’t remember precisely.0 -
"The real infrastructural damage was done by GW 1 - do you really believe that the invasion of Kuwait was not a good reason."
Yes, of course there was a good reason, they were afraid the sympathetic Kuwaiti government would be usurped in favour of one that didn't bend to it's interests.
"Sands point is that the mortality rates used as the baseline for the lancet study are too high."
This has been subject to some criticism, but again, none by qualified experts.
Here's a possible explanation:
"Iraq is a young country. Therefore, it has a low “crude” death rate. “Crude” in this case means “not adjusted for demographic structure and therefore not meaningfully comparable across countries”. Therefore, it is not surprising that pre-war Iraq had a crude death rate similar to that of Denmark, any more than it is surprising that any other two completely non-comparable statistics might happen to be the same number."
http://crookedtimber.org/2006/10/12/death-rates-and-death-certificates/
There are many variables that could influence this.
It seems you'll grasp at any straw in order to neglect these figures.0 -
Here is the full list of the organisations IBC uses to get it's figures.ABC - ABC News (USA)
AFP - Agence France-Presse
AP - Associated Press
AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology
Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network
BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation
BG - Boston Globe
Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun
CT - Chicago Tribune
CO - Commondreams.org
CSM - Christian Science Monitor
DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
FOX - Fox News
GUA - The Guardian (London)
HRW - Human Rights Watch
HT - Hindustan Times
ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross
IND - The Independent (London)
IO - Intellnet.org
JT - Jordan Times
LAT - Los Angeles Times
MEN - Middle East Newsline
MEO - Middle East Online
MER - Middle East Report
MH - Miami Herald
NT - Nando Times
NYT - New York Times
Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)
SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation
SMH - Sydney Morning Herald
Sg.News - The Singapore News
Tel- The Telegraph (London)
Times - The Times (London)
TOI - Times of India
TS - Toronto Star
UPI - United Press International
WNN - World News Network
WP - Washington Post
Now, they include one or two middle eastern agencies, Al Jazeera sticks out, but their methodology requires that every death must be reported by at least two of the above listed news organisations, so even if Al Jazeera reports a high number of casualties, unless another news agency picks up on their report the deaths will go uncounted.
It is also important to point out that the IBC project only includes Civilian deaths killed as a direct result of action by coalition forces. It does not include Iraqi fighters, or people killed from disease or accidents or killed by non coalition forces.0 -
For all your IBC questions (and the basic criticisms of the Lancet), see below:
"I had anticipated that the team behind Iraq Body Count would react to the latest survey on Iraqi mortalities published in the Lancet by trying to minimise their import and undermine their reliability. I was not wrong. The reason is fairly simple: they're defending their turf. They have been engaged in this operation ever since Media Lens asked them what they thought of the fact that mainstream media outlets were using their figures as reliable maximum estimates of the dead, and why they didn't challenge this evident untruth even though they acknowledged on their site that it was indeed an untruth. Their place in the media spotlight is threatened, and such is the only occasion under which they have put up any kind of a fight, even going so far during the spat with Media Lens to compare their opponents to terrorists on BBC 2."
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/10/counting-dead-ibc-attempt-to-undermine.html0 -
Advertisement
-
Akrasia wrote:It does not include ...(people) killed by non coalition forces.
Yes it does. For example, incident K3982 (16 Sep 2006), target is "US Iraqi patrol at police station", the weapon used is "Suicide Car Bomb".
From their website:
The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion.
I have no dog in this hunt, but FWIW, they have a statement up on the Lancet report:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php
It goes into details on the right hand side of the page.
Iraq Body Count Press Release 16 October 2006
Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates
Hamit Dardagan, John Sloboda, and Josh Dougherty
Summary
A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:
On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.
If these assertions are true, they further imply:
incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;
bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;
an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.
In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy.
NTM0 -
Well, they seem to have moved the goalposts, This is from their website under the 'Limitations' sectionManic Moran wrote:Yes it does. For example, incident K3982 (16 Sep 2006), target is "US Iraqi patrol at police station", the weapon used is "Suicide Car Bomb".
From their website:
The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion.
NTMEach side can readily claim that indirectly-caused deaths are the "fault" of the other side or, where long-term illnesses and genetic disorders are concerned, "due to other causes." Our methodology requires that specific deaths attributed to US-led military actions are carried in at least two reports from our approved sources. This includes deaths resulting from the destruction of water treatment plants or any other lethal effects on the civilian population. The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). We agree that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can unambiguously hold our own leaders to account. In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq.0 -
Akrasia wrote:Well, they seem to have moved the goalposts, This is from their website under the 'Limitations' section
Not quite. In the limitations quote, all they're saying is that for deaths attributed to the US military, they are requiring corroboration from at least two sources. They are not saying that they are limiting their reporting to solely deaths caused by the US. The reason, I presume, that they have a more stringent requirement for US deaths is that a lot of people would love to artificially inflate the death toll caused by the US, but there is less reason to inflate the toll from other causes.
NTM0 -
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?
So you implicitly trust the President of the United States when he makes statements? Bollocks tbh.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.
Meh, its indisputable that the sanctions were blamed for horrific death tolls in post GW1 Iraq. Respected political analysts like Noam Chomsky accused the US of committing genocide. Anyone casting doubt about reports of genocide in post GW1 Iraq would have been demonised as some sort of apologist for Clintons love of bombing raids anytime his love life got hectic.
Now the goal posts are shifting, apparently 1991-2003 was some sort of Iraqi golden age, an era of increased living standards and falling mortality rates. The more things change...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.
We also know that the Lancet survey indicated the government issued death certs for 92% of deaths reported by interviewees - i.e. at least 92% of deaths were reported/recorded. Hence, while underreporting might allow for higher figures, it doesnt allow for 600,000 unreported deaths.
You might arguably claim that perhaps the discrepancy is due to non-violent deaths caused indirectly by the impact of the war on health. sanitation etc etc not being recorded as being other than "natural" by the authorities. But the Lancet report notes that 90% of the deaths were violent - not easily confused as being natural.
Now if someone can reconcile those factors, Ill be happy to reconsider.Remind me where the 80% comes from?
I was thinking of the 100 deaths per day average reported [2,500-3000 per month noted by Iraqi government sources] compared to 500 per Lancet, but if you take the 50K figure as a baseline, compared to 655K estimate, its implies an even worse level of underreporting.'Its coming from the other side so it must be wrong'
See above - people tend not to accept George Bush as an impartial judge of the Iraq war, and would distrust his claims - even if supported by evidence - less than they would from someone who is not so clearly biased. Several people behind the Lancet report are far from impartial either. That has to be recognised when evaluating the findings.Are you an epidemiologist?
Of course not FYI, I'm a politician like everyone else here, how else would we be qualified to post on a Politics discussion board?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.
And of course every conflict can be understood by viewing it as Northern Ireland with better weather, or failing that Vietnam, jungles optionalHowever 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.
Objective & subjective mightnt have been the best terms - In my use of the terms above, an actual body count is objective - if theres 100 bodies, theres 100 bodies. End of. Anyone who can count can verify the figure and there will be no dispute over it. If you ask how many people have died however, you get subjective evidence as opposed to objective. Its how many people someone thinks have died.
Reality and peoples perception of reality can differ - especially when, as in this report, there is understandbly little time to crosscheck or challenge claims that seem weak. Like I said above, I'd have found it interesting to see if a control could have been used when it came to estimating a mortality rate for a period we already had good solid figures on and seeing if the estimates came close.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.
Heres one citation - from WHO in 2001, where they note the crude death rate as 8 per thousand prior to GW1, when Iraq was in far better shape that it was during the sanctions - as indeed the report notes."Sands point is that the mortality rates used as the baseline for the lancet study are too high."
This has been subject to some criticism, but again, none by qualified experts.
Here's a possible explanation:
"Iraq is a young country. Therefore, it has a low “crude” death rate. “Crude” in this case means “not adjusted for demographic structure and therefore not meaningfully comparable across countries”. Therefore, it is not surprising that pre-war Iraq had a crude death rate similar to that of Denmark, any more than it is surprising that any other two completely non-comparable statistics might happen to be the same number."
Yeah, whatever - Page 4 of the Lancet study, bottom left corner - the 5.5 pre war mortality rate cited in the preamble and summarised findings is specifically noted as a crude rate. Figured that out all by myself without an expert qualified to read statements in english to tell me what it said. Unpossible eh?It seems you'll grasp at any straw in order to neglect these figures.
Pot, Kettle .... well, maybe someone qualified can finish that for me.0 -
Sand, you're not an epidemologist, thanks for clearing that up.
And while we're at it:
Politics: "The opinion you hold with respect to political questions", "The study of government of states and other political units"
Epidemiology: "The branch of medical science dealing with the transmission and control of disease"
Your comparison is absurd.
Back to the study:
So you're argument hinges on the fact the mortality rate is 'crude'? Are you serious?
"One distinguishes:
1. The crude death rate, the total number of deaths per 1000 people.
2. The perinatal mortality rate, the sum of neonatal deaths and fetal deaths (stillbirths) per 1,000 births.
3. The maternal mortality rate, the number of maternal deaths due to childbearing per 100,000 live births.
4. The infant mortality rate, the number of deaths of children less than 1 year old per thousand live births.
5. The standardised mortality rate (SMR) or age-specific mortality rate (ASMR) - This refers to the total number of deaths per 1000 people of a given age (e.g. 16-65 or 65+)."
and from the study:
Our estimate of the pre-invasion crude or all-cause mortality rate is in close agreement with other sources. [18, 19]
[18] CIA 2003 Factbook entry for Iraq. http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/
lps35389/2003/iz.html (accessed Oct 2, 2006).
[19] US Agency for International Health and US Census Bureau.
Global population profile: 2002. Washington, DC:
US Census Bureau, 2004.
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf0 -
Advertisement
-
The government didn't issue those death certificates, they were issued locally at hospitals. It is too dangerous for government officials to travel the roads of Iraq regularly to do such basic administration tasks and their communications infrastructure is in tatters.Sand wrote:We also know that the Lancet survey indicated the government issued death certs for 92% of deaths reported by interviewees - i.e. at least 92% of deaths were reported/recorded. Hence, while underreporting might allow for higher figures, it doesnt allow for 600,000 unreported deaths.
The Iraqi central government barely functioning.
That's why they published it in a peer reviewed journal. So far, pro war people have concentrated on attacking the methodology they chose, but their methodology was perfectly sound and the standard method for collecting information in any disaster zone. If it's Good enough for America in Rwanda, Kosovo and the Sudan, then it's good enough in Iraq.See above - people tend not to accept George Bush as an impartial judge of the Iraq war, and would distrust his claims - even if supported by evidence - less than they would from someone who is not so clearly biased. Several people behind the Lancet report are far from impartial either. That has to be recognised when evaluating the findings.
You're wrong. A body count is only indisputable if all the bodies are available to be counted. What if you only find half of the mass graves? A body count can only ensure that the death count is not over reported, but it is still perfectly possible that the statistic is under reported. If you ask a family if anyone in their family has died over the last 3 years, it's not as if they're going to not remember. If it's a matter that you don't trust them, then you might as well throw out every census statistic you ever read. Perhaps there are 20 million people living in Ireland, it's just that people are lying on their census forms?Objective & subjective mightnt have been the best terms - In my use of the terms above, an actual body count is objective - if theres 100 bodies, theres 100 bodies. End of. Anyone who can count can verify the figure and there will be no dispute over it. If you ask how many people have died however, you get subjective evidence as opposed to objective. Its how many people someone thinks have died.
I saw one of the researchers interviewed on Democracy now the other day. He said it would be very easy for a journalist to verify the results. All they would have to do is go to 4 or 5 graveyards around Iraq, at random, and ask the person in charge if there's been a big increase in the number of people buried over the last 3 years. Graveyards keep records.Reality and peoples perception of reality can differ - especially when, as in this report, there is understandbly little time to crosscheck or challenge claims that seem weak. Like I said above, I'd have found it interesting to see if a control could have been used when it came to estimating a mortality rate for a period we already had good solid figures on and seeing if the estimates came close.0 -
Akrasia wrote:So far, pro war people have concentrated on attacking the methodology they chose, but their methodology was perfectly sound and the standard method for collecting information in any disaster zone. If it's Good enough for America in Rwanda, Kosovo and the Sudan, then it's good enough in Iraq.
The only issue is that the UNDO did a survey in Iraq one year after the invasion using the same statistical technique, and ended up with a vastly smaller number for that first year.
http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/overview.htm
The number of deaths of civilians and military personnel in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion is another set of figures that has raised controversy. The Living Conditions Survey data indicates 24,000 deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 18,000 to 29,000 deaths. According to the survey data, children aged below 18 years comprise 12% percent of the deaths due to warfare.
I don't understand the statistical equations involved, and leave it to the experts to figure out how the same technique ended up with such drastically different numbers.
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote:The only issue is that the UNDO did a survey in Iraq one year after the invasion using the same statistical technique, and ended up with a vastly smaller number for that first year.
NTM
Milan Rai in 2005:
UNDP-LANCET CONVERGENCE
If we try to match like with like, what is the figure in the Lancet Study data most similar to the UNDP estimate? Using figures given in the Lancet Study, Australian academic Tim Lambert derives a figure of 33,000 excess Iraqi deaths due to military action by insurgents and US-led forces in the period up to September 2004 [3].
Each death recorded in the Lancet study represents 3,000 deaths in Iraq in the period under consideration. Outside Fallujah, there were nine deaths caused by coalition forces and two by the insurgents. By simple multiplication, this results in 33,000 ‘war-related’ deaths according to the UNDP definition of this term, for the period March 2003-September 2004.
This compares to the UNDP estimate for narrowly-war-related violent deaths of 24,000 for the period March 2003 to April 2004 (13 months compared to the Lancet’s 18 months). If we crudely scale up the UNDP figure to take account of the longer Lancet time period, we reach a figure (33,000) which is exactly the Lancet-derived figure of 33,000 violent deaths due to military action.
So, rather than there being a conflict between the two survey-based estimates, as often suggested by officials and apologists for the war, we see mutual confirmation.
More here:
"On the other hand, the central focus of the survey was not on deaths in Iraq (the focus for both the IBC Report and the Lancet Study), but living conditions in Iraq; hence the name ‘Iraq Living Conditions Survey’. Only one page out of a 60-page questionnaire was on deaths in the family, as opposed to ‘relatives living abroad’ (the preceding page) and ‘livestock and agriculture’ (the following section) and so on. There were just five questions on adult deaths, in a wide-ranging 83-minute interview with each household.
In fact, the survey organisers were so worried about the results for infant death rates that they ordered a re-survey of the entire 21,000 households on this question, which found that there was a substantial under-count of infant deaths. [1] It is peculiar that questions to do with adult deaths were not also included in the repeat survey, as they may well have been subject to the same pressures that produced the under-count in relation to infant deaths.
The UNDP Report authors comment: ‘As the data on infant mortality make clear — as does the data on malnutrition, presented elsewhere in this report — the suffering of children due to war and conflict in Iraq is not limited to those directly wounded or killed by military activities.’"
http://iraqmortality.org/iraq-mortality0 -
Interesting.
It unfortunately, however, just raises more questions than it answers.
Firstly, it seems that from your article above, the UNDP, Lancet (2004) and IBC figures appear to be not too far out of step with each other, when you use the same criteria: "War Related Deaths" (i.e. bombs, bullets, whatnot)
Given that the overall figures between the 2004 and 2006 Lancet reports seem at first blush to be pretty much in line with each other (at least, it's claimed such in the 2006 report), extrapolating the same ratios per the article above, it begs the question of just what it was that killed the other... oh... 400,000-500,000 people if it was not bombs, bullets, whatnot.
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote:No idea. Why would the Americans have wasted their time bombing schools and hospitals, for example?
Yeah why bomb shcools hospitals and civilians? But it appears they do it anyway?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0402-10.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1023-05.htm
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/conflicts/28-03-2003/2162-war-0
http://www.rawa.org/s-wedding.htm
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FB6987CF-6F4C-4A97-80CA-7F2CF02ABE95.htm
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0221222&mode=thread&tid=5Actually, I don't think they as much as bombed a powerplant beyond shutting them down with carbon-filament warheads, which are a lot less damaging than high explosives.
Yeah. why dont they use those "neutron bombs" which dont do any structural damage at all and just kill living tissue? Oh yeah I know I know, thats what they claimed they were going in to stop wasnt it?I doubt it.
I also doubt 350,000,000,000 dollars was spent in reparations. But do you doubt that that is how much the Us has spent so far on the war?That does not mean to say that all the reconstruction money has gone into an American pocket: The physical work is carried out by Iraqis, so they get paid, and the various items get built.
No it doesnt. It only means most of the money has gone to plas of Haliburton and the locals can live off the scraps. But that was not my point. My point was that 350,000,000,000 dollars has been spent on invading the place. how much has been spent on fixing the damage caused by this invasion? and how much Iraqi oil money is paying for it?1. Nope. But I'm willing to give the coalition the benefit of the doubt over their 'best guess' at the time.
Isnt hindsight a wonderful thing. Im sorry but that is just not good enough. The CERTAINTY of WMD and their imminent use was promised us.
Here is the record: http://billmon.org/archives/000172.html
So saying "we know better now" isnt good enough! Nor is "guessing" any way to conduct an invasion of a soverign country.2. Nope.
well someone should tell dick chaney there were no fundies as he is still insisting it is true.3. Realpolitik, I'm afraid. Pretty much the default situation of the world at the time was that if a country was supported by the Soviet Union, that country's enemy would be supported by the US, and vice versa.
Really? And how was Allende a soviet or Pinochet an enemy of the Soviet Union?
And re the Iraq Iran war was.The longest conventional war of the 20th century. The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes, ***demands for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime,*** and secret encouragement by the US administration (President Jimmy Carter, conveyed through Saudi Arabia) which was embroiled in a dispute with the new Islamic Republic of Iran.
NB Nothing to do with the Russians. More to do with Muslim Fundamentalists kicking out the Shah (big pal of the US) and institution an Islamic State (not a Marxist Leninist one).Saudi because it's not a particularly threatening regime to anyone outside of Saudi.
But Saddam wasnt a threat and the reason given was in "removing a dictator".
As regards Saudi not being a source of threat you do realise that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? surely Chany should be looking into this breeding ground for muslim fundamentalists? Oh no wait their in his oil business too arent they?It seemed that they weren't doing a particularly good job of it over the previous 25 years or so.
Actually Saddam wasnt doing a bad job of controling a country while embroiled in War and surrounded by enemies. Of course this isnt the first a puppet democracy was installed in Iraq now is it?0 -
Manic Moran wrote:Interesting.
It unfortunately, however, just raises more questions than it answers.
Firstly, it seems that from your article above, the UNDP, Lancet (2004) and IBC figures appear to be not too far out of step with each other, when you use the same criteria: "War Related Deaths" (i.e. bombs, bullets, whatnot)
Given that the overall figures between the 2004 and 2006 Lancet reports seem at first blush to be pretty much in line with each other (at least, it's claimed such in the 2006 report), extrapolating the same ratios per the article above, it begs the question of just what it was that killed the other... oh... 400,000-500,000 people if it was not bombs, bullets, whatnot.
NTM
The survey was done between May 20 and July 10,2006.
12 801 household members at the time of the survey;
there were 82 deaths pre invasion and 547 (87%) post invasion. They are itemised in Table 1. Of the 302 con flict-related violent deaths reported,300(99%)were post-invasion (table 4).
These were used to determine mortality rates (i.e. deaths per thousand) and applied to the population as a whole. Much the same is done in opinion polls and they are usually right with samples of 400 to within 3 per cent.
It isnt an even spread and is shown in figure 3. The cluster samples of the 12,000 people were throughout Iraq and taken in the small time period above. (So someone or some events doesnt affect the questions and answers elsewhere) Noter also opposite figure 3 where the discrepancy with passive methods is explained.
They go onWe estimate that almost 655 000 people —
2 ·5%of the population in the study area —have died in
Iraq.Although such death rates might be common in
times of war,the combination of a long duration and tens
of millions of people a ffected has made this the deadliest
international con flict of the 21st century,and should be
of grave concern to everyone.At the conclusion of our 2004 study
we urged that an
independent body assess the excess mortality that we saw
in Iraq.This has not happened.We continue to believe
that an independent international body to monitor
compliance with the Geneva Conventions and other
humanitarian standards in con flict is urgently needed.
With reliable data,those voices that speak out for civilians
trapped in con flict might be able to lessen the tragic
human cost of future wars.0 -
ISAW wrote:Yeah why bomb shcools hospitals and civilians? But it appears they do it anyway?
For the Iraq theater, of that lot, I see two hospitals, and not much else of critical infrastructure note. One presumes they weren't deliberate and are more the exception than the rule. I'll wager more than two hospitals have been refurbished. For example, you link to general articles referencing the attacks on Fallujah. It may interest you to know that there were only two hospitals in Fallujah: Taleb Janabi and Fallujah General. It cost just $200,000 to get Taleb Janabi (private hospital) up and running again, the government run hospital got $6.2 million, mainly for new equipment, and for the sake of it, another $40 million was given to the creation of a brand new third Fallujah hospital. Figures are available for a lot more hospitals than any which I would estimate may have been accidently hit.Yeah. why dont they use those "neutron bombs" which dont do any structural damage at all and just kill living tissue? Oh yeah I know I know, thats what they claimed they were going in to stop wasnt it?
I don't know anything about neutron bombs outside of theory, or if they exist. The carbon filament warheads are not new technology, they were used in the 1991 war as well. They basically short out transformers and other electrical equipment, tripping the circuit breakers. Takes a couple of weeks to clean everything out and get it running again, but it's a lot better than leaving a hole in the ground where the transformers used to be.I also doubt 350,000,000,000 dollars was spent in reparations. But do you doubt that that is how much the Us has spent so far on the war?
Nope. After a little looking around, apparently the rough estimate for reconstruction costs is about $60bn (From Globalsecurity.org), of which the US has made available $30bn, the rest of the world some $14bn. Another $15bn to go. Puts the cost of keeping and equipping troops into perspective, I guess. A lot more expensive to use the military than to build something.
The figures above do not include Iraqi oil money, so for now, I'll assume the remaining $15bn.and how much Iraqi oil money is paying for it?Isnt hindsight a wonderful thing. Im sorry but that is just not good enough. The CERTAINTY of WMD and their imminent use was promised us.
I'd have accepted 'Best guess'So saying "we know better now" isnt good enough! Nor is "guessing" any way to conduct an invasion of a soverign country.
The problem with not accepting 'best guess' (or estimate, I guess) is that it probably relies on trusting the other guy. After all, he's the only one who knows for sure.well someone should tell dick chaney there were no fundies as he is still insisting it is true.
I'll bear it in mind should I ever meet him.Really? And how was Allende a soviet or Pinochet an enemy of the Soviet Union?
Allende definitely wasn't in the Western camp, his brand of socialism was a lot closer to communism than the socialism of western Europe, and he was closely allied with Castro's Cuba.The longest conventional war of the 20th century. The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes, ***demands for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime,*** and secret encouragement by the US administration (President Jimmy Carter, conveyed through Saudi Arabia) which was embroiled in a dispute with the new Islamic Republic of Iran.
Whilst there is no doubting the animosity between the US and Iran, it is to be pointed out that Saddam had decent enough reasons of his own (from his own point of view): Remember that he was trying to hold onto power as a minority ethnic group, and suddenly a powerful Shia state had just gone seriously religious next door. That was definitely a perceived threat to his personal security even before the US got involved. That war became one of the 'vice versa' cases of the Soviets getting involved because the US already were. Besides, in 1980, the US might have had some reason to believe that the ayotollah was already in Moscow's pocket. From a 10 March 1989 Wall Street Journal article:
In late 1978, for instance, as General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev was
publicly confirming his support for the shah, the Soviet-backed National Voice of Iran radio, broadcasting from Baku, capital of Azerbaijan, Soviet Union, was issuing rabid calls for the shah's overthrow and the installation of an Islamic government.
In the weeks preceding the Nov. 4, 1979, takeover of the U.S.
Embassy in Tehran, the Soviet ambassador to Iran, Vladimir
Vinogradov, was meeting regularly with the "students'' who
masterminded the embassy debacle.But Saddam wasnt a threat and the reason given was in "removing a dictator".
Neither was he a particularly stabilising influence in the region. I don't shed any tears at his deposing.As regards Saudi not being a source of threat you do realise that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi?
Someone did mention that at some point, yes. Whether this was done with the blessings of the House of Saud, however, is another issue. That I'm aware of, the last time the Saudi rulers picked a fight was the early 1970s.Actually Saddam wasnt doing a bad job of controling a country while embroiled in War and surrounded by enemies.
No, not as long as you don't mind the occasional purgings or invasion in order to keep yourself in power.
etc.The survey was done between May 20 and July 10,2006.
12 801 household members at the time of the survey
You're arguing the wrong point. I've no quarrel with the theory, (mainly because I don't understand it well enough!) I shall backtrack as FYI brought us back to 2004 without too much fanfare.
In 2004 Lancet did a similar survey. Their figure at the time (May 2004 or so) was 100,000. This is apparently in line with the current 650,000 figure, according to Lancet's 2006 report. The analysis quoted by FYI is in reference to the 2004 report, in which it compares the figures of the UNDO survey (Which basically had a fairly simplistic question of "Has anyone in your household been killed by war-related violence?") with that of the Lancet report. According to the analyst FYI referenced, about a third of the 100,000 deaths in the Lancet survey were of a similar nature to that which would have resulted in a positive response in the UNDO survey. These deaths would have also qualified for inclusion in the Iraqbodycount tally, and within reason, all are fairly close to each other for the timeframe in question. Certainly it's not the ten times off that is the current discrepancy. At any rate, given that the 2006 Lancet Report is in effect a continuation of the 2004 survey, and the results, according to Lancet, match, it seems reasonable to assume that just like in the 2004 report, no more than about a third of the 'grand total' are accounted for by the simple war-related means which would qualify for inclusion in IBC or UNDO. That leaves over 400,000 apparently unaccounted for. I don't doubt that they're dead, but I'm curious to know the cause of the discrepancy. Perhaps it's simply that FYI's analyst was talking out his arse. I don't know.
NTM0 -
It is a her.0
-
Manic Moran wrote:For the Iraq theater, of that lot, I see two hospitals, and not much else of critical infrastructure note. One presumes they weren't deliberate and are more the exception than the rule.
You asked the question "why would the US military bomb hospitals?" I answered "I don't know but they do" "Collatteral damage" is the term usually used i.e. "killing civilians! I admit I refered to other countries other than Iraq. "Collateral damage" was a term coined in Viet Nam I believe. And "Bombing that hospital was not deliberate - we didnt mean it!" is a bit lame and flies in the face of "surgical precision bombing"I'll wager more than two hospitals have been refurbished. For example, you link to general articles referencing the attacks on Fallujah. It may interest you to know that there were only two hospitals in Fallujah: Taleb Janabi and Fallujah General. It cost just $200,000 to get Taleb Janabi (private hospital) up and running again, the government run hospital got $6.2 million, mainly for new equipment, and for the sake of it, another $40 million was given to the creation of a brand new third Fallujah hospital. Figures are available for a lot more hospitals than any which I would estimate may have been accidently hit.
Figures are also available on the state of Iraq (hospitals, health system, water waste disposal electricity) before and after the bombing. Guess when it was better? Fixing a few hospitals that you have bombed or shelled to rubble in the first place isnt really "restorin the country" even to a level which the dictator Saddam had.
From Wiki:I don't know anything about neutron bombs outside of theory, or if they exist.
The neutron bomb is generally credited to Samuel Cohen of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who developed the concept in 1958. Although initially opposed by President John F. Kennedy, its testing was authorized and carried out in 1962 at a Nevada test site. Development was subsequently cancelled by President Jimmy Carter in 1978, but again restarted by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.[1] The US stockpile is believed to have been largely dismantled by the elder Bush administration.[2] Enhanced radiation weapons were also produced by France in the early 1980s, though they have since destroyed these weapons. The 1999 "Cox Report" indicates that China is able to produce neutron bombs[3], although no country is known to have deployed them.Nope. After a little looking around, apparently the rough estimate for reconstruction costs is about $60bn (From Globalsecurity.org), of which the US has made available $30bn, the rest of the world some $14bn. Another $15bn to go. Puts the cost of keeping and equipping troops into perspective, I guess. A lot more expensive to use the military than to build something.
Not necessarily. If by "use the military" you inculed adding in the cost of the damage done by them.The figures above do not include Iraqi oil money, so for now, I'll assume the remaining $15bn.
i.e. Let iraq pay for the destruction of their country by foreigners then didnt even want there?I'd have accepted 'Best guess'
sadly up to Afghanistan so would I. My mind changed when I saw the constant bombardment of the media and no follow up on promises and I saw that the same was done before in Iraq and Indo china for example.The problem with not accepting 'best guess' (or estimate, I guess) is that it probably relies on trusting the other guy. After all, he's the only one who knows for sure.
But we were told it was CERTAIN and an attack in 40 minutes was imminent and a whole culture of fear was whipped up! And the US trusted and traded with and supplied Saddam for decades. Was your best guess based on the fact you kept the receipts?I'll bear it in mind should I ever meet him.
The point isnt YOU should tell Chaney. The point is that he is still going on about something we all now know was propaganda.Allende definitely wasn't in the Western camp, his brand of socialism was a lot closer to communism than the socialism of western Europe, and he was closely allied with Castro's Cuba.
So Alliende (a democratically elected leader) might (more guesswork) turn the country communist. and we saw what happened. Chaves today is not much different is he? thge US also recently supported a junta taking him out.
In late 1978, for instance, as General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev was
publicly confirming his support for the shah, the Soviet-backed National Voice of Iran radio, broadcasting from Baku, capital of Azerbaijan, Soviet Union, was issuing rabid calls for the shah's overthrow and the installation of an Islamic government.
The geo politics of Russia having a corridor to the Indian Ocean is still prevalent but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy could in such cases be used to justify anything. It doesnt!In the weeks preceding the Nov. 4, 1979, takeover of the U.S.
Embassy in Tehran, the Soviet ambassador to Iran, Vladimir
Vinogradov, was meeting regularly with the "students'' who
masterminded the embassy debacle.
A bit like the Brits knowledge of Irish History "The Germans instigated the 1916 Rising" Forgive me if I dont buy that line.Neither was he a particularly stabilising influence in the region. I don't shed any tears at his deposing.
Nor do I. I opposed him when the US supported him! But nor is the US a stabalising influence. 9/11 happened because of US "occupation" of Saudi Arabia remember? At least that what Osama gave as a reason.Someone did mention that at some point, yes. Whether this was done with the blessings of the House of Saud, however, is another issue. That I'm aware of, the last time the Saudi rulers picked a fight was the early 1970s.
But this is a contradiction. On the one hand it is sugested that a dictator Saddam and his family are supporting muslim fundamentalists (in spite of no evidence for any fundies coming from Iraq). On the other the dictatorship next door in Saudi Arabia oversee a country where half of the 9/11 terrorists come from. Indeed Bin Laden came from there! So in a dictatorship where there are no fundies evident you invade and in a dictatorship where fundamentalists are wide spread you support them???No, not as long as you don't mind the occasional purgings or invasion in order to keep yourself in power.
As I stated I opposed Saddam when the US support him. The point is that leaving my personal opposition aside the infrastructure (health, social welfgare, roads education womans equality etc.) when Saddam was in power was superior the the system in place under the largest standing army in the world. I hope Iraq does improve and I am not justifying any return to dictatorship but the mess the Us have made of the place is only meat for fundies and dictator loving toletariats.In 2004 Lancet did a similar survey. ...which it compares the figures of the UNDO survey (Which basically had a fairly simplistic question of "Has anyone in your household been killed by war-related violence?") with that of the Lancet report.
I think FYI dealt with that above in his last reply.These deaths would have also qualified for inclusion in the Iraqbodycount tally, and within reason, all are fairly close to each other for the timeframe in question. Certainly it's not the ten times off that is the current discrepancy. At any rate, given that the 2006 Lancet Report is in effect a continuation of the 2004 survey, and the results, according to Lancet, match, it seems reasonable to assume that just like in the 2004 report, no more than about a third of the 'grand total' are accounted for by the simple war-related means which would qualify for inclusion in IBC or UNDO. That leaves over 400,000 apparently unaccounted for. I don't doubt that they're dead, but I'm curious to know the cause of the discrepancy. Perhaps it's simply that FYI's analyst was talking out his arse. I don't know.
I think they cover that discrepency under "passive methods" as I mentioned.0 -
Sorry in reply to a point above, America will bomb a hospital when it wants to. I was watching it on Sky News just before the Fallujah assault. They showed overhead pictures of the hospital which had been absolutely whacked by some huge bomb. I'm not saying its policy though, but we all know war is messy and America can play as dirty as anyone.
About the Lancet report, I reckon you could do a survey in the States and very very few prob less than 1% would have even heard of it. We here in the rest of the world are very much more well informed than the American public which is the most frustrating part.0 -
Advertisement
-
He was more in the Clement Atlee mould actually. Many Chilean refugees chose to flee to France and especially Sweden, which I suppose look more or less like communist states if you're right wing enough. Eventually, the Swedish ambassador was kicked out by Pinochet for helping so many people escape.Manic Moran wrote:Allende definitely wasn't in the Western camp, his brand of socialism was a lot closer to communism than the socialism of western Europe, and he was closely allied with Castro's Cuba.
Do you shed any tears at the last three and a half years of total carnage?Neither was he a particularly stabilising influence in the region. I don't shed any tears at his deposing.
The invasion of Iran was to prevent the spread of the Iranian revolution which would have destabilised the region and damaged US interests. Saddam smacked down, ironically enough, pretty much the same Bad Guys the US forces are currently struggling to jail and liquidate. It says a lot that The Supreme Council For The Islamic Revolution In Iraq Party are considered to be the moderates there now.No, not as long as you don't mind the occasional purgings or invasion in order to keep yourself in power.0 -
Manic Moran wrote:
In 2004 Lancet did a similar survey. Their figure at the time (May 2004 or so) was 100,000. This is apparently in line with the current 650,000 figure, according to Lancet's 2006 report.
Yes but what was the spread and the confidence interval. I say that because the maJOR CRITICISM OF THE 2004 publication was that the 95 per cent CI (which means there is a one in twenty chance that the numbers are completly accidental. One in twenty is taken as relevant in social science. If you were doing medical trials one might go for one in a hyundred or one in a thousant. Still you also get some high P values i.e. p of 0.05 means a CI of 95 in other wiords a one in twenty chance that this result is a chance occurance. Now look at the Lancet article and you will note p values of 0.0001 i.e. one in a million chance (FOR THAT STATISTIC) of being an accidental result.
So lets look at the findings:
blah blah balh clusters- this all affects the errors....
cortrect me if I am wrong anyone.Pre-invasion mortality rates were 5 ·5 per 1000 people per year (95%CI 4 ·3 –7 ·1),compared with 13 ·3 per
1000 people per year (10 ·9 –16 ·1) in the 40 months post-invasion.
In other words there is a ninteen in twenty chance that the mortality rate was between 4.3 deaths per thousand and 7.1 per thousand. After the invasion there is a ninteen in twenty chance that deaths were somewhere in the 10.9 to 16.1 range. The middle of this range is 13.3. That relates to the 600,000. But the chance it was 10.9 i.e. 80 percent of that value is the same i.e. The deaths could have been as low as 490,000. The actula figures somewher in the range (426 369 –793 663) ais given at the top of the article.
the problem with the 2004 survey IIRC was the huge CI or spread due to high P values (from memory) so say you get 100,000 plus or minus 80 percent the it could be as low as 20,000.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 gun fire.
so around 400,000 is just as reasonable.0 -
isaw wrote:.
the problem with the 2004 survey IIRC was the huge CI or spread due to high P values (from memory) so say you get 100,000 plus or minus 80 percent the it could be as low as 20,000.
Here is the reference:
Roberts L, Lafta R, Garfield R, Khudhairi J, Burnham G
The Lancet - Vol. 364, Issue 9448, 20 November 2004, Pages 1857-1864
Here is the problem:We estimate that
98 000 more deaths than expected (8000 –194 000)happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the
outlier Falluja cluster is included.The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction,
cerebrovascular accidents,and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of
death.Violent deaths were widespread,reported in 15 of 33 clusters,and were mainly attributed to coalition forces.
Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children.The risk of death from violence in
the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95%CI 8 ·1 –419)than in the period before the war.
Note:
1. Possibly 8000 more deaths rather than 100,000 i.e. somewhere between 8,000 and 200,000. You can see what the critics said.
2. Possibly 8 times higher rishk of violent death rather than 58 times
THe current 2006 survey clears a lot of that up.0 -
isaw wrote:.
the problem with the 2004 survey IIRC was the huge CI or spread due to high P values (from memory) so say you get 100,000 plus or minus 80 percent the it could be as low as 20,000.
Here is the reference:
Roberts L, Lafta R, Garfield R, Khudhairi J, Burnham G
The Lancet - Vol. 364, Issue 9448, 20 November 2004, Pages 1857-1864
Here is the problem:We estimate that
98 000 more deaths than expected (8000 –194 000)happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the
outlier Falluja cluster is included.The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction,
cerebrovascular accidents,and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of
death.Violent deaths were widespread,reported in 15 of 33 clusters,and were mainly attributed to coalition forces.
Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children.The risk of death from violence in
the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95%CI 8 ·1 –419)than in the period before the war.
Note:
1. Possibly 8000 more deaths rather than 100,000 i.e. somewhere between 8,000 and 200,000. You can see what the critics said.
2. Possibly 8 times higher rishk of violent death rather than 58 times
THe current 2006 survey clears a lot of that up.
so around 400,000 is just as reasonable.[/QUOTE]0 -
So you're argument hinges on the fact the mortality rate is 'crude'? Are you serious?
No theres a couple of points Ive made, none of which have been seriously tackled, though Akrasia made a sterling effort I'll address later on. One of these is that pre war mortality rate is extremely optimistic. You attempted to spout some complete load of crap about crude rates being defined differently depandant on the county. Theyre not. Its a crude rate - crude, meaning unadjusted, not filtered, simply number of deaths per 1000 people - and the pre GW 1 rates were crude rates as well. The pre GW1 rate was high, given the trauma and all available information it only climbed post GW1. And were not comparing Iraq to Denmark, were comparing Iraq to Iraq.
Now, unless you can actually form a coherent argument with your next post I wont waste my time on you, as I might as well read whatever document your copying and pasting from and cut out the middleman.The government didn't issue those death certificates, they were issued locally at hospitals.
The government runs the hospitals. Theres not too many reasons that I can think off that they wouldnt tell the govt when they issue a death cert. The Iraqis release stats like 3,000 people a month and when you hit those numbers PR is already out the window.You're wrong. A body count is only indisputable if all the bodies are available to be counted.
Whats indisputable is that there are 100 bodies, so 100 people were killed. There *might* have been more, there *might* not have been. You can ask around, but if you cant turn up a body then you have to accept its not indisputable. Hence objective/subjective.If it's a matter that you don't trust them, then you might as well throw out every census statistic you ever read. Perhaps there are 20 million people living in Ireland, it's just that people are lying on their census forms?
About their fluency in Irish Im pretty sure theyre lying through their patriotic guilt ridden teeth tbh. Im actually not all that bothered about the evidence collected [to be more specific the responses] - 92% had death certificates afterall. But if 92% of deaths are reported then how can deaths be so badly unreported? The statistics Lancet cite to support their quality of their data collection directly contradicts the quality of their data analysis.0 -
Here is what Les Roberts had to say about official death statistics in a time of war.Sand wrote:The government runs the hospitals. Theres not too many reasons that I can think off that they wouldnt tell the govt when they issue a death cert. The Iraqis release stats like 3,000 people a month and when you hit those numbers PR is already out the window.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/12/145222We have gone and looked at every recent war we can find, and only in Bosnia did all governmental statistics add up to even one-fifth of the true death toll. And in Bosnia, the rate was 30 or 40 percent, with huge support for surveillance activities from the UN. So it’s normal in times of war that communications systems break down, systems for registering events break down.
And in Saddam’s last year of his reign, only about one-third of all deaths were captured at morgues and hospitals through the official government surveillance network. So, when things were good, if only a third of deaths were captured, what do you think it’s like now?
It's indisputable that there are at least 100 bodies, and nobody is arguing that the IBC are wrong and there actually less than 48000 dead Iraqis (excpt maybe Bush, but he has zero credibility) It is not at all objective or indisputable if you then claim that because we have found 100 bodies, that there were only 100 deaths, or that because we only counted 100 bodies, that there aren't 10,000 other bodies buried elsewhere that we have not yet found.Whats indisputable is that there are 100 bodies, so 100 people were killed. There *might* have been more, there *might* not have been. You can ask around, but if you cant turn up a body then you have to accept its not indisputable. Hence objective/subjective.0 -
Sand seems to think that journalists in Iraq are omnipotent and telepathic, or there's enough of them that are free to stroll around amidst the chaos and carnage collecting casualty reports, all of which are deemed newsworthy enough to be published somewhere.Akrasia wrote:Here is what Les Roberts had to say about official death statistics in a time of war.
The problem with the Lancet report is that it lets the idiots who supported the war off the hook a little bit by making any number of deaths under say 400,000 appear to be acceptable. How many people have to die before one of these clowns will admit they were wrong about everything all along.0 -
what are they?Sand wrote:No theres a couple of points Ive made, none of which have been seriously tackled,You attempted to spout some complete load of crap about crude rates being defined differently depandant on the county. Theyre not. Its a crude rate - crude, meaning unadjusted, not filtered, simply number of deaths per 1000 people - and the pre GW 1 rates were crude rates as well. The pre GW1 rate was high, given the trauma and all available information it only climbed post GW1. And were not comparing Iraq to Denmark, were comparing Iraq to Iraq.
Care to list the crude rate before the current invasion and then we can compare it wit the Lancet post invasion figures. It should be easy since they reference them for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CitationNow, unless you can actually form a coherent argument with your next post I wont waste my time on you, as I might as well read whatever document your copying and pasting from and cut out the middleman.
Citations permit readers to put claims to the test by consulting earlier works.
f the source you offered was
"good," no one would have to ask you for the "earlier
work," That c someone can't produce the "earlier work", is a good indication that the whole thing lacks credability.
YOU made claims about prior death rates. where are they?
you are contradicting yourself here. You cant say it is indisputable that there were 100 bodies and also say there might be less than 100 dead people! well you can but it is contradictory.Whats indisputable is that there are 100 bodies, so 100 people were killed. There *might* have been more, there *might* not have been.But if 92% of deaths are reported then how can deaths be so badly unreported? The statistics Lancet cite to support their quality of their data collection directly contradicts the quality of their data analysis.
Just what in their methodology do you think contradicts the analysis?
And they deal with how so many deaths can go unreported page 6:
Our estimate of excess deaths is far higher than those
reported in Iraq through passive surveillance measures.
This discrepancy is not unexpected.Data from passive
surveillance are rarely complete,even in stable circum-
stances,and are even less complete during con flict,when
access is restricted and fatal events could be intentionally
hidden.Aside from Bosnia,
we can find no con flict
situation where passive surveillance recorded more than
20%of the deaths measured by population-based
methods.In several outbreaks,disease and death recorded
by facility-based methods underestimated events by a
factor of ten or more when compared with population-
based estimates.
Between 1960 and 1990,newspaper
accounts of political deaths in Guatemala correctly
reported over 50%of deaths in years of low violence but
less than 5%in years of highest violence.
Nevertheless,
surveillance tallies are important in monitoring trends
over time and in the provision of individual data,and
these data track closely with our own findings (figure 4).
Mortality rates from violent causes have increased every
year post-invasion.By mid-year 2006,91 violent deaths
had occurred in 6 months,compared with 27 post-invasion
in 2003 and 77 in 2004,and 105 for 2005,suggesting that
violence has escalated substantially.The attributed cause
of these deaths has also changed with time.Our data
show that gun fire is the major cause of death in Iraq,
accounting for about half of all violent deaths.Deaths
from air strikes were less commonly reported in 2006
than in 2003 –04,but deaths from car explosions have
increased since late 2005.The proportion of violent
deaths attributed to coalition forces might have peaked in
2004;however,the actual number of Iraqi deaths
attributed to coalition forces increased steadily through
2005....0 -
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/10/les-roberts-on-iraq-deaths.html
Les Roberts discusses Lancet study number 1...
May answer some of your remaining questions0 -
Advertisement
-
Some more info:
http://shr.aaas.org/guatemala/ciidh/qr/english/qrtitle.html
suggests from 5 to 50 per cent of deaths go unreported. See chapters 7 and 9.
There is a 2004 cluster sample survey in Iraq and a 2006 one both published in the Lancet. then ther is the following supplament which responds to many criticisms of the Lancet.
http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf
Here is a recent military report which you can locate at globalsecurity .org on the interweb:
Measuring Stability and security in Iraq
August 2006
Report to Congress
In accordance with the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2006
(Section 9010)
Page 31: Attacks up from anout 400 a week to about 800 ( April 04 -aug 06) -
two fold increase
Page 32 Daliy Casualties from around 8 coalition/ 30 Iraqui to 18
coalition/ 118 Iraqui - three fold increase
Incidentally page 26 shows that about 80 per cent of Iraquis do not think Al
Khyda are any good for Iraq.
Page 34 civilian casualties up by 1000 a month since the previous quater and
Bhagadh Coroners office
reported 1,600 bodies arrived in June and
more than 1,800 bodies in July, 90% of which
were assessed to be the result of executions.
This is due to increased targeting of civilians
by al-Qaeda in Iraq and the increase in death
squad activity.[end quote]
Note: Al Khyda are a terrorist organisation which had no substantial footing
in Iraq before the occupation and which trace their roots to Bin Laden and
other people supported by the US in Afghanistan. Most Iraquis (a
overwhelming majority in fact ) do not now nor never have supported Al
Khyda.
Page 35 : Casualties from secterian incidents have gone form (May 05) about
400 to about 500 (july 06 Dont forget Sept and Oct are possibly the worst
months ever but already the second worst and october is not over) and
incidents from dozens to about 500 per month.0
Advertisement