Since you brought up the subject of qualifications Jake; it would be interesting to see who is more qualified???

Or would that be a further embarrassment to you???

I CHALLENGE YOU TO DO JUST THAT....

and LETS SEE WHO REALLY GETS THE LAST LOLOL!!!!

Jake

What won't be forgotten and I quote yours truly,

"I AM NO EXPERT" end quote..LOL!!!

and your AMATEURISH attempts at STATISTICAL ANALYSIS LOLOL!!!!,
even a first year under graduate would be embarrassed!!!

PS: This is not a popularity contest JAKE OR HAVEN"T YOU NOTICED

PSS: Thanks anyway for the entertainment

"no one is paying any attention to your comments"

Representative of your behaviour here, that you would state the above, even though you have repeatedly and recently congratulated those who have in fact responded to me.

"you are dealing with a magna cum laude…"

LOLOL!!!

"you won't forget me"

If correct, I *will* ignore you. 4 out of 5 "magna cum laudes" recommend it.

*plonk*

I would also add that most Americans and even people contributing to CD are in total DENIAL when regarding the sheer scale of the atrocities committed by a war criminal Administration...

It is not surprising most people want to stay out of any COGENT discussion regarding the IRAQ HOLOCAUST

SO WHAT; if no one is paying attention to this horrendous injustice..

I AM and that's what counts...

EVEN IF, JUST ONE VOICE SPEAKS...
AS MOHATMA GANDHI famously said...

Again your purile criticisms border on the pathetic and you won't forget me nor I you...

Jake,

This article and thread is now 8 days old...

It has gone completely STALE no one is paying any attention to your comments or mine, haven't you noticed yet?

Except you and me dumb n' dumber!
Thanks anyway.

simon, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but no one is paying any attention to your comments in this thread besides me, havn't you noticed yet? Thanks anyway.

Jake,

Until such time as you publish your highly fortuitous [sic] findings in a peer reviewed medical or epidemiological journal;
You and your extrapolated hyperbola are to be regarded as

*anonymous* and as such

*fictional* and hence

*irrelevant*…

Illegal War plus illegal Occupation by International Law Standards...

Means all casualties in this Illegal War
can be also correctly called murders..

This is an international epidemiolical team corroborating Lancet results, which then UNLIKE YOU,
have no zenophobic or parochial BIAS...

What part of the word...

MURDERED

Don't you understand?

"have been murdered "

So much for being nuetral.

" who has asked and was denied the data. "

Good question. David Kane has written this piece on the confidence intervals in the first study suggesting a fatal error:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2007/07/KaneLancet.pdf

Mr. Kane observes in the paper:

'"refuse to provide anyone with the underlying data (or even a precise description of the actual methodology)."'

Key to science is the idea that findings should be able to be duplicated by other researchers, this required providing the raw data and the details of the methodology and the algorithms used to come up with the conclusions published.

" their being adjacent does not make them nonrandom."

Why?

" if there is no effective governing authority, deaths will not be reported or documented."

You are assuming something to be true that may not be true, that is "no effective governing authority". This is something that should be shown to be true and not just assumed.

" and their is no estimate of falluja casualties."

See the paper referenced above regarding the "Fallujah cluster".

" although once you have full physical control this was possible soon after the takeover of iraq."

I don't know that we can agree that the is currently " full physical control" but reports are that it is better.

"just to refute that it is never counted: violence related mortality in north ireland was counted by the british; by the mughals in india; by the romans in carthage"

That's interesting. How did they do it then? Is there any indication they did so accurately?

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

September 2007 – More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered
In the week in which General Patraeus reports back to US Congress on the impact the recent 'surge' is having in Iraq, a new poll reveals that more than 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have been murdered since the invasion took place in 2003.

Previous estimates, most noticeably the one published in the Lancet in October 2006, suggested almost half this number (654,965 deaths).
These findings come from a poll released today by ORB, the British polling agency that has been tracking public opinion in Iraq since 2005. In conjunction with their Iraqi fieldwork agency a representative sample of 1,499 adults aged 18+ answered the following question:-

QHow many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (ie as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof.

None 78%
One 16%
Two 5%
Three 1%
Four or more 0.002%

Given that from the 2005 census there are a total of 4,050,597 households this data suggests a total of 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003. Calculating the affect from the margin of error we believe that the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063

Please click on this link if you want a local perspective on these figures - a short interview with our pollster Dr Munqeth Daghir - http://195.158.192.26/munqeth/

Detailed analysis (which is available on our website) indicates that almost one in two households in Baghdad have lost a family member, significantly higher than in any other area of the country. The governorates of Diyala (42%) and Ninewa (35%) were next.

The poll also questioned the surviving relatives on the method in which their loved ones were killed. It reveals that 48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance. This is significant because more often that not it is car bombs and aerial bombardments that make the news – with gunshots rarely in the headlines.

As well as a murder rate that now exceeds the Rwanda genocide from 1994 (800,000 murdered), not only have more than one million been injured but our poll calculates that of the millions of Iraqis that have fled their neighbourhoods, 52% have moved within Iraq but 48% have crossed its borders, with Syria taking the bulk of refugees.

And for those left in Iraq, although 81% may describe the availability of basic groceries such as bread and fresh vegetables as "very/fairly good", more than one in two (54%) consider them to be "expensive".
Note:
The opinion poll was conducted by ORB and the survey details are as follows:

•Results are based on face-to-face interviews amongst a nationally representative sample of 1,720 adults aged 18+ throughout Iraq (1,499 agreed to answer the question on household deaths)
•The standard margin of error on the sample who answered (1,499) is +2.5%
•The methodology uses multi-stage random probability sampling and covers fifteen of the eighteen governorates within Iraq. For security reasons Karbala and Al Anbar were not included. Irbil was excluded as the authorities refused our field team a permit.
•Interviews conducted August 12th – 19th 2007.
•Full results and data tabulations are available at www.opinion.co.uk/newsroom.aspx
•ORB is a full member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules

kara.korum December 12th, 2007 12:23 pm

AGAIN EXCELLENT WORK....Nice to see someone here has actually done their homework properly and genuinely come up with the intelligent outcomes....

"....the 4 references given in the johns hopkinss study clearly indicate the true life experience of greatly undereported deaths in chaotic areas...." CORRECT

Also strong evidence, including eye witness reports suggesting;
".... 10's of thousands Iraqi bodies were removed and have dissappeared [vanished] all over Iraq; never to show up at morgues or anywhere in Iraq...." [possible black military special ops teams cleaning up after covert interventions]

jake/

why did the hopkins researchers not make the raw data avilable? who has asked and was denied the data. certainly the british govt adviser did not challenge the veracity of the research

50 random clustrers of 40 adjacent households was not a random sample: their being adjacent does not make them nonrandom. 50 consecutive prople in each 1000 from a sample of 5000 would be considered random so long as the cluster sellection was random

fred slate the mortality estimate range- in the 1st study was wide: the sample was 6300. the larger sample- 12800- in the second study has given a relatively narrower confidence interval in the second study.

half a million death certificates are missing: as stated, if there is no effective governing authority, deaths will not be reported or documented. do we know how many died at falluja? who do you report to if you are living in a town of 5000 where there is no mortuary or the govt official has fled or it takes you considerable risk to report when your entire enterprise is making it thru the day and securing food for your family?

the 4 references given in the johns hopkinss study clearly indicate the true life experience of greatly undereported deaths in chaotic areas.

800000 should have received hospital treatment and that should have been documented: again, if the hospital does not have water, electricity, medications; XR or physicians, and going there is likely to get you into further trouble, why go there? and the 800000 is an extrapolated estimate too.

7% of iraq adult population is assumed killed by this stidy: the study is over the entire population and not adults alone.only 30% of the deaths are attributed to coalition forces, not all. and have more been killed recently than in the early war - practically all news reports suggest so.the early conflict was brief with few battles. and their is no estimate of falluja casualties.

how do i propose the coalition count fatalities and this has neve been so in history. there will never be an incentive for an invading power to count. although once you have full physical control this was possible soon after the takeover of iraq.just to refute that it is never counted: violence related mortality in north ireland was counted by the british; by the mughals in india; by the romans in carthage. my proposing how to do the count is simple. the isssue is whether the authority, as it exists, has the incentive to report a high death rate.

the high numberreported only in the stidy reflect a failure of local and outside agencies to document: the un withdrew from iraq. there is no major NGo there and most NGO provide relief and not body counts.there is no local agency with either control or incentive to do it.

kara.korum December 11th, 2007 3:15 pm

Well done.... NICE WORK....

jakenewton December 12th, 2007 11:52 am

Generally agreed, although I would phrase things a bit differently....

HOW DIFFERENTLY, for goodness sake!!!

TALK ABOUT BLOODY PEDANTIC"s ANONYMOUS

TO:
mirf59 December 12th, 2007 9:35 am

You were correct [NO ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON]in saying...

"....Discussion of methodology used to count the dead in Iraq is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic, in my opinion....It deflects focus away from the most important discussion — which is again — are we going to continue to kill innocent foreigners for our own economic stability?...."

Remember the missing 10's of thousands of unaccounted for dead Iraqi's.
Makes this discusion seem "TANGENTAL"

FINALLY, mirf59 I give you 10 out of 10 for patience in dealing with Jake...You should get an award from CD if they give one out

Generally agreed, although I would phrase things a bit differently, and that is a different discussion altogether. Thanks!

GOOD ALL DONE: Just want to end on one thing.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR DUMBIES 101

Jake all that fuss over mostly drivel, suitable for 1st year Under Graduates...replete with cut & paste jobs and again convenient supportive reference to the IBC figures [disappointing]

The authors of Lancet can rest easy after Jake has now deliberated fully[sic] You were right in saying you have no expertise!

Jake Newton,

Just want to end on one thing. Discussion of methodology used to count the dead in Iraq is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic, in my opinion.

It deflects focus away from the most important discussion -- which is again -- are we going to continue to kill innocent foreigners for our own economic stability?

I don't believe it is worth it. I would rather pay $7 per gallon at the pump. I would rather watch our economy spin into depression due to radical collapse of the dollar and other pending economic bills set to come due.

For me, the only acceptable figure of Iraqi dead is ZERO.

A society cannot be based on exploitation of weaker peoples.

Just two things:

"If one were to perform the 2006 Lancet sample 100 times, one could be absolutely sure that the true population mean would fall within the confidence interval in 95 out of 100 cases."

The word "perform" conjors up qualitative aspects to me, as in Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor. The second poll was performed once, and I wonder how they performed in this sense.

"The figure of 100,000 that I have seen you produce "

I don't endorse it, it's roughly the most common figure alternate to Lancet.

"Agree it is not settled. Good. We are talking the same language finally."

Good, I hope especially on the point of the need for skeptics to be evenhanded. I am sure we can find examples on both sides where this is not the case. I'll try to respond to some of your other points a bit later.

"The iBc's main criticism of the JH study is the wide discrepancy between the officially documented mortality and the hopkins report."

Here is the summary, let me know what you think of the points made:

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:

1. 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;

2. 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;

3. 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;

4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;

5. 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.

" REporting all raw data is a nonsensical idea. No journal reports it."

Thanks for your response. In the face of subsequent criticism would they not make it available for some reason?

"sampling was improper: 50 random clusters of 40 households "

The clusters were random but the households were not, they were adjacent. Also the paper indicates the avoidance of small backstreets for safety reasons, which could bias the results since car bombs may be more likely on main streets. See the "Main Street Bias" criticism, wikipedia is a good start perhaps.

"not a small sample.this was not a small sample size and its refutation should be statistical ."

From wikipedia:

'Some skeptics criticized the relatively broad 95% confidence intervals (CI95) due to the relatively small number of clusters.

For instance, Fred Kaplan in an October 29, 2004 article in Slate described the confidence interval: "the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000.'

"no attempt is made by the coalition to actually count mortality "

This has never been done in all of history that I am aware of. Please correct me if I am wrong.

"this study represented a sincere effort to establish a just estimate. "

This may be true but,

"if the numbers were astonishingly high, why not make an effort to actually count?"

Hoe do you propose that to be accomplished?

"to respond to the notion that hospital documents do not support the mortality or implied wounded: there may be no civilian authority in rural areas to do any documentation"

As well, there may be very few people to be killed or wounded in such areas. I could be wrong but I am guessing a big majority of the violence is in areas where there are more people, not less.

in response to the pious claims listed in the discussions regarding the possibly improper methodology of the Johns Hopkins study funded by MIT (it was just published in the lancet):
were survey takers properly trained and supervised ? there were 2 teams of 5 people each, all physicians withcommunity medical experience,fluent in arabic and english, with 1 supervisor given 2 days of additional training. the proforma was developed by the principal investigator.
raw data is not repotred: short of reporting each questionnaire, the data is very comprehensive.it shows the areas of the clusters, tabulates violent vs nonviolent deaths and their causes; gives a sex and age breakdown of the mortality; and documents as commonsense would suggest, maximum mortality in males aged 15-45. REporting all raw data is a nonsensical idea. No journal reports it.
sampling was improper: 50 random clusters of 40 households each over all the districts were analysed. the study was powered to 80% to detect a certain level of increased mortality. overall 12800 individuals were studied in a war zone, not a small sample.this was not a small sample size and its refutation should be statistical .
skeptics should be evenhanded in their skepticism: really?
no attempt is made by the coalition to actually count mortality for it would upset too many citizens.( although after each skirmish or battle we amazingly hear a precise estimate of casulaties inflicted.)convenient lowest estimates are then touted as the new reality.this study represented a sincere effort to establish a just estimate. if the numbers were astonishingly high, why not make an effort to actually count? and if our life depended on the acceptance of data, whose data would be more skeptical of?

the johns hopkins aka lancet study was an active surveillance study in contrast to the IBC - a passive surveillance study documenting reported deaths. The iBc's main criticism of the JH study is the wide discrepancy between the officially documented mortality and the hopkins report.In its defence the JH study gives 4 recent references where passive surveillance under reported mortality by a factor of upto 10 in areas of chaos.
page 7 of the report, to which a link was provided in the discussion above, discusses the possible shortcomings of their own study, but it seems that the estimate may be low or high.
to respond to the notion that hospital documents do not support the mortality or implied wounded: there may be no civilian authority in rural areas to do any documentation. even if there were, one would hardly go travel 5 miles to obtain a death certificate or report a death, when the safer and easier recourse would be to bury and mourn.if calition forces are not safe with air cover and armored cars,why would a local govt offical travel any distance unguarded to document a death.with so much destruction, people would laugh at an attempt to report loss to the absent authority.
why would a wounded person go to district hospital 30 miles (a small community care center cannot provisde trauma care)away that had no nurses, physicians, electricity, water, medications, bandages and where if you were 15-60 you could and were picked up by the govt, any militia or the coalition; on the grounds that if you were wounded you had to be a trouble maker.
the mortality issue is unsettled and may never be. but the hopkins effort is more likely than not to give a truer picture, and certainly more accurate than anything any involved authority will provide.

Jake Newton,

Yes. Agree it is not settled. Good. We are talking the same language finally.

One final note.

The results of the Lancet study suggest that there is equal probability that the true number of dead is 100,000 and 1,900,000 today if 1,000,000 is the extrapolation of the sample mean.

A confidence band of 900,000 plus or minus the sample mean indicates those probabilities are exactly equal.

AND. Unless the study is useful only as toilet paper, the likelihood that the true population mean is so far from the sample mean is exceedingly remote. A very very very unlikely outcome.

One would hope Lancet knows the difference between a legitimate result and a non-result, and would not publish the latter.

I note the following in the talk track above:

"The 2006 Lancet study reported 654,965 (95%CI 392,979–942,636) excess Iraqi deaths."

That is certainly a bit wide for my taste. As the CI is usually the mean +/- two standard deviations, that means the standard deviation of the sample was 131,000 or so.

The figure of 100,000 that I have seen you produce would be more than four standard deviations from the sample mean.

In statistics, you would be venturing into the realm of the absurd to insist this could be the true population mean.

It would be equally absurd to claim the true figure was 1.2 million back when the study was done in 2005-2006, or whenever.

Here is an ironclad statistical statement that can be made based on the above:

"If one were to perform the 2006 Lancet sample 100 times, one could be absolutely sure that the true population mean would fall within the confidence interval in 95 out of 100 cases."

By the way, the confidence interval is narrow enough that you can rule out the theory that the sample size is too small. If it were truly too small, the confidence interval would broaden to include the random figure of 100,000 you keep presenting and the study would be truly meaningless.

To your credit, I do think this is a wide confidence interval given the nature of what is being studied. I don't know why a bigger sample size was not used to narrow it.

But, 100,000 is pure fantasy, my friend. Wishful thinking so extreme that it begs for some unscientific rationale when presented by otherwise rational men.

"OK, I'll take you at your word. "

Thank you for that.

"Surely you know that confidence intervals go in both directions."

Yes.

"one can quibble with the methodology used in any study."

And not only methodology, also implications. The IBC criticism is almost all about implications, such as the several million wounded that should be expected with one million killed, without hospital records to support anywhere near that many, and a similar issue with death certificates.

"My understanding is the Lancet methodology is state of the art. In other words, it represents the best and commonly-accepted practice in the specialized field of estimating the dead. "

Agreed, but as I stated before there are criticisms as to the proper implementation of the methodology, such as whether survey takers were correctly selected, trained, and supervised.

"It is far too easy to lob this criticism as a political ploy, and if you are serious about criticizing research, you should know that public soundbytes challenging the Lancet results must be treated with extreme skepticism, political motivation assumed, "

And as skeptics, we should be *evenhanded* in our skepticism. Can we agree on that?

"and you should seek to get your hands on the study and look at the sample size and resulting confidence intervals yourself."

It was posted here earlier, and from what I and others have seen the raw data is not available nor a detailed explanation of how the method was applied.

Alas, we also run into the problem that *none of us* are experts, so we are left with experts who may be able to interpret the various issues and best explain them to us lay people. We have to do our best with that.

The bottom line is that the idea that there have been a million civilian deaths or more in Iraq is far from a settled issue.

mirf59 December 11th, 2007 11:15 am

Well said...I apologise to you for vitiating the debate with my unfortunate use of vituperations, but this Jake guy got clean on my nerves...

You are entirely correct in saying "...challenging the Lancet results must be treated with extreme skepticism, political motivation assumed.."

Nice Work...

PS: I am extremely sensitive to critisism of Lancet, due to the serious magnitude of the deaths of innocent civilians involved..
Also, considering a corrupt Bu$h Administration in conjunction with Military sources have spent 5 years covering it up..

Jake Newton,

OK, I'll take you at your word. Surely you know that confidence intervals go in both directions.

You probably also know that if one has the proper motivation, one can quibble with the methodology used in any study. Certainly, some concerns are real and render the results useless. Others just create the illusion that the results are questionable.

My understanding is the Lancet methodology is state of the art. In other words, it represents the best and commonly-accepted practice in the specialized field of estimating the dead.

Now, certainly it would be nice to have the whole population in hand and to be free from sampling or any other statistical inference.

Since this data is not available and perhaps does not exist, one can only hope that the state of the art methods are applied to any statistical inferences.

In fact, it is my understanding that all the estimates presented by the Bush Administration in referring to atrocities overseas committed by enemies use the very same methodology.

For example, when Bush speaks of Darfur, or of the number of Kurds gassed by Saddam Hussein -- he is relying on the same, accepted methodology.

Can the methodology be sound but the sample size is just too small? Sure.

But, you should know the data before you accept this criticism. It is far too easy to lob this criticism as a political ploy, and if you are serious about criticizing research, you should know that public soundbytes challenging the Lancet results must be treated with extreme skepticism, political motivation assumed, and you should seek to get your hands on the study and look at the sample size and resulting confidence intervals yourself.

Heck-of-a-job-Jakey

Thanks for your response.

"If you are here to teach us didactics on epistemology,"

A bit overstated. I am here to get people to think about why they believe what they do on the subject. I am convinced that many people run with the large number from Lancet because it fits their position better.

"why would you put stock in potentially politically-motivated criticism of the Lancet study over any other criticism?"

I don't see where I have, but even if we were to show that particular criticism was motivated for whatever reason, we still wouldn't be addressing the criticism itself. The criticism should stand or not on it's own merits. Example: Some say that since the sample size was so small, the resulting confidence interval is way too broad. It doesn't matter what motivates one to say that, the real question is if it's true and how that might effect how we interpret the study.

" perhaps you should take your own sermon to heart and not accept criticism of the Lancet study without the same scrutiny and skepticism."

I think that I have done that, given that my only stated position on the numbers of civilian casualties is that we may know more some time from now. OTOH, some here simply except the one million figure and run with it as you have seen.

"No, I don't think you are being honest about your purpose here"

You are entitled to think that but I am puzzled as to why you would conclude that from what I have written. Thanks for your time.

Jake Newton,

If you are here to teach us didactics on epistemology, why would you put stock in potentially politically-motivated criticism of the Lancet study over any other criticism?

You undermine your stated purpose here.

If you want to remind us that we should hold on to our skepticism and should think hard about the quality of the evidence that underlies our position, perhaps you should take your own sermon to heart and not accept criticism of the Lancet study without the same scrutiny and skepticism.

No, I don't think you are being honest about your purpose here. I think you have moved yourself back into a cowardly stance.

I think you should admit that you have a partisan motivation and come clean. And, if you do have a partisan motivation, you should have the guts to take on the bigger questions that motivate you to claim the cost to Iraqis has been lower than the evidence suggests.

Ultimately, it is amoral at best, grossly immoral at worst to ask innocent foreigners to die for our economic stability. That is the moral core of all US foreign policy, since we have degenerated to the point that the bomb is the only policy tool.

We always hear, "it was a difficult decision, but I believe the sacrifice is worth it."

But, the sacrifice is always made by far away brown people and is really no sacrifice at all for those loading up the fuselage.

Worse still, the sacrifice is made by young people who enter a society with so little meaningful opportunity, a perilous military life seems like a step up -- and worst of all, by the parents that must bury children flown back here.

"I HAVE NO EXPERTISE…"

Still rings in my ears...ha ha ha the joke was on me...great work Jakey Boy

The icing on the cake was the use of a spurious political ploy,
The infamous "Straw Man Defence"....

Bringing into your fallacious equation, an illinformed 'Barn Burner' to support your compromised canard....
a 'consuetude fraude'....
a calumny of deciet... if you will....

PS: Just a hint Jake you are dealing with a magna cum laude...

PSS: I could have always debated the fine statistical detail regarding Lancet's findings.
But specifically chose not to, since I always knew your underlying parameters and premises were deficient and hence fallacious...

Jake,

Until such time as you publish your highly fortuitous [sic] findings in a peer reviewed medical or epidemiological journal;
You and your extrapolated hyperbola are to be regarded as *anonymous* and as such *fictional* and hence *irrelevant*...

The TRUTH about YOU finally surfaced after 131 POSTS... [a record]

"I HAVE NO EXPERTISE..."

And here you were appearing to be an erudite on the subject!!!! an authority over nothing much at all!!!

A master of disguise, gobbledygook and double speak...

HOW PATHETIC...and I was hoping for so much more...

"If your position is truly as you state, you must also be open to the possibility that the Lancet figure is wildly off in the other direction."

Only if you ignore the various criticisms of the study, I suppose it's possible on a purely theoretical basis. I have no expertise. But one of the specific criticisms is that it's off specifically in the *much higher* direction than the IBC and UN numbers.

Jake

I think Barn Burner was your accomplice in a mischievious malfeasance of dishonesty, minimization, rationalisation, denial and spreading misinformation on a integrous website like common dreams
[including all the good people here]

Barn Burner at the very least was equally misguided in his interpretation of your specious intentions....

At the very least you are guilty of a "logical fallacy" leading to a DENIAL OF WAR CRIMES, which you are now an apologist for..a sympathiser to WAR CRIMINALITY if you will..

PS: I warned you early in this thread, you cannot bullshit me!

Jake Newton,

If your position is truly as you state, you must also be open to the possibility that the Lancet figure is wildly off in the other direction.

Why don't we see you here proposing an upward correction -- say to 5,000,000?

An equal possibility that should be treated with respect by you if there is any truth to your stated purpose here.

"As more than Million lay dead, a great percentage in unmarked graves, Jake contends to splits straws over incidentals."

Like whether One Million might be off by 900,000? You are entitled to think that is "splitting straws".

"Barn Burner" was right.

mirf59 December 10th, 2007 10:48 am

Correct...how perceptive of you to parse the abject craveness of Jakey boy's argumentitive diktat...

For Example:

Jake states like a broken record; "...above analysis is interesting but flawed. I therefore think you should rethink that my position is cowardly. As I see it, my "position" is merely that we should have good reason to believe the things we believe and to be able to state why..."

As more than Million lay dead, a great percentage in unmarked graves, Jake contends to splits straws over incidentals.

Concomitantly, is then simply distructive criticism of the only relevant hard data available in a dangerous War Zone with doctors risking their lives to collect it... In one word Jake's discussion is entirely mendacious to say the least...

Thanks for your response.

"If you believe the Lancet sampling methodology is flawed,"

I don't, I just note that there has been criticism about it. I am not an expert.

" and you long for better data because the number of dead is important, then you should be upset not with Lancet but with the military and its civilian leadership for refusing to track and report the hard data."

I strongly doubt "the military and its civilian leadership" is capable. I have never heard of a "war" where such tracking is embraced as an important part of the mission. Have you? I therefore don't believe in the viability of this "track" you propose.

"A second option is to advocate for war by questioning any information or position that is dove-ish or seeks to expose the terrible costs of the war in all its forms. "

I think you are touching again on an important tendency that may be at work here, weighing information and the sources thereof differently depending on one's world view and political position. We like or don't like given information because it helps or doesn't help to bolster our current position on things. I think we all have this tendency and need to guard against it.

Information should be weighed on its own merit as much as possible. I don't think people are doing that here, and that is what I am arguing. You may think that is "meek".

"This school of thought believes America should be muscular and America should pursue its interests and the lives of foreigners have no value. "

Not me, and I don't think you could suggest so by anything I've written here.

"The two courageous tracks"

I think the above analysis is interesting but flawed. I therefore think you should rethink that my position is cowardly. As I see it, my "position" is merely that we should have good reason to believe the things we believe and to be able to state why.

Jake Newton,

Forgive me, but after reading your response to my bit and all the others you wrote since, I think your position can be called cowardly.

If you believe the Lancet sampling methodology is flawed, and you long for better data because the number of dead is important, then you should be upset not with Lancet but with the military and its civilian leadership for refusing to track and report the hard data.

That's one option.

A second option is to advocate for war by questioning any information or position that is dove-ish or seeks to expose the terrible costs of the war in all its forms. This school of thought believes America should be muscular and America should pursue its interests and the lives of foreigners have no value. This is sort of the Winston Churchill school.

If you embrace this second track, you should have the courage to admit that the lives of foreigners mean nothing to you. Show some guts. Come clean.

As it is, you sustain a sort of meek argumentativeness.

The two courageous tracks are to work for better data -- which has absolutely nothing to do with Lancet doing the best it can with the data at hand and everything to do with pressuring the powers that be to honor human life by tracking it accurately.

OR, admitting that the life of a foreigner is of no value, and defending the poor quality of data on grounds that the data is not valuable enough to merit greater rigor.

"Your LOGICAL FALACY defence, "

You are wrong again, it was an *attack* on your statement, and you failed to defend.

"to genuinely think you can demonstrate the full extent of this tragedy"

Wrong again. I think no such thing. I merely proved statements made by you to be false.

So, why should we believe the Lancet study?

"Think about it Jake if the Covert Agent gave his real identity, he would be violating half a dozen Federal Laws and end up in prison. "

Or one could anonymously write *pure fiction* while claiming to be a covert agent. I pick the latter for now. You need to understand what an "ad hoc hypothesis" is and see why you should avoid using this kind of logical fallacy in the future. Look it up.

"As I recall, you quite convincingly 'endorsed the findings of their on going study.'"

Much better than your "recollection" would be your *demonstration* that it was true. You will fail once again to do that since it never happened. I could not have been convincing in something I never did or said.

"HOW CONVENIENT OF YOU! "

I would put it differently: I find it "inconvenient" to try to discuss an issue, the Lancet study, with someone who refuses to do so by constantly changing the subject.

I don't suffer fools gladly and have only a certain amount of patience.

"Again, as I recall my support of the Lancet Study was responded to in detail; which again you entirely ignored…"

You weren't the only one supporting it. What I was doing was asking why it should be believed, including a citation of only some of the widely held criticism. That isn't "ignoring" it. No one "responding" provided convincing counter criticisms. The question remains on the table.

":You are no longer interested in the tangents embarked on; because they touch on the TRUTH "

I will be as charitable as I can: You can say that systematic cover-ups of large scale civilian deaths might "touch on" why the Lancet numbers are true. That's fine, but you first have to support the assertion in the first place. You have failed to do that, and since you continue to fail as such I call this tangential.

" ignore the Human tragedy that is Iraq."

"no where in any of your posts is any sympathy for the plight of a Iraq's innocent victims"

Unlike you, I will demonstrate that the above statements are false. I had posted this statement, supporting the scale of the human suffering was as important as the mere existence of the suffering:

'And of course on the purely human side, one million dead is 10 times as bad as 100,000. They are humans after all, the human loss and suffering is multiplied.'

"Not simply because *Anonymous* authors have said so. Wise up?"

Think about it Jake if the Covert Agent gave his real identity, he would be violating half a dozen Federal Laws and end up in prison. The pentagon probably already know who he is and as I speak is being secretly rendered to Egypt for interrogation [by you: only joking] by who knows?

" You constantly defended IBC criticism of the Lancet Study"

As I recall, you quite convincingly 'endorsed the findings of their on going study.'

"I am no longer interested in the various tangents you have embarked on. I may be interested in further discussion if the subject is to be the Lancet study..."

HOW CONVENIENT OF YOU!

Again, as I recall my support of the Lancet Study was responded to in detail; which again you entirely ignored...CHERRY PICKING AGAIN I SEE...Theres a pattern here Jake; and "I can see your unfortunate relapse 'cherry picking' faux pas..."

You are no longer interested in the tangents embarked on; because they touch on the TRUTH regarding whats really happened in IRAQ and what has been covered up...
i.e. the disapearance of 10's of thousands of civillian Iraqi Bodies...

You however, prefer some clinical statistical analysis blathering about the Lancet's potential strengths and weaknesses and ignore the Human tragedy that is Iraq.

Come to think about it Jake, no where in any of your posts is any sympathy for the plight of a Iraq's innocent victims...of which there is over a million..

CLASSY...

Check your pulse Jake do you still have a heart or even just a scintilla of humanitarian compassion?

" You constantly defended IBC criticism of the Lancet Study"

Not exactly. If you look more carefully you'll see that I had simply brought it forth as a matter of discussion. I can't recall anyone doing a very good job of countering those points either in this thread or the one you refer to. In any case, I never endorsed the findings of their on going study.

"So under what authority do you have to claim to have any particular correctness of information"

You are correct to suspect my authority on anything, but you are mistaken in thinking that I have made claim to any "correctness of information" as you put it. The nub of my participation is a question. Questions have no veracity in and of thenselves, so you are off base again.

"So you then, have NO authority to criticise an Article posted on a reputable Web Site like Global Research"

I require no such authority to do so. *No one* needs authority to criticize published articles of any kind. They merely have to exercise their right to do so, and that is that.

"It's then highly hypocritical of you to Criticise the excellent work of Global Research."

Hypocrisy is when you preach one thing but do another.

" For all you know, I might be a current active serviceman still serving in the US ARMED FORCES SERVING IN IRAQ"

You are correct, you may be. And nothing would be any different except that I might have thanked you for your service. The issues over what you have written here would be unchanged.

You could also be a transvestite sumo wrestler for all I know. Unlike some here, I don't care *who you are* just *what you say*.

"JAKE I CAN SEE YOU NOW SWEATING IN YOUR LITTLE SHITTY COMPUTER SEAT.."

And I can see your unfortunate relapse into that all caps faux pas. Alas, I had thought I had won a small victory here in getting you to think twice about that but I guess not.

"NOW HOW ABOUT YOU DO WHAT I SAY AND GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS"

Classy.

"The Hidden Massacre" has been systematically repeated all over Iraq by Special Operation CIA related teams."

Not simply because *Anonymous* authors have said so. Wise up.

I am no longer interested in the various tangents you have embarked on. I may be interested in further discussion if the subject is to be the Lancet study, whether by you or anyone else interested. Thanks for your time.

I REPEAT:
PLEASE LISTEN:

YOU SEE JAKE, the "After the Fallujah - The Hidden Massacre" has been systematically repeated all over Iraq by Special Operation CIA related teams. Hidden from Main Stream Media and the American Electorate a systematic secret genocide has been occurring….

Siouxrose December 9th, 2007 10:44 am
HEY Siouxrose, thanks for dropping by...
As always you are a pleasant relief, in this torrid world.
PS: Thanks for your kind remarks...

JAKE in another article on common dreams you and I had a debate, regarding the same subject IRAQ CASUILTIES.. You constantly defended IBC criticism of the Lancet Study. To the point I truly believed you were paid by them to spread disinfromation on CD.

Now you claim no connection...

JAKE as far as I am concerned along with other Common Dreamers you are ANONYMOUS..So under what authority do you have to claim to have any particular correctness of information....NONE

So you then, have NO authority to criticise an Article posted on a reputable Web Site like Global Research...Atleast Common Dreamers know its Address origination, which is alot more than we can say about YOU....For all we know you could genuinely be a plant as part of CIA PYH-OPS, [I am not suggesting you are, but how do we know]

It's then highly hypocritical of you to Criticise the excellent work of Global Research.

""I come from multi-generational military family" I don't accept this appeal to your own authority... Again your argument has become pathetic...Who said I was on the periphery of the military? THATS YOUR BIAS ... For all you know, I might be a current active serviceman still serving in the US ARMED FORCES SERVING IN IRAQ...

JAKE I CAN SEE YOU NOW SWEATING IN YOUR LITTLE SHITTY COMPUTER SEAT..

NOW HOW ABOUT YOU DO WHAT I SAY AND GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS

AND RESEARCH THE
"After the Fallujah - The Hidden Massacre"
Veteran admits: "Bodies melted away before us." using 'whiskey pete' aka 'white phospherus'….

GO TO:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm

PS: Stop being a proverbial dickhead for all Common Dreamers to see

Lively volley some of you boys have going on here. I just want to tip my cognitive hat to: PLEASE THINK, MIRF 59, RTDRURY, SIMON HHH, & RAY KONDRASUK. Nice work, gentlemen!

Here is the very first sentence in the introduction to the article you posted:

"The author of the text below claims to be highly experienced in covert intelligence programmes and psychological operations - psyops."

IOW, the author of the article is "Anonymous". After scanning for the name of the author and not finding it, I realized that the article is more about impeachment than anything else, and it surely doesn't shine any light on the Lancet study even indirectly.

I consider articles written by "Anonymous" to be fiction unless shown otherwise.

"This makes IBC not only completely anecdotal "

I don't know why you continue to talk about the IBC numbers. I have not stated that I think they are correct either. Why do you persist in this line?

"I come from multi-generational military family"

I don't accept this appeal to your own authority, As if being on the periphery of the military makes your word about things better somehow. I already told you that.

JAKE: I repeat: you cannot bullshit me. I come from multi-generational military family. I was breast fed on this SHIT from an early age. Make no mistake about it..

"Did you look at the Falluja video?"....
Your answer...No
This is atypical of all your discussions on this post and previous posts. Denial is far more comfortable than experiancing cognitive dissonance, which is outside your comfort zone. Again explaining your refusal to look at the real consequences of war criminality of Bu$hCo administration's mistaken War on Iraq.

YOU SEE JAKE, the "After the Fallujah - The Hidden Massacre" has been systematically repeated all over Iraq by Special Operation CIA related teams. Hidden from Main Stream Media and the American Electorate a systematic secret genocide has been occurring....

This makes IBC not only completely anecdotal based only on indications and cursory evidence, but completely irrelevant. Stringent statistical empiracle examination is the only relevant result in the FOG OF A WAR ZONE you could in your worst nightmares imagine.

YOU SEE JAKE, it's all about the 'disappearing bodies of the dead Iraqis', that just doesn't register with you; and is not included in your calculations. PLEASE RETHINK THIS IMPORTANT POINT...for further evidence please

GO TO:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7525

"Confessions of a Covert Agent
Psychological Operations are my specialty"

I quote...
"....Kissinger, Bush Sr. and Cheney. Millions of innocent civilians have been slaughtered. Let me repeat that: Millions of innocent civilians have been slaughtered. And I'm not kidding you. These are evil motherfuckers and they are no friends of ours...."

"You remind me of a race horse with blinkers on. You cherry pick bits and pieces of a post and avoid points that don't suit…take it out of context"

I'll bite: Provide your *very best* example.

"empirical study completed by 2 professors specialising in epidemiology…"

One of whom stated publicly that he was agaist the war BTW.

"The IBC figures were mentioned; because in a previous thread they were then deemed pivotally important to you."

You will fail to demostrate that this is true.

"Did you look at the Falluja video?"

No. If you can explain convincingly the relevence to the issue of the Lancet study maybe I will.

"PS: You completely missed the point about the 'disappearing bodies of the dead Iraqis' OR that just doesn't register with you; since it doesn't get mentioned on MSM; then it follows it's not included in your calculations. Hence, you can continue dithering over: "Why should we embrace the conclusions of the Lancet study?"

The above statement makes no sense. I've read it three times. Care to rephrase?

Hey jake..You continue to amase me. You remind me of a race horse with blinkers on. You cherry pick bits and pieces of a post and avoid points that don't suit...take it out of context to support your your own bias against 'best industry practice' empirical study completed by 2 professors specialising in epidemiology...
The IBC figures were mentioned; because in a previous thread they were then deemed pivotally important to you. Now all of a sudden thats not relevant. MAKE UP YOUR MIND

Did you look at the Falluja video? When you have "We Shall continue to explore this question.. The realities of War are unpleasant up close..

This makes all your previous argumentative diktat quite hypothetical.

PS: You completely missed the point about the 'disappearing bodies of the dead Iraqis' OR that just doesn't register with you; since it doesn't get mentioned on MSM; then it follows it's not included in your calculations. Hence, you can continue dithering over: "Why should we embrace the conclusions of the Lancet study?"

"why Iraq Body Count Figures are BOGUS "

You are off track. *I* have not been discussing the IBC numbers in particular, I have been discussing Lancet.

Noe this:

"I come from Multi Generational Military Family replete with War Heroes and distinguished service and concentration camp survivers.."

Does not logically lead to this:

"someone who knows the facts…."

"I'm still not seeing jake newton's point…other than merely being argumentative…as far as I can tell."

The purpose of arguement is to persuade. I am sure many of you will not have your minds changed but you may think about things just a little differently.

My point is simple and was laid out in my very first post: Why should we embrace the conclusions of the Lancet study? The best reason so far that we've discussed is this idea that it is "peer reviewed", but no one has yet put forth *exactly* what that means in the particular case of the Lancet study. Meanwhile, the various criticisms of the study have been pretty much untouched in our discussion thus far. Shall we continue to explore this question?

Hey tommybones you are probably right, but if old Jake does a little bit of alternative research; he'll discover a "Holocaust in Iraq" of truly dreadful proportions done

"in our Name"..

I'm still not seeing jake newton's point...other than merely being argumentative...as far as I can tell.

JAKE I told you I come from Multi Generational Military Family replete with War Heroes and distinguished service and concentration camp survivers..

So stop trying to bullshit someone who knows the facts....

PS: Crayon Boy *blush*

Jake Newton a good example why Iraq Body Count Figures are BOGUS and a cover for the Bu$hCo War Criminal Administration....

"After the Fallujah - The Hidden Massacre"
Veteran admits: "Bodies melted away before us." using 'whiskey pete' aka 'white phospherus'....

GO TO:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm

Approx. 100 square kilometers of top fill down to 1 meter in depth was removed by US Army Field Personel to hide evidence of the illegal use of 'whiskey pete' on civilian populations..

Approx. 12,500 Iraqi bodies were removed and dissappeared [vanished] never to show up at morgues or anywhere in Iraq. This typical of the type of ordinance used in modern warfare where bodies vaporize.

Iraq Body Count figures are ostensibily useless

PS: Shit my Great Uncle Arthur was blown to bits in Pashen-Dale France in WW1; NO body ever found to bury...nothing

PSS: Jake open your eyes and use your brains more adeptly. Research at greater depth i.e. Edward De Bono type 'lateral thinking' may help a limited mind set..

Thank you for your response.

"Texas is roughly analagous to Iraq in population and size."

"– would it matter to me if 100,000 or 1,000,000 Texans had been killed?"

I can't answer for you. I wonder how those friends and families of the additional 900,00 involved in the second figure would answer; I am guessing it would matter to them

"What I am saying is that if laws and basic human morality are of any consequence — in contrast to the rule of force alone — then you cannot say that the numbers matter and also claim that any loss of life in Iraq is acceptable."

Of course I can it's simple and *logical*: If one loss is unacceptable, than a loss of 100 is unacceptable x 100. Multiplication.

"And, if all of it is not acceptable, then 100,000 versus 1,000,000 makes no difference."

The difference is 900,000. 1,000,000 – 100,000 = 900,000. Subtraction.

Arithmetic is *logical*.

"In this case, who cares if it's 100,000 or 1,000,000 dead Iraqis? "

Those close to the additional 900,000 dead, that's who for one thing.

It is also politically naïve to think it doesn't matter to those who observe and vote in elections.

"Any way you slice it, I believe your position is not logically defensible."

I don't think you have demonstrated this, where I think I just proved the opposite.

What I don't understand is your concern for unacceptability *to the exclusion of scale*. Both should matter.

Furthermore, have you not noticed the *very title* of the article we are responding to, and the various grim references to the number *one million* contained therein? Have you not read the similar grim references as such in various responses above? How can you both note these references and not object to them, but then say that "the numbers do not matter"?

"A troll is a troll and will always be a troll!"

I will admit that I am a troll when you admit that the Common Dreams public comment area is meant to be nothing more than a back slappin' high fivin' Agreement Festival where ideas and views are not to be questioned or challenged.

The fact is you have no idea what a troll is. You should look it up.

Atleast I gave all common dreamers fair warning!

A troll is a troll and will always be a troll!

Jake Newton,

I live in Texas. Texas is roughly analagous to Iraq in population and size.

If China or Russia or [future superpower fill in the blank] were to invade Texas on grounds that the US had proved itself to be a rogue state owing its unlawful international thuggery -- risky and uncontrollable aggression,

-- would it matter to me if 100,000 or 1,000,000 Texans had been killed?

If it were only ten Texans, but they were my wife, my children, parents, and siblings -- would I care that only ten were killed?

What I am saying is that if laws and basic human morality are of any consequence -- in contrast to the rule of force alone -- then you cannot say that the numbers matter and also claim that any loss of life in Iraq is acceptable.

And, if all of it is not acceptable, then 100,000 versus 1,000,000 makes no difference.

Of course, if you believe might makes right. If you believe he with the bigger gun makes the rules -- and that's the only rule -- then your position still makes no sense. In this case, who cares if it's 100,000 or 1,000,000 dead Iraqis? If the powerful do as they will and the weak suffer the consequences -- then the numbers do not matter.

Any way you slice it, I believe your position is not logically defensible.

If you advocate what we are doing in Iraq, you must be prepared to accept that your loved ones might be justifiably slaughtered in some future conflict by a superpower whose self-interest compels them to bring the hammer down on your home. The justification for this act would be that the perpetrators had the power to do it and simply desired it.

"You write "the number matters".

Why does it matter?"

The question is fair. The number carries political ramifications. Individuals, and groups people have thresholds for such things, where *at some point* they may say "That's too many".

And of course on the purely human side, one million dead is 10 times as bad as 100,000. They are humans after all, the human loss and suffering is multiplied. This second point seems pretty simple to me.

The sentiment expressed that *any* deaths are bad enough is strictly a philosophical one and has limited practical application as I see it.

Jake newton,

You write "the number matters".

Why does it matter?

"your preferred source "

I have not cited any preferred source. Stop making up stuff.

"jakenewton, no attempt to address the substantive point"

The only point you made was why one study should be beleived and another one not, which is exactly what I've been addressing the whole discussion. OTOH, you had little to say about it, simply saying one was the better one than the other without really saying why. *shrug*

I repeat !!!!
One dead Iraqi as a result of our illegal actions is one too many!!!

Quibbling over any higher number is meaningless by any standard.

There is a verse from the Holy Qur'an:

"…to kill one person is like killing the whole of mankind…And to give life to one person is like giving life to the whole of mankind"
The Holy Quran (5:32)

jakenewton, no attempt to address the substantive point, which has everything to do with the relative trustworthiness of the two organisations doing the study, including the eminence grise of medical journals, so old and well admired that it was cited by Sherlock Holmes and Watson, let alone being instrumental in telling the world how to stop things like cholera in the middle on the nineteenth century, vs yourself and your preferred source which uses an obviously laughable approach to counting the dead. You're still trolling for newbies with flamebait, and you're either a ghoul or an idiot, and quite probably both.

I'm done with the conversation; anyone else who continues to waste their time with this guy is welcome to do so. His techniques are classic *.advocacy, except that instead of talking about minor matters like which computer OS is better, he's talking about the violent death of hundreds of thousands... which is why he's a ghoul.

"The real story of this article, and the subtext to all this splicing of methodology in trying to come up with an estimate of Iraqi dead misses the point entirely."

"This is the point — any number greater than ZERO is unacceptable."

I don't see this as the "real story" based on what is written in the article, you are entitled to your opinion of course. And if the real number was just one, we wouldn't be having this discussion anyway, no matter that you would find one death to be unacceptable.

The number matters.

"Well, that can be known to be the lie that it is simply due to the fact that we do not track it accurately."

As if we *could* track it accurately? Wise up. Another poster who I agreed with had this right when he stated we'll know a lot more in twenty years.

Jake Newton,

It is certainly true that a scientific treatment of the number of dead in Iraq is complicated by a dearth of compelling hard data.

Take a step back. Why is there no compelling data?

In the US, anything of importance is measured. Public firms are required to file reports with very specific specifications. Within public firms, metrics are captured and reported for management purposes to the level of excrutiating minutae. Records proliferate at every level of government, including vast volumes of records advancing the case that there are too many records.

What do we track? We track revenues, costs, risks, rates, salaries, market share, changes in metrics, trends, projections, budgets, forecasts.

We have a data and reporting culture. Matters of consequence are tracked and reported in US culture.

The real story of this article, and the subtext to all this splicing of methodology in trying to come up with an estimate of Iraqi dead misses the point entirely.

This is the point -- any number greater than ZERO is unacceptable. It's unacceptable because we have no right to be there. We were not invited. The war is illegal per the laws pertaining to wars of aggression drafted by the US at the Nuremberg trials.

Iraq is a sovereign nation. We have no right to plot the course of that nation. We have no right to use cluster bombs, depleted uranium. We have no right to thrust a deleterious oil revenue agreement on its citizens. No right to stack its government, blow up its infrastructure, desecrate its Holy Lands, claim with a straight face that its citizens are "enemy combatants."

AND. FINALLY. It is exactly part of the damning proof that this whole cursed enterprise is a moral outrage that the devastating consequences on the civilian population of that country are not accurately known.

We are told "every effort is made to minimize civilian casualty."

Well, that can be known to be the lie that it is simply due to the fact that we do not track it accurately. Anything of importance is tracked in this country.

If something is important, it has metrics and reports. If Iraqi civilian casualties were important in the war calculus, you would have satisfactory data.

That we do not value Iraqi life could not be more abundantly obvious.

"Saying this, I return to the figure of a million war dead in Iraq, pause in horrified awe that, one, it could be possible, and two, it hasn't made mainstream headlines, where big, round numbers normally scream with significance." It has, carefully framed by government and neocon propaganda attacking the figure as the product of poor statistical procedures. This despite the fact that the same procedures are used to, for instance, produce the internationally used numbers of dead in the Congo. And despite the fact that the British government (just as eager as its American master to rubbish the report) was in possession of a judgement by its own civil service that the procedure was valid and the results highly probable. Shame on the media who let this highly dishonest subversion stand and, just as they did when the case for war was made, instead parrotted government propaganda.

Okay...I AM missing your point. ANY estimation of war dead will have to engage in speculation, as we only live in one universe and an alternative universe isn't available to us. Your argument seems to be an argumentative waste of time, in my opinion. What Lancet does is provide a BEST GUESS, based on statistical analysis of historical trends and available data. What more can they do? I'm missing you point...yet again.

I'm actually going to stop debating this at this point, as it's feeling like a waste of time and is utterly beside the point.

"You should re-read the Lancet study, as it clearly bases it's numbers on likely trends had the invasion not happened "

How can they do that without engaging in speculation about what might or might not happen? Why is my other point wrong? I do hpe you understand now about my general point.

"you're a ghoul"

You know who would be a "ghoul" regarding this conversation? Someone who would suspend all critical thinking skills and embrace the results of the study suggesting *many* more deaths than the other studies simply because it fits nicely with their world view. I sure hope no one here is doing that.

"jakenewton, if you believe what you're saying, you're an idiot, and if you don't, "

Thanks for "advancing the discussion" with your thoughtful contribution.

Anyone else?

Your two points are not correct. You should re-read the Lancet study, as it clearly bases it's numbers on likely trends had the invasion not happened and it also makes a clear case for only estimating excess deaths above those trends, which inherently means they are due to the war and occupation. Again, it's not meant to be exact, as that is an impossible task for anyone and any methodology in a war zone.

In any case, the actual death toll since the 1st Gulf War is in the high hundreds of thousands at the very LEAST and more likely in the 1.5 million and up range. Which make the U.S. actions in Iraq reprehensible war crimes, without a doubt.

I can tell you jakenewton's point. He's trolling for flamebait.

jakenewton, if you believe what you're saying, you're an idiot, and if you don't, you're a ghoul. Kinda like George Bush. You're asking me to give equal weight to two studies one of which's methods are prima facie laughable, while the other's are not, and show the uncertainty involved in how they gathered their statistics. You're also trying to take the one publication most instrumental in the forwarding of public health in the last two centuries and cast doubt on them based on their motivations. The only doubt that's being cast is on yours. As for the rest of ya, he's trolling for noobs and you're biting.

"Okay. Clear up the misunderstanding. What IS your point?"

I will gladly try; this particular recent sub branch has been unfortunate.

You may recall that bidelo had said:

"the Lancet number represents the number of people that would still be alive today had the invasion and occupation not taken place."

And I perhaps responded in a way that was unclear, so I will try anew. The above statement is impossibly simplistic for two reasons:

1. It assumes that everything since the invasion and occupation was *caused* by the invasion and occupation.

2. It ignores all the many things that *might have happened* if there were no invasion and occupation.

Bidelo actually alludes to the first point in the same post, and on the second, we can only speculate

As to the general discussion as to the number of people who may have died over a particular period, as I have already said why I think it's important to note the *large* differences in the various estimates, and the fact that some people are now saying that this is "quibbling" is surprising and disappointing.

The fact that we are even arguing about how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed due to the U.S. invasion demonstrates the monstrous, barbaric level to which the U.S. has descended during the Bush administration. The U.S. of course, did not have its hands clean before in terms of deadly foreign interventions (and as someone recently pointed out to me, the US has been fighting counter-insurgency type wars, against native Americans, since Europeans arrived in the Americas, and so this kind of action is part of a good ol' American tradition). I was born in 1967, so I did not experience U.S. reality during Viet Nam other than at an infantile unconscious level, and so I can't make a comparison between then and now. I just sense that now there is a bizarre sense of unreality among the American people about what is going on in Iraq, about the monstrous destruction of human life taking place. As I was heading home last night, I looked at a department store window on 5th Avenue, NYC, and it said "Peace" in huge letters, and I felt like I was in an Eisenstein movie or something, where on the one hand there are images of dead Iraqis in my mind, and on the other hand there was the department store advertising "peace," suggesting that Americans have an unquestionable right to peace during the holiday season. I think that Americans need to find ways to reach out to individual Iraqis, to humanize this conflict, and to show our solidarity with the people over there (if anyone knows how to do this, please write in and let me know).

Okay. Clear up the misunderstanding. What IS your point?

"You are clearly making a case that the U.S. invasion was better for the Iraqi people than the status quo under Saddam."

Utterly preposterous.

Sorry, jakenewton, but your subtext is quite clear to all with a working brain, like myself.

You are clearly making a case that the U.S. invasion was better for the Iraqi people than the status quo under Saddam. While nobody is claiming Saddam was good for anyone, the very idea that we can make such a claim ignores the fact that Saddam amassed power in the first place with CIA help. He maintained power with U.S. government assistance. When he lost his value to us, we deliberately murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians to remove him and replace him with the next puppet government, which will cater to our multi-nationals, while repressing the native population. Your inference is naivete of the highest order and is the true "waste of time" here. The United States government has been the worst enemy of the people of Iraq since they took the mantle of imperial oppressor from the British after WWII.

"jakenewton would quibble over the numbers of dead"

Are you really standing here before everyone suggesting that having a problem with a discrepency of *an order of magnitude* would be a "quibble"?

"Wow, are you kidding, Jakenewton? Anyone who actually thinks the U.S. has "helped" the Iraqi people needs to have his head examined."

I never said that, and the rest of your post written as if I did is a waste of everyone's time.

Anyone who thinks Saddam wasn't killing people left and right "needs to have his head examined"

Ephraim December 7th, 2007 12:32 am
"jakenewton would quibble over the numbers of dead in the big ditches at Auschwitz and Buchenwald. He'd be raising objections as to the methodology of counting dead bodies in Rwanda or Kosovo or Darfur. Nothing's all that bad if you refuse to believe the doomsayers, who can always be identified. If you don't believe it, just ask jakenewton to explain Lincoln to you. Everything's fine! Relax and enjoy the genocide...."

Well said Ephraim, Need I say more....

From
"Crayon Boy" [Blush] only jake will understand this sick satire when I called him a 'PLANT' aka infiltraitor from another thread...

Barn Boy are you his offsider. What part of War Criminal sympathiser is unintelligent?

Wow, are you kidding, Jakenewton? Anyone who actually thinks the U.S. has "helped" the Iraqi people needs to have his head examined. Talk about willful ignorance! Please, show us the "impressive rate" that folks were dying under Saddam, but make sure those who were dying were not as a result of our hideous genocidal sanctions first. Worth a re-post, I think:

On May 11, 1996 Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in the Clinton administration was asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl about the reported 500,000+ Iraqi children who died in Iraq as a direct result of U.S. imposed sanctions. Her reply stunned many, "I think this is a very hard choice, but we think the price was worth it."

The history of the sanctions (rarely, if ever discussed in mainstream media) begins with the strategic bombings of critical infrastructure within Iraq during the 1st Gulf War. The U.S. dropped over 90,000 tons of bombs, intentionally destroying civilian infrastructure, including 18 of 20 electricity-generating plants and the water-pumping and sanitation systems. The bombings themselves were a direct violation of the Geneva Convention against the specific targeting of infrastructure "indispensable to the survival of the civilian population," thus making them a war crime.

Recently released de-classified documents from the Defense Intelligence Agency revealed that the U.S. knew full well that Iraqi water needed purification with chlorine in order to avoid "epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis and typhoid." Later documents revealed that the U.S.-imposed sanctions SPECIFICALLY embargoed the import of chlorine needed to purify the water systems. Additionally, the U.S. sanctions forbade the import of the parts needed to repair the damaged purification and sanitation systems.

The results of these actions are well documented. Colonel John A. Warner III wrote in Airpower Journal, "…as a result (of the destruction of these facilities), epidemics of gastroenteritis, cholera, and typhoid broke out, leading to perhaps 100,000 civilian deaths and doubling the infant mortality rate." Anupama Rao Singh, the United Nations Children's Fund Representative in Baghdad observed that food shortages were virtually unknown in Iraq prior to what the State department admitted were the "toughest, most comprehensive sanctions in history." Richard Garfield's universally accepted mortality studies put the number of Iraq children killed because of the sanctions at 350,000. The Lancet study, for the British Medical Society, estimated it at 550,000. Denis Halliday, the U.N. coordinator in Iraq called the sanctions, "a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq," calling their implementation "genocide." His resignation in 1998 in protest received little if any coverage by the U.S. corporate media.

Here's an opinion that should matter (but it doesn't, because we superior Americans know better than those savage and backward brown people, right?):

"I don't understand the shock Americans claim to feel at the lurid pictures (from Abu Ghraib). You've seen the troops break down doors and terrify women and children… curse, scream, push, pull, and throw people to the ground with a boot over their head. You've seen troops shoot civilians in cold blood. You've seen them bomb cities and towns. You've seen them burn cars and humans using tanks and helicopters… I sometimes get emails asking me to propose solutions or make suggestions. Fine. Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill, and get out while you can—while it still looks like you have a choice… chaos? Civil war? We'll take our chances—just take your puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go." - anonymous Iraqi woman who courageously runs the internet web site Baghdad Burning, May 7th, 2004

Some help we've been to Iraq...