Deaths in Iraq

Skadistic: You have not shown that the numbers are flawed, until you can do so please do not say that they are.

The data has not been held from review, it was peer reviewed prior to initial publication in one of the world's premier scientific journals.
 
Skadistic: You have not shown that the numbers are flawed, until you can do so please do not say that they are.

The data has not been held from review, it was peer reviewed prior to initial publication in one of the world's premier scientific journals.

The numbers are flawed. And I'll keep saying because the report is flawed. And I'll keep saying that. The data has been with held. And only the report was reviewed. A rushed review. And that "world's premier scientific journals" publish a report that was flawed. Even the best make mistakes.

SO how is it that one report that has the numbers at a 10 times the rate of a dozen others is considered correct? Are all the other ones wrong? Or is it more likely that the one which sticks out like a sore thumb is the one thats wrong. The same one done by anti-war people with an agenda. The same one who's been reviewed in a rushed manner. The same one that used flawed applications of method. No no thats gotta be the right one and all the others are wrong.

SO where are all the bodies? Why wont the Iraqi release his data? Why does every one distance them self from this study?
 
skadistic,

You're just repeating the completely unfounded theory that the peer review was in some way faulty. With no evidence whatsoever. Are you really asking me to prove that the peer review wasn't faulty? Is that the best argument you can muster?

Feel free to argue that you won't believe the Lancet study without further evidence. You have every right to do that. But to say something was "discredited" implies at least some kind of objective uncertainty in the results of the report. The report hasn't been discredited among social scientists, epidemiologists, and people who've done similar studies. There have been other studies that do not disagree with the Lancet team's conclusions. A handful of opinion pieces and hypotheticals you just thought up do not constitute "discredit."

Why does every one distance them self from this study?

Who has distanced themself from the study?

Merkinball,

I have no idea where the bodies are. Is that the standard now? "Show me the bodies?" Heck, I can't locate the bodies from the Obituary page in Sunday's newspaper, but I trust that they exist, without ever having seen them.

Regarding the media: of course the media haven't reported all the deaths. In war zones, all the deaths aren't reported in the media. In Africa and the Balkans, survey methods have more accurately reflected the amount of excess deaths than news reports. That's why the survey method exists: because sitting back and reading news reports doesn't give you the whole picture.

The Lancet study, through standard, reliable epidemiological methods, indicated that there had been 600,000+ excess deaths since the Iraq War began.

And how did you determine that the Netherlands, in WWII, would be comparable? Do you have any reason to think that the Netherlands is an appropriate comparison (and do you have any reason to think that the German occupation of the Netherlands was more deadly than the German occupation of, say, Poland)? This is such a weird non sequitur. Death rates were substantially higher in other areas during WWII, and the Lancet study merely suggests that, at the most, 4.0% of Iraqis have been killed, in a country wracked by civil war. Is it so inconceivable that during a civil war, 2.6% of Iraqis (650,000 / 25,000,000) could have been killed, while 2.36% of Dutch were killed? Is that 0.24% "absurd"?

Cleo
 
Who has distanced themself from the study?
Pretty much every body. No governments use it. No reputable media use it.

I have asked a lot of questions and you wont answer them. That tells me everything I need to know about you position.

The Lancet study, through standard, reliable epidemiological methods, indicated that there had been 600,000+ excess deaths since the Iraq War began.
So every little aspects was spot on? No flaws what so ever? How can that be sure when the Iraqi won't release his data for it to be reviewed? Are all those other studies wrong?

Do you believe the Lancet numbers? <--- asked that about 3 times already.
 
Vietnam wasn't a mistake. Well unless you count taking it over from the pansy french who screwed it all up and ran.

I don't have time to write an hour-long post, since I have class to go to, but I'll explain tonight why your statement is wrong, and why is was a mistake for anyone - including us - to get "involved" with Vietnam.

I realized that I owe you an explanation.

The first thing you must realize is that Ho Chi Minh and his buddies were Vietnamese nationalists first, and communists second.

There were several instances in which Ho attempted to gain American support for an independent Vietnam. The first of these occurred at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. A young Ho had gone abroad to study, and, after having heard Wilson's deal about self-determination, took it upon himself to approach Wilson about fighting for an independent Vietnam, which would fit quite perfectly with his previously stated ideals. However Wilson felt about it, he was more concerned with keeping the French happy, and thus willing to join his League of Nations, which, as you may remember, he sacrificed many of his Fourteen Points to get put into the Versailles Treaty. Vietnam, being part of the French colony Indochine, got screwed.

The next opportunity came at the close of the next world war. As you may remember, Vietnam, along with most of Southeast Asia, had fallen under Japanese occupation. A guerilla movment began to free Vietnam, a group called the Viet Minh, a contraction of "Vi&#7879;t Nam Ð&#7897;c L&#7853;p Ð&#7891;ng Minh H&#7897;i," or 'League for the Independence of Vietnam." This group worked closely with American and British forces in ousting the Japanese. We supplied them with armaments and intelligence, and they supplied us with intelligence and dead Japanese. When the puppet government collapsed in mid 1945, Ho and the Viet Minh siezed control and declared Vietnam to be independent. Again, however, she was subjugated to be returned to French colonial administration. And interesting thing to note here is that, when Ho declared Vietnam to be independent, he read the first part of the US Declaration of Independence, following which was a request for American support, again, because of our supposed convictions about self-determination for all peoples.

The Allies felt otherwise, however, and invaded Vietnam and returned power to France. Naturally, the Viet Minh took less than kindly to this, and immediately went to war with France for their independence.

Because the Americans declined to provide aid to the "independent" Vietnamese government in 1946, the Vietnamese went to someone who would provide them with help: the Soviet Union. While it is true that Ho Chi Minh had quite the communist tendency, he was more concerned with securing Vietnamese independence than he was with creating a communist state. Further, the Vietnamese people would rather live in a united Vietnam under communist rule than they would a divided Vietnam. Such an attitude was prevalent in both the north and the south. Because of this attitude, the plebiscite that was to decide whether or not Vietnam would remain divided was never held; there would have been overwhelming support for reunion, something the United States would not have.

It is important to understand the long history of Vietnamese nationalism. The Vietnamese people have, through their entire history, successfully resisted any and all attempts by foreign powers to subjugate them. It is the proudest tradition of the Vietnamese people: self-rule. Their great leaders of the past, the ones who fought to keep Vietnam free, are practically worshipped. If you think the American cult of Lincoln and Washington worshipping is bad, you ain't seen nothing.

The three main figures are as follows: Hai ba Trung, or "The Trung Sisters;" these two fearsome warriors led the Vietnamese people in a rebellion against the Chinese and beat them, removing Chinese power over Vietnam in the 1st Century AD. The second is Tr&#7847;n H&#432;ng &#272;&#7841;o, the great Vietnamese general who fought - and won - three wars against the invading Mongol hordes. The horde was stopped at China, it never conquered Vietnam, and Tran beat them repeatedly by waging the same sort of war that would arise in the Indochina Wars: guerilla warfare. Tri&#7879;u Th&#7883; Trinh was a 3rd Century warrior who directly defied the Wu Empire with force, again securing Vietnam's independence. She is known as the Vietnamese Joan of Arc.

In every city in Vietnam, the three main streets bear the names "Hai ba Trung, Tran Hung Dao, and Trieu Thi Trinh.

It is ingrained in Vietnamese nationalism that, with enough determination, a smaller force and wear down and destroy a much larger invading force.

I hope that you are beginning to see why American forces could not have hoped to "win" in Vietnam. If not, there's plenty more I can tell you.
 
skadistic,

Again, you merely assert with no evidence that "pretty much everybody" has distanced themselves from the study.

You refer to "all the other studies" that disagree with the Lancet one. Which are they? Do you believe that there are no studies that agree with it?

Personally, I happen to believe the actual number of excess deaths is probably within the range specified by the Lancet study. But that's not what I'm arguing. I pointed out that the study had not been discredited. To which you responded with a post filled to the brim with documented falsehoods, citing to the Wall Street Journal opinion pages. You haven't actually shown that the study has been discredited.

Cleo
 
You realize the people who peer reviewed it didn't have the data either, right?

How exactly do you peer review a report without the data?
 
Patroklos,

I don't know. Do you know of other survey studies where the peer reviewers did or did not have the actual reports from surveyors in the field?

The peer reviewers from The Lancet did review the study, and they decided to publish it. Are you alleging that they were negligent in their peer review? Do you have any evidence to support that?

Cleo
 
skadistic,

Again, you merely assert with no evidence that "pretty much everybody" has distanced themselves from the study.Well if people haven't distanced them selves why doesn't the governments and media use it? Its because they have distanced them selves from it. Because it lack credit....

You refer to "all the other studies" that disagree with the Lancet one. Which are they? Well there is the official Iraqi government count, Iraqbodycount.com, WHO, How about a newer and larger studythat shows the first to be flawed? Do you believe that there are no studies that agree with it?Can you find one? I found one that claims the death toll is upwards past a cool million.

Personally, I happen to believe the actual number of excess deaths is probably within the range specified by the Lancet study. Really so you take the numbers from one flawed study and disregard all the others. But that's not what I'm arguing. I pointed out that the study had not been discredited. To which you responded with a post filled to the brim with documented falsehoods, citing to the Wall Street Journal opinion pages. You haven't actually shown that the study has been discredited.

Cleo
Discredited it is. The numbers are trumped up do to flawed application of method.
 
I realized that I owe you an explanation.

Thanks for all that but I was being sarcastic in my post. Vietnam was a mistake from the start. Hence the "taking it over from the french" part.;)
 
skadistic,

Okay. So you're just going to re-assert that it's been discredited.

Cleo
 
skadistic,

Okay. So you're just going to re-assert that it's been discredited.

Cleo

Yup it has been by other studies. Ones you don't want to acknowledge. See one of those used the same method and a bigger more robust pool and came up with a number 1/6 of the flawed Lancet study. Yup thats called discredited. SO ummmmm where are all these studies that have the same numbers as the Lancet? Huh? What?
 
Patroklos,

I don't know. Do you know of other survey studies where the peer reviewers did or did not have the actual reports from surveyors in the field?

I peer review pretty much requires somthing available to be reviewed, don't you think?

The peer reviewers from The Lancet did review the study, and they decided to publish it. Are you alleging that they were negligent in their peer review? Do you have any evidence to support that?

Lie? No. Deliberatly do shoddy work to make a political point that is the well know view of the editor in question, probably. Well respected publications do it all the time, may I point you to the NYT....

Oh, I don't know, the what has to be a half dozen by now articles in this thread saying the Iraqi guy didn't release his data maybe?
 
skadistic,

I'm not arguing that it's correct, I'm arguing that it hasn't been discredited. As you pointed out, there's the Opinion Business Research study that places the excess death total at over 1 million. There's the Lancet study (.pdf) that places it at 600,000. And there's the Iraq Family Health Survey study that estimates violent death at around 150,000.

I don't know which is right. I'm not an epidemiologist. But I don't consider any of them to have been "discredited." Which is the point.

Cleo
 
Patroklos,

How do you know that the Lancet would try to manipulate its data to make a political point but other sources -- sources more in line with your particular political preferences -- wouldn't?

Cleo
 
Patroklos,

How do you know that the Lancet would try to manipulate its data to make a political point but other sources -- sources more in line with your particular political preferences -- wouldn't?

Cleo

Logic, common sense, and an understanding of the information age would surely lead one to believe that 100,000 is a helluva lot more believable than 650,000.

~Chris
 
sonorakitch,

Okay. Do you have data on similar conflicts, and rates of excess deaths that suggest 100,000 is more reasonable than 650,000 or 1,000,000? Wouldn't that be "logical"?

Cleo
 
sonorakitch,

Okay. Do you have data on similar conflicts, and rates of excess deaths that suggest 100,000 is more reasonable than 650,000 or 1,000,000? Wouldn't that be "logical"?

Cleo

There are no similar conflicts.
 
sonorakitch,

Okay. Do you have data on similar conflicts, and rates of excess deaths that suggest 100,000 is more reasonable than 650,000 or 1,000,000? Wouldn't that be "logical"?

Cleo

My thoughts on the matter are a little different here. Admittedly, a conflict in Congo or Chad won't be as transparent to those of us six thousand miles away. With the influx of media, both western and non-western, that has occupied Iraq right beside the troops, I would think, would be bringing us images of bodies scattered everywhere if 650,000+ people perished because of the war. Wouldn't you think along these lines as well?

I am skeptical of such high numbers. In Vietnam, over four million people died, including military personel, and such devastation was visible throughout the media. I haven't seen carpet bombing in Iraq, only the errant smart bomb. I haven't seen napalming of villages, only the occasional roadblock rusher. We here of markets blowing up, killing 50 or 60 quite occasionally. But really, do we hear of such devastation that would cause so many deaths?

That is my curiosity.

~Chris
 
Back
Top Bottom