Members sizzlemeister Posted March 25, 2008 Members Share Posted March 25, 2008 From everything I've read, their methodology is a time tested one, deemed to be the most accurate. I'd rather guess you pulled that from some propaganda orifice... Are we to assume that "everything" you are reading includes articles that find fault with the study? I certainly wouldn't make that assumption. And because "everything (you've) read" concludes the Lancet report is sound, does that make it so? Does your paranoia work two ways or just one way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted March 25, 2008 Members Share Posted March 25, 2008 By your math that's 356.16 deaths A DAY (2493.15 a week) since the beginning of the war. Even the most slanted news outlets aren't reporting that kind of carnage out of Iraq.This is the same Lancet that released their first "death count" early purposely to affect the 2004 election - how very objective of them. So, your first 'argument' is that because the number is so high, it can't be true...and your second reports an alleged motivation as fact. My understanding is that the first one was released early because it was deemed important (and, btw, this is NOT the 650,000 estimate, which came later). Afaik, the Lancet has always been a very highly respected scientific journal, and that the overall methodology used (extrapolation from smaller samples) is the best one to use for this kind of estimate. In actuality the Lancet numbers were presented as a wide range, with the highest number exceeding the 650,000...and also (I forget whether this was the first or the second study) they did not include numbers from Falujah, which would have skewed the numbers upward. Their numbers obviously do not include only military deaths, but purport to show the best scientific estimates of how many people there have died that wouldn't have otherwise. Iraq Body Count admits that there numbers underestimate the number of deaths, but that is pretty much the only number you'll ever see. Much of the misinformation supportive of the Iraqi war has achieved wide press coverage, and continues to receive it. Yet, studies from reputable scientific journals showing death totals far larger than the 'official' numbers are pretty much ignored. We've freed the Iraqi people, but the fact that polls there show that the Iraqis think that the violence there is primarily caused by our presence, and that they want us out, don't receive much coverage. Why would our imposed democracy really care about what they think, or how many of them have really died because of us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted March 25, 2008 Members Share Posted March 25, 2008 Are we to assume that "everything" you are reading includes articles that find fault with the study? I certainly wouldn't make that assumption. And because "everything (you've) read" concludes the Lancet report is sound, does that make it so? Does your paranoia work two ways or just one way? The phrase means that I am pretty well satisfied that this methodology is the one that people schooled in these kind of studies/statistics use and find to be accurate. Obviously, I'm aware of the pro-war propaganda. The rest of your question is utterly ridiculous - of course, the fact that I conclude that it's so, isn't what makes it true. It's actually more the fact that it IS true, which some amount of real investigation on your part would reveal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ChasIII Posted March 25, 2008 Members Share Posted March 25, 2008 btw, what makes you think that 650,000 is too high? Obviously you're taking the U.S. propaganda as fact. But, a moment of introspection, might make you realize that it's totally unreliable for factual information. I thought it might be a bit high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members russ1974 Posted March 25, 2008 Members Share Posted March 25, 2008 I heard something on the radio yesterday, something like "97% of all US solider deaths in Iraq have occured AFTER Bush announced victory" or something like that ... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members russ1974 Posted March 25, 2008 Members Share Posted March 25, 2008 ... and I would like to apologise for the excessive use of the word "something" in my previous post ... ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MartinHines Posted March 25, 2008 Members Share Posted March 25, 2008 4,000 American soldiers dead. 650,000 Iraqis dead since war started, according to British journal The Lancet, and that was only through 2006 . . . One of the major U.S. news organizations (either ABC, NBC, or CBS) stated estimates of Iraqi causualties ranged from 80,000 - 700,000.At the very least there have been 20x more Iraqis die than U.S. soldiers.I find it very interesting there was such a huge U.S. outrage over the YouTube video of a U.S. soldier throwing a dog off a cliff (which was bad) compared to almost no U.S. outrage over at least 20,000 Iraqi deaths.I guess we Americans are more concerned about what happens to Britney Spears or Paris Hilton than what is happening in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mook Posted March 25, 2008 Members Share Posted March 25, 2008 I guess we Americans are more concerned about what happens to Britney Spears or Paris Hilton than what is happening in the real world. The soldier threw the wrong dog then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Allerian Posted March 25, 2008 Members Share Posted March 25, 2008 From everything I've read, their methodology is a time tested one, deemed to be the most accurate. I'd rather guess you pulled that from some propaganda orifice...No idea what you're on about. I collect data for a living and this method is a pet peeve. Imo, it appears to be a ridiculously high result when compared to the overall population and total area of Iraq - there would have to be bodies stacked in piles with the media pointing at them. History has shown that dead bodies get unmanageable pretty quickly and are a bugger to conceal.Look at it this way, if there are enough curious eyes on earth to turn up this google streetview image of a drug deal, we'd be seeing the bodies of these 650k folks somewhere, wouldn't we? It isn't like anyone is somehow blacking out or controlling worldwide media coverage in Iraq. Or are they? Dealer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members p3dalwh0re Posted March 25, 2008 Members Share Posted March 25, 2008 http://i28.tinypic.com/2804o75.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Lozada Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I guess none of you have the actual numbers, so please stop attacking each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted March 25, 2008 Members Share Posted March 25, 2008 No idea what you're on about. I collect data for a living and this method is a pet peeve. Imo, it appears to be a ridiculously high result when compared to the overall population and total area of Iraq - there would have to be bodies stacked in piles with the media pointing at them. History has shown that dead bodies get unmanageable pretty quickly and are a bugger to conceal. Look at it this way, if there are enough curious eyes on earth to turn up this google streetview image of a drug deal, we'd be seeing the bodies of these 650k folks somewhere, wouldn't we? It isn't like anyone is somehow blacking out or controlling worldwide media coverage in Iraq. Or are they? Dealer You're expecting videos of these bodies to show up on youtube? At one point I read quite a bit about the lancet methodology, and I was rather convinced. Enough reputable people have written as to the soundness of the methodology, and its use in similar death estimates, that I'd take this evidence over your musings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted March 25, 2008 Members Share Posted March 25, 2008 I guess none of you have the actual numbers, so please stop attacking each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted March 25, 2008 Members Share Posted March 25, 2008 The Iraqi Body Count site reports 82,408 - 89,928 DOCUMENTED civilian deaths due to violence. The Lancet methodology attempts to capture not only undocumented deaths, but those due to other causes attributable to the occupation - disease, etc....apparently, in other wars, methodologies that used only documentated deaths grossly underestimated the true death tolls. to me, it seems quite plausible that if there were 89,928 documented deaths due to violence, that the overall death toll due to documented + undocumented deaths, and deaths due to other causes, but due to the occupation and war, would be far, far greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted March 25, 2008 Members Share Posted March 25, 2008 From http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/071003_iraq_body_count.php IBC omit to mention the most obvious and telling criticism: that the credibility of their database as an approximate guide to levels of violence in Iraq - i.e., "The death toll could be twice our number, but it could not possibly be 10 times higher" - is undermined by the fact that conditions in Iraq are so lethal that journalists are unable to discover many violent deaths of civilians. Consider that a study of deaths in Guatemala from 1960 to 1996 by Patrick Ball et al at the University of California, Berkeley (1999) found that numbers of murders reported by the media in fact decreased as violence increased. Ball described the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Allerian Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 You're expecting videos of these bodies to show up on youtube? At one point I read quite a bit about the lancet methodology, and I was rather convinced. Enough reputable people have written as to the soundness of the methodology, and its use in similar death estimates, that I'd take this evidence over your musings. Youtube? No, but I'd expect something. Anything? Are you seeing it? I actively persue foriegn news coverage and I'm yet to see the staggering result you suggest. Hoenstly DM, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I do get the feeling that you select your sources carefully in order to support your views. Can't blame ya, everyone does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 Youtube? No, but I'd expect something. Anything? Are you seeing it? I actively persue foriegn news coverage and I'm yet to see the staggering result you suggest.Hoenstly DM, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I do get the feeling that you select your sources carefully in order to support your views. Can't blame ya, everyone does it. Well, if everyone does it, then it's really devoid of content to say that I do it also....and, in any case, if you want to post something to support what you're saying, how would you do it by selecting something which supports the opposite point of view? So, I'm not sure what point you could really be making here. I'm not sure what staggering result you're talking about - if you're talking about the 650,000 or the 1,000,000 figure, where would you expect to find it? I do think that one thing that the Body Count people say is correct - you don't need that high a figure in order for it to be a terrible thing, and to recognize that the war is an atrocity (my own version). Those numbers aren't necessary for my point of view. I just happen to think that they are correct. Ultimately, when it comes to things like this, I see my 'kind of sources' to be proven correct, over and over and over again over the years. it's the fact that we are so pressured to forget history that makes these kind of sources seem extreme and biased, and the revisionism that sets in to make people forget...the Vietnam syndrome, etc.... Sure, I'm not an expert, and I'm not a statistician. From everything I've read, I think that these numbers are credible, that the methodology sounds sounds credible and more reliable than taking only documented cases. Even the Body Count people admit that their numbers are way too low - it's just the degree to which they are too low that's in question. But they admit that they could be off by a factor of 2, which would make the current death toll about 180,000 - which is still an incredibly disgusting figure. Imagine an occupying force here that was responsible for as many deaths, proportionally to our respective populations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mytee2.0 Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 your type of post is idiotic and offensive. then stop taking the internet so offensively. You take 80% of the posts here incredibly personally. Stop it, just stop already. Its adding unneeded stress to your life. You tried to personally insult me and I didnt explode in rage. I suggest you do the same from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mytee2.0 Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 I guess none of you have the actual numbers, so please stop attacking each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Lozada Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 your post is idiotic and offensive. your momma is so fat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ElectricPuppy Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 HOW FAT IS SHE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mytee2.0 Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 your momma is so fat... she was so fat, that droolermaster got angry!!! VERY ANGRY AT EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!! I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 lol.... man, I just dont know what to say to this. Are you completely insane? You have no idea what my stance is on the war, so stop making snap judgements about people. Unless you like coming accross as a jackass. then stop taking the internet so offensively. You take 80% of the posts here incredibly personally. Stop it, just stop already. Its adding unneeded stress to your life. You tried to personally insult me and I didnt explode in rage. I suggest you do the same from time to time. hmmm - that was "exploding in rage" and taking your remarks personally? Your post, which has conveniently fallen out of the quote was: "Instead of starting threads on HC, why not protest, yell and scream where your voice might be heard? oh but that would take a little more effort on your part then clicking a couple times and typing out a couple figures you read. go out and do something, Captain America" I'd say that this is indeed the post of a war supporter, who feels that he is making points by ridiculing the thread's initial antiwar message. Either that, or it's supreme silliness is simply out of context - that somehow you can post drivel like this and it's ok - you're accomplishing great things in the world by doing so, but if someone posts something out of genuine conviction, as opposed to your infinite snarfdom, they are ridiculed. If someone points this out, you treat them as a crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Lozada Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 HOW FAT IS SHE? ... that when she farts, next to it even a minimoog sounds thin and digital(hell that was my first and maybe the only attempt of making a "your momma" joke) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted March 26, 2008 Members Share Posted March 26, 2008 she was so fat, that droolermaster got angry!!! VERY ANGRY AT EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!I It is good to see that you are continuing in your tradition of calm rationality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.