America has now killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam - Page 4

Thorgrim · 10-11-2006, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by phreak

if they don't report it to a morgue, where do the death certificates come from?

What exactly is the Iraqi death certificate process?

If someone is blown to bits, do they have to scoop up whatever they can find and take it to the morgue to get a death certificate?

Diamond Cross · 10-11-2006, 01:48 PM

Car crashes in America kill roughly 40,000 eqach year.

One and a half million people were killed through the sanctions initiated by the Uniuted Nations, not America, when Saddam wasn't complying with the resolutions. Why aren"t people lamenting about that that?

I am so sick of people blaming America and President Bush solely when their governments support our action in Iraq through United nAtions resolutions. If Bush is a murderer, then so is the United Nations for their support of his actions. The United Nations enacted resolution 1441 which allowed America to go into Iraq. Gypocrisy much?

Hey, I just created a new term; Gypocrisy. Combination of gypped and hypocrisy. For those who don't know what gypped is, it means one being conned.

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 05:10 PM

Iraq Government says death toll report 'exaggerated'

Thorgrim · 10-11-2006, 05:13 PM

the same Iraqi government that is protecting death squads its own police force runs....iraqi government

Kytro · 10-11-2006, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Yes and the thread title specifically says AMERICA, which would be wrong.

Yeah, my bad, used the title from another story which was linked to a stroy which linked to this story.

But in terms of impact, US > Saddam

Kytro · 10-11-2006, 10:49 PM

I'm too sure about the sample size bring large enough, and conditions being similar enough nation wide to extrapolate figures.

However the naysayers so far have said "it's flawed" and "not credible" without pointing out why or how. it is going to be published, so perhaps some reviews will yield more detail

Diamond Cross · 10-12-2006, 04:24 AM

It's not credible because there are conflicting reports of numbers of dead and they don't explain how they're counting the dead.

Kytro · 10-12-2006, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

It's not credible because there are conflicting reports of numbers of dead and they don't explain how they're counting the dead.

It's about those leaders who condem it without explaining why (in reality, they would make these claims even if it were credible). The report will be published and once that is done the method should be available

motivez · 10-12-2006, 06:40 AM

The interesting thing about this study is that it's the first scientific study of its kind done.

The rest of the "body counts" are entirely based on media reports, which are obviously going to be lower than the actual body count because they cannot report every single death accurately in the chaos that is Iraq right now.

Their methods are apparently standard cluster sampling, and even if the margin of error is "+ or - several hundred thousand", that's still a far larger number than we've been lead to believe at the lowest, and nearly a million at the highest.

ballz2wallz · 10-12-2006, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Their methods are apparently standard cluster sampling, and even if the margin of error is "+ or - several hundred thousand", that's still a far larger number than we've been lead to believe at the lowest, and nearly a million at the highest.

In science, if the total count was a few hundred thousand with a margin of error of a few hundred thousand, this would be thrown out the window immediately. It's statistically no good.

kinggovernor · 10-12-2006, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

The rest of the "body counts" are entirely based on media reports, which are obviously going to be lower than the actual body count because they cannot report every single death accurately in the chaos that is Iraq right now.

that is quite an assumption. What if they are being told numbers that are overestimating the number of dead

motivez · 10-12-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that is quite an assumption. What if they are being told numbers that are overestimating the number of dead

It's not so much an assumption as a generally accepted thing.. They obviously cannot cover every single body that is found because it's incredibly dangerous to travel over there.

It's been accepted for quite some time that the current reports under represent the reality.

motivez · 10-12-2006, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

In science, if the total count was a few hundred thousand with a margin of error of a few hundred thousand, this would be thrown out the window immediately. It's statistically no good.

Well, considering this is a science, and there hasn't been any credible attacks on the data, or the methodolgy.. I'll wait until you have some hard evidence to support that it's "no good".

ballz2wallz · 10-12-2006, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Well, considering this is a science, and there hasn't been any credible attacks on the data, or the methodolgy.. I'll wait until you have some hard evidence to support that it's "no good".

This is pseudo-science.

Thorgrim · 10-12-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

This is pseudo-science.

I don't think I've ever heard a rationale human being call John Hopkins "pseudo-science"

Thomas Crown · 10-12-2006, 05:38 PM

I'm sure it's been said, but I'll say it anyway.

First, the study was crap.
Second, it isn't how many civilians were killed by the US. It was just how many were killed since the war started. Insurgents have killed FAR more civilians than we have. To the tune of hundreds a day if you believe the news stories.
Third, and most importantly, the study was crap. It was neither scientific or methodical. It was "how many people do you think died?" being asked to a group of civilians.

But hey, it is great political fodder for the left, regardless of how ridiculous it is.

ballz2wallz · 10-12-2006, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I don't think I've ever heard a rationale human being call John Hopkins "pseudo-science"

Anybody that does statistics knows that a standard deviation of this magnitude renders these numbers useless.

How can one say something like 'we estimate the numbers to be 3 + or - 2'

That's preposterous. The purpose of standard deviation is to show that your estimation is nearly very accurate by the lack of discrepancies present. There are too many variations here to conclude that such a number is even accurate.

avsp · 10-12-2006, 05:48 PM

Is it the case that there is a casaulty RATE that if exceeeded renders the enterprise a 'bad idea'?

Given the notion of 'freeing the iraqi people from tyranny' that was floated as amongst the various justifications for the intervention then presumably there is

IMO the coalition (ie the peoples of the US & UK, ..., you & me for example) does bear responsibilty for the deaths resulting from destabilising Iraq & then failing to secure law & order, ..., especially as this was an obvious risk beforehand

Thorgrim · 10-12-2006, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Anybody that does statistics knows that a standard deviation of this magnitude renders these numbers useless.

How can one say something like 'we estimate the numbers to be 3 + or - 2'

That's preposterous. The purpose of standard deviation is to show that your estimation is nearly very accurate by the lack of discrepancies present. There are too many variations here to conclude that such a number is even accurate.

To think, all those brilliant minds, all that money, could have been saved if you had emailed them a simple paragraph!

ballz2wallz · 10-12-2006, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

To think, all those brilliant minds, all that money, could have been saved if you had emailed them a simple paragraph!

I should go off what's in the article instead of what's in the thread

The Lancet study, funded largely by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies , said while the percentage of deaths attributed to the U.S.-led coalition has decreased over the past year, coalition forces were involved in 31% of all violent deaths since March 2003. Most of the deaths in Iraq, particularly in the past two years, have been caused by insurgent, terrorist and sectarian violence.

Overall, the study found 55% of deaths since March 2003 were due to violence. Of that subset, 56% resulted from gunshots; car bombs and other explosives accounted for 27%, and airstrikes caused 13%. The rest were due to other factors.

Paul Bolton, a public-health researcher at Boston University who has reviewed the study, called the methodology "excellent" and said it was standard procedure in a wide range of studies he has worked on. "You can't be sure of the exact number, but you can be quite sure that you are in the right ballpark," he said.