America has now killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

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.

what if they report numbers that are incorrect, all sides play the media game

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

accepted by whom?

[ballz2wallz]

On the new Lancet Study at politburo diktat 2.0

This is a good assessment of the Lancet study I think.

Part of it:

First, as Allah noted, there is nothing wrong with the concept of sampling. Polls, market research, and many other worthwhile studies depend on sampling. From my review of the Lancet’s report, I can accept their methodology. The experience of 1849 Iraqi households can be extrapolated to the entire population, just as the opinions of 1,000 voters in an American political poll. Of course, this gives an estimate that is subject to some error either way; the Lancet’s estimate most likely falls between 420,000 and 900,000. Beware those who dismiss the study merely because it is based on sampling.

Second, 655,000 is intended to be “excess deaths,” not necessarily only due to conflict-related violence. If the local hospital has been blown up and someone dies of acute appendicitis (which otherwise would have been treated routinely at the hospital), that is an “excess death.”

Third, the Lancet’s pre-war death rate of 5.5 per thousand falls right in with CIA estimates of death rates in other Arab countries. These rates are low because of the youthful age of the population, not because of superior health care. So, claims that “Saddam’s Iraq must have been more violent” are not persuasive.

Fourth, the Lancet numbers really are vastly bigger than other estimates: notably Iraq Body Count and the UN. Iraq Body Count relies only on deaths reported in the media, which probably understates the total. Their estimate is about 45,000. Starting in the summer months of 2006, the UN (hardly a puppet of George W. Bush) began to report Iraqi civilian deaths, using morgues, hospitals, and other sources, beyond media reports. Over the past few months, the UN has reported deaths of 3,000 - 3,500 per month, roughly double the media-based reports from IBC. Extrapolating that, we could assume that the UN approach would have been double the IBC’s numbers, then we would be looking at 90,000 - 100,000 dead, a horrific number itself.

But 100,000 is a far cry from 655,000. Why the difference? 1) Maybe the UN’s body-by-body methodology is under-counting, by a factor of six. 2) Maybe the Lancet’s sample survey is over-stated, by a factor of six. 3) Some combination of both. (I would say that arguments of “it’s just too high; it’s ridiculous on its face; it just can’t be!” are not compelling.)

[Kytro]

I'd agree that analysis is reasonable

[Country Ken]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Iraqi Death Toll Exceeds 600,000, Study Estimates - WSJ.com




Well, damn. That really sucks, it virtually kills the reasoning "to free the Iraqis"

That figure is grossly exaggerated. The real benefits will come from a free Iraq.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Country Ken

That figure is grossly exaggerated. The real benefits will come from a free Iraq.

You can assert that, but it does not make it true.

[Country Ken]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The specifics are irrelevant. The main similarity is that we are at war, and war is hell. To count bodies or deaths causes by either side is ridiculous when at war. It matters not.

Why the hell not compare to ww11. We should have been at war with Germany much sooner than we were, and probably would have had it not been for fools like Joe Kennedy. Saddam is no less a scum ball than Hitler was. History will say the U.S. had a strong, honest leader, and they did the right thing.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Country Ken

Why the hell not compare to ww11. We should have been at war with Germany much sooner than we were, and probably would have had it not been for fools like Joe Kennedy. Saddam is no less a scum ball than Hitler was. History will say the U.S. had a strong, honest leader, and they did the right thing.

I agree with this, only if Iraq turns out to be a success. If Iraq turns out to be another Vietnam, it will be treated as such; we all know Vietnam is not looked at positively.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Country Ken

Why the hell not compare to ww11. We should have been at war with Germany much sooner than we were, and probably would have had it not been for fools like Joe Kennedy. Saddam is no less a scum ball than Hitler was. History will say the U.S. had a strong, honest leader, and they did the right thing.

You're trying to say Saddam was as bad as Hitler?

Lastly, we have vastly superior technology nowadays. The fact that we could be responsible for this number of deaths in a short period of time both directly through bombs, and indirectly through lack of security, infrastructure, etc, etc.. is unacceptable IMO.. and reinforces the fact that this war has been horribly mismanaged.

Lastly, I doubt very seriously history will say those things about this considering the reason we went into Iraq has been proven completely false, whereas Hitler was actually taking over Europe, exterminating the Jews, etc..

Also, welcome to the forum.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

You're trying to say Saddam was as bad as Hitler?

In that they were both scumballs, yes.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

In that they were both scumballs, yes.

There's degrees of scumballishness. A dead beat dad is a scumball, but comparing people to Hitler should be done in extreme cases only.

It's like the people who compare Bush to Hitler. When the comparison lacks merit, it lowers the credibility of the rest of whatever someone has to say.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Country Ken

Why the hell not compare to ww11. We should have been at war with Germany much sooner than we were, and probably would have had it not been for fools like Joe Kennedy. Saddam is no less a scum ball than Hitler was. History will say the U.S. had a strong, honest leader, and they did the right thing.

Goodwin's Law

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Seeing as how the study hasn't released the specifics on their methodology (simply saying such useful gems as, "This is a standard methodology that the U.S. government and others have encouraged groups to use in developing countries," which means absolutely nothing to me), I see no reason to believe any one particular figure over another.

You can believe Bush when he says 30K, or you can believe Burnham when he says 600K, or anything in between.

The study was in the times this week, it had an estimated 25 % error. Statisticians who evaluated it found no major errors but where troubled by the methodology. So an actual error could be guessed to around 30-35 %. Which also implies the death toll could be higher. Unfortunately it also included deaths from natural causes. Regardless of anything of the data, it can be agreed upon atleast that Iraqi's are dieing now at a faster rate than they were before we invaded. And it is pretty troubling that the current number one cause of death in Iraq is bullets(no joke).

So hopefully they buy into the whole liberty is more important than life thing. I might, and would accept these kind of casualties if I were building America , but I doubt they do.

[motivez]

From what I understand they used standard cluster sampling as their methodology, and while the deviation for error is probably higher than they'd like, it's obviously going to be the case because of how dangerous Iraq is right now.

They also included 'natural' causes because well, Iraq's health care certainly isn't better than it was pre-invasion, and from what I've read, neither are things like sanitation, etc..

Really the bottom line is that this is the only scientific study of its type done. Every other number is solely based on media reports, which is obviously going to underreport the nubmers.