655,000 War Dead? - NOT!

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by hardflex
yeah, my bad. he offered to surrender but he wanted to stay in power.

uhhhhhhh

[techweenie]

Actually, Saddam was known by the US government to be actively negotiating terms of possible exile in Egypt and other parts of Africa.

This would, of course, have upset Dubya's longstanding plans to invade.

[hardflex]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1079769,00.html

My Brother in law is in Dubai, told me that the UAE were offering exile to Hussein as well.

[lendaddy]

My propane guy says tha......

You know what, forget it. I don't think you guys take him seriously anyway.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Rodeo
You want us to document Iraqi deaths? While you spout off using your vast experience about how Johns Hopkins is a fraud and the Lancet was duped?

I do think you're insane

Well no, actually I'm not asking that at all. I'm asking for the news stories that would certainly document this level of carnage, day after day. Surely this would make the headlines, far more so than the car bombings that claim dozens in a given day. We read those headlines every day. I simply do not remember a day, in the past year, where the headlines announced this number of deaths, or anything remotely close to it, among the Iraqi people. Ever. Please find one for us.

This has to be one of the most closely watched, scrutinized, and documented wars of all time. Surely such a death toll could not have escaped the world's notice. Again, please find an example of even a single day that achieved this toll - at least 1,000 in one day - in the last year. And again, when you are done with that, find the other 364 days that had to keep pace to achieve this. Credible news sources of your choosing will suffice. I'm looking for corraboration here, and you simply cannot provide it.

So I guess your only recourse is to call me "insane". Who is the more "insane", some one who veritably jumps with glee at some very fishy numbers, simply because they serve to reinforce his blind hatred of Bush, or some one who is willing to slow down for a moment and question them? You are demonstrating a far less than objective view on this. Your blind hatred and eagerness to believe information such as this has already well established you as somewhat of a fool on this board. Are you trying to solidify that position? So again, examples, please. Put up or shut up. No more half-assed tries at deflection.

[Moneyguy1]

len

Are you referring to Hank Hill?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by hardflex
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1079769,00.html

My Brother in law is in Dubai, told me that the UAE were offering exile to Hussein as well.

But is your brother in law in the propane business?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
len

Are you referring to Hank Hill?

I don't mention that name around him.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
***Who is the more "insane", some one who veritably jumps with glee at some very fishy numbers***Your blind hatred and eagerness to believe information such as this ***

I don't remember "jumping" at anything.

I've been advocating getting the hell out of there for a year now, as you and the rest called me a traitor and appeaser. The blood is on your hands, but I'm not happy about it.

I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER OF DEAD IRAQIS.

I've said that over and over. But I will take John's Hopkins methodology, peer-reviewed by the Lancet, over your "show me newspaper articles" theory.

Have you ever considered a position as an Opinion Editor at the WSJ? They could use a level-headed guy like you

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Rodeo
I don't remember "jumping" at anything.

I've been advocating getting the hell out of there for a year now, as you and the rest called me a traitor and appeaser. The blood is on your hands, but I'm not happy about it.

I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER OF DEAD IRAQIS.

I've said that over and over. But I will take John's Hopkins methodology, peer-reviewed by the Lancet, over your "show me newspaper articles" theory.

Have you ever considered a position as an Opinion Editor at the WSJ? They could use a level-headed guy like you

You know what this situation reminds me of? The dialog we were having in January '03, where guys like me were quoting Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, who had been in Iraq as weapons inspectors, and the "opposition" just knew there were WMDs because the pundits told them so.

[Jeff Higgins]

Rodeo, I have agreed on your position of "getting the hell out of there" ever since you first stated it. I see no future there. It's time to leave.

Trumped up numbers like this can actually serve to weaken the case to leave. These are so obviously inflated, and from what many see to be a credible source, that I believe they will serve to cast doubt in many peoples' minds over the validity of any numbers coming out of there.

I don't believe these numbers have been peer reviewed by the Lancet. I believe all the Lancet did was publish them. I don't think the Lancet verified them through other sources. I believe the Lancet, from all indications, took the assurances from Johns Hopkins that their sampling method is valid at face value. In other words, the Lancet asked the source - Johns Hopkins - if their sample was accurate. Not very good journalism, regardless of the reputation of the publication. I bet the Lancet takes a second look, what with all the reputable statisticians raising questions over the sampling methods. And no, it's not just newspaper hacks and pundits asking those questions. Some very respected statistitians, already mentioned in this very thread, have questioned them. And the running, detailed coverage of the war does not support numbers like these.

The average "Joe sixpack" can even discern that much, and if these numbers smell bad to him, I don't care who is presenting them. Their reputation will be worthless to him forevermore. That is the danger in all of this; it will blow (probably already has) their credibility. Then nothing else they say about the war will mean anything at all, even if it is accurate, especially if it supports us leaving. They will forever be perceived as having "an agenda" incongruous with the facts.

[Rearden]

Originally posted by Rodeo

I've said that over and over. But I will take John's Hopkins methodology, peer-reviewed by the Lancet, over your "show me newspaper articles" theory.

Have you ever considered a position as an Opinion Editor at the WSJ? They could use a level-headed guy like you

Why do you accept the researchers' methodology? Do you find it to be more accurate that Iraq Body Count's methodology?

We all are bombarded daily with reports of car bombs and death squads. Never once has a grisly total come close to 1000 dead in a day. The study would have you believe this is a daily tally, seemingly with dozens of car bombings going unreported every day. Why would you believe this? You can't argue with the fact that New York Times headline writers would much rather write:

"1000 Iraqis Dead in Violence Yesterday"
instead of
"51 Iraqis Dead in Violence Yesterday"

It would be interesting to know the names of the people who peer-reviewed this study. Are they listed in the journal?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by techweenie
You know what this situation reminds me of? The dialog we were having in January '03, where guys like me were quoting Hans Blix and Scott Ritter, who had been in Iraq as weapons inspectors, and the "opposition" just knew there were WMDs because the pundits told them so.

In other words, you are still unable to come up with those day-to-day news stories demonstrating the 1,000 per day mortality rate required to support their 600,000 number. Keep looking; we'll wait.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
The average "Joe sixpack" can even discern that much, and if these numbers smell bad to him, I don't care who is presenting them. Their reputation will be worthless to him forevermore. That is the danger in all of this; it will blow (probably already has) their credibility. Then nothing else they say about the war will mean anything at all, even if it is accurate, especially if it supports us leaving. They will forever be perceived as having "an agenda" incongruous with the facts.

That could be right. It certainly works that way for me with the blind supporters of Bush & his war.

[kjb]

Originally posted by red-beard
What would be the best way to confirm this study? Do another sample with 50 other clusters. A 2 sample T test will easily tell if the samples are the same or different.

Couldn't you randomly divide the existing 50 clusters into two groups and do what you proposed? I assume the raw data is available.

I realize that this approach would give a wider confidence interval, but if we're just scrutinizing the method and not the results it could be a good use of time.

/ J

[red-beard]

kjb,

You could try that, but 47 isn't a large sample to start with. But it would be interesting to look at it. The problem is, the raw data is not published.

[Superman]

Did you guys ever figure out how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin? They're pretty small. I think it's at least sixty-five.

A few hundred thousand deaths here, and a few hundred thousand deaths there.....and pretty soon you're talking about a costly decision. I wonder how many of those folks are parents, and who's gonna raise those kids.

And finally, I wonder if PERCEPTION has any role here. I mean, I wonder when the Iraqi people are going to love us for what we brought to them recently.

[Superman]

Irish Prayer:

May God bless those who love us.
And for those who do not love us,
may God turn their hearts.
And if God cannot turn their hearts,
may He turn their ankles
so that we may know them by their limping.

[techweenie]

Same methodology didn't cause much of a ruckus after the Indonesian tsunami, nor the genocide in Darfur.

As I understand it, the actual sample size in interviewees is approximately the same as those used in U.S. public opinion polls. The results are surprisingly consistent across those polls in the US taken at the same time with similar question phrasing. And, after all, repeatability is the proof of good science.

Against that, we have Joe Sixpack thinking it doesn't pass the 'smell test.' But Joe Sixpack probably gets his news from Fox.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by techweenie
Gosh, the WSJ Opinion people found someone to disagree with a peer-reviewed scientific report that reflects badly on the Bush administration.

A guy who worked for the impeccably qualified "International Republican Institute" no less. I'm sure he has no bias.

Who could imagine such a turn of events?

You cynic, you.