[quote]lixy wrote:
Now, how do you reconcile …[/quote]
It’s easy to reconcile: The best methods suck. Counting deaths in a warzone is not an exact science, and the various participants have vested interests in pulling or pushing the number their way.
I fail to see the interest in knowing if the war has killed 50,000 or 500,000 civilians; there isn’t a number of dead civilians that seems acceptable to me, be they in the Twin Tower or in Afghanistan or Iraq.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote: Just so you know…
heh. Nice.[/quote]
How soon they forget…
“On November 1, 1978, President Jimmy Carter established the President’s Commission on the Holocaust…”
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005782
[quote]lixy wrote:
Jeffy, yet from the same source you forgot to indicate that:
“a memo by the MoD’s Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, on 13 October, states: “The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to “best practice” in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq.””
Now, how do you reconcile accepting the methods but rejecting the figures? I can understand why they wouldn’t like being accomplices in what amounted to a catastrophe. But please, if you have any theories concerning that paradox, I’ll be happy to hear it.[/quote]
READ THE ARTICLE THAT I LINKED, YOU MORON!!!
It spells it out.
It says clearly that there are serious concerns that the sample size was too small to extrapolate.
Therefore, the collection methods were strong. However, the sample size was too small.
It’s AMAZING what happens when you read!!!
I’ll read some fundamentalist literature if you promise to read PRO-US.
I’m betting you would melt.
I, however, can shrug off that nonsense.
JeffR
[quote]lixy wrote:
Maybe you missed the news on March that the British government (which was still under the poodle!) finally acknowledged that the report was “robust” and their methods “tried and tested”.
[/quote]
Oh, lixy,
Now would be a great time to say that your were wrong about the above statement.
The British Government put out an official statement at direct odds with your conclusions.
JeffR
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Lixy commented that Iraq had 140 dead on Wed. so it looks like a slow day according to these already greatly reduced numbers. [/quote]
Read closer. I specified that they died in Iraq attacks!
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Lixy commented that Iraq had 140 dead on Wed. so it looks like a slow day according to these already greatly reduced numbers.
Read closer. I specified that they died in Iraq attacks![/quote]
Of course. They were war dead. What other war dead were there? Were there 62 old ladies that died because their sons couldn’t make it home and get them out of the sun?
The numbers are totally bogus. Anyone tha takes them seriously is a moron. I doubt you even take them seriously but you are more than happy to use them to support your shaky political positions.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Now would be a great time to say that your were wrong about the above statement.
The British Government put out an official statement at direct odds with your conclusions. [/quote]
Straight from the BBC’s article titled “Iraqi deaths survey ‘was robust’”:
“the Ministry of Defence’s chief scientific adviser said the survey’s methods were “close to best practice” and the study design was “robust”.”
Another expert agreed the method was “tried and tested”.
How’s that at odds with what I wrote? Here, I’ll refresh your memory.
“Maybe you missed the news on March that the British government (which was still under the poodle!) finally acknowledged that the report was “robust” and their methods “tried and tested”.”
As for the sample size being too small, please refer us to a study which used more data to extrapolate the deaths that can be attributed to the invasion.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Of course. They were war dead. What other war dead were there? Were there 62 old ladies that died because their sons couldn’t make it home and get them out of the sun? [/quote]
Is that a joke to you? Can’t you see that the hellhole you turned Iraq into is bound to cause deaths that aren’t necessarily caused by weapons? How many orphans that can’t feed themselves did the war cause? How many stressed out elderly who sees blood on a daily basis succumbed to a heart attack? How many died of medical conditions because they couldn’t get clean water?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Of course. They were war dead. What other war dead were there? Were there 62 old ladies that died because their sons couldn’t make it home and get them out of the sun?
Is that a joke to you? Can’t you see that the hellhole you turned Iraq into is bound to cause deaths that aren’t necessarily caused by weapons? How many orphans that can’t feed themselves did the war cause? How many stressed out elderly who sees blood on a daily basis succumbed to a heart attack? How many died of medical conditions because they couldn’t get clean water?
[/quote]
Piss off asshole. Iraq was a hell hole before we were there. Saddam murdered countless Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwatis.
It is a tragedy that the world keeps producing these horrible dictators and most of the world does not care enouh to try to stop them.
[quote]lixy wrote:
… How many died of medical conditions because they couldn’t get clean water?
[/quote]
And don’t give me shit about clean water. I have personally contributed to providing clean water to Baghdad.
If Muslims would stop murdering each other because they have slightly different religious beliefs Iraq would have fully functioning water/wastewater and power plants.
This is not a USA problem although the USA is trying to fix it. Unfortunately there are too many hate filled ungrateful assholes in this world such as yourself that have never accomplished anything and only wish to tear down those that are doing the real work.
The unfortunate Iraqi people have no one to blame for their problems but themselves and the foreign terrorists they have sheltered.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The unfortunate Iraqi people have no one to blame for their problems but themselves and the foreign terrorists they have sheltered.[/quote]
Like the guy who beats his wife or girlfriend and then tells her she brings it on herself – “baby, don’t make me hit you again”
US ‘loses’ 190,000 weapons in Iraq
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22174921-5012778,00.html
Saudis’ role in Iraq insurgency outlined
July 15, 2007
BAGHDAD - Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,3818698,full.story
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Piss off asshole. Iraq was a hell hole before we were there. Saddam murdered countless Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwatis.[/quote]
How many of those did he murder this century? Care to fetch a figure.
Thank God for the superpower that “cares enough”, right?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
And don’t give me shit about clean water. I have personally contributed to providing clean water to Baghdad.
If Muslims would stop murdering each other because they have slightly different religious beliefs Iraq would have fully functioning water/wastewater and power plants.
This is not a USA problem although the USA is trying to fix it. Unfortunately there are too many hate filled ungrateful assholes in this world such as yourself that have never accomplished anything and only wish to tear down those that are doing the real work.
The unfortunate Iraqi people have no one to blame for their problems but themselves and the foreign terrorists they have sheltered.[/quote]
What part of dramatic-increase-in-death-rate-post-invasion don’t you get? Are the Iraqis to blame because you decided to attack them and unleash all kinds of problems on them? I don’t think that would be fair.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If you divide the 221,050 by 3 years and 365 days per year
we get 202 war deaths per day. Lixy commented that Iraq had 140 dead on Wed. so it looks like a slow day according to these already greatly reduced numbers.
[/quote]
What’s funny to me is when I was complaining about all the terrorist violence in Iraq in another thread, I said car bombs kill an estimated 75 people a day. And Lixy said MY estimate was way too HIGH. When it’s convenient, he now claims an even higher death toll.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Piss off asshole. Iraq was a hell hole before we were there. Saddam murdered countless Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwatis.
How many of those did he murder this century? Care to fetch a figure.
It is a tragedy that the world keeps producing these horrible dictators and most of the world does not care enouh to try to stop them.
Thank God for the superpower that “cares enough”, right?[/quote]
Since he has been deposed most of the century your point is meaningless.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If you divide the 221,050 by 3 years and 365 days per year
we get 202 war deaths per day. Lixy commented that Iraq had 140 dead on Wed. so it looks like a slow day according to these already greatly reduced numbers.
What’s funny to me is when I was complaining about all the terrorist violence in Iraq in another thread, I said car bombs kill an estimated 75 people a day. And Lixy said MY estimate was way too HIGH. When it’s convenient, he now claims an even higher death toll.[/quote]
Only because you were blaming terrorists for the deaths. He somehow finds a way to blame the US for Muslims killing other Muslims.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What’s funny to me is when I was complaining about all the terrorist violence in Iraq in another thread, I said car bombs kill an estimated 75 people a day. And Lixy said MY estimate was way too HIGH. When it’s convenient, he now claims an even higher death toll.[/quote]
And I stand by that. 75 people a day is way too high. Though with the recent surge, it seems to be heading in that direction…
Now if you’ll please point out where I claim an even higher daily car-bomb death toll?
I also wish to declare that 75 people dying due to non natural causes is too high of a death toll.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Now if you’ll please point out where I claim an even higher daily car-bomb death toll?[/quote]
You obviously missed the point entirely.
[quote]kroby wrote:
I also wish to declare that 75 people dying due to non natural causes is too high of a death toll.[/quote]
Do I hear 80?