Is the Lancet Study going to unravel?
Some more background:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/10/joisting_with_the_lancet_the_p.php
and
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/01/04/will-old-media-learn-a-lesson-from-lancet-doubtful/
And of course, the last two time we discussed this thread, I posted some critiques of the study, which can be found here:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066
Even the most conservative figures are shocking to say the least.
Quibbling over this is like the idiots arguing over that there in no consensus about man-made Global Warming to justify driving their SUV.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Even the most conservative figures are shocking to say the least.
Quibbling over this is like the idiots arguing over that there in no consensus about man-made Global Warming to justify driving their SUV.[/quote]
So being upset about a published “scientific” study in a well respected medical journal making stuff up and using bad science to try to justify a political point is “quibbling”?
ADDENDUM:
From Sloth’s linked article, a graph of the quibble:
[quote]lixy wrote:
Even the most conservative figures are shocking to say the least.
Quibbling over this is like the idiots arguing over that there in no consensus about man-made Global Warming to justify driving their SUV.[/quote]
Man-made global warming IS a farce.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So being upset about a published “scientific” study in a well respected medical journal making stuff up and using bad science to try to justify a political point is “quibbling”? [/quote]
Depends.
Here’s what pissed me off in the OP’s article (and where I stopped reading): “Editorials in many major newspapers cited the Lancet article as further evidence that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea”.
I don’t think I am the only one who holds the US responsible every time somebody dies violently in Iraq. I am not the only one who thinks the Iraqi refugees are cursing W. and his crowd, and every time one of them dies (be it of a bullet or dysentery), I personally blame it on the USA.
You know as well as I do that the reason America dropped the body count is to get a free pass and get a crack at anyone who advances death toll figures. They learned their lesson in Vietnam.
Whether it’s 5,000, 50,000 or millions, I don’t really care. The fact of the matter is that the USA attacked a country on the other side of the globe that was already in a very bad shape. That is simply inexcusable.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:
Even the most conservative figures are shocking to say the least.
Quibbling over this is like the idiots arguing over that there in no consensus about man-made Global Warming to justify driving their SUV.
So being upset about a published “scientific” study in a well respected medical journal making stuff up and using bad science to try to justify a political point is “quibbling”?
ADDENDUM:
From Sloth’s linked article, a graph of the quibble:
[/quote]
BB,
I’m fairly certain lixy has quoted those inflated figures.
If someone wants to read some stomach turning posts, they could confirm my suspicion.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
lixy wrote:
Even the most conservative figures are shocking to say the least.
Quibbling over this is like the idiots arguing over that there in no consensus about man-made Global Warming to justify driving their SUV.
So being upset about a published “scientific” study in a well respected medical journal making stuff up and using bad science to try to justify a political point is “quibbling”?
ADDENDUM:
From Sloth’s linked article, a graph of the quibble:
BB,
I’m fairly certain lixy has quoted those inflated figures.
If someone wants to read some stomach turning posts, they could confirm my suspicion.
JeffR
[/quote]
So a study with a tested and often used methodology has some quirks.
A few hundred thousand people less died.
Maybe.
So that leaves us with only a few hundred thousand dead due to the sanctions, including 500000 children, a few million refugees, and a few hundred thousand dead after the invasion.
Thank God, I began to think something serious was going on but its all a liberal fantasy.
[quote]orion wrote:
…
So that leaves us with only a few hundred thousand dead due to the sanctions, including 500000 children, a few million refugees, and a few hundred thousand dead after the invasion.
Thank God, I began to think something serious was going on but its all a liberal fantasy.
[/quote]
The sanctions regime and the war are two separate causes. In fact, one of the arguments in favor of the war was that the sanctions regime wasn’t working, and was punishing average Iraqis but not affecting the government (the same basic argument against all sanctions regimes).
The Lancet Study particularly claimed that there were over 400,000 “extra deaths” attributable to the Iraq War - above and beyond what there would have been without the war and with the sanctions regime still in place. That’s greater than Iraq Body Count by more than a factor of 10 - or, to put in in percent terms, more than 1000% higher.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
So being upset about a published “scientific” study in a well respected medical journal making stuff up and using bad science to try to justify a political point is “quibbling”?
lixy wrote:
Depends.
Here’s what pissed me off in the OP’s article (and where I stopped reading): “Editorials in many major newspapers cited the Lancet article as further evidence that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea”.
I don’t think I am the only one who holds the US responsible every time somebody dies violently in Iraq. I am not the only one who thinks the Iraqi refugees are cursing W. and his crowd, and every time one of them dies (be it of a bullet or dysentery), I personally blame it on the USA.
You know as well as I do that the reason America dropped the body count is to get a free pass and get a crack at anyone who advances death toll figures. They learned their lesson in Vietnam.
Whether it’s 5,000, 50,000 or millions, I don’t really care. The fact of the matter is that the USA attacked a country on the other side of the globe that was already in a very bad shape. That is simply inexcusable.[/quote]
So to you, it’s immaterial. But the fact that the number itself was used as rhetorical justification to condemn the War is the point - it may not have mattered to you, but it mattered in the course of the general discussion.
For you, perhaps, the fact that the U.S. has used unprecedented efforts to minimize civilian casualties might be more imporant?
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20080103.aspx
[i]Where Have All The Dead Americans Gone?
January 3, 2008: U.S. forces suffered 107 casualties (dead and wounded) for the month of December in Iraq. Twelve months previously (December, 2006), there were 817. In between there was a bloody campaign, called “the surge,” which caused most of the 6,801 casualties American troops suffered that year. In 2006 there were 7,221 casualties.
The U.S. always put a premium on keeping American casualties down. This led to tactics, equipment and weapons designed to get the job done, with the fewest American dead and wounded. As a result, the casualty rate in Iraq was less than half what it was in Vietnam. There was also an emphasis on keeping civilian casualties down. It was difficult for most Americans to realize this, given the media’s fixation on real or imagined atrocities. In Iraq, over 90 percent of civilian casualties were inflicted by other Iraqis. The military encouraged the media to not cover the many procedures (“rules of engagement” or ROE) U.S. troops follow to avoid civilian losses. This was because the enemy would exploit those ROEs as much as possible.
In hindsight, U.S. troops will get credit for keeping their own casualties down to historically low levels (compared to any other 20th century conflict). Professional soldiers have already recognized this feat, and are studying American techniques intensively. Less well appreciated are the efforts the Americans made to keep civilian losses down. But foreign military experts are coming to appreciate that this aspect of the war paid long term benefits. Iraqis saw, day by day, the efforts by American troops to avoid hurting civilians. Initially, Iraqis saw that as an American weakness, but in the long run they recognized it as a sensibility rarely seen in the Middle East. This will have long term consequences for relations between the United States and Iraq.[/i]
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The Lancet Study particularly claimed that there were over 400,000 “extra deaths” attributable to the Iraq War - above and beyond what there would have been without the war and with the sanctions regime still in place. That’s greater than Iraq Body Count by more than a factor of 10 [/quote]
The Iraq Body Count relies on published deaths (i.e: things that appear in the “English” press). Despite that obvious flaw, they are not that far from 6 figures.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The Lancet Study particularly claimed that there were over 400,000 “extra deaths” attributable to the Iraq War - above and beyond what there would have been without the war and with the sanctions regime still in place. That’s greater than Iraq Body Count by more than a factor of 10
lixy wrote:
The Iraq Body Count relies on published deaths (i.e: things that appear in the “English” press). Despite that obvious flaw, they are not that far from 6 figures.[/quote]
Maybe not now, but in the time period comparable to the study they were significantly below 6 figures.
Also, what do you make of the factoid from the above that 90% of Iraqi casualties have been caused by other Iraqis?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
So to you, it’s immaterial. But the fact that the number itself was used as rhetorical justification to condemn the War is the point - it may not have mattered to you, but it mattered in the course of the general discussion. [/quote]
Not really. The only “general discussion” that matters is the one taking place in Washington, and the only numbers those guys are interested in are the dead soldiers.
It wouldn’t have changed a thing if it was established that the war killed 5 million Iraqis. Somehow, dead brown people are not really relevant in the eyes of US policy makers.
Efforts? Go tell that to the civilians who had buildings crumble on them and their families because of US bombs, the entire families shot by trigger-happy Blackwater operatives or the dozens that get blown up to pieces every time one of those maniacs you unleashed decide to strike a crowded area.
Your leaders still refuse to acknowledge that invading Iraq was wrong. I don’t see why “we” (as in, the rest of the world) should bother dissecting the methodology you used in causing the deaths of so many. It’s not like bombs were dropped (and guns fired) accidentally. A dead corpse is a dead corpse. Whether you nuked it, burnt it, shot it, sliced it, smothered it or electrocuted it, the result is the same.
What exactly is the point of that excerpt you pasted? Is it that we should cut the US some slack because Americans are not throwing napalm at Iraqis?
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
So to you, it’s immaterial. But the fact that the number itself was used as rhetorical justification to condemn the War is the point - it may not have mattered to you, but it mattered in the course of the general discussion.
lixy wrote:
Not really. The only “general discussion” that matters is the one taking place in Washington, and the only numbers those guys are interested in are the dead soldiers.
It wouldn’t have changed a thing if it was established that the war killed 5 million Iraqis. Somehow, dead brown people are not really relevant in the eyes of US policy makers.[/quote]
So, from your position, it doesn’t matter if the number of dead Iraqis was 1 or 100,000,000?
And give me a break with the “dead brown people” agitprop.
Was there as large an effort to avoid German casualties in WWII? Vietnamese casualties in Viet Nam? More to that below.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
For you, perhaps, the fact that the U.S. has used unprecedented efforts to minimize civilian casualties might be more imporant?
lixy wrote:
Efforts? Go tell that to the civilians who had buildings crumble on them and their families because of US bombs, the entire families shot by trigger-happy Blackwater operatives or the dozens that get blown up to pieces every time one of those maniacs you unleashed decide to strike a crowded area.
Your leaders still refuse to acknowledge that invading Iraq was wrong. I don’t see why “we” (as in, the rest of the world) should bother dissecting the methodology you used in causing the deaths of so many. It’s not like bombs were dropped (and guns fired) accidentally. A dead corpse is a dead corpse. Whether you nuked it, burnt it, shot it, sliced it, smothered it or electrocuted it, the result is the same.
What exactly is the point of that excerpt you pasted? Is it that we should cut the US some slack because Americans are not throwing napalm at Iraqis? [/quote]
Yes, efforts to avoid civilian casualties that are essentially unparalleled in modern warfare. I can see why you wouldn’t care - if you did, then you wouldn’t get to rail on about not caring about brown people.
The point of the excerpt is that apparently the Iraqis aren’t as militant as you are.
Let me post the last few sentences again for you to process:
But foreign military experts are coming to appreciate that this aspect of the war paid long term benefits. Iraqis saw, day by day, the efforts by American troops to avoid hurting civilians. Initially, Iraqis saw that as an American weakness, but in the long run they recognized it as a sensibility rarely seen in the Middle East. This will have long term consequences for relations between the United States and Iraq.
And of course, there’s that matter of 90% of Iraqi casualties being attributable to the acts of other Iraqis. I’ll assume you didn’t see that question before you posted your rant above, because surely you would have addressed it - particularly if a “dead corpse is a dead corpse” after all.
Pointing out that the Lancets figures were wrong by over a factor of ten is not quibbling.
Despite all the emotional ranting and raving that goes on about this we need to have accurate numbers to be able to properly compare the results of the invasion to the results of Saddam being in power.
Some of you are very quick to point out the dead as a result of the invasion but you fail to take notice of all those who died as a result of Saddam.
When Saddam decided to add part of Iran to Iraq more than a million people died. That is less than double the Lancet figure, but it is more than twenty times the more probable figure of fifty thousand.
When Saddam left his army in Kuwait rather than retreat over a hundred thousand Iraqis died. This is less than one sixth the lancet figure but more than double the more probable figure.
When Saddam burned the Kuwait oil fields more than fifty thousand people in Sri Lanka died as a result. This is less than ten percent of the Lancet figure but equal to the more likely figure of fifty thousand dead Iraqis.
So no Lixy this is not quibbling at all. These figures need to be accurate to have proper perspective. The Lancet figures make it appear that removing Saddam wasn’t significantly better than the results of him being in power. While the more probable figures show that removing Saddam has not killed a fraction of the people that Saddams follys killed.
Lixy you constantly some on this board trying to push some fantasy that Saddam was a wonderful humanitarian and that Iraq under Saddam was a wonderful peaceful paradise where murder never happened. Noone on this board who doesn’t have their head up their ass believes you.
Saddam was a mass murderer. Saddam was one of the worst mass murderers of all time. Why is it Lixy that you are constantly whining about the casualties of the invasion but you never give equal time to the million or more who Saddam killed? Why the double standard Lixy? Why is Saddam such a hero to you?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
When Saddam decided to add part of Iran to Iraq…[/quote]
America helped him.
[quote]
Sifu wrote:
When Saddam decided to add part of Iran to Iraq…
lixy wrote:
America helped him.[/quote]
Goddamn Jimmy Carter and his “realist” tendencies…
[quote]
Sifu wrote:
When Saddam decided to add part of Iran to Iraq…
lixy wrote:
America helped him.[/quote]
Yup, America the great scapegoat. No matter what happens it is America’s fault.
Did you know that the USSR was the biggest supplier of weapons to Iraq during this war? Did you know that France was the biggest high-tech weapons supplier to Iraq during this war? At least 10 countries supplied Iraq with weapons.
We were involved, and for good reason, but why act like we were alone, the sole supporter, and ignore the reasons there was any involvement? We were a bit player, but you attempt to change that to us starting the war, and having complete control over Saddam.
Also as far as the oil situation goes, Iraq was a big supplier for Western Europe and Japan, not the USA.
You should not start every post with the idea, “America is evil because:” It really gives you a distorted view of the world.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
When Saddam decided to add part of Iran to Iraq…
America helped him.[/quote]
So did a lot of other nations.
edit: as eloquently stated above… 
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Sifu wrote:
When Saddam decided to add part of Iran to Iraq…
lixy wrote:
America helped him.
Goddamn Jimmy Carter and his “realist” tendencies…[/quote]
It was Reagan, I believe. Carter let us down by not attacking Iran and nipping Islamism in the bud.