Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
And most importantly I await your apology for being a complete and total ASS through this whole discussion.
|
How does that limited time frame (on or after 2004), using data from a limited source (only hospitals), and only citing deaths due to violence correspond to the time frame of the Lancet published study? Trying to define a tomato using peach standards? You don't even specify a conclusion. Are we to guess what you point is?
Posted are some numbers that tell us nothing useful. Furthermore you assume that Iraqis take all dead bodies to the hospital - which furthermore assumes hospital exist everywhere in Iraq and that Iraqis everywhere can safely travel to hospitals. We know that Americans will not even travel the 5 mile road between Baghdad and the airport. Too dangerous.
Again, the study is about all deaths as a result of American action - not just those created by direct military action. Where are the numbers from 2003 and earlier? Oh. They were destroyed by the looting that Rumsfeld said was not happening.
I don't understand how limited records from hospitals provides us with significant facts? What is the point you are desperately trying to make? Are you saying these limited numbers prove a responsible study from The Lancet is wrong? Are you saying Jack Straw, a British politician with the bias of a flawed agenda, is more honest then something published by The Lancet? If you do, then your logic is only based in emotion (and red angry faces).
Where, pray tell, is your logical conclusion from those numbers? Numbers from a polticially biased source (that also tried to claim those aluminum tubes were for WMDs) must be correct? Jack Straw also claimed those WMD existed. Therefore anything Jack Straw says must be more accurate than what The Lancet publishes.
Somehow the integrity of that source and UT's numerically proven conclusion escapes me. But then I am not trying to justify an illegal and now well proven unjustified war.