100,000 Iraqi Civilians have died in current war
I thought the following article was very interesting, especially since it appears in the highly prestigous
Chronicle of Higher Education:
http://chronicle.com/temp/email.php?id=6g87s8d900q52bjppa5m3h7noo5ikert
The stance of Bush and the Pentagon seems to be "if we don't know about it, we don't have to care." As the article itself notes, look at the widespread outpouring of sympathy and assistance for the victims of the Tsunami's versus the public's almost total indifference to the news of the deaths estimated by this study. :eyebrow:
At least we liberated them from the hardships of living in war-torn Iraq.
look at the widespread outpouring of sympathy and assistance for the victims of the Tsunami's versus the public's almost total indifference to the news of the deaths estimated by this study
Sympathy and assistance for the [COLOR=DarkRed]
living[/COLOR]. :cool:
On the eve of a contentious presidential election -- fought in part over U.S. policy on Iraq -- many American newspapers and television news programs ignored the study or buried reports about it far from the top headlines.
I don't recall the major party candidates differing substantially on the war. A better Dem candidate could have argued US policy but with his voting record Kerry couldn't.
Well Madame Albright took credit for 500,000 deaths during sanctions so perhaps we are seeing an improvement here.
The paper that they published carried some caveats. For instance, the researchers admitted that many of the dead might have been combatants. They also acknowledged that the true number of deaths could fall anywhere within a range of 8,000 to 194,000, a function of the researchers' having extrapolated their survey to a country of 25 million.
Why don't they just make the number up? It will have the same impact.
Well Madame Albright took credit for 500,000 deaths during sanctions so perhaps we are seeing an improvement here.
Why don't they just make the number up? It will have the same impact.
You probably didn't read the entire article. It went on to describe the sampling techniques used, and how they were well within the criterea for sociological/scientific studies. The article also noted that this same researcher was the one who made the estimates of the numbers killed in the Rwandan Civil War and that these estimates were widely accepted as being accurate. The 100,000 figure is within a 95% confidence level of being the correct one.
I read the entire article and was unimpressed. No I do not believe the number. Partly because despite the fact that they found somebody to say the guy's methodology was sound, to me it seems utterly ludicrous. But mostly because without a massive coverup, it would be impossible to kill that many people without having bodies littering the landscape that somebody would notice. Even the non-rebuilt hospitals would be full.
Why would someone use "sampling techniques" instead of an actual body count? Besides, statistics should only be applied to recurring events as they tend to zero in on the liklihood of an outcome over a number of observations.
I think, for example, there is more than a 99% confidence interval that the winning lottery ticket was not, in fact, a winner. Over time, the "99% of the time the ticket will not be a winner" conclusion will be proven correct. But you can't take an average and apply it to a single observation. At best, its meaningless and at worst, its very misleading.
Its been my experience that when stats meets politics, hold your nose.
"Lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Yeah- It makes more sense not to have a count at all- especially when the numbers aren't well liked.
Flippant
Why would someone use "sampling techniques" instead of an actual body count? Besides, statistics should only be applied to recurring events as they tend to zero in on the liklihood of an outcome over a number of observations.
I think, for example, there is more than a 99% confidence interval that the winning lottery ticket was not, in fact, a winner. Over time, the "99% of the time the ticket will not be a winner" conclusion will be proven correct. But you can't take an average and apply it to a single observation. At best, its meaningless and at worst, its very misleading.
Its been my experience that when stats meets politics, hold your nose.
The pentagon refuses to do a civilian body count. A body count which comes from an Iraqi source would be automatically suspect. Thus, it was left to a highly respected researcher from an American university to investigate the true number of civilian deaths in the war.
In case you haven't noticed, private Americans are not exactly welcome these days in Iraq. Thus, westerners cannot just show up at Iraqi funeral homes and ask them how many war dead they are burying today. Even the Iraqi's who helped gather the data were frightened if it got out that they were working for an American researcher. Death certificates were requested (and supplied 63% of the time) of those households which answered positively to having a war inflicted death among its members in the past year.
I think possibly you are misunderstanding the principles of statistics. I"ll buy that lottery ticket which has a 95% chance of being a winner since you don't want it.
As for where are all the dead bodies? They buried them.
Under normal combat situations there will be two injured for every one dead. Under bombing situations the ratio could be higher. Where are the 200,000 injured? Where are the hospitals full of crying patients with missing limbs? Where are the photo ops for the insurgents? How could such a thing be covered up?
I think, for example, there is more than a 99% confidence interval that the winning lottery ticket was not, in fact, a winner. Over time, the "99% of the time the ticket will not be a winner" conclusion will be proven correct. But you can't take an average and apply it to a single observation. At best, its meaningless and at worst, its very misleading.
Interesting. So you think this survey is probably the "lottery winner" survey that falls outside the 95% confidence area, and moreover the real number is below, not above, that number.
I guess that's the attitude of most people buying lottery tickets. Though the average lottery ticket has a much lower cost.
Under normal combat situations there will be two injured for every one dead. Under bombing situations the ratio could be higher.
Under "no medical facilities" situations the ratio could be lower.
To reiterate what UT said earlier, the actual figure, taking into account only sampling error, was 101,000 plus or minus 93,000. When your error bars are of the same magnitude as your data points, you don't have data; you have junk.
To reiterate what UT said earlier, the actual figure, taking into account only sampling error, was 101,000 plus or minus 93,000. When your error bars are of the same magnitude as your data points, you don't have data; you have junk.
You don't understand statistical sampling. Here's a rough graph of what the results show. The probability (0 - 1) of any given number being the correct one is a point on the y-axis, the number of casualties (1 - 300,000) is a point on the x-axis. When graphed, you get the following bell shaped curve (sorry it ain't prettier, but I've got work to do):
Shouldn't that 300,000 be 200,000?
Shouldn't that 300,000 be 200,000?
yeah, I just threw it in there as the extreme with 0 probability. like I said it's a quick and dirty just to give people a basic understanding of how the numbers work.
I _do_ understand statistical sampling. They didn't give the confidence interval for that range, unfortunately. But I think you've drawn your curve with too small a std deviation.
And remember that's considering only statistical sampling uncertainty.
I _do_ understand statistical sampling. They didn't give the confidence interval for that range, unfortunately. But I think you've drawn your curve with too small a std deviation.
And remember that's considering only statistical sampling uncertainty.
Hey, what do you want from a sketch drawn on a Domino's pizza napkin while at the same time going over notes for my next lecture? Next time I'll send it in for peer review, first. Good to know someone else around here understands sexually transmitted diseases among deviates! :D
Seriously, anyone who questions the sampling methodology or linear regression techniques used should at least take a look at the original paper published in
The Lancet.
http://www.thelancet.com/home
Registration is free and the document can be found here:
http://pdf.thelancet.com/pdfdownload?uid=llan.364.9448.primary_research.31264.1&x=x.pdf
The conclusions this study draws have grave implications regarding the US conduct of the war. Dismissing the data without even looking at the source is not what I would have expected from educated people who honestly want to understand what is happening in Iraq.
So is accepting the data. It's bullshit on its face, and you want to believe it so hard.
All it takes is a little numeracy and a functioning bullshit detector, not a degree in statistical analysis.
At one point they claim to have seen death certs for a majority of the dead. If there are certs, the information has been documented and can be confirmed. Where are the hospitals with this information? How do they have time to process the injured and dead to the point where they can document them? This is a similar number of dead in an area much smaller than the area affected by the tsunami. Hussein required mass graves to bury a similar number over many years. Where are the graves? Where are the fuckin' wounded? Where are the fuckin' bodies already???
"On the 25th of September my focus was about how to get out of the country," he recalls. "My second focus was to get this information out before the U.S. election."
I wonder why the pundits say it was political?
May I add, "DUH" ?
I wonder why the pundits say it was political?
May I add, "DUH" ?
If it were true, wouldn't it be best if it were revealed before the election? That's hardly indicative of anything.
They decided where to take the samples and couldn't so they took them where they decided they shouldn't. :eyebrow:
Take a national poll of who will win the Supe...Big Game but you can't do in nationally, so do it just in Philly. Yeah that will be accurate. :rolleyes:
So is accepting the data. It's bullshit on its face, and you want to believe it so hard.
All it takes is a little numeracy and a functioning bullshit detector, not a degree in statistical analysis.
At one point they claim to have seen death certs for a majority of the dead. If there are certs, the information has been documented and can be confirmed. Where are the hospitals with this information? How do they have time to process the injured and dead to the point where they can document them? This is a similar number of dead in an area much smaller than the area affected by the tsunami. Hussein required mass graves to bury a similar number over many years. Where are the graves? Where are the fuckin' wounded? Where are the fuckin' bodies already???
"On the 25th of September my focus was about how to get out of the country," he recalls. "My second focus was to get this information out before the U.S. election."
I wonder why the pundits say it was political?
May I add, "DUH" ?
You may indeed add "DUH." Only about 1/3 of Iraqi war related deaths occur in hospitals. When checking data from funeral homes or morgues the problem is that these entities do not list whether the dead were combatants or members of the civilian population. Your questions about the reliability of both hospital records and about what the Iraqi government might say about the percentage of death certificates that were for innocent civilians are valid points. This is why the researchers used the technique of having Iraqi surveyers go door to door and ask detailed questions of the respondents. This study was scrupulous in its evaluation techniques to seperate out combatant versus civilian dead.
A major concern has also been whether there has been a rise in infant mortality rates pre and post Saddam's rule and the advent of the war. Many women no longer go to hospitals to give birth due to security reasons and the researchers wished to see what, if any, impact this has had on infant death rates.
Finally, why do you assume that voters of whatever political persuasion would have no interest in a valid estimate of Iraqi civilians killed in the war? Perhaps you are concerned that the researchers' conveying the information that US soldiers who had accidently killed civilians actually went to the families of the deceased and apologized, would have swung voters to the Republican side? Good thing this was not widely reported and Kerry got elected after all. :eyebrow:
The quote doesn't indicate that it wouldn't swing the election. The quote indicates that the researcher's interest was blatantly political, which in turn suggests a political bias to the study.
If I had become convinced that a hidden massacre was going on, my second concern would be notifying the UN or world press in an attempt to stop it. Swaying an election in which both participants had a nearly identical policy to how to further manage Iraq? Low on my priority list.
100,000 in a country of 24,000,000 is 1 in 240. Who would kill that many, and how? Indiscriminate bombing has definitely happened -- mistakes were made -- just not THAT many.
That number of deaths would have been noticed before this guy made his excursion. Iraq is a violent place, sure, but is functioning as a society to the point where it can notice such things. Even the insurgency is sophisticated enough to notice and promote such things. They feed their own media, and once in a while ours, with their own propaganda. Civilian tragedy makes every news feed in the world. It would have been noticed.
And by the way, who risks their life to that level to bring back statistics? Doesn't the bare fact that he made the trip make you suspicious of his numbers?
And hey, on that point... isn't it ironic that his cover was blown multiple times as this blue-eyed westerner goes around collecting information, through what is apparently an unheard-of level of violence, and yet -- through the chaos of 1 in 240 killed -- he makes it out of the country somehow unscathed without protection from anyone but his translators? The mere fact that his head is not separate from his body is evidence contrary to his so-called "findings".
If I had become convinced that a hidden massacre was going on, my second concern would be notifying the UN or world press in an attempt to stop it. Swaying an election in which both participants had a nearly identical policy to how to further manage Iraq?
...But only one of whom was directly responsible for the current situation.
The quote doesn't indicate that it wouldn't swing the election. The quote indicates that the researcher's interest was blatantly political, which in turn suggests a political bias to the study.
If I had become convinced that a hidden massacre was going on, my second concern would be notifying the UN or world press in an attempt to stop it. Swaying an election in which both participants had a nearly identical policy to how to further manage Iraq? Low on my priority list.
The researchers never call these fatalities a "hidden massacre." That is your label, and, interestingly enough, your perception of the study results. The publication of the research findings in the highly prestigous British medical journal,
Lancet, is surely one way of attempting to draw attention to the situation by the UN and the world press. Perhaps, the report was met with too many responses such as your own?
100,000 in a country of 24,000,000 is 1 in 240. Who would kill that many, and how? Indiscriminate bombing has definitely happened -- mistakes were made -- just not THAT many.
Actually the CIA Factbook gives Iraq's 2004 population as over 25,000,000. Are you saying those civilians deaths were carried out
on purpose?
That number of deaths would have been noticed before this guy made his excursion. Iraq is a violent place, sure, but is functioning as a society to the point where it can notice such things. Even the insurgency is sophisticated enough to notice and promote such things. They feed their own media, and once in a while ours, with their own propaganda. Civilian tragedy makes every news feed in the world. It would have been noticed.
I'm sure the Iraqi's noticed it, but that was just propaganda, right? The US military refuses to do civilian body counts, so they were REFUSING to notice it. Obviously, civilian tragedy in this instance gets ignored, since the most reputable study of it in Iraq to date was pretty much ignored in the media at the time it came out. So far as I know,
The Chronicle of Education is the only outfit that has pointed this omission out.
And by the way, who risks their life to that level to bring back statistics? Doesn't the bare fact that he made the trip make you suspicious of his numbers?
This same man risked his life tallying the dead in the civil conflict in Rwanda where his estimates were widely accepted by the UN and the rest of the world. He is an expert in his field. Geologists and seismologists risk their lives and have even been killed studying volcanic activity. No one questions their research, as a result, however.
And hey, on that point... isn't it ironic that his cover was blown multiple times as this blue-eyed westerner goes around collecting information, through what is apparently an unheard-of level of violence, and yet -- through the chaos of 1 in 240 killed -- he makes it out of the country somehow unscathed without protection from anyone but his translators? The mere fact that his head is not separate from his body is evidence contrary to his so-called "findings".
I'm not sure where you get your "multiple times." He kept an extremely low profile and hired Iraqi citizens to do the actual surveys. Perhaps his survival has something to do with his authenticity as a world renowned social scientist?
The researchers never call these fatalities a "hidden massacre." That is your label, and, interestingly enough, your perception of the study results. The publication of the research findings in the highly prestigous British medical journal, Lancet, is surely one way of attempting to draw attention to the situation by the UN and the world press. Perhaps, the report was met with too many responses such as your own?
It would be a hidden massacre. The percentage population gone would be hundreds of times higher to Iraq than 9/11 was to the US.
They are claiming 183 deaths per day. Assuming a 2:1 injury to death ratio that's 549 people dead or injured per day! And we haven't even mentioned yet that half the country was basically at peace so the killing would have to be kind of concentrated, and impossible not to notice.
In Fallujah we went into full out urban warfare and killed about 800 in a couple of days. The entire resistance is estimated at about 15000.
Are you saying those civilians deaths were carried out on purpose?
Why
would we kill that number of people? Bad aim?
Here is the Slate article that helps to debunk this crapolaOh yeah, another reason it was ignored: people, and especially the media, seem to have realized that news items released 2-3 days before the election have a high probability of being bogus because everyone in the world has an interest in swaying the election.
If the Lancet really wanted to do a job of it, they should have published two weeks out. That way even if the numbers are crap, the issue gets water cooler time and some people will believe it and push the election on that basis.
OK, now I've looked at the study. That range is the double-ended 95% confidence interval (excluding Fallujah). That's not so great. Then you get into the problems with methodology, which UT has outlined quite well.
Furthermore, I see no claim in the study that these were civilian deaths. That appears to be someone else's addition.
The study is junk.
OK, now I've looked at the study. That range is the double-ended 95% confidence interval (excluding Fallujah). That's not so great. Then you get into the problems with methodology, which UT has outlined quite well.
Furthermore, I see no claim in the study that these were civilian deaths. That appears to be someone else's addition.
The study is junk.
From the introduction on page one of the study:
One project has kept a running
estimate of press accounts of the number of Iraqi citizens
killed by coalition forces: at present, the estimated range
is 13000–15 000 (http://www.iraqbodycount.net). Aside
from the likelihood that press accounts are incomplete,
this source does not record deaths that are the indirect
result of the armed conflict. Other sources place the
death toll much higher.14 In a recent BBC article decrying
the lack of a reliable civilian death count from the war in
Iraq, Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch purports that it
will not be possible “to come up with anything better
than a good guess at the final civilian cost”.
In the present setting of insecurity and limited availability
of health information, we undertook a nationwide
survey to estimate mortality during the 14·6 months
before the invasion (Jan 1, 2002, to March 18, 2003) and
to compare it with the period from March 19, 2003, to
the date of the interview, between Sept 8 and 20, 2004.
One hopes that your comprehension of statistics is better than your reading comprehension, especially if your profession requires the use of statistical methods. Frankly, I have no problem with the 95% cl. Maybe you wouldn't either if you actually read the paper.
Nowhere in the study does it say that the mortality counts they measured was limited to civilians. In fact, they explicitly say it was not:
"Many of the Iraqis reportedly killed by US forces could
have been combatants. 28 of 61 killings (46%) attributed
to US forces involved men age 15–60 years, 28 (46%)
were children younger than 15 years, four (7%) were
women, and one was an elderly man. It is not clear if the
greater number of male deaths was attributable to
legitimate targeting of combatants who may have been
disproportionately male, or if this was because men are
more often in public and more likely to be exposed to
danger. For example, seven of 12 (58%) vehicle accident related
fatalities involved men between 15 and 60 years"
Nowhere in the study does it say that the mortality counts they measured was limited to civilians. In fact, they explicitly say it was not:
"Many of the Iraqis reportedly killed by US forces could
have been combatants. 28 of 61 killings (46%) attributed
to US forces involved men age 15–60 years, 28 (46%)
were children younger than 15 years, four (7%) were
women, and one was an elderly man. It is not clear if the
greater number of male deaths was attributable to
legitimate targeting of combatants who may have been
disproportionately male, or if this was because men are
more often in public and more likely to be exposed to
danger. For example, seven of 12 (58%) vehicle accident related
fatalities involved men between 15 and 60 years"
No, once again, trying reading the words you yourself have quoted. "
Could have been" is not the phrasing one would use to state "explicitly" that these were combatant deaths. In fact, the studied only counted the deaths of those who had resided at home for two months or longer prior to their death. Look at what your quoted segment goes on to say:
46% were children younger than 15 years.
The researchers are actually making the point as politely as possible that the claim that these might be combatant deaths is a dubious one. Look at the very next paragraphs after that quote:
US General Tommy Franks is widely quoted as saying
“we don’t do body counts”.14 The Geneva Conventions
have clear guidance about the responsibilities of
occupying armies to the civilian population they control.
The fact that more than half the deaths reportedly
caused by the occupying forces were women and
children is cause for concern. In particular, Convention
IV, Article 27 states that protected persons “. . . shall be
at all times humanely treated, and shall be protected
especially against acts of violence . . .”. It seems difficult
to understand how a military force could monitor the
extent to which civilians are protected against violence
without systematically doing body counts or at least
looking at the kinds of casualties they induce. This
survey shows that with modest funds, 4 weeks, and
seven Iraqi team members willing to risk their lives, a
useful measure of civilian deaths could be obtained.
There seems to be little excuse for occupying forces to
not be able to provide more precise tallies. In view of the
political importance of this conflict, these results should
be confirmed by an independent body such as the
ICRC, Epicentre, or WHO. In the interim, civility and
enlightened self-interest demand a re-evaluation of the
consequences of weaponry now used by coalition forces
in populated areas.
Just why is General Franks leaving the US open to international criticism in this regard? What is he attempting to hide? Could it be 100,000 dead bodies?
It wouldn't be possible to hide 100,000 dead bodies.
46% were children younger than 15 years. 46% were children younger than 15 years.
The researchers are actually making the point as politely as possible that the claim that these might be combatant deaths is a dubious one.
Is that so. :eyebrow:
I just don't think its a good idea to accept a conclusion about a single event based solely on statistical evidence. The lack of direct emperical evidence in a case like this is beyond conspicuous. And the margin of error is unacceptably high. And the number is just too damn even. And the timing was funny. And And And
I am not interested in the likelihood of 100,000 fatalities but rather the actualhood of a real body count. Somebody needs to either cough up 100,000 corpses or admit that they pulled the number out of their rectum to provide Kerry some more swing votes.
What's that line from The Manchurian Candidate? I have evidence of 57 documented communists in the state department ...
It wouldn't be possible to hide 100,000 dead bodies.
Same logic that said those aluminum tubes MUST be for weapons of mass destruction. How many people died in your hometown this week? Where are all the dead bodies? Clearly no one has died. The newspaper must have lied.
Do you still believe what the president's spin doctors tell you - or will you finally admit that looting did happen? How many people died even because the hospitals had no equipment and no antibiotics? It must be zero because even the looting did not happen.
UT when are you going to admit that peer reviewed papers provide responsible facts and that the administration constantly lies? We even have these myths about Social Security. The administration spin is 15,000 dead. Nonsense. Same people lied so egregiously as to get us into a war of no merit. The study says 98,000 dead. There is a responsible figure with so much credibility as to appear in The Lancet. Who should we believe - reality or the 'feelings' of UT? Where does the administration put up any facts to dispute this? They cannot and and don't try. That alone is damning evidence.
So where are the weapons of mass destruction? You still believe them to be honest? To say how many have really been killed? And I guess you also see a light at the end of the tunnel? Clearly the White House also must have an exit strategy - or did they invent that also?
The best numbers we have say 98,000 dead - and that the administration is only lying ... again.
I am not interested in the likelihood of 100,000 fatalities but rather the actualhood of a real body count. Somebody needs to either cough up 100,000 corpses or admit that they pulled the number out of their rectum to provide Kerry some more swing votes.
And so we took body counts in Vietnam. But when the body counts were summed, one reporter noted that we had killed every N Vietnamese soldier ... three times. But you want body counts. Fine. Just remember, the statistical studies were more accurate. Some instead first learn from history.
Statistics that meet peer review are more accurate than any body count from a war zone. How many died in Rwanda? Clearly they lie because no one counted the half million dead. Rwanda is clearly another scam just like the manned moon landings. Just another way to deny reality. Demand body counts. Then the almighty George Jr must be right.
When the 'powers that be' don't like facts, then they demand the absurd. Its called spin. Your demand for bodies is a classic effort to undercount the dead. Why would you so dishonor such good human beings? Why do you so hate innocent Iraqis?
We have an honest assessment of the dead with a 95% confidence level. Furthermore the assessment met the requirements of The Lancet - that is not trying to cover its political ass. Instead you would believe something that the George Jr administration says? Where is the credibility - and weapons of mass destruction that they invented? 98,000 dead is the honest number. Those who believe Rush Limbaugh types just know that must be wrong. They just know and then make absurd demands. We killed every N Vietnamese soldier three times. The body counts prove it. No wonder you want a body count. Its called denial.
...Rwanda is clearly another scam just like the manned moon landings....
There went your credibility.
...But when the body counts were summed, one reporter noted that we had killed every N Vietnamese soldier ... three times.
So an actual civilian Iraqi body count would produce a figure of 300,000 fatalities. Well I suppose you would then suspend your problems with the accuracy of body counts since it would buttress your dislike for all things W.
Intellectual flatulence and tin-foil-coated logic is no substitute for common sense. Unless, of course, you don't have any.
"Not everyone wants democracy." - tw, two weeks ago
We bow to this remarkable visionary who truly understands how things are.
Just why is General Franks leaving the US open to international criticism in this regard? What is he attempting to hide? Could it be 100,000 dead bodies?
Actually, most of the senior military leadership were NCO's and Jr Officers in Viet Nam - the war of the body count. They saw firsthand what happens when body counts are a priority. body counts make the headlines, then they take on a life of their own. at some points in the war there were body count expectations, so patrols would go out, pop off their loads and because it was impossible to accurately count the dead in the jungle - they applied a simple formula - X number of rounds multiplied by XX% = # of dead enemies.
as young men they saw the foolishness of such methods and refused to allow it under their command, first in Desert Storm, then Afghanistan, then Iraq.
"Not everyone wants democracy." - tw, two weeks ago
We bow to this remarkable visionary who truly understands how things are.
I know you're being sarcastic but that is a true statement. I'd bet a months pay that Saddam doesn't want it. :biggrin:
I am glad tw escaped his abductors.
Yeah, Bruce? And? (This is a 5 year old American child)
Actually, most of the senior military leadership were NCO's and Jr Officers in Viet Nam - the war of the body count. They saw firsthand what happens when body counts are a priority. body counts make the headlines, then they take on a life of their own. at some points in the war there were body count expectations, so patrols would go out, pop off their loads and because it was impossible to accurately count the dead in the jungle - they applied a simple formula - X number of rounds multiplied by XX% = # of dead enemies.
as young men they saw the foolishness of such methods and refused to allow it under their command, first in Desert Storm, then Afghanistan, then Iraq.
Minor point: The Vietnam body count was about
enemy combatants. The controversy in this case is about
civilian ones. I don't think our boys would go shoot off rounds in the streets of Baghdad to inflate the counts.
Yeah, Bruce? And? (This is a 5 year old American child)
Wow. My friend's kid had to wait until he was 10 to get his own. Outshoots adults at matches
(He had a single shot .22 at age 5 or 6, and I think mom and dad have started his 4 year old brother already.)
Yeah, Bruce? And? (This is a 5 year old American child)
The difference being that the latter child is at a shooting range with a bunch of other people shooting at paper targets.*
The prior picture is of a child being indoctrinated to kill the infidel/invader.
*And I'm jealous too, I wish I had somebody with the money to buy
me a CAR-15...
"Not everyone wants democracy." - tw, two weeks ago
We bow to this remarkable visionary who truly understands how things are.
Since you cannot prove your point, you instead post irrelevant facts? What is your point? That democracy proves those 98,000 were not killed?
Schrodinger's Cat makes some good points about the reliabiltiy of that study published by The Lancet. UT 'feels' the facts must be wrong. Therefore the facts are wrong? Again, were is the logic?
Its easy to hide 100,000 bodies. They get buried. 25 million people will have no problem burying 100,000 bodies. But statistics - asking those people who died - can count those buried bodies - as the study published in The Lancet has done.
Whether this election was a success isn't decided today, or tomorrow or in 3 months time. It's if the country doesn't colapse into civil war within 6 months of US troops leaving. Of course it looks like they'll be going east not west.
No T, the aluminum tubes are 2.5 years past relevant, and from now on, each time you mention them I will include your quote about Democracy in my following post. Let's have a lesson on shelf-life.
No T, the aluminum tubes are 2.5 years past relevant, and from now on, each time you mention them I will include your quote about Democracy in my following post. Let's have a lesson on shelf-life.
Please keep posting it. For that matter, include a phrase that I owe you an apology. I always enjoy a good joke.
Not everyone wants democracy. Democracy cannot be imposed. If everyone wanted democracy, then democracy would be thriving in places like Hati, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, and Myramar.
You swore those aluminim tubes were for weaspons of mass destruction because you just knew - facts be damned. Same reasoning used to challenge Schrodinger's Cat. You just know he is wrong - which really only insults his thoughtful responses. To just know something - facts be damned - is also called 'intelligent design'.
If you have problems with the 100,000 dead due to America, then put up solid facts that dispute that well researched and peer reviewed citation. As demonstrated previously, even body counts in a war are not as accuratae. Please explain the morality in killing 100,000 Iraqis. Please explain how the looting also did not happen. Please explain what happened to all the phase four planning - necessary so that people do not die.
Once we eliminate those administration lies and the "I know it must be wrong - therefore it is wrong" reasoning, then we are left with a fact. America caused the death of about 98,000 Iraqis.
Whether this election was a success isn't decided today, or tomorrow or in 3 months time. It's if the country doesn't colapse into civil war within 6 months of US troops leaving. Of course it looks like they'll be going east not west.
When asked when US troops can pull out, the administration becomes coy. They don't want US troops out of Iran 1+ years from now. Those troops will be necessary for the invasion of Iran - and to create the instability to justify an invasion of Iran. George Jr administration has declared their objectives quite clearly. They intend to 'fix' the world. They have listed the countries they intend to impose democracy upon. They call it 'moral'. History calls it a 'crusade'.
You just know he is wrong - which really only insults his thoughtful responses. To just know something
That's insulting to me. That's not what I was doing here and not what I did with the tubes. I thought what I thought with the tubes because it was the best explanation given the information I had. To be complete about it, at the time, I listed all the information that I had.
But I was
wrong!
I often am. I admit this so freely. It was in my user title for a while.
It does not, however, mean that I am wrong each time you bring them up. As proof, each time you do I will bring up something you wrote that you were wrong about. I have many choices, this is only the most recent of them.
The problem is that people end up arguing belief systems. By definition, you can't argue a belief. We have far too little hard data and far too much nebulous, anecdotal reporting in regard to the Iraqi situation. The study in The Lancet is the first one I have seen that uses solid research methodology and has actually been subjected to peer review.
I am not happy to read its results. If Undertoad or Richlevy or anyone else knows of a reliable study which shows a smaller civilian death toll, I would be delighted to see it. The US military seems very proud of its precision weaponery. If US weapons and technology are indeed as precise as claimed, General Franks should be able to firmly assert a minor loss of civilian lives. Instead, he refuses to make any comment either way.
As a scientist, I am left with only the Lancet article to go by.
tw: It is unbelievable, the disjointedness of your posts. Be it the fact that english may not be your first language, your thought processes carry more emotion than is necessary, or any of a host of mental ticks...your thoughts are rambling, disjointed, and serve to slash your credibility. Which is a shame, because you have made good points in the past, fogged by the rest of whatever paragraph they were in.
Shrodinger's Cat: You're relying too much on a single study. The Lancet, although peer reviewed and respected, is not infallible. One single study by one statistician, whatever his methods, does not constitute an entire ironstrong moral argument toward the idea that 100,000 civilians have been killed. The Iraqis don't live in huts and caves; they are documented citizens and records will eventually show how many have gone missing and been killed. As a scientist, you should respect the ideal of holding each and every study up to the light before you form a solid opinion.
Undertoad: Every single thing you have said in this thread, should be taken with a grain of salt. You, along with everyone else here, have offered no cites to any of your statistics (2:1 injured to killed, 1/3 combatants, etc). These are random, random numbers. Everything you've typed appears to be primarily motivated by "feeling" and logic, with no thought to the fact that conventional logic can't possibly apply to a situation where you speculate on a country your government is currently at war with. Like it or not, every statistic you are exposed to has a political bend, everything on the news is calculated. Regardless of what you believe, this sphere of influence DOES affect your conclusions. This is not conspiracy theory jargon, this is the nature of modern journalism and society.
How can you be sure that 100,000 bodies cannot be hidden quickly? Buried in mass graves, burnt, carried off? You also assumed that the study focused on deaths caused by Americans, which is false, unless I'm enormously mistaken. Included in that figure should obviously be civilian deaths as a RESULT of the war, including those caused by insurgents.
Now, personally I believe far less than 100,000 civilians have died. Hell, the researcher hired Iraqis...what stopped them from inflating the figures? How does HIS credibility extend to the Iraqi employees he hired to collect the numbers?
But, what is the point? This conversation breached the realm of debate long ago. I would wager both sides are ironfast in their convictions, regardless of what statistics appear (likely uncited ;) ) in the rest of this thread.
<b>CB:</b> 2:1 injured to killed is a rule of thumb. It's NOT random. In every war we have fought, including this one, the ratio is much higher even - more like three or four injured to one killed.
The paper claimed that most of the deaths were due to violence and most of the violence was coalition air strikes. If you drop a 500-lb bomb on something, the thing it hits will die, as will everything within 20 meters. Within 500 meters there is a chance for death or injury. If you kill 100,000 people with bombs there will be a massive amount of very obvious damage and people will missing limbs and eyes and shrapnel leaving quarts of blood in the streets. People will notice, and report on it.
The paper claimed that most of the people killed were women and children. But bombs simply don't discriminate in this way. This is not violating math and statistics, it is violating common sense. I don't attack it from the perspective of what it takes to create a good study because I'm sure it IS a good study. And I'm 100% certain that we could examine back issues of The Lancet and find studies that were equally well-received and peer-reviewed in great detail... that were completely incorrect.
The truth laid bare
Hypocritical, incompetent, corrupt, liars, thieves and vandals.
The area of Iraq is 438,317 square km.
The population is (1997) 22,219,289 people.(
1)
This puts the overall population density at 51 people per square km.
Take into account that half of the country is mostly uninhabited, contrasted with the fact that large numbers of the populace fled urban areas during the war, and you get a populated area of about half of the whole country (
2)
22219289 / 219158 = 101 people per square km of inhabited country
So what if you wanted to map 100,000 dead?
100,000 / 219158 = 0.45 people per square km = less than 1 person per 2 square kilometers.
Take Baghdad alone. Population density of 950 people per square km (
3)
That means Baghdad is 5900 km (give or take, this is based on a combination of two of the above cites). If 100,000 deaths occured in Baghdad alone, you'd have 17 dead people per square kilometer, obviously clustered in areas that have been bombed.
These statistics are certainly trivial and not properly devised, but they illustrate (to me at least) that you wouldn't have buckets of blood flooding the streets, with 100,000 deaths.
With 950 people per square km, assuming that you killed all of them, in order to kill 100,000 people in Baghdad alone you would have to carpet-bomb 105 square km of Baghdad, or roughly twice the area of Manhattan. Again, I think someone would take notice.
With 950 people per square km, assuming that you killed all of them, in order to kill 100,000 people in Baghdad alone you would have to carpet-bomb 105 square km of Baghdad, or roughly twice the area of Manhattan. Again, I think someone would take notice.
Assuming you did it all in one go, in the smallest possible geographic area, that would indeed be difficult to hide.
What exactly was "Shock and Awe?" Wasn't it carpet bombing Bahgdad before the invasion?
UT - take a look at some recent pics of fallujah.
[font=Courier New][proclaimation][/font]
Ahem. thump, thump -- this thing on? Testing. One. Two. Three.
[font=Courier New]feedback screech.[/font]
We, the United States of America, slaughtered 100,000[font=Courier New]*[/font] innocent, civilian Iraqi women, children and elderly people in cold blood even though we could easily have avoided killing even one of them.
[size=1]* Give or take 93,000.[/size]
[font=Courier New] [/proclaimation][/font]
There. I said it.
you missed the 'and took their money'.
UT - take a look at some recent pics of fallujah.
Yes, Jag, do take a look at what the Marines and Iraqis will do together to a city after they have moved the civilians to camps.
What exactly was "Shock and Awe?" Wasn't it carpet bombing Bahgdad before the invasion?
Baghdad was not carpet-bombed. We even left the lights on until day 5. There has never been a higher incentive not to kill civilians.
Shrodinger's Cat: You're relying too much on a single study. The Lancet, although peer reviewed and respected, is not infallible. One single study by one statistician, whatever his methods, does not constitute an entire ironstrong moral argument toward the idea that 100,000 civilians have been killed. The Iraqis don't live in huts and caves; they are documented citizens and records will eventually show how many have gone missing and been killed. As a scientist, you should respect the ideal of holding each and every study up to the light before you form a solid opinion.
That single study is the only one we have at the moment. I, too, would like to see more data. As you have pointed out, we may eventually have it. But as you also pointed out, you are skeptical of Iraqi's doing the count. The final count will probably be done by the Iraqi side, and, thus, dismissed by you.
Yes, Jag, do take a look at what the Marines and Iraqis will do together to a city after they have moved the civilians to camps.
You have to be kidding me.
Well a lot of them relocated pre-action
We killed 2000 in Fallujah.
Here's the powerpointA fucking powerpoint presentation? Christ a website would have been easier.
First things first, this document immediately tries to imply that insurgents were a regular fighting force, either they are, then the Geneva convention applies and the US are in violation when it comes to guantanamo, or they aren't, make up your fucking mind, you can't have it both ways. Secondly, since when was a video of how to throw a grenade a fucking atrocity? Thirdly, what is that foreign fighter involvement document? Looks like a grocery store accounts book to me.
Of course, I'm sure whoever wrote this little lump of propaganda is sure that every single death in Fallujah was an insurgent. Of course. No question about it. Damn insurgents, eh? Never mind the Red Cross official estimate that nearly 50% of the toll there was civvies, 800 in fact. That was the lowball end. But lets not let these partisan organisations get in the way of The Truth(tm(, right UT?
Hard to tell though, when they won't even let the red cross in to deliver medical aid. Makes it easy to have nice low death tolls of all insurgents when you can clean up after your boys have been through. We've all seen the videos demonstrating the callous disregard by US troops for life and property why should be assume their death tolls are any more upstanding or accurate?
Makes it easy to have nice low death tolls of all insurgents when you can clean up after your boys have been through. We've all seen the videos demonstrating the callous disregard by US troops for life and property why should be assume their death tolls are any more upstanding or accurate?
You know, I think we've come around to my point here: causing a high number of deaths of women and children via coalition air strikes would require both ill intent for the civilians, combined with a massive coverup.
The military must both want to kill people and want to cover it up. Even in Fallujah, this is the only way for a numeracy-literate and war-literate person to come up with a valid explanation for the
Lancet number.
I'm sure that our resident world traveler believes that of the US Mil, and I'm not saying they're not capable of it but I do think it would be a stretch. After all there were embeds involved,
some of whom documented military activity which some people found questionable. (I suppose Mr. Sites missed the massive civvy killing that would have won him the Pulitzer, but perhaps it was happening the next block over.)
So Jag, what is left for you to figure out in this mystery, is
motive, a critical factor in any murder investigation and what I asked for in post #28:
Why would we kill that number of people? Bad aim?
easier to spray a room and shoot anything that moves, including any number of the 50000 civvies that were left in the city than it is to pick out and selectively fire at those firing weapons in your direction.
sorry man, I edited my post after you posted. the bit about the embeds and kevin sites is my answer to your answer
I doubt documenting US war crimes would have got him a pullitzer, it's fairly routine.
There were documented civvy killings (and very well documented killing of wounded POWs or whatever it's legally astute to kill people you shoot these days) in fallujah. I'm not suggesting, as you would like to imply, some kind of mass-scale genocide, merely that many that the US would love to tack down as 'dead insurgents' are most likely poor bastards in the wrong place at the wrong time. I said 800 civvie deaths, lowball, in fallujah, considering the scale of conflict and the number of dead, not to mention the source, you're going to have a real tough time shooting that down.
Were 100,000 killed overall? Maybe, maybe more, maybe less, I don't have a goddamn clue but plenty of innocent people have been killed by US forces, either though inaction, outright murder or accident and there's no escaping that fact.
That is true, I completely agree. Nevertheless, the number 100,000 is the topic of the thread.
That is true, I completely agree. Nevertheless, the number 100,000 is the topic of the thread.
UT, the topic goes right back to how you also knew those aluminum tubes were for weapons of mass destruction. You acknowledge error only because you have no alternative. But you still fail to acknowledge a reason why you were wrong. Same reason is why you are now challenging the '98,000 dead Iraqi' number. You just know - facts be damned. Or better still, you still blindly believe what the administration says. The administration says 15,000 dead. Therefore it must be 15,000? History alone says a number from that source cannot be trusted. Why do you still believe what they hype?
If you have a problem with that number, then stop the wild speculation as to why those people died. Again, provide a reasonable study that either has numbers based in logic, or that explains how so many Iraqis (military and civilian) died. I keep asking for this that you don't provide.
That is topic. Does UT, et al believe science or does he believe the administration spin? Those who believe reality verses those who blindly follow spin and myths. Is it 98,000 dead Iraqis due to Americans, or the politically spun 15,000? The first number is based upon facts. The second ... well we don't even know how they got that number. Karl Rove? Same person who hyped an aluminum tube myth?
History alone says numbers from the administration are not credible. Need we cite another recent example? The latest massive cost increases in the administration's prescription drug program? By now, UT, I would have thought you learned that lesson - why you were totally wrong about aluminum tubes. What is the subject? What numbers are to be believed? Those based upon science or those hyped by an administration that often lies? Shrodinger's Cat has demonstrated why the study is so credible. UT - your only response has been, "I don't believe it; facts be damned". Same reasoning used to hype those alumimun tubes.
Don't just acknowledege you were wrong. Address the reason why you were wrong. Same reason is being used to challenge 'America's 98,000 dead Iraqis'.
You really truly believed that a massacre happened in Jenin.
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=1324
You never even acknowledged that you were wrong. I bet you still won't. I'm giving you this opportunity.
Isreal even refuses to let any of the hundreds (maybe thousand) of Palestinian bodies be returned to their relatives.
Thousand? Let's talk about body counts shall we. Let's talk about facts and who believes in what.
Thousand? Let's talk about body counts shall we. Let's talk about facts and who believes in what.
UT. I acknowledge my mistakes AND (this is the more important point) acknowledge why I made those mistakes. Big difference. We have two numbers. Lies from an administration of only 15,000 dead. Or numbers based upon what made America great - logic and science - that say 98,000 dead due to America. Which do you promote? You had to acknowledge being wrong on those aluminum tubes. But when do you stop making the same logical errors? If logical, then say America has killed 98,000 Iraqis.
First it goes to credibility. Another example. The administration knew that a drug plan costs far more than $400 billion. So they ordered the expert to not talk to Congress so Congress could not learn about the lie. The expert's numbers said at least $500 billion. Today we learn (after the election) that the administration knew it was at least $700+ billion. Ahhh but Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Lying therefore is justified? No wonder the administration authorized torture of prisoners who were not even guilty. How many lies before George Jr has no credibility? Welcome to the Vietnam syndrome.
George Jr proves he can lie repeatedly and UT (, et al) will believe him ... religiously? When does this Vietnam syndrom stop?
Again the numbers. 98,000 dead as so accurately explained by Shrodinger's Cat verses the 15,000 ... and the administration does not even try to justify those numbers. How can anyone believe the administration? And that is the point. How and why would anyone believe only 15,000 dead when there is no logical reason to do so?
UT completely misses the point. You are taking personal insult. Logical conclusions have no place among silly emotions. The point is about how one draws conclusions. Meanwhile no one is insulted. Again, I keep asking UT, et al to provide just some 'real world' facts to justify a defense of the mental midget president's numbers. I do so repeatedly because he will not provide any such facts. He can't even admit why he was so wrong about those aluminum tubes - a critical self examination. One instead would take insult to this continued demand for facts? A demand so that one does not make same mistakes as with those aluminum tubes. Learn why you were wrong about those aluminum tubes AND about 98,000 killed by America.
Where pray tell is a study anywhere near as responsible as the one published in The Lancet. We are talking here about, for example, why emotion rather than logic created a war that killed 98,000 Iraqis for no good reason. A person properly burned by this lying president would have long ago said, "I don't trust the administration's 15,000 number". Obviously. Aministration provides no supporting facts knowing full well that many in America will still blindly believe. Why then, UT, do you still keep making the same logic mistakes you made with those aluminum tubes?
The next event is fast approaching as I predicted last year. Already the lies and half truths are being put forth to justify another unjustified invasion - in Iran. We know this will happen if only because the administration said up front that it intends to 'fix' the Middle East and put Iran on a list of countries to invade. So when that war goes nuclear, will you stand there screaming that the US launch ICBMs and nuclear bombs on Iran? Are you already justifying that war using the same logic that promoted aluminum tubes for WMDs? When will you confront White House spin using logic - and not blindly believe what they say? That, UT, is the point. Where is the logic that says a 15,000 dead number is accurate? It does not exist - except in White House speculation.
Those who blindly believe a 15,000 number are likely to call for a unilateral attack on Iran. And that one may turn nuclear. It is coming because too many are so blind as to even believe a fictitious 15,000 number. This is not a personal attack on anyone, UT. It is a question of how many times one will believe a lying president - without facts to justify that support. A person using logic says The Lancet's 98,000 dead number is the most likely estimate. A person who advocates a unilateral attack on Iran blindly (and without facts) would typically believe the administration's 15,000 numbers. That is the danger. A danger because things are believed - facts be damned.
Oynxcougar - at what point do we finally declare George Jr as evil. With the invasion of Iran, or with the invasion of N Korea? Is that not the sign of a devil - when logical thinking is replaced by a blind compliance? Only a devil could put up a 15,000 dead number, provide no justification, and people both loyally and unquestionably believe what they are told.
Let me add some clarification here, since few seemed to have bothered to read the original Lancet article. The study looked at the number of civilian deaths as a result of the war. The researchers wanted to compare civilian death rates pre-American invasion and post Saddam. Remember how a big bone of contention has been that Saddam was responsible for many deaths of his own people?
Here's just one example of the factors the researchers looked at: One of the major public health problems in Iraq has been the increase in infant mortality since the US invasion. The authors of the paper address this problem, explaining that increased infant mortality rate is due to the mothers' fear of going to the hospital since the outbreak of the war. This segment of the civilian death toll is NOT due to US soldiers gunning down infants. It IS due to the over-all instability of the country since the US invasion. The US stance has been that we are making life better for the average Iraqi. Going by the data published in the Lancet, we are not.
The Lancet paper was not some anti-American diatribe. It was scientific and impartial. It even made mention of US soldiers coming to the familes of the deceased and apologizing in some instances of inadvertant civilian deaths. The concluding paragraphs of the paper ask a very valid question. The US military claims that "collateral" deaths have been kept to a minimum due to precision weapons and bombing. If the US military has no knowledge of the actual number of civilian deaths, how can it make such a claim?
UT. I acknowledge my mistakes AND (this is the more important point) acknowledge why I made those mistakes.
Please point out the post where you acknowledged there was no Jenin massacre, and explained why you made such a massive error.
I'll make it easier for you. Please point out any post at all where you acknowledged that you made any error at all, and explained why you made that error.
Everyone else can help. Certainly one Cellarite can recall it happening. Anyone?
Is that not the sign of a devil - when logical thinking is replaced by a blind compliance? Only a devil could put up a 15,000 dead number, provide no justification, and people both loyally and unquestionably believe what they are told.
The Devil? Now who's being illogical?:eyebrow:
Ut and tw remind me of the feud in Asterix in Corsica about his great-great-great-great grandad buying a lame donkey from the other guy's great-great-great-great-grandad. It was very, very serious.
Please point out the post where you acknowledged there was no Jenin massacre, and explained why you made such a massive error.
Unfortunately, UT, you fail (or just don't want) to understand the subject. Too often, you promote myopic 'them verses us' conclusions rather than first learn facts. Your insistence that ‘those aluminum tubes were for WMDs’ says you did not first learn facts. Even quoting an accurate post that “not everyone wants democracy” (no matter how many times you insist otherwise) says you are trying to avoid the point.
UT you were wrong to blindly believe what George Jr said about Iraq. You don't have an engineer’s attitude that first demands the irrefutable fact. But then you blindly accept Rush Limbaugh type propaganda as if that were fact. IOW you make multiple reasoning mistakes. If you first demand facts, then you would not have posted repeatedly about aluminum tubes and other WMD propaganda.
Have you learned from that mistake? Apparently not. For example, not one good reason exists to challenge the 98,000 dead number. Schrodinger's Cat has again posted what you did not read before forming opinions. You immediately assumed the Iraqi dead were due to military violence. Again, you just knew – facts be damned. As with aluminum tubes, you failed to learn facts before forming an opinion. A problem that is also widespread in America. Same problem will cause an illegal invasion of Iran.
Ok that is how you came to opinions and still failed to learn from your 'aluminum tube', ‘Saddam is a threat’, et al fiasco. To repeat it again: This discussion is not about you. This is a discussion of how people in America now view the world and form opinions. The point again, UT. It is not only about how you think (which is why you have no reason to feel so insulted). Your posts are cited as but examples. Bury your emotions to comprehend the point of this discussion. People, such as you, who have a problem with The Lancet study (knew it was wrong without even reading the study) also don't learn facts before forming conclusions. You even assumed you knew what The Lancet study was counting. This becomes a serious problem in America when the president is so extremist, dishonest, confrontational, mentally deficient, and aggressive. UT is not the only one who demonstrates this problem. But an aluminum tube myth and ‘Arabs in every closet just waiting to massacre Americans’ is a problem create by “so many who just know – facts be damned”.
Again, there is no insult here of UT. UT’s denial of 98,000 dead Iraqis is a symptom of a much larger and more dangerous problem. Unfortunately, so many Americans are so easily deceived by lies and myths that America threatens to become the so-called ‘great Satan’ - and invade Iran.
The statement today by N Korea is, unfortunately, accurate. American belligerence so threatens world peace that N Korea would be irresponsible to not build nuclear weapons. You tell me how such belligerence makes for a better world. Instability created because too many Americans just know – facts such as The Lancet study be damned.
UT, you did not read the study. You did not understand what deaths were counted. But you just knew it was wrong? That is a problem that extends well beyond how UT forms opinions. That is the point. There is no insult of UT. There is a problem in America that UT repeatedly demonstrates.
Yes, tw, and my questions are not about you. They're about people LIKE you, who are mentally ill. Not YOU. People LIKE you.
People with an "engineer's mind" who somehow come to accept propaganda such as "thousand dead in Jenin", and, having subjected the "fact" to their "engineer's mind", find it to be factual and work from that point as a given.
Not YOU though. Just people LIKE you. You know. Morons.
Yes, tw, and my questions are not about you. They're about people LIKE you, who are mentally ill. Not YOU. People LIKE you.
What questions, UT? I don't see any questions. I see accusations that have no justification - accusations made without any supporting facts or numbers. Where is this question about The Lancet study that says the US caused the death of 98,000 (and probably many more) Iraqis? Instead the study is wrong - and yet you apparently did not read it. Instead you assumed it was about people killed by military violence. And again, where is the question? All I read is your accusations that the study must be wrong.
Are you acknowledging that what Schrodinger's Cat has posted is accurately? Do you better understand the 98,000 dead number since he has noted who gets counted as dead?
What questions, UT? I don't see any questions.
That's because you don't read for comprehension. The questions are: 1) Please point out the post where you acknowledged there was no Jenin massacre, 2) please explain why you made such a massive error, or really, any post at all where you acknowledged that you made any error at all.
Instead the study is wrong - and yet you apparently did not read it. Instead you assumed it was about people killed by military violence.
From the actual study, "Findings", page one:
The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children.
Yes,
most of the deaths were due to military actions, but concern about infant mortality rates was also a vital component of the study:
The Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Ministry of
Health have identified the halving of infant mortality as a major objective.
The paper goes on to discuss this in further sections, so death by violence was NOT the only thing the researchers were looking at.
They also state that violent deaths were mostly due to air strikes, so, once again, this is not some diatribe about evil US soldiers gunning down helpless civilians on the street. It is about the failure of the US military command to use its so-called precision bombing techniques:
Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence.
The authors practically request that the US military follow up on their preliminary study:
Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce noncombatant deaths from air strikes.
If a couple of University professors with limited funding were able to carry out a study valid enough to be published in a highly respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal; surely, the DOD with its much greater access to funding and materials could do the same and end the controversy one way or the other. Why don't they?
Noone would believe them anyway.
If the cause is different we will need a new motive from you, Jag.
I'm not following you UT. How does saying that DoD death numbers would be viewed with extreme suspicion undermine anything else I've said exactly?
Noone would believe them anyway.
That is what I have found most frustrating about this thread. Americans wouldn't believe an Iraqi count; everyone else wouldn't believe a DOD count, and the one scientific study we have of the problem becomes a quarrel of belief systems. I have sometimes felt as if I'm trying to explain evolution to a fundamentalist who responds to every show of scientific proof with the statement, "I don' care whatcha say. I STILL ain't got no chimpanzee for a great grandaddy!" :eyebrow:
OnyxCougar would be happy to oblige you on that account if the Evolution vs Creationism thread weren't so polluted at the moment. ;)
OnyxCougar would be happy to oblige you on that account if the Evolution vs Creationism thread weren't so polluted at the moment. ;)
That's okay, thanks. It sounds like the round I had with a lady who came into my office one year just after we switched over to daylight savings time and wanted to berate "You physicists" for tinkering with the rotation of the earth and the tilt of its axis. I sent her over to my colleagues in the geography department, and none of them would speak to me for months afterward! :D
Americans wouldn't believe an Iraqi count; everyone else wouldn't believe a DOD count, and the one scientific study we have of the problem becomes a quarrel of belief systems.
I don't believe any of them. The DOD and Iraqi counts are tainted with agenda.
The "scientific" count was taken with too many restraints that had to be "accommodated" by changing the parameters of the fly.
Peer reviewed? Sure a bunch of statisticians in their respective ivory towers saying, Oh yeah that's the way to do it. Have any of these peers been to iraq? Do them know how difficult it is to get such information or even get to the locations. They agree that + or - damn near 100% is reasonable?
OK, hows this? What difference does it make? It's done and it can't be changed either way. Coulda/shoulda/woulda doesn't help. How about working on getting it done and getting the hell out of there.
Jag, regarding what's left outstanding here, when called on for a motive earlier you said "easier to spray a room and shoot anything that moves" but now that we've established that it's (possibly) untargeted air strikes, that motive doesn't apply.
Given that the US *does* have the GPS-guided bombs (and even developed a GPS-guided concrete rock to take out a few specific targets that were surrounded by things they didn't want to destroy). Given that we had the targetting ability to leave the lights on until day 5. Why would the US have used untargetted munitions that would likely hit civilians? Has anyone seen video of something untargetted? Is there a reason to kill civilians? Are there any missing neighborhoods?
Jag, regarding what's left outstanding here, when called on for a motive earlier you said "easier to spray a room and shoot anything that moves" but now that we've established that it's (possibly) untargeted air strikes, that motive doesn't apply.
Actually, I suspect that both occur. Why would air strikes rule out infantry? They're hardly mutually exclusive.
But remember, not according to the study:
Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths.
Just a paragraph before that it says
Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children.
Q.E.D. if they are not throwing around this word "most", we have untargetted coalition air strikes killing mostly woman and children. Is that even
possible? I don't think so.
Most means more than half.
Q.E.D. if they are not throwing around this word "most", we have untargetted coalition air strikes killing mostly woman and children. Is that even possible? I don't think so.
Happy Monkey is correct - most DOES mean more than half. Since the study is talking about
civilian deaths, it stands to reason that the group which comprises the majority of the civilian population (women and children under 12) would account for
most civilian deaths.
I don't know that the study calls the air strikes "untargeted." It questions if the air strikes are as precise as has been claimed.
Dresden Remembered.
It seems to me that incidents like Dresden and Hiroshima underscore how war changed in the 20th century.
Rape and pillage were the marks of war in Europe. Later however, the destruction of towns seemed to lose in favor of occupation. The fascists bombing of
Guernica during the Spanish Civil War seemed to bring back into vogue the terrorizing of civlian populations by the military.
Destoying unarmed merchant ships was always a part of war. In theory, any ship carrying military cargo was an agent of war and a fair target. Apply this theory to cities and you get Guernica, Dresden, and Hiroshima. Extend the concept far enough to say that any economic engine of an enemy is a fair target, and you get the World Trade Center.
The extent to which you are willing to risk your own troops to protect a civilian population is a mark of moral superiority and intelligence. Intelligence in that you are willing to pass on a strategy that might result in short term gains in order to retain 'hearts and minds' and win a long term goal. So sending in a ground unit to take out an anti-aircraft gun next to an orphanage instead of bombing from the air is an attempt to 'win the war' and not just the battle.
So how many women and children were killed by ground units?
(It seems like Jag, Cat, and HM have three different narratives for how we got here.)
Ok I'm hung over like hell but I'll give this a boot because I won't have time for a few days.
Jag, regarding what's left outstanding here, when called on for a motive earlier you said "easier to spray a room and shoot anything that moves" but now that we've established that it's (possibly) untargeted air strikes, that motive doesn't apply.
Given that the US *does* have the GPS-guided bombs (and even developed a GPS-guided concrete rock to take out a few specific targets that were surrounded by things they didn't want to destroy). Given that we had the targetting ability to leave the lights on until day 5. Why would the US have used untargetted munitions that would likely hit civilians? Has anyone seen video of something untargetted? Is there a reason to kill civilians? Are there any missing neighborhoods?
HM addressed the issue of mutual exclusivity. The second issue is even simpler. You may be able to drop the bomb in the right place but a: That doesn't mean there's Bad Guys(tm) underneath b: Doesn't mean there isn't civvies as well c: doesn't mean the buildings in all directions for half a block aren't rubble as well. Precision airstrikes are only as good as the intel that guides them and we all know how good US human intel is in the middle east.
As for untargetted munitions, they're cheaper, though the whole JDAM thing reduced that a bit. Secondly, I don't remember talking about bombing raids at all so I'm a tad lost on that one. Which count to believe? There's too much chaos on the ground for *anyone* to do an accurate count even if they wanted to. The best you would do is extrapolate from a combination of all sources.
I also don't get *why* this whole untargetted airstrike thing affects anything I said? I don't put too much stick in this whole 100,000 report, any part of it and that has been clear for a while. The fact it's far easier in an urban combat situation to open fire than wait for the other guy to put one though your chest (or turn out to be a old woman) isn't in any way changed by this report.
So how many women and children were killed by ground units?
(It seems like Jag, Cat, and HM have three different narratives for how we got here.)
Despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household
interview data do not show evidence of widespread
wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the
ground. To the contrary, only three of 61 incidents (5%)
involved coalition soldiers (all reported to be American
by the respondents) killing Iraqis with small arms fire.
In one of the three cases, the 56-year-old man killed
might have been a combatant. In a second case, a
72-year-old man was shot at a checkpoint. In the third,
an armed guard was mistaken for a combatant and shot
during a skirmish. In the latter two cases, American
soldiers apologised to the families of the decedents for
the killings, indicating a clear understanding of the
adverse consequences of their use of force. The
remaining 58 killings (all attributed to US forces by
interviewees) were caused by helicopter gunships,
rockets, or other forms of aerial weaponry.
(That's the problem with discussing this report in fragments - maybe I should have just cut and pasted the entire damn thing in my OP, but I doubt people would have had the patience to read it all)
Early on, right after the tanks rolled through Baghdad, the Where's Raed Blog described how the insurgents(resistance?) would come into the neighborhood and take over a house. After dark they would launch rockets over the city until they were zeroed in on by what he claimed to be US artillery.
Wonder how many were killed by the rockets and the artillery? :eyebrow:
Just a paragraph before that it says
Q.E.D. if they are not throwing around this word "most", we have untargetted coalition air strikes killing mostly woman and children. Is that even possible? I don't think so.
A battlefield is a very dangerous place for everyone. In the Liberation of Kuwait, with every attack being carefully coordinated and with aircraft routinely demanding confirmation before they attacked, then most American deaths were due to friendly fire. How can this be, UT asks? Welcome to war. Even your own friends can be a very deadly threat. And this assumes death only from violent action.
Numbers say that as many as 30% of smart munitions have failed to strike their target. This can vary significantly for so many reasons including the targeting aircraft under fire, failure of the targeting munitions, bad weather, etc. Sometimes dumb bombs may be used because the 'smart' electronics may not be available to upgrade that dumb bomb. It is a battlefield. Use what you have. There are so many reasons why even smart munitions miss their targets. Technical reasons. Human failure.
Do you point an unloaded weapon at anyone? No. Absolutely not. Even an unloaded weapon can unexpectedly fire. Why does UT expect smart weapons to be any more reliable? Battlefields are very complex. Again, even friendly fire is a major source of death and destruction. Just one of so many reasons why people - military and civilian - die.
It's all over. It's all over.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4217413.stm
On Thursday, January 27 2005, the Iraqi ministry of health released to the BBC's Panorama programme statistics stating that for the six-month period from 1 July 2004 to 1 January 2005:
* 3,274 people in Iraq were killed and 12, 657 injured in conflict-related violence
* 2,041 of these deaths were the result of military action, in which 8,542 people were injured
* 1,233 deaths were the result of "terrorist" incidents
These figures were based on records from Iraqi public hospitals.
...
Jack Straw said: "In many cases it would be impossible to make a reliably accurate assessment either of the civilian casualties resulting from any particular attacks or of the overall civilian casualties of a conflict. This is particularly true in the conditions that exist in Iraq.
"However, since 5 April 2004 the Iraqi ministry of health has sought to collect casualty data.
"Explaining the procedure, the Iraqi minister of health stated on 29 October: 'Every hospital reports daily the number of civilians (which may include insurgents) who have been killed or injured in terrorist incidents or as a result of military action. All casualties are likely to be taken to hospital in these circumstances except for some insurgents (who may fear arrest) and those with minor injuries. The figures show that between 5 April 2004 and 5 October 2004, 3,853 civilians were killed and 15,517 were injured. I am satisfied that this information is the most reliable available'."
Mr Straw continued: "We share this view. The ministry's figures do not of course cover the whole of the period since military action was taken, but they do include the months of April and August, when casualty figures were particularly high."
I do hope the regulars have the gonads to check in after this post.
I am often wrong. This time I was right. It doesn't matter because we all start with a pretty-much clean slate every time a new thread starts.
Except for tw. The Iraqi Civvy Body Count now becomes his official aluminum tube albatross. How, tw, could you have BEEN so UTTERLY UTTERLY wrong? How could you write paragraph after paragraph backing information that was this bad? I await your self-analysis and the changes you will make in the future. And most importantly I await your apology for being a complete and total ASS through this whole discussion.
:mad2: Christ on a fuckin' stick, it covered the same time frame and the actual number was even outside of the study's incredible margin of sampling error! :mad2:
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.
Aw hell yer right sorry. :smack:
I find it intriguing that in March of 2003, the Health Ministry was ordered to cease the reporting of civilian casualties. A new head of the ministry was appointed and then fired 10 days later for having had too close a tie with the Saddam regime. There has been great difficulty finding qualified professionals in Iraq who did NOT have a tie with the Saddam regime, since such ties were a requirement for anybody to do much of anything at all in Saddam's Iraq. One can't help but wonder how the Health Ministry has managed to regain credibility in such a relatively short amount of time, and under war conditions, at that.
The Lancet survey measures excess death. The count of the Iraqi Health Ministry measures civilian casualties. A direct count is the most accurate measure, as long as it can be reasonably assumed that most victims would make it to hospitals or morgues. Frankly, I don't know if it is reasonable to make this assumption about victims in the Iraqi conflict or not.
To calculate excess mortality, one needs estimates of death rates before and after. The Lancet study estimates something like 5 per 1000 before and 7.5 per 1000 after.
I will be very interested to see how this story continues to evolve.
Aw hell yer right sorry. :smack:
One more question. Where do you find some great emoticons?
What, for posting here? Hit the "Go Advanced" button, click on the "More" button at the bottom of the table of smilies.
Aw hell yer right sorry.
magnimity in defeat, an enviable trait.
Anybody see any problems now that Hariri is dead?
From Reuters
The United States condemned the blast and said it would consult U.N. Security Council members about punitive measures.
Guess this means the invasion of Canada is a "GO"!
One more question. Where do you find some great emoticons?
What, for posting here? Hit the "Go Advanced" button, click on the "More" button at the bottom of the table of smilies.
The perspective of my question was more about who makes these neat little artworks? I am sure the artist who made the original smiley face never in his wildest imagination thought he created a whole new species.
Of course not. Forrest Gump didn't even know he'd invented the smiley face at all!
From Reuters
Guess this means the invasion of Canada is a "GO"!
Hello SC. I've been following this thread half heartedly and honestly dont really agree with much you say or your opinions.
That never stopped me from blasting in from far right field to make some goofy comment though, and when I saw this I just had to say.....
sounds like a damn fine idea to me! :)
slang
Well, now the ***ts hit the fan. Some 6th grade schoolchildren wrote to a soldier. While many of the letters were predictably patriotic,
some questioned the war.
One girl wrote that she believes Jacobs is "being forced to kill innocent people" and challenged him to name an Iraqi terrorist, concluding, "I know I can't."
Another girl wrote, "I strongly feel this war is pointless," while a classmate predicted that because Bush was re-elected, "only 50 or 100 [soldiers] will survive."
A boy accused soldiers of "destroying holy places like mosques."
Not that I agree with all of the sentiments here, but it sounds like some kids do not want to play sheep and may be engaged in independent thinking. I'll have to remember this reaction whenever conservatives complain about conservatives speech being suppressed on campus. Apparently, some suppression is ok with Fox.
BTW, technically the US has targeted mosques, although it does so only in cases where soldiers come under fire or it suspects the mosque is housing weapons.
"I want to think these letters were coached by the teacher or the parents of these children," Jacobs said in an interview from Camp Casey, Korea.
"It boggles my mind that children could think this stuff."
Damn that free speech. Damn.
They are allowed to be just as wrong as you are Rich.
Of course, they will have to work at it.
Hello SC. I've been following this thread half heartedly and honestly dont really agree with much you say or your opinions.
That never stopped me from blasting in from far right field to make some goofy comment though, and when I saw this I just had to say.....
sounds like a damn fine idea to me! :)
slang
Always open to a well thought out and reasoned critique. BTW, you're not the kid who flunked my survey class twice, are you? :eyebrow:
No. Does your honor student also go by the name "slang"?
No. Does your honor student also go by the name "slang"?
Generally, I call him "Yo, Entropy!" He's longing for a recommendation for grad school and spends a lot of time getting under foot in the lab. You'd probably like each other. :D
A conservative blogger notes how even though it's horseshit, the 100,000 figure is used routinely as if it were credible.
Clearly the Lancet is wrong because Rush Limbaugh said so. I wonder if he said it before or after using more drugs.
The UN weighs in with their number.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1610143,00.html
The survey for the UN Development Programme, entitled Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004, questioned more than 21,600 households this time last year. Its findings, released by the Ministry of Planning yesterday, could finally resolve the debate over how many Iraqis were killed in the war that overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein in April 2003.
The 370-page report said that it was 95 per cent confident that the toll during the war and the first year of occupation was 24,000, but could have been between 18,000 and 29,000. About 12 per cent of those were under 18.
The figure is far lower than the 98,000 deaths estimated in The Lancet last October, which said that it had interviewed nearly 1,000 households. But it is far higher than other figures.
can we just bring our folks home, nuke the joint, and quit debating how many people have died?
seriously, it could help a lot of people.
-The Dems could point and scream and guarantee themselves the next couple of elections.
-The international community could have real justification for their Anti-America sentiment.
-The Republicans would get crucified in the media, but then they can revive their martyr act, and give the clean up and reconstruction contracts to their friends.
-The US military members would be happy to be home with their families with fewer bullets flying.
-The UN would probably pull out of NY - do i have to explain the benefit there?
-A lot of future TNT vest wearing freaks would be out of commission, and other groups might just realize we are crazy enough to do the same thing to them.
-A few million innocent Iraqis dead... ok, i don't see any possible upside here, but there is a cost for every positive, right?
I sometimes wonder if there are that many innocent Iraqis. They blow most of em up themselves before they reach puberty.
The UN would probably pull out of NY - do i have to explain the benefit there?
I'd like to hear the benefits of such a move.
most of them are just as innocent as we are. interpret that as you see fit.
they are trying to live their lives, raise their kids, not annoy the wife too much, maybe hang out with friends when they get a chance. most of them have never known a time when their country wasn't being torn apart by some sort of turmoil. their hot buttons and sensitivities will be different than ours, but for the most part they are no different than we are.
we can judge them for not doing more to stop the suicide bombers and terrorists but everything is relative (insert another thread here). when is the last time you (or I) intervened A) when you knew of a man abusing his wife, B) the neighbor's kid stealing something, C) the guy who sold weed to the school kids, D) the coworker who proudly cheats on his taxes?
all of these things are illegal or immoral, why didn't you (I) step in and stop it? because it wasn't worth my time and effort? I don't want to get involved? No good deed goes unpunished? I've got enough to worry about in my own family?
I know my examples of crimes aren't even remotely close to the hideous nature of suicide bombing, but how many Iraqi's would even consider these examples as problems? their problems consist of long term rule under a tyrant who pulled people off of streets to rape them, kill them, disappear them. their beloved former leader gassed his enemies - even those within his own borders. they've lived in a form of poverty that nobody on this board has experienced. injustice, violence, death, destruction, retaliation are the mainstays of their lives. the suicide bombers are just more of the same - just a different target this year.
they are not going to stand up and police themselves until they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the new government is relatively stable, relatively just, reasonably assured of winning the conflict, and that the suicide bombers and their supporters will not rise to power. to put their necks on the line without some of those concerns put to rest is akin to poking a hornets nest to hear the buzz - just not worth it.
that doesn't mean i don't get furious at them for not doing something. but i've been in there culture. the "outrages" are different, but human nature in relation to the "outrages" is the same there as it is here.
I'd like to hear the benefits of such a move.
as most of that post was - so to was this statement - mostly sarcastic.
but if the UN were to pull out.
A) prime real estate opens up -not just the UN building but all of the housing, etc.
B) diplomats who are above the law would be gone
C) fewer limp dicks standing on our soil ridiculing the US for no other reason than they can.
D) it would be fun to see where they land and gauge the reaction of their new hosts over the next 20 years.
can we just bring our folks home, nuke the joint, and quit debating how many people have died?
Bases in Iraq are necessary for the invasion of Iran. There is no real exit strategy nor any reason to have an exit strategy. The long term intent is to force democracy on the 'axis of evil'. An exit strategy for Iraqi - ie 'nuke the joint' - would only undermine America's new foreign policy of unilateral invasions.
The new Domino Theory. If we attack them over there, then they will not bother to attack Americans over here. Better to make enemies in Iraq since the whole world hates Americans anyway.
The UN weighs in with their number.
According to those UN numbers, we are killing Iraqi civilians at about the same rate per year that Saddam was. But clearly that is better because Americans are more moral about causing civilian deaths.
After all, we did not intend to kill all those people. Therefore it is moral. We did not intend to create the insurgency when we disbanded the army and police. Therefore all this violence is not America's fault.
Question remains: how many more will die if Iraq breaks down into civil war? History teaches that American occupation (complete with a puppet government) will be required for up to 10 years. No problem. America wants to be the world's policeman. The current Iraqi government can only exist in Green Zones protected by the US military. Why is their own country so dangerous even for their own government? Iraq has never been a more dangerous place - thanks to America.
Those who do die will die for moral reasons. The Iraqi death rate is either same as or higher than during Saddam's reign depending on the source. We call this "Mission Accomplished" - or "Good Morning Vietnam". Same difference. They are only gooks.
diplomats who are above the law would be gone
Many would be gone, but there would still be plenty of them on Mass. Ave. NW in DC.
yes, but in theory, they face consequences for ignoring the laws of the land.
Another number noted:
Iraq Puts Civilian Toll at 12,000 (wapo via yahoo)
Violence in the course of the 18-month-long insurgency has claimed the lives of 12,000 Iraqis, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said Thursday, giving the first official count for the largest category of victims of bombings, ambushes and other increasingly deadly attacks.
...
Interior Ministry statistics showed 12,000 civilians killed by insurgents in the last year and a half, Jabr said. The figure breaks down to an average of more than 20 civilians killed by bombings and other attacks each day. Authorities estimate that more than 10,500 of the victims were Shiite Muslims, based on the locations of the deaths, Jabr said.
My understanding is that it is not the policy of the US military to tally civilian deaths. They report obvious ones, when they deliberately shoot someone, but do not do an in-depth examination of collateral damage from bombing or shelling.
This incident comes to mind. Or was it all
faked?
When the deaths are high profile enough, the US will
acknowledge the incident.
Who's telling the truth? Can incidents that occur in the backwater of a country at war and in which jouranists cannot travel safely unless 'embedded' be accurately tallied?
Was the wedding video faked, or was the incident real and subjected to spin by the US to downplay fears about civilian casualties?
If anyone
knows the answer, then I would say that they are lying, because without first-hand knowledge you are relying on one of a number of groups, all of whom have an agenda.
All I can say about Iraq is that the coalition does not control the ground. They have responded to attacks by creating rules which are difficult for civilians to obey. (Picture an invisible line 1000 feet from a police car. If you cross that line the cops can shoot at you. Now try to imagine having to look out for police cars at every intersection so that you are never any closer than 1000 feet from one. How soon before you screw up?) They are also relying on bombs, shells, and missiles to make up for a lack of manpower. How 'smart' are our bombs, shells, and missiles? Multiply that margin of error by 2 years.
The most accurate answer is 'more than a dozen and less than a million'.
The reason US casualties are so low, besides better medical care, is that the rules of engagement have been designed to maximize the protection of our troops. This comes at the price of a higher amount of 'collateral damage'.
It's us or them, and the them includes civilians. Even if the US military wanted to do a post action survey of casualties, they couldn't, because they don't really own any ground outside of the 'green zone' and bases. They only have enough time to pick up their casualties and leave. Their is no Iraq:CSI to sift through wrecked buildings and vehicles. They might get an unofficial count of the ones who die in hospitals, but for every one sent to a hospital there might be ten dead on the ground.
Noone knows. 30,000 sounds like a good estimate. Since I don't know about every operation out in the sticks, I couldn't say 100,000 was wrong. Certainly the people on both sides have an agenda. Certainly the current adminstration has a very solid record of twisting numbers into something they like to hear.
It may be that in 10 years CNN will be interviewing Iraqis in the Baghdad Starbucks and they will all agree that it was worth it and have no hard feelings about everything they went through and about the cousins who were killed by coalition bombs or detained and 'rigorously interrogated' by US forces. Personally, I doubt it.
Michael Yon details the battle for Mosul, which is fascinating. Part of the intro speaks to what I was saying about modern communcations in the beginning of this thread. Why there can't be a high number of deaths without people knowing about it:
If media access is the first reason for confidence in casualty reports, communication capacity is a close second. Iraq is no black hole. Contrary to most war zones, Iraq is more like a quasar, radiating information at an unprecedented rate. Most city-dwelling Iraqis have Internet access, and maintain chat-partners and websites. Wireless Internet is widely available and cell phones are both cheap and plentiful. My Iraqi cell number works fine. I did radio and newspaper interviews on it yesterday. Any resourceful schoolkid in Mosul could find someone's telephone number on the Internet, grab his dad's phone and call Germany, Japan or San Diego, just as easily as calling across town.
Given this incredible access to Iraq—and Iraq's access to the world—the probability of hiding large numbers of casualties, or of making them up, is minuscule. From the Coalition side, the Americans I've seen injured or killed were all reported by mainstream media, sometimes before everyone on base learned about it.
There is chaos and confusion in combat. But apart from that, the casualty reports printed in most newspapers or scrolled across most television or monitor screens accurately reflect what's happening on the ground here in Iraq. A "reasonable estimate" for the month of May, 2005, put war-deaths of Iraqis at about 700, with an additional 90 Coalition members killed in action. That’s roughly 800 people killed in May.
Michael Yon's article reads like it was written in Vietnam. In fact, same claims were written just after the Vietnam Tet Offensive.
In each engagement, the Americans were decimating the enemy, chiseling off chunks of combatants, and seizing and destroying their weapons and explosives. The harder the enemy fought the more fighters they lost; they were facing a foe that was better equipped, more resilient, and a lot harder than the enemy expected. After months of intense fighting, Coalition forces changed the ground conditions dramatically. The Coalition now owns the open roads, while the enemy scrambles to hiding places in the alleys. The challenge has always been to hold Mosul without destroying the city. It remains the order of the day.
Mosul was a quiet town when the 101st Airborn took over. Locals even worked with the 101st to save a dam from destruction that would have flooded the entire town. Because Bremer and his White House assigned staff had no plans for the peace, the 101st commander took it upon himself to try to restore and rebuild the city. Bremer did not even have any staff people in Mosul. Either he regarded it as too dangerous or was too busy doing what we now know created the insurgency. Once the 101st Airborne left Mosul, there still were no plans for the peace from Bremer and George Jr. And so, one year later, the town broke down into chaos and violence. Police and National Guard all fled.
But things are getting better. There is more military force. The body counts are getting higher. Its not as bad this month as it was last month. In Vietnam, these same briefings were called the 5 o'clock follies. Things used to measure progress - more military force, more body counts, etc - really meant the war in Nam was being lost. Why is it be any different in Iraq? When do we start talking about light at the end of a tunnel. It took Americans about 7 years to finally admit what was well published in "Making of a Quagmire".
And yet, despite the clear progress, May came to a bloody close, with US and Iraqi casualties higher than in recent months. Although the enemy attacks were both less frequent and less grand, they were more deadly. With the supply of people willing to use their exploding skeletons as shrapnel to maim innocent women and children diminishing daily, not even hardliners count on the jihadist drive of the person strapped behind the wheel. The enemy has had to shift from high-casualty firefights to remotely detonated car bombs.
Why did Lt Calley's troops massacre the residents of My Lai? They got tired and frustrated of being attacked by booby traps. Booby traps, car bombs, or suicide bombers. What is the difference? The bottom line is the war is getting better - just as in Vietnam as proven in daily briefings from the 5 o'clock follies.
Somewhere deep in a dumpster in DC are the shredded remnants of an optimistic military plan for Iraq that had three steps: topple the government, replace it, and go home. With or without the throngs of liberated Iraqis tossing roses at the tanks, the plan did not work. The insurgency launched, and a Plan B—or C or D—has evolved to recruit and train Iraqis to secure and protect their own people, so that our people can go home. Getting our soldiers back home remains the primary end, and this latest articulation of the plan clearly is working.
IOW the George Jr administration had no plans for the peace. Same problem created by same people at the end of the Kuwait liberation. The same mistake that resulted in no fly zones, massacre of thousands in Basara even as the US Army sat five miles away just watching, the massacre of Kurds who were supposidely protected in a CIA training camp, etc. Major mistakes (repeated by the same people who also disbanned the Iraqi Army and Police) are predicted in a paper written by the UK government for Tony Blair:
Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Plan for Iraq
A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.
The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.