A
Anonymous
Guest
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
Whitewing said:From your link:
A study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The death counter provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count.
Let's hope they've improved their methods since their first study released:
"The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.
The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:
We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.
Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)
This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.
Imagine reading a poll reporting that George W. Bush will win somewhere between 4 percent and 96 percent of the votes in this Tuesday's election. You would say that this is a useless poll and that something must have gone terribly wrong with the sampling. The same is true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling."
http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php
Whitewing said:Did I say no civilians had died in Iraq? And if any US troops murdered Iraqis, chidren or adults, they should be tried and punished in military courts.
What I've questioned is the accuracy of your links....most of which have proven to be full of half truths, misrepresentations, or outright lies.
shaumei said:Whitewing said:Did I say no civilians had died in Iraq? And if any US troops murdered Iraqis, chidren or adults, they should be tried and punished in military courts.
What I've questioned is the accuracy of your links....most of which have proven to be full of half truths, misrepresentations, or outright lies.
i know you believe only mass media...they have got you good...but, my numbers are supported by many people...us troops have murdered over and over since we invaded their country...we are now doing it for sport...
Whitewing said:shaumei said:Whitewing said:Did I say no civilians had died in Iraq? And if any US troops murdered Iraqis, chidren or adults, they should be tried and punished in military courts.
What I've questioned is the accuracy of your links....most of which have proven to be full of half truths, misrepresentations, or outright lies.
i know you believe only mass media...they have got you good...but, my numbers are supported by many people...us troops have murdered over and over since we invaded their country...we are now doing it for sport...
Would that be the same mass media that you believe when they report there were no WMD's found in Iraq?
Your numbers probably are supported by many people, but does that make the numbers accurate, especially when many of those same people have an axe to grind with our invasion of Iraq.
You really should research things before making of your mind Shamu, as opposed to making up your mind and then looking for youtube evidence to back you up.
Clarencen said:No jingo2, He doesn;t have a 50% chance of being right. He has much less then1% chance of being right. Besides the terrorists have admitted that they were responsible. It is time for you to come to your senses too.
I don't like, and didn't like the wars we got into either, but the American people demanded that we do something to retaliate after we were attacked. Remember too, Sadam did have a program to develope chemical and biological weapons. He used them on his own people. Who knows who he might have given them to.
I don't really think we are accomplishing anything in what we are doing now, and can't see where we are likely to. I think we need to take a better look at what we are doing. I won't say we should change policies, because there are to many things I do not know.
Clarencen said:No jingo2, He doesn;t have a 50% chance of being right. He has much less then1% chance of being right. Besides the terrorists have admitted that they were responsible. It is time for you to come to your senses too.
I don't like, and didn't like the wars we got into either, but the American people demanded that we do something to retaliate after we were attacked. Remember too, Sadam did have a program to develope chemical and biological weapons. He used them on his own people. Who knows who he might have given them to.
I don't really think we are accomplishing anything in what we are doing now, and can't see where we are likely to. I think we need to take a better look at what we are doing. I won't say we should change policies, because there are to many things I do not know.
jingo2 said:What if he IS right?
jingo2 said:Even dare to think that?
jingo2 said:He has a 50% chance of being right...
jingo2 said:just as much as being wrong............
Steve said:jingo2 said:What if he IS right?
if he is right, then all the facts are wrong... and facts can't be wrong... just doesn't work that way.
jingo2 said:Even dare to think that?
not really,.. I read what they said,.. looked at the facts,.. used my education, experience and training to see the facts and made an educated decision that he is a clown.
jingo2 said:He has a 50% chance of being right...
not really, he has taken an extreme theory based argument against a fact based position... the chances dwindle when your view is extreme verses moderate, and dwindles further when you test theory against facts..
in the end I doubt he has less then a 2% chance of being right on any of his accusations,.. but then I only had a 3.8 grade in statistics.. (it really dropped my GPA)..
jingo2 said:just as much as being wrong............
I can't be wrong as I have made no assumptions .. he has stuck his neck out and made assumptions. I haven't..
does that mean I believe everything that was said or done that day and in the investigations afterwords.. no,. .I still have a few questions.. some doubts will always linger.. but I don't believe he is right on any of his wild accusations...
you seem to take his side, .. yet don't debate the facts? why?
if you feel he has a chance at being right... then at least have the guts to defend his theories.. if not let the dead rest...
.
Steve said:jingo2 said:What if he IS right?
if he is right, then all the facts are wrong... and facts can't be wrong... just doesn't work that way.
jingo2 said:Even dare to think that?
not really,.. I read what they said,.. looked at the facts,.. used my education, experience and training to see the facts and made an educated decision that he is a clown.
jingo2 said:He has a 50% chance of being right...
not really, he has taken an extreme theory based argument against a fact based position... the chances dwindle when your view is extreme verses moderate, and dwindles further when you test theory against facts..
in the end I doubt he has less then a 2% chance of being right on any of his accusations,.. but then I only had a 3.8 grade in statistics.. (it really dropped my GPA)..
jingo2 said:just as much as being wrong............
I can't be wrong as I have made no assumptions .. he has stuck his neck out and made assumptions. I haven't..
does that mean I believe everything that was said or done that day and in the investigations afterwords.. no,. .I still have a few questions.. some doubts will always linger.. but I don't believe he is right on any of his wild accusations...
you seem to take his side, .. yet don't debate the facts? why?
if you feel he has a chance at being right... then at least have the guts to defend his theories.. if not let the dead rest...
.
I'm no gonna defend anyone. I just want to point out that just because someone's ideas/theory DOES NOT agree with the Ranchers cult....THEY are wrong and YOU are right.
Larrry said:I'm no gonna defend anyone. I just want to point out that just because someone's ideas/theory DOES NOT agree with the Ranchers cult....THEY are wrong and YOU are right.
Theres hope for you after all.