Tits and Bums.Follow

Um... Let's turn this around though. Couldn't we also say that you are believing this survey because you want to believe that more civilians have died in Iraq? Don't you have just as much vested interest in the number being high as others might in the number being low? Doesn't that make those purposes a wash?



As opposed to being completely trusting of one survey? What's the difference? Aside from my "belief" being based on several sources, and yours being based on one.

Look. You've got a half dozen different numbers estimating the civilian death toll in Iraq. They come from different sources, each with different agendas. They're all within a reasonable range. It's pretty reasonable to believe that somewhere in that range is the "correct" value. Barring something far more substantial then a survey, I'm going to stick with those numbers.

I also note you quote the guy demanding that people go visit moturaries and ask them how many more bodies they've burried. Um... Why didn't he do that? He doesn't actually confirm that they have noticed this vast increase in death rate. He just challenges anyone who doesn't believe his numbers to do so. Heck. Why not use mortuary statistics to calculate the death rate in the first place? Wouldn't that have been better then running around giving surveys and extrapolating results? At the very least, did *he* make any efforts to double check his numbers against those mortuary numbers?


Also. He's arguing the wrong point. He's asking for a comparitive number (ie: how many times more?). That's not relevant though, since that only tells us the relative number of people buried in mortuaries between pre and post invasion time frames. Not to be obvious, but that doesn't tell us how many were being buried in either time frame. Just tells us how much busier the mortuaries may be today then they were back then. It also neatly avoids the fact that during Saddam's regime many of the hundreds of thousands of people killed were disposed of in mass graves hidden from the public. They never got to the mortuaries to be buried.

So. Are we seeing 4 times more people being buried today because the death rate has increased by four times? Or maybe only 1/8th of the civilians who died prior to the war were buried in mortuaries, meaning that the death rate might be half what it was prior to the war? The point is that just taking a multiple value doesn't tell you anything. If you want to get real numbers on the death rate, you have to actually count bodies. Not do some strange statistical calculations based on starting values that may be inaccurate.

And guess what? That's how all the other groups derive their numbers. They count bodies. Heck. The higher ones have already come under heat due to the possiblity (probability really) of double counting. So when these guys come up with values that are 5-6 times higher then the ones that are already suspected of being inflated, then why be surprised when people have a hard time believing it?



Did you read my post? I did read the report. I read their methodology. I made very specific arguments why their methodology might result in very very inaccurate values. You addressed not a single one of my arguments. Instead, you seem content to quote "experts" who say that the survey is sound. I could quote just as many "experts" who say it isn't...

You accuse me (and others) of blind belief, yet you're doing exactly the same thing. Again, the difference is that I *did* look at the methodology myself. I did make my own arguments based on that methodology and what I know of statistics. And I did make some pretty basic observations about simple scientific methodology as well. The first of which is that when you use a different technique to derive data and arrive at a radically different value then everyone else, the first thing you asssume is that you did something wrong. That's science 101. The onus is on the guys with this data to show that their values are right and everyone else's is wrong, not the other way around. Because, historically 99.9999% of the time (made up statistic, but it's just that autmatic) when you get results that far off, it's not because you've discovered something new that everyone else was missing, but that you did something wrong. At the end of it all, you just can't get away from that likelyhood. And barring some sort of confirmation that this number is correct and all the others are wrong, you don't change your position. You just don't.

Sure you do. You want the conflict to end. You believe that if the number of deaths is perceived as "too high to be worth it", the conflict will end. Thus, you want to see high numbers. You may not *want* large numbers of people to die, but you most certainly want people to *believe* that large numbers of people are dying, because that gives your argument the most strength.

Isn't it kind of silly to argue that the "hawks" are trying to lie about the body count so as to prevent people from opposing the war, but then try to argue that there's no motive by "doves" to lie about the body count to make people oppose the war? Clearly, you associate body count to our "success" in Iraq, else why think this matters?



There is only one survey stating that 600k civilians have died in Iraq since 2003. You've chosen to believe that onee and not believe the half dozen other sources that put that number between 30k and 120k. Unless you know of any other source that's making the same claim?...




Yes. The same sources we typically do rely on for accurate reporting. When I turn on the TV and the news reports that 5 people died in an accident, I tend to trust that the number is correct. When I check the government sites for death statistics in the US, I tend to believe that they are correct. Silly me, I tend to believe that agencies that track things like death rates will tend to have the most accurate information about death rates!




Now you're introducing a dozen completely different issues into the subject. How about we stick just to a discussion of the accuracy of this report. I'm sorry, but aren't you actually just confirming my original argument? You choose to believe this survey because you don't like the other stuff the Bush administration has done and said, and this survey makes it appear that things are going very very badly in Iraq.

Look. No matter what other things were done or said, that does not change the actual number of deaths in Iraq. Are you seriously arguing that if we'd found more WMDs in Iraq that this would have made the death toll after the fact lower? Isn't that silly logic? Yeah. I think so.



*cough*. They add up the reported deaths from media and government sources. Isn't that "counting bodies"? If you have 5 reports, each of which list off 5 different events in which 5, 12, 18, 72, and 4 people were killed respectively, and you then tally them up as "111 deaths", aren't you counting bodies?

How do you think death tolls are normally calculated? Typically, local municipalities keep track of people who die. You go to all of those areas, and you get their numbers. Then you add them up. That's the normal process for calculating a death toll from something. And that's the method used by all the other tallies that are available.

Let's see. Methods that involve actually getting the numbers of real people who died from the people who managed those deaths (typically from hospitals and morgues), or wandering around taking small samples of death rates in some residences and then extrapolating a number for the whole country? Which is going to be more accurate? Hmmmm...



Experts who seem more then willing to throw all of that out the window when it's one month before a crucial election. Coincidence? I think not...

You're also aware that the study has *not* been peer reviewed, right? And judging by the sheer volume of other experts who are incredibly critical or questioning of the validity of this report, I have a suspicion it's not going to be reviewed favorably. Of course, by the time that process gets done, the election will be over, right? Just one more in a long line of bogus allegations that get tons of media play, followed months later by virtually zero news when they are finally debunked.

We'll see what happens. Look. It's *possible* that their numbers are right. But, in the absense of some corroborating evidence, you kinda have to go with the numbers that actually match what all the other sources are saying. It's not like there have been secret mass graves going on in Iraq over the last 3 years. Virtually every single person killed has presumably gone through some sort of morgue, with a cause of death, and a burial attended by friends and families. Those are numbers that can be tracked and counted, and have been tracked and counted. While it's quite likely that the numbers aren't perfectly accurate, it's incredibly unlikely that a method that involves simply adding up every reported death every time they're discovered would be off by a factor of 5-10. That's just a ridiculous rate. If this survey had come up with a value that was maybe in the 200k range tops, I *might* be more likely to accept it. But when they come up with 600k as a *mid range* estimated value, it's just impossible to take it at face value.


Where did all those dead people go? How'd they get burried without being reported? Shouldn't there be about 400-500 thousand rotting corpses in the streets right now if this was correct? It simply makes no sense.




Um. Except that isn't what they did. They conducted their survey. They got a number completely out of whack with what every other count has come up with. They published the paper anyway, with (apparently) no effort to figure out why their number is so much higher, nor with any peer-review.

You do know that not every paper published in a journal is peer-reviewed, right? In fact, publishing typically occurs *before* the peer-review process. You publish your findings, and then the scientific community picks it appart. That's "science 101". The problem is that in this case the results also have some significant political ramifications, so a buch of people who have no understanding of this process nor the legitimacy of the survey or the paper are taking it as though it's somehow absolute truth because it was published in a journal.

People publish stuff in journals so that they can be peer-reviewed, not the other way around.




Irrelevant, but since you brought it up, it's not me that told Saddam that, but the UN in resolution 687 that did:



In otherwords. Yes. They were required to "prove" that they were complying with the terms.



Of course I don't. Because I'm right and am arguing from a position of informed knowledge. You are arguing from your heart, which isn't bad, but on most of the issues you argue, you are woefully ignorant of the actual facts. You parrot bits that you've heard, but seem to have never bothered to check to see if they are actually true. I, on the otherhand, actually read things like UN documents and US resolutions. Thus, I actually know what I'm talking about when I post.

Truth is true no matter how much you want it to be false, and no matter how many people believe it to be false. Funny that you mentioned how for centuries "science" believed the Earth to be the center of the universe, yet you don't seem to get that it is *you* who are acting on that same sort of methodology. You believe what you believe because a lot of other vocal people believe it, and it makes you more comfortable to believe it. It "fits" with your world view, so you ignore evidence to the contrary, and even go so far as denigrating those who might dare to suggest that your certainty doesn't make you right.

You're like the ignorant religous types back in the day calling Galileo a heritic because he was using logic and reason to form his ideas while they continued to parrot what they'd been told was true. The saddest thing is that you seem to truely believe that you're somehow enlightened though...

I want to bottom line my problem with the statistical methodology being used, just in case anyone is confused.

The clustering methodology they are using is inherently sound. The premise is that if you take a sample of the population and correctly distribute your sample by population density and region, you'll get the same results by surveying .1% of the households and then multiplying by 1000 as if you'd actually surveyed every single one (yes. It's not quite that simple, but the details aren't super important here).

No one is disputing that this is correct. In fact, I'm not disputing that the number they derived is pretty darn close to the number they'd have gotten if they'd actually surveyed every single household in Iraq. The point I'm trying to make is that *that* number is wrong.

Remember. They're looking at a 3 year period of time. They're counting the total number of deaths in a single residence over that period of time. They're counting anyone who lived at that residence for at least 3 months as a "resident to be counted" when taking their survey. The problem is that this means that a single person could potentially be counted up to 12 times, and that assumes that he's only considered to be a "resident" of one home at a time. If someone lives in 5 different places over a period of 3 years (not particularly unusual for a country going through the amount of upheaval that Iraq is), and that person dies, then if you actually did survey every single household in the country, 5 of them would report him as a resident who died.

It also does not take into account dual residency. If someone lives at his aunts house during the week because it's closer to work (likely important in a country where traveling is dangerous), but then returns home to his family during the weekends and whenever he's not working, he's going to be counted as a resident in both locations even during the exact same period of time. Given the numbers of stories I've heard about families moving members around from one location to another for various reasons, I'm pretty sure this is going to inflate the results.


Clustering as a statistical methodology works really well. However, you also have to establish that the basic survey you are conducting is valid. In this case, it's not the extrapolation that's wrong, it's the way their counting people in the first place. Again. If they actually were to survey every single household in the country, it's pretty obvious that their death tally would be significantly higher then the actual death rate. I think the process they're using become less and less accurate the longer the time frame they use. Had they restricted their survey to counting deaths during a single 3 month period of time, and required all residents to have been living exclusively at that location for the entire time to be counted, they'd have gotten a much more accurate number (although possibly a bit low, but not nearly as far off as the way they did it). By making the residency time period 1/12th the total time period they were counting, but then tallying up "deaths" for the entire period, they're automatically going to get massively incorrect numbers.

I'm curious exactly what peer review went on? He handed it to a few of his close friends and they went "neato! Let's get this out right before the election!". I'm serious. Peer Review involves publishing your paper and then having other experts in your field check out your results and see if they agree with them or if they believe they're bogus. You can't have a peer reviewed paper if it hasn't actually been published anywhere yet. Not a true peer review anyway...

Who peer reviewed this? Because for that to be the case, it would have been published *somewhere* prior to this. It may not have been in a major journal, but I find it hard to believe that something like this was peer reviewed and no one in the media got wind of it? Ridiculous. I've seen dozens of papers fly around the internet on many different topics, all of which are neato things, or support an argument, or just push against standard ways of doing things, all of them years in some cases before they're ever peer reviewed.

So unless this guy's using an incredibly weird definition of Peer Review, I can't see how that's right. Something this startling does not only get media coverage *after* it's been fully peer reviewed. It just can't. Someone would have gotten wind of it during the review process. Again. Unless he just handed it to a couple other professors that he knew already agreed with him and they just rubber stamped it or something. That's not really peer review. That's more what I've heard referred to as a "Proof review", where you're essentially handing it to colleagues for them to make sure you didn't write something stupid (silly math mistakes and such). You peer review a paper by publishing it and then having other experts in the field discuss and dissect it and determine how much validity to place in it. You simply can't do that without the paper being public knowledge.



They weren't asked to simply state that they had none. They were asked to promise not to have any and not to build any more. They were also required to hand over all the materials they had. They were required to hand over all the documents they had. They were required to provide "proof" that they were complying. Not just say they were. What part of this is confusing?



Huh? When? You are aware that the weapons inspection process went on for 11 years, right? At what point does Iraq's "couple months" expire?

Look. I can quote from Hans Blix too:



and



Hmmm... How could the disarmament phase have gone so slowly if there was nothing to disarm?



1996 is quite a bit longer then a "couple months" after 1991... Just saying.



Wait?! I thought we had to prove that they had them. Sure looks like Blix understood that Iraq was supposed to disarm and show us it had disarmed, not make us proof otherwise.



Wait! I thought you said that the weapons inspectors said that Iraq didn't have any weapons. But here's Blix saying that they can't exclude the possiblity. Hmmm...



Hey! Evidence that there's more weapons that haven't been accounted for in Iraq. But I thought you said that the inspectors said that Iraq didn't have any? Aren't you just hoping no one will call you on your blatantly false statements?



Whups. They aren't "weapons of mass destruction", but they are on the list of weapons Iraq wasn't supposed to have. Hmmm...



Of course, according to you the lack of evidence from Iraq that it destroyed the Antrax it had is nothing to worry about, right? But then why does Blix mention it? Maybe you're whole "Iraq doesn't have to prove anything" argument is... wrong? Nah! Couldn't be...



Hah. Those funny Iraqis. See. They got caught lying about their biological weapons when a table they included in a report showed materials that weren't listed elsewhere. So what did they do? They just removed the table and resubmitted the report. Brilliant solution!


I could go on all day long. I'm only about halfway through the list of violations that Blix clearly outlines. You can pretend that the inspectors didnn't find any weapons violations in Iraq, and that they were all satisfied that Iraq was in compliance or some other non-sense, but the simple fact is that Blix's own words totally refute that. Clearly, they were not convinced Iraq had fully disarmed. Clearly they felt that Iraq was hiding something. The only question isn't about that, but about what to do about it. The UN chose to ignore it and continue the process. The US chose to take action.


I'm perfectly ok with an argument that the action the US took was incorrect. I'll likely disagree with you, but at least we'd be differing on opinion. But please don't blatantaly lie about facts. The facts are that Iraq was in blatant violation of the terms of the cease fire agreement they signed. No one who really knows this subject disputes that. Disagree on what action to take, but don't pretend that the cause didn't exist in the first place. That's just bogus.

Thanks for linking that blog paulsol. Reading the opinion of the people that have to live through this is always an eye-opener.

gbaji's argument boils down to this:



And yet, they couldn't prove it. I wander what kind of commodity they would've needed to explore these doubts more fully. More inspectors on the ground? More air surveillance? Maybe some help from the "intelligence experts" that knew WMDs were "in the north, south, east and west"? And of course, rather obviously, time. The most precious commodity of all.

Instead the US invaded. Without proof, because they wouldn't give time. Without any basis in International Law, because they couldn't wait.

So, gbaji, maybe you can tell me why it was so urgent to invade? Why they couldn't wait for a couple of months?

Anyway, it doesnt really matter anymore. The only people still defending the righteousness of the invasion are people with a vested interest in it, or goofballs like gbaji, who still argue it was right to invade. Armchair generals. Gotta love'em.

And as usual, it's the normal people that will pay for those mistakes and those lies, with their lives.

Seriously, how you can still pretend that the gigantic car-crash happening right before our eyes is a good thing, gbaji, I'll never understand.

Holy scrolling past Gbaji's right wing spewing!!!!

It is plainly obvious that Iraq no longer exists, we are seeing the formation of 3 new states. Which in turn will destabilise the entire region, Kurds in Sryia and Turkey. Radical Shias in Iran and Sunnis all the way to Egypt.
So basically it is screwed, the population is doing this on their own, moving to their religions dominant areas.

Flea, I understand you wanting to defend the US soldiers, but that is the same excuse that the ****'s used. There comes a time when the military has to think for itself. Force is not working, they need to fcous on gaining trust and working with the people, rather than trying to impose their will.

While always finding Gbajis grasp of reality pretty tenuous, I have to say that the world he lives in at the moment, utterly sad. Delusional in fact.

Wether he believes in Riverbend or not, is therefore irrelevant.

Though I must admit to being mildly excited about the prospect of the next few weeks of his trying to blame the ' US defeat in Iraq', on the 'liberal media'.

As opposed of course, to utter incompetency and the idiotic foreign policy (of his favorite band of merry men who are currently occupying the Whitehouse), that he has held, and no doubt will continue to hold in such high esteem.