http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

Bush, of course, disagrees with the Lancet study. “The methodology is pretty well discredited,” he said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2399950,00.html

So, what do y'all think?

10/11/2006 7:49:58 PM

pwn on

10/11/2006 7:51:56 PM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=438129

10/11/2006 7:55:20 PM

This deserves a thread of its own.

10/11/2006 7:58:02 PM

as silly as this thread is i would have to agree

10/11/2006 8:00:21 PM

How is this thread silly?

10/11/2006 8:00:56 PM

because it could have been posted in the other thread

10/11/2006 8:11:41 PM

It was posted in another thread, but...

Quote :

"This deserves a thread of its own."

So, who thinks this Lancet study is credible? Who things it's crap?

10/11/2006 8:14:11 PM

I think its just as credible as any other study of the type. It should be discussed imo.

10/11/2006 8:22:17 PM

So they jumped up by 550% since the last time they provided an estimate? OhhhhhK.

Basically I'm going to be leery of any study that comes out before some sort of census can be arranged, because any of these samplings are able to produce some wildly varying results, to say nothing of how those results might be interpreted.

That said, I'm not entirely sure it bothers me in the way I'm sure you're expecting it should bother people. I am willing to wager that we are responsible for a tiny fraction of those deaths, and that various bands of angry Iraqis with guns are responsible for the rest. Those deaths are essentially inevitable -- if we hadn't toppled the regime, it would have fallen from some other cause eventually, and the same thing would have ensued. All we did was make all the shit happen when we had the political capital and the better ability to deal with it.

10/11/2006 8:53:11 PM

regardless if the US is causing the majority of the deaths doesnt matter. We invaded a country which now has a population being destroyed from the inside out.

10/11/2006 8:55:43 PM

It is hard to know what to believe.

The US/UN say 30,000.
Iraq Body Count says 50,000.
The Lancet said 100,000 (until Apr 2004).
Now The Lancet says 650,000 (John Hopkins School of Public Health).

My own belief is the at least 100,000. There is NO WAY to know. Look at this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm

Quote :

"While critics point to the discrepancy between this and other independent surveys (such as Iraq Body Count's figure of 44-49,000 civilian deaths, based on media reports), the Bloomberg School team says its method may actually underestimate the true figure. "Families, especially in households with combatants killed, could have hidden deaths. Under-reporting of infant deaths is a widespread concern in surveys of this type," the authors say. "Entire households could have been killed, leading to survivor bias." The survey suggests that most of the extra deaths - 601,000 - would have been the result of violence, mostly gunfire, and suggests that 31% could be attributable to action by US-led coalition forces. "

So about 200,000 killed by direct US military action. And the rest because of the insurgency.

10/11/2006 8:57:09 PM

^^You missed my whole point, which is that such a thing would have happened eventually whether we intervened or not.

At least now we have a presence over there to stifle things somewhat, and we made it happen before Iraq could get their hands on something.

I know, I know, Iraq didn't have any fucking WMD and I never said they did. But it's hard to argue that they didn't want some, and it's damn hard to argue that the people in line to take over Saddam's position weren't batshit crazy. I don't like that combination.

So, it's either:

1) Shit hits the fan now when they don't have any big guns and when we have at least a little political will to be over there and deal with it, or

2) Shit hits the fan twenty years from now after a couple of psychos do God-knows-what to the population and possibly aquire nasty shit

Neither one is fun, least of all for the Iraqis, but I know which one I'd pick.

^I think you are right at least in saying that there is NO WAY TO KNOW AT THIS POINT. Maybe when (if) the country ever calms down, they can do a census and get some reliable figures from across the nation. Right now? No chance.

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 9:00 PM. Reason : ]

10/11/2006 8:58:30 PM

^ i dont think it would have happened. Saddam had quite the hold on the population of Iraq.

10/11/2006 9:03:53 PM

Right, but Saddam dies eventually. Then his sons take over, and either they lose their grip -- in which case the shit hits the fan -- or they're butchers and kill a bunch of people and someone else takes over, and you get the same choice, until eventually the regime topples

Then we see exactly this, with Iran backing one group and someone else backing another and everyone killing everyone else.

The point is, the shit was inevitably going to hit the fan. I say let it happen now, speed up the process when we're in the best position to deal with it, and before the government itself can murder any more people on top of what the fan-hitting shit does.

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 9:06 PM. Reason : ]

10/11/2006 9:05:06 PM

honestly I cant argue with that. But the fact we needed to deal with it is another matter all together.

10/11/2006 9:08:03 PM

Quote :

"I am willing to wager that we are responsible for a tiny fraction of those deaths"

30% is not a tiny fraction, whether it is 30% of 50,000, or 650,000.

10/11/2006 9:11:47 PM

Quote :

"The point is, the shit was inevitably going to hit the fan. I say let it happen now, speed up the process when we're in the best position to deal with it, and before the government itself can murder any more people on top of what the fan-hitting shit does."

This is, to say the least, a very revolutionary point of view. I could see a Marxist saying exactly the same thing.

So far, we're providing a lot less stability than Saddam managed, and at least as many people are dying in the process.

10/11/2006 9:12:00 PM

^ I know, right?

Quote :

"Neither one is fun, least of all for the Iraqis, but I know which one I'd pick."

And you are...?

10/11/2006 10:04:29 PM

For me, I think this study has finally put to rest the idea that this war is any different. I felt at least partially divided about it for some time. Not anymore.

"Well, it might have been this bad at some point in the future anyway."

That's the best we can say now, and that argument doesn't work for me.

10/11/2006 10:10:46 PM

Someone PM me when someone who knows something about statistical analysis critiques their work.

10/11/2006 11:24:58 PM

Quote :

"30% is not a tiny fraction, whether it is 30% of 50,000, or 650,000"

totally agree

but how many of that alleged 30% were shitheads who needed to go? they don't really count.

10/11/2006 11:31:12 PM

^That's a lose-lose argument. If the number is high, that indicates a failure to defeat terrorism (I feel dumber just typing that). If that is low, it begs questions about what the hell we are still doing there.

10/11/2006 11:39:00 PM

I really don't trust these studies...

I think the only way you're going to get any accurate information on how many people died in this will be 30 years from now as people and governments (dictatorships or democracies) put the pieces together on what happened.

650,000 is a huge number too. This is in a country of 26,783,383 (est'd, see CIA world factbook) people. That number just seems far far too large (what is that, 2.5-3% of the population that's supposedly dead now?).

I just don't see how I can believe any of these studies if they're all showing wildly different results (government sponsored or independent).

10/11/2006 11:55:32 PM

^IOW, you hate math

10/12/2006 12:02:29 AM

Quote :

"30% is not a tiny fraction, whether it is 30% of 50,000, or 650,000."

I'm not saying that 30% is tiny. I'm saying I'm not sure it's realistic.

Quote :

"I could see a Marxist saying exactly the same thing."

I have long believed that Marx was right about a lot of his theories on history. I've only thought he was wrong about certain conclusions he draws from those right things.

Quote :

"So far, we're providing a lot less stability than Saddam managed, and at least as many people are dying in the process."

Right, right, but this is taking the short view -- exactly the opposite of what I have proposed here in this thread. My points (and I know they're arguable, but the arguments against them are not what you have put forward thusfar) are simple:

1) Even if Saddam stayed on his only mildly horrific course of dictatorial rule, he would have died eventually.
2) When he died, his sons -- who are almost universally considered to be more brutal and distant from reality than Saddam -- would have taken over.
3) Given that his sons appeared no more rational or willing to concede to the west than Saddam was, Iraq would eventually have acquired superior weapons to those they possessed at the start of the war, perhaps even WMD of variable quality and quantity.
4) Because of the inexorable march of history, the regime set up by Saddam would eventually collapse.
5) Saddam's system's collapse would almost inevitably be followed by a period of civil conflict on some scale, the consequences of which would only be exacerbated by the presence of better weapons/WMD, causing widespread death and destruction of infrastructure.
6) The time of this period would be unlikely to correspond with a period in which American political will would allow for intervention.

Conclusions:

1) Iraqi interntal conflict is inevitable.
2) The longer the conflict is put off, the more likely it will involve deadlier weapons, to be used either agains the general population or the U.S., either of which scenarios is undesirable.
3) The longer the collapse is put off, the more time Saddam's pyschotic successors have to fuck with the population and/or the U.S. and its interests.
4) The longer the conflict is put off, the less prepared we are to deal with it in a political and possibly military sense.

10/12/2006 5:13:31 AM

Yeah, and Saddam is no longer plotting assassinations of American leaders:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

10/12/2006 6:36:23 AM

^I don't get it.

Quote :

"Yeah, and Saddam is no longer plotting assassinations of American leaders: "

Then you post a link to an article from 13 years ago. Or was that your point?

10/12/2006 8:02:56 AM

^ Did you read the article? Saddam plotted to assassinate a former president while he was traveling in Kuwait--and Iraq was bombed for it. What don't you get? And what does 13 years ago have to do with anything?

So, yeah, 13 years ago Saddam plotted to kill an American leader. And now, due to his incarceration, he can't do that sort of thing anymore, which is good. Get it now?

10/12/2006 10:31:29 AM

Sorry. I injected sarcasm when I read your post. No need to let PMS take over

10/12/2006 10:37:18 AM

No PMS here. I was just trying to clarify my post for you.

10/12/2006 10:43:04 AM

Quote :

"IOW, you hate math"

No, I hate how politicized all these numbers are.

How can I trust that any of these people aren't just trying to bash the other guy or if they're actually using sound methods and not just skewing their numbers to make the situation seem better/worse than it really is?

Quote :

"So they jumped up by 550% since the last time they provided an estimate?"

That's what I'm talking about. Why the hell would all the other calculations be hundreds of thousands of people lower, then all of the sudden these guys have it right with 650,000?

I do personally feel that the government estimate is probably low, but I don't think we will have any remotely accurate idea of how many are dead until we physically count them (count people missing, count bodies).

10/12/2006 12:21:31 PM

i believe the numbers. As I see it, the US has every incentive to give us a rosy picture - gov't has been doing it all along across the board in Iraq. The previous study saying 100K deaths is 2 years old, and we can all agree that there has been a marked increase in violence/insurgency activity in the last 24 months.
Also, whether the country would have imploded anyway post-saddam for whatever reason is speculative (though definitely possible) and at this point not relevant to the current claim that there have been over 600K Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the US invasion.

That said, let me temper the numbers a little - the study extrapolates from a relatively small census, producing a huge margin of error, so the actual number is more correctly reported as 610,000 +/- 183,000 deaths (for clarity, i'm using the numbers from the NYT article). That's a 30% MoE... which doesn't mean the number is wrong altogether, it just means it could be anywhere in there. 425,000 deaths is still a pretty huge number though.

While Bush is full of shit to say the methodology has been discredited (that's too standard a line for him to actually think he has a clue what he's talking about), there are concerns that the sample size turned out to be relatively small compared to a result of this magnitude. Still, statistics = statistics. so if you're skeptical, believe the number is ONLY 425,000, and still be appalled.

10/12/2006 1:24:33 PM

Even if it was 200,000, that's still a lot. That's like 100 9/11s.

10/12/2006 2:31:31 PM

^^
I don't think the confidence interval is a flat distribution. What the Lancet numbers mean is that there exists a
.975 probability that their best estimatet of excess deaths lies above or below each confidence limit and the rest of the interval follows a normal distribution.

10/12/2006 5:41:28 PM

Quote :

"Right, right, but this is taking the short view -- exactly the opposite of what I have proposed here in this thread. My points (and I know they're arguable, but the arguments against them are not what you have put forward thusfar) are simple: 1) Even if Saddam stayed on his only mildly horrific course of dictatorial rule, he would have died eventually. 2) When he died, his sons -- who are almost universally considered to be more brutal and distant from reality than Saddam -- would have taken over. 3) Given that his sons appeared no more rational or willing to concede to the west than Saddam was, Iraq would eventually have acquired superior weapons to those they possessed at the start of the war, perhaps even WMD of variable quality and quantity. 4) Because of the inexorable march of history, the regime set up by Saddam would eventually collapse. 5) Saddam's system's collapse would almost inevitably be followed by a period of civil conflict on some scale, the consequences of which would only be exacerbated by the presence of better weapons/WMD, causing widespread death and destruction of infrastructure. 6) The time of this period would be unlikely to correspond with a period in which American political will would allow for intervention. Conclusions: 1) Iraqi interntal conflict is inevitable. 2) The longer the conflict is put off, the more likely it will involve deadlier weapons, to be used either agains the general population or the U.S., either of which scenarios is undesirable. 3) The longer the collapse is put off, the more time Saddam's pyschotic successors have to fuck with the population and/or the U.S. and its interests. 4) The longer the conflict is put off, the less prepared we are to deal with it in a political and possibly military sense."

You're really reaching with a lot of this to make a case.

On the first #2, only one of his sons (the older I think) was regarded as "crazier", and even Saddam decided to go with the other as his successor.
In regards to #3, you really can't make the claim "eventually would have aquired". We were doing a great job of keeping them from having them under Saddam. Even though he was difficult to deal with in regards to inspections, we just don't know that his successor would have been drastically worse (an opinion you formed in #2, which has already itself been shown to be incorrect)
In regards to #5. It's already a foregone conclusion that they'll have the weapons huh?
Again, your just making a random guess on #6.


Oh, and this is funny

http://thismodernworld.com/3243

[Edited on October 13, 2006 at 9:04 AM. Reason : a]

10/13/2006 8:58:31 AM

how long until the study comes out reporting 50 million deaths?

I give the over/under at 24 months.

10/13/2006 11:12:55 AM

texas deaths?

10/13/2006 11:48:14 AM

didnt these same people release some absurd estimate like....days before the 2004 election too??

10/13/2006 11:49:38 AM

Quote :

"On the first #2, only one of his sons (the older I think) was regarded as "crazier", and even Saddam decided to go with the other as his successor."

One of them was flamboyantly crazier, but from everything I've seen they were both regarded as a little bloodier and a little more distant from reality -- which is generally what happens when you're the dictator's kid. Besides, no guarantee the super-crazy one wouldn't come up regardless of what Saddam said -- Lenin damn sure didn't pick Stalin to succeed him.

Quote :

"In regards to #3, you really can't make the claim "eventually would have aquired". We were doing a great job of keeping them from having them under Saddam."

First of all, we were doing everything to keep N. Korea from getting nukes, too, and we see how well that worked out. Secondly, our political will to keep sitting on Iraq must eventually wane unless they do something else very agressive to us or one of our allies.

Quote :

"In regards to #5. It's already a foregone conclusion that they'll have the weapons huh?"

I think it's a pretty good damn guess that their weapons aren't going to get lessadvanced as time goes on. The longer you wait, the more efficient they become at killing each other. This doesn't have to mean WMD, if you look at what I said.

Quote :

"Again, your just making a random guess on #6."

My ass. It's rare that America has the political will to outright invade any country. A week before 9/11 you wouldn't have found that will, and hell, two years later it was still barely strong enough to get us in there. And that was with a really prominent bloody shirt to wave. It's unlikely enough that we'd ever have that political will again, unless they attacked us or our friends, it's less likely to the point of statistical irrelevance that this would happen during the stage of bloody infighting that we see now.

---

Besides, literally all of your points would, if correct, only provide reasons why we could have waited to invade Iraq until later, because you do not seem to deny that the country going to shit was inevitable.

10/13/2006 12:59:19 PM

http://thismodernworld.com/3245

10/13/2006 8:31:02 PM

least saddam only killed ~10,000 a year

10/13/2006 10:13:36 PM

This Modern World is just as stupid as it ever was. There have got to be better ways to support the study than that.

10/13/2006 11:41:26 PM

I don't really call anything in this paragraph stupid

Quote :

"One problem is that the people dismissing – or in some cases, rabidly attacking – the results of this study, including governmental officials who, arguably, have an interest in doing so, have offered no other alternative or not even a counter estimate. This is called denial. When you have no hard facts to discredit a scientific study, or worse, if you are forced to resort to absurd arguments, such as “the Iraqis are lying,” or “they interviewed insurgents,” or “the timing to publish this study was to affect American elections,” or “I don’t like the results and they don’t fit into my world view, therefore they have to be false,” it is better for you to just shut up. From the short time I have been here, I am realising that some Americans have a hard time accepting facts that fly against their political persuasions."

But if that makes me stupid, so be it.

10/14/2006 8:27:39 AM

The stupid things in that paragraph:

1) He suggests that, before anyone can counter what the study put forward, they have to have their own estimate.

2) He discounts out of hand (presumably without any evidence of his own) the possibilities that the study's release was timed and, rather more alarmingly, that you might run into misinformation when interviewing an Iraqi population that largely does not like us and would stand to benefit substantially from inflating the numbers.

I'm not saying either case is true, but to call them "absurd" and telling those who put them forward to "just shut up" is pretty stupid.

3) He fails to understand that, especially in this instance, the people who oppose the study likely do so for reasons completely unrelated to their ability to "accept facts." Whether it was timed to do so or not, this study did come out right before the election and it is pretty loaded. There isn't time for another study to be set up to verify or counter its numbers in time to affect the election.

I'm curious, if a new version of the low estimate for Iraqi deaths came out, and it was 550% smaller than the previous one, would the antiwar camp not say, "What the fuck? Are you serious?" before they actually did any research of their own.

---

The non-stupid things in that paragraph:

1) Politicians sometimes try to deny, bend, or ignore the truth.

Thanks for that nugget of wisdom, Tom.

10/14/2006 3:05:31 PM

Quote :

"I'm not saying either case is true, but to call them "absurd" and telling those who put them forward to "just shut up" is pretty stupid."

Well, telling or expecting them to shut up, is indeed not going to amount to much, but knee jerk reactions to this study just seem pretty weak to me, and I don't really see what is stupid about pointing out an administration that is quicker to bend the perception with language and outright false information and lies than it is to be straightforward and honest about such issues. They can't even point out flaws in the study, and give what they think to be their best estimate?

Quote :

"3) He fails to understand that, especially in this instance, the people who oppose the study likely do so for reasons completely unrelated to their ability to "accept facts.""

You mean, the same people who couldn't accept the fact that Iraq didn't have WMDs, or who can't accept the fact that we didn't have a clue what the fuck we were going to do after toppling a regime?

Quote :

"Whether it was timed to do so or not, this study did come out right before the election and it is pretty loaded. There isn't time for another study to be set up to verify or counter its numbers in time to affect the election."

This administration isn't going to commission a study anyway as Mr Franks has been quoted as saying "We don't do body counts." And for good reason, if the Americans new the real number, an 'official' one released by the gubment, they might be a little concerned.

Quote :

"Thanks for that nugget of wisdom, Tom."

This little nugget was posted on TMW by Jonathan Schwarz originating from this site
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2006_10_01_healingiraq_archive.html#116071590494473034

10/14/2006 5:28:11 PM

Quote :

"5) Saddam's system's collapse would almost inevitably be followed by a period of civil conflict on some scale, the consequences of which would only be exacerbated by the presence of better weapons/WMD, causing widespread death and destruction of infrastructure."

Eh, the presence of American troops could easily cause much more violence, both directly and indirectly, than a few more weapons.

Quote :

"1) Iraqi interntal conflict is inevitable."

Sure, but there's no reason to assume would have inevitably become as bad as it is now.

10/14/2006 8:30:15 PM

Quote :

"I don't really see what is stupid about pointing out an administration that is quicker to bend the perception with language and outright false information and lies than it is to be straightforward and honest about such issues."

Pointing this out would not have been stupid (hence my specific reference to it in the "non-stupid" category), but it isn't what the author did. They were specific arguments he discounted, some of which really do have to be dealt with before we should start giving this study serious consideration.

There is also a pretty big gap, I think, between "weak" (which implies that they might at least have some validity to them) and "absurd."

Quote :

"You mean, the same people who couldn't accept the fact that Iraq didn't have WMDs, or who can't accept the fact that we didn't have a clue what the fuck we were going to do after toppling a regime?"

The author certainly seems to be directing his comments at political elites -- those in office, elected or appointed, or those whose business is commenting on politics. These people, by and large, are probably quite aware of and able to accept the facts, but frequently doing so in the public arena is not politically viable.

Frankly, I expect a government to do a little bit of covering its failures (perhaps not to the extent of this administration), because otherwise it renders itself impotent to do anything, include fixing the problem.

Quote :

"This administration isn't going to commission a study anyway"

Entirely true, but that's beside the point. The study came out right before an important (well, by mid-term standards) election and left little time for rebuttal. That may be coincidental, but I don't think we should take that it is as gospel just because the guys who did it say they want so very, very badly for us simply to know the truth.

Quote :

"Eh, the presence of American troops could easily cause much more violence, both directly and indirectly, than a few more weapons."

I'm not so terribly sure, and try not to go out of your way to say "a few" like that, it isn't becoming. Right now the large majority of the violence is between Iraqis, often enough without any relation to their association with us.

Quote :

"Sure, but there's no reason to assume would have inevitably become as bad as it is now."

How do you figure? Increasingly they ignore us and focus on blowing each other away. What factors would cause it to be a more laid-back massacre?

10/15/2006 7:26:24 PM

Quote :

"didnt these same people release some absurd estimate like....days before the 2004 election too??"

yeah, some group in the United fucking Kingdom has a major stake in our election

10/15/2006 7:31:51 PM

^ Why wouldn't they? As the world becomes increasingly connected, people in other countries sure as heck have a stake in other countries elections. For example, it could be argued that the entire reason UK citizens are dying in iraq is because Bush is president, and that otherwise they wouldn't be. If I were a UK soldier, i'd take at least a passing interest in US elections. Besides, is it absurd to think that a group which might have a stake in their local countries politics, would also not what to try and influence foreign politics as a way of indirectly influencing local politics?

10/15/2006 7:54:11 PM