How I quieted the dinner table tonight.

Having dinner with Republican friends. The subject of the Tsunami came up with up to 60,000 deaths. I said it was amazing the coverage that gets vs. the 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq.

(Sounds of Silence)

(They still didn't get it.)

....Good job! I hope you were able to enjoy your food and had a double helping of the dessert.

caused such death and destruction. The United States did, however, cause the death and destruction in Iraq.

to REALLY break up a republican dinner party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2881767

... just forwarded that info to several friends on an anti-Bush email program I've been doing for the past 15 months or so.

Thanks.

New Year's Eve party coming up. Maybe I can silence a few there.
:)

I'm being given information on that thread and another one that the figures of 150K to 340K Iraqis killed by Hussein in 24 years may be OVERinflated, thus making the comparison look even WORSE for us.

Yikes.

their tax cuts...


make sure you are skilled in Heimlich maneuver though first.
dp

with a simple statement like that?

You can almost see the wisps of smoke coming out of some ears, as their minds chug into overdrive trying to comprehend....

The others keep repeating, "I didn't hear that. I didn't hear that. Rush sez libruls all lie. I didn't hear that."


:yourock: bookman, Oh Supreme Master of the Understatement

And you know what they're probably thinking, "But I didn't see the bodies of innocent civilians piled up in Iraq on the news so how can that be true?" That damned liberal media in action again. Show us the bodies of the disaster victims in SE Asia but don't dare show us the civilians that we have murdered in Iraq.

And Americans by and large just don't care how many Iraqis have died in Iraq. Pathetic.

"Mission Accomplished" just a little clean up action going on now, nothing more and junior sez everything is going great in Iraq. The U.S. is building schools, civil buildings, new homes, the electrical system will soon be up and running. Elections will be next month.

There's just so much transparency that the average American has become cross eyed.

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!

Glad you gave 'em something gristley to chew on...

I can't imagine having dinner with them.

:puke:

i divorced a republican. lol

i must have been nuts. but then again i enjoy arguing. and it was the 70's - no big deal back then. i voted Dem he voted repub. he called me a hippie and said i listened to drug addict music. i told him he was boring and i want a divorce.

saw him recently. dumb ass voted for bush! had the NY post under his arm. i just dont get it. i was young and foolish.

Not in Montgomery county?! The people there can't even say Tsunami let alone spell it or contribute to relief efforts. Civilian deaths in Iraq - how would they know about them? Sputter, sputter..........

Republicans in Montgomery County. :)

Once in a while I get something in that throws them. I taught a course on Mark Twain and read "The War Prayer".

I'm not sure they got it.

but before I will challenge my Republican friends about anything political, I always want to make sure that I can speak factually. With that said, I am not at all comfortable with the Lancet report of 100,000 civilian deaths during the post-war period because I have some serious issues with the methodology used in determining the number.

In the study, the researchers conclude that there is a 95 percent probability that the post-war civilian deaths were between 8,000 and 194,000. They use the middle of those two numbers as their estimate. (95% CI 8,000 - 194,000/2 + 4000) Considering the extremely large spread between the lower and upper estimate, it would seem to me that the basic methodology of the study might be flawed. I think part of the problem was their use of such a small sample (about 1000 families) and the method they employed to determine who would be interviewed. I could go into detail about that here, but suffice it to say that they skewed the sample when they clustered a number of their results. (read the entire text of the study and you will see what I mean)

A better, and I believe more reliable, study is being conducted by a group of British researchers known as the Iraq Body Count. They have been keeping very detailed records based on press reports and estimate the actual count to be between 14,000 and 16,000. I personally believe that this estimate is very conservative and the actual count is much higher (maybe even double that figure), but I can't in good conscience argue the 100,000 number based on the Lancet study.

Contrary to popular belief, there are some intelligent Republicans out there that can read and analyze a statistical study as well as you and me.

:shrug:

that they refuse to keep count?

The administration should be very concerned about the civilian casualties in this war and should be keeping as accurate a count as they can. It is beyond irresponsible for them to do nothing. Until then, however, it is very important for us to use what verifiable statistics we do have available. Until I see something better, I will use the IBC stats as they are based on documented cases, and are not a statistical estimate.

a reasonable number given the fact that the civilians are primarily unarmed. This is B/S.

The ones that report a few dozen killed and wounded in an encounter or the ones that report all of the local hospitals and morgues packed to overflowing? Perhaps Iraqi news reports are more accurate than here (are they using those?), but I don't think we or the British news has access to anything even remotely accurate.

...citizen deaths!

that may answer your question. However, I highly recommend that you visit the site. It contains a lot of background material relating to the project and their database.

"Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths."

"Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports and eyewitness accounts. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least two members of the Iraq Body Count project team in addition to the original compiler before publication."

http://www.iraqbodycount.net

the Lancet study used on the ground statistical samples
based on census data.

They went door to door in thirty one locations in Iraq
and sampled the deaths in the families questioned.

They dropped Fallujah which had much much higher death
rates and based the numbers on the remaining 30 sampled
sites.

That is very different than what you appear to think they did.

:(

"10,000, 20,000 or 100,000 it's still too damned many IMHO n/t"

Any number of civilian deaths is too many. What I was trying to point out was that using numbers from a suspect statistical analysis does nothing to strengthen our argument. We must argue facts in order to be heard (and believed)

When I say that over 17,000 civilians have been killed in post-war Iraq, not a single person can argue that the number is an estimate since it is based solely on verifiable data.

Considering the extremely large spread between the lower and upper estimate, it would seem to me that the basic methodology of the study might be flawed.


And I think you and your Republican friends don't have a clue about statistics. The study says that there were 98.000 extra deaths
in the 14 month period after the US/UK-invasion compared to the 14 month period before.

The 95% confidence interval is 8,000 - 194,000. The meaning of this is that there is also a 2.5% chance that there were less than 8,000 or more than 194,000 deaths. There is also a very small probability that nobody has died because of the invasion, but that doesn't make it true. Those numbers describe the normal distribution of the study's result. The estimate is the maximum of the probability function of a normal distribution, or the highest point of the bell curve. This is not a flaw, it's how you do scientific studies.

The IBC numbers alone show that there are at least 15,000 deaths (which happened to not be an Iraqi solder and end up in a report), so the real value of deaths must be greater than 8,000. But the study doesn't only offer statistics, the interpretation is also quite important. The percentage of violent deaths before the invasion was only 2%, and now violence is the main cause of death. This is consistent with the dramatic rise in mortality that was observed in the study. This is even true, if the Falluja data is excluded, because of the intense conflicts there. So it's much more likely that real number is even greater than 98,000.

Do you really think that a study like this had been published in "The Lancet", if it wouldn't have been peer reviewed by a lot of very clever people? Especially, if the conclusions drawn in the study are so explosive? The estimates done in the study are the most conservative possible. If there were any major flaws in the study, they already would have shut the magazine down. It's just another instance of the US-Administration's downplaying and disregarding of scientific results.

BTW: It's always funny if people try to compare these numbers to the deaths caused by the "new Hitler" Saddam. It would be more honest to add them, and ask Saddam's buddy Rumsfeld about it.

I kept hearing the 100,000 number being used and decided to look at the Lancet report for myself so I could speak intelligently about how the number was derived. The bottom line for me was simple. I just didn't agree with how the study was conducted. To be honest, I think they rushed to some conclusions based on inconclusive if not faulty data.

I understand what role the CI plays in the estimate. The figure that they used in the study is somewhere just shy of the bell curve halfway point (98,000) as you have cited. Where they derived that number is anyone's guess; however, because there was not a normal distribution in the random sampling. I presume that you read all of the available material, so you would know that they did not actually use a true random sampling because they couldn't get to some of the areas that were indicated when they randomized the GPS coordinates. They simply went to an area that was near the GPS random coordinates that they estimated had the same type of damage. This in and of itself would have invalidated the study if it had been properly peer reviewed. It would have been nearly impossible to get a normal statistical distribution under those circumstances. I'm not sure who did the peer review, but they must have had their eyes closed or were not privy to all of the problems encountered when they did it.

Additionally, the risk numbers used in the study were 1.1 - 2.3. Simply put, this would mean that the study is 95 percent confident that the risk of violent death is an increase from pre-war and is between that range. This could be between 10 and 130 percent higher. Obviously too great a range to be of much use when trying to do a reasonable estimate of deaths due to violent means - post-war.

We do, however agree on one important point. The actual figure must be somewhere above 15,000. But as I said in my previous post, I would rather argue a figure that is provable beyond doubt, and based on verifiable data, than try and argue a number from a study that has major issues with its methodology.

As to your final comment; I agree that we should not compare Saddam's regime with the civilian deaths that have occurred post-war. It is simply a case of apples and oranges when we try.

Meanwhile the Repugs are kicking our asses with lie after lie.

The Lancet study is FAR MORE ACCURATE than anything the Repugs spout.

And, NO, there are no intelligent Repugs. That is an oxymoron.

You think that by getting the facts straight, we are losing in some way? How so? If I pose a bad argument to a Republican, then get sliced and diced because of it, what ground have I gained? The only thing I've done is show them my ignorance.

And, with all due respect, there are intelligent Republicans out there. Just because they espouse a diametrically opposed political view does not make them stupid - just ill-informed.

that as a species, we are all terribly concerned for one another when Mother Nature smacks us upside the head and incomprehensible death and destruction follow.
But when we deliberately CREATE incomprehensible death and destruction for each other, we all tend to look the other way........
I can't figure it out :shrug:

from your circle of friends. They're scum.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You refute a casualty count by pointing out additional sources of casualties?

would never have happened if the US did not invade and occupy Iraq. Those happenings were/are very much the fault of America.
I disagree with your analysis of deaths caused by resistance activity. If you really look at it, the terrorist bombings are actually quite minimal compared to resistance actions and US military attacks.

"But look at the amount of deaths contributed to by car bombs, roadside bombs, suicide bombers, and militants and one will notice that they heavily outweigh deaths contributed by the military."

That's wrong. Look at what the military has done to Falluja. Look at Shock and Awe. Look at the innumerable raids and strikes on Iraqi homes.
In any case, the only reason terrorist bombings can be carried out is because of the US invasion.

the total dead is between 15,000 and 17,000. Much less then the 100,000 that keeps getting kicked around.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

The 100,000 is an 'estimate' done by "The Lancet Study" and is NOT a factual accounting of deaths - they estimate using their own formula. This study even says that is should not be used as a definitive total, but somehow the number 100,000 is all anybody hears about.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/

This is the same thing I say to people who say F911 is a bunch of lies; this administration is completely intolerant of anything that makes them look bad, and the Lancet would've felt the full wrath of the war-mongers in charge (in theory) of Iraq had they published a study that wasn't thoroughly checked out before publication. Look what happened to Dan Rather.

I'm inclined to believe around 100,000, but even if it's as low as 50-70,000, it's disgusting that our names are being attached to such an atrocity. 'Murika is supposed to be better than that, I thought.

I just wanted to get some facts out on the 100,000 and clarify for everyone how they came to that number. It is not an actual number, but an estimation. It is being used, but never disputed. I just wanted to give a link to a site that is trying to get an actual number by working with hospitals, local authorities and families. They are projecting the 'actual' body count at between 15,000 and 17,000. It's quite a large discrepancy and by continuing to perpetuate a false number, we get a warped sense of the reality in Iraq. Death, war and killing is always a bad thing, and even 1 death should be mourned. But it's also important to have the facts of what is actually happening over there and not the media's interpretation. Do you want to be 'guided' by their view of how you should see the news, or come to your own conclusion with the facts?

Why hasn't the Lancet study been widely discredited then? Is it because the "librul media" refuses to report it?

No one is saying that the Lancey study is gospel truth; as I said in my last post, I tend to believe it's somewhere around that number. And when the Red Crescent isn't even allowed in Fallejha (it's getting later and too drunk to spell correctly anymore, I'll admit) how can we expect accurate numbers? So what makes this study any more reliable?

on this. The Lancet study is not using acutal figures, it is estimating the number using a formula. The media, IMO, likes the 100,000 number because is makes for more dramatic news. And our media is not known for choosing accuracy over sensationalism. The later sells. Like I said, I just want to provide a link to a site that seems to be using and 'acurate' method of determining the total dead in Iraq. Don't you want to know the truth?

do you dispute those figures too? in a war situation, there is no way to record every death - remember the entire government was destroyed in places like Baghdad. The IBC is confirmed deaths only, not a 'projection', so is always going to be less than the catula number. It also does not represent 'excess' deaths, which is what the 100,000 figure does. It is not the 'media' which has projected the 100,000 figure but respected academics.

because they are working with hospitals, local officials and families. They also are counting bodies! They are out for all to count! They are not using a formula to estimate the number killed in the tragedy! In the tsunami deaths, you have a way to get in and do an actual count - in Iraq, you don't. That's why the Lancet study did an estimation using a formula. But IBC is trying to get the actual count by working with hospitals, local officials and families. Why is everybody so willing to accept a number that has no basis in fact over one that is a true count? 100,000 killed is a number to cause extreme emotion and sensationalism - it sells! But it's not accurate. I would rather know the truth.

seeing there's nothing there, and saying, well, there used to be X number of people on that island and now there are none...

they gave up couting bodies afer a couple of days when the stench became too great and are bulldozing them into graves as we speak. Do you honestly think the figures we are seeing represent documented deaths? Many islands are still completely inaccessible. Many thousands are known missing and presumed dead. Their bodies won't be recovered. SO yes, it's an estimate.

From Mr Egeland:

Mr. Egeland: The figures are still only estimates. The 115,000 figure will rise further today, I think. Indonesia has informed us that their official figure is now nearly 75,000 dead. Sri Lanka says that, in addition to the 24,000 confirmed, there are 6000 missing. So the two combined are more than 100,000 - just Indonesia and Sri Lanka.

The United Nations tried to monitor all the information flow in the whole area. We admit that we are behind, because we are totally reliant on local sources. And there are many fishing boats, fishermen, fishing villages that will never, ever, hear about. These are the nameless victims of this disaster. I heard in Somalia 100 fishing vessels had gone. There may be many more that we have never heard of. Along the Sumatra and Aceh coast, there are many communities where we have not even been able to visit yet. We hope to be able to do that in the next few hours.

http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=660

on how they estimate the deaths from the tsunami's and the total of innocent Iraqi's killed. The method to determine the number of tsunami victims is the use of real and true numbers (meaning bodies and family reports of missing) and an estimation of those victims in remote areas where there was not a confirmed census of the area. And yes, they can fly over an area, know what the prior population was and determined the casualties.

The 'formula' used to determine the number of innocent Iraqi's is just that - a formula. It is a pure estimation with no firm facts, no actual bodies (unlike the tsunami victims) and are relying on undocumented information and unsubstantiated reports. It's nothing more than a guess. The link I provided in an earlier post show a group (IBC) that is establishing a more accurate count. I just wanted people to see what else is out there.

I'm sorry, IMO you can't just say that it's that same thing (tsunami victims/Iraqi victims) because they use completely different methods.

They are using reports from families of dead/missing. They are also extrapolating these numbers for the wider area. Exactly what the researchers did in Iraq. The difference, the researchers in Iraq did it over a period of time, without the stress and urgency of getting numbers out immediately. If anything their numbers are likely to be more accurate. I am not counting on it, but it's possible that some numbers in the tsunami disaster may be overestimated. They have already found a couple of tribes that had been feared eradicated to have survived. Alternatively, the number could be much higher (I have already heard guestimates of 400,00+ dead). WE won't really know for weeks. But the point of the Iraq study is that it was done scientifically. I'm sorry if you reject the science, but I'm going to have to go with the Lancet over your opinion I'm afraid.

BTW, I think people on this site are already aware of IBC and view it as a low-ball figure.

The count is more like a 100,000 and forget about your right wing stats.

then prove it. This is not about politics, it's about truth.

I'm not claiming it's a RW site. But there HAS to be more deaths than hospitals and other official organizations are reporting. I don't think the record-keeping in Iraq has been all that good lately, considering some of the circumstances.

I'm more inclined to believe more than IBC's number, adding a few thousand to account for those deaths which are unreported or simply glossed over, mistakenly or otherwise, and less than Lancet's, since I admit they are using estimates (not being a statistician myself, I can't pick apart their methods.)

With that said, that puts me estimating around 20-30,000 (using my completely non-scientific methods, just intuition), which is still too high for the great moral liberators of Murika to ignore.

is that I believe that our military has done an extraordinary job in keeping casualties (innocent Iraqi's) to a minimum. I am one that believes that we are not in Iraq wittingly bombing at random and without regard. I believe that our military has used the utmost respect in its attempt at not harming innocent civilians. Of course, you can't always do that and I'm not blind to the fact that innocent civilians have died at the hands of US bomb. But I believe we have done a tremendous job at specific targeting of the bad guys and being extremely careful of not harming innocent. It's the truth I want, not a sensational number to cause a negative reaction.

"Specific targeting" while bombing a city is very difficult.

Have you not read the reports of the slaughter that went on with our siege of Falluja? Hospitals and medical facilities being bombed? The Red Crescent not being allowed in? Have you looked at the pictures available?

We sent an undertrained and underequipped military into the city with orders to pretty much kill everything that moved (no, I don't have a link for that, but when you have soldiers with a crusaders mindset, that's how orders are going to be interpreted).

I don't buy this "my country right or wrong" crap. I believe our military is capable (and has comitted) atrocities just as horrible as any other military in the world. And Falluja is a perfect example.

the military asked that all civilians leave the city before the attack began. They did not want to do an all out bombing of the city without letting the civilians a chance to leave. This was widely talked about and reported leading up to the taking of the city. There were thousands and thousands of Fallujan's who left the city in advance of the attack. There were very few innocent civilians left in the city when the attack began.

And I disagree - we have precision bombs, laser guided bombs that can hit a specific target without carpet bombing the whole area. We have precision weapons to target one building, avoiding civilian areas. I have faith in our military that they are NOT targeting civilians. They are, however, specifically targeting the enemy. And were do you get under trained troops information?

I'm not just as willing, as you seem to be, to demonize and criminalize our troops.

From the idea that urban warfare is a pretty new thing. And how can you train an 18 or 19-year-old kid to quell an insurrection? They can't speak the language, for one thing, and they understand the customs and culture, for another.

And the people in Falluja can't just say, "Oh, well, the Americans are coming, so let's go stay at the Baghdad Hilton." Most of these people ended up living in tents or with relatives who were equally poor and unable to support an additional six people living in their homes.

As far as very few innocents left in the city, the facts show otherwise. I gave you a link about this in my other post to you, but if you need me to, I'd be happy to provide more.

No one is demonizing or criminalizing our troops, at least not in the way you probably see it. I have a friend in Afghanistan, several friends in the military, my g/f's step-dad is being deployed to Iraq, and my soon-to-be brother-in-law is on his way out as well. I don't spit on veterans or call them baby-killers. But "supporting the troops" ends for me when they start butchering unarmed civilians, orders or not. Should the Germans have supported their troops in WWII?

taking the word of Al-Jazeera as gospel? They are the network of terrorists! Accuracy is not in their understanding. As far as the other journalist who cover war and are killed - it happens. Photographers, reports/journalists have been killed in every war that is ever fought. They want to get right in there for the story and allot of times they put themselves in extremely dangerous situations to get the exclusive photo or story. This has nothing to do with untrained troops.

http://foi.missouri.edu/jouratrisk/mediacasualties.html

Regardless, how can we condone so-called terrorists killing civilians when we do the exact same thing?

that we 'leveled' Fallujah? Damage, yes . . but leveled?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4124667.stm

Maybe not completely flat, but pretty close.

I had not read about this before. Thanks again!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4004873.stm

This might also elaborate on my response posted to you above.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Enjoy your visit. :eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

are completely accurate in everything you have posted so far and gays and lesbians recruit, oral sex is a sin and the war in Iraq was justified. M'kay? Happy now? Did I leave any of your talking points out?

sucks. Sure sign of rightward tilt.

Need wood?

The Clenis kind?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Everything is Bill Clinton's fault for having his dick sucked ! :eyes:

So what's to counter? It's like pushing on air...

where's YOUR rebuttal?

or a democrat. It's a simple question :shrug:

He called me a fucking coward, too. Don't you think a person should get to know someone a bit better before calling them that? :hi:

:evilfrown:

:shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Why is it wrong to doubt the popular belief?"

Well, ya know, I doubt "the popular belief" that the majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do w/ 9-11.
'Nuff said.

HE started it, HE caused it, it's ALL HIS FAULT.

by the Bush* administration's decision to go in and occupy that country in the first place!

:mad:

we can't really do anything about preventing earthquakes and soothing mama-nature and her big toys yet. but we sure could have done a HELL OF A LOT to prevent THOSE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT IRAQI'S dieing - like not INVADING?

MAKES ME SOOOO SICK I can't tell you. but most know how much.

And in a way, you did. No, not that way, the other way.

feel really good! The more you can do that to the chumps the better!


DownNotOut

... a particular Navajo proverb appears to apply:
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.

They don't want to know the truth, so they won't "hear" it whatever you say.

Until Iraq's/U.S's oil production flows without being interrupted by insurgent attacks and starts showing a profit for the Bushies, a cheap exporter of child-labored comfort products will always take precedence over Iraqi civilian deaths. When George's weed whacker string goes back below $4.00 a spool at the Crawford Wal Mart, then we may start hearing about Iraq's plight.

That's what happens when you respond with facts to "balance" (their favorite word) the talking points they're forcefed.

An elderly neighbor did that just this morning when I was driving her to an appointment. We were talking about environmentalism (she votes straight republi-CON) and I said "that's one reason why I voted for Kerry." She answered - "oh, he wouldn't have done anything." I shot back "Oh yes he would have. Kerry has the best environmental record in the Senate." Her response? Crickets chirping.

My husband had a similar result when he was trying to calm down a panicky friend who was getting the runaround at her Social Security office. He gently suggested she should be grateful she even HAD a Social Security office to go to, in which to get the runaround, because, since the election, Social Security was on its way to being seriously cut back and compromised. He added - "I hope you didn't vote for bush." Her response? Crickets chirping.

When they're hit with the cold facts and harsh realities, that truth does not fit with the crap they've been fed, and have been taught to eat. So they have no comeback. The talking points don't hold up when you hit 'em with reality.

VERY good and VERY useful to have all this data and these links posted. Good ammo for future arguments. They can't fight the truth. They can't ignore, deny, run away from, hide from, or cover up the truth forever.

Iraq photos you wont see in the mainstream




HTTP:///www.abolkhaseb.net/images/air-strike/index.htm

Just like the Tsunami death toll goes higher as they get more info... we don't really have much info for Iraq.