[quote=moneylover]1. I refuse to accept your .1% figure until you add in the Iraqi deaths. They are people also. 2. Smoking and joining the army are completely different. Joining the army may seem as the right thing to do for some (not me). Smoking is more of a habit, or addiction.[/quote] If you guys want to help in the war a lot i HIGHLY suggest you join the Marines and not the army.

Quote from moneylover

1. I refuse to accept your .1% figure until you add in the Iraqi deaths. They are people also.

2. Smoking and joining the army are completely different. Joining the army may seem as the right thing to do for some (not me). Smoking is more of a habit, or addiction.

If you guys want to help in the war a lot
i HIGHLY suggest you join the Marines and not the army.

[QUOTE]The most trusted and most accurate source says 600,000+[/QUOTE] What source is that, exactly?

Quote

The most trusted and most accurate source says 600,000+

What source is that, exactly?

Void

Void

[QUOTE]Why is it blame? I believe it is credit that should be bestowed upon the President of these United States. We removed Hussein, and eliminated a whole country's worth of terrorists, insurgents, you name it![/QUOTE] Agreed, we deposed Saddam. But to what end? We deposed Mossadegh in 1953, Diem in 1963, Zapata, etc, etc. The pattern of these interventions doesn't bode well for us. Again, there's a profound problem in terms of the resulting power vacuum. At this point it's simply infeasible for us to curb the bloodshed in Iraq, and we're causing at least some of it. Yes, the Saddam regime was repressive and even bordered on genocidal, but really, those facts aren't really valid reasons for war: look at countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, etc. where the rulers are far worse than Saddam and yet the US does nothing. If one justifies Iraq on a moral basis, you open a slippery slope to intervention everywhere, indeed, you demand intervention everywhere on a moral basis. After all, we have absolutely no evidence that Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we intervened (The 9/11 Commission Report), but they were certainly there afterwards. The demolition of a power struggle creating a playground for extremists, sectarian violence and warlord rule, much like in Afghanistan. [QUOTE]You didn't have any proof before he said that.[/QUOTE] And? [QUOTE]What in God's name could be more important than 4,000 Americans dying and even more collateral damage?![/QUOTE] Over half a million Iraqis dying and the destruction of pretty much all of their infrastructure. [QUOTE]Ever hear, "the best defense is a good offense?"[/QUOTE] Yes, and using aphorisms to back up your argument is pretty pathetic. You'd have to, in order to support the "Iraq was a threat" theory, provide quite a lot of evidence. After all, NONE of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, we have no evidence Al-Qaeda and Iraq were in league. The WMD theory was exaggerated, such as the fraudulent uranium purchases. I'm going to ignore the rest of that blurb, just because you waste about ten lines on one word. [QUOTE]1. Because there were no WMDs does not mean the information was 'fabricated.' It simply means people in the intelligence business made a mistake. I don't remember if they ever really did say there were WMDs, but if they did, you shouldn't jump to conclusions. This could all very well have been a big fuckup on some satellite unit's fault. Besides, there were research facilites, so they did plan on having these weapons eventually, we just severely impeded their progress. And you can't forget all the trouble they were giving the United Nations inspection personnel, remember? That alone gives us a good reason to believe that Hussein was up to something. Why else wouldn't he cooperate, other than the fact that he was an idiot of vast extremes. [/QUOTE] I suggest you read Hans Blix's oral introduction to the UMVOIC: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm And this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,794771,00.html And, if you have the time, this: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/S-2003-580.pdf [QUOTE]2. Saddam Hussein was a major symbol of terrorism and horrible atrocities that have been committed over the years, and we did nothing about them. He is now eliminated, and that gives me, and many other people satisfaction, that the world is free of one more terrorist leader. I think a lot of Middle Eastern people appreciate his death as well, maybe we should look into some of their responses. Moving on, who else would we eliminate? According to your attitude so far, you're saying we should go and take out other terror factions, which I completely agree with, but if we did that you would scream about more American casualties wouldn't you? The UED reporter said it, and I'm gonna remind you, "All wars have casualties."[/QUOTE] http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040109faupdate83175/kenneth-m-pollack/after-saddam-assessing-the-reconstruction-of-iraq.html Read the summary at the bottom. [QUOTE] 4. This war isn't about oil, its about protecting our country from people who want us dead, because their goddamned religion says so. Zealots, extremists, dumbasses alike. Bush is not mentally challenged, if you can't figure that out maybe you should check yourself into a mental clinic. Its not a good habit to reduce people to "sheer retards." What do you think the people who have mentally challenged people in their families have to say about your choice of words?[/QUOTE] Provide at least some proof or some backup to the statement that Iraq was a CLEAR security threat TO THE US. After all, a vague or far-off future threat is hardly adequate justification for war. Again, Al-Qaeda was not cooperating with Iraq, there was no reason for us to think so, the WMD threat was disputed/conflicted, and the 'moral' excuse doesn't logically work. The burden of proof is on you.

Quote

Why is it blame? I believe it is credit that should be bestowed upon the President of these United States. We removed Hussein, and eliminated a whole country's worth of terrorists, insurgents, you name it!

Agreed, we deposed Saddam. But to what end? We deposed Mossadegh in 1953, Diem in 1963, Zapata, etc, etc. The pattern of these interventions doesn't bode well for us. Again, there's a profound problem in terms of the resulting power vacuum. At this point it's simply infeasible for us to curb the bloodshed in Iraq, and we're causing at least some of it. Yes, the Saddam regime was repressive and even bordered on genocidal, but really, those facts aren't really valid reasons for war: look at countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, etc. where the rulers are far worse than Saddam and yet the US does nothing. If one justifies Iraq on a moral basis, you open a slippery slope to intervention everywhere, indeed, you demand intervention everywhere on a moral basis.

After all, we have absolutely no evidence that Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we intervened (The 9/11 Commission Report), but they were certainly there afterwards. The demolition of a power struggle creating a playground for extremists, sectarian violence and warlord rule, much like in Afghanistan.

Quote

You didn't have any proof before he said that.

And?

Quote

What in God's name could be more important than 4,000 Americans dying and even more collateral damage?!

Over half a million Iraqis dying and the destruction of pretty much all of their infrastructure.

Quote

Ever hear, "the best defense is a good offense?"

Yes, and using aphorisms to back up your argument is pretty pathetic. You'd have to, in order to support the "Iraq was a threat" theory, provide quite a lot of evidence. After all, NONE of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, we have no evidence Al-Qaeda and Iraq were in league. The WMD theory was exaggerated, such as the fraudulent uranium purchases. I'm going to ignore the rest of that blurb, just because you waste about ten lines on one word.

Quote

1. Because there were no WMDs does not mean the information was 'fabricated.' It simply means people in the intelligence business made a mistake. I don't remember if they ever really did say there were WMDs, but if they did, you shouldn't jump to conclusions. This could all very well have been a big fuckup on some satellite unit's fault. Besides, there were research facilites, so they did plan on having these weapons eventually, we just severely impeded their progress. And you can't forget all the trouble they were giving the United Nations inspection personnel, remember? That alone gives us a good reason to believe that Hussein was up to something. Why else wouldn't he cooperate, other than the fact that he was an idiot of vast extremes.

I suggest you read Hans Blix's oral introduction to the UMVOIC: http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

And this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,794771,00.html

And, if you have the time, this:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/S-2003-580.pdf

Quote

2. Saddam Hussein was a major symbol of terrorism and horrible atrocities that have been committed over the years, and we did nothing about them. He is now eliminated, and that gives me, and many other people satisfaction, that the world is free of one more terrorist leader. I think a lot of Middle Eastern people appreciate his death as well, maybe we should look into some of their responses. Moving on, who else would we eliminate? According to your attitude so far, you're saying we should go and take out other terror factions, which I completely agree with, but if we did that you would scream about more American casualties wouldn't you? The UED reporter said it, and I'm gonna remind you, "All wars have casualties."

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040109faupdate83175/kenneth-m-pollack/after-saddam-assessing-the-reconstruction-of-iraq.html

Read the summary at the bottom.

Quote

4. This war isn't about oil, its about protecting our country from people who want us dead, because their goddamned religion says so. Zealots, extremists, dumbasses alike. Bush is not mentally challenged, if you can't figure that out maybe you should check yourself into a mental clinic. Its not a good habit to reduce people to "sheer retards." What do you think the people who have mentally challenged people in their families have to say about your choice of words?

Provide at least some proof or some backup to the statement that Iraq was a CLEAR security threat TO THE US. After all, a vague or far-off future threat is hardly adequate justification for war. Again, Al-Qaeda was not cooperating with Iraq, there was no reason for us to think so, the WMD threat was disputed/conflicted, and the 'moral' excuse doesn't logically work. The burden of proof is on you.

[quote=frazz][QUOTE]The most trusted and most accurate source says 600,000+[/QUOTE] What source is that, exactly?[/quote]John Hopkin's study that took place over a year ago. Those are just civilian deaths. [quote=GuN_Solar90]You didn't have any proof before he said that.[/quote]You're right! But that doesn't mean that I didn't have a base of knowledge before I said that. What are you even trying to point out here? [quote=GuN_Solar90]Vietnam has absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq War. You're just comparing them because they are wars, which is a foolish idea. We took 60,000 casualties in Vietnam, as opposed to the miniscule 4,000 we have now. Vietnam was about stopping Communism from spreading, and defending an allied country from attack. This time, we are defending ourselves against terrorism, we're defending our freedom and our right to live.[/quote]If you don't see the similarity between the two wars, you are blind and need to read a little bit more. Our government waged unnecessary wars that were only meant to be sustained. [QUOTE=GuN_Solar90]What in God's name could be more important than 4,000 Americans dying and even more collateral damage?![/QUOTE]I'd say AIDS which kills thousands every day in Africa, genocide in Darfur which has a toll in the 400,000's, poisoning of our planet which will result in mass extinctions, religious and personal freedoms, world peace and starvation + disease to name a few other important things. [QUOTE=GuN_Solar90](Sorry I erased the part of this on accident) Ever hear, "the best defense is a good offense?" [/QUOTE]I disagree with that statement completely. I believe that this entire situation could have been avoided. We lost 3,000 people in the twin towers on 9/11 which cannot even be linked to Al-Qaeda. What do you think Saddam would have done to attack the U.S.? Did he run Al-Qaeda? Did he have a massive navy? Air-force? Cruise missiles? You're crazy. Even so, if he was somehow going to murder us, why couldn't we find a peaceful solution to our problems? [QUOTE=GuN_Solar90]in·sur·gent Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-sur-juhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel. 2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party. –adjective 3. of or characteristic of an insurgent or insurgents. 4. surging or rushing in: The insurgent waves battered the shore. [/QUOTE]I'm quite sure the U.S. rose with forcible opposition to the lawful authority of Iraq and had a surge quite recently. [QUOTE=GuN_Solar90]This could all very well have been a big fuckup on some satellite unit's fault.[/QUOTE]A huge fuck-up indeed. And now we're paying for it. [QUOTE=GuN_Solar90]2. Saddam Hussein was a major symbol of terrorism and horrible atrocities that have been committed over the years, and we did nothing about them. He is now eliminated, and that gives me, and many other people satisfaction, that the world is free of one more terrorist leader. I think a lot of Middle Eastern people appreciate his death as well, maybe we should look into some of their responses. Moving on, who else would we eliminate? According to your attitude so far, you're saying we should go and take out other terror factions, which I completely agree with, but if we did that you would scream about more American casualties wouldn't you? The UED reporter said it, and I'm gonna remind you, "All wars have casualties."[/QUOTE]How dare you? The U.S. has killed more in the time they've been there than he did in all those genocides. Bush is a fucking terrorist leader if I've ever witnessed one. Do you think that this is working out well for the Iraqi people? How can you say they're happy Hussein is gone when -I quote-, "All those people defending their homes-from these bombs, and these tanks, and these guns. Seen their brother and sister shot down, Seen their mother and their father...gone. Seen their future go from bad to worse, Seen their last resort become their first. And we act like they don't hurt, Like they don't hurt." I highly suggest a song titled "Strong for Them" by Soldiers of Jah Army. Maybe then you'll be moved enough to see what's really happening. [QUOTE=GuN_Solar90]4. This war isn't about oil, its about protecting our country from people who want us dead, because their goddamned religion says so. Zealots, extremists, dumbasses alike. Bush is not mentally challenged, if you can't figure that out maybe you should check yourself into a mental clinic. Its not a good habit to reduce people to "sheer retards." What do you think the people who have mentally challenged people in their families have to say about your choice of words?[/quote]Their religion doesn't say so. You're being ignorant. You're also a hypocrite. You tell others not to "reduce others to 'sheer retards'" as you call them idiots and dumbasses. You deserve to be ignored by all. There is no difference between one put down and another. Don't think you have the only righteous path.

Quote from frazz

Quote

The most trusted and most accurate source says 600,000+

What source is that, exactly?

John Hopkin's study that took place over a year ago. Those are just civilian deaths.

Quote from GuN_Solar90

You didn't have any proof before he said that.

You're right! But that doesn't mean that I didn't have a base of knowledge before I said that. What are you even trying to point out here?

Quote from GuN_Solar90

Vietnam has absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq War. You're just comparing them because they are wars, which is a foolish idea. We took 60,000 casualties in Vietnam, as opposed to the miniscule 4,000 we have now. Vietnam was about stopping Communism from spreading, and defending an allied country from attack. This time, we are defending ourselves against terrorism, we're defending our freedom and our right to live.

If you don't see the similarity between the two wars, you are blind and need to read a little bit more. Our government waged unnecessary wars that were only meant to be sustained.

Quote from GuN_Solar90

What in God's name could be more important than 4,000 Americans dying and even more collateral damage?!

I'd say AIDS which kills thousands every day in Africa, genocide in Darfur which has a toll in the 400,000's, poisoning of our planet which will result in mass extinctions, religious and personal freedoms, world peace and starvation + disease to name a few other important things.

Quote from GuN_Solar90

(Sorry I erased the part of this on accident) Ever hear, "the best defense is a good offense?"

I disagree with that statement completely. I believe that this entire situation could have been avoided. We lost 3,000 people in the twin towers on 9/11 which cannot even be linked to Al-Qaeda. What do you think Saddam would have done to attack the U.S.? Did he run Al-Qaeda? Did he have a massive navy? Air-force? Cruise missiles? You're crazy. Even so, if he was somehow going to murder us, why couldn't we find a peaceful solution to our problems?

Quote from GuN_Solar90

in·sur·gent Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-sur-juhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.
–adjective 3. of or characteristic of an insurgent or insurgents.
4. surging or rushing in: The insurgent waves battered the shore.

I'm quite sure the U.S. rose with forcible opposition to the lawful authority of Iraq and had a surge quite recently.

Quote from GuN_Solar90

This could all very well have been a big fuckup on some satellite unit's fault.

A huge fuck-up indeed. And now we're paying for it.

Quote from GuN_Solar90

2. Saddam Hussein was a major symbol of terrorism and horrible atrocities that have been committed over the years, and we did nothing about them. He is now eliminated, and that gives me, and many other people satisfaction, that the world is free of one more terrorist leader. I think a lot of Middle Eastern people appreciate his death as well, maybe we should look into some of their responses. Moving on, who else would we eliminate? According to your attitude so far, you're saying we should go and take out other terror factions, which I completely agree with, but if we did that you would scream about more American casualties wouldn't you? The UED reporter said it, and I'm gonna remind you, "All wars have casualties."

How dare you? The U.S. has killed more in the time they've been there than he did in all those genocides. Bush is a fucking terrorist leader if I've ever witnessed one. Do you think that this is working out well for the Iraqi people? How can you say they're happy Hussein is gone when -I quote-, "All those people defending their homes-from these bombs, and these tanks, and these guns. Seen their brother and sister shot down, Seen their mother and their father...gone. Seen their future go from bad to worse, Seen their last resort become their first. And we act like they don't hurt, Like they don't hurt."
I highly suggest a song titled "Strong for Them" by Soldiers of Jah Army. Maybe then you'll be moved enough to see what's really happening.

Quote from GuN_Solar90

4. This war isn't about oil, its about protecting our country from people who want us dead, because their goddamned religion says so. Zealots, extremists, dumbasses alike. Bush is not mentally challenged, if you can't figure that out maybe you should check yourself into a mental clinic. Its not a good habit to reduce people to "sheer retards." What do you think the people who have mentally challenged people in their families have to say about your choice of words?

Their religion doesn't say so. You're being ignorant. You're also a hypocrite. You tell others not to "reduce others to 'sheer retards'" as you call them idiots and dumbasses. You deserve to be ignored by all. There is no difference between one put down and another. Don't think you have the only righteous path.

Gun Solar, from that absolute bullshit you posted, I can only conclude that you watch Fox News (and believe it). Remember how [B]every single country[/B] jumped onto our little "alliance?" Yeah, that should give you a good idea about the credibility of our intelligence at the time. Not only that, but several of your points are self-contradictory. About the wanting freedom point (#3), monks in Burma have protested one of the most tyrannical regimes. And for #4, maybe you should realize that it's a few crazies and not the nearly 2 billion Muslims that want us dead. What about all the Muslims living in America? I don't see millions of them using car bombs and AK's on us. Stop taking your god damned information from Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly.

Gun Solar, from that absolute bullshit you posted, I can only conclude that you watch Fox News (and believe it). Remember how every single country jumped onto our little "alliance?" Yeah, that should give you a good idea about the credibility of our intelligence at the time. Not only that, but several of your points are self-contradictory. About the wanting freedom point (#3), monks in Burma have protested one of the most tyrannical regimes. And for #4, maybe you should realize that it's a few crazies and not the nearly 2 billion Muslims that want us dead. What about all the Muslims living in America? I don't see millions of them using car bombs and AK's on us. Stop taking your god damned information from Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly.

[quote=yenku][quote=frazz][QUOTE]The most trusted and most accurate source says 600,000+[/QUOTE] What source is that, exactly?[/quote]John Hopkin's study that took place over a year ago. Those are just civilian deaths. [/quote] Cite. After you cite, read Damned Lies and Statistics. Also, don't cite an article that references the study, cite the actual study. If you want to go above and beyond, read similar studies and see if you get a similar number.

Quote from yenku

Quote from frazz

Quote

The most trusted and most accurate source says 600,000+

What source is that, exactly?

John Hopkin's study that took place over a year ago. Those are just civilian deaths.

Cite.
After you cite, read Damned Lies and Statistics.
Also, don't cite an article that references the study, cite the actual study.
If you want to go above and beyond, read similar studies and see if you get a similar number.

http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0207web/number.html That is the most direct source on the internet. I wrote a small paper on this topic. This study by Les Roberts was published, yet critics just disregarded it since it was so far off from the other figures. The other figures put on the news are the ones by the federal government. I've already read it. I know how to deal with statistics, trust me. You ever hear that Karl Popper quote?

http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/0207web/number.html
That is the most direct source on the internet.
I wrote a small paper on this topic. This study by Les Roberts was published, yet critics just disregarded it since it was so far off from the other figures. The other figures put on the news are the ones by the federal government.

I've already read it. I know how to deal with statistics, trust me. You ever hear that Karl Popper quote?

No, I haven't. Wow, that is one long read, with an annoyingly low amount of actual information. Perhaps you could outline the actual information (since you know so much about it)?

No, I haven't.
Wow, that is one long read, with an annoyingly low amount of actual information. Perhaps you could outline the actual information (since you know so much about it)?

654,965. The number is much higher than the previous estimates. People who produced this number are worried that their voices are being squelched by critics of the number. Though the number is probably wrong (how could you ever be so precise), they feel it is much more accurate than others.

654,965.

The number is much higher than the previous estimates. People who produced this number are worried that their voices are being squelched by critics of the number. Though the number is probably wrong (how could you ever be so precise), they feel it is much more accurate than others.

Yes, I got that from what I read (actually, I got that from the first two seconds of looking at it). What I want is the information from the study. How am I to scrutinize a number I am given without the information behind the study? If you read Damned Lies and Statistics, you should know to scrutinize numbers you are given, especially if they're ridiculously large (or small). This number is just that, yet you seem to believe it more than all the other (very contradicting) numbers given to you. Why is that? What makes this number so definitely more reliable than all the others?

Yes, I got that from what I read (actually, I got that from the first two seconds of looking at it).

What I want is the information from the study. How am I to scrutinize a number I am given without the information behind the study?

If you read Damned Lies and Statistics, you should know to scrutinize numbers you are given, especially if they're ridiculously large (or small). This number is just that, yet you seem to believe it more than all the other (very contradicting) numbers given to you. Why is that? What makes this number so definitely more reliable than all the others?

If it is really important... I forgot the title of the method they used. They chose representative hospitals and families, and surveyed indivuals. They determined the death count of civilians after the war resulted in a much higher mortality than prior to the war. Why I trust this source is irrelevant to the subject, however I will explain. I will not cite any articles because this is off topic and a little bit obnoxious. I feel this number is more reliable because of the unbiased group who performed the study. Many previous studies shown to the public have been funded and run by opinionated groups that have their own agendas. The federal government's for example. They estimated less than 60,000 as opposed to the 600,000. Also, the John Hopkins' university has no reason to skew results. They firmly believe that their estimate is much more accurate than the others and have reason to believe that their findings are purposely being squelched. I apologize, I should have earlier stated that the source was MY most reliable. I cannot speak for others.

If it is really important...
I forgot the title of the method they used. They chose representative hospitals and families, and surveyed indivuals. They determined the death count of civilians after the war resulted in a much higher mortality than prior to the war.
Why I trust this source is irrelevant to the subject, however I will explain. I will not cite any articles because this is off topic and a little bit obnoxious. I feel this number is more reliable because of the unbiased group who performed the study. Many previous studies shown to the public have been funded and run by opinionated groups that have their own agendas. The federal government's for example. They estimated less than 60,000 as opposed to the 600,000. Also, the John Hopkins' university has no reason to skew results. They firmly believe that their estimate is much more accurate than the others and have reason to believe that their findings are purposely being squelched.

I apologize, I should have earlier stated that the source was MY most reliable. I cannot speak for others.

[s]Ok. I sort of wanted the raw data relating to the study, but I don't suppose they're making it easily available. One problem I can see is this: Two families closely related experience one death each. When asked how many deaths occurred, they say two. This way, deaths can be recounted. If you have read the book I continually note, you also know that many people genuinely believe in their statistics, even when they got to them through utter fallacies in their calculatory logic. By the way, what was the mortality rate prior to the war? Is this 600,000 casualties total or after the war? If the number was about 50,000 before the war (and the new 650,000), then I would wonder where they got the original number (50,000)? Since this study is so much more "accurate," problems would arise if they used a less "accurate" study for their initial number.[/s] Edit: Well, I googlenewsed 654,965 and grabbed the first link. [URL=http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=284342732115035]Damned Lies and Statistics[/URL] In case you care not to read it (you should though), I'll give you the highlights. [QUOTE=the article]It claimed that between 426,369 and 793,663 were killed by violence in Iraq since Operation Iraqi Freedom began in March 2003.[/QUOTE] Grabbing the middle number and stating it as fact is not cool. [QUOTE=the article]It's probably no coincidence that one of the authors — Roberts — just happened to oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein from his dictator's throne and has confessed he tried to influence the 2004 U.S. elections by timing the release of a previous study that made the war look much worse than it was.[/QUOTE] Unbiased, eh? [QUOTE=the article]We called the 2006 study bunk the moment we saw it, noting that a private group calling itself the Iraq Body Count put civilian casualties at 44,000 to 49,000. Those numbers from an anti-war organization — which has expressed skepticism of the survey's numbers — are in line with the Iraqi government's estimates, based on death certificates, and are a bit higher than Washington's.[/QUOTE] Well, you seem like the kind of person who would believe a group like the Iraq Body Count. From an extreme skeptics standpoint, such a group's number would be an upper limit. Props to them for being honest and not running with numbers given to them. All this aside... [QUOTE=the article]Headlined "Data Bomb," the story identifies three problems: • "Possible flaws in the design and execution of the study." • "A lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud." The authors have refused to provide the data they used to reach their conclusions. Part of the reason might lie in what should be their professional shame for letting unsupervised Iraqis go into neighborhoods and ask survey questions. • "Political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute." Almost half of the study's $100,000 price tag was paid for by "an outspoken billionaire who has repeatedly criticized the Iraq campaign and who spent $30 million trying to defeat Bush in 2004."[/QUOTE] So why do people believe it? Well... [QUOTE=the article]Yet the wildly exaggerated 2006 Lancet study was not just accepted by the media, it was exalted. Why? Again, the National Journal has the answer: "Probably because its findings fit an emerging narrative: Iraq was a horrific mess."[/QUOTE] Such is the fuel that feeds the flame of lies. Sadly... [QUOTE=the article]Of course the National Journal's expose will never get the same media attention that was heaped upon the original Lancet study. Its sober analysis does not fit the narrative.[/QUOTE] This failure of the media is the greatest cause of perpetuated lies, of which the 600,000 number is only one example. *weeps for knowledge* Edit again: [QUOTE=Doktor Shotgun]Over half a million Iraqis dying and the destruction of pretty much all of their infrastructure.[/QUOTE] False!

Ok. I sort of wanted the raw data relating to the study, but I don't suppose they're making it easily available.
One problem I can see is this: Two families closely related experience one death each. When asked how many deaths occurred, they say two. This way, deaths can be recounted.
If you have read the book I continually note, you also know that many people genuinely believe in their statistics, even when they got to them through utter fallacies in their calculatory logic.

By the way, what was the mortality rate prior to the war? Is this 600,000 casualties total or after the war?

If the number was about 50,000 before the war (and the new 650,000), then I would wonder where they got the original number (50,000)? Since this study is so much more "accurate," problems would arise if they used a less "accurate" study for their initial number.

Edit:

Well, I googlenewsed 654,965 and grabbed the first link.
Damned Lies and Statistics
In case you care not to read it (you should though), I'll give you the highlights.

Quote from the article

It claimed that between 426,369 and 793,663 were killed by violence in Iraq since Operation Iraqi Freedom began in March 2003.

Grabbing the middle number and stating it as fact is not cool.

Quote from the article

It's probably no coincidence that one of the authors — Roberts — just happened to oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein from his dictator's throne and has confessed he tried to influence the 2004 U.S. elections by timing the release of a previous study that made the war look much worse than it was.

Unbiased, eh?

Quote from the article

We called the 2006 study bunk the moment we saw it, noting that a private group calling itself the Iraq Body Count put civilian casualties at 44,000 to 49,000. Those numbers from an anti-war organization — which has expressed skepticism of the survey's numbers — are in line with the Iraqi government's estimates, based on death certificates, and are a bit higher than Washington's.

Well, you seem like the kind of person who would believe a group like the Iraq Body Count. From an extreme skeptics standpoint, such a group's number would be an upper limit. Props to them for being honest and not running with numbers given to them.

All this aside...

Quote from the article

Headlined "Data Bomb," the story identifies three problems:

• "Possible flaws in the design and execution of the study."

• "A lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud."

The authors have refused to provide the data they used to reach their conclusions. Part of the reason might lie in what should be their professional shame for letting unsupervised Iraqis go into neighborhoods and ask survey questions.

• "Political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute."

Almost half of the study's $100,000 price tag was paid for by "an outspoken billionaire who has repeatedly criticized the Iraq campaign and who spent $30 million trying to defeat Bush in 2004."

So why do people believe it? Well...

Quote from the article

Yet the wildly exaggerated 2006 Lancet study was not just accepted by the media, it was exalted. Why?

Again, the National Journal has the answer: "Probably because its findings fit an emerging narrative: Iraq was a horrific mess."

Such is the fuel that feeds the flame of lies.

Sadly...

Quote from the article

Of course the National Journal's expose will never get the same media attention that was heaped upon the original Lancet study. Its sober analysis does not fit the narrative.

This failure of the media is the greatest cause of perpetuated lies, of which the 600,000 number is only one example. *weeps for knowledge*

Edit again:

Quote from Doktor Shotgun

Over half a million Iraqis dying and the destruction of pretty much all of their infrastructure.

False!

Void

Void

Even minus the Lancet study, Iraqi deaths are still significant. The US military, after public opinion basically ended Vietnam, stopped counting enemy deaths, photographing battlefields, etc. etc. Without this sort of important documentation, we pretty much don't have a reliable estimate. Even with the US military keeping a body count, so much of the violence is not the direct result of US military action. Basically, there's no accurate way of calculating civilian deaths, I agree. For my own reasons, I do believe that somewhere in the very broad region of 500,000-1 million Iraqis have died, however, the most reliable study (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html) cites 34,000 in 2006 alone. Now, if we assume that the death toll annually was half that for the years 2003-2005, again halving 2003 as the war began in March, and retaining the 2006 figure for 2007 (yes, this is an EXTREMELY rough estimate, but work with me here, eh?), the total civilian deaths for this war comes up to 110500. Given the roughness of this sort of guessing, I'd say we can assume between 60,000 and 120,000 Iraqi casualties. No, I don't have a direct link to the UN study.

Even minus the Lancet study, Iraqi deaths are still significant. The US military, after public opinion basically ended Vietnam, stopped counting enemy deaths, photographing battlefields, etc. etc. Without this sort of important documentation, we pretty much don't have a reliable estimate. Even with the US military keeping a body count, so much of the violence is not the direct result of US military action. Basically, there's no accurate way of calculating civilian deaths, I agree. For my own reasons, I do believe that somewhere in the very broad region of 500,000-1 million Iraqis have died, however, the most reliable study (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html) cites 34,000 in 2006 alone. Now, if we assume that the death toll annually was half that for the years 2003-2005, again halving 2003 as the war began in March, and retaining the 2006 figure for 2007 (yes, this is an EXTREMELY rough estimate, but work with me here, eh?), the total civilian deaths for this war comes up to 110500. Given the roughness of this sort of guessing, I'd say we can assume between 60,000 and 120,000 Iraqi casualties. No, I don't have a direct link to the UN study.

Void

Void

[QUOTE=frazz]Grabbing the middle number and stating it as fact is not cool.[/QUOTE]I agree, but where did anyone do that? [QUOTE=frazz]Unbiased, eh?[/QUOTE]Be careful, now. I only posted the article to show the number. The article is not the study. The study was unbiased. [QUOTE=frazz]Well, you seem like the kind of person who would believe a group like the Iraq Body Count. From an extreme skeptics standpoint, such a group's number would be an upper limit. Props to them for being honest and not running with numbers given to them.[/QUOTE]Are you seriously still pursuing this issue? I noted that some people believe that there may be around 600,000 Iraqi deaths involved with this war. That is all, and if you can't accept that I just won't bother talking with you. I never once stated the number as fact, I never said that I believed the article was well written or even agreeable, so what are you trying to argue out of me? [QUOTE=GuN_Solar90]The question is, were those casualties worth liberating Iraq from Saddam's relentless reign?[/QUOTE]Or is the question: Could we have made a peaceful resolution to solve these problems? I think that question is much more suitable. Think of how much better off we would be if we worked with the UN, Saddam, and the Iraqi people to find peaceful solutions to such problems. If a country makes a gracious effort towards peace and understanding, there is no way another country would make an extravagant struggle against it.

Quote from frazz

Grabbing the middle number and stating it as fact is not cool.

I agree, but where did anyone do that?

Quote from frazz

Unbiased, eh?

Be careful, now. I only posted the article to show the number. The article is not the study. The study was unbiased.

Quote from frazz

Well, you seem like the kind of person who would believe a group like the Iraq Body Count. From an extreme skeptics standpoint, such a group's number would be an upper limit. Props to them for being honest and not running with numbers given to them.

Are you seriously still pursuing this issue? I noted that some people believe that there may be around 600,000 Iraqi deaths involved with this war. That is all, and if you can't accept that I just won't bother talking with you. I never once stated the number as fact, I never said that I believed the article was well written or even agreeable, so what are you trying to argue out of me?

Quote from GuN_Solar90

The question is, were those casualties worth liberating Iraq from Saddam's relentless reign?

Or is the question: Could we have made a peaceful resolution to solve these problems? I think that question is much more suitable.
Think of how much better off we would be if we worked with the UN, Saddam, and the Iraqi people to find peaceful solutions to such problems. If a country makes a gracious effort towards peace and understanding, there is no way another country would make an extravagant struggle against it.

[QUOTE=yenku]noted that some people believe that there may be around 600,000 Iraqi deaths involved with this war. That is all[/QUOTE] That's all? [quote=yenku][quote=SCORPIONOX]Why is it that people care so much about 4000 American deaths while they shrug off 160 000 Iraqi deaths that have been labeled as "collateral damage". Either mourn them all equally, or don't mourn at all.[/quote]The most trusted and most accurate source says 600,000+[/quote] You seemed to believe quite firmly in this source. [QUOTE]Be careful, now. I only posted the article to show the number. The article is not the study. The study was unbiased.[/QUOTE] Ok, you are not getting my point, go read the article I posted.

Quote from yenku

noted that some people believe that there may be around 600,000 Iraqi deaths involved with this war. That is all

That's all?

Quote from yenku

Quote from SCORPIONOX

Why is it that people care so much about 4000 American deaths while they shrug off 160 000 Iraqi deaths that have been labeled as "collateral damage". Either mourn them all equally, or don't mourn at all.

The most trusted and most accurate source says 600,000+

You seemed to believe quite firmly in this source.

Quote

Be careful, now. I only posted the article to show the number. The article is not the study. The study was unbiased.

Ok, you are not getting my point, go read the article I posted.

[QUOTE=frazz]You seemed to believe quite firmly in this source.[/QUOTE]I think you missed the post where I restated, " I apologize, I should have earlier stated that the source was MY most reliable. I cannot speak for others." [QUOTE=frazz]Ok, you are not getting my point, go read the article I posted.[/QUOTE]Just because he is a democrat and was against the war doesn't mean he would purposely lie to the world on something he studied in-depth.

Quote from frazz

You seemed to believe quite firmly in this source.

I think you missed the post where I restated, "
I apologize, I should have earlier stated that the source was MY most reliable. I cannot speak for others."

Quote from frazz

Ok, you are not getting my point, go read the article I posted.

Just because he is a democrat and was against the war doesn't mean he would purposely lie to the world on something he studied in-depth.