This 'sampling method' amounts to little more than gossip. 100,000 dead? You wouldn't exactly be ablee to cover that up, would you?
Posted on 10/29/2004 6:45:48 AM PDT by gridlock
The UK Government will "examine with very great care" claims around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US-led invasion, Jack Straw has said. A study in the Lancet said the majority of the victims were women and children killed due to military activity.
The UK foreign secretary told the BBC's Today programme that another independent estimate of civilian deaths was around 15,000.
The study by US and Iraq researchers was led by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, US.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
I gotta say I question the timing and veracity of this report. If they want to claim triple the casualties in Iraq, I'm going to want to see a lot more documentation than interviews with a small sample of households.
Even assuming that their numbers are true, you are still talking about a civilian death one in 100 households, and they only interviewed 800. So this whole conclusion is based on eight data points. Statistically speaking, that just doesn't hold water. You get five people in a thousand lying, and you have tripled the number of calculated deaths. Surely one half of one percent of the population in Iraq has reason to lie...
The BBC will likely discuss this issue on next Tuesday with their carefully selected and balanced election night panel, featuring Michael Moore, George Soros, and Sydney Blumenthal. No, I'm not making this up. Brit Hume mentioned this yesterday on Special Report.
obviously this study zeroed in on the newly wed people of the Sunni triangle. It's common knowledge the coalition has been attacking weddings in that area since the beginning of the war.
After all look at all there is to gain by attacking weddings!
</sarcasm
Les Roberts, the lead researcher from Johns Hopkins, said the article's timing was up to him.
''I emailed it in on Sept. 30 under the condition that it came out before the election,'' Roberts told The Associated Press. ''My motive in doing that was not to skew the election. My motive was that if this came out during the campaign, both candidates would be forced to pledge to protect civilian lives in Iraq.
''I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea, but I think that our science has transcended our perspectives,'' Roberts said. ''As an American, I am really, really sorry to be reporting this.''
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/303/world/Scientists_estimate_100_000_Ir:.shtml
''I emailed it in on Sept. 30 under the condition that it came out before the election,'' Roberts told The Associated Press.
And then says this:
''My motive in doing that was not to skew the election. My motive was that if this came out during the campaign, both candidates would be forced to pledge to protect civilian lives in Iraq...''
So we are faced with a scientist who contradicts himself even faster than John Kerry - and we're supposed to buy into his methodology? Riiiight....
the methodology is crap, even they admit it is goofy in the article.
There were 61 violent deaths reported by the sample group. Apart from three shootings by coalition forces all the others were the result of coalition air strikes. That's right, not one death as the result suicide bombing, car bombing, IED, morter attack on children, or beheading.
You really gotta hand it to them - how's about that for single mindedness?
What time did you call in. I'm not sure the name, but the morning show on at 7:30-8:15 (obviously when I'm in the car) is terrible! I'd rather listen to Ace and TJ.
Come to think of it, talk radio during morning and evening rush hours in Charlotte leaves something to be desired.
I could listen to glenn beck in the morning, limbaugh in the afternoon and greg knapp in the evenings in Dallas. Those were good programs!
I didn't attempt to get on the air..
I knew I couldn't keep it civil...
I just spoke to the producer/screener
I'm still pi$$ed about it
Deaths in War in the 20th century (in millions):
International Wars 30 million
Civil Wars 7 million
Total deaths in Wars 37 million 20th century
Civilians killed by governments in the 20th century, excluding war (in millions):
Soviet Union 62 million 1917-1991
China (Communist) 35 million 1949-Present
Germany 21 million 1933-45
China (Kuomintang) 10 million 1928-49
Japan 6 million 1936-45
Still looking for the "October Surprise"......
Okay, 100,000 were killed. How many were part of the terrorist insurgency? How many were killed by Saddam's followers out of pure revenge or sadism just prior to or during the invasion?
As for the idea the main cause of death in Iraq prior to the invasion being something other than violence, tell that to the 300,000 plus that are in mass graves. Or, the million plus casualties during the Iraq/Iran war.
This "research" and attending article are an abomination, at best, and the people involved in it should be ashamed of themselves.
The main thrust of this piece of swill is that "life under Saddam was much better because not as many people were killed by violence." This is an obscene position to take, because it obviously means the people behind it think the Iraqis were better off being enslaved by a brutal tyrant.
A tyrant who operated in a fashion similar to the Nazi's "Nact und Nebel" decree or Communists in Russia grabbing people and making them disappear into the gulag.
How someone can take such a grotesque position is completely beyond me.
/rant
This 'sampling method' amounts to little more than gossip. 100,000 dead? You wouldn't exactly be ablee to cover that up, would you?
As you may recall, the Lancet was a leader in the Iraq anti-sanctions movement. It was their 'research' that came up with the estimate of 500,000 Iraqi children dying each year due to US led sanctions.
This propaganda was distributed world wide by lefties and their UN cohorts. Their field studies were also discredited by numerous independent organizations.
After Operation Iraqi Freedom, it of course was discredited by the Iraqis themselves who pointed to the Hussain regime as the entity to blame for the disgraceful conditions the population was forced to endure, including forced starvation of segments of the population by witholding food and medical supplies for political reasons and the diversion of humanitarian goods to overseas black markets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.