Iraqi violence down

Tuesday 17th June, 06:30 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Latest 15 of 103 Total Comments Show All

WhiteHawk at 03:57 AM JST - 19th June

adaydream:

Sarge, prove me wrong. I don't need to apologize for my statement. < :-)

Actually, since you're the one who made the claim, you have to back it up and prove it true.
yabits at 04:27 AM JST - 19th June

Indicates sheer speculation rendering the rest of the discussion absolutely moot !

LOL!!!!! Such shoddy reasoning is really funny.

The number given, 654,965, is only speculative because the researchers cannot claim an exact number. Applying a 10-20% error rate to it still provides a result over a half-million who died on account of the US invasion. What you meant to say is that you WISH the caution on the part of the researchers could render the subject moot. (Hey, being an American I don't blame you for not wanting that many victims on your hands.)

Come now people think a bit before posting such crap.

You should heed your own advice, possum.
WhiteHawk at 04:42 AM JST - 19th June

yabits:

The number given, 654,965, is only speculative because the researchers cannot claim an exact number. Applying a 10-20% error rate to it still provides a result over a half-million who died on account of the US invasion.

Oh, it's speculative all right. And which group offered the original speculation? Lancet. Nonbiased? Complete BS. Nothing funded by George Soros is ever "nonbiased". And it's how many times higher than any other estimation? Have there been any critical reviews of Lancet's work? Yes:

http://www.fumento.com/military/lancet2008.html

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/07/davidkaneonlancetconfidenc.php
adaydream at 04:48 AM JST - 19th June

Depending on the sourses used the count goes from 40,000 to 600,000. I don't keep the counts and the DOD says they quit counting deaths of Iraqis in May 2003 because the count was growing too many too fast. < :-)
WhiteHawk at 04:54 AM JST - 19th June

Depending on the sourses used the count goes from 40,000 to 600,000.

Well there ya go. ;)

I don't keep the counts and the DOD says they quit counting deaths of Iraqis in May 2003 because the count was growing too many too fast. < :-)

And yet, just a few hours ago, you claimed a number. Still, don't you think it's odd that a Soros-funded "survey" claimed exponentionally increasing fatality statics while violence was actually on the decrease?
yabits at 05:20 AM JST - 19th June

And it's how many times higher than any other estimation?

No other estimates have been compiled by anyone doing research with anywhere near the same level of detail and rigor as the two universities cited in the Johns Hopkins report.

The real story is why the US war-supporters have a vested interest in keeping the numbers low by a factor of many times. Just another in the long string of lies associated with the Bush regime and this war.
yabits at 05:28 AM JST - 19th June

Still, don't you think it's odd that a Soros-funded "survey"...

You really seem to believe that George Soros paid for the survey, and by so doing, told the researchers not to conduct an honest survey. Do you actually expect others to be as gullible as you have chosen to be?

What is it specifically about the methodology used by the researchers at Johns Hopkins that you find so wrong? (Or is it just simpler to attach Soros' name to something that you can reject without the slightest understanding?)

I've not caught Johns Hopkins in any lie; on the other hand, I've caught Bush and his crew in PLENTY of them.
WhiteHawk at 06:12 AM JST - 19th June

You really seem to believe that George Soros paid for the survey, and by so doing, told the researchers not to conduct an honest survey. Do you actually expect others to be as gullible as you have chosen to be?

Name a single act or group that Soros has funded that doesn't serve his agenda. He wouldn't "invest" his money on anything that didn't produce results in his favor. Trying to portray him in any other way is like trying to portray Saddam Hussein as a "harmless ol' coot". It's not a matter of gullibilty, but rather of your own deliberate ignorance.

What is it specifically about the methodology used by the researchers at Johns Hopkins that you find so wrong?

Taking samples from selected areas and then extrapolating them across the entire country is a technique that only works when that country is consistent in all areas. It's also ripe for manipulation. Imagine taking an election poll on the UC Berkeley campus and extrapolating it for the entire U.S. On the surface of the results, you would get the impression that Barack Obama could expect 98% of the vote in November.

on the other hand, I've caught Bush and his crew in PLENTY of them.

Really? Are those the same "lies" told by Democrats prior to Bush's inauguration? Funny how you and Alan always cry out about "Bush's lies", but always -always- ignore my above point.
yabits at 09:01 AM JST - 19th June

The used the same flawed technique for estimating Iraqi death rates as did Lancet

Johns Hopkins' research was peer-reviewed and found to be based on sound methods. I don't know what Lancet has to do with it.

What about Fumento's work? Why nothing about that?

It makes NO reference to the Johns Hopkins research. Like you, it keeps harping on Lancet.

And of course, American universities are known for their lack of political bias or agenda.

According to right-wing Republicans, any research which contradicts conservative ideology must be attacked. Nonetheless, research methods are subject to peer review and objective scrutiny. This is probably why the Bush administration does not want to conduct its own research. Much easier to Swiftboat and slander the researchers.
yabits at 09:54 AM JST - 19th June

Name a single act or group that Soros has funded that doesn't serve his agenda. He wouldn't "invest" his money on anything that didn't produce results in his favor.

Soros has no connection to the Johns Hopkins-Bloomberg School research inasmuch as I have been able to determine. (If there is a connection, you'll have to validate it.) The fact that the JH results parallel whatever Soros has done should not be blamed on Soros.

Taking samples from selected areas and then extrapolating them across the entire country is a technique that only works when that country is consistent in all areas. It's also ripe for manipulation.

And you could not be more wrong. 47 "clusters" of 40 households each from all around the country were selected at RANDOM. That's how such research is done. Manipulation of the Johns Hopkins data would have to be proven, and that you have not done.

Are those the same "lies" told by Democrats prior to Bush's inauguration?

Bush lied about what he claimed his experts told him about those aluminum tubes. He said that all the experts were certain their purpose was for a nuclear program. A total lie.

Moderator: Back on topic please. George Soros is not relevant to this discussion.
adaydream at 12:55 PM JST - 19th June

WhiteHawk - I don't make up the information.

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/pressreleases/2006/burnhamiraq_2006.html

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lobe111303b.html

Check out the numbers. Not Fox News numbers. < :-)
Madverts at 08:25 PM JST - 19th June

z,

Please add quotes to the "news", in fox "news".

We don't want anyone thinking Murdoch's minions are really reporting "news".
DanManjt at 10:53 PM JST - 19th June

Signs are emerging that Iraq has reached a turning point. Violence is down, armed extremists are in disarray, government confidence is rising and sectarian communities are gearing up for a battle at the polls rather than slaughter in the streets.

Now where have I heard this before....
adaydream at 01:54 AM JST - 20th June

Bring the troops home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! < :-)
EurajReturns at 09:53 AM JST - 22nd June

Signs are emerging that Iraq has reached a turning point. Violence is down, armed extremists are in disarray, government confidence is rising and sectarian communities are gearing up for a battle at the polls rather than slaughter in the streets.

Right before Americans got carried away and Iraq blew up again. I'm not in favor of cutting and running, but I hardly think our time their is almost over.