 That’s a good fourth estate… don’t ask any hard questions… cozy up to power… good boy, here’s a bone… |
Perhaps if we had a press that wasn’t so willing to roll over for the administration to have their bellies rubbed, they would be doing more to inform the people about the war we’re in.
Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 54,000 and could be much higher; some unofficial estimates range into the hundreds of thousands. The U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq reports more than 34,000 deaths in 2006 alone.
Among those polled for the AP survey, however, the median estimate of Iraqi deaths was 9,890. The median is the point at which half the estimates were higher and half lower.
Oh look, the corpse of Anna Nicole Smith is having an affair with Britney’s bald head! Time for TEAM COVERAGE!
This tracks with the numbers I have been using in our discussions here for some time. 54K Iraqi plus 4K US /allied = 58K or about 60K in 5 years – 12K a year. Saddam since 1979 1.2M deaths, or 40K per year. The numbers vary by afew thousand, but this is mainstream.
How many died in Iraq in 2002, Dugger? 2001? 2000? 1999? 1998? Those are the comparison numbers.
Incidently, I don’t accept your numbers for US occupation civilian casualties. Because the US (Bush administration) decided not to keep track of Iraqi casualties, we don’t get a reliable number (not that we would anyway). As a matter of fact, the numbers we get are based on deaths reported in newspapers and such while many or most of the deaths go unreported. I would at least triple your estimate to 150,000. Not to mention the over 1 million displaced Iraqi refugees. Don’t forget the ISG concluded the US systematically underreports casualties to disguise policy failings.
Violent Deaths (crime or political) in Baghdad alone averaged 357 per month for the first year following invasion, compared to 14/ month in 2002. 5 times for violent than under Hussein.
This fit in with the gab fest at the press club where they talked about the rude bloggers.
I guess it would be rude to point out they have blood on their hands for their complicity with BushCo.
Americans ignorant of Iraqi deaths
The AP reports: Americans are keenly aware of how many U.S. forces have lost their lives in Iraq, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll. But they woefully underestimate the number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed. When the poll…
So, on the one hand you’re saying that 12,000 people killed in a year is cause for celebration because it is less than Saddam maybe would have killed if he had remained in power.
On the other hand, you say that in the entire country of Iraq there were fewer people killed than in LA County. Now, I don’t follow national crime statistics very much, but if someone had said that more than 12,000 people had been killed in LA last year, I would have remembered that.
One of your talking points is at loggerheads with the other.
Wow, was my math off. I was looking at the Baghdad death rate of 76/100,000 for that year and dividing by the pre-invasion 14 killings/month to get the 5X number. That should have been 25 times more.
As long as I bring up the new Bush 76/100,000 Baghdad death rate, maybe we should quote the comparisons of 7.5/100,000 in New York City, 2.4/100,000 in Jordan and of course Dugger’s favorite: 3.0/100,000 in Baghdad for 2002. And the new Baghdad figures are based just on the fractions brought to the morgue which would exclude most of the deaths from terrorist bombings.
On the one hand, I said nothing about celebration duros. Thats a childish descriptor you invented and it reflects your emotional inability to deal with my arguemnt. And on the other hand I have never used ‘people’ killed in Iraq as the comparison. The LA County Coroner’s site will reveal to you that more Americans died via violent death in LA County (same period of time) than (Americans) in Iraq. The point wouild be that progressives are forever using the body count as a weapon against Bush and when thats done, everything is hunky dory. Fits their infantile worldview of the evil Bush. When the facts are put in perspective re total deaths under/not under Saddam or American deaths in LA County, suddenly they get all outraged and moral: how dare you talk factually talk about casuaties!
Perspective, baby.
midder
Use whatever you want Maybe Saddam was a gentle baby in the lst half of 1998. Use that six months. it will fit your prejuidice. I took the totality of Saddam’s reign. If YOU choose to leave out some of what he did to make your case, that’s your buisness. My analysis considers it all and uses middle of the road sites. The above numbers reinforce my argument.
Aw, poor Dugger, can’t come up with a rational response. I didn’t leave out anything, I look at the trend and reasonably extend it based on conditions that existed and would have in all probability continued. You on the other hand include numbers and create a skewed average that in no way would serve to predict conditions.
15, 12, 9, 6, … according to your logic the next number should be 10.5 instead of 3.
There were 402 murders in LA county last year. I don’t have the figures for Baghdad for last year, however, the number the coroner reported for the first year of US occupation for Baghdad are over 3400. That number is only a fraction of the number of violent deaths as most Iraqi deaths are not reported through official channels. So much for your argument.
Baghdad is now at least 25 times more violent than it was under Hussein. Wow.
Poor Dugger. He really wants to talk about the issues, but his stunted ideology has crippled his sense of right and wrong, so all that comes out is a jumble of lies and dishonorable nonsense.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. Nearly two million are refugees. And what’s Dugger’s priority? Explaining why Iraqis have it better than they did four years ago. That’s enough to discredit him on the grounds of common sense or basic decency. The hit-and-run nature of his comments make them hard to unpack and actually address in any kind of evidentiary or logical sense, but I’ll take a shot at his actual claims, and his slimy approach to dialogue in general.
Dugger Dishonesty #1: Dugger’s numbers on the deaths Saddam’s responsible for include all Iraqi deaths in the Iran-Iraq war. Naturally, this standard would not reflect well were he to use it on Bush, so Dugger hides the fact that these are external war casualties rather than victims of internal regime oppression by implying that Saddam “killed” those people. He also is clearly terrified of actually learning anything about the actual state of violence under Saddam – was it trending upward or downward? Dugger doesn’t want to know, and he couldn’t tell you anyway, because his political determination is that whatever that trend was, it would make our idiotic war policy look even worse. So he will probably never know. Good guy to have on your side, huh? The answer is that while Saddam’s was horribly violent and repressive, violence has spiked terribly since his overthrow. The refugee numbers alone speak to this basic truth.
Dugger Dishonesty #2: Dugger’s numbers on post-Iraq deaths don’t actually purport to account for all deaths in Iraq; they use methodologies like counting all the bodies that show up at the morgue, and are nothing more than indicators of the larger violence in Iraq, rather than a full tally. That’s why he’s always pointing to Iraq Body Count. It’s an official body count of deaths reported in English-language newspapers, not a full estimate. Of course, he claims that they ARE accounting for all violent deaths in Iraq, and retreats behind claims that they’re “middle of the road” and “mainstream” — just another example of the way he hides his shadyness beneath a veneer of reasonability. Did you learn that from Glenn Reynolds by any chance?
Dugger Dishonesty #3: His lack of integrity prevents him from actually reading, comprehending, or addressing the Johns Hopkins University study which placed the victims of post-war violence at around half a million Iraqis. He waves his hands at it, implying it’s out of the mainstream or biased. Naturally, he never supports his smear, because he’s outsourced his entire apprehension of it to Little Green Fascists and Malkin and Pauerlein and the like. If you come back, at least do us the favor of cutting and pasting whatever rightwing commentary dittoheaded your opinion into existence, will you? Don’t bother writing “your own” words.
Dugger Dishonesty #4: Comparing apples and oranges with this LA Country vs. American soldiers in Iraq business. This is one of the more pathetic attempts to troll I’ve ever seen, but it is instructive about how our resident bridge-dweller thinks, at least. American soldiers die at a fantastically higher rate in Iraq than do citizens or cops in LA County. It’s quite simple. Iraq is a much more dangerous place to be than LA county. Everyone knows it. Dugger frantically backpedals when confronted with it, saying he never claimed LA was more dangerous. That raises the necessary and obvious question: “then why bring it up?” Answer: because he cannot help his slippery, dishonest nature.
This final episode is not important for the merits of the matter; it’s just revealing as to the kind of dishonorable, dishonest debate tactics Dugger routinely employs. And given that Dugger is using all these tactics in the service of downplaying and minimizing the suffering of Iraqis, it’s a clear indicator of the man’s grotesque inhumanity as well.
Nice job, Dr. A G-H, but you know that Dugger will just be back on some other thread repeating the same half-truthy “facts” as if this conversation never happened.
Lying: it’s what they do.
midder
You’re too easy. You screwed up royally (you are over your head). You said: “There were 402 murders in LA county last year”
Really? Where did you get that little gem? In Feb 2007, the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-homicide11jan11,1,1572051.story) said there were 1,085 homicides in LA County in 2006 http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-homicide11jan11,1,1572051.story. So you are only off by factor of 270%.
I’m not even going to try and duplicate your ‘research’ but maybe you also don’t understand government entities. The coroner functions for all locales within the county – including municipalities. Thus ,his LA County total is a true geographical entity total. You may (hell if I know) have used a county-only, exclusive of municipalities total. Nevertheless, you are bad wrong. Maybe you need to go back to cherry picking peaceful spots in Saddam’s reign and using those.
Clearly, Iraq is much safer post Saddam than under Saddam – by a wide margin. The Democrats and Republicans who supported Bush and voted for war have saved a lot of brown skinned lives.
Wilbur,
I challenge you to show a lie or whre I’m incorrect (as opposed to just disagreeing with me). Easy to throw out quick insults. Show a real lie. Dare you.
Well, Dumbass, you have succeeded in demonstrating your ignorance. My figure stands: there were 402 murders in LA county last year according to the LA County Sheriff’s department. Hint: use a dictionary.
Clearly, Iraq is much safer post Saddam than under Saddam – by a wide margin
Next, dumbass, you continue to show your ignorance. I posted the numbers: Baghdad is at least 25 times less safe since the US occupation. That figure is not just limited to Baghdad. So any brown lives saved by the war were overshadowed by the deaths due to Bush fucking up the occupation.
Lastly, Bush made the decision to go to war. Not the congress. Bush asked for the resolution so he could force Hussein into compliance, he got compliance and invaded anyway. It’s all on Bush.
Christ, Dumbass, even if we take your total of homicides (which, if you looked it up include car accidents and self defense and other incidents), there were 1536 reported violent deaths in Baghdad last August alone.
The Baghdad morgue took in about 16,000 unidentified bodies last year, the bulk of them victims of death squads and other sectarian violence, a source at the morgue told Reuters on Sunday.
The morgue data — for Baghdad only — suggest that a figure of 12,320 civilian deaths in “terrorist violence” in 2006, given two weeks ago by Interior Ministry sources, does not include all the victims of the bloodletting in Iraq. The Interior Ministry statistics exclude violent deaths classed as “criminal”.
-reuters Jan 14, 2007
It’s so bad,the Iraqi government has banned officials from releasing data on casualty rates.
Do you know why there are so many unidentified bodies Dugger?
To refresh everyone’s memory, Dugger tried the same dishonest trick back in October. He goes back and forth over whether he’s using the LA county numbers to show that Iraq is safer than California — in October he said he wasn’t. Now he’s saying he is. All his numbers boil down to is putting a bigger number next to a smaller number and insisting that it means something about overall safety. Naturally, even children can see how he’s operating without any common sense understanding of “dangerous” — as in, what are your chances of being killed in LA county vs. Iraq. But that’s just how he operates: lie, then selectively respond in dishonest, dishonorable ways. It’s his nature.
Here’s the thread where he embarrassed himself so memorably.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/10/the_hume_defens.html
midder
You are flat wrong. Yes X number in LA County (but the sheriff has no jurisdiction over the cities in the county – the coroner does) but what about all the other municipalities within the county. You are ignoring those. How do account for the LA Times article clearly stating over a thousand homicides??
Thre were more violent deaths of Americans in geographic LA County than Iraq – same period time. That stands.
As to your Baghdad numbers, I don’t use Baghad alone but all of Iraq and the count comes from the more comprehensive IBC. I fully acknowledge there are dsicrepancies in everyone’s count, but the magnitude of difference is too large for you. The rate under Saddam is roughly four times higher. Four times. Know anything about math?
“Thre were more violent deaths of Americans in geographic LA County than Iraq – same period time. That stands.”
True, but in typical dishonest fashion, your claim is that Iraq is less dangerous than LA country, and your numbers do nothing to show that, since the population of LA county is 10 million, and the population of US soldiers in Iraq is around 140,000. So your own numbers refute your point of Iraq being a safe place.
In typical dishonorable fashion, you will ignore this, just as you ignore questions about your very suspect death tally under Saddam. When will you start acting like a man, Dugger? It’s just embarrassing to see you — an allegedly grown man — demonstrate so little self respect.
Not by much, 900 or so dead Americans in Iraq vs. 1085 homicides in LA county. Dumbass: murder is not the same as homicide
Let’s use Dugger’s methodology on his other claims. Estimates of civilian casualties in Iraq since US invasion range from about 40,000 to 600,000+. Middle of the road would be 320,000.
320,000/4= 80,000
80,000 > 50,000
Iraq is worse off under US occupation than it was under Hussein.
Nice, Midderpidge. Not to mention that Dugger won’t even bother to examine his 50,000 per year under Hussein number. That’s because he not here to have a discussion. He’s here to troll. This thread is just another perfect example of Dugger’s dishonorable, cowardly M.O.
I think Dugger has some proving to do on his homicide total for Los Angeles. One of your claims is that more Americans die in Los Angeles county than Americans die in Iraq. We know about 900 Americans died last year in Iraq. Your number states that 1085 homicides occurred in Los Angeles county. It strikes me that Los Angeles county has a large noncitizen population. So how many of those 1085 homicides were actually Americans? Get to work.
midder
At least you have come clean on your own faulty numbers re LA County. Hopefully now you understand a little of the differences between the Sheriff’s area of responsibility and the more comprehensive Coroner’s. And of course you are still somewhat confused. I have only said, to frame’s chagrin, that there were more Americans dying violent deaths in LA County than in Iraq. You obviously have confused that with my second unrefuted excellent point that the overall violent death rate under Saddam is much higher than that after Saddam (about a 4 to 1 differential). Since you have lost this debate, its time to fall into name calling or maybe cherry pick your Saddam dates to make him look better.
No Dugger, my numbers are exactly what I claimed. 402 murders. Look it up. I accept your homicide numbers because it is your claim and you can use the criteria that you best think fits it.
Now, that said, prove that your homicide number is all Americans.
Next, I just disproved your claim. 320,000 deaths in 4 years of American occupation averages out to 80,000 dead Iraqis per year. That is higher than your number of 40,000 under Hussein. As a matter of fact, Iraq is at least twice as violent now.
Once again, Dugger fails to address any counterpoints, regurgitates the same discredited talking points, can’t back up his evidence, gets his ass brutally handed to him, and then DECLARES VICTORY!!!!
Consider 1085 homicides.
LA county has a noncitizen population of about 25%. A conservative guess would be 25% of those 1085 homicides would be noncitizens. 75% of 1085 is 814, meaning the evidence would suggest More AMERICANS died violent deaths in Iraq last year.
Checkmate.
And of those 1085 or 814 or whatever homicides in LA County last year, how many were due to car bombs, suicide bombers or IED’s?
challenge you to show a lie or whre I’m incorrect (as opposed to just disagreeing with me). Easy to throw out quick insults. Show a real lie. Dare you.
-You pretend that figures such as those of IBC are anything but the “irrefutable baseline” of civilian deaths, and ignore the fact that practically everyone outside the Bush administration and their 30%-ers admit the actual total is probably much higher. Yes, even the IBC people admit that.
-You pretend that adding pre-Gulf-War-I depths under Saddam (including the Iran-Iraq war) provides a valid basis for comparison. That’s kind of like me taking figures from 2005, 2004 and the last Ice Age and using them to prove that the climate has gotten warmer.
-You pretend that the violent death rate in an American city -a rate which is not caused by an unnecessary, ill-advised and ill-executed military invasion- has any pertinence whatsoever.
I might be willing to ascribe these poses of yours to honest misconceptions. The dishonest part comes when you repeat them continuously without dealing with any of the criticisms.
Still, I’ll admit that I can’t say you’re “lying”. Lying takes free will, and I’m not sure you’ve got any.
Is it time for Dugger to join Pedro on the “ignore” list? One can only beat one’s head against a wall of frozen manure so many times.
From http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid
“And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe’s most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July.”
Enough of this nonsense! The number of excess Iraqi deaths due to the invasion is about 1 million. Its not that this a perfect number, it is the ONLY legitimate number we have. If you want to get off your lazy ass and go over and due a mortality survey in a country that is disintegrating, go for it. Until that time FTFU.
Wilbur, Thats all BS. I have repeatedly stated that nobody really knows the exact total – either pre Saddam or post Saddam. What I have done is pick moderate sites like IBC and historical records to reflect middle of the road totals.
And I have used the per year/per day rate for the Saddam comparisons. What you and midder would like is a comparison that cherry picks Saddam’s non murderous periods. Your problem is the degree of difference – a facotr of 4 to 1. BTW, of course we count the Iran/Iraq war dead. Would not have been a war w/o Saddam. He didn’t pull the trigger but he used WMDs etc. After all we are counting all in-country deaths post Saddam. Much as if we graded Hitler without the death camps. They are an integral part of the man. That is what he did and what he would do – if empowered. We took him out.
Elspi, The Lancet study has been strongly repudiated – in, among other publications, the WaPo. Their sampling methodology was badly flawed.
(http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives)
“The finding of the study might very well be true, there’s just one problem: the study is so fatally flawed that there’s no reason to believe it.”
Wrong Dugger! You didn’t do your math.
(650,000 + 50,000)/2= 350,000
That is middle of the road.
350,000/4= 87500.
87500/year > Dugger’s 40,000.
BAM!!!
And as strongly as you may disagree with the Lancet study, it beats the hell out of every other one that bases their totals on deaths reported in the newspapers. Or bodies that went through the morgue. Or US counts that are deliberately understated.
So we look for the middle of the road estimate, yours which we know are vastly understated, and the Lancet which you argue is vastly overstated and come up with the middle of the road 350,000.
preemptive
I DECLARE VICTORY
“What I have done is pick moderate sites like IBC and historical records to reflect middle of the road totals.”
This is a perfect encapsulation of Dugger’s dishonorable tactics. Step 1: he congratulates himself for being “reasonable,” “moderate,” “middle of the road,” — in opposition to liberals, whom he describes as “deranged.” Step 2: He then decides what is “moderate” based on whatever is convenient to his dittohead position. Step 3: He will refuse to base any further responses on logic or evidence, preferring to call liberals names, all the while repeating step 1. Additionally, his responses will never address your own logical or factual points; because his ideas are too weak to face normal criticism, he has no choice but to dodge it.
It is very revealing that Dugger can consistently preach in favor of moderate reason and good faith, but then when put to the test, exhibit neither quality. He will not make legitimate arguments in favor of his own positions, preferring innuendo, ad hominem, and baseless assertions. That’s all you’re ever going to get from him. Case in point: in his most recent response, none of his links work, and all he provides is a vague reference to some unknown article, editorial, news story, or comic strip in the Washington post that he claims “repudiates” the JHU study’s methodology. How or who or why – Dugger can’t tell you. Is this mythical repudiation “middle of the road” and “moderate,” too? We will never know for ourselves, because Dugger refuses to show it to us. Dugger says so, and that’s all Dugger expects us to need.
Since his opinion is not based on reason, but political convenience, there literally is nothing left for Dugger to explain. No surprise, given that he’s been wrong in every prediction he’s made and every argument he’s ever engaged in on this site, from WMDs to the Iraq war to the outcomes of the recent election. I would run from the light, too, if I had such an incredibly high failure rate. So Dugger’s cowardice is at least explainable, and therefore, pitiable.
Meanwhile, Dugger’s standard that leaders can be said to have “killed” their troops by sending them to war – does anyone really think Dugger believes that standard? That Bush “killed” three thousand U.S. soldiers? That George Washington “killed” his fellow citizen-soldiers by leading them against the British, and that those deaths are to be lumped together with the victims of Saddam’s secret police? Should Reagan be held responsible for “killing” those Iraqis because Reagan did, as he put it, “whatever is necessary and legal” to support Iraq in that war? We know Dugger won’t agree with that It’s a crazy standard that even he doesn’t believe, and another example of Dugger’s bad faith and desire to protect his intellectually crippled positions from scrutiny.
Shorter Dugger:
-I will take a deliberately, admittedly lowball estimate and pretend that it is “middle of the road” with no basis for doing so.
-I will ignore (once again) the obvious point that in measuring the effects of Bush’s invasion, it makes far more sense to compare the destructive capabilities of Saddam in 2003 then it does to compare it to the time when he had a serious army, oodles of oil income, WMD, US backing and no international oversight.
-I will overlook (once again) the valid point that Los Angeles crime figures are absolutely irrelevant and hope nobody notices.
Yep, “Mr. Perspective” goes on the “ignore list” for Wilbur.
Congratulations midder on your declaration.
This is what AP said.
“Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 54,000 and could be much higher; some unofficial estimates range into the hundreds of thousands. The U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq reports more than 34,000 deaths in 2006 alone. Among those polled for the AP survey, however, the median estimate of Iraqi deaths was 9,890. The median is the point at which half the estimates were higher and half lower.’
You can lurk around in the fever swamps of the far left and find any number you want. This shows I am right and have been right all along. Saddam killed at roughly a four-times greater rate.
Shorter Dugger once again;
Nuh-Uh!!!
The AP did say that. But the AP is not twisting your arm into knowingly misrepresenting what they’ve said. It’s your dishonesty that compels to you dishonor yourself in that way, Dugger. When will you begin to act like a man?
Is there an actual ignore function, Wilbur? That would be sweet.
And you’d be wrong. Every lowball estimate is solely based on deaths that are reported. Most deaths aren’t reported. US death tallies are deliberately lowballed. Look at the IBC number you tout. IBC readily admits it does not account for most or many of the bodies, and that they can’t based on their methodology.
If we applied the same methodology to your Saddam number, he would be responsible for about 500,000 simply because Iraq admits that is about how many died in the IRaq-Iran war. The rest of the deaths wouldn’t count because they weren’t officially reported or tallied.
Damn, that was easy.
Furthermore, the median is so far off, deliberately bad estimates have to make up the majority of the data set. Fact: the Baghdad morgue reported 16,000 unidentified dead bodies last year. Therefore any tally under 16,000 is immediately suspect. And since the Baghdad morgue admits that number does not account for many or most of the deaths in Baghdad, and number around 16,000 is immediately suspect. Since the median is significantly below 16,000 (which makes up an unknown assumedly low percentage of the total) we can conclude that most of the estimates that median is based on are pure crap.
Well, I will settle for you thinking everybody but Lancet is lying.
Mainstream, non paranoid sources indicate Saddam killed at roughly four times the current rate.
Lying? Who knows? What you are dealing with is estimates because theree aren’t many hard numbers. Some of that is deliberate. US forces deliberately understate civilian casualties and the IRaqi government has banned officials from releasing casualty figures. Despite that, we have a few hard numbers. 16,000. That is a hard number from the Baghdad morgue and does not even include all of its total, and indeed is only a fraction of the bodies from Baghdad.
16,000. It’s a hard number from 2006 and has to serve as a minimum. So if the majority of your examples estimates are less than 16,000, we can safely conclude they are so badly off as to be worthless.
Example, we have a stack of 100 US currency bills. We know they are all genuine US paper money currency. We can’t see all of them, but we can see the top bill. The top bill is definitely a one hundred dollar bill, no question. Now we ask 100 people to estimate how much money is in the stack, and show them the stack and tell them there are 100 US paper currency bills. After surveying the 100 people the median estimate is $75. From that we can conclude the people surveyed have no clue how to add or make an educated guess. Just like your median estimate example.
Dugger’s not assuming you think “everybody but Lancet is lying” because he’s merely sloppy, Midder. It’s because he is literally incapable of making a good-faith argument. The strawman is the only friend he has left.
And once again, Dugger slurs the 2004 Lancet/2006 JHU studies as non-mainstream and paranoid without any logic or evidence.
Classic Scumbag Dugger.
Is there an actual ignore function, Wilbur? That would be sweet.
Easy, Dr. A.: Every time you think you’ve got to beat your head against that wall of frozen manure, do one of the following instead:
1) Go find a loved one and give him/her/it a big hug.
2) Go pet a companion animal of your choice (dog, cat, ferret, iguana, guppy, boa constrictor)
3) Pour yourself two fingers of fine island single-malt, and enjoy it straight-up.
The urge will soon go away.
If symptoms persist, feel free to use all 3 options in succession. Repeat as needed.
Two of his favorite talking points demolished in one thread. Poor Dugger. Now he has to bake some new troll-cakes.
Oh my god. I was wondering why Dugger didn’t provide a link (as usual) so I searched up his article. The median estimate of 9,890 Iraqi civilian casualties he put up in quotes and seems to base his math on is from a poll of American citizens, not mainstream non-paranoid sources as he claims.
Wow, that’s even worse, Midderpidge. Amazing. And yet, you know Dugger’ll be back in a month, ranting about the “discredited” Lancet survey as if it’s true. There is simply no evidence that can change that fanatic’s mind.
Thanks, Wilbur. Perhaps some wii tennis will take the edge off.
AO, WaPo, now the dastardly Brits:
“Asked if the Prime Minister was concerned about a survey published today suggesting that 100,000 Iraqi civilians had died as a result of the war in Iraq, the PMOS said that it was important to treat the figures with caution because there were a number of concerns and doubts about the methodology that had been used. Firstly, the survey appeared to be based on an extrapolation technique rather than a detailed body count. Our worries centred on the fact that the technique in question appeared to treat Iraq as if every area was one and the same. In terms of the level of conflict, that was definitely not the case. Secondly, the survey appeared to assume that bombing had taken place throughout Iraq. Again, that was not true. It had been focussed primarily on areas such as Fallujah. Consequently, we did not believe that extrapolation was an appropriate technique to use.”
More conspiracaes boys. Better comfort each other or the ol’ Bushey Man will get you. How ’bout a great big group hug.
Keep trying, that one fell way short. Maybe you can get the results of a poll of Welsh Fisherman to post new better totals.
The Prime Minister of Great Britain who links his legacy to the invasion of Iraq doesn’t like the numbers? Oh gosh. Telling.
Ha! Maybe you can get a quote from “moderate,” “middle of the road” Joe Lieberman while you’re at it, Duggsy!
“Firstly, the survey appeared to be based on an extrapolation technique rather than a detailed body count.”
Note the implication that the only valid methodology would be an actual body count. Lucky for them it’s a war zone, and there’s no way to actually do a body count, huh? What are the odds?!?
Aside from how stupid Dugger is, what have we established:
More Iraqis per year die under US occupation than under Hussein.
More Americans died in Iraq last year than the number of AMericans that died in Los Angeles County, despite a wide disparity in numbers of Americans.
Dugger still has some questions to answer:
Why were there so many unidentified bodies in the Baghdad morgue last year?
How many Iraqis would have been killed under Hussein over the last 4 years if the US didn’t invade?
Now that your two favorite talking points have been demolished what will be next?
By extrapolation, I take it to mean that if they find 3 hands and 4 feet and nothing else after a suicide bombing, it is fair to assume that at least 2 people were killed.
According to Dugger, you’d just have the makings of the front row of a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert.