Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Shministim
Pilots
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network


Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile



Google
Web antonyloewenstein.blogspot.com
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Blogs

Sites




Previous Posts



Powered by Blogger

 


Wednesday, December 14, 2005

1000 days

1000 days after invasion, some facts on the Iraq war:

$204.4 billion The cost to the US of the war so far. The UK's bill up until March 2005 was £3.1 billion
2,339 Allied troops killed
98 UK troops killed
30,000 Estimated Iraqi civilian deaths
0 Number of WMDs found
8 per cent of Iraqi children suffering acute malnutrition
$35,819m World Bank estimated cost of reconstruction
53,470 Iraqi insurgents killed
67 per cent Iraqis who feel less secure because of occupation
$343 Average monthly salary for an Iraqi soldier. Average monthly salary for an American soldier in Iraq: $4,160.75
66 journalists killed in Iraq. Journalists killed during Vietnam war: 63
5 foreign civilians kidnapped per month
47 per cent Iraqis who never have enough electricity
20 casualties per month from unexploded mines
20 per cent Inflation rate 2005
25-40 per cent Estimated unemployment rate, Nov 2005
251 Foreigners kidnapped
70 per cent of Iraqi's whose sewage system rarely works
183,000 British and American troops are still in action in Iraq. There are 162,000 US troops and 8,000 British with 13,000 from other nations
90 Daily attacks by insurgents in Nov '05. In Jun '03: 8
82 per cent Iraqis who are "strongly opposed" to presence of coalition troops
15,955 US troops wounded in action

106 Comments:

Blogger Wombat said...

The 30,000 Iraqis have been killed in this war only counts confirmed direct kills... So if you got taken out by shrapnel, or shot dead in the street, you get counted. That's good... we can feel good about ONLY killing 30,000 innocent people who were just trying to live an ordinary life...

The problem here is that the numbers don't add up... Last year nearly that many died in Fallujia alone. Since the administration doesn't count those that have died of malnutrition, lack of medication, lack of sanitary water supply or power for air conditioning... rampant disease (caused by damaging the clean water supply and medical facilities), complications due to non-fatal injuries, etc... The number, though terrible, seems like something we can live with. Numbers that actually include all these deaths that have been a result of our invasion and the violence that has followed woudl probabyl tally closer tot he numbers quoted by Lancet.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 9:48:00 am  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

I agree. Many of the numbers cited seem very low, especially Iraqi casualties. The true cost of this war insane war is way higher, if that's at all possible.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 9:58:00 am  
Blogger nick_yzf said...

Antony, why didn't you cite the Lancet report of 100,000 dead excluding Falluja? Citing the ultra conservative figure of 30,000 seems rather strange for yourself no?

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:01:00 am  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

I was simply quoting the Independent figures, published yesterday. The Lancet report could be correct, Fisk suggests as high as 150-200k. We simply don't know. I suspect the Indy was following Bush's lead the previous day. Odd, perhaps.
My own reading suggests the Lancet is probably a very conservative figure.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:06:00 am  
Blogger Pete's Blog said...

I don't think even Bush could justify the benefits to the US economy (and services to the Texas oil industry) based on these figures.

His Republican business backers just gotta learn that war (not to mention mass death) is ultimately bad for business.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 12:19:00 pm  
Blogger Shabadoo said...

1. How many of those Iraqis were killed by "insurgents"?

2. Interesting from a recent poll of Iraqis:

When asked what would be the worse thing that could happen to Iraq in the next 12 months, only 8.9% chose "occupation not leaving Iraq."

When asked what would be the best thing that could happen to Iraq in the next 12 months, only 5.7% chose American forces leaving Iraq.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 12:56:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

"1. How many of those Iraqis were killed by "insurgents"?"

Don't you mean terrorists? What number do you have Shab?

"2. Interesting from a recent poll of Iraqis:"

Seeing as 82% from another poll (ordered by the DOD) said the exact opposite, it would suggest one of these polls is way off the mark.

How about this. According to the USAF, the US dropped 500,000 tonnes of ordinates over Iraq in the 16 months prior to November 2004. Now if you consider that this predominantly includes 500 pound bombs (the nomber does not include missiles), that means than on averagem, 100 ordinates were dopped on Iraq every hour 24/7 for 16 months.

So Shabby, are you tellig us that the US, with their laser guided weaponry, are failing to hit their targets when they are not bombing wedding parties?

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:04:00 pm  
Blogger Antony Loewenstein said...

What is it with people who think occupation is the only way to bring stability? Nonsense, of course.
Another survey in Iraq is a mixed bag (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,389946,00.html
but certainly the view of the occupation remains dim, very dim.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:18:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Number of genocidal despots brought to justice: 1.

Number of people liberated from that genocidal despot: 20 million.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:36:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Name of country that financed and armed the genocidal despot in Iraq: USA

Name of country who;s CIA supported coup put Saddam in power: USA

Number of children that died as a result of barbaric sanctions imposed to diarm Iraq, but which Bush 42, James Baker and Sandy Berger said woudl remain in place even if Saddam disarmed: 500,000 over 10 years

Percentage increase of birth defects from DU bombardment: 1000

Number of car bombings in Iraq before 2003: less than one a year

Number of car bombings in Iraq after 2003: l7-10 a day

And BTW David, civial war is not liberation.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:54:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Name of leftie commentator who makes crap up: Addamo_01.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:09:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

List what was incirrect or David or shut up.

You don't have to be right wing to be right. You'll figure that out one day, if you ever decide to grow up.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:14:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

David Tan said...
"Number of people liberated from that genocidal despot: 20 million."

Number of people in Iraq who now have a deep and abiding hatred of the USA ... (let's keep it conservative) ... 6 million.

Anyone for fostering terrorism?

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:25:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

"Name of country that financed and armed the genocidal despot in Iraq: USA"

Just look at the Iraq's Order of Battle in 1991: T-72s, T-64s ,T-55s, Hind Helos, Mig Fighters, AK-47 assult rifles, BTRs, BMPs, SCUDs, ZSUs. All Warsaw Pact supplied.

Should I go on?

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:32:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Nice try David. Doesn't prove I said anything false.

Perhaps you should also consider that Reagan had Iraq taken of the list of state terrorist sponsors so that Iraq could get international credits (underwitten by the US government) to buy all that shit.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:36:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

It categorically proves what you said was false. It wont stop you from telling your lies though will it?

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:42:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

It was not a lie and my statement was not false. Who financed Iraq? The US via argicultural credits for dual use tenchonlogy, credits which the US was happy to turn a blind eye to when they were being abused.

Try as you might, you can't erase the picture of Rummy shaking hands with the guy in Iraq while he was cimmiting these attrocities.

Fact. Like it or lump it.

Also, the fact that you have sidestepped every other issue I listed shows how basesless your argument is.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:46:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Who financed Iraq?

You didnt say that you said financed and armed

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:50:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

They did arm Iraq, as wel as finance them. It was listed in a US Congressional report.

It's also the reason why the US plucked 8000 from the 11,800 page report Iraq submitted in 2003 to the UN over it's WMD program.

Now prove I'm wrong.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 2:55:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

OK let me make this simple for you addamo. What ARMS and in what AMOUNTS wer they supplied and WHEN were these arms supposedly delivered?

And link to a credible source.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:08:00 pm  
Blogger Lulu said...

Regardless of any bickering over numbers, who supplied who with what, and whether or not it can be proved, this list is unbearably saddening. Thankyou for posting it Ant, it was a wake up call for me.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:22:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Cheeky boy,

You called me a liar. It's up to you to prove that I'm lying.

Where are your sources BTW? What amounts of T-72s, T-64s ,T-55s, Hind Helos, Mig Fighters, AK-47 assult rifles, BTRs, BMPs, SCUDs, ZSUs were provided to Iraq and when?

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:22:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

What amounts of T-72s, T-64s ,T-55s, Hind Helos, Mig Fighters, AK-47 assult rifles, BTRs, BMPs, SCUDs, ZSUs were provided to Iraq and when?

You ask me the same question you cant answer youself? Unbelieviable.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:30:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

I am not challenging your statement. IY uare challenging mine. I noticed that you haven't provided any sources yourself, but I'm supposed to.

Typical right wing argument. What you have to say is fact, but the opposition has to provide links right?

Try this. Google US armed Saddam and have a read of the nearly 7 million hits. Perhaps you'll learn something.

Rediculous. Shall I therefore assume you are unabel to substastiate your claims?

I cannot vouch for the 8000 pages that were pulled from the Iraq report to the UN, but I;m sure there were plenty of juicy bits documented.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:47:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Here is the address for the info you couldnt give me addamo:

http://www.waronline.org/en/mideast/iraq_army.htm

You have no excuse for your level of ignorance now addamo.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:55:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Google US armed Saddam and have a read of the nearly 7 million hits.

Is cant decide whether you are sad or comical. Google "hits" is your authority? OMG I am stunned.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:58:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Says the ignoramus who has never heard of Google:

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/C231.html
http://www.geocities.com/goo798_eh2/Arms.html
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/llb020916a.html
http://www.sundayherald.com/31710
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/1992_cr/h920519l.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/green02242003.html
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 4:07:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

I looked up up that http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/arming_iraq.php link of yours .... the authorities cited include the usual suspect of:
Washingtonpost.com,
Newyorktimes.com,

And the politically biased

Labor Left Briefing,

And unbelieviably itself

Iranchamber.com,

And the notoriously innacurate

Columbia Journalism Review

And Democrat Henry B. Gonzalez

And long time leftie Bob Woodward.

20 lefties agree on something and that is supposed to mean something?

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 4:48:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

antony

The Lancet Report was discredited not long after it was published. It has been officially rejected for over 12 months. Only the anti-semites such as the Margo Kingston gang continue to propagandize it.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:53:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

addamo

I have already corrected your lies about the US arming and financing Iraq. So why do you persist? We are all getting a little tired of the Palestinian propaganda and appallingly bad "scholarship" and "research" that you occidentalists have started to treat like Hadiths!

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:56:00 pm  
Blogger David Heidelberg said...

"-"Neolefty,

The Lancet was NOT discredited at all. Certain right wing sycophants attempted to, however failed miserably.

See. www.timlambert.org/lancet for a detailed analysis of the report, including commentary from statisticians who all claim the methodology used was sound.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 9:41:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

The Lancet was NOT discredited at all.

The Lancet was based on exceptionally poor research methods. It has been dismissed as such. It is widely cited as a joke.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 9:46:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

David Tan said...
"The Lancet was ....has been dismissed as such. It is widely cited as a joke. "

neoleftychick said...
"The Lancet Report was discredited not long after it was published. It has been officially rejected for over 12 months. "

By whom and on what grounds? Some sources - other than your omnipotent selves - would nice. And please don't tell us it has been "discredited" and "officially rejected" by the same people who brought us The Great Weapons Of Mass Destruction Magic Show.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:14:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

I saw the latest polls;

Only 3.5% of Iraqis believe "david tan" would like to be f*cked up the arse by an AK47 and added "What's it got to do with you where we get our weapons arse hole?"

While 17.25% believe that "neoleftychick" is secretely an Islamophile, but needs to come out of the closet.

-go on, you can do it.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:44:00 pm  
Blogger David Heidelberg said...

cited as a joke

By whom? By Right wing apologists with no statistical background. Hardly a source to rely on.

The methodology used (small cluster samples) has been demonstrated to a sound method of data collection. Follow that link I gave you for over 60 entries that demonstrate this.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:58:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

The Lancet study states the Iraqi deaths were between 8000 and 194,000 with a 95% degree of accuracy. Such a wide scope for error is misleading. Various leftie types have picked this up as 100,000 dead. That is just wrong.

Also the number of people surveyed was only 808.

Also it is inconsistent with Iraqbodycount and the iraqi ministry of health's information.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:06:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:16:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

Well, I must admit, looking into it the sample was limited to 136 men standing in line for petrol in the Green Zone. Hardly representative of the whole of Iraq. Interesting that 65% added "Get the f*ck out of Iraq". - This was not a formal question and not part of the survey results.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:17:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Give up Orang you are not interesting or funny.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:20:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Here is a good article on the Lancet disaster:

http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2005/04/a_final_lancing.html

Take a look at the map. The Lancet excluded data from the peaceful north and south! What a joke that is.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:30:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

Your attempts at discrediting the Lancet numbers are pissing me off. I can't believe us limp wristed lefties are trying to kiss and make up with morons such as yourself who deny the large numbers of civilians killed, maimed etc by our glorious coalition forces. When did the Lancet study come out one year ago ?? Do you reckon maybe that number has gotten bigger since then -but the number 100,000 is still the same. -we're still arguing about 100,000?
How many do you want it to be? Since 2,200 troops were killed by crude roadside bombs - how many do you reckon are being killed by dumb/smart/average IQ coalition bombs? Make a guess 30,000 "more or less"? Is that enough? What do you think?

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:39:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Orong you are making a fool of yourself.

Since 2,200 troops were killed by crude roadside bombs

Try 675. See: http://icasualties.org/oif/IED.aspx

You are more accurate than Lancet but that isnt saying much.

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 11:48:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

don't act like a drippy c*nt. Ok - you win. 675 it is. How were the others killed? Your call. - They were killed weren't they? The botom line is 2,200 "more or less"? Traditionally, in similar "wars" it is estimated that US , I mean coaltion killed vs evildoers is 1:50. Oooh look at that 2,200 X 50 = 110,000. (could be wrong)


So give us the number of civilian, women, children, old men, sisters, brothers, babies, infants, sons, mothers, ..that you believe have been killed by our forces.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:01:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

That is another issue. Lancet study has no credibility.

I dont know the number of civillians killed by coalition forces. The consensus of total hostile fire deaths is at 30,000 which I think includes both insurgent and civillians.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:10:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Hostile fire alone. And all that are killed are referred to as insurgents. Adn these deaths are based onthe death counts in hospitals. I doubt thay bother to count those that have been napalmed or WP's into ash.

It's amazing that those who trash the Lancet report on Iraq are just as quick to cite it in reference to Darfur. Furthermore, the sampe taken by the Lancet study in Iraq is considered a standard sample.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:31:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

Hostile fire alone.

Wrong

And all that are killed are referred to as insurgents.

Wrong

Adn (sic) these deaths are based onthe death counts in hospitals.

Wrong

I doubt thay bother to count those that have been napalmed or WP's into ash.

Wrong

Addamo you are so wrong it is as if you try to make a fool of yourself.

Go to iraqbodycount and look at their methods.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:38:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

It's amazing that those who trash the Lancet report on Iraq are just as quick to cite it in reference to Darfur.

Another straw-man.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:39:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Not straw man -it's called a fact. Look it up.

One of the biggest war supporters in the US, Christopher Hitchens, referred to the Lancet study as one performed by extremists, then cited them as a reputable organisation when trying to convince his readers that the Iraq venture was a humanitarian one by drawing comparisons between it and Darfur.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:45:00 am  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

David Tan said...
"Lancet study has no credibility."

Again - please cite some credible sources, or are you just a CD with a scratch? (BTW, DavidTan.com is not a credible source.)

Thursday, December 15, 2005 1:37:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Robert Fisk reported that in July alone, he obtained statistics from the Baghdad central mortuary that 1100 Iraqis had died by violence. Extrapolating that to Mosul, Kirkuk and down to Basra, and you could easily be talking 3-4 thousand a month or 36-48 thousand deaths a year from violence.

In light of this, the Lancet figure of 100 thousand suddenly becomes quite conservative.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:03:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Since Bush’s speech, several US government officials denied keeping a tally on Iraqi deaths. Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said there is no official tally of civilian deaths in Iraq. However, Venable said the U.S. military does collect data on deaths from insurgent attacks. He said that if the government did keep close tabs on Iraqi civilian deaths, they might likely find the number is far higher than 30,000.

Les Roberts, co-author of the Lancet report, said that the number of 30,000 is the lowest of the 8 published estimates in circulation. Incidentally, the sample by the Lancet report was about 1000 houses, not 1000 people.

Now here is something interesting.

Critics cite that the report has an error of 90%, whereas according to Roberts, it has a 90% certainty. He maintains that the Report was conservative.

The criticism of the precision of the Lancet Report was that one of the neighborhoods picked was in the city of Fallujah, and while in most neighborhoods, 2% of the pop had died, in Fallujah, 25% of the population in the houses that had been surveyed had died. As a result, there was a massive death toll attributed to Fallujah and less than that in the other 32 neighborhoods. What the Lancet group did, was set the Fallujah number aside and report that in the other neighborhoods outside of Anbar province, 100,000 are dead with a 90% certainty it was more than 44,000. So the distribution is around the 100,000 figure. This means that statistically it could have been 90,000 or 110,000.

When you consider Anbar province as well, the chances of the number being under 100,000 are very, very low. Robert said that this detail was too nuanced to the MSM to report as a sound byte. Roberts maintains that the impression more likely puts the number at 100,000 and 200,000. According to Roberts, there’s no chance the number was as low as 30-40 thousand.

Getting back to Fisk, he said that the official iraqi Ministry of Health figures in Baghdad (such as 1100 deaths July) are kept from the public. He says that the British and American advisers to the Iraqi ministry of health, have forbidden the Ministry to give the official numbers out to journalists.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:48:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

Robert Fisk is your source? The make to whom the term Fisking refers? OMG Your posts read like a who's who of 1/2 arsed journos and left wing pollies and sites.

Baghdad is indicative of the whole of Iraq? Since when? Thats like sampling Cronulla and determining that the majority of Australians are racists .... oh thats right the Left does that.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 7:41:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

According to Roberts, there’s no chance the number was as low as 30-40 thousand.

The report specifically says there there was a 95% chance that the actual number was between 8 and 194 thousand. How about you read the report. Here is the link. See page 1 paragraph 3 line 4 in this link:
http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf


Oh and your author mate Les Horton has form for large scale stuff ups. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet

Get a source with some credibility.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 7:54:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

I was quoting an interview done with Fisk this week that provides food for thought.

Are you are suggesting that Fisk is lying? What are your sources David? Militarystud.com?

Isn't Baghdad supposed to be one of the more well controlled areas of Iraq?

The numbers Fisk brought forward appear to be supported and supportive of the Lancet report. Les Roberts provides a helppful explanation to challenge this common belief that the Lancet report has been discredited.

Do you alwasy freak out when confronted with information that challenges your creative version of world events?

Thursday, December 15, 2005 7:58:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

OK David,

Wher are your credible sources abotu the number of deaths in Iraq?

Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:00:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

Not straw man -it's called a fact. Look it up.

Do you even know what a strw man argument is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Read that link and see your error.

addamo you are fast becoming a joke.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:07:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Silyl boy David, you forgot to notice that the 95% CI was referring to areas outside of the Anbar province, which in fact had a death rate of more than 10 times the rest fo Iraq.

Les Roberts stated that their methods of conducting the count was not criticised by any of their peers. The only issue was the matter of counts as they applied to Anbar province, which Roberts addressed in the interview.

And givent he crap Wikpedia has been guilty of reporting, I wound't get too cocky about calling that a reputable respetable source.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:11:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Straw man is the tactic of the right. You poor Wikipedia junky.

It is you that is creating them you idiot.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:12:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

Try:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

or

Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004 from the UN Development Programme
linked here:

http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/overview.htm

and discussed here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1610143,00.html

These figures are broadly consistent given the time frames to which they refer.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:14:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

All three of the reports you cited cover the firt 12 months of he opccupation.

We are in what, year three now?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ specifies deaths by military hits. These numbers have been challenged even by the Pentagon spokesperson,Lt. Col. Barry Venable, who said that 30,000 is a major underestimation.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:22:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

Les Roberts stated that their methods of conducting the count was not criticised by any of their peers.

So if discredited Les Robets says he has not been criticised by his peers all of a sudden Les Roberts regains his credibility?

Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:24:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Discredited accordig to whom? David Tan? The Lancet Report was challenged, yes, but I read nowhere about him being discredited as such.

The report was not a solo effort. Roberts was a co-author. The findinds of his group over the deaths in Darfur are certainyl respected.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:29:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

All three of the reports you cited cover the firt 12 months of he opccupation.

Wrong, iraq body count is updated constantly and the UN report was for the 1st 12 mths when there was the most civillian casualties and the lancet report was for the 1st 18 months (mar 03 to Oct,04).

The Lancet report is dead. Only those interested in politics at the espense of truth tout it.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:30:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

The Lancet Report was challenged, yes, but I read nowhere about him being discredited as such.

Challenged? Yeah the Confederate States of America were challenged ... oh didn't you get the update? Its over. Yeah they lost. It is only those wanker re-enacters who dont believe it (can we get them to use real bullets please?)

Get with the times addamo.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:37:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

No the Lancet is not dead, just incovenient fo people who stil don't get how seriously fucked up the Iraq war has been.

The numbers will probably never be known with any certainty until Iraq sees any kind of stability.

It's ironic that you are knocking the Lancet report for it's 95% CI for deaths outside of Anbar province, and yet, Bush, Blair and Howard can be 100% wrong about WMD, being greeted as liberators, Al Qaeda and 911 connections to Saddam, clandestine meetings in Prague, Iraqi nuclear weapons programs, insurgents in their last throes etc etc etc. and yet, you probably continue to believe what they say.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:43:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

I am with the times David. I realised right away that the Iraq war had nohting to do with WMD, terrorism or briging democracy to iraq. You seem to be stuck in that small dimihishing percentile that still believes the pre war lies that led to the Iraq invasion.

While Lancet continues to be quoted, even if not with respect to Iraq, they are not discredit.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:51:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

It's ironic that you are knocking the Lancet report for it's 95% CI for deaths outside of Anbar province, and yet, Bush, Blair and Howard can be 100% wrong about WMD

You are comparing two different things.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:08:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Yeah moral equivalence right? My bad.

Actually this goes to the very crux of the pro war argument. It's somehow acceptable for these leaders to lie and mislead us into an unecessary war, and continue to command respect and ownership of the official story. Anyone who presents an argument that challenges the official talking points, put forward by the proven liars, and is marginalised and "discredited".

Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:23:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

It's somehow acceptable for these leaders to lie and mislead us into an unecessary war, and continue to command respect and ownership of the official story.

Wrong again. It was the consensus in various intel sections around the world that saddam had WMD. This was largely wrong. Some "precursor" programs were in place but saddam had no real WMD capacity. But that does not mean Bush/Blair/Howard lied. Far from it. There was no dishonest intent established. That is just another pity one liner from the left.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:55:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

pity = pithy

Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:56:00 am  
Blogger David Heidelberg said...

David Tan embarrasses himself again by demonstrating his complete misunderstanding of confidence intervals.

A 95 percent CI of 8000-194,000 does not mean that the number of deaths are just as likely to be any number between 8000 and 194,000. The numbers in the middle of the CI are statistically more likely to be more accurate than the numbers closer to either extreme. The authors point out that The Lancet stats work like this: (i) There is a 2.5 percent chance that the number is lower than 8000, and a 2.5 percent chance it's higher than 194,000 (2.5 percent + 2.5 percent = 5 percent, thus the 95 percent chance the number is between 8000 and 194,000). (ii) There is a 10 percent chance that the number is lower than 45,000, and a 10 percent chance it's higher than 167,000 (thus a 80 percent chance the number is between 45,000 and 167,000). (iii) There is a 20 percent chance that the number is lower than 65,000, and a 20 percent chance it's higher than 147,000 (thus a 60 percent chance the number is between 65,000 and 147,000).

According to The Lancet article, the risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher in Iraq (95 percent CI 8.1-419) than in the period before the war. This CI means, for example, that there is only a 2.5 percent chance that the risk of death from violence is less than 8.1 times higher than it was before.

Incidentally, Seixon, widely referred to as the man who can't find an elephant in a small room, has been totally demolished at the link I gave you earlier. You really need to read that link David.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 10:41:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

A 95 percent CI of 8000-194,000 does not mean that the number of deaths are just as likely to be any number between 8000 and 194,000. The numbers in the middle of the CI are statistically more likely to be more accurate than the numbers closer to either extreme.

Yes I know that David. Lets leave the Stats 101 to the undergrads who are forced to listen to your rants.

The question you should be asking yourself is why is the CI so wide.

To me it renders the report meaningless.

Why are so many lefties interpreting the report as saying there are 100,000 additional dead?

Thursday, December 15, 2005 10:56:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

And if the CI is so high why is iraqbodycount.org wrong when the results of both can be seen as consistent?

Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:14:00 am  
Blogger David Heidelberg said...

Oh, for Christ’s sake!! From the above.

The numbers in the middle of the CI are statistically more likely to be more accurate than the numbers closer to either extreme.

It's got nothing to do with being a leftoid. Statisticians from around the world have agreed that the methodology is sound, and the 100,000 figure has been widely quoted because of the above.

The question needs to be asked - why are conservatives deliberately misrepresenting the study for their own ideological reasons? This is not rocket science.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:16:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Wrong again. It was the consensus in various intel sections around the world that saddam had WMD. This was largely wrong. Some "precursor" programs were in place but saddam had no real WMD capacity.

"But that does not mean Bush/Blair/Howard lied. Far from it."

Of course they lied David. Only ideologicla zealouts liek yourself are searching for legalistic nonesense and hair splitting to argue to thte contrary. Trying to argu that the "word "fixed" does not mean manipulated (as in teh DSM) is one example.
There was the Niger Uranium forgeries, which were know to be fake but included in the SOTU speech.
There was the bogus Libi "confgession" of a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
There was the BS about aluminium tubes.
There was the crap abotu mushrrom clouds.

There were the ample warnings that "intelligence" was not up to scratch from German and French intelligence agencies.

I could write a book about this stuff. These were lies. I know it. You know it and more thaqn half of America knows it.

"There was no dishonest intent established. That is just another pity one liner from the left."

No it's a pathetic anchor the right wing nuts (the dwindling few of you that remain) that cling to in order to avoid admitting they were rwong. Why do you think the SSCI is dragging it's feet on Phase II of the Report into how intelligence was poiticised?

Get with the program David. You're becomming dinosaur.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:16:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

why are conservatives deliberately misrepresenting the study for their own ideological reasons?

So its not leftoid to agree with it but your a conservative if you question it? How about we have one standard not two Heidelberg.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:47:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

There were the ample warnings that "intelligence" was not up to scratch from German and French intelligence agencies.

OMG how dumb can one person be?

Read this and get a clue:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html

There was no lie. The chant of the left that "bush lied people died" is the short form version of the self deciet in realtion to what bush knew and the garbage lancet report.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:53:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

Al Gore said Sept 02:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

Gore again, same year:

Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.

John Kerry also in 2002:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force—if necessary—to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

It was the universal view that Saddam had WMD.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:58:00 am  
Blogger orang said...

You hope to convince us by quoting that cocksucker Podhoretz? Yechh.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:09:00 pm  
Blogger anthony said...

Hmmm.... nice work David (Tan). I (for one) like hearing a good counter-argument, I like it even more on this little blog.

Andre, I'll have to remember you dont accept Wikipedia as a source, even though (only from memory) you've cited it yourself in the past.

Orang, your calling someone a 'cocksucker' as an insult? Now for someone I thought was on the 'left', that seems to be a homophobic remark (surely only the neo-cons would do that)! Why can't you accept that homosexuals are also human? Its a pity the world is full of such biggots...

Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:56:00 pm  
Blogger David Heidelberg said...

David Tan. You continue to ignore the fact that statisticians around the world have endorsed the methodology used in the Lancet report. This has nothing to do with left vs right.

Britain's chief scientist made a wonderful analogy when discussing global warming. Though a completely different issue, his comments still apply.

He said that when faced with a set a figures that have been universally tested and proven, you have 3 types of people who come forward. 1) People who predominantly agree with the study yet have small quibbles about methodology etc, and suggestions about how the study could have been improved 2) People who agree. 3) People who in the face of all the facts, refuse to accept the findings. He likens these people to the group who still contend that there is no link between smoking and lung cancer. David Tan, and the rest of his vile right wing sycophants, falls into category 3.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 7:22:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

anthony said...

...
" Orang, your calling someone a 'cocksucker' as an insult? Now for someone I thought was on the 'left', that seems to be a homophobic remark (surely only the neo-cons would do that)! Why can't you accept that homosexuals are also human? Its a pity the world is full of such biggots..."

I am so sorryyyyy, please forgive meeeeeeee I know I called him a cocksucker - but I don't think there's anything wrong with that. - Maybe he's just a dickhead.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 7:46:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

David Tan said...
"Lancet study has no credibility."

Oooooh Daaaaaavid, Daaaaavid. You still haven't cited any credible sources which have written-off the Lancet study as having NO credibility. (BTW, DavidTanSquirtsLies.com is not a credible source.)

Are there any such credible sources? Are they hidden in a secret volt in a mountain, inside a cave with Usama perhaps?

Thursday, December 15, 2005 8:43:00 pm  
Blogger Mannie said...

From Mannie De Saxe:
The arguments about the numbers killed in Iraq and the accuracy or otherwise of figures quoted is sounding very reminiscent of the Holocaust deniers who argued that the Holocaust never took place.
Apart from the figures of the dead in Iraq being quoted, is anybody talking about those injured and unable to get any medical assistance because the Iraqi infrastructure has had the hell bombed out of it this time, last time and the times in between.
Now there's a horror story for you all to get your teeth around!

Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:46:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Proof that the Bush mob manipulated 911 to attack Iraq:

"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN

Talk about monumental flip flopping right Mr Tan?

It has been stated that no new evidence emerged about Iraq WMD since 1998. In early 2001, the Bushevivks were saying Saddam was no threat and being contained.

Oh, and BTW. Here is another pearl fo a lie. In his UN presentation, Powell told the assembly that Iraq was harboring Zarqawi. For some reason, he forgot to mention that Zarqawi's camp was in Kurdistan (under the no fly zone), where Saddam could not get to him. Even better is that the US miilitary drew up plans to take out ZArqawi's camp at least 2 occasions before the invasion, and this was turned down becasue Zarqawi's presence in Iraq would bolster the case for the invasion.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

War on Terror my arse.

They lied QED. And anothet thing David, Santa isn't real either.

Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:59:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

Addamo_01 said...
Santa isn't real either.

What the...? Say it ain't so!

Sharon is still a man of peace though, isn't he?

Friday, December 16, 2005 5:02:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

I loved George Galloway's comment abotu Sharon dutring his debate with Christopher Hitches.

He mentioned how Bush referred to Sharon as a man of peace, when even Sharon doesn't consider himself a man of peace.

Friday, December 16, 2005 7:23:00 am  
Blogger orang said...

Sharon has always been a man of peace. Prove that he hasn't.

Friday, December 16, 2005 7:26:00 am  
Blogger orang said...

Galloway - oh how the war apologists, arse lickers, and general slime bags despise him. (He's a crook you know, Oil for Food) Ha!

Friday, December 16, 2005 7:31:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Yeah I'm lookikng forward to seeing Galloway give than crash dummy, Norm Coleman, another pasting on live TV.

It will be standing roon only.

Friday, December 16, 2005 7:51:00 am  
Blogger orang said...

when's that going to happen?

Friday, December 16, 2005 8:58:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

No idea. I guess when Galloway get's indicted - if the American's are prepared to risk putting him on the stand.

Friday, December 16, 2005 9:25:00 am  
Blogger David Tan said...

Jesus go out and when you come back the inmates are running the asylum.

if the American's are prepared to risk putting him on the stand.

Yeah they did that. That is why he is being charged with giving false evidence. It is interesting that Galloway takes hunderds of thousands of dollars from Saddam and the left cant see that as a gross conflict of interst.

Addamo your post of Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:59:33 PM makes no sense at all. Try again.

The arguments about the numbers killed in Iraq and the accuracy or otherwise of figures quoted is sounding very reminiscent of the Holocaust deniers who argued that the Holocaust never took place.

We are not talking about whether 6 million were killed in camps in an act of genocide by one entity. We are talking about the varying estimates of deaths on both sides, not in camps, not by one entity and not genocide. So really there is not similarity at all.

You still haven't cited any credible sources which have written-off the Lancet study as having NO credibility.

Well if you cant see that the lancet study has a very large CI and is inconsistent with all other sources (UN and iraqbodycount etc) you are wilfully blind. Blind faith in the lancet stury is your cross to carry not mine.

Friday, December 16, 2005 11:37:00 am  
Blogger orang said...

Oooh. Antony, did you leave david tan in charge?
He's calling us names.

Friday, December 16, 2005 12:57:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

I thought calling you an inmate was a tad nicer than you calling me ond those like me war apologists, arse lickers, and general slime bags.

Friday, December 16, 2005 1:08:00 pm  
Blogger orang said...

david tan - you do know of course that many people posting here would jump up in glee to see Galloway whip the racist, running dog, warmongering, sypphilitic, scumbags into a frenzy don't you? I'f this upsets you - fuck off.

Friday, December 16, 2005 1:10:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

you do know of course that many people posting here would jump up in glee to see Galloway whip the racist, running dog, warmongering, sypphilitic, scumbags into a frenzy don't you?

You have trouble understanding the recent past and present, what makes you think you have any capacity to see into the future?

Friday, December 16, 2005 1:14:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

As usual, David's creative version of events are pathetic.

“That is why he is being charged with giving false evidence. It is interesting that Galloway takes hunderds of thousands of dollars from Saddam and the left cant see that as a gross conflict of interst.”

He has not been charged with anything - not yet anyway. And in the typical, bottom feeding, gutless fashion that Coleman is known for, he announced the findings at a press conference, rather than do the dignified thing and contact Galloway beforehand.

Furthermore, the Volker report was based on apparent testimony of Tarik Aziz, who has been detained for 3 years without seeing any daylight. Of course, when Aziz claimed that he had not given this testimony, it was stated that the revised story could not be believed.

Don’t you just love how testimony is only credible when it is in agreement with the powers that be?

The Volker report was also based on documents the Russians have calijmed to be forgeries. Gee, who woud have guessed?

“Blind faith in the lancet study is your cross to carry not mine.”

And your blinkered, and blind faith in the idea that we are in Iraq to liberate anyone, or fight terrorism, or find WMD is yours.

Friday, December 16, 2005 2:57:00 pm  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Friday, December 16, 2005 8:17:00 pm  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

Why does the rightist blogosphere have this fixation with the Lancet research?

Does it really make a difference to you lot how many have died? The US army won't even count the deaths, and then you attack and attempt to discredit any independent efforts to do so.

Why not just come out and say that you don't even care how many have died? I suspect it's because you'd rather not think about it.

Friday, December 16, 2005 8:21:00 pm  
Blogger David Tan said...

Does it really make a difference to you lot how many have died?

Of course it does. We cant be indifferent and hysterical about death like the left can be.

Friday, December 16, 2005 11:43:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

dirtbikeoption said...
Why does the rightist blogosphere have this fixation with the Lancet research?

Does it really make a difference to you lot how many have died?


Absolutely. Numbers count. Just ask David Irving.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 1:40:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

"Does it really make a difference to you lot how many have died?"

Do you think the Busheviks would have gotten the war into first gear if only a dozen people had been killed on 911?

David Tan, master of self dellusion.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 2:16:00 am  
Blogger leftvegdrunk said...

"...indifferent and hysterical about death..."

What the hell does that mean, David?

Saturday, December 17, 2005 9:08:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

I'm not sure he really has a clue Dirt.

Saturday, December 17, 2005 11:28:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:52:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home