Iraqi Death Toll Hugely Underestimated

[Mulletsoldier]

I see plenty of times you focusing on the maximum or near to it. Its not a leap of faith to anyone you seem to embrace the larger number more so than the minimum, or so it seemed. I do not see you mention the minimum other than the actual study.

If Falluja cluster is included death toll may be as high as ~420,000-750,000

Plus, those were not my words. It was from the study, I placed it there for those not wishing to read it.

The minimum number was calculated with the change of infant death rate, and the elimination of the Falluja cluster and the number still came out to ~400,000.

Okay. Not too sure why you quoted that one, not only did I mention the number, I even said the word minimum.

"Hiding" 650,000 bodies becomes much easier when they are scattered body parts.

And that was in reference to your statement of 650,000, not mine. It is you who have focused on the maximum to discredit, whether to yourself or others the plausibility of the amount of deaths.

[Mulletsoldier]

And you don't seem to understand that I could care less about how the study was conducted because when you come down to it it is just an estimate based on a sample survery. Yes its a well respected research method, yes it seems they did a nice job, yes I tihnk its a stretch basing the entire country on 12,000 people, but I simply don't care because the bottom line is an estimate needs physical evidence if you are to hold someone accountable for deaths (since form post 2 and 3 the US governemtn is accused of lying). I am past the study and have been in the last 2 posts so therfore I move on to seeing what evidence backs up the study to begin with and the physical evidence of 650,000 or even half this number or all the way down to 100,000.

I already stated in my second post that I believe its underestimated but I do not beleive its 650,000 people. Maybe you should have stated you believed such in the first post but all I saw was accusations of the "oh-so-untrustworthy" government.

Could it be 100,000? Its possible....so what now?

I still consder the Brookings Institute a more credible report than this sample survery.

I have never accused your government of anything, not once in this discussion. That is something you assumed was my prerogative and more than likely why you are still in this discussion. I fully acknowledge that only 31% (number from study) of the deaths are directly attributed to coalition forces and have never accused, or blamed anybody. I said I agreed with Nullifidian that this report is likely far more accurate than the Governments, simply because it is always in a government's best interests, as CDB stated, to underestimate a death toll..

I thought you said you were 'over' the study, but you obviously aren't if your last remark pertains to its credibility. In terms of the Brookings Institute I feel there are far more conflicts of interests within that institute than Lancet. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the current president/chair of Brookings a former high ranking official under Bush Sr.? I cannot remember his exact position, maybe Seceretary of State. Now, that is not some 'anti-bush' conspiracy theory thing. But if you want to question the motives or credibility of a each of the institutes I feel the Brookings has alot more (in this instance) questions to its validity.

[Dwight Schrute]

Plus, those were not my words. It was from the study, I placed it there for those not wishing to read it.



Okay. Not too sure why you quoted that one, not only did I mention the number, I even said the word minimum.



And that was in reference to your statement of 650,000, not mine. It is you who have focused on the maximum to discredit, whether to yourself or others the plausibility of the amount of deaths.

Are you running for office?

[Mulletsoldier]

Are you running for office?

Yes. And I am not a crook.

[Dwight Schrute]

Plus, those were not my words. It was from the study, I placed it there for those not wishing to read it.

Or to emphasize the numbers.

Okay. Not too sure why you quoted that one, not only did I mention the number, I even said the word minimum.

I thought the minimum was 100,000 not 400,000.

And that was in reference to your statement of 650,000, not mine. It is you who have focused on the maximum to discredit, whether to yourself or others the plausibility of the amount of deaths.

Ah, yes. I'm trying to discredit them only after I say the study is a valid research method, they did a good job, etc....

I guess since I don't believe the 650,000 I'm trying to discredit them. I guess just pointing out the alternatives that you would need to actually have some sort of evidence to back up the study is trying to discredit them. Wow...

[Dwight Schrute]

I have never accused your government of anything, not once in this discussion. That is something you assumed was my prerogative and more than likely why you are still in this discussion. I fully acknowledge that only 31% (number from study) of the deaths are directly attributed to coalition forces and have never accused, or blamed anybody. I said I agreed with Nullifidian that this report is likely far more accurate than the Governments, simply because it is always in a government's best interests, as CDB stated, to underestimate a death toll..

Yeah, agreeing with someone 100% that the government is untrustworthy about the figures isn't really implying anything. You sound like a politician.

I thought you said you were 'over' the study, but you obviously aren't if your last remark pertains to its credibility. In terms of the Brookings Institute I feel there are far more conflicts of interests within that institute than Lancet. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the current president/chair of Brookings a former high ranking official under Bush Sr.? I cannot remember his exact position, maybe Seceretary of State. Now, that is not some 'anti-bush' conspiracy theory thing. But if you want to question the motives or credibility of a each of the institutes I feel the Brookings has alot more (in this instance) questions to its validity.

Really? I guess since I don't blindly accept the study I'm trying to discredit them. I guess since I said it was a well researched study and they did a nice job is my way of discrediting them.

Yeah, the brother cousins formally employed butler is running it. And he is lying to protect his former employees.

If I wanted to go down that route, I would mention the predominant liberal attitudes of most universities but it seems you want to bring up those points. I could care less.

[Dwight Schrute]

Yes. And I am not a crook.

You just spin round and round like one.

I think maybe you should put Jayhawk's quote back in your sig.

[Mulletsoldier]

You just spin round and round like one.

I think maybe you should put Jayhawk's quote back in your sig.

Alright. I see this is the 'condescending-pointless' part of the argument. I will leave you to your devices and bow out.

[Dwight Schrute]

Alright. I see this is the 'condescending-pointless' part of the argument. I will leave you to your devices and bow out.

I knew that when you asked why Iraqi's would forge death certificates.

I'll use my devices and leave you to your vices.

[GREENFEATHER]

Have any of you seen what happens when a B-52 dumps it's payload, I mean the aftermath? I have and it's not inconceivable to me that 650,000 is far off. A 500 lb AP bomb could scatter the bodies of 50 or so people, magnify that by 140 per load and you have one hell of a body count per plane load. Hiding dessicated parts isn't all that difficult.


ROB

[Dwight Schrute]

Have any of you seen what happens when a B-52 dumps it's payload, I mean the aftermath? I have and it's not inconceivable to me that 650,000 is far off. A 500 lb AP bomb could scatter the bodies of 50 or so people, magnify that by 140 per load and you have one hell of a body count per plane load. Hiding dessicated parts isn't all that difficult.


ROB

I don't even think they were even used very much, not to mention the war coverage and the thousands of reporters with camera's, especially Al Jazeera, would have filmed such large scale killings. We dont' even need B-52 when we can use a MOAB.

If CNN can film an insurgent sniper kill a US serviceman (great job CNN ), it can catch a b-52 carpet bombing residential areas.

[brk_nemesis]

agreed bobo, wit everything you said. not trying to discredit the report, but everyone do relize the same people that fund these studys/colleges are the same ppl...*cough* lobbyists *cough* .. that fork money out to our outstanding gov't to yay or nay a bill, law etc etc. lol. Not to discredit that but do relize this could affect a topic as sensitive as this that many news agegies or gov't officials may use to get their point across. theres no diff. between this, and the beatiful news crews known as american media bsin' about the mass slaughter and chaos goin on in iraq right now lol. Funny how the media cant stop talkin about it yet ive taled to 3 ppl, 2 born in iraq, anothers whose family moved over be4 he was born who fly to kuwait annualy and drive south to Iraq to visit family there. I think its ironic how they all have said the "choas" lol which can be comparable to a n.y. muggin is centralied around a few towns and citeis, mostly in the north if im correct, but the rest of the country is rather calm. lol all the bombers there win their war and get their point across everytime our media broadcasts another one of their 'massacres' on tv or in the paper. lol not to discreadi out wonderful media agencies, and there is **** goin on in iraq, but the world of overblown media coverage is nothing new to american culture.