You're right to make no assumptions. We'll have to see how this gets verified, with time. I have absolutely no doubt that the Bush Administration has grossly underestimated Iraqi casualties. It's just a terribly shocking figure. You could say that I really hope it's wrong, for that would be nearly unbearable, should it be correct. I think that's about 1.5% of the total population, isn't it? That would be the equivalent of 4.5 million American dead! Keep D&D Civil.
Here's some confirmation for you Hayes. Why are you so quick to dismiss the findings? --------------------- Pollster Zogby '95 percent' sure of 650,000 Iraqi death toll Expert pollster John Zogby is "95 percent certain" that around 650,000 Iraqis civilians have died since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. A new study by Iraqi physicians and Americans from Johns Hopkins University polled 1,800 Iraqis to calculate an approximate number of casualties since the beginning of the war. In an interview on CNN International, Zogby explains that the methodology used in the study is very reliable. "The methodology, from what I've seen of the survey, is quite good," he remarked. He is also in agreement with the study's estimate of 650,000 casualties, saying, "I can't vouch for it 100 percent, but I'll vouch for it 95 percent, which is as good as it gets in survey research." http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Expert_Zogby_95_sure_of_1011.html
given the infamous remarks by albright and the well known estimate of 500 thousand iraqi kids and now this. (and no one of repute with a firm grasp of statistcs has really objected to the methodology used) for the average man on the arab street. the US is responsible for well over a million deaths in iraq at least. more like a million and a half. regardless of the accuracy of this statement, this sentiment is widespread. and to deny that this has anything to do with terrorism and to simply state that terrorism is due to them hating our freedom is not just intellectual dishonest but criminally negligent of this administration. and yes no one is saying shias blowing up sunnis in iraq is completely on the US. but when you occupy a nation its your duty to provide security. and if you can't fix it you shouldn't have broken it (insane's corollary to the powell doctrine).
IT is absurd? Ask the shiites in Iraq if they are happy with what we have done? I think the polls shows us they are not. If they wanted us to invade? The overwhelming majority have said no. Their actions on the ground do show that now. It was one thing to believe we would be welcomed as liberators before the invasion, but it is unfathomable that you could still believe it now.
The mistake you make is using current opinion to draw a conclusion on past opinion. Using that criteria I could say 'Americans didn't want Bush to win the election in '04 because he is unpopular now.' That simply doesn't work.
What I said was that the previous number the Lancet came up with was heavily criticized and I expect that we'll see the same thing happen with this number when the study has been amply reviewed. Since it was just released I think it's premature to swallow the number hook, line, and sinker. The fact is that applying epidemiological methods to conflicts is a new approach using a methodology not meant for that purpose. And I don't find it suprising that the king of polling declared the study 95% certain when he hasn't even closely examined it - it's a little self serving, no?
I agree there was a time when they wanted us to supply military help. That was at the end of the Gulf War. Can you point me to a poll or other evidence from the past that says they are happy we invaded or wanted us to invade? It just seems that every poll I've ever seen seems that the majority(which means a significant portion of the Shi'ite population) of Iraqis were not happy with our invasion.
Since you've got particular polls on your mind, give us one that shows the Shiites didn't want help removing Saddam - which is your claim. As for the study itself, the criticism has started to trickle out. Expect more in the next week or so: Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, said interviewing urban dwellers chosen at random was “the best of what you can expect in a war zone.” But he said the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country. Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/w...2000&en=4497ed3a4b18f72a&ei=5087 &oref=slogin
Iran had a more homogenous religious organization to oppose the Shah. Basically everyone was Shia and would heed the call of the Ayatollah including the army. How would a Shia anti-Saddam revolt be received in Iraq. There would be no near unamimous voice of the people; the Sunni population and the army would have rallied to help Saddam put a poplular revolution down. And I don't think the Shah ever gassed any large numbers of people, that would certainly make the people think twice about an uprising.
This is the one most addresses if it was desired before the invasion. It talks about if it the kind of invasion could ever be morally justified. 54% of Shi'ites say that it cannot be justified at all or somewhat. Also they ask what the Shi'ites thought at the time of the invasion. Did they think of the U.S. forces mostly as liberators or occupiers. The largest number responded that they thought of them as occupiers with 47% and another 10% that thought of them as both. The question was about what they thought AT THE TIME OF THE INVASION. There is another question asking about what they thought at the time of the poll. From the poll we learn that 66% of the shi'ites believe the invasion has done more harm than good or that it was the same. If I didn't post the whole poll here is the link. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-gallup-iraq-findings.htm
You consider those last two paragraphs of that article criticism? And you forgot to post the preceding sentence.
The numbers that I saw from the actual people who did the poll was 95% certainty that the figure is between three-hundred-some-odd-thousand and nine-hundred-some-odd-thousand. I think that the range in this number has not been well reported. There are some legitimate complaints in that regard, but in the final equation it doesn't really matter. Even if the number is at the lowest end of the statistical estimate it is still a remarkably large number relative to the BS that has been presented to date. I also still have yet to see anybody who legitimately can legitimately offer complaints beyond concerns about the range of the numbers being reported; something that would fundamentally invalidate the actual study itself.
That's from 2005, FB. Uh, yes. If you can't extrapolate 600,000 + from 500+ then the conclusion isn't valid. Not at all. Nameless experts can hardly be considered proof of anything. As I indicated earlier, the study just came out so I expect this will be debunked as thoroughly as the last number.
Is that the same Zogby that was absolutely positive Kerry was going to win the election? Sorry -- credibility = zero. I'm pretty sure the casualty figure is a very large and sobering number. But this reckless let's-go-find-out-the-biggest-number-possible campaign is getting ridiculous (no data collected about how the victims died? wth?). Especially when you then combine that with the typical reactionary claim of genocide -- "America's supremacist neocons have killed 650,000 people." This is the problem with American politics. There is little to no reason coming from the right, but unfortunately, there's little to no reason coming from the left either. The situation in Iraq is sobering enough as it is without absurdly hyperbolic publications like this.
Yes but one of the questions asked, was AT THE TIME OF THE INVASION how did you think of the U.S. and it listed Liberaters, Occupiers or Both. The largest amount responded that AT THE TIME OF THE INVASION they felt the U.S. were occupiers. I know when the poll was taken. At the time the poll was taken they asked the same question and the amount that felt the U.S. were occupiers almost doubled. The point is that even AT THE TIME OF THE INVASION 57% of the Shiites felt that the U.S. were occupiers or both occupiers and liberators. While only 35% thought they were liberators. That is AT THE TIME OF THE INVASION, not in 2005.
I'll post them as I see them. "The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to says it is "way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election. "This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said." From the AP article. "The article below will be a story today, even though it shouldn’t. As the AP report points out, other experts agree that these numbers are grossly inflated, and the group has admitted to a political motivation in the timing of its earlier report. And the lead researcher of that report, Les Roberts, said the liberation of Iraq was done “under unsupportable, and probably illegal, pretenses.” Even Human Rights Watch said the earlier report by these same researchers was “certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting” This group’s October 2004 report claimed 100,000 Iraqis casualties as a result of Iraq’s liberation, and now claim that number is up to 655,000, or more than 550,000 casualties in the last two years alone. But as the authors wrote in an “author’s reply” following concerns that were raised about the methodology of the 2004 report, “The death toll estimated by our study is indeed imprecise.” (Lancet, March 26,2005 - April 1, 2005). And an article in the Guardian following the 2004 report highlighted that the 100,000 was, in the words of one of the study’s authors, only a “rough indicator,” and that the range or their findings was between 8,000 and 194,000." http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWM4OTM2ZDdiMjA3OWI5Yjc0YmE4MmVjODdjNWU5MzY= Well, la dee dah. I'll stick with Harvard. MIT, btw, only funded the study - they didn't do the study. One thing I was wondering was the discrepancy between this figure and, for example, the Iraq Body Count which is around 40,000. The Lancet study claims most of the numbers were confirmed by death certificates (92%). So why is the number ten times that of those which use official records like death certificates? No need to yell. No offense but that poll only reflects the current impressions of those polled.
It should be noted that the US military is pretty much at war with Shiite militias in Baghdad while the British military have been embroiled in several conflicts with the Shiites in the South. Certainly there were many Shiites that wanted help in removing Saddam but any good will from that has long been lost.
This doesn't disprove the numbers just state that there might've been some political motivation behind them. While one can cast doubt on the previous study based on this nothing here would automatically debunk it. Once again while this does cast some doubt nothing necessarily debunks the study. The study is does have a certain amount of imprecision as all attempts at this kind of statistical sampling. Further its not surprising there was a range of findings. Without reading more about why the high and low numbers were rejected, or why they should be accepted, nothing is debunked. I agree though that these numbers along with others should be taken with a dose of skepticism but I think all of us can agree that a whole lot of Iraqis have died under violent circumstances since the invasion.
