George Bush has had 2757 of his own soldiers in addition to hundreds of thousands of others wacked because of his selfish oil war. He makes mafia Godfathers look tame by comparison.
Well you are entitled to disregard the questions and to decide that, but I think the poll reflects both. It asks two different questions. "Do you think now of Coalition forces mostly as occupiers or mostly as liberators?", and "At the time of the invasion, did you think of Coalition forces mostly as occupiers or mostly as liberators?" There is a difference in the numbers of the two answers so I don't think it reflects only their current impressions. The poll was specifically designed to find out the opinions at the time of the invasion as well as there current(ca.2005) opinions. I think it gives a better idea of what the thoughts are than any other polls I had seen.
Donald Berry, Chairman of the Department of Biostatistics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center: "The last thing I want to do is agree with Bush, especially on something dealing with Iraq. But I think 'unreliable' is apt. (I just heard Bush say 'not credible.' 'Unreliable' is better. There is a certain amount of credibility in the study, but they exaggerate the reliability of their estimate.) "Selecting clusters and households that are representative and random is enormously difficult. Moreover, any bias on the part of the interviewers in the selection process would occur in every cluster and would therefore be magnified. The authors point out the possibility of bias, but they do not account for it in their report. "It is true that the range reported (392 979–942 636) is huge. Its width represents only one source of variability, the statistical error present under the assumption that their sample is representative and random. I believe their analysis to be correct under these assumptions. However, it does not incorporate the possibility of biases such as the one I mentioned above. Incorporating the possibility of such biases would lead to a substantially wider range, the potential for bias being huge. Although there is no formal way to address bias short of having an 'independent body assess the excess mortality,' which the authors recommend, the lower end of this range could easily drop to the 100,000 level." http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2006/10/iraqideaths_stu.html
Oh cool. Could be only 100,000!!! Now thats not too bad at all now is it? This should buy us a couple more years of stay in Iraq.
If the figure is not representative as the republicans said, could the actual casualties be higher than 655,000 people? Why does it have to go down? When a whole family gets wiped out or homeless persons get killed, it's possible for their disapperance to be left out.
That the lead researcher has a political agenda and timed the release of both studies for political impact surely goes to the credibility of the findings. Especially when you consider how much bias can affect the outcome of this kind of study. I don't think that can be denied. However I think all of us should be able to agree there is a huge difference between 40,000 and 655,000.
The only method I know of to dispute a statistic number is either dispute its methodology, or dispute its proper way to apply that methodology. It's the first to me that statistics can be dismissed simply because the person conduct those statistics study were wrong before. Each statistic study stands on its own methodology and the application of that methodology, it never has or will have anything to do with the person conduct that study. Each study is a standalone case. One can be man enough to claim, that I don't have anything to back myself up, neither do I have anything to dispute that statistic, but I just choose not to believe it, therefore I dismiss it. However, it's quite funny to see the efforts to rationalize and legitimize the notion "it was wrong before so it's wrong now". The only problem is, that past "it", has nothing to do with the current "it", unless one can prove that those 2 "it"s used same WRONG methodology. On the other hand, personal judgement has much more correlation with past and future judgement. It could actually be a more legitimate notion, that Bush was wrong about WMD in Iraq, and he could well be wrong in his next prediction. Nowadays, so many people talk about statistics without using statistics.
so did the usually accurate exit polls...weird how that worked out [cough]diebold[/cough] thats why i wouldnt get too excited about democrats taking anything back - the fix is in.
Unless you can prove his/her bias/inaccuracy in THIS study. The next shot from a perfect shooter who's on target for the past 1000 shots, or a miserable shooter who missed past 1000 times, has the SAME probability of hitting the target - 50%.
If I can show reason to believe he has shown bias on the same subject then I can reasonably suggest there is a credibility gap. Especially when this is the followup on the previously shown biased first study, when the conclusion is ten times higher than any other estimate from a variety of sources, and since the lead researcher himself has an admitted bias (political agenda). Of course, I've already pointed out substantive problems with the number conclusion of the study. The UN Report used death certificates etc as data for their estimation and came out with a number similar to the Iraq Body Count number (around 40,000). The Lancet study claims to have verified 92% of their number with birth certificates. If that is so then why the discrepancy between the UN, IBC, and Lancet numbers? The Lancet study claims it has better results than 'passive' methodology but that would only explain an 8% difference in numbers.
To be honest with you, I don't have answer to your questions. And to be honest with you, I expected the number to be high, and was shocked it is that high. I have my reserve to fully believe that number, and would like to see more confirmation. However, I would never dismiss it before it's proved wrong. But then again, although everyone is biased, I guess we already established that his method is legit. The only way left to dismiss his statistic number is to prove that he applied methodology in a wrong way - in other words, he applid his bias into the execution of the methodology to cause the mass discrepancy. However, to claim or even prove that he applied his bias into the execution of his study alone, still doesn't prove that number is wrong. The only valid means would be if someone could prove that he applied his bias into the execution of that study IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE PROCEDURE of the application of that method is VIOLATED. Until that happens, his bias or even hatred has NO weight on the statistic outcome. The same sentense "The Sun rises from the East", would have same value, be it from Hitler or Lincoln.
I think it is odd to derive a body count from a survey rather than from bodies. That is why I dont place complete faith in the new total. It could be higher or lower in real life. It could be exactly accurate. While I don't have 100% faith in this poll I do have faith in a poll attempting to find out how people felt at the time of the invasion, and asks the question what were your thoughts at the time of the invasion. That would seem to be the best possible indication available of what the general feelings were at that time.
I understand and agree to a point. I am not saying we should dismiss the conclusion out of hand. Neither, however, should we accept the number out of hand as the 'truth.' Bendon and Berry (quoted earlier in the thread) raise questions both about the methodology itself (sampling size too small to extrapolate) and the bias involved in the study. As such I think it is prudent to withhold support and propagation of the number until further inquiry is satisfied. Further I think it is somewhat naive to assume a stated bias has 'no weight on the statistical outcome.' You sound like you know a bit about statistics and if so I think you would agree that many factors (type of questions, phrasing, criteria to pick subjects, sample size etc.) can greatly affect the end number. In the end it is the burden of the study itself to show these factors were properly handled, not the other way around.
why are war supporters discrediting this when they always maintained that the number of casualties whether US or Iraqi does not matter as long as victory (democratic Iraq and terrorists defeat) can be achieved? is it because they are starting to realize that victory can never be achieved?
Who ever said the number of casualties 'does not matter?' And whether or not the preferred outcome is feasible doesn't affect the validity of this study.
so casualties does matter to you? if there were indeed 650K iraqi casualties will you then support withdrawal? if not, at what point will you support withdrawal? what is your magic number? so you disagree with Baker's panel and britains top army general that victory is no longer possible?
There is no 'magic number.' If there is no reasonable advantage to the troops presence then I would favor withdrawal. I don't think either said that the intial goal of a liberal democracy is no longer possible. If they did, however, then yes - I disagree with that statement.
