BF2S Forums Blair's legacy lies in the Baghdad morgue

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

you cant be very subjective about the amount of dead iraqi bodies you see

And you think you've seen every dead iraqi body do you?

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

you cant be very subjective about the amount of dead iraqi bodies you see

And you think you've seen every dead iraqi body do you?

no.  but i was in a very large, very active, very violent sector.  everytime somebody shit the wrong way it would be briefed and the information would be passed down through the chain of command.  every time a suicide bomber blows himself up and a few dozen civilians anywhere in sector, the info was sent down the chains.  Baghdad is a huge sector where the majority of violence has occurred.  There were lots of dead iraqis in my year, but nothing at the rate of death that the lancet survey claims.  their first study in 2004 claims 100,000 and now two years later 650,000.   So me being in the most volatile sector for civilians in one of the bloodier years I would have had to witnessed way more than i actuallyy did. I was infantry and everytime something bad happened it would happen when I was on QRF so I would be witness to the casualty collection and process of getting the streets back in smooth traffic. just common sense man.  i didnt witness THAT many people dead.  I mean I saw a lot, but not 550,000 lost souls or even close to a number like that.  i didnt even hear about that many in the hundreds of briefings i recieved.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

you cant be very subjective about the amount of dead iraqi bodies you see

And you think you've seen every dead iraqi body do you?

no.  but i was in a very large, very active, very violent sector.  everytime somebody shit the wrong way it would be briefed and the information would be passed down through the chain of command.  every time a suicide bomber blows himself up and a few dozen civilians anywhere in sector, the info was sent down the chains.  Baghdad is a huge sector where the majority of violence has occurred.  There were lots of dead iraqis in my year, but nothing at the rate of death that the lancet survey claims.  their first study in 2004 claims 100,000 and now two years later 650,000.   So me being in the most volatile sector for civilians in one of the bloodier years I would have had to witnessed way more than i actuallyy did. I was infantry and everytime something bad happened it would happen when I was on QRF so I would be witness to the casualty collection and process of getting the streets back in smooth traffic. just common sense man.  i didnt witness THAT many people dead.  I mean I saw a lot, but not 550,000 lost souls or even close to a number like that.  i didnt even hear about that many in the hundreds of briefings i recieved.

But the point is that your experience is subjective. The Lancet survey may be inaccurate, but it is the only scientifically objective figure available.

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I read your previous post before posting. I've also read lots of analyses of these estimates and it is quite clear that the techniques used for the Lancet study are inappropriate in this instance.

How so?

Bertster7 wrote:

Iraq is an unusual case and should be treated as such.

Again, how so?

Even the studies supporters acknowledge that obtaining accurate results in the current situation in Iraq is virtually impossible.

Sir Roy Anderson wrote:

The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to 'best practice' in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq

Robust in many situations. But not for Iraq. Nor do I trust the results given from using this technique in The Democratic Republic of Congo, which also has ludicrously high estimated casualty rates.

The margin of error for the Lancet estimate is enormous: 392000 to 942000. 392000 seems very realistic to me.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The majority of independent experts agree that the Lancet study is inaccurate.

That's not the impression I get.

Every other study by NGOs has given MUCH lower figures. The Lancet estimate is based on calculating the death rate by interviewing sample households (which were almost uniquely located in major cities, where death rates from the war will of course be higher), those samples were used to take an average. Without wider ranging sample groups, which are extremely difficult to get given the level of insurgency in Iraq, the study is not to be taken at face value. It does provide some insight into the level of carnage throughout Iraq, but it is not accurate and the figures have not been adjusted properly.
Without wider sample groups, from wider ranging areas, the study cannot be taken at face value.


Although there have been a shocking number of casualties. 650000 is not a likely figure. The low end estimate is.

That's still significantly more Iraqi deaths than were caused by Saddam over his entire time in office.

OK, I see what you're saying, and if everyone was bandying around the higher figure of 942000, then I'd agree with you, but just becuase 392000 seems a more reasonable figure, it doesn't mean it is. As I've said already - the figure may not be 100% accurate, but it is the best scientificaly objective figure we have available.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I read your previous post before posting. I've also read lots of analyses of these estimates and it is quite clear that the techniques used for the Lancet study are inappropriate in this instance.

How so?

Bertster7 wrote:

Iraq is an unusual case and should be treated as such.

Again, how so?

Even the studies supporters acknowledge that obtaining accurate results in the current situation in Iraq is virtually impossible.

Sir Roy Anderson wrote:

The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to 'best practice' in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq

Robust in many situations. But not for Iraq. Nor do I trust the results given from using this technique in The Democratic Republic of Congo, which also has ludicrously high estimated casualty rates.

The margin of error for the Lancet estimate is enormous: 392000 to 942000. 392000 seems very realistic to me.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

That's not the impression I get.

Every other study by NGOs has given MUCH lower figures. The Lancet estimate is based on calculating the death rate by interviewing sample households (which were almost uniquely located in major cities, where death rates from the war will of course be higher), those samples were used to take an average. Without wider ranging sample groups, which are extremely difficult to get given the level of insurgency in Iraq, the study is not to be taken at face value. It does provide some insight into the level of carnage throughout Iraq, but it is not accurate and the figures have not been adjusted properly.
Without wider sample groups, from wider ranging areas, the study cannot be taken at face value.


Although there have been a shocking number of casualties. 650000 is not a likely figure. The low end estimate is.

That's still significantly more Iraqi deaths than were caused by Saddam over his entire time in office.

OK, I see what you're saying, and if everyone was bandying around the higher figure of 942000, then I'd agree with you, but just becuase 392000 seems a more reasonable figure, it doesn't mean it is. As I've said already - the figure may not be 100% accurate, but it is the best scientificaly objective figure we have available.

I do not get HOW these numbers were 'scientificaly' obtained.  Oh, and even IF that number were accurate somehow, does that mean you are laying EVERY single death at the hands of Blair, and I assume Bush?  Would not the people taking them off the streets and torturing them to death not garner ANY of the blame for actually ending the lives of these people?  IS Blair to blame for the death of a suicide bomber?  Or do you simply lay the blame there since they created the situation for this kind of violence to bloom in? 

If that is the case, how far do we take the blame back, for the situations that created the conditions for the deaths to occur?  Can we blame Saddam, for not surrendering and giving up in 2003, allowing his troops to fight 'in his name?' Do we blame the Colonial British and French, for cutting the areas up into nice lines on a map and picking a tribe to run the country as king?  Do we blame the US and the USSR for carrying on the Cold war and using smaller countries to fight the war as their proxies?  Do we blame the UN, for not letting Bush 1 go in and depose saddam back in 1991?  Do we blame the UN's World Bank for allowing countries to abuse the Oil for Food program to allow Saddam to bypass the sancitons?  Do we blame France, Germany, and Russia (in part) for actually helping Iraq to rearm during the sanction years just to get free or cheap oil under the table?

The problem with blaming blair or bush for all the deaths in Iraq because they created the situation is that it is a fallacious argument.  If you draw the blame back, then you have to decide how far back to draw it.  No situation is truely as simple as we would like it to be.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

imortal wrote:

The problem with blaming blair or bush for all the deaths in Iraq because they created the situation is that it is a fallacious argument.  If you draw the blame back, then you have to decide how far back to draw it.  No situation is truely as simple as we would like it to be.

Personally, I blame God. (not that I believe in God, but if he does exist, WTF did he makes us so violent?)

If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.