Cynical Nation

Hey Barry,
Lancet is not Fox news or the National Enquirer. Lancet is one of the top medical journals and with rigorous review process. That is a scientific study done by epidemiologists in one of the top Universities in the country (Hopkins). Why are you so quick to dimiss it and to link it to politics?

Blue, I didn't really join the pile-on when Lancet released its first study with the 100k figure. My problems were more with the way the survey was reported in the media than with the study itself.

But even if you were to accept Lancet’s (already controversial) figure of 100,000 civilian dead in 2004, one would have to believe that almost a thousand Iraqis have died violently every day since then to justify this present survey. That number should give you pause.

Those numbers seem to high to be realistic, IMO. That coupled with the known political biases of Lancet’s editorial staff regarding the war, and the extremely “convenient” timing of both studies give rise to a very generous level of skepticism on my part indeed. Your mileage may vary, of course.

But please understand that proper application of statistical method can be a very tricky business. Even the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals can (and very often do) release flawed studies. Butter’s bad for you this week, good for you the next.

Yeah, due to Chimp's expert management of the war, hardly anyone has died. His wise and well thought out postwar plan, spearheaded by Rumsfeld, has assured the security of Iraq national assets and the safety of Iraqi citizens.

Actually, it is Clinton's fault if any civilians died. If Clinton had only invaded Iraq before it obtained WMDs and became Osama Bin Laden's headquarters for spreading terrorism, Chimp wouldn't have been forced to courageously and wisely execute his farsighted plan.

Any Iraqi beasts that did die were most likely having a great time goading other Iraqi beasts and the left wing media into staging outrageous events to make America look bad, because the left wing media hates Ameria.

Even if a lot of Iraqis did die, what about when LBJ, a DEMOCRAT was president? He expanded the Vietnam War and got way more people killed. I didn't hear the Democrats complaining then.

It's all dirty politics.

Barry wrote:

"But even if you were to accept Lancet’s (already controversial) figure of 100,000 civilian dead in 2004, one would have to believe that almost a thousand Iraqis have died violently every day since then to justify this present survey."

This is what I think about the study. Regarding what you mentioned above, if we accept the 100K civilian deaths in 2004, then you would have to believe that 500-600 Iraqis die daily (not 1000). I dont know if that number is realistic or not. We cetainly hear in the news approx.100 Iraqis dying daily in attacks. That number is not very far from reality. But even if the lower margin of the study is the actual number (340,000), it is still a huge number. There is no question that far too many people died in this war, and I think we all agree is over it is 150,000-200,000 civilians by now. The question is why and for what? And who should be held accountable for that?

Blue, we're talking about a death toll that exceeds those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined with the accumulated death toll resulting from years of allied bombing of Germany, in which the express intent was to slaughter as many civilians as possible. Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

"exceeds those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined with the accumulated death toll resulting from years in which the express intent was to slaughter as many civilians as possible. "

There is no question that many of attacks of jihadists in Iraq, as part of the ongoing civil war, intent to slaughter as many civilians as possible. All these are consequences of the war.

The truth is that we simply do not know the numbers. Thats why there are scientists that worked in an independent manner using acceptable epidemiological approaches to address this question. Simply saing "I dont buy it" is an emotional response. To me a number of 350,000 civilians dead in Iraq by now sounds about right.

Even if the higher number is true, that just means that more potential terrorists were killed.

Bush gets an A+.