Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

dickbill · 2005-01-29 18:04:11

I am waiting to be blasted by Shaun...
The article with the 100 000 casualties poped up maybe 2 or 3 months ago,and became famous thereafter. Personnaly, I don't think that the amount could be inflated that much.
So maybe it's 80 or 90 000 instead of 100 000, but certainly not 10 000. Otherwise, I assume that the Lancet reviewers would have seen a gross mistake in the study.
Now, is it casualties from direct hit or indirectly by destruction of potable water plants (for example) or even more indirectly by rebel attacking against "their" own people, does it matter ?

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-30 07:57:25

Dickbill:-

I am waiting to be blasted by Shaun...

How can you say such a thing, Dickbill, when you know me to be nothing but sweetness and light!

I seem to remember making quite a long post some time ago, which included this ill-founded "100,000 extra Iraqis killed because of the war" statistic. But I can't seem to find it now.
All I can vaguely remember is making the comment that maybe 15,000 more Iraqis died because the war took place than would have died if it hadn't. But I can't be absolutely sure of the figure I posted.
I certainly don't intend to rehash this old chestnut so long after it was rightly laid to rest as a statistical farce par excellence.

An exciting day for Iraq, today! :up:
Not the end of her trials, to be sure, but the beginning of hope for a better future.

dickbill · 2005-01-30 16:01:11

Dickbill:-
I am waiting to be blasted by Shaun...

How can you say such a thing, Dickbill, when you know me to be nothing but sweetness and light!

hehehe, sweetness ? Not always, but talkable at least.
10 000 or 100 000 ? I would say closer to 200 000 dead now. BTW, You gonna have a hard time to justify such high ******s in the future, even of the altar of western-like democracy or western-like freedom for the purpose of western-like well-thinking.
I mean by western-like, the more I'm getting old, the more I see everything is very very relative in terms of cultural appreciation and the way people see things in the prism of their own cultural/ethnic/personnal experience.
As french, I am not a big fan of Chirac, this is well know and obvious if you read my previous (old) posts, but still, I appreciate when Chirac said "France is a secular state but we are not trying to export the idea of secularism".
So, good point here. That means France cultural background over centuries of thousands of accumulated mistakes made during two milleniums of decadence, enlightment, revolutions, despostism, colonialism, renaissance (in disorder), has teached the french and I believe the germans too, (especially the germans), that the dream of universal truth is dangerous.
I am sure this thousand-old historical backgroung of the common collective inconscient of western occidental civilisation tell them that there is something of Faustian in Bush Dream of universal freedom.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-31 04:59:54

Dickbill:-

hehehe, sweetness ? Not always, but talkable at least.

Dickbill, you must surely know by now that I am in awe of your marvellous command of the English language. You know, also, that I hold you in high regard as a witty, intelligent, and indispensable contributor to New Mars.
I hope, therefore, that you will accept this very minor correction to the English in your last post in the atmosphere of friendship and respect in which it is intended, and not in any way as condescension or an insulting rebuke on my part.

When you say "but talkable at least", I believe you mean one of the following:-
a) "but tolerably reasonable"
b) "but capable of rational thought if pushed hard enough"
c) "but not so right-wing and red-necked as to be totally
beyond the reach of at least simple logic"

[I thank you for your kindness to someone of limited intellectual capacity ... ]

But, you know, when I hear an 'inclined-to-the-leftie' like you making forgiving allowance for the likes of an aspiring nazi thug like me, it makes me nervous. I'm driven to:-
1) Dust off and re-read my copy of "Mein Kampf"
2) Add another coat of black polish to my already-glistening black leather jackboots, and
3) Check out the library for communist books that need burning! (Or maybe even the communists themselves that need burning!!)

Your figure of 200,000 extra Iraqis dead since the war started would be highly amusing except for the fact that people have indeed died to liberate Iraq and it's no laughing matter.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-31 06:19:40

Regarding the "100,000 dead" figure, the fact of the matter is we just don't don't know with any accuracy. Thr Right wants it to be less, the Left wants it to be more.

After a moment's thought I decided not to rephrase that.

We can't accurately determine how many have died or what the cause of death was, not until the situation is completely stabilized.

Odd that the people who regularly assert that the country is in such disorder that we can't provide security or even electricity blindly accept that we can have an accurate census of dead people. ???

Now, is it casualties from direct hit or indirectly by destruction of potable water plants (for example) or even more indirectly by rebel attacking against "their" own people, does it matter ?

Yes, it does matter.

clark · 2005-01-31 08:48:40

Yes, it does matter.

Two short stories, The Lottery, by Shirley Jackson; The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, by Ursula K. Le Guin (here is a link to a synopsis to the latter:
http://www.123helpme.com/assets/16873.h … 16873.html )

In a nutshell, some are willing to pay the price. Others less so.

Both are very good stories, I suggest you read them if you have the chance.

Palomar · 2005-01-31 08:55:12

Cobra Commander: Regarding the "100,000 dead" figure, the fact of the matter is we just don't know with any accuracy. The Right wants it to be less, the Left wants it to be more.
After a moment's thought I decided not to rephrase that.

*I'm glad you didn't rephrase it; your statement hits the nail on the head.

CC: Odd that the people who regularly assert that the country is in such disorder that we can't provide security or even electricity blindly accept that we can have an accurate census of dead people.

*Yep. This all goes back to my assertion that it's difficult to get a true picture of what is going on because there is spin, misinformation, embellishment and propoganda from both sides.

Why more people can't see -- or can see but can't admit it -- that, I'll never know.

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-01-31 09:17:06

I suspect that we will never truly know the numbers of people that have died in Gulf war 3 and the occupation of Iraq afterwards. And I can see it will cause the historians to be arqueing this in the decades to come. Not to mention wether it was really a worthwhile war in the first place.

But it is said we cant arque over spilt milk. We are there and it means we have to devote all our efforts to fixing the problems and ensuring when we leave we leave a country that will not turn out to be a worse enemy than Saddams Iraq was.

Palomar · 2005-01-31 14:31:24

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … ndment]The future looks even rosier.

*Not. The internet generation against freedom of the press, in favor of gov't censorship. I wonder who's been instilling values and viewpoints into these kids (you know, while their parents were out getting drunk regularly, screaming like adolescents themselves at KISS concerts and filing for divorce every other week).

America is in a bad state of affairs. I barely recognize this nation any more. I -love- my country, but there are so many troublesome signs all around.

--Cindy

dickbill · 2005-01-31 14:54:57

When you say "but talkable at least", I believe you mean one of the following:-
a) "but tolerably reasonable"
b) "but capable of rational thought if pushed hard enough"
c) "but not so right-wing and red-necked as to be totally
beyond the reach of at least simple logic"

Hi Shaun,
I mean all of that of course.

Your figure of 200,000 extra Iraqis dead since the war started would be highly amusing except for the fact that people have indeed died to liberate Iraq and it's no laughing matter.

The article in the Lancet (see below my post with the reference) said 100 000, and they specified in the article that it is a surplus of what they would normally expect in abscence of war. I just read the abstract but it apears that their method of counting is indirect, sure ("METHODS: A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17.8 months after the invasion with the 14.6-month period preceding it").
Again, I don't see why and how they could inflate so much the statistics that the reviewers would not have seen it. They probably have an error bar, like 10-20% but no more.
Try to publish in the Lancet, better get some good data believe me.

My figure of 200 000 is completely hypothetic, since it was 100 000 some months ago (trusting the Lancet), I assume people won't ressucitate and that it will go increasing, so that, at the end of that war, it's maybe possible to double it.

I am not leftist by the way, Shaun, rather the opposite. That tell you you have that a long way to go to convince the real leftists. I am not anti-american or anti-anglosaxon, another arguments of the conservative rhetoric that they use so often. I am against some of the strongest points of the neo-conservative ideology. I don't think they are helpful to promote the occidental culture, they might even destroy it in the long term.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-31 14:57:07

The internet generation against freedom of the press, in favor of gov't censorship.

I'm of the opinion that they aren't so much against it as just ignorant. Public schools don't make much effort to teach American history or civics, not objectively anyway.

I remember I had this US history teacher in high school, old guy, kind of gruff, swore alot but very passionate about the subject matter. One day a student questioned something in the lecture and a debate began, lasting until the student began "In my opinion--"

He was briskly cut off with "You don't have an opinion yet. Your opinion is being formed" or words to that effect. Words of wisdom.

High schoolers are generally politically naive adherents to screwy ideas, most of them will get over it.

The rest will be registered Democrats.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1107205144

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-31 20:55:11

Good points, as always, Cindy and CC. So much emotion and spin getting in the way of objectivity. :rant:

I really don't want to get involved in another nit-picking rehash of something we've covered previously, but I just thought I'd comment on this from Dickbill:-

They probably have an error bar, like 10-20% but no more.

If you read the publication, it's apparent that the "error bar" is a very generous one, as the writers are only confident that the real figure for extra Iraqi deaths lies somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000 !
The fact that The Lancet was happy to publish a paper based on statistics open to that kind of preposterous error range, makes me wonder whether the editors, in this case, were also looking to make a political point rather than a contribution to science(?). ???
The fact that various media outlets rushed the '100,000' figure into print is probably no more than we can expect from people who make their money out of sensationalism. But I wonder, also, whether it was purely ignorance that caused them to leave out the enormous scope for error in that figure, or whether it just suited their political purposes to give the figure unjustified credibility. ???

Dickbill then takes the extraordinarily shaky figure of 100,000 extra deaths and extrapolates it in a way I find uncharacteristically illogical, coming from him.
The period of time covered by the Lancet article, in which the extra 100,000 Iraqi civilians are purported to have died, is the almost 18-month period from March 2003 to September 2004. This indicates an average extra civilian death-rate of about 5600 per month during that period. ( The error range allows this figure to be as low as 450 per month or as high as 10,900 .. take your pick! )
Then Dickbill makes the assumption that yet another 100,000 may have died since September 2004. How this figure can possibly be arrived at is very unclear to me, but it translates into 25,000 extra deaths per month - or more than 830 per day since September!!
This is greater than, or comparable to, the estimated average daily death rate at the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp between 1940 and 1945, a figure variously put at between 600 and 820 deaths per day!!

And the anti-liberation media haven't filmed this carnage, and the bulldozers pushing hundreds of mangled bodies into pits in the ground every day??!
What a missed opportunity for them.

dickbill · 2005-01-31 22:55:47

Dickbill then takes the extraordinarily shaky figure of 100,000 extra deaths and extrapolates it in a way I find uncharacteristically illogical, coming from him.

No, I am talking about the total count at the end of the war. When is the end of the war ?, that's a good question and I have no idea, but recount at that moment.
I have to admit that this kind of article is not my cup of tea. But give me some time to read outside the abstract. anyway, it seems that you already put more energy to read that in more details than I did, Shaun. I give you that. Maybe it's true that the lancet wanted to make a political point. I am not naive to believe that there is no politic in scientific publication.

Grrrr...forced to read an article about the iraq war in the lancet, why do I put myself in trouble ?

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-01 02:25:48

Hmmm.
It's possible I may have misinterpreted what you said on Jan. 30th at 17:01 :-

I would say closer to 200 000 dead now.

If this is so, I apologise.
I know how difficult the different nuances of meaning can be in a language other than one's own and I should be more careful to 'read between the lines'. Since English is my first language, I owe you that much.

I also confess that, if I'd read the following 'disclaimer' .. :-

My figure of 200 000 is completely hypothetic, since it was 100 000 some months ago (trusting the Lancet), I assume people won't ressucitate and that it will go increasing, so that, at the end of that war, it's maybe possible to double it.

.. a little more carefully, I might have gleaned your meaning more accurately. Though, in my own defence, I feel that even the 'disclaimer' is open to some degree of interpretation.

But this is the kind of exchange that can develop so easily when outrageously sloppy statistics are allowed to infiltrate news media, where they're pounced upon (which is the desired effect) by people anxious to muster data which support their particular viewpoint.
I tried not to get involved in this nonsense again and, in retrospect, I wish I hadn't because I think it's led to a certain amount of confusion between us, Dickbill. (For which I will accept the blame.) Though I trust our cordial relationship remains, as always, unaffected by such trifles.

[P.S. When I described you as an 'inclined-to-the-leftie', it was meant in the same spirit as the description of myself as 'an aspiring nazi thug'.
I know from past exchanges that your views, like my own, are far too eclectic to be compartmentalized that easily. But the name-calling appeared to suit the light-hearted nature of the post and seemed like a good idea at the time!
I meant no offence. ]

[P.P.S. Your comment:-

Grrrr...forced to read an article about the iraq war in the lancet, why do I put myself in trouble ?

Please don't bother on my account. I've had more than enough of it.
I don't think it's worth reading anyway, except for curiosity's sake, I suppose.]

Shaun Barrett · 2005-02-01 07:36:20

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4224757.stm]UN rules out genocide in Darfur

Phew, what a relief!

More than 70,000 people have been killed and two million more forced to flee their homes in Darfur since February 2003.

But it's not technically 'genocide', thank God. I admit I was getting worried there for a while.

Where genocide is found to have taken place, signatories to a UN convention are legally obliged to act to end it.

Well, since there's been no 'genocide', all the signatories to 'a UN convention' can now sleep peacefully in their beds, happy in the knowledge that their legal obligations are fulfilled.

Kinda gives you a nice, warm fuzzy feeling inside, doesn't it? ???

Mind you, when the killing is successfully concluded, the U.N. believes an investigation should be launched to bring any wrong-doers to justice:-

The commission recommended the situation in Darfur should be referred to the ICC, founded to try cases of genocide and war crimes.

I'm confident that an international investigation and trial will be instigated quickly and that we should have the problem all sorted out by about .. oh, 2008, say(?).
Of course, if it'd been 'genocide', I'd have been looking for a more urgent intervention, wouldn't you? :hm:

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-01 07:51:25

Do we need any more reminders that the UN is useless as an agent of any sort of international law or moral authority? Can we please stop pretending that this socialists and dictators club is a valid entity to determine when to act, or as is most often the case when not to? What does it take?

Palomar · 2005-02-01 08:31:47

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4224757.stm]UN rules out genocide in Darfur
Phew, what a relief!
More than 70,000 people have been killed and two million more forced to flee their homes in Darfur since February 2003.
But it's not technically 'genocide', thank God. I admit I was getting worried there for a while.
Where genocide is found to have taken place, signatories to a UN convention are legally obliged to act to end it.
Well, since there's been no 'genocide', all the signatories to 'a UN convention' can now sleep peacefully in their beds, happy in the knowledge that their legal obligations are fulfilled.
Kinda gives you a nice, warm fuzzy feeling inside, doesn't it? ???
Mind you, when the killing is successfully concluded, the U.N. believes an investigation should be launched to bring any wrong-doers to justice:-
The commission recommended the situation in Darfur should be referred to the ICC, founded to try cases of genocide and war crimes.
I'm confident that an international investigation and trial will be instigated quickly and that we should have the problem all sorted out by about .. oh, 2008, say(?).
Of course, if it'd been 'genocide', I'd have been looking for a more urgent intervention, wouldn't you? :hm:

*What an outrage. :down:

Damned UN, what then is their definition of "genocide"?

The lily-livered cowards.

Cobra: Do we need any more reminders that the UN is useless as an agent of any sort of international law or moral authority?

Nope.

Apathy is worse than hatred. Lack of empathy is evil.

My 2 cents' worth.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-02-01 11:29:02

Do we need any more reminders that the UN is useless as an agent of any sort of international law or moral authority? Can we please stop pretending that this socialists and dictators club is a valid entity to determine when to act, or as is most often the case when not to? What does it take?

Heh!

This of course has been the true Bush agenda all along.

But, whether or not dumping the UN is a good idea, do we (the US) have the firepower to accomplish that objective. IMHO, this can too readily morph into the USA (with Australian and divided UK support) versus the entire world.

Kinda like re-fighting WW2 except Russia and China are on Germany's side this time (and Japan is neutral).

Again, this post is not about what the UN deserves - - its more about whether this yet another bridge too far.

Edited By BWhite on 1107279036

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-01 11:33:58

Again, this post is not about what the UN deserves - - its more about whether this yet another bridge too far.

We don't have to smash it, just stop carrying on like the UN is the bastion for all that is good and just in the world.

Personally, I'd prefer if we used the UN for our own purposes. They all come to New York, we let 'em think they're in charge while planting suggestions on what to do and pitting the troublesome members against each other and if they get too out of line we stop paying our substantial share of it.

And if it folds up and dies, no great loss. <shrug>

BWhite · 2005-02-01 11:56:30

Again, this post is not about what the UN deserves - - its more about whether this yet another bridge too far.
We don't have to smash it, just stop carrying on like the UN is the bastion for all that is good and just in the world.
Personally, I'd prefer if we used the UN for our own purposes. They all come to New York, we let 'em think they're in charge while planting suggestions on what to do and pitting the troublesome members against each other and if they get too out of line we stop paying our substantial share of it.

Not a bad plan. :;):

Public bashing of the UN undermines our ability to accomplish it, however. Remember that a good diplomat can say "Go to Hell!" and the listener thanks him for his concern and constructive suggestions.

An essay I posted earlier suggests that "the world" may now be undertaking a policy of containment directed against US power analogous to what we directed against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. If that is true, it is in our interest to minimize and not inflame "us vs them" sentiments.

Unless we believe we hold "Risk cards" sufficient to "run the table" and impose global hegemony.

= = =

The UN is corrupt, you say? Well, d'oh!

Gambling, in Casablanca? I'm shocked. Shocked! :;):

Edited By BWhite on 1107280940

clark · 2005-02-01 11:58:54

Bill, you're too funny!

Personally, I'd prefer if we used the UN for our own purposes. They all come to New York, we let 'em think they're in charge while planting suggestions on what to do and pitting the troublesome members against each other and if they get too out of line we stop paying our substantial share of it.

This is of course, exactly what we do. :laugh:

BWhite · 2005-02-01 12:04:21

Bill, you're too funny!
Personally, I'd prefer if we used the UN for our own purposes. They all come to New York, we let 'em think they're in charge while planting suggestions on what to do and pitting the troublesome members against each other and if they get too out of line we stop paying our substantial share of it.
This is of course, exactly what we do. :laugh:

Except Bush plays that game poorly.

He'd rather re-write Casablanca to cast John Wayne or Gary Cooper (strong man faces down evil) rather than Humphrey Bogart.

Moral nuance? Nah, can't have any of that!

clark · 2005-02-01 12:34:37

Of course you all realize that the UN decision makes it that much easier for each individual nation to tell their population, "the UN determined this..., not our fault."

UN makes a nice scapegoat.

We don't have to act because the UN said...

We do have to act because the UN said...

We are allowed to act because the UN said, once ago, in a different context...

We do not submit our will to the UN, therefore we must act...

They did not submit their will to the UN, therefore we must act...

I agree, the UN is useless for the likes of you's and me's. However, them, they like it fine.

Euler · 2005-02-01 15:47:40

Damned UN, what then is their definition of "genocide"?

Genocide: something that only happens in countries that don't have any friends who are permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Palomar · 2005-02-01 15:53:36

Damned UN, what then is their definition of "genocide"?
Genocide: something that only happens in countries that don't have any friends who are permanent members of the UN Security Council.

*I think you're right, Euler.

Society can be so cruel.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2005-01-29 18:04:11

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#152 2005-01-30 07:57:25

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#153 2005-01-30 16:01:11

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#154 2005-01-31 04:59:54

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#155 2005-01-31 06:19:40

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#156 2005-01-31 08:48:40

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#157 2005-01-31 08:55:12

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#158 2005-01-31 09:17:06

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#159 2005-01-31 14:31:24

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#160 2005-01-31 14:54:57

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#161 2005-01-31 14:57:07

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#162 2005-01-31 20:55:11

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#163 2005-01-31 22:55:47

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#164 2005-02-01 02:25:48

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#165 2005-02-01 07:36:20

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#166 2005-02-01 07:51:25

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#167 2005-02-01 08:31:47

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#168 2005-02-01 11:29:02

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#169 2005-02-01 11:33:58

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#170 2005-02-01 11:56:30

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#171 2005-02-01 11:58:54

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#172 2005-02-01 12:04:21

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#173 2005-02-01 12:34:37

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#174 2005-02-01 15:47:40

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

#175 2005-02-01 15:53:36

Re: Political Potpourri II - Continued from previous

Board footer