|
 
Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! Please  login or  register to post messages and view our members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, encrypted messages, file attachments, board customizations, and much more!
|
 The Tourist
Stranger
Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 124
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
 Re: Iraq [Re: Phred]
#8403797 - 05/15/08 01:07 AM (3 months, 20 days ago) |
|
|
|
The Tourist
Stranger
Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 124
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
Re: Iraq [Re: Phred]
#8403823 - 05/15/08 01:16 AM (3 months, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
Totally bogus figure. Complete fantasy number.
Quote:
That's not counting the millions of Iraqi refugees who've seen their lives and livelihoods destroyed.
Likewise.
Phred
I thought it was fairly widely accepted that between 2 and 3 million Iraqis have become refugees since the start of the conflict. I haven't looked into it much at all, but those are the only numbers I've heard. I'm obviously not taking the numbers as hard facts at this point...
Why are they bogus in your eyes?
|
Yossarian22
Stranger
Registered: 09/12/07
Posts: 378
Last seen: 11 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Iraq [Re: Phred]
#8405232 - 05/15/08 12:55 PM (3 months, 20 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
The methodology of the survey was total crap. It was debunked as soon as it hit the news. Pure fantasy numbers.
It may have been "debunked" by discredited Iraq war apologists, but not by statisticians.
Quote:
You can use their methodology for polling people about their favorite TV shows and which political party they favor. You can't use it for determining deaths of any kind
And why not? What evidence could you possibly have to make such an assertion? Do you really think that a well-respected scientific journal would publish a study whose fundamental premise is flawed? Are you aware that similar methodology has been used with little controversy to estimate the death tolls in similarly "dirty" conflicts like the Congo?
Quote:
, much less deaths due to combat operations. For that you need death certificates, audits of funeral home coffin sales, records of injuries treated at hospitals, etc.
When you use THOSE methods, you get numbers around five to ten per cent as high as the bogus survey.
You're confusing the issue, and I sincerely hope it's out of ignorance not deceit. "THOSE" methods yield a confirmed body count, which measures only the confirmed and recorded deaths and is not an estimate of the total deaths; it's an acknowledged low-ball number. The confirmed death count is NOT an approximation of the total deaths; it only measures the deaths we've recorded. Not every dead body is buried or dies in a hospital and not every death that should be recorded is, given the state of the Iraqi bureaucracy. This is after all a country whose capital receives a couple of hours of electricity a day and in which wide swaths of the country receive no clean potable water; this is also the country who had its entire bureaucratic system and its ministries dissolved immediately after the invasion and whose ranks are now permeated head to toe with Shia militias and death squads. If you think the number of recorded deaths is anywhere near the total deaths that actually occurred, I have a bridge to sell you. It also doesn't represent only combat deaths but all deaths that occurred as a consequence of the invasion and the chaos that followed: if a woman dies of a heart attack because the ambulance drivers are afraid to enter her neighborhood or because the majority of the hospital's doctors have fled the country out of terror, that death is every bit as much a reflection of our invasion as a death in the battlefield.
In conclusion, you don't get to dismiss the numbers you don't like, numbers which illustrate the gravity of the administration's error. What you're doing is little more than shoving your fingers in your ear and shouting "I can't hear you! Nananana!". If you can't face the consequences of the policies you support, maybe you should stop supporting wars and warmongers.
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR
Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,444
Loc: British Columbia
Last seen: 26 days, 4 hours
|
|
Quote:
cleverwise said:
this is the legitimate casualty count
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
Maybe for the US, but their Iraqi death count is certainly not accurate.
Their tally is less than half of the next lowest death count, and their site says:
"This is not a definitive count.
Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are higher than the numbers recorded on this site."
--------------------
You've been my little garden gnome,
Ever since I shot you with a dart that melted your bones.
Then I shaped you in plaster to give you a pose,
Now you'll forever look beautiful next to my tomatoes.
All that you might ever need to know to use the English language
www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com
Edited by Disco Cat (05/15/08 01:51 PM)
|
cleverwise
Ðèmº®ålî§è®
Registered: 05/14/08
Posts: 62
Loc: NC STATE
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
|
|
yes ive read that on the page.
it would be very inaccurate id say just from the missiles and air strikes they send in
the last i checked i , saw that there was 1 unconfirmed death and 3 unknown or captured for theUS
--------------------
i know my limitations and you should know yours .!
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 10,192
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 27 minutes, 38 seconds
|
|
Quote:
It may have been "debunked" by discredited Iraq war apologists, but not by statisticians.
No, actually it was statisticians who debunked it. The Iraq war "apologists" did nothing more than report on the debunking.
Quote:
And why not? What evidence could you possibly have to make such an assertion?
It is an inaccurate way of determining deaths, and the evidence is overwhelming that this is the case.
Quote:
Do you really think that a well-respected scientific journal would publish a study whose fundamental premise is flawed?
It's not that the fundamental premise was flawed, it's that the work was carried out in a ludicrously sloppy manner.
Quote:
You're confusing the issue, and I sincerely hope it's out of ignorance not deceit. "THOSE" methods yield a confirmed body count, which measures only the confirmed and recorded deaths and is not an estimate of the total deaths; it's an acknowledged low-ball number. The confirmed death count is NOT an approximation of the total deaths; it only measures the deaths we've recorded
Re-read what I wrote, think about it carefully, then apologize.
Quote:
In conclusion, you don't get to dismiss the numbers you don't like...
I do get to dismiss numbers which are nothing more than the fantasies of anti-war activists with an agenda who managed to bungle both their sampling methodology and their statistical analysis, especially when their numbers are so wildly out of touch with anyone else's observations and with simple common sense.
Phred
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 10,959
Last seen: 1 hour, 10 minutes
|
|
That Lancet thing has been lanced like the ludicrous boil it is. Repeatedly. Totally fantasist bullshit. But if that's what you like, and you seem to, then eat all of it.
--------------------
"For anyone who cares I know zappaisgod personally. He is gay. He is jewish. He is a douche. And he both, has a crush on me:" Some Incredible Retard
|
The Tourist
Stranger
Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 124
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
|
Who said I was eating it, zappa?
Tell us why it is crap. And please try not to explain yourself by saying things that essentially boil down to "it's stupid and so are you".
|
Yossarian22
Stranger
Registered: 09/12/07
Posts: 378
Last seen: 11 days, 4 hours
|
|
Quote:
It is an inaccurate way of determining deaths, and the evidence is overwhelming that this is the case.
Quote:
It's not that the fundamental premise was flawed, it's that the work was carried out in a ludicrously sloppy manner.
These are assertions, not arguments. Arguments involve reasoning, not declaring a conclusion. Also, I thought you had said:
Quote:
You can use their methodology for polling people about their favorite TV shows and which political party they favor. You can't use it for determining deaths of any kind
So first you say that any randomized polling cannot be used to estimate the death toll, now suddenly it's not that that's the problem but rather the "ludicrously sloppy" way it was performed. Maybe you should choose a criticism and stick to it, not try to support two mutually-exclusive statements.
Quote:
I do get to dismiss numbers which are nothing more than the fantasies of anti-war activists with an agenda who managed to bungle both their sampling methodology and their statistical analysis, especially when their numbers are so wildly out of touch with anyone else's observations and with simple common sense.
These are all vague and baseless accusations, so unless you give them some substance I won't bother responding. I will note however that the Lancet survey is not an outlier- there's at least one estimate that exceeds it, the ORB Survey. Of course, I'm sure you'll dismiss that out of hand too (and with as little support) because God forbid you face the real human cost of our folly.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 10,192
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 27 minutes, 38 seconds
|
|
Quote:
These are assertions, not arguments. Arguments involve reasoning, not declaring a conclusion.
This is old news. There are numerous posts in the archives with links to statisticians debunking the Lancet studies. I'm not going to link to them again just because you're late to the party, anymore than I'm going to link again to debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Quote:
So first you say that any randomized polling cannot be used to estimate the death toll, now suddenly it's not that that's the problem but rather the "ludicrously sloppy" way it was performed.
Sigh. "Methodology" subsumes not just the theory of how to run a survey, but the actual implementation of that theory. These guys totally botched the implementation. In theory - when there are no other more reliable indicators available - interviewing sufficiently large numbers of people chosen to exacting criteria can result in a more or less useful approximation of numbers of deaths.
The numbers are imaginary. Anyone with an ounce of common sense who spends a few hours researching this and thinking it through will reach the same conclusion Iraq Body Count did - that treating this drivel as factual trivializes the actual deaths of the conflict.
Phred
--------------------
|
The Tourist
Stranger
Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 124
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
Re: Iraq [Re: Phred]
#8411494 - 05/16/08 11:53 PM (3 months, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Please, don't equate debunking 9/11 conspiracy claims with analyzing possibly flawed Iraq body counts. Delegitimizing a supposedly "liberal" viewpoint/ opinion (the body count) by relating it to a completely separate, widely discredited and heavily criticized "far-left" viewpoint/ opinion (the possibility that Bush stuck bombs in the WTC) is rather scummy. I get the sense that it's all just a matter of partisan issues with you, Phreddy.
Edited by The Tourist (05/16/08 11:54 PM)
|
The Tourist
Stranger
Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 124
Last seen: 1 month, 5 days
|
|
And jeez Yossarian, try not to be such an uninformed dolt, and keep up with the shroomery topics.
Phred, you'd make a good election organizer for the Bush administration. The more you make people feel like they don't know anything, the less they'll come out to speak their minds and/ or vote!! Success!!
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 10,192
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 27 minutes, 38 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Please, don't equate debunking 9/11 conspiracy claims with analyzing possibly flawed Iraq body counts.
I don't equate them except to note that they are both topics which have been heavily discussed here, hence do not need to be heavily re-discussed now.
Quote:
I get the sense that it's all just a matter of partisan issues with you, Phreddy.
There's no point trying to reach rational conclusions if one starts with faulty data. It has nothing to do with partisanship and everything to do with reality. Garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes. The study published in The Lancet provides faulty data about the casualties in Iraq from March of 2003 to date. If you accept those numbers as factual, then of course you will make different value judgments about US involvement in Iraq than if you accept (for example) numbers from the Iraq government or the US Defense Department.
Phred
--------------------
|
Yossarian22
Stranger
Registered: 09/12/07
Posts: 378
Last seen: 11 days, 4 hours
|
Re: Iraq [Re: Phred]
#8412390 - 05/17/08 10:26 AM (3 months, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
This is old news. There are numerous posts in the archives with links to statisticians debunking the Lancet studies. I'm not going to link to them again just because you're late to the party, anymore than I'm going to link again to debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
I did a quick search and all the threads I saw were just you and zappaisgod proclaiming the Lancet studies to be false while providing as little evidence as you did here. If you want to present evidence, go ahead. If not- well, your saying "it's false" doesn't make it so.
Quote:
Sigh. "Methodology" subsumes not just the theory of how to run a survey, but the actual implementation of that theory.
Yes, I understand what methodology means. However, you said that "you can use their methodology for polling people about their favorite TV shows and which political party they favor. You can't use it for determining deaths of any kind". So statistically sound methods, methods that you'd trust for a national political poll, for instance, don't work for death counts "just because". You mention nothing about flawed implementation(and if it was a question of faulty implementation, why would it be valid for political or commercial polls?).
Now you're saying "These guys totally botched the implementation" but of course with no specifics.
Quote:
In theory - when there are no other more reliable indicators available - interviewing sufficiently large numbers of people chosen to exacting criteria can result in a more or less useful approximation of numbers of deaths.
This doesn't make sense. If it's a valid method of approximating, it's a valid method of approximating regardless of whether there are other possible methods. Maybe not the BEST method, but still valid. And you haven't suggested what could be a better criteria, except for those that would point to a CONFIRMED death count, which is only tangentially related to the ACTUAL number of deaths.
Quote:
The numbers are imaginary. Anyone with an ounce of common sense who spends a few hours researching this and thinking it through will reach the same conclusion Iraq Body Count did - that treating this drivel as factual trivializes the actual deaths of the conflict.
Well, I have researched it and outside of far-right wing blogs, I haven't seen anyone regard the numbers as "imaginary". Sure, there is some controversy and quite possibly some flaws- the field of mortality estimation is an inexact science, especially in war zones, but overall, it's been performed rigorously and has weathered the inevitable criticism well. Maybe it's just our ideas of "common sense" that differ: if your idea of scientific common sense has room for global warming denial, then your "common sense" doesn't resemble mine in the slightest.Of course you also deny that there are more than a million Iraq refugees, which isn't the subject of any controversy, so I'm inclined to say that you're just picking and choosing the information you want to accept based on how damaging it is to your support of the war and of the Bush administration.
Edit: And the more I think about it, the more pissed off I get by you accusing me of trivializing the deaths. I'm not the one still apologizing for this pointless slaughter, or imagining some utopian happy democratic future that awaits Iraq just over the rainbow. I'm not the one nonchalantly dismissing the unconscionable quantity of suffering and death as justified because of trivial infractions of a decades-old treaty that were already punished with a strict embargo.
Quote:
And jeez Yossarian, try not to be such an uninformed dolt, and keep up with the shroomery topics.
I'm sorry; I really should be aware of the Internet's #1 clearinghouse for illegal mushroom cultivation's official stance on Iraq war casualty estimates. A very severe oversight on my part for which I apologize.
Quote:
If you accept those numbers as factual, then of course you will make different value judgments about US involvement in Iraq than if you accept (for example) numbers from the Iraq government or the US Defense Department.
Yeah, those sound so much more objective!
Edited by Yossarian22 (05/17/08 10:36 AM)
|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 11,685
Loc: Some Refugee Camp near Ch...
Last seen: 1 hour, 28 minutes
|
|
Nobody is certain on any death statistics in Iraq, The Iraqi government doesnt tally civilian deaths nor does the US forces tally how many PMC's (private military) have died in action.
--------------------
Bigswang's oakridge discovery has helped us all.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 10,959
Last seen: 1 hour, 10 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Yossarian22 said:
Quote:
This is old news. There are numerous posts in the archives with links to statisticians debunking the Lancet studies. I'm not going to link to them again just because you're late to the party, anymore than I'm going to link again to debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
I did a quick search and all the threads I saw were just you and zappaisgod proclaiming the Lancet studies to be false while providing as little evidence as you did here. If you want to present evidence, go ahead. If not- well, your saying "it's false" doesn't make it so.
Your quick search must have missed this post by Seuss:
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/6158900#6158900
Quote:
They called up around 1500 households and asked how many people died and then extrapolated those results. The accuracy depends completely upon the honesty of those asking and answering the questions. They didn't look at morgue records, or death records, but instead asked people for their opinion. How many of the 1500 people they spoke with exagerated a bit, especially if the wording of the poll was misleading. How well did those 1500 people they spoke with represent ALL of Iraq? Finally, extrapolation can be extremly inaccurate, even with good data. With bad data, extrapolation can be useless.... which makes it a very dangerous tool that can be used to "prove" whatever one wants to prove... at least in the eyes of the public. (Given the popularity of the lottery, it is obvious to me that very, very few people understand statistics.)
I could see this type of system working somewhat better after a conflict has ended and people are no longer inclined to lie or exagerate.
That was just the first thread I searched and the first post by someone other than myself or Phred who found it to be bullshit. I scrolled down about two posts to get to it. There were lots more and there were many links to many other casualty estimates which were generally well below the Lancet nonsense. Iraq Body Count seems to be reasonable. Current number of civilian deaths from violence is around 85,000-90,000 over five years.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
More Lancet questioning is here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece
Yossarian, did you not make any effort or did you blatantly lie about the search results to back up your nonsense? That's alright. You have your story and your damn well going to stick to it.
--------------------
"For anyone who cares I know zappaisgod personally. He is gay. He is jewish. He is a douche. And he both, has a crush on me:" Some Incredible Retard
|
Disco Cat
iS A PoiNdexteR
Registered: 09/15/00
Posts: 2,444
Loc: British Columbia
Last seen: 26 days, 4 hours
|
|
Contrary to what this forum's resident bullshitter told people in the locked thread, no weapons with Iranian marking have ever been displayed or therefore found. Just to add to the obvious:
Talabani: Iran sends no weapon to Iraq
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has dismissed claims that Iran is sending weapons into his country and called for strong Iran ties
"Those who make such claims against Iran only express their personal views which don't reflect those of the Iraqi government," he said in interview with the Al-Arabiya TV on Friday.
"I, as the president of Iraq, do not agree with such views," he added.
"Our Iranian brothers are ready for dialogue on any such issues," Talabani said.
"As far as Iranian weapons are concerned it should be mentioned that during Saddam Hussein's rule Iran provided weapons for the Iraqi opposition groups," he added.
Talabani also called for enhanced ties between Iraq and Iran and said that "I strongly believe that the relations between Iran and Iraq in different fields could be further strengthened," IRNA quoted him as saying.
MGH/HAR
--------------------
You've been my little garden gnome,
Ever since I shot you with a dart that melted your bones.
Then I shaped you in plaster to give you a pose,
Now you'll forever look beautiful next to my tomatoes.
All that you might ever need to know to use the English language
www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 10,192
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 27 minutes, 38 seconds
|
|
The numbers are totally bogus. Sheer fantasy.
Zap has reposted a link to some of the statisticians debunking this claptrap, I'll repost another, just to shut you up - http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108 There are plenty more, but these will do. I honestly couldn't give a shit whether you check them or not. It is abundantly clear from your posting history that you believe all the standard Leftie bullshit that has been debunked over and over and over again. You, like so many on the Left, prefer to live a fact-free existence, and no matter what I or anyone else provide, you will find some excuse to disregard it and cling to your Leftie mythology. This is just one reason why I refuse to continue posting the same stuff over and over and over again - the people most insistent that I provide sources are the same people least likely to even click on the link, much less read it all the way through, much less think about the content.
These links have been posted here before, as has this one - http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/ As you are no doubt aware, Iraq Body Count is hardly "right wing". As a matter of fact, Iraq Body Count's own numbers are highly suspect (too high), particularly when it comes to the "civilian" count. But even Iraq Body Count has the intelligence to apply a bit of common sense to the insanely bloated figures from the Lancet/Hopkins "studies". I strongly suggest you read the whole thing through start to finish, knowing that you of course will do no such thing, but hey... at least I made the suggestion.
Quote:
This doesn't make sense. If it's a valid method of approximating, it's a valid method of approximating regardless of whether there are other possible methods.
It makes perfect sense. Re-read what I wrote. Read every word, think about every word. I write what I write for a reason, not to just take up space on a screen. Words have meaning. Remember that.
Quote:
...but overall, it's been performed rigorously and has weathered the inevitable criticism well.
It has neither been performed rigorously nor weathered criticism at all.
Quote:
Maybe it's just our ideas of "common sense" that differ: if your idea of scientific common sense has room for global warming denial, then your "common sense" doesn't resemble mine in the slightest.
Yet another indication of your preference for the factfree existence. There is nowhere even close to enough convincing evidence that humans are responsible for most of the warming of the Earth in the last hundred years to bet five dollars on it, much less trillions of dollars. Honest scientists freely admit this.
However, Global Warmening has nothing to do with these particular bogus numbers. Your comment on it is instructive, however, and confirms my characterization of your viewpoints.
Quote:
Edit: And the more I think about it, the more pissed off I get by you accusing me of trivializing the deaths.
Imagine my dismay at discovering you are pissed off.
Phred
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 10,192
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 27 minutes, 38 seconds
|
|
Quote:
Talabani: Iran sends no weapon to Iraq
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has dismissed claims that Iran is sending weapons into his country and called for strong Iran ties
Now there's a neutral and credible source. Iran TV.
Phred
--------------------
|
shrems
golden student
Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 137
Last seen: 9 hours, 48 minutes
|
Re: Iraq [Re: Phred]
#8413439 - 05/17/08 03:43 PM (3 months, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
It is abundantly clear from your posting history that you believe all the standard Leftie bullshit that has been debunked over and over and over again. You, like so many on the Left, prefer to live a fact-free existence, and no matter what I or anyone else provide, you will find some excuse to disregard it and cling to your Leftie mythology.
"Leftie" could just as easily be substituted with "neo-con" in a response to your apparent slowness of mind, Phred. These above words you write actually are a waste of 1's and 0's.
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / UBBCode is enabled
Moderator: Phred, Diploid
1,462 topic views. 2 registered and 2 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
 del.icio.us
 digg
| |
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Quote 
