Five U.S. troops killed in Iraq

jlew24asu

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

For some reason, and I'm not sure why, I always eat candy corn if it's accessible.

i know, only at the end of october. the more i eat it the more i hate it.

SundaySilence

jlew24asu wrote:

find one other "respected person" who will agree with that number. All of them say its greatly exaggerated. the report itself says its not based on a body count. I guess they just assumed alot more are dead.

no other report puts the estimated dead at over 50-60 thousand.

does that make it right? fuck no. see my previous post for an example on why.

"The sampling is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets," said John Zogby, whose Utica, N.Y.-based polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began. "It is what people in the statistics business do...The value of" the Johns Hopkins survey, Zogby said, "is that it was nationwide, in places out of the view where the media and most observers are."

BBC Newsnight interviewed Sir Richard Peto, Professor of Medical Statistics at the University of Oxford, who described the study as "statistically reliable".

Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, told the Washington Post the survey method was "tried and true." He said that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."

Frank Harrell Jr., chairman of the biostatistics department at Vanderbilt University, told the Associated Press the study incorporated "rigorous, well-justified analysis of the data."

"The mortality numbers that have been out there -- that, we know, is inaccurate and incomplete," said Sarah Leah Whitson, director for Middle East and North Africa program at Human Rights Watch. She said doing research in Iraq has become so dangerous that Human Rights Watch had to pull its full-time researcher out of Iraq in July.

Paul Bolton, a public-health researcher at Boston University who has reviewed the study, called the methodology "excellent" and said it was standard procedure in a wide range of studies he has worked on. "You can't be sure of the exact number, but you can be quite sure that you are in the right ballpark," he said.

Richard Brennan, head of health programmes at the New York-Based International Rescue Committee, told Associated Press,"This is the most practical and appropriate methodology for sampling that we have in humanitarian conflict zones." Brennan's group has conducted similar projects in Kosovo, Uganda and Congo. He added:"While the results of this survey may startle people, it's hard to argue with the methodology at this point."

Professor Mike Toole of the Centre for International Health, Melbourne, said:
"The methodology used is consistent with survey methodology that has long been standard practice in estimating mortality in populations affected by war. For example, the Burnet Institute and International Rescue Committee (IRC) used the same methods to estimate mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The findings of this study received widespread media attention and were accepted without reservation by the US and British governments. The Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health's Centre for International Health endorses this study."

Professor Sheila Bird of the Biostatistics Unit at the Medical Research Council said:"They have enhanced the precision this time around and it is the only scientifically based estimate that we have got where proper sampling has been done and where we get a proper measure of certainty about these results."
__
Backed by the respected persons at one of our most respected medical centers, published by respected persons at one of our most respected medical journals, considered reliable by respected persons who are experts in the field, but shrugged off by culpable politicians and defense officials with whom you've laid your respect, here is the study:

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

Byrnzie

PaperPlates wrote:

and your flippant attitude towards dealing with terrorist nations who want nothing but to harm the US, makes me sick. Deal with it. Soldiers arent less than human, where did I say that?

Can you please define for me what a 'terrorist nation' is. And can you please explain how the U.S and Israel, for example, do not constitute 'terrorist nation's'? I'm just curious. Thanks.

sponger

A terrorist nation is any non-NATO nation with oil.

Byrnzie

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

But then we'd just have to hear your crap about civilian deaths, as if we weren't anyway.

Now I'm going to have to hear about how I don't care about civilians

These two statements contradict each other.

As an aside, I wonder how you would feel if your country were nuked and everyone you knew was killed. I wonder if you'd still have the same gung-ho attitude? But then, I've found that as a rule, most Americans have some difficulty in ever seeing the world from someone else's perspective. This is strange. I wonder if it's becuase of your having to pledge allegiance to the flag every morning at school like the Hitler youth, or whether it's down to your effective propaganda machine which bombards you with one-eyed, skewered, half-truths and lies day and night? It is scary. It's not very different from how 1930's germany was.

sponger

I do harbor a deep disdain for the pledge of allegiance. And that isn't to say that I don't deeply appreciate what this country has given me. But, the pledge of allegiance contradicts everything the US should stand for. It's like the flag burning initiative that keeps coming up every so often. The way to inspire loyalty is to create the illusion of choice. The pledge of allegiance and laws against flag burning destroy that illusion.

And I can see the correllation between the US and nazi germany in that the media is feeding us hatred for muslims in spite of trying to create the illusion that our goal is only to eliminate islamic extremism. CNN the other day portrayed one of the most biased historical perspectives on middle eastern history I could've imagined.

But, as I understand it, there is something in the works that would require british law enforcement to give muslim clerics forewarning before conducting raids on households in muslims neighborhoods located in britain?

So, where do you draw the line? I think it gets to the point when things can be too PC. Don't you guys ever take into consideration your own safety?

PaperPlates

weird

PaperPlates

Byrnzie wrote:

Can you please define for me what a 'terrorist nation' is. And can you please explain how the U.S and Israel, for example, do not constitute 'terrorist nation's'? I'm just curious. Thanks.

Goal and intent. Has alot to do with it.


If your country's military draws up plans centered around civilian casualties as its goal, you may be a terrorist nation

If your country's leaders call upon all citizens to wage war and kill civilians, you may be a terrorist nation.

If your country's leaders call for any nation and its people to be wiped off the map, you may be a terrorist nation.

If your country's leaders literally starve their own people in an effort to aquire nukes, you may be a terrorist nation.

PaperPlates

damn double post. Make that a triple. That was odd. :(

Byrnzie

sponger wrote:

But, as I understand it, there is something in the works that would require british law enforcement to give muslim clerics forewarning before conducting raids on households in muslims neighborhoods located in britain?

So, where do you draw the line? I think it gets to the point when things can be too PC. Don't you guys ever take into consideration your own safety?

I admit that a line needs to be drawn somewhere. However, my attitude is that we created this mess by fucking with these people all these years, and continuing to fuck with them with our unconditional support for Israel and by our ongoing economic warfare. You reap what you sow.

PaperPlates

sponger wrote:

I do harbor a deep disdain for the pledge of allegiance. And that isn't to say that I don't deeply appreciate what this country has given me. But, the pledge of allegiance contradicts everything the US should stand for. It's like the flag burning initiative that keeps coming up every so often. The way to inspire loyalty is to create the illusion of choice. The pledge of allegiance and laws against flag burning destroy that illusion.

And I can see the correllation between the US and nazi germany in that the media is feeding us hatred for muslims in spite of trying to create the illusion that our goal is only to eliminate islamic extremism. CNN the other day portrayed one of the most biased historical perspectives on middle eastern history I could've imagined.

But, as I understand it, there is something in the works that would require british law enforcement to give muslim clerics forewarning before conducting raids on households in muslims neighborhoods located in britain?

So, where do you draw the line? I think it gets to the point when things can be too PC. Don't you guys ever take into consideration your own safety?

No. They just think if we play nice, we'll be safe. I sometimes actually think they are HOPING we get attacked, JUST so they can cry more about how its "all our fault". Its sickening really.

Byrnzie

PaperPlates wrote:

Goal and intent. Has alot to do with it.


If your country's military draws up plans centered around civilian casualties as its goal, you may be a terrorist nation

If your country's leaders call upon all citizens to wage war and kill civilians, you may be a terrorist nation.

If your country's leaders call for any nation and its people to be wiped off the map, you may be a terrorist nation.

If your country's leaders literally starve their own people in an effort to aquire nukes, you may be a terrorist nation.

O.k, and the U.S and Israel fulfills all of these criteria. Thanks.

Byrnzie

PaperPlates wrote:

No. They just think if we play nice, we'll be safe. I sometimes actually think they are HOPING we get attacked, JUST so they can cry more about how its "all our fault". Its sickening really.

Who exactly are these 'they' that you speak of?

PaperPlates

Byrnzie wrote:

O.k, and the U.S and Israel fulfills all of these criteria. Thanks.

You are truly hopeless. Why do you stay then?

Byrnzie wrote:

Who exactly are these 'they' that you speak of?

you, for one.

Byrnzie

PaperPlates wrote:

You are truly hopeless. Why do you stay then?

Stay where? What are you on about?

PaperPlates

Byrnzie wrote:

Stay where? What are you on about?

Forgot, you aren't even american. Thus begs the question, why am I even discussing this with you? Arent there any problems in the UK you can go bitch about?

Byrnzie

PaperPlates wrote:

Forgot, you aren't even american. Thus begs the question, why am I even discussing this with you? Arent there any problems in the UK you can go bitch about?

That's correct. I am not 'even' American. As for bitching about problems in the U.K, I'd love to bitch about the place. I just get a kick out of taking the piss out of republicans on here - maybe because there's more of you on here than there are Conservative Brits.

inmytree

PaperPlates wrote:

cringe is one word
care is a totally different word.
If english is your second language, I forgive you.
If not, maybe you're simply no better than me,
and simply haven't learned that yet.

keep spinning...

come on now, just say it..you don't care...

Jackhammer

PaperPlates wrote:

Forgot, you aren't even american. Thus begs the question, why am I even discussing this with you? Arent there any problems in the UK you can go bitch about?

Wow.

I can't find anything else to say about that.

You're serious?

wait... of course you are...

jlew24asu

SundaySilence wrote:

Backed by the respected persons at one of our most respected medical centers, published by respected persons at one of our most respected medical journals, considered reliable by respected persons who are experts in the field, but shrugged off by culpable politicians and defense officials with whom you've laid your respect, here is the study:

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

the report bases 650,000 dead on a survey for 1849 households. that number is based on statistical assumptions. seems concrete to me.