Germany during WWII had a population of about 70 million. During the war, it is estimated that civilian casualties were around 1.7 million. Iraq has a population of around 28 million. Civilian casualities listed by this report claim 655K. In other words, civilian casualties equal to that of Germany during WWII. Entire cities in Germany were completely demolished, and an all out invasion of its territory took place from England and the United States from the West, and Russia from the east. Can you possibly conclude that Iraq would suffer comparible losses to that of Germany when the latter country was left in ruins? If you believe that, than you have to be either dense, or so far leaning towards the left that you will convince yourself of the studies truth. Secondly, I am not sure how they feel they can use a survey to get an accurate estimate of death toll from a population that is so strongly against American occupation. Death Certificates are being used as proof of deaths, but their is no strong central government to confirm these papers. While they are supposed to be distributed for violent deaths by the central government, local authorties have been issuing them for almost anything. There is no way to prove how that person died other than asking them, and they will be extremely biased in their answers. I am not sure how you do not feel that such high numbers (compared to WWII) and the fact that its main authors donating more than substantial amounts of money to Democratic campaigns does not present a problem. The fact that its authors donated to both Kerry and to Les Roberts should dismiss teh study outright. I think you are blinded by your hatred of both Bush and that of the Iraq war.
Is that how you criticize the lancet paper? I will indulge you though. I fear you are not very well in the know on German history during WW2. The German people were the least troubled by the war until almost the very end. Other countries were looted and food and other goods were send back to Germany. In fact the German people basically led a normal life for most of the war, unlike the occupied countries by the nazi regime. During the last winter of the war half of Holland was still occupied by the Germans. 16.000 died of hunger that winter. That was with most of the infrastrucure in place. You may see these pictures of demolished cities in germany, but ironically the country side was basically untouched. The industry was also hardly touched by the bombing campaign either. I can't remember the exact figure but I can look it up for you when I get home, but german industry only lost 15% or so of its capacity during the war. In fact when germany finally got the green light from the allied occupiers after the war the german industry was shooting forward again like a racehorse on steroids. On east german side things were a bit more bleak. That was because the russians took whole german factories and moved them into russia. They stripped east germany. The german civilians actually came off light. Most of the war they actually did not suffer much. Merely in the last year they ran into shit. In iraq the shit got bombed out of the infrastruture. In Iraq the country was still suffering from UN sanctions, which caused the demise of 500,000 children without bombs being dropped. A invasion that destroyed the civilian infrastructure, no reserves were in place because the sanctions before the invasion already bled the people dry, and a subsequent civil war. Well, I can easily believe 600,000 perished because of this. Especially since you still didn't refute the paper. All you did was to say you didn't believe in the figure. Well, my son, you might be religious but I am not. I am not going to trust your believes on this. Ad hominem. Adress the issue. Read the paper if you are not sure. No need to speculate. Adress the issues. Political views are not acceptable in the Lancet paper. It's a biomedical journal. Not a political rag. The impact factor of the lancet in 2004 was 21. You probably have no clue what that means so I will explain it to you. It is one of the better biomedical journals around. They don't let trash in. I've never even published anything this high. My best was development with an impact factor of 8. Read the paper and criticise it. Nobody is going to be impressed by the argument that: Spuriousmonkey is leftwing and hence there can't be 650,000 death iraqis. or: I can't believe there were so many dead iraqis because germany during WW2 had this amount of casualties. Address the issues. You have a peer-reviewed paper in a high impact factor biomedical journal. There methods have been criticized by reviewers who are high profile scientists themselves. The paper has been checked by the editor who knows his stuff. However, apparently you know better because you can't believe in the figure. That's not an argument.
What is wrong with you guys? It’s the Dutch who are famous for having what so called “the blame culture”. I really would like to see someone blaming himself and/or the American nation for electing this guy, or at least for re-electing him which is even more and more ....... (you choose) Currently I live in one of the Arab countries, and I have visited many of these countries already. I can see from here how bias the media in America is. I can feel the lies we all here all the time from the LEADERS of the UNITED STATES. This makes me ask myself different question than yours.
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey: 1.8 million civilian casualties is coming off light? You do realize that the civilian casualties include the 200,000 that were efficiently sent to the ovens during the holocaust? Perhaps in comparison to Russia they got off light, but by any standards they were slaughtered by fire bombing. This was based on two reasons: One,the inefficiency and inaccuracy of allied bombing (they would miss) that would generally hit civilian targets. The second was the amazing ability of the Germans to recreate lost industry. After the allies realized that strategic bombing no longer worked, they switched to what is referred to as area bombardment. This included destroying all of the housing that the idustry workers lived in. These people did not live out in the country, but instead their largely wooden structures would create fire storms. Russia, as an example, actually had an increase in industry even after the destructive campaign of the Germans, so I am not sure were you are going with this..... Well since you do not believe Germany, even with the holocaust suffered, lets try Japan. With a population of 72 million (Iraq has only 38% a population), they lost 55 thousand less civilians than what the Lancet study predicts in Iraq. This includes the fire bombing of Tokyo, and of course, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.... I guess they did not suffer much either......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! . You do realize that 601 out of the 655 thousand were blaimed on violent deaths, not starvation? I think the above proved your attention to detail and knowledge of the lancet study.... The cannot be ignored when the lead authors have been giving large contributions to politicians who were not only anti-war, but also politicians who took part in the last study. My critique is that obvious fact that while usual scientific standards were followed with regards to previous studies, the situation in Iraq (severe bias by the populous) would prevent any accurate information that was the result of a glorified survey. It is that simple. You really need to get off your high horse. My wife is a fellow in reproductive endocrinology, and I have had a little insight into research, both medical and bio. If you know anything about work hours of physicians, you will know the contributions of their spouses to their research. Thanks for the lesson..... Because it is ridiculous in comparison to civilian casualties from other conflicts. This one is mild compared to others in history; the number is irrational. Add a mix of politics in November, and the answer becomes clear. I think the your missing what is to most obvious.... must be all the time spent on biomedical journals.
I imagine you log onto the web in a room full of mahogany, sitting in a leather chair that costs as much as my food bill for a semester. You browse sciforums, slowly getting wasted on a liquor I've never heard of and has an unpronouncable name.
No. I rent a 2BR/1B I've lived in for more than 10 years. I've not owned a car in 8 years because I can walk to work. I bicycle wherever I need to go locally. I live below my means today so that tomorrow I may retire early and fly the world in my mahoghany-lined Leer jet. I can buy whatever I want today, but I choose to wait until later to do so. True, but pronouncable by the familiar. Laphraoig. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's cool. I don't own a car, either. Biking is far cheaper. Better for the legs and lungs, too. I suspected you were a whiskey drinker.
Because of your intuitive appreciation of my investment in quality economy. An expensive single malt Scotch, imbibed to excess, is much more kindly metabolized -- with no attendent hangover effect -- then all the other cheaper, double carbon-chained dreck that other folks prefer and thereafter pay for a second time, or two. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are retorted, Bush is the leader of our country, what he and his administration say actually matters, and when people follow it actually damages our country. Avery and his "Loose Change" documentary that's so popular with poorly educated high-school kids is a poorly produced documentary floating around google videos featuring fight-club music and monotone narration by a nobody. Not to mention Avery's claims are about as political as conspiracy theorists hung up on the moon landing, Kennedy assassination or whereabouts of the Lindbergh baby so I'm not sure how you can peg him as "far left", though admittedly the situation Avery proposes, as lacking in any basis in reality or fact as it may be is tempting to believe in even for moderates due to Bush and his administration's gross incompetence which, at times, seems very much like a devious concerted effort to do the American people harm. In other words, you have no idea what you’re talking about, go sit down before you trip over your own unwarranted rage and hurt yourself. You right-wingers can't play the persecution card anymore, you're in charge of fucking everything.
Thus to the point: The Incompetents rule over the demonstrably even less competent. Funny that the latter presume to be true Darwinists, and thereby give the rest of us a bad name by their own patent incompetence. Democrats: What are they good for...? Independants already know.
