Oliver on the Iraqi death toll.

[Par]

From 500 thousands to 1.2 million, according to the latest estimates

78,359 – 85,371

You are keeping ignoring evidence that it has been shown to you. This is called bias.

The only evidence yet cited shows that you are wrong – very wrong.

 

[brumsen]

The only evidence yet cited shows that you are wrong – very wrong.

I wonder why you should care about that, given that you've been defending the position that the number of civilian fatalities does not tell us anything useful to a moral evaluation.

And, what about a response to this post of mine?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Ok, so you're not fussed about the accuracy of the numbers then. But what does 911 have to do with Iraq ? Invading Afghanistan was all about "revenge" for 911. Iraq was all about the hunt for WMDs and is all about oil.

Au contraire - it was all about WMD programmes.
No wait. It was about the hunt for WMD programmes.
No wait - it was about protecting the USA from harsh words or something.

Didn't Cheney claim something or other? But then his lips were moving so we all knew he was lying - again.

 

[soylent]

Out of curiosity...Where did that figure of 500 000 come from ?

I'm aware of the Lancet study that quotes 655 000 also I'm looking at another British site called Iraq Body Count, and they give a range of up to 85 000.

<Iraq Body Count>

Iraq Body Count and the Lancet study don't just use different methodology, they measure different numbers.

The IBC figure is Iraqi civilian deaths due to american and insurgency attacks that they can confirm(from news papers, obituaries, morgues etc.)

The Lancet study looked at excess deaths of any cause and AFAIK make no distinction between insurgents or civilians, violence or disease. Their methodology was to poll what they believe to be a representative subset of the Iraqi populace and use this as their mortality rate for the entire country. Then they subtracted the mortality rate from before the invasion and figured out how many excess deaths have occured(with fairly large error bars AFAIK).

The Lancet's number represents "you break it, you bought it" and the IBC number is a lower bound death toll due to US and insurgency violence.

 

[Par]

Critical thinking at work.

The only evidence yet cited shows that you are wrong – very wrong.

I wonder why you should care about that, given that you've been defending the position that the number of civilian fatalities does not tell us anything useful to a moral evaluation.

Remember, with those two posts I was highlighting two things: Firstly, Oliver’s uncritical acceptance of Matteo Martini’s blasé eschewal of any need to actually cite a source. Secondly, the latter’s bizarre espousal of a source which clearly shows his claim to be utterly wrong. With regards to those issues, the question of whether or not I believe the figure alone to be useful when drawing moral conclusions is simply not relevant.

 

[Par]

...the point that you don't seem to (want to?) grasp is that my insistence that comparing death tolls only leads to a useful - if perhaps incomplete - result if one compares the actual invasion-situation with the hypothetical non-invasion situation is precisely motivated by the idea that in such a way a sufficient number of other factors is held constant. In my comparison there are at least reasons for thinking the number of constant factors is sufficient while in your proposed analogy that would not be the case.

...if you want to criticise it meaningfully, you might have concentrated on either arguing that you did not know how to further flesh out this hypothetical situation...

Just so. However, once you start to assess whether or not a “sufficient number of other factors is held constant” or to “further flesh out this hypothetical situation”, you are no longer comparing death tolls alone. Remember, the only point I sought to make there is that comparing death tolls alone can never result in useful information on which to base moral conclusions.

 

[Par]

Remember that it was you who started nagging me that I could not compare death tolls alone; that is your description of what I was doing.

Try as I might – and I did try, believe me – I simply cannot conceive of your statement meaning what you are currently claiming that it means. I have insufficient vitality to discuss that issue any further, so I’ll merely quote it again, for posterity if nothing else.

...Said islamist would be responsible, AND the American government also. It decided to invade a country in the full knowledge that destabilisation would result and that the way the military operation was set up would not allow them to deal with such destabilisation; that is a war-crime. Ergo, the innocent civilian deaths are the result both of the Islamist's actions and the US government actions, and both bear responsibility. However.... in order to substantiate that position it does seem to me that Stout's point about the exact body count needs to be adressed: "What happens if we compare the numbers of "innocents" killed under Saddam's regime, to the numbers killed under the occupation, how far apart might the two totals be?"

 

[Ion]

So, I point out that I agree that Cheney et al. bear some responsibility for the carnage in Iraq...

They bear all the responsability for the carnage in Iraq:

the killings in Iraq didn't happen under Saddam's regime, but under Bush's war for oil and hegemony.

In Prize of Loyalty by Ron Suskind retracing Paul O'Neill career as a treasurer for Bush,
it is documented a cabinet meeting between Bush, Cheney, Rove, O'Neill, Perle, where the invasion of Iraq by U.S. and oil maps of Iraq were studied in December 2000.

In Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward in page 213, it is shown a proposal for Saddam's discreet exile by France and Jordan, that would have avoided the war.
Bush didn't want Saddam's exile but pretended to give a 48 hours ultimatum to Saddam to leave Iraq that he was sure to be rejected by Saddam because of public humiliation.
Bush was interested in occupying Iraq and blaming Saddam.

Bush and Cheney lying that the war in Iraq was triggered by terror from September 11 2001, that's lack of responsability.

Non sequitur. That's the thread where you made the post implying America is guilty of murdering 500,000 Iraqis...

But America is guilty of murdering thousands of Iraqis.

Learn responsabilty before war.

 

[Ion]

Well then, Iraq is all hunky-dory. Just suicide bombers, therefore no threats to it.

And Bush started a mission to 'eliberate' Iraq from suicide bombers.

I believe you...

 

[Ion]

So, you are basically absolving bin Laden of responsibility because he didn't like that the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia (bin Laden's main complaint at the time of 9/11)?...

bin Laden hadn't signed U.N. Resolution 1441.

Bush did.

Bush broke 1441.

 

[Par]

The most candid moral pervert yet.

They bear all the responsability for the carnage in Iraq

Perhaps you can answer: When a Ba’thist, an al-Qaeda jihadi or a member of a sectarian death squad freely chooses to annihilate a marketplace full of innocent men, women children or to sink a power drill into the knee-cap of an Iraqi interpreter, why do you chalk that up as an American war crime? Why is the person who made the choice to and actually physically carried out a brutal and disgusting act of torture or murder simply blameless?

 

[Par]

So, you are basically absolving bin Laden of responsibility because he didn't like that the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia (bin Laden's main complaint at the time of 9/11)?

bin Laden hadn't signed U.N. Resolution 1441. Bush did.
Bush broke 1441.

That’s your reason as to why Osama bin Laden was justified in carrying out the 9/11 attacks?

 

[a_unique_person]

The most candid moral pervert yet.




Perhaps you can answer: When a Ba’thist, an al-Qaeda jihadi or a member of a sectarian death squad freely chooses to annihilate a marketplace full of innocent men, women children or to sink a power drill into the knee-cap of an Iraqi interpreter, why do you chalk that up as an American war crime? Why is the person who made the choice to and actually physically carried out a brutal and disgusting act of torture or murder simply blameless?

I think the problem is similar to the medical ethic. "First, do no harm". Powell, got it right, he said before they went in, the place would shatter like a crystal. It did. He said that to prevent the chaos that would follow, the would need at least 500,000 troops. He was right.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Iraq Body Count and the Lancet study don't just use different methodology, they measure different numbers.

So difficult to understand..

 

[Matteo Martini]

Remember, with those two posts I was highlighting two things: Firstly, Oliver’s uncritical acceptance of Matteo Martini’s blasé eschewal of any need to actually cite a source.

Sources have been cited many times in this forum.
This is the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,3979621.story
This is the NY Times ( same poll ):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/world/middleeast/23iraq.html
There is a comprehensive article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003#Total_Iraqi_casualties

Secondly, the latter’s bizarre espousal of a source which clearly shows his claim to be utterly wrong.

Either you are very flawed in basic understanding of English language, or you are severely biased ( or both ).

 

[gumboot]

Bush broke 1441.

How? UNSC Res.1441 required nothing of the UNSC members other than to "remain seized of the matter". Are you saying that by invading Iraq, the USA failed to "remain seized of the matter"?

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

I think the problem is similar to the medical ethic. "First, do no harm". Powell, got it right, he said before they went in, the place would shatter like a crystal. It did. He said that to prevent the chaos that would follow, the would need at least 500,000 troops. He was right.

Actually I think had the US focused on establishing law and order, and building strong relationships between US units and local people in the first few weeks, they could have achieved stability with the number of troops they had.

The US totally and completely screwed up the occupation in the first weeks after the fall of Baghdad. The really sad thing is the soldiers on the ground could see it happening right in front of their eyes.

-Gumboot

 

[Matteo Martini]

The US totally and completely screwed up the occupation in the first weeks after the fall of Baghdad.

The US totally and completely screwed up the occupation when they decided to do an occupation ( IMHO ).

 

[Par]

Sources have been cited many times in this forum.
This is the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,3979621.story
This is the NY Times ( same poll ):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/world/middleeast/23iraq.html
There is a comprehensive article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003#Total_Iraqi_casualties
Either you are very flawed in basic understanding of English language, or you are severely biased ( or both ).

So, when you accused me of “ignoring the evidence”, you were referring to evidence that hadn’t actually been cited, as opposed to that which had. I see.

 

[Matteo Martini]

So, when you accused me of “ignoring the evidence”, you were referring to evidence that hadn’t actually been cited, as opposed to that which had. I see.

No.
I was talking about the part of the IraqBodyCount site, where there is written that the 80000 ( about ) deaths are only a minor part of the total number of civilian deaths in Iraq.
The evidence that Oliver has shown you.