The Wide Awakes » Lies, damned lies and statistics.

3/15/2008

One million dead Iraqis.Thats the claim, that’s the meme, that’s the Leftie talking point..and thats the biggest load of bullshit I have heard since John Kerry’s last campaign speech.

Here we go, let’s do the math. Forget the methodology, let’s just use the one million figure as the estimated number of dead.

We will use the laws of mathematics to illustrate why it is an absolute lie.

March 20 - 2003 to March 20 2008 = 5 years = 365 days in a year = 365 x 5 so we take 365 x 5 = 1825 days. 1 million dead divided by 1825 days = 1 000 000 divided by 1825 = 547.94 dead per day without letup, and with no variation in the death toll.

Any variation in the death toll will mean that the end figure of one million is incorrect, since if, in one week, the number of deaths was not 547.94 per day, then it stands to logic that mathematically, the end total of one million is not supported by the data provided.

Let’s look at February 2008… so we take the figure of 547.94 (based on the above calculations) and we multiply that figure by 29 days so we get 547.94 x 29 = 15,890 dead in February 2008

Do the math yourself if you don’t believe me.

So according to that figure , in the last month, nearly sixteen thousand people died, and no one has reported it, no one knows anything about it, no one has reported major combat operations in the last month that would account for this and no one has reported where, and when, this happened.

No one was wounded, no one has seen the bodies, no one has reported overflowing morgues or overflowing graveyards.

Satellite recon over Iraq has never reported any combat of this magnitude, and no one in the media seems to know anything about it. Which villages? Which province?

Where are the eyewitnesses to this carnage? Are you telling me that sixteen thousand people died in the last month in Iraq, and not one person has seen or heard a thing?

It sounds like the kind of thing a hack science fiction writer would come up with after he has spent one too many nights on the turpentine.

Said Sonnabend @ 8:49 am | Permalink

11 Comments »

I assume the 1 million number you’re referring to came from the poll conducted by the British firm ORB. You then write, “Here we go, let’s do the math. Forget the methodology…” Why forget the methodology? Wouldn’t that be the place to start if you really wanted to debunk their claim? Odd.

You then write, “We will use the laws of mathematics to illustrate why it is an absolute lie.

March 20 - 2003 to March 20 2008 = 5 years = 365 days in a year = 365 x 5 so we take 365 x 5 = 1825 days.”

You forgot to add two days for the leap years of 2004 and 2008. Hard to credit you with much mathematical rigor when you miss something obvious like that.

You write, “So according to that figure , in the last month, nearly sixteen thousand people died, and no one has reported it, no one knows anything about it, no one has reported major combat operations in the last month that would account for this and no one has reported where, and when, this happened.”

Why would there need to be “major combat operations” that would account for these deaths? Iraq is as big as California. People are dying all over the country, why would you expect them to be killed in set-piece battles observable by satellite?

The number you come up with–around 550 killed each day–is close to the 500 deaths per day calculated by the Johns Hopkins study. Now, if you want to reject their conclusions go right ahead, but saying “forget the methodology” and making nonsensical statements isn’t the way to go about it.

I hope both these studies grossly overestimate the numbers of Iraqis who have died, but there’s no disputing that our unnecessary invasion and occupation has caused the deaths of an appalling number of people. Focusing on how the exact number of deaths is calculated distracts from the fact that many innocent Iraqi people had their lives ended because of the war. Quibbling over the statistics is disgusting. You should focus on the people, not the numbers.

Comment by yootoo — 3/15/2008 @ 12:01 pm

At this rate, in 26 years Iraq will be empty. Except, of course for Marines, Haliburton, and Blackwater employees. Maybe then we’ll finally get the oil Leftists have been promising us.

Comment by GBlagg — 3/16/2008 @ 6:46 pm

Okay lets discuss the methodology and the survey.It’s all a lie. Is that better?

Why would there need to be “major combat operations” that would account for these deaths?

Well I was going to suggest a gigantic mutant star goat ate them, but Douglas Adams’ estate would sue me for copyright infringement.

Can you find me a single instance in Iraq where 16 000 died in a single month in Iraq?

If you are referring to the Lancet study, it, like the other one, is the biggest load of fertiliser since Obamaramalamadingdong’s last speech.

Focusing on how the exact number of deaths is calculated distracts from the fact that many innocent Iraqi people had their lives ended because of the war.

Isn’t that what the Lancet did? I think you should be sending them this letter, not me.

Quibbling over the statistics is disgusting. You should focus on the people, not the numbers.

I’ll quibble over whatever I damned well please. We should focus on the people? Wow…Thats a new angle…you Lefties are usually all over these surveys and have used them time and again, despite the fact that they bear all the resemblance to reality as shit does to a ham sandwich.

Focus on the people? Okay, here you go…

Will these do?

Comment by Sonnabend — 3/20/2008 @ 5:55 pm

You write, “Okay lets discuss the methodology and the survey.It’s all a lie. Is that better?”

Wow. Some brilliant discussion there. By the way, my big brother can beat up your big brother. Nyah.

You write, “Can you find me a single instance in Iraq where 16 000 died in a single month in Iraq?”

Can you find me a month where 16,000 DIDN’T die in a single month in Iraq? You wrote the post, the burden of proof is on you. Have you any idea of what the mortality rate in Iraq is? How it’s changed since the war began? How the mass exodus of Iraqis into Jordan and Syria has affected those statistics? Hello???

You write, “If you are referring to the Lancet study, it, like the other one, is the biggest load of fertiliser since Obamaramalamadingdong’s last speech.”

How so? You think that making a puerile joke about Barack Obama’s name counts as an argument?

The Lancet study (and the ORB) study tried to determine how many Iraqis have died as a consequence of the war. You took exception to their conclusions. Yet when I point out that your critique lacks insight/facts/logic/etc, and that your limited focus should be on the people, not the numbers, you somehow summon the temerity to say “Isn’t that what the Lancet did? I think you should be sending them this letter, not me.” Seriously, it must take an enormous amount of effort to be this willfully stupid.

Comment by yootoo — 3/20/2008 @ 10:53 pm

Wow. Some brilliant discussion there. By the way, my big brother can beat up your big brother. Nyah.

I don’t have a big brother.I have a big sister and a younger brother, both of whom have three times your intellect and four times the common sense.

Can you find me a month where 16,000 DIDN’T die in a single month in Iraq?

January, February and March 2008.

Next?

Have you any idea of what the mortality rate in Iraq is?

Yes

How the mass exodus of Iraqis into Jordan and Syria has affected those statistics? Hello???

If they were in an exodus to Jordan and Syria,. they weren’t dead at the time, were they?

How so? You think that making a puerile joke about Barack Obama’s name counts as an argument?

Nope, just an indication of the level of credibility. I.e : none.

P.S About Obama, I hope you like change, because if either the Hildebeest or Obama get in, that’s all you’ll have.Change. Small change.

President McCain.

Get used to it.

The Lancet study (and the ORB) study tried to determine how many Iraqis have died as a consequence of the war.

And exaggerated their “results” to a fare thee well. To this date they refuse to supply the raw data they used to get their “results”. The ORB was funded by Soros, and has less credibility than a morning news bulletin by Dan Rather.

You took exception to their conclusions.

No, I didn’t take exception at all. I called them what they are.

Lies.

Seriously, it must take an enormous amount of effort to be this willfully stupid.

What’s your DU name?

Comment by Sonnabend — 3/21/2008 @ 12:24 am
LOL! Funny stuff, Sonnabend.

Unfortunately, this critter can’t has been hitting the bong too hard…can’t come up with rational thought.

Relying on the Lancet’s studies and George Soros’s overinflated statistics in order to make things look worse than they are is really weak.

How many people were killed by Saddam’s Iraq? Still less than are dying today…and you forget that some of the people who are dying are people who are working with Coalition forces to eradicate terrorist scum so they can get on with their lives peacefully.

How many died in Iraq? How many lives did the Iraq War Save?

Iraqi government estimate, released Jan 2008 estimates 150,000 Iraqi dead from March 2003 to June 2006.

It estimates 75,000 dead in Baghdad alone.

I am sure that the jihad “resistance” has killed tens of thousands since 2003. But there are still the same problems with this survey:

Based on interviews, not death certs.

Not an actual count of the dead, but an estimate based on extrapolation.

Confuses combatants and non-combatants.

Confuses killings by the “resistance” with killings by the allies.

The vast majority of killings of civilians in Iraq are by the resistance

The Iraqi fascist “resistance”

What is the Iraqi resistance?

In the Northern Ireland conflict, when the results were all added up after 30 years, 90 percent of all civilians who were killed were killed by the paramilitaries. Only 10 percent were killed by the British army and security forces. The reason why is that western armies are restrained. Their opponents usually target civilians (e.g. NI loyalists) or civilian areas (e.g. NI republicans).

Iraq I’m sure is the same. Since liberation in Apr 2003, probably 80 or 90 percent of the civilians who have died were killed by the jihad.

Dan Hallagan

The Civilian Casualty Fable - The vast majority (over 80 percent) of civilian killings since the liberation of Iraq have been by the “resistance”, not by the allies.

thereligionofpeace.com makes the point:

Iraqi civilians killed (all deliberately) in 2006 by the Iraqi resistance: 16,791.

Iraqi civilians killed (all accidentally) in 2006 by Americans: 225.

In other words, the incredibly careful and skilled Americans have hardly killed anyone innocent since 2003, and those that have died have all been killed accidentally while engaged in street warfare with jihadis. Almost all the deaths in Iraq are at the hands of the resistance, not at the hands of the Americans. As Glen Reinsford says: “Iraqis aren’t dying from war. They are being murdered by Islamic terrorists.”

The Iraq War dead counts ignore the killing that would be going on if Saddam was still in power. So they ignore the lives saved by the war:

Lives saved by the Iraq War:

Lives Saved: 248109
Refugees Averted: 893546

This count is based on Saddam’s average rate of killing when he was in power.

The above count is from blogoram.com, which calls it the “NoBody Count” and explains the methodology.

Main post here or here.

Followup here or here.

Clock code from here.

Dan Hallagan

Fuzzy Moral Math (and more) does a similar “NoBody Count”.

A Lifesaving War: The death toll in Iraq would have been vastly higher over the last year if Saddam had remained in power, by Gerard Alexander, 29 Mar 2004. “In 1979, when Saddam became president, violence in Iraq escalated dramatically.”
	Comment by Cao — 3/21/2008 @ 8:16 pm 
	
Yoohoo, if I may make a suggestion? Go find an experienced combat soldier and ask his opinion of the numbers of deaths in Iraq, since he will have actually been in the country, involved in the presumed massacres, he should have an opinion, albeit not scientific, it may give you a feel. If he starts telling you how American soldiers care for Iraqi children and are helping to rebuild the infrastucture don’t believe him though, we know that is right wing propaganda that every soldier supports. (tongue in cheek)

Comment by Richard Nixon — 3/22/2008 @ 8:01 am

Before I begin, what’s a DU name? I can fill in the blanks with “FU”, but not “DU”.

Sonnebend writes, “I don’t have a big brother.I have a big sister and a younger brother, both of whom have three times your intellect and four times the common sense.”

While I’ve no reason to dispute the intelligence of your siblings, I feel confident that, combined, they aren’t thrice my intellect and four times commonsensical. As I’ve shown in detail, I gots the smarts.

Anyway.

What proof have you that fewer than 16,000 people died in Iraq in the first 3 months of this year? Forgive me if I’m not prepared to take your word for it. Though I need to cut you some slack and clarify something–I didn’t mean that 16,000 people died by violence or prematurely in a single month, I meant in general. Though the number of deaths is certainly far higher thanks to the endemic violence the invasion and occupation has brought.

I can’t say I’m heartened by the website you linked to. It says that between 82 and 89 thousand civilians have died because of the war. That is an appalling number, and not one to be trumpeted as a sign that the war and it’s aftermath hasn’t been a horribly bloody one. One that’s unlikely to win us any friends (and make us millions of enemies) in the Middle East.

So far as saying of the Iraqis forced to flee their homes in fear that “they weren’t dead at the time, were they?”, that shows an appalling amount of callousness. Tell you what–how about you pack your car with everything you can fit, drive to Mexico, and live there until the Iraq war ends. Then we can talk about how trivial leaving your home and country is.

Though you might want to spend the next eight years in Mexico when Barack Obama is elected President. I don’t think John McCain is going to make a very credible candidate for President when this alleged foreign-policy expert can’t keep track of who’s who in the Middle East. He keeps saying that Iran is training al Qaeda, blissfully unaware that it’s rather unlikely Shiite Iran would truck with Sunni al Qaeda. One would hope the President wouldn’t be confused on such an issue. Well, our next President, anyway.

You say that the Lancet and ORB studies are flawed. Well, how so? They had people on the ground asking Iraqis about people they knew who died in the war. Seems a pretty good way of accumulating data. If you disagree with it, fine, but you need to provide some rational beyond “It’s lies, lies, all lies!!” WHY do you think these numbers are lies? You haven’t said why. They seem high? Fine. Why do you think so? You can’t believe 500 people are dying every day in Iraq? OK, provide some rationale to back it up. Like I said, Iraq is a big country. 500 extra deaths a day is A LOT, but could a country that big swallow them up without attracting front-page attention? How many American’s die each year in drunk-driving accidents?

Cao quotes statistics that 150,000 Iraqis have died in the war and offers up the meager argument that more people would’ve died under Saddam’s rule. Of course there’s no way to prove that (personally I think it’s a load of immoral hogwash) and to argue that our unnecessary invasion and occupation was, even theoretically, potentially less bloody than the rule of a brutal dictator is hardly an argument in FAVOR of continuing the occupation. Nor is it much consolation to the Iraqi people. If that’s your argument you should’ve been calling for a full US withdrawal the second Saddam crawled out of that spider hole.

So far as following Mr. Nixon’s opinion and asking US veterans of the number of deaths in Iraq, I’m not sure our veterans would have a very good idea of the total number of Iraqi deaths and casualties. They have other things to worry about–doing their jobs, first of all, in a small area of operations. And, of course, making it back in one piece themselves. I have a friend who just returned after a year in Iraq and he’s talked and written in detail about his service there. He’s a doc–he fixed up US troops, Iraqi civilians, insurgents, those no one were sure of–and he’s proud of the work he did over there. As well he should be. But I’m sure he has no idea what was happening elsewhere in Iraq. He was busy enough.

Comment by yootoo — 3/25/2008 @ 5:51 pm

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

Major General Smedley D. Butler - USMC Retired, Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient

Comment by Ann R. Keye — 3/26/2008 @ 10:31 pm

Thank you for that insightful comment, “Microsoft anonymous usernam”e, now would you please be so kind and to explain to the rest of us just what relevance it has to the topic at hand?

Comment by Sonnabend — 3/30/2008 @ 6:00 am

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
English economist & philosopher (1806 - 1873)

Comment by Cao — 3/30/2008 @ 7:34 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Feb				Apr »
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31