Sunday, January 30, 2005
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (3)
Open Iraqi election thread
Feel free to comment here on today's historic election in Iraq. Both the wire service reports and blog accounts suggest that the turnout has been higher than expected. The Washington Post reports that, "Carlos Valenzuela, the United Nations' chief election adviser in Iraq, told CNN that he believed that overall turnout was considerably 'better than expected.'"
Certainly a 72% turnout represents a pretty humiliating political defeat for the insurgency. [UPDATE: hmmm.... the Financial Times now says turnout estimates have been scaled back to 60%] The Reuters story has the most encouraging detail:
Dexter Filkins' account in the New York Times is positively effusive:
Matthew Yglesias acknowledges the turnout but has an odd post declaring, "The important thing to keep in mind, I think, is that if the lack of problems does hold up, that will be a testament to the success of our extraordinary security measures, not to the success of our political project." Actually, I'd say it's a testament to both factors -- though it's certainly true that the political project can't be judged a success or a failure based on only one election.
On the other hand, Yglesias' post is a ray of sunshine compared to this morose Juan Cole post.posted by Dan on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM
I am grateful that the violence was kept to a minimum and that the Iraqi people were not dissuaded from their optimisim, hope, and thirst for freedom.
Ali at the Free Iraqi Blog wrote yesterday:
"Tomorrow I and the Iraqis that are going to vote will rule, not the politicians we're going to vote for, as it's our decision and they'll work for us this time and if we don't like them we'll kick them out! Tomorrow my heart will race my hand to the box. "
I think that Ali's heart is very pleased today!
You can also find a repository of related Iraqi Election information and news here.posted by: PajamaHadin on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
I'm truly happy for Iraq. They have more hard, dangerous work ahead of them, but at least now they have hope.
Better go out and buy the picture book of those "I'm sorry" morons who were apologizing for invading Iraq. Heh. I wonder if they know how wrong they were?posted by: Les Nessman on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
While I continue to believe that the war was a disastrous mistake for the US, and that practically every administration statement/claim turned out to be a lie (Al Qaeda links, cost of war, WMDs), the only way out of this monstrous mess is for Iraqis to take over and this is a very significant step forward to doing that.
Of course, in third world countries, the really crucal elections are the second ones, which rarely happen :-)
Indeed, we do not owe the people of Iraq (most of them anyway) any apologies.
Bush and the necons does owe the American people an apology for their lies in the run up to the war.
That's it, babies, just let the bitterness and negativity wash over you. Ahh, the sour smell of failure.
Tilt your head to the side, stick out your pouty lip and frown for the camera. Take a picture and send it to the Lefty blogs. Because no one else cares.
posted by: Les Nessman on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
I think everybody is ecstatic that the elections have been as successful as they appear to be. Few people really hope things go badly just so they can prove their point. However, I don't find Yglesias's post odd at all.
It seems to be a slight variation on a more common theme, "Inspite of how successfull the elections have been there will be great difficulties in governing the country."
His reasoning is pretty sound. The elections were successful because we could provide the necessary security for them, but empirically we haven't been able to provide enough security for the whole country. Successful democratic governance requires that the state is able to provide a substantial amount of security.
If the elections radically change the security dynamic with in the country by demoralizing the insurgency or by some other means, Yglesias will be wrong. I for one hope, this is the case. But, we can't really be sure, and this uncertainty prevents us from saying the whole project has been successful.posted by: Brad LeVeck on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
I'm certainly very happpy for the people of Iraq.However,I have not forgotten about the close to 1500 American soldiers killed and the reasons we were given for going to war."Hundreds of tons of biological weapons,reconstituted nuclear program,mushroom clouds,"ect.posted by: F on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
Regarding the Sunni turnout: virtually none in Ramadi and Tikrit. Directly contradictory reports in Mosul -- the NY Times says a fairly big turnout; the Washington Post says virtually none. I see no reason so far to doubt Zogby's just-released pre-election poll ( http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=957 ) in which Sunnis said by 76-9 that they won't vote, and 53% of them said they support the insurgency. Given the fact that the insurgents are still armed to the teeth, the odds are that the civil war will continue right on schedule.
Meanwhile, of course, the Iranians are still rolling along right on track to complete their Bomb, since the US military, being stuck in Iraq, is no position to stop them -- which was always the strongest argument against invading Iraq (along with the fact that we also now have no hope of stopping Kim Jong Il by any means short of a nuclear exchange if he decides to tear himself away from his Daffy Duck cartoons long enough to launch a conventional invasion of South Korea). So, yes, Les, I'm still Negative about this war, notwithstanding your ecstatic burblings.posted by: Bruce Moomaw on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
Does anyone know how they count the expatriates who voted from abroad when calculating turnout? If they don't count them among eligible voters the turnout would be skewed. In fact, if they count those votes at all it seems like they add the total number of Iraqi expatriates to the number of eligible voters in Iraq or it will look like 100% of expatriates voted. Anyone know about this stuff?posted by: Luke on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
What perhaps better sums up the day is the later Juan Cole post, in which we are reminded that
The bottom line, I think, is that we didn't suffer hundreds of Iraqi or dozens of American casualties, and any day that we can say that is a better day than average; and that the sheer courage of the Iraqi people and the American soldiers there is to be applauded. Beyond that, what we're essentially celebrating is that we can hold an election if we lock the entire country down -- certainly better than the alternative, but at best a sign of how much farther we have yet to go.posted by: Tortuga on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
We observe and comment on world events. World leaders are blamed for the outcomes that are dependent on enjoining people radically opposed. All left-bashing is silly. It is not left-thinking americans that are the 'enemy'. It is the fascism that arises when fools run governments. The real beauty of democracy is that it makes people think and argue! Discussions are won with valid arguments and a successful election in Iraq is the first valid argument the right has achieved in this otherwise pointless war. Freedom for the people of Iraq? Something tells me that the cheers are too quick.
Not, at all. I said I'm pleased. But then again I don't expect a wingnut like you to be able to read.
Who failed here ?
Al Qaeda links in iraq: Result NONE.
Our war cost in iraq, less than 80 Billion we were told: Result 250 B dollars, already
We would be greeted with flowers and chocolates. We were, for around 2 weeks.
So who produced catastrophic failure, Les old buddy ? People like you.
1) Les, you're the one incapable of putting a sock in it, as you started out by criticising anti-war types. So please spare me your great concern about the middle east
Les, you really are dumb and can't readposted by: erg on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
Re: The expats, they are around 200-290 K voters, I think. I would guess that turnout would be close to 100 % there because anyone who registered probably did so to vote.
As to whether that skews numbers, lets wait till full numbers come out.posted by: erg on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
72% voting is a great success.posted by: BoshTang on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
Some interesting stories from the NYTimes on the election:
-- Sistani himself probably didn't vote, because as he was born in Iran, he may not be eligible
-- The Arab Satellite channels seemed to do a good job of coverage overall, focusing on the elections rather than the violence,as they normally do. They may have played a crucial role in giving people the courage to come out and vote later in the day. Amazing.
posted by: erg on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
To add on to my earlier thoughts, it appears to be (as expected) a clear demonstration of the power of Sistani in Iraq. Two new questions -- already being discussed by the folks at Crooked Timber -- are about to come front and center: what does the the Ayatollah want? Will the Bush Adminstration give it to him? And does the Bush Administration have the power to even have a choice in the matter?posted by: Tortuga on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
In the late 1970's, a newly-elected Pope John Paul II went to visit his homeland, then a Soviet satellite which only grudgingly admitted him. People in their millions turned out to see "their" pope at several stops. These same people also turned around and, for the first time, really looked at how many of their friends and neighbors were attending these massive, yet peaceful, services. And they took strength from that fact; strength that led to organization, and then to action. In a very real sense, the fire kindled at that time led to the Solidarity movement and, eventually, to the toppling of the whole rotten edifice of communism.
God bless the Iraqi people on this day - as they walked out among their fellow citizens to vote, may they also take strength from their friends and neighbors, may they also realise the power they wield together, and may they be equally successful, in an even shorter period of time, in helping bring freedom, peace and prosperity to their country, and, dare we hope, their neighbors as well.posted by: fingerowner on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
What the hell is wrong with you people? Alawi wins, American puppet. Sistani wins, Iranian takeover. Dont you get how freaking incoherent you have become? Bad news=Good news. Good news=bad news. 25 million people we are talking about, and all some of you care about is whether GW Bush might just get credited. Christ sakes, show some g'd common sense and celebrate this particular victory with the rest of the free world. Tomorrow we can worry about the ramifications. Take a small peice of advice, the left seems to be becoming increasingly anti-democracy, and that is insane. I simply cant believe some of the nonsense im hearing tonight. For a brief moment cant we come together and celebrate the fact that, despite what some have claimed, even Arabs love democracy? There is only one winner tonight, and its the Iraqi people. Anyone who doesnt realize that has made their allegiance clear.posted by: Mark Buehner on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
I don't think the people asserting that this is only the first step in a long process that could run off the rails later -- for example, if the process of writing a constitution gets bogged down for some reason -- are wrong at all. I also see potential for future controversy in the large number of expatriate ballots cast.
But it seems clear that today's election and media coverage of it throughout the region represent a body blow to the insurgency, a crystal clear demonstration that it is not fighting for a majority of Iraqis or anything close to it. Shiite and Kurdish hostility to sympathizers with the insurgency can be expected to increase dramatically if (as we should expect) attacks against civilians and Iraqi security personnel continue; Sunni Arabs sympathetic up to now with the insurgency but not hard core members of it must be terribly demoralized.
Saddam Hussein counted on his ability to cow the population. The insurgency does as well, and it had a very bad day today.posted by: Zathras on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
"So who produced catastrophic failure, Les old buddy ?"
Which is it, erg? A successful election? A catastrophic failure? Are those the same WMD's that Clinton, the Dems, France et al.. told us were there before Bush was Prez?
"As anyone with the intellect of a bug would no, there have been democratic elections in the Middle East before, so you meerely show your lack of knowledge by hailing this as a once-in-a-lifetime event."
Ah, why bother continuing. Lileks' 'damning but' is alive and well in your bitter postings on this great day.
Keep being negative. Keep losing.
posted by: Les Nessman on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
We may yet redeem a disaster through blood and money, but that is not to the credit of the liar-in-chief.
Les, you are a complete and total liar. We were told in June of 2003 that the total cost of the Iraq invasion would be less than 80 billion. We were told Iraq would finance its own reconstruction. Our total cost will probably be half a trillion before its all told and done.
Les, old moron, you referred to it as the hope for self-government in the ME. Clearly you're completely unaware that there have been other elections in the ME, even free ones, if you think this is the only hope for the ME. Heck, even Iran (Iran !!) had relatively free elections in 1997.
Indeed, and that is why this election is good. Of course, I happen to be one of those strange people who doubts that democracy can be spread in the middle east through an ill-conceived war, which has increased hate for us in the region tenfold.
Well, I will believe your (and BUsh's) great commitment to democracy when he and you push for more democracy in Pakistan. You know, the country that has 6 times the population of Iraq ?
It is indeed a good day for Iraqi citizens, no doubt.
For you, it is probably a great day, because it provides some shred of vindication for a failed policy, not for any other reason.
Well, I didn't lose 1400 soldiers and $200 B plus, so who is the real loser here ?
posted by: erg on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
"25 million people we are talking about, and all some of you care about is whether GW Bush might just get credited."
Indeed, and that holds for people on both sides of the aisle. Those who use this to canonize Bush as well as those who attack him.
Sistani is not Khoemini. My suspicion is the future Shia government will be Islamic in social matters, but not in political matters.posted by: Jasper on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
There are probably around 200 -300 K cast so it shouldn't be such big deal. In future elections though, only expats who are not citizens of some other country should be allowed to vote. It would not be healthy to allow Iran, which has the most Iraqi expats, control even that portion of the electorate.
Given the violence and brutality of the insurgency against Shia, its difficult to see how any sane Shiite (let alone Kurd) could be anything other than hostile to them.
Common sense would demand that the Sunni groups try to share power. Unfortunately, common sense is often in short supply in groups that want to hold on to power.
The new governnment has to establish some authority -- in Shia areas, that should be simple, in Kurdish areas tricky, in Sunni areas, dangerous.posted by: erg on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
'Nuff said.posted by: erg on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
I think today's election are the first good news sign of real good news in Iraq in a long time -- BUT Dan, Matt's post isn't htat hard to understand. IF you're an insurgent, the election, is the stupidest time to attack strategically. Security is at its peak. Wait till the winners are declared, and start killing them one-by-one. That's what the insurgency has been doing for the past two years with people who were supporting the govt and the CPA. So whether the dynamics of the insurgency have really changed -- well that willt ake a few more weeks to find out.posted by: Jor on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
Sitting in safety, it is all to easy to get sucked into this 'See, I was right' no you weren't game. So lets remember the 50,000 Iraqi's and 1400 americans that have died so we can feel good about bringing democracy to the Middle East. But, a few substantive points.
First, let's remember that the NYT, the BBC and every other major media outlet was covering the 'ecstatic' crowds at the 'liberation' of Iraq. Well, 1400 plus dead American troops later, we know how ecstatic they were.
Second, the initial numbers were significantly, if not wildly, overestimated.
Third, Sunni turnout appears incredibly low, but I got that from antiwar.com so who knows?
Fourth, there is a false dichotomy in saying that voting means lack or support for the insurgency. Easy example, the South voted in the 1860 election, was unhappy with the result, and engaged in the Mother of All Insurgencies.
The really good thing is that now GWB has cover to leave, hopefully the Sistani list will ask him to get our troops the hell out of there. Then we can watch the slow breakup of Iraq in peace.posted by: stari_momak on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
The cheers and hurrahs belong now to all the Iraqi people whom stood up and voted for what they believe . Those of us whom oppose Bush need to to understand that the realpolitik of this success doesn't give him carte blanche to do anything and everything else. To those whom support him the same realpolitik will not necessarily allow you to achieve your ends either. What everyone needs to remember is that for better and/or for worse it has taken over two hundred years for America to achieve what we have accomplished as a republican democracy. Nor are we finished or perfect yet. Our republican democracy is a goal that will never be totally perfected but its perfection is to be eternally to be striven for. I wish the Iraqi's the opportunity to strive for theirs.posted by: Robert M on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
"So lets remember the 50,000 Iraqi's and 1400 americans that have died so we can feel good about bringing democracy to the Middle East"
The objective was to feel good about ourselves? Not to take down a dangerous tyrant and replace him with the first democracy in the ME? I realize that self-esteem is the highest goal in the democrat world view, but in this case i would make the radical argument that Iraqi democracy is an objectively good thing no matter how we feel about it.
"Then we can watch the slow breakup of Iraq in peace."
Would the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead such an event would bring be worth it to make you feel good about proving Bush wrong?posted by: Mark Buehner on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
But. The key question on Iraq is truly: was it worth it to the USA? What are we getting for our billions, our dead, our wounded? I am willing to say the jury is still out on that, and it will probably be years before we know. Happy voters do not a complete success make.
The no WMD fiasco is a serious cost, period. The division with Europe engendered through our actions may prove a serious cost. Also, the exposure of how an operation like this overstreches our troop strength may prove to be the most serious cost of all.
History is not done with this operation yet.posted by: Appalled Moderate on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
Not to take down a dangerous tyrant and replace him with the first democracy in the ME?
The war was sold as eliminating WMD. There was no WMD, the intelligence that said their was WMD was quite possibly cooked. GWB suckered the American people, 1400 plus are dead, thousands more seriously scarred or maimed. Had GWB advertised the war as for 'taking down a tyrant', well I would have still opposed, but would have been far more accepting. Sorry man, the American working class -- the Charles Graners and Liddy Englands of this world -- aren't interested in bringing democracy to anybody, especially if it means dying. They are the ones paying the price.
As for the slow breakup, I am actually for fast partition as the best way of avoiding more bloodshed.
I would say those 50,000 (BTW that's the mean of the distribution figured in the Lancet article, they authors think it closer to their high estimate of 90,000) dead Iraqi's and their families aren't better of.
Of course, it still remains to be seen if these elections will reduce the amount of violence, the rate of attacks on Americans, etc. The 1992 election in Bosnia sure didn't bring peace.
Hey, has anybody had the thought that the insurgents deliberately scaled back planned attacks, to avoid bad press?posted by: stari_momak on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
"The war was sold as eliminating WMD."
This war was sold on any number of rationale, and it was literally sold on Iraq being in noncompliance with UN resolutions which it manifestly was.
"There was no WMD, the intelligence that said their was WMD was quite possibly cooked."
All the quotes by Bill Clinton and John Kerry on the danger posed by Husseins WMDs notwithstanding.
"GWB suckered the American people"
Had plenty of help apparently, including all those senior congressional democrats with direct access to the intelligence that voted the authorization.
Funny, but some people support doing the right thing no matter how the politics play out.
So good of you to speak for them. Funny the vast majority of the actual soldiers in the field you hear from speak _inevitably_ about helping the Iraqi people gain their freedom. And how proud they are to be doing it.
"They are the ones paying the price."
"As for the slow breakup, I am actually for fast partition as the best way of avoiding more bloodshed."
You care to be the one to break it to the Kurds in Mosul or Kirkuk they are going to have to move? Or the Sunni in Baghdad? And who is going to compel this ethnic cleansing, how? You think that would be _less_ bloody?
What about the tens of thousands saved from the Hussein death machine that would have died as a matter of course? What about generation after generation that would have died at the Husseins hands?
It remains to be seen. Many things remain to be seen. But whats done cannot be undone. The world has seen the enthousiasm the Iraqis went to vote with. The myth that Arabs or Muslims were not compatible with democracy is dead. The Bush doctrine (spreading democracy, not preemption) has received a boost. Our interests will be stronger in the region with the legendary Arab street. They wont love us, or even like us, but they will see a path to freedom and start down it.
"Hey, has anybody had the thought that the insurgents deliberately scaled back planned attacks, to avoid bad press?"
Why would they do that? How much worse can their press get? As OBL famously said, when you see two horses racing you automatically back the stronger horse. The insurgents look like toothless cowards to the world. They were called out and didnt show up, they are left to snipe from the shadows, and that is an important impression in the Iraqi psyche now. This is a war of ideas and impressions, and our enemies took a serious hit to their image. Manhood is important in the ME, and the image of women defiantly holding up their ink stained fingers will far outweigh tapes of cowards with their faces covered slaughtering helpless hostages.
Partitioning Iraq wouldn't happen in a vacuum. My understanding is Turkey, for one, simply wouldn't tolerate it, because of the independent Kurdistan it would produce.posted by: Andrew Steele on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
"What about the tens of thousands saved from the Hussein death machine that would have died as a matter of course? What about generation after generation that would have died at the Husseins hands? "
The estimate compared the mortality rate after invasion to the mortality rate immediately prior to the invasion. Iraq was peaceful, if repressive in the political sense.
I should correct myself on partition. I don't favor it, I actually don't care. Let the Iraqi's sort it out. It's none of my business. I just wouldn't bet on peace after the US leaves, we will hopefully be soon. But we can all hope.posted by: stari)momak on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
If we take Yglesias comment to heart about this being a victory of the security foces, what does this do to the argument that we dind't have the manpower we needed to be a success?
"The estimate compared the mortality rate after invasion to the mortality rate immediately prior to the invasion. Iraq was peaceful, if repressive in the political sense."
By that rationale Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and every police state on Earth are 'peaceful'. Does it matter to the poor victim whether he is killed by a suicide bomb or dropped in a plastic shredder?posted by: Mark Buehner on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
Sure you did.
Wolfie, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and others have been singled out for particular criticism from the Lefties and/or Dems.
And yet you mean to tell us that YOU took Wolfie's word as gospel? Bullshit.
The TOTAL cost for the war will be a few hundred billion. That's as close as anyone can guess, unless they have supernatural powers.
You are making junior highschool debating points. Bully for you. But we know you are lying.
Les, erp is not the only one deep in eighth-grade territory, and making the same points over and over doesn't make them any more persuasive. Give it a rest for today, would you?posted by: Zathras on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
-Saddam was an hostile governement to the USA
The question to be made today is: will zarqwavi abandon Iraq that is drawing it's comabte resources and start a terror campain elsewhere?posted by: lucklucky on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
"The TOTAL cost for the war will be a few hundred billion. That's as close as anyone can guess, unless they have supernatural powers."
Zathras, if you aren't persuaded that the above is the truth, then that's your problem.posted by: Les Nessman on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
We have heard this tune before:
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
And before in El Salvador
Wolfie, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and others have been singled out for particular criticism from the Lefties and/or Dems. Posted by Les Nessman
posted by: Mike on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
El Salvador? Wait, there's another historical example in the universe besides Vietnam? I think you are wrong sir.posted by: Mark Buehner on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
For all you 'Commaists' out there.
"You mean all of Iraq’s problems won’t be solved by one free and fair election? Bush lied!
Couldn’t these Commaists just let us enjoy and marvel at the day that our troops have bought with their blood? Couldn’t they just wait a bit before they fill the airwaves and print pages with their “wisdom?” They should just be quiet and listen to Iraqi national security adviser Mowaffak Al-Rubaie, on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,"
Keep being negative. Keep losing.
posted by: Les Nessman on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
Uh Mark, 100,000 additional people died. I think they'd rather be alive, than dead. Most of them were women and children and most of them died due to coalition forces. The latter claim is unpublished data from the authors of the Lancet study.posted by: Jor on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
"Uh Mark, 100,000 additional people died. I think they'd rather be alive, than dead. Most of them were women and children and most of them died due to coalition forces. The latter claim is unpublished data from the authors of the Lancet study. "
Uh, Jor, that study was based on rampant speculation and 100,000 was the high end of their estimate. No where else has such a number emerged. Even your precious Iraqbodycount.net maxes out at 17,842. Oh what the heck, its only an order of magnitude.
Regardless, you are missing the point. However many people have died, you have to set that scale against how many Hussein would have murdered as a matter of course. And how many his hideous sons would have. Unless of course you think death is only a tragedy when the US is to blame somehow.posted by: Mark Buehner on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
Mark, do you know anything about statistics or epidemology? From your comments, its quite apparent you know next to nothing about both subjects. On top of it, I bet you didn't even read the study. If you have no clue what you are talking about, don't disrespect the 100,000 people that died. The study was published in the top British Medical journal and is 100% legitimate. Stop being such a tool. Just because right wing propogandsists ignore it, doesn't make it any less legitimate. Its unfortuante that even Drezner ignores it,as he knows fully well that its legitimate. This seems liek another "spare me the outrage" moment for Dan.posted by: Jor on 01.30.05 at 10:41 AM [permalink]
"Mark, do you know anything about statistics or epidemology?"
"From your comments, its quite apparent you know next to nothing about both subjects."
Coming from you, that means... well nothing to me. Have a look at Iraq Body Counts own response to the Lancet study: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/
"On top of it, I bet you didn't even read the study"
In fact I did. And I specifically recall they sampled a very limited number of areas in Iraq and extrapolated the entire country from it. Amongst other problems with their study. As an expert on statistics, you should know that. More importantly, THEY COUNTED INSURGENTS.
"If you have no clue what you are talking about, don't disrespect the 100,000 people that died. "
Please. God knows you could give a crap about the hundreds of thousands Hussein murdered and who knows how many more we stopped him from murdering. Dont try developing a conscience at this late date.
"The study was published in the top British Medical journal and is 100% legitimate"
Well, if that is the case, why bother reading it? Argument by authority? Thats what we call bad logic. It was also rushed out before the American election.
" Stop being such a tool..."
Snip excess bullshit. Way to address the issues jor. You have no idea what you are talking about. The Lancet study was a politically motivated hatchet job that has been debunked by everybody and their mother, _including_ IBC which is a leftist outfit with their own problems who I have good money you were quoting up and down during the war.
"The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting," said Marc E. Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, which investigated the number of civilian deaths that occurred during the invasion. "These numbers seem to be inflated."
"For instance, the researchers admitted that many of the dead might have been combatants. They also acknowledged that the true number of deaths could fall anywhere within a range of 8,000 to 194,000, a function of the researchers' having extrapolated their survey to a country of 25 million...
Mark, your response is so ignorant I really shouldn't bother with a point-by-point rebuttal. Apparently you have no idea what statistical sampling is or a confidence interval is. Nor how the probability of point estimates in an interval alter from their distance from the MLE. I'm a medical student, a masters student in information science (cs & stats), and do a lot of a statistical work in my research. So, in this particular domain, I'm pretty well qualified to say you have literally have no idea what you are talking about. I can't teach you all of statistics and epidemology in 1 post -- so like I said earlier, if you odn't know what you're talking about, don't be an idiot.
I'm not making an argument from authority -- it's an argument from peer-review. This is how all science is conducted. No refutation or even attempted refutation has been published in any journal.
You WaPost quote is refuted in the later Chronicle peice. If you just read the articles instead of copying and pasting wing-nut talking points you'd have realized that. The Chronicle quote is opinion -- not fact -- the study is 100% legitimate, and so far, error-free -- so you can draw your own conclusions as to why it was ignored.
If you read the study, you'd realize you quote on Saddam killing people is truly non-sensical.
Of the 100,000 most were women and children -- and there is additional work claiming most were killed by coalition forces.
Seriously, why are you such a damn hack?
Post a Comment: