Complaining that there is such a wide range in the Lancet’s calculations is absurd. The lowest figures are extrapolated using the results from only the safest, least disrupted part of Iraq (in the north among the Kurds) and the highest is from the most dangerous, most disrupted part of Iraq (well, not quite, the most dangerous areas were, well, too dangerous and were not surveyed but they got as close as they could); the final figure is the result of all the areas surveyed, selected to be as representative as they could make it (not at random), and is therefore the most accurate. In the same way that a nationwide US political opinion poll will be a more accurate assessment of national political opinion than just the figures collected from Berkley, say, or Wall Street.

Or, to use a recent Iraqi example, in the elections turnout was 59%, with a range of 89% to just 2% (respectively, the national figure; Dahuk province; Anbar province). Taking just those two extreme figures we have a range that is even wider than the contested figures from the Lancet. Wide statistical variances by region are normal in Iraq. All those figures really tell us that some parts of Iraq are more dangerous and more disrupted than other parts of Iraq. And co-incidentally, they are the same areas identified as such by the Lancet’s survey.

The Lancet’s article was very clear about what and how it was counting, specifically the “excess” deaths that have occurred due to the war and not just those shot or blown up. That many commentators on both the left and the right of the media have failed to understand or to communicate that distinction is not the fault of The Lancet, and nor does it invalidate the figures. A person who dies in a heatwave from a lack of water because the pumping station or pipelines were bombed and the supply has been cut off is a person that has died because of the war, and should be counted as such.

In fact, on that basis the Lancet’s figures are too low because their baseline figures are derived from pre-war Iraqi death rates, which were inflated due to sanction related deaths. They should have used the pre-sanction death rates, since sanctions were lifted immediately after the war. (Incidentally, the figures for sanction related deaths also came from the Lancet, using the same methodology.) The true “excess deaths” for the first 18 months of the Iraq war would therefore be considerably higher as it would be the 98,000 plus another 70-80,000 (using the lower figures available) that would previously have been attributed to sanctions but in their absence is now due to the war.

The Gryphon

So does this mean that it is also official that our reason for invading Iraq REALLY WAS just a big lie?

This was the first post in the thread. For the assholes who keep repeating over and over that because we say there weren't any WMD as a pretext for invasion really means that what we are REALLY SAYING is there were NEVER any WMD in Iraq are simply tryting to subvert the point.

The official reason we ignored the UN and invaded Iraq was because AT THE TIME they had WMD that they were planning to use against all of us, and we just couldn't take the risk.

There was no other official reason. There was Colin Powell, showing us satellite intelligence photos, there was Dick Cheney, banging his shoe on the table like Kruschev screaming THERE ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THERE ARE!!!

Give me a fucking break, you can't be that numb after so short a time....don't you remember what even happened three years ago? I know some of you were busy doing the fanboy mastubation thing being 13 and all during the first Gulf War, and may have an opinion about it (much the same way anyone under 30 has an opinion about Led Zeppelin, or LSD for example) but it's all good.

We lied about going into Iraq, and now we're lying about how many civilians we killed.

What's the mystery? If we don't know how many we killed (I guess we've stopped killing them, eh?) then we have to take an educated stab, given the chaos and general breakdown that's really happening over there.

I only say this, because several relatives who are serving and have served say it's a corrupt, chaotic mess that we're trapped in, and that the administration lied through their fucking teeth to get us in there, and that we are killing more civilians than Saddam ever did, would or could.

For Republicans it would seem, if there is no Bogeyman to fight, they cannot exist.

You_have_got_to_be_F--king_kidding.

Now that's what I call reeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaching.

If we're using those standards, then I guess more French civilians really WERE killed than German combatants in the ENTIRETY of WWII, not just certain operations. I wish I'd actually said that originally - then I could really rub their noses in it!

At least you finally admit you're guessing.

3,250,000 German soldiers died during World War 2, compared with 470,000 French civilians. In both cases, the figures represent the highest estimates.

But thanks for playing! Again!

Operations.

So, if an act of terrorism were to cut off the water to your hometown, and people then died because they did not have access to the clean water that they had previously, would you then argue that people were "F--king_kidding" if they claimed that those people died from terrorism?

In every past war casualty figures have included people that died from starvation, outbreaks of disease, and others who were not directly killed by bullet or bomb, so why should this war be treated differently?

For example, only a fraction of the casualties figures for the Siege of Stalingrad are comprised of those directly killed by military action, with many of the deaths caused by starvation and disease (dysentery in particular), which were a consequence of military action, just as deaths from dehydration are a consequence of blowing up the pumping stations.

Without the war, the pumping station would still be operating, and those that, as a consequence, died from dehydration would still be alive. Therefore, they died because of the war.

The Gryphon

So, if an act of terrorism were to cut off the…
Nice try Gryph at fabricating an equivalence but that won't wash because your in the territory of the absurd here.
Your string of consequence is as relevant as the Butterfly Effect, nobody disputes consequence but blame and responsibility do have limits and that relates to intent.
Casualties? No - "every past war casualty figures" don't count civilian deaths in the uniform way you suggest if they count them at all. What you are talking about is perhaps total number of deaths because of the war which is otherwise an academic exercise with a political agenda.
But back to the absurdity of your initial analogy - Would you have the audacity to call victims of a terror attack casualties?
Basically your and the Lancet's argument is if nothing had been done nothing would have happened. Thanks for the science lesson guys.

I didn't say anything about blame. I said that a person that died because the pumping station was bombed is a person that died because of the war. I most emphatically did not say that a person that died because the pumping station was bombed is a person that was killed by the Americans, because that would not be accurate. The US started this war and so clearly does bear some responsibility but the question of how much responsibility is seperate from the question of whether or not such a death is the result of the war.

There is no "butterfly effect". It is a direct consequence of the war, and the military actions undertaken in that war, so it is a result of that war, regardless of intent. A person that is shot "accidentally" has still died as a result of the war, even if it was not the "intention". Intent only marks the difference between murder and manslaughter, not between cause and effect, actions and their consequences, alive and dead.

There are a number of reasons why the water supply (and electricity and fuel supplies) are in a worse state now (even by the contested official US estimates) than they were in February 2003. Most of the damage was done to the infrastructure during the "Shock and Awe" campaign (deliberately, mistakenly, or collaterally), but efforts to repair the damage have been hampered by the ongoing insurgency, further accidental damage, and deliberate sabotage. None of that changes the fact that this damage is the result of the war. It doesn't matter which side is at fault, because that isn't the question.

X-height - "What you are talking about is perhaps total number of deaths because of the war"

That is exactly what I am talking about. It is exactly, and quite clearly stated to be, what the Lancet was reporting on. Deaths because of the war. What part of my post led you to believe that I might talking about something else? What do you think "a person that has died because of the war" means? It seems quite unambiguous to me.

X-height - "Would you have the audacity to call victims of a terror attack casualties"

Victims of terrorism are casualties. One does not preclude the other. By the very definition of the word they are casualties. They are also victims. Under what definition would a victim (by which I mean somebody who has been killed or injured by a terrorist) not be a casualty (by which I mean somebody who has been killed or injured as result of an action)?

The Gryphon

From a longer story, here are the most relevant paragraphs to this thread:

Panel: Agencies 'Dead Wrong' on Iraq WMDs
March 31, 2005 2:41 PM EST

(AP) WASHINGTON - America's spy agencies were "dead wrong" in most prewar assessments about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and know disturbingly little about current nuclear threats, a presidential commission said Thursday.

"Our collection agencies are often unable to gather intelligence on the very things we care the most about," the panel concluded in an unsparing report.

...

"Across the board, the intelligence community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world's most dangerous actors," the report said.

...

Robb and Silberman agreed they had found no evidence that senior administration officials had sought to change the prewar intelligence in Iraq, possibly for political gain.

...

The report said "The daily intelligence briefings given to you (Bush) before the Iraq war were flawed. Through attention-grabbing headlines and repetition of questionable data, these briefings overstated the case that Iraq was rebuilding its WMD programs."

In an implicit swipe at the Bush administration, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the report did not review how federal policy-makers used the intelligence they were given.

"I believe it is essential that we hold both the intelligence agencies and senior policy-makers accountable for their actions," Reid said.

...

Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was pleased by the report and indicated that it concludes all inquiries into intelligence used to make the case for going to war with Iraq.

"I don't think there should be any doubt that we have now heard it all regarding prewar intelligence," the Kansas Republican said. "I think that it would be a monumental waste of time to re-plow this ground any further."

...

But pressure grew from Republicans and Democrats alike after the former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, resigned saying the prewar estimates of weapons in Iraq, which Bush used to justify war there, "were almost all wrong." Even then, the White House insisted the commission's mandate be broadened to other nations, prompting criticism that the panel might be too overloaded to thoroughly examine its original subject, Iraq.

"We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," the report said. "This was a major intelligence failure."

The main cause was the intelligence community's "inability to collect good information about Iraq's WMD programs, it said, and serious errors in analyzing what information it could gather and a failure to make clear just how much of its analysis was based on assumptions rather than good evidence.

"On a matter of this importance, we simply cannot afford failures of this magnitude," the report said.

The report is clear, if the actions of this administration weren't criminal they should be.

Were they "wrong", or were they "lying"?