Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Time for Another Body Count in Iraq

By Sheldon Rampton, PR Watch. Posted November 18, 2006.


Critics of the Lancet study suggesting hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq since the 2003 invasion should call for additional, independent studies that could provide a scientific basis for either confirming or refuting its alarming findings.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Jim Hightower, Raising Hell
Jonathan Rowe

Democracy and Elections:
Are Feds Trying to Aid Republican Candidate's Election?
Tim Kalich

DrugReporter:
A Cultural History of the Magic Mushroom
Lux

Election 2008:
The Real Elitist: Video of McCain's Collection of Mansions Reveal He's Not Your Average Joe
Steven Greenhouse

Environment:
Republicans Have Handed Democrats a Winning Election Issue
David Morris

ForeignPolicy:
Blocking a Gazan's Path to an Education
Fidaa Abed

Health and Wellness:
The Misshapen Mind: How the Brain's Haphazard Evolution Left Us with Self-Destructive Instincts
Sasha Abramsky

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Medical Neglect in Immigrant Prisons Reveals America at Its Worst
Kyle Hussein de Beausset

Media and Technology:
What's Going on with the Media's Ballooning Coverage of Celebrity Babies?
Meredith Blake

Movie Mix:
Protest over Use of the Word 'Retard' in Stiller's 'Tropic Thunder' Misses the Target
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Obama Should Pick Hillary
Lanny Davis

Rights and Liberties:
Stop the Execution: Jeff Wood Faces Death Tomorrow for a Murder He Didn't Commit
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
Catching the Wrong John: When Are the Media Going to Talk about John McCain's Infidelity?
Drew Westen

War on Iraq:
How Many More Iraqis Can You Throw Behind Bars Without Trial?
Fatih Abdulsalam

Water:
What If Your Tap Water Is Not Safe To Drink?
Elizabeth Royte

More stories by Sheldon Rampton

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Under the strange Bizarro rules that right-wing pundits use to interpret politics in the United States, election season is the time when no one is supposed to discuss any of the things that might actually have a serious impact on their voting decision. The Mark Foley scandal was dismissed as an election-season "October surprise" cooked up by Democrats (even though the people who exposed it were Republicans, not Democrats). And James Baker announced that his secret plan to help Bush turn things around in Iraq would not be released publicly until "after the election in order to try and take our report out of domestic politics."

Let's ignore for the moment the fact that this curious delicacy about political bombshells in an election season comes from the same people who chose September 2002 — the beginning of congressional midterm elections — as the moment to launch their public push for war with Iraq. Let's humor the pundits and pretend that there really is some reason why people should hold off on discussing matters of pressing political interest during elections. If that's the case, then now is the moment when those discussions ought to begin. Let's start by talking about the dead in Iraq.

Last month there was very little discussion of the study published in the Lancet, a highly respected British medical journal, which estimated that 650,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 as a result of the war. The Lancet study too was dismissed as an "October surprise," and it disappeared from the news within days of its publication. But now that the election is over, can we finally discuss it?

I was shocked myself when I saw the figure of 650,000. It seemed huge, much larger than I had imagined possible. It is approximately four times the Iraqi Health Ministry's recent estimate, and twice the figure of 300,000 that is often given as an estimate of the number of people killed by Saddam Hussein during his 23 years of brutal rule.

The Lancet study, with Gilbert Burnham as its lead author, was conducted by some of the same researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad who conducted a previous study in 2004 which estimated that 98,000 people had died. The earlier study was attacked at the time by supporters of the war and was largely ignored by the mainstream news media in the United States, as John Stauber and I noted in our recent book, The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq (for an excerpt, see the Third Quarter 2006 issue of PR Watch). The new study suggests that some half a million additional lives have been lost in the subsequent two years.

As the Lancet paper explains, this number is an estimate based on statistical sampling of Iraq's population, and due to limitations in the number of people surveyed, it has a fairly wide margin of error. The researchers followed standard scientific procedure and reported their findings using a "95% confidence interval" — a minimum and maximum value derived from statistical analysis which finds a 95 percent probability that the two limiting values enclose the true number. The minimum value in their confidence interval was 392,979, and their maximum value was 942,636, which means that although 650,000 is their most likely estimate, the true number could be substantially lower or higher. Even so, the low end of this range is nearly 400,000, while the high end is nearly a million.

Are these numbers credible? I looked at reactions to the Lancet study from several groups: American political pundits, scientists with expertise in health and mortality research, and Iraqis (as reflected in the views of Iraqis with English-language weblogs). Many of the political pundits (even those with anti-war views) either rejected the study or questioned its conclusions and methodology. The scientists, however, gave it high marks, and most of the Iraqis thought the number sounded like it was in the right ballpark.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: body count, iraq

Sheldon Rampton is the research director at the Center for Media and Democracy and co-author of The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies and the Mess in Iraq.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It's time to call the Bush invasion/occupation what it is: GENOCIDE
Posted by: LeftWright on Nov 18, 2006 12:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The illegal invasion and use of dU and white phosphorus weapons as well as the frequent and random murders of innocent civilians should land Mr. Bush and his murderous cohorts in the ICC ASAP. Right after they are tried and removed for their participation in 9/11.

We need regime change in the USA while we still have some standing in the world.

The neocons are just plain UNAMERICAN.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» MSTHOM, a few additional comments Posted by: LeftWright
» WAIT..NT..are you kidding!!!!!!! Posted by: Conservasaurus
war crimes
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 18, 2006 1:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 650,000 death figure is the best we have because the Bushies deliberately stiffled collection of accurate information to reduce the likelyhood of them being prosecuted for war crimes. PROSECUTE THE BUSHIES FOR WAR CRIMES so we can end the nightmare of war crimes forever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Icon of truth and human rights?
Posted by: paschn on Nov 18, 2006 5:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Strange, isn't it? The spoiled brat we call commander in chief. His grand daddy was a war profiteer along with Coca-Cola, IBM and about 25 other U.S. "patriotic" corporations in this country.
My father, ( born in 1913), told me with a grim smile, that there were areas in German cities that had bans on bombing attacks. Among the troops it was suspected the reason for this was U.S. / German business partnerships. But I'll bet if you finally strong-armed the corporate media to release this information to the public objectively, there'd be less than 10% of the sheeple willing to switch from Coke to Pepsi. Hell,...less than 5%.
Bush has murdered 3 times the humans Hussein did. Hussein gets death by hanging,...Bush gets a 2nd term.
And when, ( and IF ), this is all ended,...some group of politicians will say, " Let's move past this war crimes prosecution,...the country needs closure" and most of you drones will buy it, instead of screaming NO!! he murdered people to make himself, the Bush war profiteering family and their "base" even richer!! WE DEMMAND JUSTICE for the Iraqi people and the world. ROFLMAO, (rolling on the floor laughing my ass off),...Yeah, fat chance huh?
A nation of sheep, led by a cartel of whores, controlled by big business. Welcome,...to the REAL Evil Empire.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All the king's horses...
Posted by: Democritus on Nov 18, 2006 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush propaganda team has tried mightily to suppress information about deaths in Iraq from reaching American citizens. But all the king's horses, and all of his men, have failed to keep the truth bottled up. The Lancet estimate of 650,000 Iraqi deaths caused by the war really takes the middle ground. There may have been as many as 900,000 war-related deaths. This is not surprising, because many of those deaths were the result of uranium depletion caused by our bombs, and by the contamination of Iraq's water supply. Death from radioactive poisoning is just as fatal as being killed by a bullet or a bomb. Yet President Bush continues to be oblivious to these scientific findings, and he continues to press for war until "victory" is achieved. What sort of victory does he have in mind? By the time he is scheduled to leave office, more than a million Iraqis will have died because of his war, and he will have more than trebled the deaths caused by Saddam Hussein. Can we continue to suffer this stain on our collective conscience by turning a blind eye on our president's irrational hubris? Nixon had the good sense to resign when faced with disgrace. For the good of our country, Bush should do the same. No good will come from his remaining in office for two more years. It's time for the king's horses and his men to stop their efforts on his behalf and tell him the facts of life: resign now or get impeached later.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All the king's horses... Posted by: willymack
US media picture of Iraq: small area with green walls and guards.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Nov 18, 2006 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It is rather striking, moreover, that critics of this research have mostly avoided calling for additional, independent studies that could provide a scientific basis for either confirming or refuting its alarming findings."

That's the signature of the public relations approach for Iraq and Afghanistan - they want less information to get to the public, not more!

They also want to monitor how much information is getting to the US public, as the Lincoln Group's recent $20 million Pentagon contract for media monitoring shows:

Lincoln Group: Unethical weapon of mass deception, Bill Berkowitz November 16, 2006

See also, http://www.alternet.org/story/41479/ "I was a PR intern in Iraq"

Similar tactics were used by public relations firms working for tobacco companies, and are in current use by fossil fuel-funded PR campaigns designed to prevent any action on global warming. They attack climate studies for not having enough data, and then try to use their political allies to defund climate science research and satellite monitoring programs.

Thanks for the great article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A war crime everyday.
Posted by: Ghoulman on Nov 18, 2006 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US occupation General was quoted in 2003 as saying "we don't do body counts" This is obviously against international law, US law, Iraq law, and the Geneva Conventions. Every soldier knows this rule: do body counts.

But America does not. Everyday.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I suspect our soldiers' death rate is phony, too.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 18, 2006 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is also high-time to reassess the number of combat deaths in Iraq. Remember, the same people who have "cooked the books" on the Iraqi civilian death rate also are calculating our combat deaths as well. Rumor has it that if a soldier dies at Ramstein or on the way to Germany for treatment, that soldier is not counted, and that the actual number of American combat deaths in Iraq is two to three times the official total. On its face that seems outrageous – but so does the Lancet study, until one understands the rigor with which it was conducted and the lack of ulterior motive for the finding.

Supposedly, there is a group that is trying to compare official American death rolls from Iraq with the number of families who are missing soldiers, but I don't know about any progress in this regard. Anybody have any info? Maybe The Lancet can study this as well – I'd believe them over the liar's cartel in Washington any day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AMERICAN TROOP CASUALTIES UNDERSTATED, TOO
Posted by: AJWeishar on Nov 18, 2006 9:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This should be a given, that the Iraq numbers are low. The U.S. count is bogus. On October 11, al-Habbaniyah medical hospital workers sent out the names of over 300 troops killed in an attack on the Camp Falcon arsenal, south of Baghdad. The medical staff was trying to get the U.S. media to cover the attack which was censored due to politics and the elections. They are also upset at the censorship of true number of dead and wounded American troops.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Long Con
Posted by: shangrilalad on Nov 18, 2006 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Rabid Right is so cunning. They lied us into an unwinnable war we shouldn’t have started in the first place, and now say we can’t settle for anything less than victory, no matter how much it costs or how long it takes. The kicker is, they’re going to blame Democrats for losing the unwinnable war.

Republicans don’t have any skin in the game, don’t care how much it costs or how long it takes because they and their corporate friends are making a killing. Never before has so much money been stolen by so few and they’re in it for the long con.

A majority of Americans are so in deep denial about so many things, it boggles the mind to consider the multitude of counter intuitive beliefs they have swallowed to salve their conscience. But we have millions of sociopaths ready willing and able to provide the salve.

Any sociologist or psychologist can explain the mechanics of brainwashing and mass mind control used by the Nazis, but very few have had the courage to point out that the same techniques employed by Nazis are standard operating procedure here, used by our own homegrown fascists. Our mass media is the propaganda arm of the Rabid Right.

We claim to be a Christian nation but our actions belie our words. We don’t have Universal Health Care, and the Rabid Right has shredded the social safety net established by Democrats for the most vulnerable of our citizens. Bribed politicians pass unjust laws that enable the rich and powerful to prey on us. Plutocrats and corporations wield economic and political power like a sword to oppress the middleclass and poor here, and all over the world. When that fails, they use the sword to subdue their enemies abroad. Who doubts they will wield the sword here if they feel threatened?

At some level, we all know these things are true, and we lay awake at night worrying. But when morning comes we repress these incredibly painful thoughts and go to work. We can’t face these truths in the light of day because it would make a sham of everything we believe about ourselves and our country.

None of want to admit we live in a Police State.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The USA knows the body count, it's CLASSIFIED
Posted by: sofla100 on Nov 18, 2006 2:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Woodwards book, "State of Denial," much is made about Bush wanting to know the ongoing body counts from skirmishes in Iraq. So, you can bet your last dollar bill that American intelligence knows darn well how many have died, both civilian and military. Other figures American intelligence must know is how many Iraqi's are imprisoned in Iraq, and numbers such as the amount of Iraqi prisoners tortured by US forces, the number of civilian women raped and the number of Irai's deported to secret US jails in other countries for "special treatment." The USA learned from Vietnam to not ever publicize "body counts." But, just like the coffins coming into Dover nobody wants Americans to see, the body count is undoubtedly well known and hushed up to the maximum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another Study
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Nov 18, 2006 2:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2800 American soldiers have been killed in the Iraq hostilities. It would be very interesting if some organization would undertake a statistical study to determine what confidence we should place in this number. A study similar to the Lancet would be a good contribution to our understanding of the effects of the Iraq invasion and occupation.

We should all have become accustomed to carefully considering definitions of common words when dealing with Bush administration claims. As with issues of torture, job growth, etc. we need to be careful about how words are defined and their meanings abused.

There are some good reasons to doubt that 2800 is a reasonable estimate and one issue is the meaning of “in Iraq”. The counting of war casualties for earlier wars generally took a common-sense notion of what constituted a war casualty. For example, an uncle of mine was in a training accident during WW2. His death occurred in U.S. territory and not in battle with any enemy, but he was nevertheless considered a war casualty because his training mission was directly connected to the war effort.

In contrast, a soldier in Iraq may be shot on the streets of Baghdad today may be evacuated to Germany for medical treatment but pronounced dead just after takeoff. Because the soldier died in the air and not in Iraq, that soldier is not considered a war casualty.

So the casualty count is kept down by playing with the meaning of the phrase “in Iraq”. What about the word “soldier”? We can be sure that the 2800 dead include only those members of the armed forces who are actually in the Army, Navy, Marines or Air Force. However, the U.S. has a quite large mercenary force in Iraq as well. In addition, there are large numbers of civilians in Iraq performing duties that in earlier wars would have been performed by members of the armed forces. Should the deaths of these truck drivers, medical personnel, contractors, utility workers, etc. not be counted as war casualties as well?

It is entirely possible and practical (and, at least to me, very interesting) to undertake a statistical study for determining how many U.S. citizens and residents have been killed as a direct result of the Iraq hostilities. With little additional effort, the study could develop similar numbers for the war in Afghanistan. The methods for doing this are well known and well trusted and they are exactly the same methods that were used in the Johns Hopkins study. The principal difference is that the study would not have to be conducted inside a war zone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

our own holocausts
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Nov 18, 2006 10:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The low end of this range is nearly 400,000, while the high end is nearly a million.

Lancet editor Richard Horton made the same point in a commentary published in the Guardian: Only when you go out and knock on the doors of families, actively looking for deaths, do you begin to get close to the right number. This method is now tried and tested.

Riverbend, an anti-occupation blogger, wrote that she found found the figure of 650,000 dead entirely plausible. We literally do not know a single Iraqi family that has not seen the violent death of a first or second-degree relative these last three years. Abductions, militias, sectarian violence, revenge killings, assassinations, car-bombs, suicide bombers, American military strikes, Iraqi military raids, death squads, extremists, armed robberies, executions, detentions, secret prisons, torture, mysterious weapons - with so many different ways to die, is the number so far fetched?

It is rather striking, moreover, that critics of this research have mostly avoided calling for additional, independent studies that could provide a scientific basis for either confirming or refuting its alarming findings.


I get really annoyed when Americans only talk about Americans who died in Iraq. It really bothers me that 400,000-1,000,000 dead Iraqis are just a footnote to Americans. Our dead are .3% of the Iraqi dead. About 60,000 Americans died in Vietnam, 2% of the 3,000,000 Vietnamese who died. We must be a virulently racist nation to ignore these holocausts that take place elsewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Amen sister. Posted by: Revolutionary
HATS OFF TO JELLO BIAFRA!
Posted by: Tom Degan on Nov 19, 2006 4:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm reminded of the words of Jello Biafra, the former lead singer and Founder of the Dead Kennedys, who, before this half-wiited little thug even took the oath of office said:

"Everytime a Bush is elected president, alot of people die".

Well, dang! If truer words were ever spoken, I'd sure as hell would like to know about it! This is the very nasty reality we ALL must come to terms with: The fact is, our president - yours and mine - not to mention the vice-president - is guilty of genocide. Let's face the music and dance, foks! The sooner we own up to this, the healthier - mentally and maybe even spiritually - we'll all be.

George W. Bush, aginst international opinion and the charters set forward very clearly by the United Nations, invaded a sovereign nation. The reasons they gave for invading that nation were not true. As a result of that invasion, at least half a million ot the citizens of that nation are dead. That's genocide

When are these people going to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity? When?

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HATS OFF TO JELLO BIAFRA! Posted by: Conservasaurus
Don't Mess with the Decider or his Prophet
Posted by: edith on Nov 19, 2006 4:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not to worry. A few nervous nellies have abandoned our Prez because of a few rotten corpses,and the Arab ones don't really count), so who cares if it's 20,000 corpses or 2 million?

To illustrate the point, just as everyone jumps off the Bush Boat (her name is "Stay the Course"), along comes Zionist Leader Olmert, fresh from the blood-feast of Lebanon, who was an honored guest at the White House, where the Conqueror of Tyre stated:

'“We are very much impressed and encouraged by the stability which the great operation of America in Iraq brought to the Middle East,”' Olmert said as he sat next to Bush in the Oval Office.

"The comments surprised some Democrats, and angered a few others." ("The Forward", November 17, 2006).

That'll teach the Democrats to oppose Operation Iraqi Freedom! The Wrath of Zion will descend upon them and they shall be as the bleached bones in the desert.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rampton misunderstands "main street bias"?
Posted by: Dissident93 on Nov 19, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sheldon Rampton seems to misunderstand one of the scientific criticisms of the Lancet study. The "main street bias" criticism holds that the study is unrepresentative of the population of Iraq since it surveys only houses that are "located on cross streets next to main roads or on the main road itself." (*Source below)

Sheldon Rampton says there are "two problems with this criticism". The first he describes as follows:

"First, the Lancet researchers deny that they oversampled from main streets. The methodology section of the published study states that they surveyed homes selected randomly from "a list of residential streets crossing" a randomly-selected main street.

Rampton emphasises the word "crossing", as if this distinction between main streets and roads which "cross" them invalidates the "main street bias" criticism. But clearly it doesn't - main street bias includes cross streets (see above).

And the fact that the Lancet researchers "deny" they oversampled from main streets (as Rampton claims) doesn't alter the fact that the Lancet methodology states that they sampled from streets crossing main streets (which would make their study unrepresentative of the Iraqi population, according to main street bias criticism).

When addressing this criticism, Gilbert Burnham (Lancet co-author) contradicted the description of the methodology:

"As far as selection of the start houses, in areas where there were
residential streets that did not cross the main avenues in the area
selected, these were included in the random street selection process, in
an effort to reduce the selection bias that more busy streets would have."
(My emphasis)
http://tinyurl.com/yltzr8

Here, Burnham is saying they selected streets that "did not" cross the main roads (whereas the methodology states that they selected streets which did cross main streets (eg see Rampton's quote, above).

Furthermore, Burnham's statement raises doubts over Rampton's second "problem" with main street bias - that there's no evidence for a bias resulting from sampling close to main streets. Burnham contradicts this by stating (see above) that the Lancet team made "an effort to reduce the selection bias that more busy streets would have". In other words, Burnham seems to be acknowledging not only that they recognise such a bias from sampling "more busy streets", but that they took measures to avoid this bias (in a way that's contradicted by their own description of their methodology).

In other words, Sheldon Rampton hasn't demonstrated any "problems" with the main street bias criticism. On the contrary, he's inadvertently highlighted that questions about the Lancet methodology (raised by the main street bias criticism) still urgently need addressing.

Rampton says that "critics of the Lancet study [...] should call for additional, independent studies that could provide a scientific basis for either confirming or refuting its alarming findings." Well, I think the paper on main street bias (soon to be published, I believe - author details below) could be one such study. And if it does refute the Lancet findings, then I hope Rampton won't be so quick to dismiss it. It could, in fact, point to (necessary) improvements in the way such epidemiological studies are conducted in conflict zones - ie to allow for biases resulting from conflict-related variables, which don't normally apply in standard non-conflict use of such methods.

* Quoted from Sean Gourley and Professor Neil Johnson of the physics department at Oxford University and Professor Michael Spagat of the economics department of Royal Holloway, University of London - authors of the main street bias criticism. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0610/S00436.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

History is written by the victors. US history is mostly fantasy.
Posted by: jreinhart1 on Nov 19, 2006 1:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Regarding today's situation, we need fundamental change. Please read
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/
voices.php/2006/11/19/when_history_becomes_chopped_liver
WHEN HISTORY BECOMES CHOPPED LIVER
by Carolyn Baker

Politicians, transnational bankers, corporatists & military industrialists will do ANYTHING for power, resources money and control.

The US went to war in WW I after Wilson statied he wouldn't. The US supplied both sides, but went into the war and saved Palestine for Lord Balfour at the request of Lord Rothchild as well as keeping Germany and the Ottoman Turks from completing the Berlin to Baghdad railroad.

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild:

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's
Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge
of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,
Arthur James Balfour

30 Million people died.

WW II was worse, as the US invests heavily and supplies Germany and Italy with money, iron, chemicals, technology... through Brown Bros, Harriman and Prescot Bush of the Union Banking Corporation beyond declaring war into 1942 when congress shut the operation down.

60+ Million people died

America, land of the free, has & will pay for terrorism on demand since the Spanish American War.

It really accelerated with the creation of the National Security Act (1947). The number of operations on other nations to take wealth and resources using economic, covert/overt actions or military aggression is unparalleled. The US and it's economic hit men, death squads or military have allowed bankers and industrialists access to money, drugs and resources from Angola to Vietnam and beyond. The US has standing armies in over 100 countries. W has allowed the use of embassies for Special Operations personnel now.

The NSA has worked to create a culture of fear, corruption and the elimination of critical thinking in the US. The only boogymen are our boogymen (the intelligence apparatus and the death squads the US employs. The war on terror is a euphemism for the war on freedom. That the way the top of the pyramid wants it and the hit men in Washington are more than happy to obey. When Washington declares war on things such as crime, the reverse is true. It is working to create more crime. As such, the war on poverty was to create more poverty, war on drugs was to push more drugs, war on crime was to create more crime, no child left behind and head start are to make our children ignorant and incapable of critical thinking... The object is to create people scared of their own shadows, afraid to speak out, incapable of organizing, socially insecure and/or inept, feel inadequate, isolate people and make it socially unacceptable a to speak up.

More information on intelligence groups (NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA, Private Corporations/Foundations and Think Tanks) can be found in books such as John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", Stephen Kinzer's "Overthrow", transcripts from Phil Agee, John Stockwell, Rodney Stich, Moyers' Video "The Secret Government" video.google.com/videoplay? docid=2397496401234089687&q=secret

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Lancet Study and the Sunnis.
Posted by: yellow on Nov 19, 2006 11:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have downloaded and printed the link that summarizes the Lancet study. It shows a chart of the violence in Iraq by region and ALL the provinces that are in the area in dark red, or area where there are over 10 violent deaths per 1000 annually, are in the Sunni Triangle. This coincides with what we know about what is going in the civil war and the ethnic cleansing which persists mostly in the center of the country. The Sunnis are being attacked by Shi'ite militia and probably the US military. Some of the violence could be Sunni attacks on Shi'ites in and around Bagdad although Moqtada al Sadr is for Sunni/Shi'ite unity against the occupation as far as I know. The occupation is opposed by all. Anyhow, I find the 655,000 additional Iraqi dead entirely plausible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]