[Vision2020] tony's worries for american women

[Saundra Lund]

Oh, come on Sunil -- you know it's because we don't bother to keep good
track of the deaths of uncivilized heathens!


Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
- Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006, Saundra Lund.
Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum
without the express written permission of the author.***** 

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Sunil Ramalingam
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 9:40 AM
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] tony's worries for american women

Gary,

Why didn't our government keep track of these deaths from the beginning?

Sunil


>From: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
>To: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com, Bookpeople of Moscow <Bookpeople at moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] tony's worries for american women
>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 19:35:32 -0800
>
>The first time around the guesstimate was 100,000 and now you'd like 
>for us to believe the number cooked up in the "more reliable study" is 
>on the order of 650,000? A difference of over half a million more 
>people all because the surveyors could travel with a bit less 
>difficulty and were more stringent in their requirements for proof? Or 
>is it the two additional years? A quarter of a million people per year 
>is some mighty fine killin'. I'm sorry but I don't care what your 
>position on the war is, a person has to find something fishy in such a 
>major disparity in the figures. Unless, of course, the numbers support 
>preconceived notions and biases...
>
>g
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
>To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
>Cc: "Tony" <tonytime at clearwire.net>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>; 
>"Bookpeople of Moscow" <Bookpeople at moscow.com>
>Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:10 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] tony's worries for american women
>
>
> > On 12/16/06, g. crabtree <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
> >> From Slate magazine (no friend to conservatives)
> >>
> >> 100,000 Dead-or 8,000How many Iraqi civilians have died as a result 
> >> of the war?
> >> By Fred Kaplan
> >> Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 6:49 PM ET The authors of a 
> >> peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins 
> >> University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died
>as
> >> a
> >> result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published
>online
> >> today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this
>number
> >> is
> >> so loose as to be meaningless.
> >>
> >> The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many 
> >> Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, 
> >> conducting surveys on
>how
> >> many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on 
> >> those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That 
> >> difference-the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion 
> >> period-signifies the war's toll.
> >> That
> >> number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation 
> >> more
> >> fully:
> >>
> >>   We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000)
>during
> >> the post-war period.
> >>
> >> Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know 
> >> what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 
> >> 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English-which, 
> >> disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 
> >> 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number 
> >> between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain 
> >> language-98,000-is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly 
> >> vast
> >> range.)
> >>
> >> This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You can read the rest of the article at
>http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/
> >
> > G --
> >
> > This is in reference to a mortality study done in 2004; a different 
> > study than the one done in 2006. The one in 2006 used a sample size 
> > of 4,000, spread across the country, had a 99.9% confidence 
> > interval, and required people claiming deaths in their families to 
> > produce death certificates. The main difference is in the number of 
> > cluster points (that is, physical locations where families were 
> > surveyed) used to survey families, which was limited by the fact 
> > that travel in Iraq is so difficult.
> >
> > Of course, if the US government was collecting numbers on civilian 
> > mortality, as they have in every conflict since World War II, we 
> > wouldn't have to rely on investigators from Johns Hopkins. But, 
> > peculiarly, they have decided that they just don't want to know how 
> > many civilians are dying in this war. One would think that that 
> > number would be relevant to someone.
> >
> > -- ACS
> >
>
>
>=======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com 
>=======================================================


=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================