655,000

#26
#26
The original point is that all those bodies have to go somewhere. In the report - they have 53 confirmed sites if I remember correctly. These 53 come nowhere near to showing the numbers claimed.

It goes to the credibility of the Hopkins study - who knows how many Saddam killed - they've found plenty of bodies but not hundreds of thousands -- if another 650,000 have been killed in the last 3 years where are they if we can't even find the 200,000, 300,000 or whatever.

I know you aren't arguing the 600k is correct but you misinterpreted my intent for discussing the mass graves.
 
#27
#27
Another way to look at this - what is it that the study is reporting?

Is it deaths? The death rate in the US is .83% annually. Applying that same death rate to Iraq would yield 207,500 deaths annually or 622,500 since 2003.

Is this report saying that number is double? (e.g. the report is measuring deaths directly attributable to the Iraq war) Or our they saying this is the total number of deaths in Iraq since 2003?
 
#28
#28
Just skimmed the report - they are saying these are additional deaths that are directly attributable to the war.

600,000 are claimed to be violent deaths. Only a small percentage of these are from aerial bombing with the vast majority being shooting deaths.
 
#29
#29
The point is, that number is absolutely outrageous. Just suppose that we did indeed kill all the Iraqi uniformed militants (460,000) that still leaves almost 200,000 civilians dying. That would amount to somewhere between 15 and 20 per day, and would mean that the media has only reported on 1 out of 4 violent civilian deaths in Iraq.

In my opinion, it is pretty hard to not notice the deaths of over 200,000 people, let alone 600,000.
 
#30
#30
Just in the month of October the death rate is averaging 48 deaths a day for both military/police and civilian.
 
#31
#31
Eighty-four percent of the violent deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery.

This is from the 2004 study.
 
#34
#34
therealUT said:
October is not even half way completed. There was a very bloody few days that have skewed that number.
Click to expand...

Yeah and there have been a few bloody days since the war began as well? What's your point? An average is still taken regardless. All averages can be skewed for some circumstance. It still does not discredit the average I gave.
 
#36
#36
CSpindizzy said:
Yeah and there have been a few bloody days since the war began as well? What's your point? An average is still taken regardless. All averages can be skewed for some circumstance. It still does not discredit the average I gave.
Click to expand...
Then why don't you use the averages for September, August, July, June, etc? Why use the average from a less than half completed month?

Heck, how about this, during the Gulf War, an average of 35 US soldiers were killed in action throughout ground combat. Who cares if it was only 4 days of combat, then the enemy on the ground abandoned the fight and no actual small arms combat took place again. Its an average. Stretch that out over 3 years of ground combat, and we would have lost 38,325 US soldiers had we invaded Iraq in the Gulf War...

Oh, and another point I wanted to make:
If the 2004 study claims that 85% of the deaths in that study were due to aerial strikes, then at most that would have been 165,000. So, 490,000 Iraqi's then died as a result of mostly small arms fire. Again, that number is still larger than the 460,000 Iraqi's that were in Saddam's military!
 
#38
#38
therealUT said:
That in no way shot down anything.
Click to expand...

Ummm...yeah it did. You claimed none of these details would come out until after the election. This basically summarizes quite a large amount of information. And actually this is very scientific and this method has been used by numerous polling companies and universities.
 
#39
#39
CSpindizzy said:
Ummm...yeah it did. You claimed none of these details would come out until after the election. This basically summarizes quite a large amount of information. And actually this is very scientific and this method has been used by numerous polling companies and universities.
Click to expand...
And do notice, the most important element of the study, the actual range of the confidence interval, was left out. Also, I enjoy how they only polled 1,600 households.
 
#40
#40
Well in my limited time the third quarter of 2006 had an average of 46 deaths a day for both civilian and military/police. So October is consistent with the previous three months. Care to argue that?
 
#42
#42
CSpindizzy said:
Well in my limited time the third quarter of 2006 had an average of 46 deaths a day for both civilian and military/police. So October is consistent with the previous three months. Care to argue that?
Click to expand...
I would love to argue that number, please provide all proof.
 
#43
#43
CSpindizzy said:
I guess the concept of polling is too complicated for you? How many would you like them to poll?
Click to expand...
Out of 26,100,000 people, I would like for them to poll more than, at most, 9,600 people. Maybe actually shoot for something higher than 0.03% of the population. Polling that little of the population, is why they end up with confidence intervals that are all over the place. Until they actually poll a greater percentage of the population, then their study will be worthless.
 
#44
#44
The numbers still aren't adding up.

If it (military and civilian) is averaging 48/day - that amounts to about 17,000 annually or about 50,000 over a 3 year period.

Who are the other 600,000?
 
#45
#45
Argue all you want. There are several sources just by using Google. Dispute about 5 sources just available from Google. I'm looking at a sheet that comes from the Iraqi government.
 
#46
#46
volinbham said:
The numbers still aren't adding up.

If it (military and civilian) is averaging 48/day - that amounts to about 17,000 annually or about 50,000 over a 3 year period.

Who are the other 600,000?
Click to expand...
Apparently the concept of polling, statistics, and mathematics is too complicated for you.

Apparently, we cannot apply a logic test to anything that is anti-war these days.
 
#47
#47
therealUT said:
Out of 26,100,000 people, I would like for them to poll more than, at most, 9,600 people. Maybe actually shoot for something higher than 0.03% of the population. Polling that little of the population, is why they end up with confidence intervals that are all over the place. Until they actually poll a greater percentage of the population, then their study will be worthless.
Click to expand...

So you are telling me that every poll being released is just complete garbage? Because your method is never used in polling unless it is some very local race perhaps for dog catcher.
 
#49
#49
To be considered a household member, the deceased had to have lived in the home at least three months prior to death. When interviewers asked to see a death certificate at households reporting a death, it was presented in 92 percent of instances. The survey recorded 1,474 births and 629 deaths among 12,801 people surveyed. The data were then applied to the 26.1 million Iraqis living in the survey area.
 
#50
#50
volinbham said:
The numbers still aren't adding up.

If it (military and civilian) is averaging 48/day - that amounts to about 17,000 annually or about 50,000 over a 3 year period.

Who are the other 600,000?
Click to expand...

Whoa Bama....I'm not tying my numbers to that study. So let's clear that up before you put more words in my mouth.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top