David, any death toll or reports from Afghanistan ? I am afraid to hear afghan body counts. Alsom I find it so curious that Opium is allowed to be farmed,and I don't understand the lack of international outrage. It seem that a lots of afghanis are loosing their focus on the opium trade instead of double checking the back doors from which oil reserves can be smuggled.

David Petersen, This is a final note - I have written enough at Z. You can see my previous comments under your "thousand words" entry. You can also see Asil's comments which I quoted. I don't think any of my basic points have been rebuted and moreover having followed this issues closely via science-related journals, I see little support there for the positions here at Z. And no, the (philosophical) Diamond quote doesn't appear to relate to the malaria cure or for that matter much of the roll-back in death accomplished by the West in the past century. (It does apparently limit the utility of trying to shotgun bacteria-based disease with antibiotics, though). Ted Christopher

My apologies, the essay I have read was about jared diamond writings; this essay was poorly written..

Friends: A little gem from the U.K., as posted by Tim Lambert to the ScienceBlogs website.--See what good liars the various intellectuals working for attack-sites such as the Wall Street Journal can be?  (David Peterson, Chicgo)

Les Roberts responds to Steven E Moore

Posted on: October 19, 2006 11:49 AM, by Tim Lambert

I asked Les Roberts to comment on Moore's piece. He wrote:

I read with interest the October 18th editorial by Steven Moore reviewing our study reporting that an estimated 650,000 deaths were associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. I had spoken with Mr. Moore the week before when he said that he was writing something for the Wall Street Journal to put this survey in perspective. I am not surprised that we differed on the current relevance of 10 year-old census data in a country that had experienced a major war and mass exodus. I am not surprised at his rejection of my suggestion that the references in a web report explaining the methodology for lay people and reporters was not the same as the references in our painstakingly written peer reviewed article. What is striking is Mr. Moore's statement that we did not collect any demographic data, and his implication that this makes the report suspect. This is curious because, not only did I tell him that we asked about the age and gender of the living residents in the houses we visited, but Mr. Moore and I discussed, verbally and by e-mail, his need to contact the first author of the paper, Gilbert Burnham, in order to acquire this information as I did not have the raw data. I would assume that this was simply a case of multiple misunderstandings except our first report in the Lancet in 2004 referenced in our article as describing the methods states, "...interviewees were asked for the age and sex or every current household member." Thus, it appears Mr. Moore had not read the description of the methods in our reports. It is not important whether this fabrication that "no demographic data was collected" is the result of subconscious need to reject the results or whether it was intentional deception. What is important, is that Mr. Moore and many others are profoundly uncomfortable that our government might have inadvertently triggered 650,000 deaths.

Most days in the US, more than 5000 people die. We do not see the bodies. We cannot, from our household perspective, sense the fraction from violence. We rely on a functional governmental surveillance network to do that for us. No such functional network exists in Iraq. Our report suggests that on top of the 300 deaths that must occur in Iraq each day from natural causes; there have been approximately 500 "extra" deaths mostly from violence. Of any high profile scientific report in recent history, ours might be the easiest to verify. If we are correct, in the morgues and graveyards of Iraq, most deaths during the occupation would have been due to violence. If Mr. Bush's "30,000 more or less" figure from last December is correct, less than 1 in 10 deaths has been from violence. Let us address the discomfort of Mr. Moore and millions of other Americans, not by uninformed speculation about epidemiological techniques, but by having the press travel the country and tell us how people are dying in Iraq.

 

Keir and Bwong:

Exactly the book from which I quoted: Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, 2nd. Ed. (Norton, 2005--though I myself don't own the new edition).

David Peterson
Chicago   

 

"Guns, Germs and Steel" is definitely one of the most fascinating books I read.

Cyrano, what would prompt you to claim that Jared Diamond is "boring and stupid". Guns, Germs, and Steel was hardly either (or am I missing sarcasm?) Keir The Hague

gentlemen please, feed me writers that have nuances and style in their essays.. oh boy jared diamond is boring and stupid.

Ted Christopher:

I don't understand your initial objection: "The study is too narrow...."   

As for "An Age-Old Microbe May Hold the Key to Curing an Age-Old Affliction" (Lynn Yarris, May 30, 2006)--thanks for the link.  Notice how the WHO map of the globe that accompanies this article shows that the preponderance of malaria cases fall (roughly) within 20 degrees north and 20 degrees south of the equator.  This calls to mind something the geographer-slash-anthropologist Jared Diamond has written: "We and our pathogens are now locked in an escalating evolutionary contest, with the death of one contestant the price of defeat, and with natural selection playing the role of umpire." 

You quote from the caption that accompanies the WHO map that accompanies Lynn Yarris' article.  And you ask: "Will there be any gratitude from Jihadist or the Z-ist over this development.  No.  The point is outrage/jihad and outrage, respectively. Note that this was developed at a national laboratory in an 'imperialist' nation."

Now.  Do you honestly believe that this question merits a response? 

And how about your second-to-last paragraph, which I'll reproduce in full: 

As a final point Z et al really does incite possible violence. Here's a comment from Petersen's last posting,
"I hate the U.S (and everything it stands for), I hate its government that is killing my fellow Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters, I hate its version of democracy that is raining down destruction on innocent civilians (whose blood it deems less valuable than American or Western blood)!!!! So more power to the Chavez's of this world, the Ahmedinijadds, the Nasrallas, to every Palestinian, Iraqi and all resistance fighters striking blow after deadly blow (whether in words, rocks or bullets) against the devil's imperialist fortress that is slowly yet surely crumbling!!!!" 

Might you care to explain who the author of the remark that you've placed inside quotation marks was?

Thanks.

 

David Peterson
Chicago

 

Cyrano:

To advance your point: Not only doesn't the occupying power keep records of Iraqi deaths (i.e., at least not any that it is willing to disclose publicly).  But we can pretty much tell how thoroughly establishment and lacking independence the academics and news media are by the fact that they also have no interest in the scale of the death and destruction caused inside Iraq by the occupiers.  Let us say that some 600,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the March 2003 invasion and its aftermath, now some three-and-a-half years on.  This constitutes not only an "unequivocal humanitarian emergency" (Richard Horton's phrase).  But having resulted from what was unequivocally a criminal war of aggression, we're talking about the command authority behind grave war crimes as well.--Might it be expecting too much of the non-state-controlled news media in the States and elsewhere to be interested in learning more about the facts?  And since we already know the answer to this question (based on more than ample evidence), why not?           

David Peterson
Chicago 

 

 

Keir: 

Thanks for providing this superb link to Democracy Now's coverage--"Co-Author of Medical Study Estimating 650,000 Iraqi Deaths Defends Research in the Face of White House Dismissal," October 12.  Quite a find.  It contrasts dramatically with the establishment news media's capacity for focusing on the crimes and indiscretions of Official Enemies--real or merely alleged.

David Peterson
Chicago

 

bobbo, Ted is still standing giving the fascist salute to the tv.. ted wrote: My problem with Z is it is too-limited - focussed whining if you will - and that is not going to do much good. The further point that I closed with, is that it resonates with the violence of Islamists. I don't see much, if any, in the way of constructive whining in the Muslim world or on a related point, much if any science. What ted is failing to say is that the US (and the West) is more violent than the pseudo islamist he , like a paranoid he is, perceive or want you to perceive is a treat.. As well, the US is also rutless when imposing starvations upon countless innocent people. Ted is also fast pointing the finger on the left but never anything constructive comes from his mouth. he wrotes: As pointed out in an earlier posting I think the US would be best to concentrate on using our technical abilities to move on to the challenges of sustainability. here ted agrees with the left the system is unsustainable.. on a sour note, it is more likely ration will be imposed instead a sustainable end. The problem with the "right" is that they know for well being the problem but wont admit it. Ted is probably a zionist and a racist whom would like you to ignore poor palestinians because there is other poor in the world.. what he fails to say, is that the main reasons why there is poverty is because too much is spent on weaposn that profits the rich, instead of finding sustainable ways to eliminate poverty..and everyones know that one of main cause of poverty is war. Monsieur , the left has idea, ted with is old ideas is just contributing to the downfall of mankind hey ted, do something constructive for a change.

Dear Whomever is Bobbo, I thank you for your reply. I am not pro or con with the whiner business or the cheerleader business. My problem with Z is it is too-limited - focussed whining if you will - and that is not going to do much good. The further point that I closed with, is that it resonates with the violence of Islamists. I don't see much, if any, in the way of constructive whining in the Muslim world or on a related point, much if any science. As pointed out in an earlier posting I think the US would be best to concentrate on using our technical abilities to move on to the challenges of sustainability. Perhaps using guilt from our gluttonous use of energy, we can be a leader in developing and making available more efficient energy sources (see September's Scientific American). On a more common humanitarian/suffering front, we can help with things like malaria and the horrible water situation India is in (NYT's recent coverage). It is worth noting that India has 380 million people living on a less than a buck a day (including probably 20% Muslims) and they apparently get much less attention internationally than the 3.8 million Palestinians. If we pull out of the Middle East we can find much more constructive things to do with our time and efforts. I am reminded of the humorous slide in Gore's movie - do we want the gold bars versus do we want a healthy world? The analogous question that we are stuck on is - do we want peace in the Middle East (and relatively cheap oil for awhile) versus do we want to pursue a healthy world. The socio-economic stuff is overdone. Human beings have enormous innate problems with violence towards nature, toward women, and towards other human groups. This provides individual challenges for us. Ted Christopher

Hi David Kelvin Keir Victor Bobbo and al... Its very informative report David, I would agree the US does not keep record of Iraqis death. My biggest concern is what will be the count in the next 5-10 years.. Victor, I say , you put up the thing "right" about explaining social issues, for a selfish person this may seem strange..

Kelvin:

Political football indeed.--Take a subsequent report by the BBC News Online ("Huge gaps in Iraq death estimates," Paul Reynolds, updated on October 14).  To defend the goal at the U.S. and British end of the field, Reynolds locates Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, Iraq Body Count (though "The IBC reaction to the Lancet report is awaited," he writes), President George Bush, General George Casey, and the British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett.  Then Reynolds lays out some of the details of the research by Burnham et al.   Then he resorts to quoting Slate's Fred Kaplan, who back in November 2004, contributed one of the worst--and therefore most often repeated by defenders of the U.S. and British goalpost--assessments of the original 2004 research by Roberts et al.  Reynolds' updated material derives from Roberts.  Finally, Reynolds closes with the following two sentences:

We are left then with the estimate from this report and the various counts by other groups. The figures are now even more divergent than they were.

Short of monumental, undetected reporting biases on the part of the sampled population (one caveat always worth taking into account), there is no way in the world that the reseachers could have achieved the results that they did (i.e., 654,965 Iraqis having died as a consequence of the invasion, of which 601,027 died violently) without the god's-eye actual totals being huge.  At this stage, how could anybody be left willing to defend the U.S. and British goalpost?  

David Peterson
Chicago

Shannon:

But you've already been provided with the full-length explication of the "details": Namely, those provided by The Human Cost of the War in Iraq: A Mortality Study, 2002-06, Gilbert Burnham et al., October, 2006 (as posted by the Center for International Studies, MIT).  If you have specific questions (say, about Figures 1, 2, and 3--or whatever), be sure to raise them.

Your question about the "criticisms of this particular study" is more difficult to answer, as one would first have to search far and wide to collect all of the criticisms.  But let us try to distinguish between the serious and trivial criticisms.  Taking the trivial first: These are the kind of criticisms that complain either that the researchers are politically motivated and therefore not to be trusted.  Response: The impact of bias would have to be shown, not simply asserted.  Or the kind that, to quote the American commander of the "multinational" forces, General George Casey, claim that they're gross inflations: "That 650,000 number seems way, way beyond any number that I have seen. I've not seen a number higher than 50,000. And so I don't give that much credibility at all" (DoD, Oct. 11, 2006).  Response: The immediate problem here is that nobody but the researchers working with Burnham (Les Roberts, the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Al Mustansiriya University, and the reviewers working with The Lancet) have conducted any research into these questions that is remotely comparable to theirs.  So in fact the American Generals don't have any estimates with which to counter Burnham's. 

One potentially serious criticism (though it still would have to be shown, not simply asserted, as I'm doing here), not only of the current work, but of all similarly designed mortality surveys, is that no matter how well the variables are controlled at the researchers' end, the one variable that they cannot control with the same degree of confidence is the role of bias and reporting inaccuracies on the part of the sampled population.  If members of a sampled population anticipate that their cause (i.e., quite typically survival) will be advanced by responding to researchers in a certain way, how can the researchers control for the kind of misrepresentation and error and simple lies to which people are prone or to which people will resort for survival?  Certainly by May, June, and July of 2006, eveybody inside Iraq understands their predicament and the role of opinion among the foreign powers.  (And so on for Haiti, the western Sudan, Kosovo several years ago, and the like.)  But one can only speculate as to the nature of the impact that these kinds of factors will have on any given result.  How can one know more?

David Peterson
Chicago

 

I think you'll find that a people here feel they believe "in the societies in which they live and want those societies to live up to the ideals on which they were founded." It's precisely for this reason that they say the things they do. If they didn't want their society to live up to its ideals, they would whine about China or something.

You also might want to examine liberalism and free-market ideals and see if they are actually embodied in the practices of the modern Western state. In fact, no state, certainly not the United States, practices free-market policies; it heavily subsidizes key sectors and attempts to get others to accept the free market so it can maximize its economic privileges. This is similar to what the British did when they came up with the notion of the free market.

As for liberalism, if we are concerned with people's individual rights to life, liberty and security, then we should definitely be concerned with how many die from our bombs, are improsoned in our gulags, and live in danger under our occupations.

I am always amused at the connection people make between "freedom" and "democracy", as if one means the other. Nothing could be further from the truth. One can and many have lived under relatively despotic political systems with many many personal freedoms, at least as many as those in the USA used to have. Societies exist where you can live a free life, conduct business, get rich, have children, and die with an inheritance. Freedom is a state of being. Democracy is a political system. Capitalism (also not to be confused with either "freedom" or "democracy") is an economic system. Socialism is a socially-based economic system (the extreme version being represented by the dictatorship of the prolitariat, communism). Any system, economic or political, has an effect upon personal freedoms, if for no other reason than to impose a certain level of constraints upon personal freedoms in favour of the society as a whole. Personal freedoms can be as highly constrained (limited) in capitalist based societies as in socialist based societies, in democratic societies as well as in monarchist or dictatorships. A lot of confusion and rhetoric exists. Venezuela is not a communist country, nor is the USA a democracy. Yet each is accused and held up as examples. I, as well as leftists (I believe), normally favour those political and economic systems that place more emphasis upon social betterment and personal freedoms. Leftists and others like myself might be a little reluctant to uphold am economic or political system whose object is the creation of a society build upon little more than some kind of Darwinist Law of the Jungle where only the strong and the big survive and the hell with the weak. It almost always comes down to the economic system, though, when it comes to oppression of people. The rich and the elite will use whatever political or economic system they can get away with in order to squeeze out the most profits. And most often capitalism provides the ultimate economic weapon to be employed against the masses, degenerating over time into a truly Law-of-the-Jungle style society in which the strong just get stronger and the poor just get poorer, more and more personal freedoms begin disappearing, the already limited political base of the common people begins to evaporate, business works closer and closer with government to help it to force open new markets it can exploit (or to restrict markets it wants to ptotect) and to keep the people in line, and the "hidden hand" becomes instead the "hidden fist", driving the little guys out of the market and creating a society wholey dependent upon the rich and the elite. This is happening under the noses of the citizens of the USA and the UK today. So please, try not to confuse freedom either with democracy or capitalism, or for that matter with totalitarianism or socialism.

I disagree.

 

I think you're assuming that people here are all the same. There's a lot of stridency here. But the left includes a wide variety of ideas and opinions. In my opinion, your committment to liberal, free-market ideals, and your identification with "the West" are every bit as ideological as stuff you'll find on Z-net. Doesn't make it wrong, but it doesn't make it right either.

If you equate socialism with communism, and both with all that is not free, you need to explore and elaborate on that opinion rather than take it as a given. At least when you're on Z net. I mean, the tag line "A community of people committed to social change" says it all. What do you expect?

People here are not enamoured with the status quo, and are thinking about it in a kind of fundamental way. Nothing should be holy, including liberal free market economics, which I think are failing in a number of areas.

Do you think they are an unmitigated success?

 

 

Math skills, what? We are talking about statistics and random sampling, it has very little to do with "math". You might want to go to the Lancett site and check out the statistical and sampling methods used, then you could go down to the library and check out a book on stats and sampling and check for yourself. Then come back and we can talk about the study. Until then you are talking about something you know nothing about.

a major problem with your analysis Bobbo is that the whiners that you up hold, the ones that pushed back slavery and won freedoms, ultimately believed in the societies in which they lived and wanted those societies to live up to the ideals on which they were founded.  The same cannot be said for Znet, et al. who want to overturn the liberal and free-market ideals of the West and replace it with socialism and communism, which is about as far from freedom as one can get.

To Ted Christopher:

On the lack of interest on Znet about an impending malaria cure:

Typically speaking, governments and empires are ambivalent - their actions have both beneficial and baneful effects.

However, the intellectual culture tends to split between "cheerleaders" and "whiners." Cheerleaders identify with systems of power, championing their successes and criticizing thier enemies. They are concerned with categories of analysis like religion, race, nation and nowadays things like "culture" and "civilization." This framework is used to determine who to cheer for, and who to point the finger at. They tend to be enormously proud of all of the "civilizing" work that their society does and are impatient with the "backward" nature of other societies. Cheerleaders don't care much about the excesses of their chosen team in the pursuit of victory.

Whiners tend to be concerned with setting themselves up in opposition to systems of power. They tend to ignore criticisms of official enemies, even if they are valid. Instead they focus on their own societies, often in an effort to change them for the better. They tend to be concerned with categories based on exploitation, and privilege. They try to identify with those they perceive as relatively powerless, against those who are powerful. Ideally they do so regardless of what race, religion, culture or civilization these people are.

There are problems with both these positions, especially when one assumes them habitually and without thinking.

For instance:

I care about getting rid of malaria. Bravo us.

I care about the atrocities in Darfur. Boo them.

I care about my relatively democratic, safe, open society, and thankful to those who help keep it so. Bravo us.

I care about the autocratic, dangerous, closed societies of others, and have contempt for those who help keep them so. Boo them.

And I'm not impressed by unconditional support for leaders of any kind, particularly Ahmedinejad, Nasrallah or Chavez.

But in the end, I will always side with the whiners no matter where they are. The whiners in our societies have won us rights and freedoms, pushed back slavery, and worked hard to bring an end to exploitation of all kinds.

Cheerleaders need whiners. Thomas Sowell would not have the "vastly greater literature on slavery in the Western world" if not for people whining about it. Most of the characteristics that cheerleaders use to define "the Western World" are the products of whining. Cheerleaders will even go so far as to claim the whole project of whining as a purely Western phenomon (usually linked in some high-handed way to the Protestent reformation, which is held up as some unique miracle of the Western world.) It is not; it is a global, human phenomenon, and deserves to be supported.

You're going to get a lot of this from "Z et. al." Better stop whining about it.

BTW, if the World Health Organization was conducting a peer-reviewed epidemiological study when it got those malaria figures, then it's as credible as the latest casualty figures from Iraq.

We're not doing those people any favours Mr. Christopher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The study is too narrow and the point of David Peterson's (and Z et al) coverage is enragement. Ordinary enragement in a country like our own, and of course elsewhere pushing the enragement-begets-jihad that is one of the distinguishing features of Islam. I (Ted Christopher) pointed out a number of these basic points in Peterson's previous ("Chavez") blog and I got no meaningful rebut and none at all from David Petersen. I'll add a few here. As a starting point consider the following article, www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/sabl/2006/May/02-antimalarial.html Last weekend I heard Keasling's boss announce as an aside at an energy talk that this malaria cure looks imminent at a cost of 20 cents a cure. Note there will be no huge un-murdering announcement and no huge un-outrage over this development which "According to the World Health Organization, each year nearly 500 million people living in the tropics and subtropics become infected with malaria, suffering burning fever and severe pain. An estimated one to three million victims die, most of them children." Note the map of the distribution of the disease. Will there be any gratitude from Jihadist or the Z-ist over this development. No. The point is outrage/jihad and outrage, respectively. Note that this was developed at a national laboratory in an "imperialist" nation. The whole staying alive package in a place like Iraq is based on Western input. What happened to small pox, polio, whooping cough, diptheria, tetanus, measles, and childhood tuberculosis and moreover how did infant mortality fall there (as it has throughout the 3rd world) by a factor 3? Where did the water treatment technology come from? Where is Iraq with little meaningful economy beyond sitting on something they can't extract and we should not be using (and won't last long), a population growth rate of still around 5 kids per couple (which has produced among other things a very unstable 40 plus percent under age 15 arrangement - like in Palestine), less than 30 percent food sustainable, and profound historical divisions and violence going with or without the US presence? The US made a huge mistake in going in. That we went in to kill innocent people is absurd. In a possible best case scenario the UN would have gone in to rid Iraq of Saddam and I doubt things would have been that different. There is no way the Sunni extremist would not have responded with a big suicide-based jihad deal. The point of the original study report and certainly Petersen's posting is to put the blame on the US for the deaths. The ability of intellectuals to look beyond the problems of Islam, in particular violence (see S. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations for example) is striking. Who is doing most of the killling in Iraq? Has Chomsky in his entire career of Middle East-coverage ever acknowledged any of the problems of Islamic culture and yes suggested it might be causing some of their problems? What is going on the Sudan and who is providing the humanitarian muscle? Note the recent NYT article on the obvious getting through to European citizens www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/europe/11muslims.html . If we and the rest of the West pull out of Iraq they will face a huge staying-alive crisis. Note the studies' stated loss of life is approximately equal to their expected population growth rate. As I mentioned in a previous post, I think we should exit Iraq and the Middle East ASAP. At that point we should provide a little humanitarian support but greatly limit interaction with the Muslim world, certainly the Middle East. Let them meet their own challenges. As a final point Z et al really does incite possible violence. Here's a comment from Petersen's last posting, "I hate the U.S (and everything it stands for), I hate its government that is killing my fellow Arab and Muslim brothers and sisters, I hate its version of democracy that is raining down destruction on innocent civilians (whose blood it deems less valuable than American or Western blood)!!!! So more power to the Chavez's of this world, the Ahmedinijadds, the Nasrallas, to every Palestinian, Iraqi and all resistance fighters striking blow after deadly blow (whether in words, rocks or bullets) against the devil's imperialist fortress that is slowly yet surely crumbling!!!!" I can't imagine enragement-seeking Muslim youth in the Middle East not utilizing Z's one dimensional work (which is consistent with the Muslims' apparent inability to even consider self-criticism). In looking at slavery Thomas Sowell commented "it is only the existence of a vastly greater literature on slavery in the Western world than in the Islamic world which creates the myopic illusion that slavery, or even African slavery, was a predominantly European phenomenon". If you really want to help out Muslim countries, consider being critical.

Apparently math skills are not Kier and Vic's strong suit or else they too would question the 600 death per day number.

Speaking of mortality rates, it would be interesting to gain insight into how this same method might be employed to measure the mortality rate of Iraqi children during the period of the US-led sanctions in the 90's.

And actually, it's pretty impressive. Standard, accepted population statistical methods were used. If someone disagrees, they probably need to give some other reason than, "That's ridiculous" (why, specifically), or "The study has already been discredited." (by whom, why, when?). Come on, give me specifics.

On yesterday's Democracy Now!, Les Roberts (one of the authors of the new Lancet report) essentially challenged any journalists questioning the validity of the report to, uh, do their job . . .

it's going to be very easy for a couple of reporters to go out and verify our findings, because what we've said is the death rate is four times higher. And a reporter will only have to go to four or five different villages, go visit the person who takes care of the graveyard and say, “Back in 2002, before the war, how many bodies typically came in here per week? And now, how many bodies com in here?” And actually, most graveyard attendants keep records. And if the number is four times higher, on average, you'll know we're right. If the numbers are the same, you'll know we're wrong. It is going to be very easy for people to verify this and get all of this talk about whether it's political out of the way, because the fundamental issue is, a certain number of Iraqis have died, and if our leaders are saying it's ten times lower than it really is, we are driving a wedge between us and the Middle East.

Just thought I'd add that to the mix. And another thing: the Bush Administration's rediculously low number still refers to human beings. For chrissake. Keir The Hague

A lot of the reports say a little blurb on the study, that it was done by survey method of households in Iraq, but what are the details? Obviously there is no way to be 100% correct when you work with a population sample, but what are the details and criticisms of this particular study? And what about the competition? Where do the numbers around 35,000 and 45,000 come from? I would want to know all this before making any judgement either way.

It also gives me a sinking feeling to see that, well, 30,000+ people die in this and that's not so bad, not such a shocker, not so stirring for would be acttivists. What number does it have to be for people to say this is unacceptable? So what if the recent study is off, a little or a lot. It's still appalling. That's how I feel anyhow.

Do you have any sort of a valid argument against the methodology of the study? A study that was conducted in the same manner as the majority of scientific studies of epidemiology in the field today. A study that went through a rigorous peer review process. Or, is your critique based more on a dogmatic, almost theologic, belief in the ideology of US imperialism?

Well as the 9/11 thread indicates, the left likes to ignore facts.

That comes to 600 people a day. Think someone might have noticed all those bodies piling up in the street somewhere if these numbers were true?

Another example of nonsense being accepted as fact.

this number is sickening and what else contribute to nausea is the corporate war profeeters making a buck on death people. Its a good thing that some decent journalists publish estimates and reports on the death toll. I do have difficulty to beleive that Bush and the other clones can push back Iraq to the stone age and walk away free without any fear of the guillotine. If being responsible for countless Iraqis deaths is dismissable and patriotic*, let me add this patriotism does leave a bad smell even skunks would repel.