[QUOTE=ewmayer;99627]... there is increasing evidence that Iran is in fact deeply involved in a program of Iraq destabilization ... [/QUOTE]

I would be interested to see this evidence if you can point us to it. It seems to me that most of the destabilization is resulting from the Shiite-Sunni conflict already unfolding within Iraq, but of course, other countries in the area, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, certainly must feel that they have a stake in this conflict as well.

[quote=ewmayer;99627]Lots of possible explanations ... a possible one that is more benign than the one you apparently favor[/quote]Oh, please. I'm not that one-sided.

[quote]there is increasing evidence (even after applying the now-standard low, low "Bush White House propaganda" credibility multiplier) that Iran is in fact deeply involved in a program of Iraq destabilization,[/quote]Exactly how long have you doubted this?

It was obvious (to those paying attention, anyway) back in 1992 (not to mention 2002) what would happen if Saddam was toppled without sufficient occupying force to prevent a power vacuum. Remember that general who testified in 2002 that we (U.S.) needed about twice as big a force as was being planned for Iraq, in order to perform occupation duties -- the general who was fired soon afterwards?

(And to those who reply, "Well, we didn't [I]have[/I] twice the personnel", I say, "Aha!")

Shucks. 1992 was even before the [I]Republicans[/I] took over Congress.

It has nothing to do with a Democratic Congress. It has to do with neocon arrogance. (Edit: I first wrote "stupidity", but that's not correct.)

[quote]Sure a lot of that was diplomatic/military bluster, but "paper tiger"?[/quote]That's standard terminology in China.

[quote]While military action vs. China is clearly out of the question, the US has an extremely powerful nonmilitary threat: economic sanctions.[/quote]

So, did Dubya simply warn the Chinese that if they messed with our plane, we'd impose powerful economic sanctions? Well, we don't actually know. But the odds are against it because it wouldn't have been a credible threat ... and it would be soo... unlike his public bluster.

(BTW, let me remind readers that what I'm ridiculing Bush for is that he publicly and loudly pretended that a forceful declaration to the Chinese that the plane was U.S. sovereign territory would have some real effect. What he [I]should[/I] have done was keep his mouth shut about it in public, in recognition of the realities of the situation, instead of proclaiming his inexperience for all to see.)

[quote]whereas for the Chinese it could almost overnight derail their entire economic growth program and throw them into a major recession.[/quote]... [I]now[/I], maybe, after six years more Chinese growth, it could. (Their economy has almost doubled in that time.) Would the effect on China have been that dramatic six years ago? Shucks, would the back-effect on the U.S. been that benign six years ago?

[quote]I'd say that tiger has some real claws underneath the papier-maché.[/quote]But I was referring to the January 2001 situation, not a current one.

Besides, if tomorrow another U.S. spy plane emergency-landed on Chinese territory, could we realistically threaten to use any of our real claws to keep the Chinese from entering the plane? Is there any practical way to prevent the Chinese from entering the plane? I don't see how, unless we're willing to nuke the plane or unless we have some really humdinger Special Forces waiting in readiness in the western Pacific.

[QUOTE=philmoore;99634]I would be interested to see this evidence if you can point us to it. It seems to me that most of the destabilization is resulting from the Shiite-Sunni conflict already unfolding within Iraq, but of course, other countries in the area, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, certainly must feel that they have a stake in this conflict as well.[/QUOTE]

Google "Iran Iraq Badr Brigade".

Of course you are correct that the Iranian-backed militias are far from the only destabilizing force in Iraq - but the discussion here was focused specifically on the latest news about U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran.

[QUOTE=Spherical Cow;98540]....I don't see how the Lancet survey would have overestimated deaths by even twice the actual number, much less the 10X overestimation some people claim. [/QUOTE]
See yesterday's The Times
[url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece[/url]

It is pretty devasting to the Lancet team.

Even the possibility of fraud is not ruled out.

[QUOTE]See yesterday's The Times
[url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1469636.ece[/url]

It is pretty devasting to the Lancet team.

Even the possibility of fraud is not ruled out.[/QUOTE]

That's very interesting- far more problems being pointed out with that survey than I had seen. Based on that information, I stand corrected: looks like they could have easily overestimated by a factor of two, and more than that certainly looks possible. Time to dig some more. Thanks.

Norm

Factor of two? Sounds more like a factor of 10 to me. The potential political angle revealed by the article was also quite interesting.

I love the bit about (note that I'm paraphrasing here, Cheesehead) "why trust individual citizens to provide death certificates - why not just go to the authorities who *issue* the certificates?"

[quote=M29;100110]See yesterday's The Times
[URL]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece[/URL][/quote]
Good -- critiques on the facts and methodology, not just ad hominem attack, though the article does indulge in the latter ("If you factor in politics, ...") also.

[quote=ewmayer;100153]The potential political angle revealed by the article was also quite interesting.[/quote]... as have been the revealed political angles about the Bush administration's reasons for invading Iraq and the current Iraqi government's potential motivations for minimizing war death counts.

Perhaps we're seeing, in the Lancet report, a possible upper bound to correspond to the IBC et al. lower bounds.

[quote]I love the bit about (note that I'm paraphrasing here, Cheesehead) "why trust individual citizens to provide death certificates - why not just go to the authorities who *issue* the certificates?"[/quote]Note previous discussion in the middle of posting #112 at [URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=98155&postcount=112[/URL], beginning with "Do you really think that even ...".

My idea there was that centralized record repositories in public buildings might be more vulnerable to destruction/disruption in this war zone than dispersed constituent records in private homes.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;100219]My idea there was that centralized record repositories in public buildings might be more vulnerable to destruction/disruption in this war zone than dispersed constituent records in private homes.[/QUOTE]

Quite so, but did the authors of the Lancet paper indicate that they even considered this approach, or ask the "who issues these death certificates?" question?

[quote=ewmayer;100239]did the authors of the Lancet paper indicate that they even considered this approach, or ask the "who issues these death certificates?" question?[/quote]Wouldn't that be along the lines already pursued by the lower-bound estimators relying on published reports (written by reporters in the Green Zone phoning out to ask, or receiving mail from, Iraqi officials and administrators elsewhere in the country)?

I'd agree that a desirable next step might be a survey designed to estimate what percentages of privately-held death certificates, and of centrally-held records, are fraudulent, erroneous, invalid, duplicate, incomplete, misplaced, destroyed or otherwise missing. That may not be feasible until the country is at peace.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;100219]... as have been the revealed political angles about the Bush administration's reasons for invading Iraq and the current Iraqi government's potential motivations for minimizing war death counts.

[/QUOTE]


Oh, so because Bush manipulated intelligence, it's ok for his opponents to manipulate the data surrounding civilian deaths. Thanks for clearing that up Cheesehead.