[QUOTE=ewmayer;96774][quote=prime95]The actual number might be somewhere in between.[/quote]...or not. ;)[/QUOTE]

:smile: You got me, the number could be higher. :smile:

Just a quick note about one-and-a-half points:

[quote=Prime95;96782]In my analogy, I never stated the experiments used the same methodologies.[/quote]Ah, now that you comment on actual aspects (I almost wrote "... on reality" :), we can make progress!

(Was it the MIT-vs.-Caltech gimmick that snapped you out of the rut?)

Thanks for the correction, George. Twice I misinterpreted what you had written in your 19 Jan 07 04:31 PM posting.

(See? I'm willing to admit my mistakes, once someone points out an actual mistake instead of an imaginary one.)

[quote]My point is that rather than embracing one particular result[/quote]It only looks that way because there's only one result using that methodology. I'm favoring a methodology, not the result per se.

And ... as has been pointed out, certain aspects of the Lancet survey results are compatible with comparable portions of other surveys, so the Lancet figure is not standing entirely alone.

[quote]a good scientist takes a step back and looks for reasons for the discrepancy,[/quote]... which I did --> the differing methodologies.

[quote]certainly reruns the experiment with the anomalous result, and looks for an experiment with yet another methodology to resolve the discrepancy.[/quote]But here we run into the same "It's a survey, not an experiment" difficulty, so the analogy is still flawed.

- - -

That's all I have time for now. More later.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;96795]Ah, now that you comment on actual aspects ... we can make progress!

(Was it the MIT-vs.-Caltech gimmick that snapped you out of the rut?)[/QUOTE]

Nah, I've nothing but respect for Caltech. I never got into that whole tech school competition deal.

I delayed commenting on the merits of each methodology because I want to have a discussion at a higher level (the responsible way to deal with multiple, conflicting surveys/experiments) rather than the intimate details and possible shortcomings of each method as well as quantifying how much that could affect each result.

Wow!

Look how two Financial Times articles link up with a lesson from history:

First,

[B]"Iran's president to present budget"[/B]
[URL]http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5718e55c-a7e7-11db-b448-0000779e2340.html[/URL]

Quotes:
"President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad will on Sunday present his second annual budget to the Iranian parliament in the face of bitter criticism over his government’s economic mismanagement ..."

"The private sector is demoralised, with the Tehran stock exchange stagnant and down 20 per cent since Mr Ahmadi-Nejad became president. Investors are short of funds as foreign banks limit exposure – due in part to anxiety over US pressure on the banking system – and domestic banks bemoan low liquidity."

"The president’s critics are discussing options like parliamentary impeachment ..."

and then

[B]"Iran tests missiles as fear of attack grows"[/B]
[URL]http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e8ce4b7c-aa4e-11db-83b0-0000779e2340,_i_rssPage=ff3cbaf6-3024-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html[/URL]

Quotes:
"Iran began military manoeuvres in its central desert on Monday, testing short-range missiles at a time of rising tension with the US and as President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad faces continuing criticism at home."

"Questioned on Sunday by reporters over the possibility of military clashes, a confident Mr Ahmadi-Nejad replied: 'What war?' But he faces criticism over both foreign policy and the budget for the Iranian year 2007-8, which he presented to parliament on Sunday.

Deputies from parliament’s economic committees quoted in Monday’s newspapers were generally sceptical of the accuracy of the budget figures given by Mr Ahmadi-Nejad. One economist told the Financial Times the budget was 'structured in such a way as to hide what looks like a growing deficit'."

---

Could it be that young George is more crafty than I've let on?

Could it be that, [B]paralleling events during the Reagan administration, "W" is trying to scare Iran into bankrupting itself like the Soviet Union did?[/B]

Background explanation:

Reagan, by threatening to build the "Star Wars" system (even though it was actually impractical -- for instance: how do you realistically test that the software would work during an actual massive attack?), scared the Soviet Union (using that great acting talent of his) into excessive spending on its military, so excessive that it broke down the already-overloaded communist economic system.

However, Reagan's method also did considerable damage here at home, of which "W" has shown little inclination to understand or repair.

I do give Reagan credit for going along with downsizing the U.S. military (often derisively and falsely credited to Clinton by ignorant or deceptive right-wingers) once a "peace dividend" became available after end of that Cold War.

- - -

But if my speculation is correct, there's the big worry of how similar Iran's weaknesses are to the USSR's, relative to this strategy.

This reply is specifically in response to George's last post about the Lancet survey.

First of all, the Iraq Body Count is not an estimate, it is more of a documentable lower bound, based on press reports but not including the Arabic press, although they claim that Arabic press reports of deaths that are not picked up in the foreign press are rare.

Secondly, the U.N.'s Iraq Living Conditions Survey (ILCS) in 2004 was a larger survey which included almost 22,000 households. It took place earlier in the war, before an apparent increase in the civilian death rate. The ILCS estimates of excess death rates are around double the IBC numbers. However, it is important to notice that the Lancet studies are not the only estimates based on surveys. The Lancet estimates, based on smaller samples, and the ILCS estimates appear to be much farther apart than they actually are. The differences are mainly due to the assumption of a prewar estimate of 5.5 per thousand mortality on behalf of the Lancet group and a prewar estimate of 9 per thousand mortality on behalf of the ILCS group. Although both estimates sound low compared with mortality rates in the U.S., they don't seem to be so unusual for a population with such a large proportion of young people.

Luke (M29) says he has been following this issue for a long time, and appears to regard the Lancet estimate as bunk. I would be interested to know his thoughts on this.

[quote=cheesehead;96801]Look how two Financial Times articles link up with a lesson from history:[/quote]
BTW, that posting is not completely sincere. There are substantial differences between the USSR situation and the current Iranian situation -- rate of public drunkenness, for example.

[QUOTE=masser;95961]Cheesehead, calm down. Italics, bold print, underline and exclamation points are not going to stop US troops from dying in Iraq.

Back to the topic, I found Bush's speech depressing. The follow-up by the media pundits and politicians (both left and right) further demoralized me. All those media windbags that were so gung-ho, embedded and patriotic four years ago are now so very critical, serious and doubtful of the President's plans. Politicians, left and right, also display this hypocrisy. [/QUOTE]

It is not hypocrisy.

The attitude of the "media windbags" and politicians, has LEGITIMATELY
changed on the basis of NEW INFORMATION.

We have since found that W & Co. LIED about the reasons for invading Iraq.

We have found out that the reasons W and the rest of the lying scum gave
us for invading IRAQ *WERE NOT TRUE*.

It is quite appropriate to change opinions in such circumstances.

[QUOTE=brunoparga;95979] I unfortunately find reoccurring consistently in American discourse: that the only deaths that matter (i.e. that get mentioned) are those of Americans.

I'd really, really like if every American here questioned themselves whether they do actually care for Iraqis being killed, or any other country's citizens for that matter.
Bruno[/QUOTE]

Certainly at least some of us care. But *everyone* takes care of his/her
own family FIRST.

However, the well being of American citizens is rightly the concern of
Americans. The well being of citizens of other countries is rightly their own concern.

I certainly put the well being of my immediate family above all others.
There is nothing wrong with this. I put the well being of my compatriots
above that of citizens of other countries.

This is not to say that I ignore the well being of others. But it is quite
proper to have priorities. Everyone prioritizes.

[QUOTE=brunoparga;96010]George,

I'm more than ready to agree that, as a foreigner, I can't fully understand all of the subtleties of American politics. But regarding the ending of your last post (if Bush was lying about the reasons to go to war, why didn't the Democrats point it out to everyone?) I'd ask you: had the Democrats done so, wouldn't they be risking being seen as "unpatriotic", as "anti-American" and so on? Specially because, thanks in part to the media, most Americans were in the mood for a war due to the psychological reactions Cheesehead has described?



I think the most eloquent example that it is impossible for the US to stabilize Iraq - as it is the most important destabilizing force there - is Afghanistan. American occupation there is a year and a half older than in Iraq; not an inch of progress has been made towards changing Afghanistan from a fundamentalist theocracy into a liberal democracy. Taliban still howls from Pakistan; the Afghan groups whom the US has helped into government base their power on drug dealing; there's not the slightest amount of respect to human rights -- I refer here to [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_conversion_controversy"]Abdul Rahman's case[/URL]. That is, Afghanistan has only changed from a US-hostile fundamentalist theocracy to a US-backed fundamentalist theocracy (a bit like Pakistan, in fact).

So, why on Earth would the Iraqi case be any different?? Does it seem any different so far?

Bruno[/QUOTE]

Common sense is so refreshing!!!

I agree. I see no hope of the U.S. establishing a stable government in
either Iraq or Afghanistan. There are too many people holding on to
too many hatreds.

My subconscious has come through again, this time pointing out that I botched part of my earlier reply to Prime95's accusation re: "reality".

Let's review.

I posted:[quote=cheesehead;96411]I missed seeing where brunoparga used the 650,000 figure, but that figure probably comes from last October's report by a team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists:[/quote]... followed by a quotation of parts of the Washington Post article, in which I boldfaced certain passages.

After that quotation, in reply to an M29 response to a garo posting:[quote=M29;96406][quote=garo;96379]it is more like 650,000.[/quote]When you cite that figure, it makes it absolutely impossible to take anything you write seriously.[/quote]I wrote:[quote=cheesehead]M29, read it (noting especially the parts I bolded) and weep. This is reality, not fantasy, not "spin", not propaganda.[/quote]Note that I wrote, "read it (noting especially the parts I bolded)", so the antecedent of "it" was my quotation from the article, which has "parts I bolded", not the figure 650,000 (or 655,000), which doesn't have any such part. What had I bolded? Passages which I considered to reinforce the scientific validity of the report -- not the figure 650,000 (or 655,000).

Then I continued, "This is reality ...". There is no indication whatsoever, no reason to think, that the antecedent of "this" has switched from my article quotation to the figure 650,000 (or 655,000)!
Clearly my "reality" designation referred to my partial quotations from the article (or it could be construed to refer to the article itself or to the study).

My purpose in writing that was to emphasize to M29 that [U]the study[/U] from which garo's 650,000 figure came was "reality" (and I wouldn't have minded a conclusion that I was referring to the article or the whole of my quotations from it as "reality").

But to construe my purpose as having been to declare only the bare figure to be "reality" is unsupportable

- -

So, how does Prime95 justify:
[quote=Prime95;96655]True to form, you've taken the bigger number and run with it. You've declared it "reality".[/quote]? I didn't declare the [I]number[/I] "reality". What I declared "reality" was the [I]report[/I] ... or, one might reasonably conclude, the Washington Post [I]article[/I] or my [I]quotations[/I] from that article, but not the [I]number[/I] itself.

Then Prime95 continued:
[quote=Prime95;96655]Now what would an emotional, irrational Bush-hater do with the information. He would immediately conclude that 650,000 died simply because it is the biggest number. This would be done independent of the relative merits of the studies. All reasons to believe the lower numbers would be marginalized. All reasons to believe the larger number would be accentuated. Then the Bush-hater will phrase his question thusly: "Given that it is proven that 650,000 Iraqis have died in the Iraq war, how can you possibly think the Iraq war was worth the human toll?"

True to form, you've taken the bigger number and run with it. You've declared it "reality".[/quote]I think that "true to form" can reasonably be concluded to be a reference to his preceding portrayal of "an emotional, irrational Bush-hater", so that Prime95 is implying (consistent with his subsequent postings) that someone who declared "the bigger number" to be "reality" is an emotional, irrational Bush-hater.

But [U]I[/U] did [U]not[/U] declare that number to be "reality". Therefore, once again, using the valid logic (A=>B)=>(not-B=>not-A) that I previously explained, [I]by Prime95's own criteria I[/I][I] am [U]not[/U] an emotional, irrational Bush-hater[/I] -- because I did not do something Prime95 unconditionally declares that an emotional, irrational Bush-hater would do.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;96918]I see no hope of the U.S. establishing a stable government in
either Iraq or Afghanistan. There are too many people holding on to
too many hatreds.[/QUOTE]

I only partly agree with you and Bruno here. Regarding Bruno's point about "no progress in Afghanistan", I strongly disagree - the Taliban may be "howling" from various clan-run border hinterlands (quite possibly with the assistance of the Pakistani government, according to the latest news reports - but definitely with coordinated assistance of some type), but they no longer run the country, you don't see veil-less women getting summarily executed in broad daylight, girls banned from schools, or cultural legacies not belonging to the Islamic faith being destroyed. I'd call that progress. The two major problems? 1) As Bob points out, deeply entrenched religious and clan hatreds, and 2) The U.S. has been a wee bit "distracted" by its further "adventures in spreading democracy" in Iraq.

Also, Bob's point about "too many people holding on to too many hatreds" is somewhat contrary to Bruno's assertion about the U.S. being the major destabilizing force in Iraq - yes, our toppling of the Baathist regime took the lid off the religious/ethnic pressure cooker - but don't forget that the decades of Baathist repression of the shiites and Kurds certainly had built up a lot of pressure there, on top of ancient and ongoing feuds - but the bloodletting was bound to happen anyway, given the depths of the hatreds involved. If the Americans were the major focus of the hatred, then why is the vast bulk of the ongoing slaughter very precisely along internecine lines? The American presence at this point is the only thing keeping full-scale civil war from breaking out, but at the same time that very fact makes the Americans a convenient political target for the various Iraqi factions. If the Americans left tomorrow, you think peace would break out? No, I didn't think so. Of course, multiple major strategic blunders by the U.S. in the cnduct of the war (including starting it in the first place, on at best extremey dubious pretenses) have not helped at all.

[i]p.s.: Cheesehead, while I appreciate your contributions, could you *please* ease up on the gory after-the-fact semantic dissections-and-further-analysis-in-excrutciating-detail of your and George's exchanges? They make my head hurt, and it seems neither of you is convincing the other at all. Thanks.[/i]

Divide et Imperia.

[QUOTE=philmoore;96812]
Luke (M29) says he has been following this issue for a long time, and appears to regard the Lancet estimate as bunk. I would be interested to know his thoughts on this.[/QUOTE]Sorry, been busy... coming up for air...

Not so mach as bunk, but highly suspicious. I am oftentimes a cynic, I admit. But I held my tongue until I read the IBC's comments on the Lancer report, here: [url]http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php[/url]

The IBC politely writes "....the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data." then procede to slash away from there.

I suspect that many of us are old enough to remember the reporting during Vietnam. For you youngsters, during Veitnam the military isuued daily (daily?) body counta reporting the dead on each side. The numbers were on the nightly news and the front pages, often similar to sports scoring boxes.

The anti-war movement was highly critical of the military for issuing these reports.

But today's anti-war movement maintains and publicizes the numbers. I also believe that they exagerate the numbers. For example, less than 2700 US soldiers have died in Iraq due to hostile fire and less than 1000 have lost limbs, but those are not the numbers we hear.

Yes, of course that is a lot of lives and limbs.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;96497]But the point is that he lends his presidential authority to the claim that Intelligent Design deserves equal consideration in science classes. That is an improper federal attempt to influence decisions by state and local school boards!

[snip]

So you join me in condemning Bush's improper elevation of ID to the status of science, right?[/QUOTE]No, of course not.

One can read the headlines:
Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught
Bush: Schools should teach intelligent design
Bush endorses 'intelligent design'
Bush Endorses "Intelligent Design", Creationism

or one can read what Bush said, almost in passing. MSNBC article [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8792302/[/url]

“You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

Look, he was talking with 5 Texan reporters, and the White House backpedaled the next day. End of story.

Bush is not championing ID. If he was, I'd oppose him. But he's not and he's taking unnecessary heat from various paranoids.

Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong at all with universities teaching Comparative Religion and there is nothing wrong with HS kids learning that some people believe in ID.

Now I've got to disappear again. I'm up to my gills.

Prime95, I look forward to your scientific critique of the Lancet survey.

[quote=Prime95;96782]The whole process could have been corrupted when they recruited their 8 local surveyors.[/quote]Do you have any evidence that the recruiting process was actually biased, that it differed in any way from the process used in previous war zones that was good enough then for the UN to adopt their figures as official estimates?

[quote]Asking for workers to do a "study on excess deaths"[/quote]Is that actually what they asked when recruiting?

[quote]I've not seen the surveyor's questions or how they conducted their interviews.[/quote]Oh, so you _don't_ have any evidence that the recruiting was biased. You're just throwing up a smoke screen.

[quote]I think one surveyed local morgues and hospitals. I suppose the Iraqi government counts death certificates. Both are valid methodologies.[/quote]... but only for compiling lower bounds [I]guaranteed to omit significant numbers from areas not surveyed[/I], not a total-country estimate as in the Lancet survey! So the methodologies are not comparable -- the Lancet methodology is superior to those other surveys, for its purpose, as I've previously mentioned.

[quote]One does need to factor in possible sources for under-counting, and this ought to be possible.[/quote]... such as by extending the surveys to the entire country, as the Lancet survey did.

[quote]IIRC, the Lancet surveyors report 90% of deaths have a corresponding death certificate. If so, then the Iraqi government ought to off by about 10%.[/quote]Do you really think that even the vaunted Iraqi bureaucracy's accuracy in [I]war zones[/I] is 90%? Really? That documents keep flowing even as bullets and bombs are flying?

The Lancet surveyors saw death certificates held by actual resident families. They didn't rely on a bureaucracy's functioning smoothly in war zones.

[quote]Yes, the government has an interest in reporting lower numbers and may not be functioning well enough to collect and count all the death certificates.[/quote]" ... may not be functioning well enough to collect and count all the death certificates" -- but that (mal-)functioning is exactly what the morgue/hospital surveys -- the ones whose figures you prefer -- depended on!

[quote]It would be nice if an independent group could gain access to death certificate records to come up with another data point.[/quote]... such as a group that ... well ... travelled to all parts of the country, even the dangerous areas, to survey actual families, who are more likely to have kept death certificates in their possession than a war-fractured bureaucracy is?

[quote]If hospitals and morgues are where death certificates are issued (I don't know that to be the case), then why are the hospital and morgue surveys generating significantly lower numbers?[/quote]Because -- in a [B]war zone[/B] institutions such as hospitals and morgues tend not to function as smoothly as they would in more preaceful areas -- that's why! That's why it's more reliable to go to individual families, who in a war zone are more likely than the institutions to have certfificates for their relatives!

[quote]The more data we have, the more likely it is we can resolve the discrepancies and come to a more accurate estimate.[/quote]But even though the Lancet survey did give us more data than we previously had, you're not willing to acknowledge that it allows an estimate at all, in contrast to the lower-bound-only provided by previous surveys.

[quote]Until more data is available, this scientist is not going to back any one of the numbers. At this point, all I'll concede is we have a good estimate of the lower bound.[/quote]... which is consistent with the Lancet survey.

[quote=M29;97350]or one can read what Bush said, almost in passing. MSNBC article [URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8792302/[/URL]

“You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”[/quote]But that's not all he said, even in just that article.

First sentence in that article:

"President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life."

From [URL]http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/08/02/bush_endorses_intelligent_design/[/URL]:

"As governor of Texas, Bush said students should be exposed to both creationism and evolution.

The president said yesterday that he favors the same approach for intelligent design ''so people can understand what the debate is about.""

[quote]Look, he was talking with 5 Texan reporters, and the White House backpedaled the next day. End of story.[/quote]No, not end, and not backpedaling.

From [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html?ex=1280721600&en=8bbf73d2f5204260&ei=5088&partner=r[/URL]:

"At the White House, where intelligent design has been discussed in a weekly Bible study group, Mr. Bush's science adviser, John H. Marburger 3rd
...
said that Mr. Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean that the president believes that intelligent design should be discussed as part of the "social context" in science classes."

See? He wants ID introduced into science classes!

The weasel words "as part of the "social context"" are just because he and the IDers want to "get their foot in the door".

[quote]Bush is not championing ID. If he was, I'd oppose him.[/quote]He wants it introduced into science classes. What will be your first action in opposing him?

[quote]Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong at all with universities teaching Comparative Religion[/quote]That's not what this is about. Don't you know that?

[quote]and there is nothing wrong with HS kids learning that some people believe in ID.[/quote]In comparative religion class, fine. But not in science class!

I stated that I'd oppose Bush if he was championing ID.

You respond that Bush is championing ID and to prove it you cite:[LIST][*]one article dated 2 August 2005[*]one article dated 3 August 2005[*]one article dated 1 August 2005.[/LIST]Today is 10 February 2007.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;98155]Do you have any evidence that the recruiting process was actually biased[/quote]

Read what I posted. I said it *could* have been biased. My point is that a survey has several places where human mistakes and biases can contaminate the raw data. That is why I believe it is imprudent to give too much weight to the conclusions until the raw data is independently verified.

[quote]...previous war zones that was good enough then for the UN to adopt their figures as official estimates?[/quote]

So if the U.N. calls a result official it must be accurate? Therefore the official U.N. estimate of 34,000 deaths in 2006 must be accurate? Certainly an *official* U.N. estimate couldn't be off by a factor of 20.

NOTE: Before you go bonkers over the above paragraph, I don't endorse the U.N. count or the Lancet count until more independent studies are done to validate the raw data and better explain / quantify the discrepancies.

[quote]Because -- in a war zone institutions such as hospitals and morgues tend not to function as smoothly as they would in more preaceful areas -- that's why![/quote]

Why do you think hospitals and morgues lose 95% of their death certificate carrying them to a filing cabinet in the same building? Maybe there are U.S. and Iraqi troops with shoot-to-kill orders in the hallways preventing doctors and nurses from reaching administration offices?

As I've said before, and I'll say it again, do an independent study. Show why hospitals and morgues are losing death certificates and quantify the percentage they are losing. If that correlates well with the Lancet data then I'll have much more faith in the Lancet result.

Have we beaten this dead horse enough? Can we put this argument to bed now?

[quote=Prime95;98181]Read what I posted.[/quote]I did.
[quote]I said it *could* have been biased.[/quote]I understood that.

But the question I had was whether you were saying that because you thought it actually was biased or that there was evidence pointing to that, or whether you were just smoke-screening because you didn't want to admit that the 650,000 figure was possible. Since you presented no evidence and no claim that you had any, I concluded that you were smokescreening with your biased-investigator hypothesis.

[quote]My point is that a survey has several places where human mistakes and biases can contaminate the raw data.[/quote]So? The track record of the Lancet report's investigators indicates that they have experience in countering those mistakes/biases. You apparently don't have any evidence that the mistakes and biases in the Lancet report equal or exceed those of any other report, so your dwelling on the theoretical possibilities of mistakes/biases rather than presenting evidence of such seems out-of-place. That is, _all_ such surveys have such possibilities, and it's _always_ part of each competent and honest survey to try to minimize those. Why keep going into that about the Lancet survey when you haven't done so with any other survey?

Do you have any evidence that the mistakes/biases of the Lancet survey equal or exceed those of any other Iraqi death survey? If not, why don't you discuss the potential mistakes/biases of any other survey?

[quote]So if the U.N. calls a result official it must be accurate?[/quote]What I meant is that there's been plenty of opportunity for anyone who suspected any of the team's previous results to have objected to a high-visibility UN acceptance of previous reports. In the absence of any such dissent, a reasonable conclusion is that no one of any substantial standing considers the team's previous results to be less accurate than any competing reports.

[quote]What it Has anyone else presented more accurate estimates?[/quote]Go ahead -- [I]Show us such claims, if any, of more accurate reports. Here's your chance to challenge the Lancet survey team's work accuracy in a meaningful manner!![/I]

[quote]Is there any significant controversy about the survey results accepted by the UN for other war zones[/quote]Not that I know of, but I'd welcome your presentation of any such controversy by responsible and qualified parties!

[quote]Therefore the official U.N. estimate of 34,000 deaths in 2006 must be accurate?[/quote]What is the source of that 34,000 figure? In order to comment on its accuracy, I'd want to know where and how it came from.

For example, does the 34,000 figure refer to the same categories of deaths as the 650,000 figure? I wouldn't be surprised if one referred to a certain subset of the category included in the other. Where are the details?

[quote] Certainly an *official* U.N. estimate couldn't be off by a factor of 20.[/quote]Is that your sincere statement of opinion?

[quote]I don't endorse the U.N. count or the Lancet count until more independent studies are done to validate the raw data and better explain / quantify the discrepancies.[/quote]But you seem to doubt the Lancet report more than you doubt any other count -- why? Or will you plainly state that all objections you've raised to the Lancet report also apply to all other surveys you've mentioned?

[quote]Why do you think hospitals and morgues lose 95% of their death certificate carrying them to a filing cabinet in the same building?[/quote]I've never said that that (losing 95% ...) happens. Are you implying/claiming that it does? If so, what is your supporting evidence?

Or is this just a straw-man?

[quote]Maybe there are U.S. and Iraqi troops with shoot-to-kill orders in the hallways preventing doctors and nurses from reaching administration offices?[/quote]Are you presenting that hypothesis sincerely? Do you have any evidence for it? If not, why are you posting that? Another rhetorical straw-man?

[quote]Show why hospitals and morgues are losing death certificates and quantify the percentage they are losing.[/quote]Be sure to include a study of how many death certificates never reach hospitals or morgues in order to be lost there, and so on.

[quote]If that correlates well with the Lancet data then I'll have much more faith in the Lancet result.[/quote]Oh, you would? Please provide details when available!

[quote]Have we beaten this dead horse enough? Can we put this argument to bed now?[/quote]Well, I'm curious about your answers to my questions above, regarding evidence, rhetorical devices, and your differential criticism of the Lancet report compared to your critiques of other reports, so I prefer to keep this matter open until then.

[quote=M29;98173]You respond that Bush is championing ID[/quote]I responded that there was more to the article than you implied, and that that other content plus other articles showed that Bush was publicly supporting the teaching of ID in science classes.

[quote]and to prove it you cite:[LIST][*]one article dated 2 August 2005[*]one article dated 3 August 2005[*]one article dated 1 August 2005.[/LIST][/quote]... and the MSNBC article you linked to at [URL]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8792302/[/URL] is also dated "Aug 1, 2005". So?

You seemed to imply that that 2005 MSNBC article showed that President Bush was not lending his support to ID. (Or why else did you link to it?) I then responded that not only that article, but also other [I]contemporary[/I] news articles demonstrated the opposite: that Bush did lend his authority to ID.

[quote]Today is 10 February 2007.[/quote]... and your point is ... ?

I don't recall any report that Bush has repudiated his support for teaching ID in science classes. Can you point to one?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;98263]why don't you discuss the potential mistakes/biases of any other survey?[/quote]

Because we've already agreed that the other studies have sources of undercounting. The amount of undercounting has not been quantified. We debate Lancet because you believe it is the gold standard and I demand independent corroboration before giving it my blessing.

[quote]What is the source of that 34,000 figure?[/quote]

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6266393.stm[/url]

[quote]But you seem to doubt the Lancet report more than you doubt any other count -- why? Or will you plainly state that all objections you've raised to the Lancet report also apply to all other surveys you've mentioned?[/quote]

I have doubts because the Lancet count is 20 times higher than the other surveys (that's where my 95% loss rate for death certificates comes from). I am skeptical that the other surveys undercounted by that much. I am open to new independent studies confirming or refuting the Lancet numbers and/or studies that quantify the amount of undercounting in the other studies.

[quote]so I prefer to keep this matter open until then.[/QUOTE]

Is the horse dead now?

P.S. Your last post attributed 2 quotes to me that I don't believe I made ("What it Has anyone else presented more accurate estimates?" and "Is there any significant controversy about the survey results accepted by the UN for other war zones"). Probably some kind of cut and paste foul up.

[quote=Prime95;98282]P.S. Your last post attributed 2 quotes to me that I don't believe I made ("What it Has anyone else presented more accurate estimates?" and "Is there any significant controversy about the survey results accepted by the UN for other war zones"). Probably some kind of cut and paste foul up.[/quote]Yikes! I must've been pretty tired -- (* checks timestamps of recent postings and compares those with mental log of recent activity: yup, I was *) -- not to have noticed that I had ([i]details omitted here[/i]) whilst in the middle of replying to you. (* Subconscious sez: Remember when I told you there was something strange about that part. Conscious: Yeahhh ... I do! ... Why didn't you 'splain to me what it was?!?! Subc_: Not my department. *)

[quote=Prime95;98282]Because we've already agreed that the other studies have sources of undercounting.[/quote]... and they acknowledge that -- no mystery.

[quote]The amount of undercounting has not been quantified.[/quote]But we _can_ say that the other studies establish only lower bounds, while only the Lancet study attempts to estimate the actual total rather than a lower bound.

[quote]We debate Lancet because you believe it is the gold standard[/quote]No, I just "believe" it's the only serious attempt I know of that aims for the actual total rather than aiming for only a lower bound.

[quote]and I demand independent corroboration before giving it my blessing.[/quote]First, my fanciful Response A:

It looks more like Bush-supporters in general, not just you in particular, have not yet gotten used to the possibility that war is, actually, hell -- rather than that war (this one, anyway) fulfills the neocon pre-war fantasy of a righteous liberation followed by instant democracy and flowers strewn at the feet of the liberators once the oppressive darkness of Sauron ... that is, Saddam ... was lifted from the land of Iraq, perhaps forgetting that even in Tolkien's story the aftermath of war was grim and depressing (from J.R.R.'s own war experience).

On a related note, I'm also marvelling at how some of the Republicans who scorned "nation-building" in the Balkans during the 1990s are now faced with the apparently-unanticipated consequences of "you broke it --> you fix it" in Iraq of the 2000s.

Now, my more-sober Response B:

Given the lower bounds from the other surveys, what are you prepared (based on what you know at present) to accept, without instant disbelief, as the range of the actual total? For instance, 3-5 x lower bounds? 7-10 x lower bounds? 1.5-2 x lower bounds?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;98340]Given the lower bounds from the other surveys, what are you prepared (based on what you know at present) to accept, without instant disbelief, as the range of the actual total? For instance, 3-5 x lower bounds? 7-10 x lower bounds? 1.5-2 x lower bounds?[/QUOTE]

When the surveys are counting different things violent deaths vs. excess deaths. I would accept 2-5x. When the surveys are comparing the same thing violent deaths vs. violent deaths I'd accept up to 3-4x. This is based more on gut feel from sporadic news reports rather than what I know to be statisticly true at present.

Here's an editorial in today's Independent from one of the authors of the Lancet report. He offers a few observations that, if true, suggest that official counts are not very reliable:

[url]http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2268067.ece[/url]

Does that article clarify? Or does it illustrate the biases of one of the study's authors?

[quote=masser;98538]Does that article clarify? Or does it illustrate the biases of one of the study's authors?[/quote]It illustrates the bias of one of the authors [I]toward getting an accurate count[/I], as contrasted with the biases of Iraqi, U.S. and U.K. governments toward understating the toll of war, and clarifies some reasons for the undercounts preferred by Iraqi, U.S., and U.K. governments.

Some quotes from the article:

[quote=Les Roberts]The government in Iraq claimed last month that since the 2003 invasion between 40,000 and 50,000 violent deaths have occurred. Few have pointed out the absurdity of this statement.

There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate. First, if it were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq. For those of us who have been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems simply ridiculous.

Secondly, there have to be at least 120,000 and probably 140,000 deaths per year from natural causes in a country with the population of Iraq. The numerous stories we hear about overflowing morgues, the need for new cemeteries and new body collection brigades are not consistent with a 10 per cent rise in death rate above the baseline.

And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10.
[/quote]Will one of you who contend that the Lancet estimate is too high please explain to us why South Africa and Colombia have had, supposedly, higher rates of violent death than Iraq for the past four years?

[quote]Repeated evaluations of deaths identified from sources independent of the press and the Ministry of Health show the IBC listing to be less than 10 per cent complete, but because it matches the reports of the governments involved, it is easily referenced.

Several other estimates have placed the death toll far higher than the Iraqi government estimates, but those have received less press attention. When in 2005, a UN survey reported that 90 per cent of violent attacks in Scotland were not recorded by the police, no one, not even the police, disputed this finding. Representative surveys are the next best thing to a census for counting deaths, and nowhere but Iraq have partial tallies from morgues and hospitals been given such credence when representative survey results are available.[/quote]

(Anyone want to bet that the anti-Lancet faction here will try to make something out of the difference between non-war Scottish violent attacks and war-zone Iraqi violent deaths, to draw attention away from the shared phenomenon of underreporting?)

[QUOTE=masser;98538]Does that article clarify? Or does it illustrate the biases of one of the study's authors?[/QUOTE]

Since it is a discussion in a newspaper, rather than technical notes in a scientific journal, it doesn't really clarify things much. From an article I read in the journal Science, however, including the follow-up letters and responses that described the methods for selecting which residences were included in the survey (how streets were selected, and how houses on those streets were selected, etc., etc.), the survey itself did not sound biased. I'm not a statistician, and have never studied the proper methodology of these kinds of surveys, but 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.

Norm

Cheesehead,

Don't forget the punchline:

[CODE]
Saddam Hussein's surveillance network, which only captured one third of all deaths before
the invasion, has certainly deteriorated even further. During last July, there were numerous
televised clashes in Anbar, yet the system recorded exactly zero violent deaths from the
province. The last Minister of Health to honestly assess the surveillance network, Dr Ala'din
Alwan, admitted that it was not reporting from most of the country by August 2004. He was
sacked months later after, among other things, reports appeared based on the limited
government data suggesting that most violent deaths were associated with coalition forces.


The consequences of downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq are profound for both the UK
and the US. How can the Americans have a surge of troops to secure the population and
promise success when the coalition cannot measure the level of security to within a factor of
10? How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of resentment in Iraq if
they are not sure if, on average, one in 80 families have lost a household member, or one in
seven, as our study suggests?


If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide,
and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will they credibly be able to criticise Sudan
or Zimbabwe or the next government that kills thousands of its own people?


For longer than the US has been a nation, Britain has pushed us at our worst of moments to
do the right thing. That time has come again with regard to Iraq. It is wrong to be the junior
partner in an endeavour rigged to deny the next death induced, and to have spokespeople
effectively respond to that death with disinterest and denial.

Our nations' leaders are collectively expressing belligerence at a time when the populace
knows they should be expressing contrition. If that cannot be corrected, Britain should end
its role in this deteriorating misadventure. It is unlikely that any historians will record the
occupation of Iraq in a favourable light. Britain followed the Americans into this débâcle.
Wouldn't it be better to let history record that Britain led them out?
[/CODE]

My only point is that a statistician should do his best to present the numbers; not spin the numbers. He accuses others of "spinning science" and yet he appears to be doing the same. Also, have you ever head of the debating rule: "The first one to mention Hitler/Nazis loses the debate?" I think this guy is making a similar mistake by mentioning genocides.

[quote=Prime95;98375]When the surveys are counting different things violent deaths vs. excess deaths. I would accept 2-5x.[/quote](A) Does that mean you think that excess deaths by disease or illness outnumber excess deaths by violence by a factor of 1-4x?

(B) Are there possible significant causes of excess (i.e., compared to before the war) nonviolent deaths since start of the war that are not war-related, but just happen to be coincident in time? (If you argue that something like poorer health care or sanitation is responsible, then you also have to explain why they're so dramatically poorer [I]without having been made so by the effects of war[/I] despite the coincidence in timing.)

[quote=masser;98542]Cheesehead,

Don't forget the punchline:[/quote]I find it curious that you quote so much that precedes the author's opinion punchline, but without disputing it and without claiming that any of the numbers or nonnumerical facts presented are incorrect. Does that mean you do not contest any of the numbers or nonnumerical facts presented by the author?

[quote][code]Saddam Hussein's surveillance network, which only captured one third of all deaths before
the invasion, has certainly deteriorated even further.[/code][/quote]... which supports the author's contention that government figures are too low.

[quote][code]During last July, there were numerous
televised clashes in Anbar, yet the system recorded exactly zero violent deaths from the
province.[/code][/quote]... which supports the author's contention that government figures are too low.

[quote][code]The last Minister of Health to honestly assess the surveillance network, Dr Ala'din
Alwan, admitted that it was not reporting from most of the country by August 2004. He was
sacked months later after, among other things, reports appeared based on the limited
government data suggesting that most violent deaths were associated with coalition forces.[/code][/quote]... which supports the author's contention that government figures are too low.

[quote][code]The consequences of downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq are profound for both the UK
and the US. How can the Americans have a surge of troops to secure the population and
promise success when the coalition cannot measure the level of security to within a factor of
10? How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of resentment in Iraq if
they are not sure if, on average, one in 80 families have lost a household member, or one in
seven, as our study suggests?[/code][/quote]... which are unbiased questions about the connection between undercounts and policy.

[quote][code]If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide,[/code][/quote]The word "genocide" is mentioned only twice in the article (in this quoted sentence and in the article's subtitle). In both cases, it is part of the phrase "the Rwandan genocide".

Would you prefer the author to have written "Rwandan incident" or "Rwandan troubles"? It wasn't really a war.

The author doesn't accuse or hint that either the US or UK committed genocide. He's simply pointing out that the death toll of the war initiated by the US and UK was greater than that in the Rwandan case/incident/bad-period.

[quote][code]and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will they credibly be able to criticise Sudan
or Zimbabwe or the next government that kills thousands of its own people?[/code][/quote]... and here, where the author could justifiably have used "genocide" again to describe events in another country (many news reports about Sudan that I've heard used the word "genocide"), he refrains.

[quote][code]For longer than the US has been a nation, Britain < snip >[/code][/quote]Finally, here the author expresses opinion. So? It's a newsmedia article, in the section titled "Commentators". Earlier, he expressed facts and comparisons. Now he goes into his opinions. Nothing wrong with that.

Since you didn't comment on any of the pre-opinion section, may we conclude that you don't dispute any of it?

[quote]My only point is that a statistician should do his best to present the numbers;[/quote]... which he did in his scientific report in the Lancet!

Here we have an article that doesn't present itself as an opinionless purely scientific report; it's in the "Commentators" section! The author is plainly pointing out connections between the data and his opinions.

Statisticians are allowed to have and express personal opinions. They shouldn't do so in scientific papers, but this is a commentary!

[quote]not spin the numbers. He accuses other of "spinning science" and yet he appears to be doing the same.[/quote]No. "Spin" tries to deceive. Where has the author deceived in this article? Nowhere. He doesn't present his opinion as fact; he presents connections between his opinions and facts.

Is there any number cited by the author in this article that is misrepresented as being anything other than what it actually is? Not that I can see, but perhaps my seeing is flawed. Can you point to any number in the article that is misrepresented as other than it really is?

[quote]Also, have you ever head of the debating rule: "The first one to mention Hitler/Nazis loses the debate?"[/quote]Yes, but this author mentions neither Hitler, Nazis, nor Holocaust.

[quote]I think this guy is making a similar mistake by mentioning genocides.[/quote]Actually, he mentioned only one, and that was one that I've heard, labelled with the same "Rwandan genocide" phrase, probably hundreds of times in news stories and conversations of the past decade. Again, how would you have the author refer to the Rwandan ... uh ... situation ... without using "genocide"?

- - - - - - - -

I can understand that supporters of Bush's military policy in Iraq may not like, be comfortable with, or readily accept some numbers and nonnumerical facts from the Lancet report, and may not ever accept or agree with personal opinions expressed (outside the report) by that report's authors. But can any of you point to actual deception or distortion of numbers or nonnumerical facts?

When, in a response to Prime95 about 105 minutes ago, I wrote:
[quote=cheesehead;98543](A) Does that mean you think that excess deaths by disease or illness[/quote]here I should have included "or by accident" before continuing
[quote]outnumber excess deaths by violence by a factor of 1-4x?[/quote]

Sorry, Cheesehead; I guess I wasn't being pedantic enough.

My point here is that after reading the article I question whether the author's statistics inform his opinion or if his opinion informs his statistics.

What I was trying to say about the author's genocide (singular; thanks for jumping all over a typo, btw) comment, was that by comparing death totals from the war in Iraq to the Rwandan genocide (singular, again), he's doing something similar to mentioning Hitler in a debate. I never said he mentioned Hitler...

And just to rile you up some more, a little skit:

Neocon: Because of 9/11, something something something, invade Iraq!
Cheesehead: Bad Neocon! You're linking 9/11 to Iraq! There is no connection!

Lancet Author: Death toll in Iraq, something something something, genocide in Rwanda!
masser: umm....

Lastly, a kind request: how does one put a quote within a quote on this forum? I'm feeling dumb...

masser

Quote:
Also, have you ever head of the debating rule: "The first one to mention Hitler/Nazis loses the debate?"

Yes, but this author mentions neither Hitler, Nazis, nor Holocaust.

Quote:
I think this guy is making a similar mistake by mentioning genocides.

Actually, he mentioned only one, and that was one that I've heard, labelled with the same "Rwandan genocide" phrase, probably hundreds of times in news stories and conversations of the past decade. Again, how would you have the author refer to the Rwandan ... uh ... situation ... without using "genocide"?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;98543](A) Does that mean you think that excess deaths by disease or illness outnumber excess deaths by violence by a factor of 1-4x?[/QUOTE]

If I understand your question, no.

Where the UN report only counts violent deaths and the Lancet report counts excess deaths from all causes including violence I would not find a Lancet number of 2-5x surprising.

[quote=masser;98563]Sorry, Cheesehead; I guess I wasn't being pedantic enough.

My point here is that after reading the article I question whether the author's statistics inform his opinion or if his opinion informs his statistics.[/quote]Okay.

Which number(s) or nonnumerical fact(s) in the article or in the Lancet report do you contest?

[quote](singular; thanks for jumping all over a typo, btw)[/quote]Had I known it was a typo, I'd have treated it (merely) as such. As it was, I didn't accuse you of deliberately multiplying the genocides; I just corrected a factual mistake because there was a possibility ([I]now[/I] known not to exist) that the plural number might play some role in some other mistake.

[quote]by comparing death totals from the war in Iraq to the Rwandan genocide (singular, again), he's doing something similar to mentioning Hitler in a debate.[/quote]I disagree that the similarity had significance.

Again, [I]how do you propose that the author refer to the Rwandan genocide without using the word "genocide"?[/I] If you can't come up with any reasonable answer to that question (and so far you haven't), you have no business accusing the author of committing the Hitler/Nazi debate-loser.

[quote]I never said he mentioned Hitler...[/quote]... nor did I say you did. You're the one who introduced "Hitler" and "Nazi" into the conversation, and I don't think you had sufficient justification to do so.

[quote]And just to rile you up some more, a little skit:[/quote]So, instead of straightforwardly answering my inquiries in my earlier posting about

(A) what fact(s) you contested or

(B) whether you dispute any of what I called the "pre-opinion section" or

(C) what word you would have the author use instead of what you imply is an unnecessary "genocide",

you present ... a little skit.

I'll be more impressed by straight answers and comments that actually pertain to what the Lancet report author actually wrote or what I asked you than I will be by any metaphor.

[quote]Cheesehead: Bad Neocon! You're linking 9/11 to Iraq! There is no connection![/quote]Do you mean that no neocon has ever linked 9/11 to Iraq?

If that's not why you attribute that dialog to me in your skit, please say straightforwardly, without indirect allusion or metaphor, just why you do attribute those words to me in your skit.

[quote]Lancet Author: Death toll in Iraq, something something something, genocide in Rwanda!
masser: umm....[/quote]Umm ... what? Spit it out, please.

- - -

Someone else please answer masser's question about putting a quote within a quote.

[quote=Prime95;98564]If I understand your question, no.[/quote]Then to what possible categories of cause of excess deaths, if not disease, illness, or accident (note my amendment), [I]do[/I] you attribute the 1-4x difference?

[quote]Where the UN report only counts violent deaths and the Lancet report counts excess deaths from all causes including violence I would not find a Lancet number of 2-5x surprising.[/quote]To what possible causes of excess deaths other than violence, disease, illness, or accident do you attribute the 1-4x difference, such that you wouldn't find it surprising?

Another try:

To what possible categories of causes would you attribute the difference between (A) the UN report count of only violent deaths and (B) the Lancet report count of excess deaths from all causes including violence?

Or:

What sorts of causes would you imagine to be included in "all causes", but not "violence"?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;98566]To what possible causes other than violence, disease, illness, or accident do you attribute the 1-4x difference, such that you wouldn't find it surprising?[/QUOTE]

I believed your original question asked what amount of undercounting would seem plausible? My answer is up to 80% undercount would not seem unreasonable.

I don't understand what your current line of questioning is getting at.

I found the comparison of Iraq death rates to the U.S. (as opposed to other Iraq studies) interesting. Here are my findings after a short amount of online research and a quick attempt to normalize the numbers so that we can compare apples to apples.

U.S. murder rate for 2005: 5.6 per 100,000
New Orleans murder rate: 57 per 100,000
Iraqbodycount.org is 62,000 over about 4 years. That's a yearly rate of 60 per 100,000.
U.N 2006 violent death estimate for Iraq 34,000. Iraq population is about 26 million. This equals 131 deaths per 100,000.
The Lancet survey estimates 655,000 excess deaths since 2003. Of those 92% were due to violence. Thus, Lancet finding is an [I]increase[/I] of 650000 * 0.92 / 3 years / 26 million population or 773 per 100,000. Assuming a pre-2003 violent death rate of about 25, Lancet is saying the Iraq yearly death rate has been about 800 per 100,000.

I've been revising my post #133 while you were posting #134-135, George. Maybe the last line in it now makes sense?

- - -

[quote=Prime95]I believed your original question asked what amount of undercounting would seem plausible? My answer is up to 80% undercount would not seem unreasonable.[/quote]Then I asked, or intended to ask, whether you attributed the up-to-80% (1-4x difference) to disease and illness (and accident, as I added), since the UN count was for only violent deaths.

Or were you saying that the UN count was undercounted by 50-80%, compared to a (hypothetical) more accurate Lancet figure which was only 2-5x the UN figure (rather than 20x), for violent deaths only?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;98571]Or were you saying that the UN count was undercounted by 50-80%, compared to a (hypothetical) more accurate Lancet figure which was only 2-5x the UN figure (rather than 20x), for violent deaths only?[/QUOTE]

Yes. The difference introduced by Lancet also counting excess non-violent deaths is small.

In other words, I'd like to believe the U.N. wouldn't undertake a study that captures less than 20% of the real number - less than that would be grossly incompetent.

[QUOTE=Prime95;98570]U.S. murder rate for 2005: 5.6 per 100,000... Lancet is saying the Iraq yearly death rate has been about 800 per 100,000.[/QUOTE]

I'd like to refine the above to be a tad more accurate for comparing apples to apples. The Lancet study was over 3.2 years - not 3.0. The Lancet and IBC study are over the entire war time frame. Since violence is escalating one would expect a higher death rate during 2006. To better compare these two studies to the U.N. 2006-only study, I've arbitrarily assumed that the IBC count for 2006 was 30% of the 4 year total rather than 25%. And the Lancet study 2006 count is 35% of the 3.2 year total rather than 31.25%. This has only a minor effect on the numbers I originally posted.

U.S. murder rate for 2005: 5.6 per 100,000
New Orleans murder rate: 57 per 100,000
Iraqbodycount.org is 62,000 over 4 years. Estimated 2006 death rate is 72 per 100,000.
U.N 2006 violent death estimate for Iraq 34,000. This equals 131 deaths per 100,000.
The Lancet survey 2006 death rate is 650000 * 0.92 / 26 million * 0.35 + 25 = 830 per 100,000.

If my math and assumptions are right, this makes the Lancet rate 6.33 times the U.N. rate and 11.5 times the IBC rate. Note that the Lancet study does not include data from the second half of 2006 which was pretty nasty.

An aside!
 

:wink:

Well whatever the numbers I claim that George W made the same mistake his father made-- He did not pull out soon enough ! :grin:

Mally :coffee:

Maybe that's called "faith-based contraception" :grin:

Dead Right!
 

:smile:

Well Anything but a concentration camp- Like Gautanamo ?

Mally :coffee:

Getting back on track ...
 

[quote=masser;98563]Lastly, a kind request: how does one put a quote within a quote on this forum?[/quote]The tags used to denote a quote are (without the internal spaces that I insert here to keep the parser from treating the following as actual markup commands)

[ quote ]

(quoted text)

[ /quote ],

which produces, when I remove the spaces between brackets and commands:

[quote]

(quoted text)

[/quote]

- - - - -

To put a quote within a quote, just nest a set of [ quote ] [ /quote ] within another set, like:

[ quote ]

first part of outer quote's text

[ quote ]
inner quote's text
[ /quote ]

second part of outer quote's text

[ /quote ],

which produces, when I remove the spaces between brackets and commands:

[quote]

first part of outer quote's text

[quote]
inner quote's text
[/quote]

second part of outer quote's text

[/quote]

and so on ...

Getting back on track ...
 

masser,

My comments in post #132 were neither pedantic nor intended to shut you up. Instead they were intended to persuade you to move out of rhetorical-device mode and into straightforward-discussion mode.

I myself often used rhetorical devices in the past, but right now I'm more interested (at least in serious discussions like this one) in facilitating communication than in one-upping or in other games (in the transactional analysis sense). So when I see rhetoric interfering with sincere communication, I say so.

I genuinely want to see your answers to questions I asked you.

- - -

But I'm not perfect, so when someone else sees me using rhetoric to interfere with sincere communication in a serious discussion, he/she is invited to point it out.

[COLOR=White].[/COLOR][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote][quote]:sick:[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;98908][COLOR=White].[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

*shrug* This is the [I]Soap Box[/I]...

Alex

[quote=Xyzzy;98908][COLOR=white].[/COLOR][/quote]... and your point is ... ?

[quote]*shrug* This is the [I]Soap Box[/I]...[/quote]We were just testing to see if the system could handle a [I]serious[/I] Prime95/Cheesehead debate.

:unsure:

[quote=Xyzzy;98938]We were just testing to see if the system could handle a [I]serious[/I] Prime95/Cheesehead debate.

:unsure:[/quote]Why would the system ever need to do [i]that[/i]? :unsure:

[quote]Why don't you just make ten louder, and make ten be the top... number, and make that a little louder?[/quote]These go to eleven.

:confused:

11 is so passe.

Americans underestimate Iraqi death toll
 

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070224/ap_on_re_us/death_in_iraq_ap_poll[/url]

From that Yahoo! page is a link to a Chicago Sun-Times article, "Would leaving Iraq damage U.S. standing in the world?" at [URL]http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/270636,CST-EDT-REF24A.article[/URL]

It points out some historical comparisons from 40 years ago. Bush's arguments about Iraq parallel those of President Lyndon Johnson about Vietnam.

The lessons of history. Those who don't learn from them ...

On the matter of U.S. credibility:

[quote=Chicago Sun-Times]
The president has focused on two negative consequences: a loss of U.S. credibility,

...

These claims echo the arguments of Lyndon Johnson, who argued against cutting our losses in Vietnam.

The issue of credibility was so central to America's Vietnam policy that tens of thousands of Americans died in the pursuit not of victory, but of saving face. They died because American leaders believed then -- as the Bush administration apparently believes now -- that defeat would have uncontrollable consequences. But the wiser voices inside the Johnson administration were arguing as early as the mid-1960s that the costs of defeat were manageable.

On Sept. 11, 1967, the intelligence community issued a secret memo, "Implications of an Unfavorable Outcome in Vietnam." The authors considered the dire predictions about the dangers if the United States were to withdraw from Vietnam. The memo concluded that the perils of accepting an unfavorable outcome would be "probably more limited and controllable than most previous argument has indicated." Further, the memo argued, "it should not be beyond the capacity of our leadership and diplomacy to negotiate this passage."

The issue of credibility is once again at the center of the debate over ending a disastrous American military enterprise. The Bush administration argues that U.S. allies would broadly question America's commitments, concluding that when the going gets tough, America bails out.

This argument is partially true, as it was in Vietnam. Al-Qaida will indeed attempt to link our withdrawal to a larger narrative that includes President Reagan's retreat from Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing and our departure from Somalia after the Black Hawk Down incident. But unless our national leaders allowed our failure in Iraq to call into question other commitments, this damage certainly could be mitigated.

Any administration extricating U.S. troops from Iraq would have to send the message that the U.S. military would now refocus its full attention on al-Qaida. As for other commitments, why would we allow anyone to conclude that our failure in Iraq had any bearing on them? In withdrawing, the U.S. should answer questions of credibility loudly and clearly. Demonstrating that we recognize the error of our ways would indicate a seriousness of purpose and a national magnanimity lacking throughout the Bush years.[/quote]

In the long run, it's usually better to admit a mistake and face it squarely than to pretend that there was no mistake.

Does President Bush have the leadership capacity to diplomatically negotiate an honest passage out of Iraq?

More importantly -- will conservatives (and liberals) learn and retain the lessons from this war long enough, and pass it along well enough to future generations, so that our future leaders will use that knowledge to avoid a repetition of our Vietnam/Iraq mistakes?

Well, well,

the administration [I]does[/I] do diplomacy.

Credit where credit is due.

[quote=cheesehead;95806]From the Iraq Study Group report ([URL]http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:JpzjzqGq5Y8J:www.bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/iraqstudygroup_findings.pdf+Iraq+commission+report&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4[/URL]) Executive Summary:

"Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region

< snip >

Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.[/quote]
Now, Secretary Rice announces that "the United States would join the meeting and that Washington supported the Iraqi government's invitation to Iran and Syria." ([URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_iraq_us;_ylt=AhSP9_Lr_CvjLyZrfjqJjI2s0NUE[/URL])

But ... why didn't this happen [I]before[/I] Democrats retook Congress?

- - - - -

[quote=Jwb52z;95831]Why does anyone really think it is a viable option to "talk" to what are basically not much more than people from backward third-world countries?

< snip >

I don't think it is a wise exercise to talk to these countries as grown-ups as long as their own people behave like animals and such.[/quote]Any updates on your opinion, Jwb52z? Is the Bush administration being unwise?

I mean -- six years ago, when one of our surveillance planes had to land on a Chinese island, a newly-presidential Bush sternly warned the Chinese to respect the sovereignty of the U.S. in its surveillance plane! That probably provided the Chinese leaders with the best laugh they'd had in a long time. (Can you say, "paper tiger"?) One would think Dubya has learned some things about foreign policy since then.

- - - - -

(Memo to Republicans: Next time, [I]please[/I] try to nominate someone who won't need such extensive on-the-job training in foreign policy -- at the very least, someone who already understands the terms "to lose face", "paper tiger", and "negotiate"!

Memo to Dems and others: Don't forget that, either.)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;99616]Now, Secretary Rice announces that "the United States would join the meeting and that Washington supported the Iraqi government's invitation to Iran and Syria." ([URL]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070228/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_iraq_us;_ylt=AhSP9_Lr_CvjLyZrfjqJjI2s0NUE[/URL])

But ... why didn't this happen [I]before[/I] Democrats retook Congress?
[/quote]

Lots of possible explanations ... a possible one that is more benign than the one you apparently favor: the Iranians, despite their public bluster, are very worried about facing a unified front from the western nations they do business with, vis-a-vis their nuclear ambitions. Ahmadinejad is rapidly losing support for his "agenda", 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, it's only a matter of time before they're busted so obviously that there will be no credible denial, so there is mounting pressure from Iranian moderates to engage constructively with the US. That is at least as credible as "the democratic majority made them do it."

[quote]six years ago, when one of our surveillance planes had to land on a Chinese island, a newly-presidential Bush sternly warned the Chinese to respect the sovereignty of the U.S. in its surveillance plane! That probably provided the Chinese leaders with the best laugh they'd had in a long time. (Can you say, "paper tiger"?)[/QUOTE]

Sure a lot of that was diplomatic/military bluster, but "paper tiger"? While military action vs. China is clearly out of the question, the US has an extremely powerful nonmilitary threat: economic sanctions. How much of the Chinese economy is directly dependent on exports to the US? Sure, sanctions would hurt us as well, but it's a case of "this is going to hurt you a lot more than it hurts us." For the US it would mean increased prices on a lot of goods (but relatively few of them core essentials like food and energy), whereas for the Chinese it could almost overnight derail their entire economic growth program and throw them into a major recession. I'd say that tiger has some real claws underneath the papier-maché.

[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.

[quote=masser;100289]Oh, so because Bush manipulated intelligence, it's ok for his opponents to manipulate the data surrounding civilian deaths.[/quote]
masser,

That's another "straw man".

I didn't write that it was OK for Bush's opponents to manipulate data; I wrote that the political angles on both sides were interesting.

Please accept my invitation ([URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=98565&postcount=132[/URL]) ([URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=98892&postcount=143[/URL]) to return to being straightforward rather than continuing the rhetoric. I regret that I failed to acknowledge that you had been straight with me before dipping into rhetoric; I apologize for that.

Rhetorical devices tend to interfere with honest communication, as yours has here. You've amply demonstrated your emotion (hostility toward my views). Now please explain your recent objections, as you were doing earlier.

I've shown my goodwill by answering your request about putting a quote within a quote ([URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=98889&postcount=142[/URL]).

Now here's your chance to show your goodwill by returning to straightforwardness.

For instance, how do you propose referring to the Rwandan genocide without using the word "genocide"? I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm asking how you would do it. If you can't, satisfactorily (e.g., maintaining the sense of its magnitude, not trivializing it), are you willing to retract your accusation about that article's author?

I see that the BBC is carrying a report that the British Government was advised last October that The Lancet's survey methods were "close to best practice" and were a "tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".

To the extent that it is not a primary source the article may be somewhat limited in value. Even so, it is a good example of the kind of intellectual gymnastics to which politicians have resort when advised that a survey's methodology is sound but where its conclusions are inconvenient.

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6495753.stm[/url]

[quote=99.94;102189]the kind of intellectual gymnastics to which politicians[/quote]... (not only politicians, but people in general, as previous postings here illustrate) ...[quote]have resort when advised that a survey's methodology is sound but where its conclusions are inconvenient.[/quote]

- - - - -

[quote=masser;100289]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.[/quote]masser,

Do you care, yet, to tell us how you propose referring to the Rwandan genocide without using the word "genocide",

or are you content to just smear me with a false attribution so you can pretend that you scored some debating point, while lacking the courage to honestly reply to my challenge?

masser and other folks,

I apologize for having hurled that last barb. It doesn't help my argument for me to make such an inflaming statement.

Sorry to resurrect an old thread but more supporting evidence. Current estimates say that the number dead is about 1.2 million. And Greenspan admits it was all about oil anyway.

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2170275,00.html[/url]

Apart from the large number of dead, it is surprising that few people mention that the war has also created over 4 million refugees out of Iraq (and many more within Iraq). And that the countries responsible for this mess (US, UK and Australia and others) have been shockingly refusing almost any refugees from Iraq. That to me is moral bankruptcy. I mean if you are not going to grant refuge to someone who has escaped Iraq who else will you grant refuge to?

I'm just posting this here. No comment from me.

[QUOTE=John Bohannon]Between 104,000 and 223,000 Iraqis died violent deaths between the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and June 2006. That's the conclusion of a study by the Iraqi government and the World Health Organization (WHO) published online today in The New England Journal of Medicine. The new estimate throws fresh doubt on a controversial study led by researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, published in The Lancet in 2006, that estimated a death toll four times higher (Science, 20 October 2006, p. 396).

Between 2006 and 2007, Iraqi surveyors led by WHO epidemiologist Mohammed Ali knocked on the doors of 9345 Iraqi homes. The addresses were chosen randomly within about 1000 neighborhoods and villages across the country. Besides basic information about the household, interviewers asked about illnesses and death among occupants since the beginning of 2002.

This survey, like the earlier Lancet study, found that violence became a leading cause of death in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. The WHO team used the same method of extrapolation to calculate total death rate as the Lancet group did, but their average estimate of violent deaths is 151,000--far lower than the Lancet's 601,000. When the WHO surveyors were assigned a cluster of households in a neighborhood deemed too dangerous to visit, they used data from Iraq Body Count, a London-based database of media-reported Iraqi casualties whose numbers are considered a floor. "Some homes could not be visited because of high levels of insecurity," says Iraqi health minister Salih Mahdi Motlab Al-Hasanawi, who was not an author. "Nonetheless, the survey results indicate a massive death toll since the beginning of the conflict."

Researchers say any attempts to calculate death tolls during a war will have limitations, but they are impressed by the new study. "There are inherent biases in a household survey like this one," says John Brownstein, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, particularly when the total population size is not well-known. "But their approach was rigorous, and they accounted for all reasonable criticisms."

Brownstein declined to comment on the Lancet study, noting only that the WHO study's sample size--five times larger than that of the Lancet study--makes it "more robust, all things being equal." But some researchers are not as forgiving. "This study is a slaughter of the Lancet study," says Michael Spagat, an economist at Royal Holloway, University of London, in the U.K. "Serious problems with that study have been evident for a long time, but this confirms it."[/QUOTE]

[url]http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/109/1[/url]

[QUOTE]When the WHO surveyors were assigned a cluster of households in a neighborhood deemed too dangerous to visit, they used data from Iraq Body Count, a London-based database of media-reported Iraqi casualties whose numbers are considered a [b]floor[/b].[/QUOTE]This means that in the areas whith most casualties a low number was used... It follows, that overall, this latest estimate must be considered a floor as well.

Jacob

January 10th some year before 2008 presumably.

Yes, the thread's title refers to 2007. We've just passed the year-and-a-half-iversary.

- - -

Re: lessons from history

Here's an opinion piece from the Christian Science Monitor:

"Want democracy in Iraq? Culture matters.

Consider what happened with US occupation in Haiti, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic."

[URL]http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0701/p09s01-coop.html[/URL]

(I rarely quote entire articles, but this time couldn't decide what to leave for you folks to go read for yourself.)
[quote=Lawrence E. Harrison]Sen. John McCain recently suggested that pacification of Iraq and the departure of American forces was feasible by 2013. But pacification of Iraq is not how President Bush defines success.

The president recently restated his goal: to transform Iraq into democratic-capitalist modernity, much as Germany and Japan had been transformed during the military occupations that followed their defeat in World War II.

But Iraq is an Arab country, and no Arab country has yet been able to consolidate democracy, and that includes Jordan and Lebanon, the two that are most developed. Literacy rates illustrate the difficulty of modernizing Iraq: in 2003/04, 57 percent of women in 15 Arab countries were literate. World Bank data show just 30 percent of Iraqi females as literate in 2003.

And, of course, democratization in Iraq is vastly complicated by the longstanding hostility between the majority Shiite and the minority Sunni, and between those two Arab sects and the Iraqi Kurds.

By contrast, Germany and Japan were highly developed industrial nations with fully integrated and educated populaces. And their governments had both surrendered unconditionally.

Our military occupations of three underdeveloped countries in the Caribbean basin in the early decades of the 20th century may have far greater relevance for Iraq.

Motivated chiefly by concern over German presence in unstable Caribbean countries at the time of the opening of the Panama Canal, President William Howard Taft ordered the military occupation of Nicaragua, which lasted from 1912 to 1933. Woodrow Wilson followed suit in Haiti (1915-34) and the Dominican Republic (1916-24).

As in Iraq, these interventions combined elements of [I]realpolitik[/I] and what Franklin Roosevelt's Latin America expert Sumner Welles subsequently described as the role of the Evangel: to reform the conditions of life and government of the sovereign republics of the American hemisphere.

But Mr. Welles concluded with respect to US-imposed democratic reform, "All sense of proportion was lost."

The dubiousness of the Bush credo "These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society" is underscored by the aftermath of those prolonged military occupations:

[B]Nicaragua:[/B] The US Marines occupied Nicaragua from 1912 to 1933 and attempted to install democratic institutions. But the occupation provoked an insurgency led by Augusto César Sandino, who became a symbol of resistance to US intervention. In step with Franklin Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy, the Marines left in 1933.

In 1936, Nicaragua's National Guard commander General Anastasio Somoza García initiated a dictatorial dynasty that would last for 43 years. A successful revolution led by the leftist Sandinistas – "children of Sandino"– forced Anastasio Somoza Debayle into exile in 1979, leading to another US military intervention through aid to the contras in the 1980s. Democratic continuity was established in the elections of 1990, but it is fragile and marred by extensive corruption.

[B]Haiti:[/B] The Marines' occupation of Haiti also provoked a militant reaction – the "Caco" insurgencies. The first insurgency was put down by the end of 1915. But a second insurgency, prompted in part by abuses of the US-trained Haitian Gendarmerie, erupted late in 1918. The Gendarmerie was unable to contain it, but the First US Marine Brigade succeeded in ending the uprising.

Atrocities committed by US military during the second Caco campaign led to Senate hearings during 1921-22.

The Marines left Haiti in 1934. Haitian politics soon returned to the authoritarianism, exploitation, and corruption that had characterized most Haitian governments going back to independence in 1804. The American military returned in 1994 to reinstall President Jean-Bertrand Aristide – and again in 2004 to escort him out and help try to make order out of chaos.

[B]Dominican Republic:[/B] The democratic institutions installed by the United States soon started to unravel after the Marines left the Dominican Republic in 1924, and Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, who had been groomed by the Marines to lead the Dominican National Guard, assumed dictatorial powers in 1930 that would last for more than three decades. Trujillo was assassinated in 1961. The instability that followed precipitated another US military intervention in 1965 motivated principally by concern that the revolution would lead to a "second Cuba" in the Caribbean. The crisis passed, and democratic continuity was more or less established in 1966.

These three examples demonstrate how good intentions expressed through military force and money can be frustrated by cultures that are not congenial to democratic institutions. The Bush administration's idea that "These values of freedom are right and true for every person, in every society" ignores the lessons not only of these three cases, but also of the more generalized problems of democratization in the Islamic world, Africa, and Latin America.

Surely past and present Bush advisers such as Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice have read Alexis de Tocqueville's classic "Democracy in America." But they – and Senator McCain – must have forgotten its overriding lesson: When it comes to the viability of democracy, more than anything else, culture matters.

[I]Lawrence E. Harrison directs the Cultural Change Institute at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. His most recent book is "The Central Liberal Truth: How Politics Can Change a Culture and Save It from Itself."[/I][/quote]