Bush needs to clean up his mess

On 23 Jun 2006 11:16:02 -0700, wrote:


Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo wrote:

The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
this as a 'terrorist'.

So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
reprisal?

If you answered none, you'd be correct.

That has yet to be determined.

"According to policy"

Care to cite the official policy of the US military to round up civilians and
have them executed in reprisals for attacks on US troops?

Take all the screens you need, I'll wait.

In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
narrow it down further.

Since you are not familiar with statistics,

That's an unwarranted assumption on your part.

OTOH, it was considered to be too dangerous to conduct interviews
in some areas, those were assumed to have the same mortality
rates and the safer surrounding areas. That tends to underestimate
mortality.

That's another unwarranted assumption on your part, just because it might have
been dangerous for interviewers doesn't mean that more people died there.

The numbers 6,000 to 194,000 were not estimated total deaths.
They were an estimate of deaths in excess of the number of deaths
in a similar period before the invasion.

I'm well aware of that and so is everyone else, thanks though.

I do not remember the median value exactly, it was around 100,000.
That implies a 50% confidence that the excess deaths were less
than 100,000 and simultaneously 50% confidence that they were
greater.

100,000 plus or minus 94,000, they have a guess with such a large margin that
it is all but meaningless. If a doctor tells you that you have between 12 and
18 months to live you can do something useful with that information. If the
doctor tells you that you have between 6 months and 22 years to live; that's all
but useless information to you.

Johnny Bravo wrote:
On 23 Jun 2006 11:16:02 -0700, wrote:


Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:16:38 GMT, Ricardo wrote:

The Iraqis ARE standing up and fighting for themselves but the trouble
is, like when the Germans invaded France in WW2 (although at least the
French had declared war on Germany), the occupying power with its
indiscriminate killing of civilians then brands anyone who reacts to
this as a 'terrorist'.

So how many civilians have we rounded up according to policy and shot in
reprisal?

If you answered none, you'd be correct.

That has yet to be determined.

"According to policy"

Care to cite the official policy of the US military to round up civilians and
have them executed in reprisals for attacks on US troops?

You are correct, there is, as of yet, no evidence that the shootings in
Ieraq were according to policy. Nor do I expect any to be forthcoming.
I do believe that the murders of Dilawar and Habibulah in Bagram prison
were according to the policy of, or at best a consequence of the
willfull ignorance of the base commander. the light sentences for
those
convicted are telling.

LIght sentences for persons convicted of beating chained
prisoners to death is not a good policy.


Take all the screens you need, I'll wait.

In October 2004 the best scientific data in the world on civilian casualties
in Iraq was analysed and they came up with a guess; they were 95% sure it was
somewhere between 6,000 and 194,000 and they didn't, or couldn't, even try to
narrow it down further.

Since you are not familiar with statistics,

That's an unwarranted assumption on your part.

I was giving you the benefit of doubt. Someone who is familiar with
statistics, who makes a statement such as yours above, would not
be writing honestly.


OTOH, it was considered to be too dangerous to conduct interviews
in some areas, those were assumed to have the same mortality
rates and the safer surrounding areas. That tends to underestimate
mortality.

That's another unwarranted assumption on your part, just because it might have
been dangerous for interviewers doesn't mean that more people died there.

I agree that it is an assumption. I disagree that it is unwarranted.


The numbers 6,000 to 194,000 were not estimated total deaths.
They were an estimate of deaths in excess of the number of deaths
in a similar period before the invasion.

I'm well aware of that and so is everyone else, thanks though.

Regardless, a number of OTHER persons make the false claim
that the study shows that the US has killed 100,000 civilians in Iraq.


I do not remember the median value exactly, it was around 100,000.
That implies a 50% confidence that the excess deaths were less
than 100,000 and simultaneously 50% confidence that they were
greater.

100,000 plus or minus 94,000, they have a guess with such a large margin that
it is all but meaningless.

Again, a person who understands statistics knows that 'guessing'
is not involved. Whether you are being honest or not is left as
an exercise for the reader.

If a doctor tells you that you have between 12 and
18 months to live you can do something useful with that information. If the
doctor tells you that you have between 6 months and 22 years to live; that's all
but useless information to you.

I disagree.

I presume that you have no disagreement with the other meaningful
comments you edited out.

I also note that you did not insert any indicator of where and how
you edited my remarks before replying...

--

FF