Because I don't really have the answers on the Lancelot study, NYOB. I'll summarize it by saying the following:
- I don't know Richard Horton and others involved in the study. But, I will say the John Hopkins is a well-respected research institution...and they are not a liberal think tank by any means. in fact, they do a great deal of work for the military.
- The study is unique in that it is the only one (that I know of) based on polling. The Iraq Body Count is obviously a lower bound to the civilian casualties as it doesn't count those that died that either were not recovered or were not officially recorded. However, polling has its own drawbacks in double counting, confidence, and randomness.
- People forget that it claimed a 600K civilian fatality number, but with extremely large confidence intervals...ranging from 250K to 950K. This reflects their uncertainty.

I have not looked at their data, but I do think questions need to be answered regarding the large discrepancy between their results and others. If they do this again, they should try to determine which of the dead have been included in the IBC and which have not...and why.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???

And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

that's what the republican party pays him to do...fucking lie...

__________________
http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php


When you want to know the truth, search all articles available on your topic. The truth lies somewhere between it all.

PROVE THIS INFORMATION WRONG! THEN GET BACK TO ME. ALL YOU REALLY NEED TO KNOW IS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED! THESE PEOPLE ARE EXPERTS THAT HIGHLY DISAGREE WITH THE LANCET STUDY. ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EDITOR PARTISIPATES IN ANTI WAR RALLYS! AND BY THE WAY. THAT "DUDES" BLOG WAS THE BLOG OF AN IRAQI CALLING THE LANCET REPORT A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT! IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THE INFORMATION I GAVE YOU WOULD KNOW THIS!

Ahh yes the Lancet Study! Out of every study done this one has been proven to be the least accurate. Ofcourse all of your references show a liberal newspaper exploiting the study for an political gain without reporting the other side. Let me help you!

Experts From Across Political Spectrum Pound Partisan Study on Iraqi Civilian Deaths
By Mark Finkelstein | October 13, 2006 - 14:55 ET
With timing in the tradition of the Foley fiasco leak - geared for maximum impact on the coming elections - a study was published earlier this week by The Lancet, a British medical science journal, claiming that 655,000 Iraqis have died “as a consequence of the war.” The MSM predictably accorded the study great attention.

In this item yesterday, I noted that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and MNF Commander Casey rejected the study's findings, which is wholly at odds with the US government estimate of 30-50,000 Iraqi civilians killed.

Now, as a Pentagon official has made known, a range of experts - who notably come from across the foreign policy spectrum - has cast doubts on the report's methodology and conclusions. Moreover, one of the study authors has been revealed as an anti-war partisan as has the editor of the Lancet itself. The first is a former Democratic congressional candidate, the latter made recently outlandish accusations as to the motivations of the governments leading the war effort.

Expert Criticism of the Study

Michael O'Hanlon, The Brookings Institution: “I do not believe the new numbers. I think they're way off.” (Paul Reynolds, “Huge Gaps In Iraq Death Estimates,” BBC News Online, 10/12/06)

Anthony Cordesman, Center For Strategic International Studies: “[The report’s numbers] are almost certainly way too high… this is not analysis, this is politics.” (Associated Press, “More Than 600,000 Iraqis Dead Because Of War: U.S. Study,” 10/11/06)

Donald Berry, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center In Houston: The report has “a tone of accuracy that's just inappropriate.” (“Iraqi Dead May Total 600,000, Study Says,” New York Times, 10/11/06)

Iraqi Blogger: Researchers “Resorted to mathematics to … satisfy their lust for more deaths.” “When the statistics announced by hospitals and military here, or even by the UN, did not satisfy their lust for more deaths, they resorted to mathematics to get a fake number that satisfies their sadistic urges. This fake research is an insult to every man, woman and child who lost their lives. Behind every drop of blood is a noble story of sacrifice for a just cause that is struggling for living safe in freedom and prosperity.” (“Responding To The Lancet Lies,” Iraq The Model, 10/12/2006)

Robert Blendon, Harvard Program On Public Opinion And Health And Social Policy: “The number of deaths in the families interviewed – 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion – was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country.” (“Iraqi Dead May Total 600,000, Study Says,” New York Times, 10/11/06)
Partisan Background of Author and Editor

Les Robert is described in the Lancet article as having "instigated" the study "and assisted with the analysis and interpretation of the data and the writing of the manuscript." Roberts is also the author Of “The Iraq War: Do Civilian Casualties Matter?”, Audit Of The Conventional Wisdom, July 2005), in which he wrote, among other things, that the Iraq war began "under unsupportable, and probably illegal, pretenses.” Roberts sought the Democratic nomination for Congress in New York’s 24th CD [which coincidentally includes most of my home county of Tompkins], before yielding to Michael Arcuri. (Tom Grace, “Roberts Drops Out Of 24th District Race,” The Daily Star [Oneonta, NY], 5/18/06)

Lancet editor Richard Horton, speaking at an anti-war rally last month, said that “[the British] government… prefers to support the killing of children instead of the building of hospitals and schools…As this axis of Anglo-American imperialism extends its influence through war and conquest, gathering power and wealth as it goes, so millions of people are left to die in poverty and disease.” Hat tip Little Green Footballs.

My conclusion: the 'study' should be viewed as pre-election polemics rather than serious science.

__________________
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." Ronald Reagan http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/war...bout-iraq.html

Regardless of numbers we all know its happening way to much and Fallujha is one example of it. They will never get a number no matter what formulas they use. They kick dirt on those people ober there. Lots of Americans have the misconcpetion that everybody goes through the kind of Burial that Americans see at a cemetary. Mass graves were always used to denote some evil plot. But when 1000s of people die in an virtual instant. There are unfortunately more pressing concerns then a dignified memorial service.

In Germany we still cant account for everybody from the East during the war. We probbly never will. The Goverment is still trying and has a department for it.

Its hard to count bodies when the only thing left is a bone fragment.

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8Ek...eature=related

FRONTLINE: endgame: timeline | PBS

Casey and his advisers decide that Iraqi elections cannot be held without clearing out Fallujah, which has again become a safe haven for Sunni insurgents. But Casey's advisers worry about the impact of the assault on Sunni Iraqis. Civilians are urged to leave the city; it is estimated only 400 remain when the assault begins

__________________
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." Ronald Reagan http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/war...bout-iraq.html

I don't know how well Iraq tracks their dead...do they have the equivalent of a social security number....I doubt it. Being a tribal nation, it's very decentralized by its nature. Like I said, the Lancelot study needs to answer the questions as to why the large discrepancy between their results and others.

__________________
The Lone Ranger of the AWE liberal elitists.....who was that masked man???

And now, I'm the Elitist of liberal Elitists...

The WHOIS does that already. IT is wrong..period

__________________
Cussing out low class inbreds isnt uninteligent, its honest

Good typing is not inteligent its dexiteritous.

Everything you just said is total bullshit

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V8Ek...eature=related

Les Robert is described in the Lancet article as having "instigated" the study "and assisted with the analysis and interpretation of the data and the writing of the manuscript." Roberts is also the author Of “The Iraq War: Do Civilian Casualties Matter?”, Audit Of The Conventional Wisdom, July 2005), in which he wrote, among other things, that the Iraq war began "under unsupportable, and probably illegal, pretenses.” Roberts sought the Democratic nomination for Congress in New York’s 24th CD [which coincidentally includes most of my home county of Tompkins], before yielding to Michael Arcuri. (Tom Grace, “Roberts Drops Out Of 24th District Race,” The Daily Star [Oneonta, NY], 5/18/06)

Now, as a Pentagon official has made known, a range of experts - who notably come from across the foreign policy spectrum - has cast doubts on the report's methodology and conclusions. Moreover, one of the study authors has been revealed as an anti-war partisan as has the editor of the Lancet itself. The first is a former Democratic congressional candidate, the latter made recently outlandish accusations as to the motivations of the governments leading the war effort.

Lancet editor Richard Horton, speaking at an anti-war rally last month, said that “[the British] government… prefers to support the killing of children instead of the building of hospitals and schools…As this axis of Anglo-American imperialism extends its influence through war and conquest, gathering power and wealth as it goes, so millions of people are left to die in poverty and disease.” Hat tip Little Green Footballs.
My conclusion: the 'study' should be viewed as pre-election polemics rather than serious science.

__________________
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." Ronald Reagan http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/war...bout-iraq.html

I've got a study on my computer from Stanford University Norman , I'll try to find it.

They went around in Iraq two years ago before things got so bad and talked to morgue and cemetery workers. Who keep records of how many they buried and what their occupation was if any.
And tracked down families of the dead to ask them how they died and did a study on it. Stuff like killing in a US bombing, killed in a attack at a market , assailant unknown.

Its long with lots on info on how it was compiled, you'd probably like that.I read it once , but statistics with HUGE details are not my thing.

Even in this study they had a wide range. They estimated the civilian dead in Iraq two years ago at between 600,000 and 900,000 thats a big margin.

__________________
American Politics and More the forum for smart people.

http://americanpoliticsandmore.com/forum/index.php

LOL no proof, no evedence. They did a good job proving the lancet less than credeble but you cant prove them less than credeble. Your desperate for an arguement!

__________________
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." Ronald Reagan http://www.arguewitheveryone.com/war...bout-iraq.html