Miss GW Yet?

[OzmO]

Ah shit, I just wrote a long response to this but accidentally lost what I wrote by double-clicking in the preview pane.

Anyway, depends what you mean by an "accurate study".  The study is accurate in that it's very upfront about how sure (or not) one can be about its results.

No one can definitively say what the number (of Iraqi deaths attributable to the USA's invasion of Iraq) is and that's why the study's authors present its results as "460,000 deaths with a 95% confidence (or uncertainty) interval of a (whopping) 48,000 - 751,000 deaths".

(It's also important, btw, to understand what the study is talking about when it says "attributable" but they pretty clearly lay that out.)

So what's the value of this study?  Here's the money paragraph (for me):

What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings provide the most up-to-date estimates of the death toll of the Iraq war and subsequent conflict. However, given the difficult circumstances, the estimates are associated with substantial uncertainties. The researchers extrapolated from a small representative sample of households to estimate Iraq's national death toll. In addition, respondents were asked to recall events that occurred up to ten years prior, which can lead to inaccuracies. The researchers also had to rely on outdated census data (the last complete population census in Iraq dates back to 1987) for their overall population figures. Thus, to accompany their estimate of 460,000 excess deaths from March 2003 to mid-2011, the authors used statistical methods to determine the likely range of the true estimate. Based on the statistical methods, the researchers are 95% confident that the true number of excess deaths lies between 48,000 and 751,000—a large range. More than two years past the end of the period covered in this study, the conflict in Iraq is far from over and continues to cost lives at alarming rates. As discussed in an accompanying Perspective by Salman Rawaf, violence and lawlessness continue to the present day. In addition, post-war Iraq has limited capacity to re-establish and maintain its battered public health and safety infrastructure.

So while it seems that any study for the specific purpose of determining the actual number of Iraqi deaths attributable to the USA's invasion of Iraq will be of only limited value, the study IS valuable when trying to find the answer to the more important question, "Did the USA's invasion of Iraq destroy the lives of a huge number of Iraqi people?"

The answer, of course, is "Hell yes!"... and no American should be proud of that.

That's all good RRK  but to say it resulted in the death of 500K iraqis is woefully inaccurate and more spin like than anything else.

[RRKore]

this was in 1998.  while Clinton was in office.  did GWB start his plan back then?  obviously there was info coming in 1998 that some saw as proof of WMD's.  but 3 years later it was all just a lie?  Clinton warned us of the danger posed by Sadaam before he left office.  was he lying too?

and no WMD's were ever found.  also no evidence that GWB fabricated evidence was ever found either.  why do you believe one and not the other?  i know why.

So Saddam couldn't have been shooting off his mouth about having nuclear weapons that he didn't really have since forever?  

Who knows why Clinton, Kerry or anyone else said that they thought Saddam had WMD?  Since they now appear to have been wrong (since no WMD's were found), why does it really matter?  I think your point must be something more than "We can't blame Bush because he thought the same as everyone else" because, the way I see it, since GWB is the one that authorized the invasion, he needed to be more sure of the actual situation than anyone on the sidelines urging war.

I don't necessarily believe that GWB and/or those closest to him "fabricated evidence" but I believe they lied about the implications of what little evidence there was that there were WMD's and purposely ignored evidence that that there weren't WMD's because they wanted to invade Iraq.  And there IS evidence of the latter, supposedly.

Why do I believe one and not the other?  Simple;  It's because WMD's were never found.  Is that really so unreasonable to you?

[blacken700]

he's hibernating 

[RRKore]

That's all good RRK  but to say it resulted in the death of 500K iraqis is woefully inaccurate and more spin like than anything else.

I guess you're right since I didn't mention anything about confidence intervals.  

I should have just said that a "huge number of Iraqis were killed and no American should be proud of that"  because the exact number (even the approximate number) doesn't really matter as far as whether we should be proud of it or not.

[Dos Equis]

Its not hard look into.  Or you can dismiss anything that doesn't fit your "educated opinion" which is based on.........your opinion

Depends how you quantify a mission success regarding oil. 

I'm only dismissing the ridiculous claim that we killed 500,000 Iraqis.  I'm not going to do research to try and disprove a BS number.  

Well I don't think it was about oil; you do.  Seems to me it doesn't really matter how you quantify the mission if we're no longer there, never controlled or profited from their oil, etc.  

[blacken700]

no just in debt 2 trillion,no biggie

[RRKore]

he's hibernating 

That's pretty funny but I actually think Bears is OK.  He's likely at work, not hiding.

The kind of poor opinion he has of liberals and their biases is not much different that many liberals have of conservatives and their biases so I don't take offense at his guesses for the basis of my opinions.

BTW, I don't think Bears is necessarily a conservative, really -- more of a straight contrarian, I think.

[bears]

So Saddam couldn't have been shooting off his mouth about having nuclear weapons that he didn't really have since forever?  

Who knows why Clinton, Kerry or anyone else said that they thought Saddam had WMD?  Since they now appear to have been wrong (since no WMD's were found), why does it really matter?  I think your point must be something more than "We can't blame Bush because he thought the same as everyone else" because, the way I see it, since GWB is the one that authorized the invasion, he needed to be more sure of the actual situation than anyone on the sidelines urging war.

I don't necessarily believe that GWB and/or those closest to him "fabricated evidence" but I believe they lied about the implications of what little evidence there was that there were WMD's and purposely ignored evidence that that there weren't WMD's because they wanted to invade Iraq.  And there IS evidence of the latter, supposedly.

Why do I believe one and not the other?  Simple;  It's because WMD's were never found.  Is that really so unreasonable to you?

it absolutely reasonable.

but believing that a mistake was made and believing that he "fabricated evidence" are two completely different things. 

if you choose not to believe that Sadaam Hussein never had WMD's that's your prerogative.  I believe that the Clinton administration and the Bush administration both saw evidence that he was actively running a WMD program.  and when 9/11 came and went, the Bush administration believed that we were exceptionally vulnerable and took action to protect us by invading Iraq.

bottom line was everyone was on board. 

[dario73]

Slick Willy believed that Iraq had WMDs. Did he fabricate any of the evidence he saw?

[OzmO]

Slick Willy believed that Iraq had WMDs. Did he fabricate any of the evidence he saw?

Is slick willy an intelligence analysis that did the research and analyzed it himself or was he presented hand picked evidence?

[bears]

Slick Willy believed that Iraq had WMDs. Did he fabricate any of the evidence he saw?

according to blacken no.  Clinton was trying to stop sadaam's nuclear program.  but that was in 1998.  in 2001, a whole 2 and a half years later Sadaam didn't want anything to do with a nuclear program.  he just gave it all up and wanted to live on the straight and narrow.

and just when he turned his life around GWB came in and attacked him.  poor guy.

this is what Blacken actually believes.  its fuckin scary.

[OzmO]

I'm only dismissing the ridiculous claim that we killed 500,000 Iraqis.  I'm not going to do research to try and disprove a BS number.  

Well I don't think it was about oil; you do.  Seems to me it doesn't really matter how you quantify the mission if we're no longer there, never controlled or profited from their oil, etc.  

So you are saying we were never awarded contracts by the Iraqi government regarding exploration, extraction, or development oil?

[bears]

So you are saying we were never awarded contracts by the Iraqi government regarding exploration, extraction, or development oil?

all of Iraq's oil now belongs to china and Russia.  if that was our plan we failed.....on purpose.  we allowed the Iraqi people to auction off their own oil fields.  we bid on some of them.  and lost.  so trying to claim that we went into this war for oil has been proven to be utterly stupid.

[OzmO]

all of Iraq's oil now belongs to china and Russia.  if that was our plan we failed.....on purpose.  we allowed the Iraqi people to auction off their own oil fields.  we bid on some of them.  and lost.

The question is did we ever profit form their oil.   My question is did we ever profit from exploration extraction or development? 

Are China and Russia exclusive in all these areas?   what percentage currently?

[bears]

The question is did we ever profit form their oil.   My question is did we ever profit from exploration extraction or development? 

Are China and Russia exclusive in all these areas?   what percentage currently?

I have no fucking idea.  do you?

all I know is I thought we were going to take their fucking oil.  that's what I was told by all the libs on here for years.  and then we didn't.

we should have taken their fucking oil.  we wasted enough god damn fucking money over there I was actually pist off when I heard we lost the auction of the oil fields.

[OzmO]

lol  perhaps i am completely wrong  

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997/

[Dos Equis]

So you are saying we were never awarded contracts by the Iraqi government regarding exploration, extraction, or development oil?

If by "we" you mean the U.S. government, I'm unaware of that happening. 

[OzmO]

I have no fucking idea.  do you?

all I know is I thought we were going to take their fucking oil.  that's what I was told by all the libs on here for years.  and then we didn't.

we should have taken their fucking oil.  we wasted enough god damn fucking money over there I was actually pist off when I heard we lost the auction of the oil fields.

I did a bunch of research in this a few years back.  At the time, western companies such as shell and bp had a lot going on.  Even with the auction in 2009, which was only about 10% of the fields.  Can't find some of the stuff i had seen from back then now.

[OzmO]

If by "we" you mean the U.S. government, I'm unaware of that happening. 

I am unaware of the US government being a oil company also.  i was never talking about our government profiting from their oil.  and i think you knew that.   

[bears]

lol  perhaps i am completely wrong  

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/10/10-companies-profiting-most-from-war/1970997/

you can make that argument for ANY war.  wars cost money.  someones expense is always someone elses revenue.  you like to point this out as though its slam dunk evidence but it doesn't mean anything.

i'm not saying that it couldn't be a motive.  i'm just saying that pointing out that someone makes money off of a war isn't evidence of collusion. 

[Dos Equis]

I am unaware of the US government being a oil company also.  i was never talking about our government profiting from their oil.  and i think you knew that.   

No I didn't know what you meant.  The whole "war for oil" angle never made sense, unless it was the government controlling and profiting from Iraq's oil. 

If you're saying we went to war so private U.S. companies could control or profit from Iraq's oil, then that failed too.

"War for oil" is a talking point, but when you actually think it through, it really falls apart. 

[OzmO]

you can make that argument for ANY war.  wars cost money.  someones expense is always someone elses revenue.  you like to point this out as though its slam dunk evidence but it doesn't mean anything.

i'm not saying that it couldn't be a motive.  i'm just saying that pointing out that someone makes money off of a war isn't evidence of collusion. 

I agree bears.  

I was just laughing about it when i found the article.

Here's some other things I found regarding OIL.

 "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."   Alan Greenspan

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that,"-Gen. John Abizaid former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said  in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."

[OzmO]

No I didn't know what you meant.  The whole "war for oil" angle never made sense, unless it was the government controlling and profiting from Iraq's oil. 

If you're saying we went to war so private U.S. companies could control or profit from Iraq's oil, then that failed too.

"War for oil" is a talking point, but when you actually think it through, it really falls apart. 

not for these three guys:


 "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."   Alan Greenspan

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that,"-Gen. John Abizaid former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said  in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."


I do agree with you in that it wasn't solely for oil.

[Dos Equis]

not for these three guys:


 "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."   Alan Greenspan

"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that,"-Gen. John Abizaid former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said  in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."


I do agree with you in that it wasn't solely for oil.

What is the context of those quotes?  I doubt they were suggesting we went to war so either the U.S. government or private U.S. companies could profit from Iraq's oil. 

My guess is they were stating the obvious that the fact Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia control so much of the world's oil, that "oil" was part of the analysis.  I agree with that. 

The whole profit angle is what doesn't make sense to me.

[OzmO]

What is the context of those quotes?  I doubt they were suggesting we went to war so either the U.S. government or private U.S. companies could profit from Iraq's oil. 

My guess is they were stating the obvious that the fact Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia control so much of the world's oil, that "oil" was part of the analysis.  I agree with that. 

The whole profit angle is what doesn't make sense to me.

Sounds like we are saying the same thing then.  I agree they didn't go to war totally for oil and our government isn't also an oil company. 

But these believe it was a big par of it.

Our companies went in their and profited from their oil in many ways.  It looks like as time when on, we let go of some of it, prolly becuase ti wasn't as profitable.

Here are some other quotes:

Husayn al-Shahristani, Iraq Oil Minister, 23 May 2006:
"There is need to pass an oil and gas law to guarantee the right conditions for international companies to help develop the Iraqi oil sector... We will start contacts with the largest oil companies in the world who want to come in".

Ahmad Chalabi, former Chair of Energy Council (responsible for high-level oil policy in Ja'afari government), November 2005:
"In order to make major quantum increases in oil, we need to have production-sharing agreements"

Shamkhi Faraj, Director General of marketing and economics, Ministry of Oil, April 2006:
"The investment law could take some time and we are not prepared to wait for that long... I think (negotiations) can happen very fast. I am confident that we can do our own legislation within the  contract itself to assure the investors that if any new regulation comes through it will not affect them. What we have on offer are the oilfields in the south, the big ones that will add some 3 million barrels per day to our production and that's what the big companies are looking for."