The Iraq War Is Over: Who Won?

You obviously know nothing about statistics, the methods used were not flawed and are the same as are used by governments and organisations all over the world. Anyone who knows the first thing about statistics will tell you that.

It wasn't 2000 Iraqis BTW, it was 2000 households, big difference.

The Lancets findings were backed up by a survey conducted by an independent polling company, Opinion Research Business, who put the number of deaths at over a million.

 

Hang on, wikileaks Iraq War Logs proved that sources such as IBC were wrong, they proveided another 15,000 unrecorded deaths, they showed the methods used by IBC were flawed.

How many more unrecorded deaths were there? Nobody knows which is why the methods used by the Lancet are the only reliable way to estimate the number of deaths.

 

Since the numbers, both causalities and dollar costs, seems to depend on which organization(s) we're going to confer the crown of credibility upon, I'm going have to defer to the highly probable statement that "a lot of people died and it cost a lot of money to wage the Iraq War ". Given that, I now hereby declare the we won the war. How's that? Otherwise the whole affair would've been a waste of a lot of lives and money and we certainly don't want that, right? Anything else I can help clarify?

 

The following are the 18 “benchmarks” set for the new Iraqi government in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007.

1. Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.
2. Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification.
3. Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.
4. Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.
5. Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.
6. Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.
7. Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Constitution of Iraq.
8. Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad security plan.
9. Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.
10. Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions, in consultation with U.S. commanders, without political intervention, to include the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.
11. Ensuring that the Iraqi security forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law.
12. Ensuring that, according to President Bush, Prime Minister Maliki said “the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”
13. Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.
14. Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.
15. Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces’ units capable of operating independently.
16. Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.
17. Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.
18. Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi security forces.

The way it looks to me, is that according to George Bush, we have met 7 of the 18 benchmarks for success in Iraq.

So what?......about 40% success?.....

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/defenseandsecurity/a/benchmarks.htm

 

The Lancet study and ORB study have been seriously discredited. Those studies were picked up by bloggers everywhere and unfortunately developed a level of legitmacy for those against the war. Many respected casualty recorders have discredited the study.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/exaggerated-orb/

A bunch of good links from the wiki article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties

 

Yes I know they tried to trash them because they weren't what Bush and Blair wanted to hear but nobody can fault their methods which are still being used today.

All the other methods however are known to be obviously flawed, it's no use counting recorded deaths when it's known not all deaths were recorded, it's known that pressure was put on the managers of mortuaries to keep the figures low, it's known that hospitals just didn't have the time and resources to be doing the paper work, it's know that many people just ended up floating down rivers or in unmarked graves. It was a war and the only effective methods are the tried and tested methods used for epidemiology.

Anyhow a country that says "we don't do body counts" has no right arguing with the people who do.

 

So your defense is that these methods are effective because Bush and Blair didn't like them? Thats very scientific. The methods they CLAIMED to use are still being used, but the manner in which they carried out these methods was highly flawed. Go read all the links I showed you which have detailed analysis by well-established "death recorders" that say the way they carried out their method was highly flawed.

 

VP Cheney had no financial interest in the Iraq war.

 

So tell me how the methods used to get the figures you do accept aren't more flawed.

We'll only count the deaths recorded by two different media outlets and pretend them's the only people that died is not too scientific.

 

He had quite a large financial interest in Haliburton though, he was CEO till 2000 and had stock options.

 

I posted 5 or 6 different sources, the AP and wikileaks were the only media sources.

 

All of his stock option profits were written over to charities. His deferred compensation as an executive is for work he did before taking office. He actually took out an insurance policy against this to prevent any conflict of interest (ie keeping the company from backruptcy to collect his compensation). You could say he still has connections to the company....be it legacy, friends, or future jobs there, but he hasn't directly recieved money from them because of Iraq contracts.

 

Sources all giving different results because they all counted different things using different methods.

The Lancet is the most reliable, not conducted by government employees and most comprehensive. They had no reason to massage the figures and the Iraqis had no reason to hide the truth from them. Tried and trusted methods.

 

Haha, the "government" sources come from many non-U.S. government sources. There are also NON government sources that support the government sources. The Lancet study comes up with a MUCH larger number than all of them. Even wikileaks, which advocates full disclosure and does everything in its power to uncover government conspiracys has a number very similar to the official numbers.

 

As we are currently seeing, the clear winner was Iran.

 

None the less i'm glad to see you here debunking poor arguments.

I would disagree in regards to DU many people in the medical community say that particles which are too large to absorb can stay in the lungs and cause cancer. I'm wondering if you have a link that references experiments or studies that show DU vapors or dust is not harmful or capable of causing birth defects. That would be appreciated.

The sanctions seemed to work on an assumption of collective guilt of the Iraqis but not everyone feels the same guilt of Iraq's past actions nor does everyone have the same amount of responsibility in the failings. This is the problem with sanctions they work based on the assumption that the people under them with the majority of power (be it the masses or elites) will understand why they are being punished and understand the solution. It is either that or weaken the country at all costs, which harms the least powerful the most.

I suppose many people just weigh the good and bad and whichever is more prominent is what the situation was. This doesn't work in regard to the past the past isn't just good or bad it's historical events there values are all independent.

I think you're over estimating morality and foresight. I think you are about spot on about the posters. Our adaptability is our greatest strength but it doesn't differentiate between right or wrong. My views now are my own and the accurately describe how I feel however they may change if confronted with a similar reality such as yours or theirs.

 

The Lancet does not come up with a much larger number than all of them, the only other independent count using scientific methods, the ORB survey, backed their findings.

And Wikilkeaks did reveal just how corrupt, dishonest and manipulating the American Government and military are which is why I'm surprised you would rather believe their lies than independent scientific surveys.

 

There are 16,000 American "diplomats" holed up in their "embassy" in Baghdad, including 5000 mercenaries.

It's a complete mystery what all those people are there to do. Other than to provide a causus bellum when someone plants a bomb in their midst.

 

He had no financial interest in the war. Halliburton got the contract because they were the only American corporation capable of fulfilling it. Everything else is liberal lies.