Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation • Hacker News Board

Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation

#31

Post by berntb » Fri, Oct 18, 2013, 2:18 AM UTC

gruseom wrote: post #16

jnbiche wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been very serious studies done on Iraqi war mortality for quite some time, starting with Roberts and Burnham, who did two very credible epidemiological surveys of mortality in 2004 and 2006 (published in the Lancet) using a similar approach as the study referenced above. The later study estimated somewhere around 600,000+ (95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636) had already died by 2006 (and this be…

I remember that This American Life did a piece on the Lancet studies when they came out. They focused on how the widespread reaction (in the West) to their numbers was one of stubborn disbelief, despite the fact that these were the most credible researchers in the field and that they used standard techniques.

I remember this hilarious reality check from the Iraq Body Count project. I never saw it answered... Do you have a link?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/reality-checks/

This was also quite funny:

http://lancetiraq.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html

>>stubborn disbelief

I thought it was fun how many people on the left knew how it was, with so wildly varying data.

But of course, it never happens that researchers cheat on research papers. Or interviewers in another country "fix" the answers. Or a hundred other things.

If I have a thesis in life, it is that paid shills and idealists lie. The idealists "know" how it is, so the problem is how to get people to think "correctly".

Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation

#32

Post by Zigurd » Fri, Oct 18, 2013, 2:36 AM UTC

mcantelon wrote: post #11

scaramanga wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's incorrect to say the evidence on WMD was flimsy, it was very solid. That is to say that it was almost certain that Iraq had no usable WMD. The "evidence" to the contrary were fabrications, obvious at the time, without the benefit of hindsight. As was widely pointed out then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

And don't forget the Downing Street Memorandum.

WMD was bullshit, and everyone knew it was bullshit.

Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation

#33

Post by thaumasiotes » Fri, Oct 18, 2013, 2:54 AM UTC

Theodores wrote: post #23

lambda wrote: post #3

According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein'... , estimates of Iraqis killed by Saddam range from a quarter million to a million, and estimates of Iranians killed in the Iran-Iraq are in a similar range. So, let's call his death toll a half million to two million. About a decade after the Gulf War, which had pretty much put a stop to Saddam's killing spree, the US decided to inv…

At the 1975 OPEC meeting in Algiers a new treaty was agreed on for the Iran-Iraq border. This was in Iran's favour, and, in those days Iran was a US client. The deal was that Iraq would cede territory in the Shatt al Arab area and in exchange Iran would stop arming Iraqi Kurds. This on-going border dispute (which had gone on for centuries) was important to what happened next. In 1979 a lot of stuff happened. There wa…

Well, Vladimir, Dave, and Angela are fairly nondistinctive names (and in fact, I have no idea who you mean by "Dave").

But in general if I were looking for why something went by a certain name, I'd expect the answer to be "that's how it was learned in the beginning". People hate changing the name they use for things, and even just words for things can persist for so long that there is no knowledge of their origin other than "it's always been that way". (Obviously, they usually don't... but they can. The english word "wheel" is a good example, with an incredibly long line of descent straight from PIE; contrast the word "cycle", which descends from the same PIE root, but has the straightforward (?) origin "borrowed from the Greek".) I'm pretty sure you're referring to the guy as "Saddam" because you've observed that that's normal practice. It might be very difficult to find an example where that wasn't the entire justification.

Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation

#34

Post by phaus » Fri, Oct 18, 2013, 2:56 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #19

phaus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were over two dozen foreign intelligence agencies that agreed that Saddam either had or was attempting to build or purchase weapons of destruction. Nuclear weapons are extremely difficult to hide anywhere on earth, but many other types of weapons of mass destruction aren't difficult to dispose of. That's not to say that the invasion turned out to be a good idea, or that we were justified in the attempt, but tho…

"had or was attempting to build or purchase" is a pretty weak standard. Do I qualify if I put an ad on craigslist asking if anyone has some spare anthrax? How about if I doodle a nuclear weapon design on a napkin? I don't doubt Saddam was trying to develop or purchase WMD. But absent the capability of doing so, such attempts mean nothing. Regardless, it was obvious that Iraq was not a threat to the US. Even if Iraq h…

I thought it was obvious, but out of those two dozen intelligence agencies, some of them thought that he had weapons of mass destruction, and some of them thought that he was merely trying to acquire them. Perhaps I should have worded it more clearly.

That being said, I wasn't attempting to evaluate whether the evidence we had was strong enough to go to war or not. I was simply stating that a good portion of the world's intelligence agencies came to the same conclusions that we did about Saddam's capabilities and intentions.

I also didn't claim that anyone else opted to start a war, clearly they didn't.

Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation

#35

Post by thaumasiotes » Fri, Oct 18, 2013, 2:59 AM UTC

MrZongle2 wrote: post #12

lambda wrote: post #3

According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein'... , estimates of Iraqis killed by Saddam range from a quarter million to a million, and estimates of Iranians killed in the Iran-Iraq are in a similar range. So, let's call his death toll a half million to two million. About a decade after the Gulf War, which had pretty much put a stop to Saddam's killing spree, the US decided to inv…

As a country, it would appear that we lost our minds in the wake of 9/11. Widespread government surveillance. Armed drones. Massive bills passing through Congress without being completely read. Amazingly intrusive security at airports, now filtering down to train and bus stations. Indefinite suspension of prisoners of war. Yes, we have gone astray. For those of you old enough, could you imagine such things happening…

> Massive bills passing through Congress without being completely read.

I expect that to be the norm in the 70s, 80s, and 90s as it is the norm today and will continue to be in the future, for the same reasons.

I imagine armed drones coming into use essentially as fast as they're developed; I don't believe any past government would have abstained.

I'm with you on the widespread government surveillance, absurd "security" at airports and train and bus stations, and indefinite suspension, though to be fair, I'm not really old enough to have much of an opinion on what things were like (except for airports... truly, these are the end times :( )

Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation

#36

Post by rayiner » Fri, Oct 18, 2013, 3:00 AM UTC

lambda wrote: post #3

According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein'... , estimates of Iraqis killed by Saddam range from a quarter million to a million, and estimates of Iranians killed in the Iran-Iraq are in a similar range. So, let's call his death toll a half million to two million. About a decade after the Gulf War, which had pretty much put a stop to Saddam's killing spree, the US decided to inv…

There is a bit of a conceptual leap from "started a civil war that got a bunch of people killed" to "slaughtered." The question of "how did we come to this?" obviously has a different answer in the two contexts. In the former, more accurate, characterization, it can simply be explained as: Americans are an optimistic bunch that continually underestimate how deeply dysfunctional Middle Eastern society happens to be and how deep the fissures within run.

Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation

#37

Post by venomsnake » Fri, Oct 18, 2013, 3:07 AM UTC

berntb wrote: post #29

gruseom wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt for a moment that American and other Western soldiers were trying hard to avoid civilian casualties. It's deeply unfair to blame them for things they didn't do or for decisions they didn't make and never would have made had it been up to them. That being said, there are a couple problems with your argument. First, it's not the case that dozens of intelligence agencies believed the WMD propaganda. They w…

>>since without the invasion, there wouldn't have been a civil war. Uh... This happened: A starts a war W with B. As a follow on effect, some groups inside B starts a civil war W2 with others in B. You say that A is responsible for the second war W2 too, which they didn't start and even actively tried to stop?! After the war, when does A stop being responsible for everything bad that happens to B, done by B themselve…

Yes - A is responsible. If I set fire on half of a fireworks factory, I definitely could be hold responsible if the other half burns down to.

Saddam was keeping Iraq relatively stable. The toppling of the regime was done so clumsy with so little idea what to do next that it enabled the sliding down of Iraq into the madness that culminated in 2006-7

Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation

#38

Post by gokuismyhero » Fri, Oct 18, 2013, 3:09 AM UTC

berntb wrote: post #29

gruseom wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt for a moment that American and other Western soldiers were trying hard to avoid civilian casualties. It's deeply unfair to blame them for things they didn't do or for decisions they didn't make and never would have made had it been up to them. That being said, there are a couple problems with your argument. First, it's not the case that dozens of intelligence agencies believed the WMD propaganda. They w…

>>since without the invasion, there wouldn't have been a civil war. Uh... This happened: A starts a war W with B. As a follow on effect, some groups inside B starts a civil war W2 with others in B. You say that A is responsible for the second war W2 too, which they didn't start and even actively tried to stop?! After the war, when does A stop being responsible for everything bad that happens to B, done by B themselve…

I'd argue the US contributed to "W2" through "De-Ba'athification," disbanding the Iraqi military, and the incompetence of the occupation (eg insufficient troops to enforce martial law/secure weapons caches). This isn't simply claiming the benefit of hindsight because there were many people warning about these decisions at the time.

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

Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation

#39

Post by lambda » Fri, Oct 18, 2013, 3:35 AM UTC

Theodores wrote: post #23

lambda wrote: post #3

According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein'... , estimates of Iraqis killed by Saddam range from a quarter million to a million, and estimates of Iranians killed in the Iran-Iraq are in a similar range. So, let's call his death toll a half million to two million. About a decade after the Gulf War, which had pretty much put a stop to Saddam's killing spree, the US decided to inv…

At the 1975 OPEC meeting in Algiers a new treaty was agreed on for the Iran-Iraq border. This was in Iran's favour, and, in those days Iran was a US client. The deal was that Iraq would cede territory in the Shatt al Arab area and in exchange Iran would stop arming Iraqi Kurds. This on-going border dispute (which had gone on for centuries) was important to what happened next. In 1979 a lot of stuff happened. There wa…

Regarding your PS, it's because Saddam is his name, Hussein is his father's name, it's not a family name. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Youth or http://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/sep/22/israel for details.

Re: Mortality in Iraq Associated with the 2003–2011 War and Occupation

#40

Post by vacri » Fri, Oct 18, 2013, 4:15 AM UTC

lambda wrote: post #3

According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein'... , estimates of Iraqis killed by Saddam range from a quarter million to a million, and estimates of Iranians killed in the Iran-Iraq are in a similar range. So, let's call his death toll a half million to two million. About a decade after the Gulf War, which had pretty much put a stop to Saddam's killing spree, the US decided to inv…

The US fighting Iraq was more about being able to defeat a tangible foe and make it look like something was being done in the wake of the WTC attacks - punching ghosts in Afghanistan wasn't providing the balm the politicians were looking for.

The invasion of Iraq was more about that "Mission Accomplished" banner for the domestic market than actually doing anything for Iraqis and their neighbours.