[extropy-chat] Who thinks the Bush admin lied over Iraq? Onwhatbasis?

[Bret Kulakovich]

On Jul 13, 2005, at 5:15 PM, Robert Lindauer wrote:

> What we seem to agree on is that 1)  they weren't there when we got  
> there and 2) we didn't -actually- have any good reason to suspect  
> that they would be.  I think that's all that's needed to make the  
> case.

Sorry to jump around here, but this part is more in tune with the  
original thread so I thought I would start here.

As for 1) it does seem to be the case that we haven't found anything  
yet, and it can be argued that there is nothing to find to begin  
with, but as far as 2) goes, I don't know that we're in agreement, no  
biggie. There is a lot of circumstantial stuff going on, and a lot of  
opinion. So if I put my personal opinion out there, which is based on  
reading alot, and having an interest in epidemiology (and reading  
books like Ken Alibek's memoirs, etc.) i.e. which is no better  
qualified than anyone else in particular - I would want to err on the  
side of caution. There were, all parties agree I believe, lots of  
weapons unaccounted for when tallies were made at different points.  
There was an infrastructure churning out chemical and biological  
weapons. When I see people unearthing a Mig-25 out in the desert, I  
think it is totally rational to assume that "if I were him" I'd bury  
a lot more stuff than that. A Mig-25 is still a formidable  
interceptor even now, I wouldn't want to hand that to a neighbor,  
even to keep it out of coalition hands.

All your points that war is terrible, and a last resort, of course I  
pretty much agree with. And that there were other options, well  
certainly.


> Well, we don't have a reliable source of numbers, obviously, since  
> our government doesn't allow third-party observers to investigate  
> such matters.  On the other hand, we have the Lancet Study which  
> reports the total civilian dead since the beginning of the effort  
> at around 98,000, when you include the military deaths you're up  
> over a hundred.  It's a matter of conjecture what percentage is  
> collateral dammage versus natural causes.  HOWEVER since there is a  
> big war and we did just shock and awe the shit out of their biggest  
> city and continue to be carrying live ammunition around in the  
> streets there and since we won't allow third-party investigators to  
> settle the matter there is an impetus to err on the side of more  
> dead rather than less, at least until say, the Red Cross or UN is  
> admitted to analyze the situation publicly and without any obvious  
> accountability to the Bush Administration.  But even at 99,000 dead  
> iraqi's the sadness of the matter remains.  Perhaps I should post  
> this disclaimer on the site.


What the Lancet reported was that they were 95% certain that the  
number of people who died the year of the invasion was between 8,000  
and 195,000 people. The number is based on a cluster survey with ~30  
homes in each cluster. They went to each of these households, almost  
1000, and conducted interviews with the members of the households  
about who lived there, and asked how many people had died in the past  
year, and the cause. The people in the houses, the source of their  
data, stated that people in their households had died violent deaths,  
by coalition forces.

Arriving at a number without the census as you say, is pretty much  
impossible. And in order for everyone to accept that number, it must  
come from a so-called neutral party, not the Iraqi Ministry of  
Health, or the coalition.

I also understand that people try to justify the number being 100,000  
because the US "flattened" al Fallujah, which it did not. The strike  
against al Fallujah, while not 'surgical' was not nearly damaging as  
is being told by certain news outlets and partisans.



> * I like oxymorons and footnotes in emails.

Then we do agree on two points after all!


]3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20050714/f06912c4/attachment.html>