The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 3, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Iraq Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: New study finds excess deaths in Iraq to be 1/4 of the Roberts et al study
shek    1/10/2008 12:03:18 PM
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010902793.html?sub=AR"

New Estimate of Violent Deaths Among Iraqis Is Lower

By David Brown and Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 10, 2008; A18

A new survey estimates that 151,000 Iraqis died from violence in the three years following the U.S.-led invasion of the country. Roughly 9 out of 10 of those deaths were a consequence of U.S. military operations, insurgent attacks and sectarian warfare.

The survey, conducted by the Iraqi government and the World Health Organization, also found a 60 percent increase in nonviolent deaths -- from such causes as childhood infections and kidney failure -- during the period. The results, which will be published in the New England Journal of Medicine at the end of the month, are the latest of several widely divergent and controversial estimates of mortality attributed to the Iraq war.

The three-year toll of violent deaths calculated in the survey is one-quarter the size of that found in a smaller survey by Iraqi and Johns Hopkins University researchers published in the journal Lancet in 2006.

Both teams used the same method -- a random sample of houses throughout the country. For the new study, however, surveyors visited 23 times as many places and interviewed five times as many households. Surveyors also got more outside supervision in the recent study; that wasn't possible in the spring of 2006 when the Johns Hopkins survey was conducted.

Despite reaching a lower estimate of total deaths, the epidemiologists found what they termed "a massive death toll in the wake of the 2003 invasion."

Iraq's population-wide mortality rate nearly doubled, and the death rate from violence increased tenfold after the coalition attack. Men between 15 and 60 were at the greatest risk. Their death rate from all causes tripled, and their risk of dying a violent death went up elevenfold.

Iraq's health minister, Salih al-Hasnawi, in a conference call held by WHO yesterday morning, said: "Certainly I believe this number. I think that this is a very sound survey with accurate methodology."

Other experts not involved in the research also expressed confidence in the findings, even though, as with the earlier survey, the 151,000-death estimate has a wide range of statistical uncertainty, from a low of 104,000 to a high of 223,000.

"Overall, this is a very good study," said Paul Spiegel, a medical epidemiologist at the United Nations High Commission on Refugees in Geneva. "What they have done that other studies have not is try to compensate for the inaccuracies and difficulties of these surveys, triangulating to get information from other sources."

Spiegel added that "this does seem more believable to me" than the earlier survey, which estimated 601,000 deaths from violence over the same period.

U.S. military officials yesterday pointed to the great disparity between the two estimates, noting privately that it underscores the potential for inaccuracies in such surveys. The Defense Department has not released any estimates of civilian deaths and has said often that the military takes precautions to prevent civilian casualties, while the United States' enemies in Iraq deliberately target civilians.

"It would be difficult for the U.S. to precisely determine the number of civilian deaths in Iraq as a result of insurgent activity," said Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros, a Pentagon spokesman. "The Iraqi Ministry of Health would be in a better position, with all of its records, to provide more accurate information on deaths in Iraq."

Les Roberts, an epidemiologist now at Columbia University who helped direct the Johns Hopkins survey, also praised the new one. While both found a large increase in mortality, his found that much more of it was caused by violence.

"My gut feeling is that most of the difference between the two studies is a reluctance to report to the government a death due to violence," he said. "If your son is fighting the government and died, that may not be something you'd want to admit to the government."

The new study was conducted between August 2006 and March 2007 in all regions of the country, including the Kurdish northern area. Surveyors visited about 1,000 randomly selected geographic areas (called "clusters") and interviewed people in 9,345 households. They were asked whether anyone in the household -- defined as people living under the same roof "and eating from one pot" -- had died from June 2001 through June 2006.

Each death was assigned to one of 23 causes. "Violent death" covered shootings, stabbings, bombings and other intentional injuries, and included civilian, military and police deaths but not suicides and traffic fatalities unrelated to roadside bombs.

Danger prevented surveyors from visiting 11 percent of the chosen clusters. Deaths in those areas were estimated using the ratio of deaths in the region to deaths in other regions as found in the Iraq Body Count, a continuous count of reported and verifiable violent deaths of civilians kept by an independent, London-based group. (That count, which even its organizers agree misses many deaths, registered 47,668 deaths from the U.S.-led invasion through June 2006).

Previous research has shown that household surveys typically miss 30 to 50 percent of deaths. One reason is that some families that have suffered violent deaths leave the survey area. Demographers think that as many as 2 million Iraqis have fled the country since the war began, and the 151,000-death estimate includes an adjustment for this.

Calculating death tolls in Iraq has been notoriously difficult.

Some people are kidnapped and disappear, and others turn up months or years later in mass graves. Some are buried or otherwise disposed of without being recorded. In particularly violent areas, local governments have effectively ceased to function, and there are ineffective channels for collecting and passing information between hospitals, morgues and the central government.

One senior Health Ministry official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said there are detailed casualty numbers, but "we have strict instructions not to give them out." The U.N. human rights mission in Iraq has criticized the Iraqi government for withholding information on civilian casualties.

Last month, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, provided a U.S. military chart on civilian deaths in Iraq between January 2006 and December 2007, but specific monthly tolls were not included. A rough estimate based on this chart, which synthesized Iraqi and U.S. figures, indicated that some 40,000 civilians had died in the past two years in Iraq.

Jalil Hadi al-Shimmari, who oversees the western Baghdad health department, said the 151,000 total seems roughly accurate but is probably a "modest" one. "The real number might be bigger than this," he said.

The study employed about 400 interviewers. Some were employees of the Iraq Health Ministry, and others were local health workers, such as pharmacists, midwives and nurses. Women surveyors were used to interview women in the households. Different religions and sects were represented.

"They built up the trust of the community, especially in the difficult areas," said Naeema al-Gasseer, WHO's representative in Iraq.

One Iraqi official working on the survey was killed in random violence on the way to work. A few interviewers were detained by local militia under suspicion they were spies. One surveyor was kidnapped and ransomed.

"They did risk their lives. There was a determination to make it a success," Gasseer said.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
shek       1/10/2008 12:04:18 PM
Here's the link to the actual study published by the New England Journal of Medicine:
 
"http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0707782"
 
Quote    Reply

Bob       1/10/2008 5:22:22 PM
"http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm"
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       1/10/2008 9:42:17 PM
Wouldn't it be more accurate to just ask..."How many people did you kill this year?"
Another sadr psyop surge.. .Have we been roughing-up the slums, latley?
 
Quote    Reply

PowerPointRanger       1/15/2008 7:15:42 AM
link
 
It now seems that the Lancet study that dramatically over estimated casualties was funded by anti-war billionaire George Soros.
 
 Can you say propaganda?
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       1/17/2008 2:00:34 PM
Hmmm very interesting.  I distinctly remember saying something a year ago on the Lancet thread about this, 100 deaths a day over the first 3 years , but naw that can't be right can it, since I'm always wrong.  This study used 1,000 clusters whereas the Lancet study used what 47 or so, it has much more credibility to it.  Also the Iraqi Health Ministry did this one, and the results coincide with what the then Health Minister said (guess he wasn't just grasping for straws).  So we can celebrate the fact that 'only' more Iraqis died in this war than in Anfal, and not Rwanda. What a relief, better get Rumsfeld another medal.



 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       1/17/2008 4:20:54 PM

Hmmm very interesting.  I distinctly remember saying something a year ago on the Lancet thread about this, 100 deaths a day over the first 3 years , but naw that can't be right can it, since I'm always wrong.  This study used 1,000 clusters whereas the Lancet study used what 47 or so, it has much more credibility to it.  Also the Iraqi Health Ministry did this one, and the results coincide with what the then Health Minister said (guess he wasn't just grasping for straws).  So we can celebrate the fact that 'only' more Iraqis died in this war than in Anfal, and not Rwanda. What a relief, better get Rumsfeld another medal.



 


Plutarch, I don't get it.
1)  In the last four years in a war against Iraqi and foreign combatants we've killed somewhere around 30,000 or so Iraqis and foreigners in Iraq, the vast majority of which were combatants.
2)  In the last four years Iraqi and foreign guearilla/terrorists/thugs/genocidal maniacs in various wars against us, them, and each other have killed somewhere around 120,000+ or so Iraqis, the vast majority of which were non-combatants.
3)  Some genocidal maniacs in the Anfal mass murder campaign against non-combatants killed a smaller number of non-combatants than have the Iraqi and foreign guerillas/terrorists/etc in 2).
4)  Some genocidal maniacs in the Rwanda mass murder campaign against non-combatants killed a larger number of non-combatants than have, well, than have just about anybody.
5)  Rumsfeld should get another medal.
 
I'm sorry that I haven't been able to make the necessary connections, but what is it that relates 1) and 2), and relates them to 3) and 4), and relates all 1) - 4) to 5)?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       1/18/2008 6:21:17 AM



Hmmm very interesting.  I distinctly remember saying something a year ago on the Lancet thread about this, 100 deaths a day over the first 3 years , but naw that can't be right can it, since I'm always wrong.  This study used 1,000 clusters whereas the Lancet study used what 47 or so, it has much more credibility to it.  Also the Iraqi Health Ministry did this one, and the results coincide with what the then Health Minister said (guess he wasn't just grasping for straws).  So we can celebrate the fact that 'only' more Iraqis died in this war than in Anfal, and not Rwanda. What a relief, better get Rumsfeld another medal.




 



Plutarch, I don't get it.

1)  In the last four years in a war against Iraqi and foreign combatants we've killed somewhere around 30,000 or so Iraqis and foreigners in Iraq, the vast majority of which were combatants.

2)  In the last four years Iraqi and foreign guearilla/terrorists/thugs/genocidal maniacs in various wars against us, them, and each other have killed somewhere around 120,000+ or so Iraqis, the vast majority of which were non-combatants.

3)  Some genocidal maniacs in the Anfal mass murder campaign against non-combatants killed a smaller number of non-combatants than have the Iraqi and foreign guerillas/terrorists/etc in 2).

4)  Some genocidal maniacs in the Rwanda mass murder campaign against non-combatants killed a larger number of non-combatants than have, well, than have just about anybody.
5)  Rumsfeld should get another medal.

 

I'm sorry that I haven't been able to make the necessary connections, but what is it that relates 1) and 2), and relates them to 3) and 4), and relates all 1) - 4) to 5)?

 

Well let me spell it out for you.  If 1 had not occurred (the invasion and illegitimate, not to mention incompetent, occupation of Iraq) then 2 would not have occurred (The breakdown of civil order, the rise of violence, sectarian warfare, etc.) . Through US action and subsequent inaction, this violence was stoked and spread across  Iraq, where there was stability before the invasion (1991-2003).  3 is an example of heinous war crimes committed by a rightly condemned genocidal man through his actions, but with probably a smaller number of civilians killed (the actual number of Kurds is disputed and many were in open rebellion against Iraq) , then  during the current war.  We condemn  Saddam (rightly)  for his actions, yet praise  Rumsfeld and our own leaders for waging  at best an incompetent and negligent invasion/occupation and at worse a criminal one.

I don't buy the argument that it's all the Iraqis fault, that the poor savages don't appreciate democracy, or what the US did for them.  In the first place they didn't really ask to be liberated/invaded, just the exiles did (and we see how much influence they have in Iraq).  Sure, many of them would have liked to get rid of Saddam, but this is probably not the way they wanted it done.  In the second place the US, as the occupying force (as recognized by the UN) and protector of the Iraqis (as touted by the Bush administration) does have a moral and legal responsibility to protect all Iraqis. They did not do this, refusing to put more troops or necessary conditions to prevent the insurgency, and instead they put into power Shiite terrorists with much Sunni and some American blood on their hands, which caused a Sunni backlash against both the occupation and the Shiites.  Finally you imply that the US, despite having the most overwhelming firepower, and the largest number of troops, out of all the combatants in Iraq, and control of the skies, is only responsible for one-fifth of the deaths (and all combatants too, wow).  You could be right, and I certainly hope that you are, but evidence of this claim is appreciated.  Even if it is correct that US troops killed only combatants it still does not excuse American ineptness.

So you see how 1-3 are connected, and now on to 4 and 5. The Lancet study stated that 600,000 Iraqis were killed, which would have put it on par with disasters like Rwanda, (though Rwanda was over a shorter period of time and had a much smaller population).  Lancet was vigorously refuted by the right-wing blogosphere. "See not  that many Iraqis were killed, only this many Iraqis have been killed."   Now with this new study out, (presumably accepted by said detractors of Lancet) we can all rest easy in the knowledge that American actions/inactions in Iraq did not result in a disaster as bad as Rwanda but merely one on the scale of Anfal, for which Saddam was rightly condemned .  Which leads me to 5, where Rumsfeld and various other members of the Bush administration have been praised for their action/inaction in Iraq which led to the disaster on par with Anfal (in terms of raw numbers) .  So since this study further refutes Lancet's Rwanda-like findings, and supports rather an Anfal disaster I was assuming that Rumsfeld/war supporters would be thrilled and that Rumsfeld or other members of the administration should be justly rewarded even though Saddam was condemned for similar results in Anfal. 

Now this has been mostly a sarcastic exercise undertaken to point out the hypocrisy inherent in US policy and those that support it.  Am I really suggesting that Rumsfeld is akin to Saddam?  No, since their intentions in Anfal and the invasion were different (at least I am assuming that Rumsfeld/Bush administration intentions were different from Saddam's).  However the results were the same; lots of dead Iraqis.  And it doesn't matter if the deaths came about systematically or through gross ineptness, it is still tragic and should be rightly condemned.

Is this all clear enough for you?  I assume it is since I assume you are a smart fellow. You and I would probably see eye to eye on most political issues, but sadly on the war we do not.  But such is life.

 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       1/19/2008 2:46:14 PM
How about
 
1) Terrorists use terrorism in part because they believe it will force those subjected to it to take the actions they want them to take.
 
2A) Media leads with what bleeds and amplifies the impact of terrorism, in some cases by eaggerating the effects of terrorism through sloppy reporting to increase the shock value and boost ratings.
 
2B) Corrupt individuals push their own political by exaggerating the effects of terrorism such as by conducting studies that enormously magnify the aparent scope of terrorists power
 
3) Idiot surrender monkeys push governments to give in to terrorism.
 
4) Terrorists see that they are making progress and increase their activities at the cost of the lives of innocents.
 
Loop back to 1)
 
Which part in this do you play? 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       1/20/2008 1:50:36 AM

How about

 

1) Terrorists use terrorism in part because they believe it will force those subjected to it to take the actions they want them to take.

 

2A) Media leads with what bleeds and amplifies the impact of terrorism, in some cases by eaggerating the effects of terrorism through sloppy reporting to increase the shock value and boost ratings.

 

2B) Corrupt individuals push their own political by exaggerating the effects of terrorism such as by conducting studies that enormously magnify the aparent scope of terrorists power

 

3) Idiot surrender monkeys push governments to give in to terrorism.

 

4) Terrorists see that they are making progress and increase their activities at the cost of the lives of innocents.

 

Loop back to 1)

 

Which part in this do you play? 

How about advocating our government, and supporters of this action, to not undertake stupid policy decisions that waste military resources on a middling, basically non-threatening country and unleash four years of violence where there was none before.  All done in the name of either killing terrorists or promoting democracy; neither of which was accomplished very well

And please explain to me how you define a terrorist, is it A.) A Sunni who had a family member/home destroyed by Americans, B.) A Sunni who had a family member/home destroyed by a Shiite, C.) A Shiite who had a family member/home destroyed by a Sunni, D.) A Shiite who hates the American occupation because a home was destroyed/family member killed by Americans, or E.) One of the 1-2,000 al Qaeda members who snuck into Iraq during/after the invasion, or even one of the thousands of Moslem men who were galvanized by the occupation.  What exactly have we won in Iraq---an ally, a democracy, a country that doesn't breed terrorism, or just a country without Saddam?
 
Quote    Reply

Panther    Plutrach   1/20/2008 2:05:32 AM
Count me in with displacedjim. I just can't figure you out either? All news is bad news for you! Hey, Mr. Regan passed away between 3-4 years ago! Just figured that might make you actually... you know.... happy?
 
BAD AMERICAN! Bad, bad, bad American... slap, slap, slap, slap! There... does that make you feel better now that i spanked myself? 
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       1/20/2008 11:55:36 AM

Some of the many possible definitions of a terrorist:

 
A.) A Sunni who had a family member/home destroyed by Americans, and then tries killing civilians, B.) A Sunni who had a family member/home destroyed by a Shiite, and then tries killing civilians, C.) A Shiite who had a family member/home destroyed by a Sunni, and then tries killing civilians, D.) A Shiite who hates the American occupation because a home was destroyed/family member killed by Americans, and then tries killing civilians, or E.) One of the 1-2,000 al Qaeda members who snuck into Iraq during/after the invasion, or even one of the thousands of Moslem men who were galvanized by the occupation, and then tried killing civilians.

And how much do you want to bet that I could find posts from a year or two ago where you were estimating (or at least postulating the strong possibility) that the number of foreign fighters in Iraq over the years, and maybe even at any given time, was five to ten times that number?
 
To very briefly touch on our previous exchange, above, I've said before I've never been especially convinced we "needed" to do OIF, but overall it's not necessarily a bad thing, either--or at least did not necessarily have to be.  However, the biggest reason I take issue with soooo many of your posts is because your criticism doesn't appear limited to a critical (including self-critical) analysis of just the facts; instead, you appear to fling every conceivable cowpie against the wall in an apparent attempt to try to find some that stick.  You may think you're arguing rationally and reasonably, but to me you appear to be a well-informed flack.  I suggest there's a difference between being a true critic and a mere contrarian.  I assume there are times when I'm not critical enough.  There certainly appear to be times when you are too contrarian.

 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       1/20/2008 12:41:46 PM

Count me in with displacedjim. I just can't figure you out either? All news is bad news for you! Hey, Mr. Regan passed away between 3-4 years ago! Just figured that might make you actually... you know.... happy?

 

BAD AMERICAN! Bad, bad, bad American... slap, slap, slap, slap! There... does that make you feel better now that i spanked myself? 

I'm merely trying to defend my positions Panther.  I was castigated on the Lancet thread for believing precisely what this new study says. That 150,000-200,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in this war.  Now suddenly it's good news?  After being told for years and years by the administration and their supporters that no way was the violence in Iraq really that bad; "dead-enders", "terrorists", "AQI" were all supposedly responsible for the violence, and it wasn't as bad as the media was reporting it to be, (The AP made up stories, etc.). 

Now a report comes out and says--hey Iraq really is messed up, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, the numbers posited are comparable to the first Lancet study (100,000 deaths in a year and a half), and it is the second largest estimate of civilian deaths reported in Iraq after the second Lancet  study.  But hey I guess that is "good news", or whatever you want to call it.  This report has been greeted mostly with silence which I take as acquiescence, which also means that propistions like Iraq was in a state of civil war,  the surge really had little effect on the downward trend of violence since most of the violence had already been committed,  the US  didn't export democracy to Iraq, but allowed violence to persist, may also be true. 

Now people want to be left off the hook, shrug their shoulders and say "Eh, it's not our fault, the dirty terrorists did it all.  Who knew they would be so well-organized to kill 150,000 Iraqis, even though they really want to come here, and kill us."
Or, "Well it was still worth it because we got Saddam...even though he wasn't involved in 9/11, and didn't really have WMD."  The death toll is 5 times what Bush said it was, but it's not bad news?  Sorry, I don't buy it.  As for your comments about Reagan, what makes you think I am not a fan of Reagan.  Please don't misconstrue my opposition to a strategic error (Of which there are plenty of Republicans who think that) into a belief that I am a left-wing liberal, or something. Finally, what  would make me "happy" is some moral responsibility for the Iraq war, some admittance that it was an error, some contrition in other words, and a withdrawal of US troops.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       1/20/2008 12:58:22 PM
Fine, figure out a way to turn back the clock to 1990 and keep us out of Iraq, and I'll go for it. Heck turn back to at least the 80s. We started breaking it in the 80s, we broke it worse in 1990-91. In 2003 we owned up to the fact that we'd broke it and bought the pieces and are now trying to superglue them back together. Let's finish putting it back together and then decide if we should do something different in the future.
 
Frankly our foreign policy in the mideast has been that of a blind man tending bees with a baseball bat. I agree in a lot of ways with Ron Paul. People don't attack Canada. The problem is that at a certain point you are committed whether you want to be or not. It's like going through a yellow light. You may not make it but if you stop you are guaranteed to have a mess on your hands. My disagreement isn't that the principles he bases his beliefs upon are wrong, it is with the conclusions he draws from them. You either have to stay out, or you have to engage. But it's way too late to stay out.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F    You Break it You Buy It.   1/20/2008 1:11:57 PM
While we are turning back the clock, it should be clear that intervening when Israel was going to wipe out the PLO was a bad idea, so let's undo that too.
 
Frankly though, we really need to keep undoing back to WWI, shoot Wilson, and keep us out of that. Not just sending no troops, but not supporting either side. Let Germany's U-Boats strangle Britain, let Germany crush France. No Versailes treaty then, and no WWII, no Hitler. More importantly, the Ottomans would have kept the Mideast, and probably demanded that the defeated allies give up their claims on the Middle East's oil.
 
But we can't turn back the clock. We realized that after WWII. We were committed in Europe. We'd already broke it, so we bought it, and stationed troops there for 63 years and counting. And guess what, we brought Peace to Europe.
 
Unfortunately breaking Europe in WWI broke the Middle East too, so we are buying that now too and trying to put it back toghether, hopefully a bit better than it was before. It is a dirty job but that's what you do when you break things.
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       1/20/2008 1:32:36 PM


Some of the many possible definitions of a terrorist:


 

A.) A Sunni who had a family member/home destroyed by Americans, and then tries killing civilians, B.) A Sunni who had a family member/home destroyed by a Shiite, and then tries killing civilians, C.) A Shiite who had a family member/home destroyed by a Sunni, and then tries killing civilians, D.) A Shiite who hates the American occupation because a home was destroyed/family member killed by Americans, and then tries killing civilians, or E.) One of the 1-2,000 al Qaeda members who snuck into Iraq during/after the invasion, or even one of the thousands of Moslem men who were galvanized by the occupation, and then tried killing civilians.


And how much do you want to bet that I could find posts from a year or two ago where you were estimating (or at least postulating the strong possibility) that the number of foreign fighters in Iraq over the years, and maybe even at any given time, was five to ten times that number?


 

To very briefly touch on our previous exchange, above, I've said before I've never been especially convinced we "needed" to do OIF, but overall it's not necessarily a bad thing, either--or at least did not necessarily have to be.  However, the biggest reason I take issue with soooo many of your posts is because your criticism doesn't appear limited to a critical (including self-critical) analysis of just the facts; instead, you appear to fling every conceivable cowpie against the wall in an apparent attempt to try to find some that stick.  You may think you're arguing rationally and reasonably, but to me you appear to be a well-informed flack.  I suggest there's a difference between being a true critic and a mere contrarian.  I assume there are times when I'm not critical enough.  There certainly appear to be times when you are too contrarian.



I have mostly felt that the insurgency is largely indigenous, I also think I made the distinction between al Qaeda members per se and those thousands of galvanized Moslem men, some of whom made it to Iraq, but were not formal  al Qaeda members (your foreign fighters).  But if you think I have contradicted myself, and you want to waste time digging through my old posts to prove it be my guest.  I write a lot, I post a lot, and yes in the course of several years writing on a fluid topic such as a war, I'm sure there is the possibility of such contradictions.

So you think I should be more self-critical or critical of the evidence I use?   Perhaps you're  right, though it  doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for these boards.  I try to use evidence/facts from reliable sources, but if you have an issue with my sources, than I can look for sources more agreeable to you/other posters.  I'm sorry I don't just use Captain's Quarters or NRO, but there seem to plenty of other posters who do.  But I am a reasonable person, or at least I try to be, and if it is your opinion that I am too contrarian then perhaps you are right.  So I will try to make more of an effort to be a true critic, as you have defined it, and not a contrarian.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy