These stats about the Iraq war are upsetting me because they are lies!

[ProfJohn]

Didn't we already talk about this in other threads?

And I thought that most of us agreed that the 655,000 number seems too high.

655,000 would mean that 1 out of ever 40 people in Iraq have died since the war started.

Think about that, 1800 families, 6 people per family that means a data size of 10,800 people, with one out of ever 40 that means 270 people would have died in just those families. Or on average one out or every 6.67 families in the study would have had to have lost someone due to war related causes. Which correlates roughly to one out of every 6.67 families in ALL of Iraq having lost someone due to war related reasons. Just seems way too high. (The actual report relies on data from just 302 deaths)

Another way to look at that figure, 650,000 is 2.5% of the entire population. (23 million being prewar estimate)
Now look at World War 2 casualty rate. The only countries that suffered casualty rates that high were the ones where the most intense fighting took place, mainly in Eastern Europe and some south east nations. But countries such as England that suffered years of bombing lost less than 1% of its population. Same with Italy and France, despite all the fighting that took place there.

These numbers just don?t seem to make sense. Add that to the fact that this report is nearly 10 times higher than any other report coming out of Iraq and it leaves me not believing the numbers.

Also read this comment about the 2004 study from Human Rights Watch, certainly not a pro-Bush group.

But Garlasco of Human Rights Watch said it is extremely difficult to estimate civilian casualties, especially based on relatively small numbers. "I certainly think that 100,000 is a reach," Garlasco said.

 

[judasmachine]

yeah give or take a few brothers, sisters, mothers, daughters, cousins, aunts, uncles, friends, community leaders, who cares.

i agree that 650000 seems high, but hell 27000 is way too many. these are not statistics, they are people like you and me and your mom.

 

[Lemon law]

The point being missed is that US official statistics list only those directly counted---and at 30-40K pretty clearly respresent a minimum number.---and clearly---many don't get counted.

The 655,000 is an extrapolated number that well could be high.

But even if we average the two together---we get 350,000 plus---even if the truth is only 200,000---it still makes GWB&co. a greater scourge than Saddam by a wide margin.

And if you are not upset with those numbers, Firstassembliesof god, there is clearly something wrong with your morality. But denial will not get you out of your moral dilema.

And the official accepted Iraqi civilian death rate is now 6000 per month by sectarian violence---thats 72,000 a year rate----and if you want to still believe 30-40k---may God have mercy on your soul because your mind is misssing in action.

Sadly, sometimes the cure is worse than the desease---and even if GWB's intentions were good---his results have been anything but.---something wise men think of---and fools don't.

 

[ProfJohn]

Lemon, as far as I know there is no US government figure for deaths in Iraq.
The number Bush used was from another source. (most likely www.iraqbodycount.org

If there is an "US official statistics" count of the dead please show me a link.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The point being missed is that US official statistics list only those directly counted---and at 30-40K pretty clearly respresent a minimum number.---and clearly---many don't get counted.

The 655,000 is an extrapolated number that well could be high.

But even if we average the two together---we get 350,000 plus---even if the truth is only 200,000---it still makes GWB&co. a greater scourge than Saddam by a wide margin.

And if you are not upset with those numbers, Firstassembliesof god, there is clearly something wrong with your morality. But denial will not get you out of your moral dilema.

And the official accepted Iraqi civilian death rate is now 6000 per month by sectarian violence---thats 72,000 a year rate----and if you want to still believe 30-40k---may God have mercy on your soul because your mind is misssing in action.

Sadly, sometimes the cure is worse than the desease---and even if GWB's intentions were good---his results have been anything but.---something wise men think of---and fools don't.

define scourge?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
i agree that 650000 seems high

Too high for what? People's comfort levels?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: judasmachine
i agree that 650000 seems high

Too high for what? People's comfort levels?

qft

 

[Czar]

This is basicly the same ****** people bring up when they think for example popularity polls for Bush, when they dismiss the polls because they only polled 1.000 people for a population of about 300.000.000. Anyone who argues using that "logic" clearly knows absolutely nothing about statistics.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: FirstAssembliesofGod

This is not to say I in any way support the war, but I am vocally against bad statistics!

What are the stats of this happening?

Around 1940, God birthed the vision for this church in the hearts of two young preachers, Ivan and Beatrice Kramer. God promised to heal Brother Kramer's serious back injury if he would leave his farm and return to preaching. With Brother Kramer's obedience came God's anointing to those early days with 40 people in a rented storefront.

By September 1984 God had miraculously supplied forty acres of land. Under the dedicated hands of First Assembly's family the building went up. In October 1986 First Assembly hosted the dedication of its new facilities at 3233 Blairs Ferry Road NE.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: FirstAssembliesofGod
ridiculously bad confidence on this range, no statistician that wasn't forwarding some sort of agenda would put out these numbers.

PWNT! And the facts to back it up!

LoL. Some teenaged pimple face kids says PWNT when talking about THOUSANDS of deaths. Well done. You child, are a loser.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Who were you before you were banned?

Wow, and here I thought I was the only one who noticed a striking similartiy to an ex banned troll...

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Czar
This is basicly the same ****** people bring up when they think for example popularity polls for Bush, when they dismiss the polls because they only polled 1.000 people for a population of about 300.000.000. Anyone who argues using that "logic" clearly knows absolutely nothing about statistics.

/thread

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Op, you are a joke. Did you honestly believe that no one on Anandtech knows enough math to challenge your ridiculous claims? Anandtech is full of nerds for God's sakes!

You are totally screwing up all your numbers and basically just making stuff up.

First, your sample size if 1800 but you're failing to take into account that that's 1800 families which is 10800 people. That's your true population size. Just use that the calculate a confidence interval and you interval drops from your figure of 2.31% to 0.94%.

Even if you took your sample size to be 1800, you have to use the number of families as your population. You can't use to the total population, that's comparing apples to oranges! Do things that way and your confidence intercal is 0.72.

Also, why on earth are you using a standard rate of 50% when the number of people that died is claimed to be 2.5%? Use that are your standard rate and the
correct sample size and this is what you get:

A confidence level calculator
Confidence level desired: 95%
Sample size: 10800 (1800 families times 6 is 10800 people)
Population: 26000000
Percentage of population that answered yes (died): 2.5%
Confidence interval: 0.29

That means that it's 95% certain that the percentage of people that died in iraq during this time period is 2.5%+- 0.29% which is between 574600-725400 people.

By the way, my figures are really right either. That's because I'm assuming that the 650,000 people that died at the total number of people that died in Iraq during the war. In fact, this number already subtracts away the natural death rate which I do not know.

Also, I believe that the topline number of 650000 dead also includes morgue reports which I don't consider.

:thumbsup:

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: FirstAssembliesofGod
Woh..! that small of an interval with that large of a population and that small of a sample size is nothing anyone who knows anything about stats would think was even close to meaningful.

[Mindless bloviating clipped...]

Scientific opinion polls for the entire United States are based on a similar sample size and are accurate within a +/- 2% or 3% error rate. Thanks for stating your ignorance up front, that certainly saves us a lot of time.

 

[Art Vandelay]

LOL, the OP is a troll and knows nothing about statistics.

Go troll elsewhere.

 

[maluckey]

DealMonkey

"scientific polls" also said that Dewey defeated Truman, and that Kerry beat Bush. You cannot use a model based on a First World Nation (G-8) and apply it to a former Theocarcy/Authoritarian regime. The results are wildly inaccurate.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: maluckey
DealMonkey

"scientific polls" also said that Dewey defeated Truman, and that Kerry beat Bush. You cannot use a model based on a First World Nation (G-8) and apply it to a former Theocarcy/Authoritarian regime. The results are wildly inaccurate.

You mean exit polls in the Kerry vs Bush vote? Quite different than opinion polls.

What was the Kerry-Bush split? 50.7% of the popular vote (Bush) to 49.3% of the popular vote for Kerry. Any opinion poll would likely have failed since the split is within the margin of error +/- 2-3%.