Originally Posted by savoir-faire

Nahhh just a rehash of the same old right wing rag critique-nothing new.

Originally Posted by P/N

Yeah, this brings credibility to your argument

Originally Posted by savoir-faire

The study was difficult because it was in a war zone-that is why they had a wide range. This method is the most accurate for a war zone and more accurate than holocaust numbers. MIT statisticians carefully analyzed methods and stats-war casualties are always greatly underestimated. The researchers from Johns Hopkins did not politically sway any study. They have the highest ethics and no need to sway anything nor would they.

The most ridiculous argument was the Iraq Ministry of Health denial-in fact they were taken over by Shiite militias and were murdering people in hospitals and morgues. They also ordered a halt of any record of deaths. During the worst violence (years!) Iraqis were finding bodies in the rivers and burying their own family members and finding body parts everywhere.

The IBC was only counting those in a morgue with a toe tag and two witnesses. Most Iraqis were not carrying their dead to the morgue.

The Lancet included deaths of any cause over and above normal-for example if someone died because of an MVA who could have easily been treated in a hospital and medical care was unavailable because of the invasion.

You need to read The Lancet carefully to understand it-there is no doubt within their margin of error they were the closest of all casualty counts.