Originally Posted by GySgt

I can't believe the lack of intelligence on this thread. The Lancet Report was always garbage and I have showed this to be true numerous times to the very individuals who continue to cling to the Lancet Report as if God himself blessed it and handed it down through Gabriel.


According to CNN....

July was the deadliest month for civilians since the war started in March 2003, figures show. During the month, 3,438 Iraqis were killed -- 1,855 because of sectarian or political violence and another 1,583 from bombings and shootings.

The Lancet Report came out in October of 2006 to the cheers of anti-war protestors everywhere as it boasted 655,000 deaths in Iraq.



Now, there seems to be something wrong with the math here. If the UN, America, and other organizations hold similar numbers then why is the Lancet Report so off base? If we pretended that the most violent month that produced 3,500 deaths occurrd every month (and there wwere 39 months prior to this).....then that means that...

3,500 x 39 months = 136,500.

Of course, we know that sectarian violence didn't start until later in 2003 and that not every month produced such high numbers of civilan deaths, so the number must have been even lower than this. And we know that 2007 saw a great improvement in death counts. Today Iraq looks nothing like the great "Civil War" that protestors, commentators, and Democrats were alluding to. But maybe the Lancet Report was accurate and we just didn't account for the two weeks between the UN report of the deadliest month and the Lancet Report's accusations. Maybe there were 518,500 deaths that occurred over this two week period.

Grow a brain people. Do your own ****ing math.