tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post110368627507391727..comments2024-02-20T15:17:48.594+11:00Comments on A.E.Brain: Australian Academic AtrocitiesZoe Brainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-1103718058019964962004-12-22T23:20:00.000+11:002004-12-22T23:20:00.000+11:00Tim Lambert:
Your blog is an excellent source of ...Tim Lambert:<br /><br />Your <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.cse.unsw.edu.au%2F%7Elambert%2Fcgi-bin%2Fblog%2Fscience%2FLancetIraq%2F">blog</A> is an excellent source of academic argument about the issue. It's filled with informative links, some of which were news to me. I recommend anyone interested in the subject to read it. (p.s. Tim Lambert defends the study both rationally and enthusiastically - I disagree with his conclusion, but his methods are first rate, all too rare on any side these days).<br /><br />The problem is, the 100,000 figure (or 192,000, or 500,000) doesn't pass a sanity check: where are all the reports of the hundreds of people being killed every day by US air attacks, thousands on some days, and tens of thousands on special occasions (assuming a random distribution)? Where are all the graves? We're talking WW2 strategic bombing efforts here, a Blitz of highly discriminate deliberate targetting of women and children that puts the Luftwaffe's efforts in London to shame. The Fallujah figures, taken on their own, by the same methodology as used elsewhere indicate that 67,000 of the population of Fallujah (300,000) had been killed, with the rest all maimed, many twice over. 30% plus mortality of women and children, assuming a reasonable Middle East demographic. This was before the recent offensive, of course, I remind you, and was emphatically not inclusive of deaths in childbirth or malnutrition, but ascribed mainly to US Air attacks. No wonder the authors quietly ignored it as an 'outlier', a valid and reasonable action using some methodologies, but extremely dubious with this one, and under these circumstances. It would have inflated the figure to a mind-boggling 500,000, and that one even the authors thought was incredible, as in 'not capable of being believed'.<br /><br />Furthermore, the Lancet study was published under most unusual conditions, was it not, and with signs indicating a highly politicised agenda. Not a valid argument against good Science, but it does remove any entitlement to 'benefit of the doubt' when it comes to less-than-rigorous results and interpretation of ambiguity. Or removing of figures from the dataset that don't pass the giggle test.<br /><br />Now I happen to believe (along with the authors) that more data needs gathering about war-related deaths, and even that it's our moral duty to do so. On a more practical level, we need to do this so we can ameliorate the situation as much as we can, and predict patterns of need and casualties should future similar situations arise. I even said so when Salam Pax's friend started such an effort, nearly 18 months ago. It's their figures which I consider more reliable.<br /><br />As it is though, the Lancet study, with its admitted 2-order-of-magnitude level of result uncertainty, and only to a 95% confidence level, is best described by Jay Manifold (IIRC): "That's not a result, that's a dartboard." Their methodology might have been the best available to them, and you do what you can, not what you'd like to do. But it sucketh bigge thyme as a useful estimate, except for purposes of political argument.<br /><br />Discredited enough for you yet? Probably not. Time will tell.Zoe Brainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-1103715364038066682004-12-22T22:36:00.000+11:002004-12-22T22:36:00.000+11:00Pixy Mixa:
I'm not at all sure that D.Day said tha...Pixy Mixa:<br />I'm not at all sure that D.Day said that the UK was "right to fight on". He said that they won - but that had they surrendered, millions of deaths might have been avoided. Your point about General Giap is well made though : Tet was a military disaster <B>for the VC</B>, for example. The 1975 North Vietnamese offensive, with more Tanks than Hitler used against the USSR in 1941, would have been a disaster too if the US had honoured its commitment to provide Saigon with air support.<br />But to some extent, that's less relevant, as the US - and Australia - were decisively defeated on the Home Front, while winning militarily. Few Vietnamese now living in Australia or the US would say that this was a good thing.Zoe Brainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-1103714191117113252004-12-22T22:16:00.001+11:002004-12-22T22:16:00.001+11:00I'm not sure I can comment on this... this... pers...I'm not sure I can comment on this... this... person without resorting to crude Saxon oaths.(<I>Yiddish</I> doesn't have words enough to describe what an annoying git David Day appears to be.) Up until the bit about how the UK should have surrendered after Dunkirk, he seemed to be just a normal leftist putz. Advocating surrender to the Nazis though? He takes it to a whole 'nother level!Cybrluditehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02222195374935367060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-1103708849311059352004-12-22T20:47:00.000+11:002004-12-22T20:47:00.000+11:00At least he admits the British were right not to s...At least he admits the British were right not to surrender. Shame he can't get his brain around generalising that the concept of not surrendering to fascist scumbags.<br /><br />And as a little bonus, he calls Vietnam a military defeat for the U.S. General Giap would be surprised.Pixy Misahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17855049515966841347noreply@blogger.com