Originally Posted by Botnst
I object to invented data used for any argument because it gives a false sense of accuracy. It's a clever way to lend credibility when that credibility is undue. In science we call this, "data falsification." It's one of the mortal sins of commission. Like "finding" a Piltdown Man. Great way to make a point.
The 100K number was later severely criticised due to both sampling methodology (several points) and analysis (the points of which elude me, but I think it was abuse of Bayesian statistics). The only folks holding onto it are the ones who (unsurprisingly) use it for political points.
It was severely critized by those who support the war, in fact I read an article in one trade journal were the running joke was ""The Lancet study was flawed, because I support the war" as the common rational coming from those who dismissed. In fact, it was supported by a number of scholarly analysis. Even casual anecdotal analysis supports it - let's try one. During the war proper -- before the `Mission Accomplished' stunt -- we dropped about 18,000 guided bombs , according to any typical web search. Let's follow the logic of one study's example: " if all of those were dropped in urban areas ( a good assumption given Saddam's strategy of placing military targets in heavily populated areas-kv) with a population density of 5,000/km² (probably an underestimate), then for a uniform distribution of targets we'd expect around 100,000 casualties from bombs with a 20-meter lethal radius." I'm giving you a 20 meter kill circle on a bomb whose smallest model takes out a typical building and whose more common models take out a city block on bombs that are not dropped randomly! Now, say we decide the margin of error is 50%, even with in the ridiculous sandbags I handed you. Weelllll then, we can now bring in the fact that the Air Force also dropped 10,000 or so `dumb' bombs, the Marines and Army fired 50,000 artillery and mortor shell shells, and if we have 138,000 solidiers, of which typical about 20% are actually engaged in ground combat, which gives us 27.6k, say firing 10 bullets each ( a joke in the age of automatic weapons) that gives us about 260,000 rounds of small arms fire. If anything, the 100,000 figure is too low. That is unless our soldiers can't hit a horse's ass with flaming banjo, which we all know is not the case. It's in the data pal. Even the official "Iraqi body count" lays credence to it, since it only reports deaths officially recorded by Iraqi hospitals.
Now consider weapons like this:
You tell me after dropping 18,000 of these in heavily populated areas, in an area like Iraq where people are crowded around water sources, along with cluster bomblets that scatter over square miles, along with dumb weapons being fired all over the place that there have only been 20,000 civilians killed? Ridiculous. Even if we said that two innocent people on average died in smart bomb attacks, that would be 36,000 people!
Note: I just read another page where the US Army manual says that 1,000 meters is the minumum safe distance from a typical smart bomb. I'm giving you 20!