However ***John Hopkins***, where the team that did the study hails from, was in the USA the last time I looked.

A little chum of his called “Andy” wrote “No point in haranguing Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq etc if all you get for your troubles is a brush-off at best, or worse, get shot dead for tossing stones. Better to get attention & money by pointing out the mote in our eye than the beam in the abuser’s.”

Well, Andy, if you had bothered reading the in-depth coverage of the study, you’d find that the methods used – and many of the team members – had previously produced reports on e.g Rwanda that the US government accepted without question.

If you think about it we’ve dropped over 240,000 cluster bombs. We’d be fools to think they didn’t kill anyone. Add in gunfire and car bombs and 600,000 dead doesn’t seem that big.

No point in haranguing Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq etc if all you get for your troubles is a brush-off at best, or worse, get shot dead for tossing stones. Better to get attention & money by pointing out the mote in our eye than the beam in the abuser’s.

The cost of their innaccurate report might have fed more than 300,000 for six months. British priorites.

First, the baseline for ‘excess’ deaths
1) Saddam was killing at the rate of how many Iraqis per month before 2003?

In the house of death vacated by a despotic & murderous tyrant, wannabe tyrants jostle for supremacy to inflict themselves upon the Iraqis:
2) Al Quaida In Iraq was killing at the rate of how many Iraqis per month since 2003 in hopes of starting a civil war, leading to their brand of govt?
(Hint: the letter from AQ HQ in Afghanistan/Pakistan cautioned who against indescriminate killing of innocent Iraqis, lest their objectives backfire?)
3) Iranian puppets in Iraq were killing at the rate of how many Iraqis per month since 2003 in hopes of starting a civil war, leading to their brand of govt?

Now the tough part, put on the thinking cap:
4) OIF coalition were killing at the rate of how many insurgents & foreign fighters per month since 2003?
5) OIF coalition were killing at the rate of how many innocent Iraqis per month since 2003?

Now answer the following:
A) add #4 & #5, then compare that to the sum of #3 & #2.
B) Contrast the two sets to #1.
C) Compare & contrast all three sets in terms of goals and intended outcomes.

So who is/are the real monster(s)?

Finally factor this set of “excess” deaths into the overall conclusion:

6) Tribalist revenge & Honor Killings were killing at the rate of how many Iraqis per month since the beginning of time?
7) Typical, run of the mill criminal intent murder, i.e. highway robbery, home invasion, theft etc, were killing at the rate of how many Iraqis per month since the beginning of time?

What?? Don’t know the answers to #6 and/or #7, nor it’s potential impact on overall deaths?

Yeah, I thot so. These psuedo-intellectuals would rather blame Bush than calling a spade a spade.

This type of story is the biblical equivalent of throwing a grain of sand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html?ex=1318219200&en=a8b58a972ff83c14&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Caveats abound from the Lancet brainiacs: “numbers were too few to extrapolate,” “we found deaths all over the country (what the hell does that mean?),” etc.

Last line is the final word from the “experts,” quoted here:

‘Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.” ‘

Additional gems from the Guardian story:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6139216,00.html

Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.”

“This is not analysis, this is politics,” Cordesman said.

Yep.

Really? Let’s see your sources and figures for this claim – you don’t appear too eager to have included these basic studies to support your claim.

“The original Lancet story was never ‘discredited’ it was solid work that was subsequently corroborated.”

Incorrect – it was never validated in the first place; of course, if you disagree, again please include sources to corroborate the Lancet figures. Is there something that’s preventing you from doing this? No doubt, cognitive dissonance can be quite difficult for intellects such as yours to experience. You certainly have our sympathy.

You’re some kind of super-genius, aren’t you?…