The Beltway Retreat

[Michael Tee]

<<So the Lancet II report is guilty of making false assumptions that those 600k deaths were adirect result of US intervention?>>

Looks like the friendly advice that I just gave you went in one ear and out the other.

1.  Not only did the Lancet II report not assume that the 600K deaths were a direct result of the U.S. intervention, they did not even say that they were.  The report claimed the deaths were a combination of the direct and indirect results of the U.S. invasion.

2.  When you can find a credible statistician who will go on record criticizing Lancet's methodology, I will be prepared to listen to the critique.  I am not myself in a position of sufficient expertise to criticize a Johns Hopkins statistician on his methodology and in fact I don't think anyone in this forum is.  It's a highly technical field and this guy is presumably at the top of his field.

[BT]

Perhaps you are placing too much faith in the greatness of well known institutions. If the New York Times can have staff that makes up news as it goes along, if CBS News can make up documentation as it goes along, if the BBC can admit to a bias in its news presentation, John Hopkins can do the same.

I don't know how many direct or indirect casualties there have been to date in Iraq. I know the IBC and the Lancet Reports are at odds. I know that the Lancet has been known to publish high estimates before. And to be honest with you i don't know if the casualty statistics really matter.

[Michael Tee]

<<Perhaps you are placing too much faith in the greatness of well known institutions. If the New York Times can have staff that makes up news as it goes along, if CBS News can make up documentation as it goes along, if the BBC can admit to a bias in its news presentation, John Hopkins can do the same. >>

I don't have a problem with that.  But the errors in CBS news or BBC were pointed out and demonstrated to be errors.  If a respectable statistician comes along and criticizes the methodology employed, that would cast a doubt on the study, sure.  But to doubt a study ONLY because you find the results embarrassing or inconvenient is not going to fly.  It's like me calling Bush a liar, not for the many reasons I've already enumerated, but "because it's known that some politicians will lie."  That's just not good enough.

<<I don't know how many direct or indirect casualties there have been to date in Iraq. I know the IBC and the Lancet Reports are at odds.>>

That's not a fair comparison because if you read the IBC web-site it acknowledges that it has underreported the actual deaths by a large factor, simply because it restricts itself to media-reported deaths.

<< I know that the Lancet has been known to publish high estimates before.>>

I don't.  And if they did, how far out of whack were they?

<< And to be honest with you i don't know if the casualty statistics really matter. >>

Not to conservatives for sure, but they matter to anyone who gives a damn about human life and suffering.

[BT]

Not to conservatives for sure, but they matter to anyone who gives a damn about human life and suffering.

Thats a nice jump.

Do you think those statistics matter to the sectarians who are doing the majority of the killing?

Seems to me the sole purpose of that statistical release was to lay a guilt trip on America. I guess to those who relish wallowing in indirect guilt those numbers matter.

Same as a statistical dump about Darfur could be used to lay a guilt trip upon Canadians who didn't have the stones to demand their governments intervention in the genocide going on their.

[Michael Tee]

<<Do you think those statistics matter to the sectarians who are doing the majority of the killing? >>

Well, sure, if they're as religious as some of them claim to be, it must be hard to see Muslims killing Muslims and Americans killing Muslims.  Naturally.

<<Seems to me the sole purpose of that statistical release was to lay a guilt trip on America. I guess to those who relish wallowing in indirect guilt those numbers matter. >>

There's nothing indirect about it.  Their taxpayer dollars finance this carnage, their duly elected representatives (representing them) are the cause of it, God-damn right they should feel guilty.  If the purpose of the release was to lay a guilt trip on America, I don't see anything wrong with it.  They are the guiltiest fucking nation on the face of the earth.

<<Same as a statistical dump about Darfur could be used to lay a guilt trip upon Canadians who didn't have the stones to demand their governments intervention in the genocide going on their.>>

Huh?  Did I miss something?  How the fuck are the Canadians responsible for whatever shit is going down in Darfur?  Did we invade Darfur while I was sleeping?   Bomb them?  Torture them?

[BT]

Huh?  Did I miss something?  How the fuck are the Canadians responsible for whatever shit is going down in Darfur?  Did we invade Darfur while I was sleeping?   Bomb them?  Torture them?

You, Mikey Tee and your nation did nothing will millions died. Enjoy the guilt.

[Michael Tee]

<<You, Mikey Tee and your nation did nothing will millions died. Enjoy the guilt. >>

Why should I feel guilty?  How did Darfur become Canada's problem?  The guilt belongs to the international community of which we are a very small part. We can't do anything on our own.  We can't even send our own air-power to Afghanistan.

Canada didn't cause Darfur's problems the way the U.S. caused Iraq's problems.  We have very little to feel guilty about.

[BT]

Why should I feel guilty?  How did Darfur become Canada's problem?  The guilt belongs to the international community of which we are a very small part. We can't do anything on our own.  We can't even send our own air-power to Afghanistan.

Did Canada even try? Did you even try? Your lack of meaningful effort is what makes you guilty. Your declaration that it wasn't your job falls on deaf ears.

[The_Professor]

Good point, BT. Why couldn't Canada or anyone else for that matter, take the high road and intervene in Darfur because of humanity's sake? Retreating behind that "it's not really our problem" mantra is a copout. For anyone.

[Michael Tee]

Well I guess you're right.  obviously.  They're just a bunch of ass-holes.  Sometimes I lose sight of that.  They like to talk the talk but they don't like to walk the walk.  And in the end they always cave in to their big neighbour.  Their biggest concern is about fucking up trading relations with the country that buys 80% of our product.  You can be very depressing when you're right, but there's no reason not to face reality as it is.  I'm washing my hands of the bastards.  From now on they're on their own.  Fuck 'em.

PS This post was originally addressed to BT but I see the Professor also had a similar comment, so now it's to the two of you.

[The_Professor]

MT, I think it is just because Canada doesn't see Darfar in its national interest, as do apparently no other country. Every nation makes these decisions. I happen to believe this is an incorrect one. Why doesn't an African nation intervene then? Curiosity, no one has. Now THAT is even sadder.

[Michael Tee]

You know, Professor, just once - - ONCE!!! - - in my fucking life, I would like to see one nation, any nation, say, "This might not be in our national interest but we are going to do it anyway because it is the right thing to do."

[BT]

Actually i am holding MIkey personally responsible. It is obvious he has the time to advocate condemnation of his neighbor to the south. Methinks he should focus a little closer to home. And because he hasn't he should be held accountable for his nonaction. I really don't know how he can sleep at night with those millins of deaths on his shoulders.

J'accuse

[Michael Tee]

Mikey doesn't give a shit any more.  They're all just collateral damage in God's greater cause.  Fuck the whole God-damn buncha them.

[BT]

Mikey doesn't give a shit any more.

I respect your efforts to deal with what must be overwhelming guilt.