Why would I think that dead civilians are any sort of payment? The US was there to rid the country, region and world of a mass murderer who didn't think twice about killing of an entire town, pouring thousands of gallons of oils into the sea, and setting dozens of oil rigs on fire.

Now the US is trying to get out of Iraq, but until the country is willing and able to form a real government that won't be toppled in a couple of months, it's not a smart thing to do.

The 50,000 people that died (if that number is even accurate) should have done so to live in freedom. I have to believe the number is inflated to include anyone that isn't age 18-40, regardless if they have placed roadside bombs ...

Why would I think that dead civilians are any sort of payment? The US was there to rid the country, region and world of a mass murderer who didn't think twice about killing of an entire town, pouring thousands of gallons of oils into the sea, and setting dozens of oil rigs on fire.

Now the US is trying to get out of Iraq, but until the country is willing and able to form a real government that won't be toppled in a couple of months, it's not a smart thing to do.

The 50,000 people that died (if that number is even accurate) should have done so to live in freedom. I have to believe the number is inflated to include anyone that isn't age 18-40, regardless if they have placed roadside bombs or shot at a US soldier. Lets not forget this body count includes innocent iraqis who died because they voted, or tried to get a government job, or were just in the wrong mosque or elementary school the day the terrorists decided to blow it up. But it's much easier to just blame Bush and the US for all of it, isn't it?

You're changing the subject over and over again. You started out bitching about how the Iraqis aren't paying enough for all the hard work we've done for them. Looks to me like they've made plenty of sacrifices. It also doesn't look like this "free country" stuff you keep talking about is really worth much -- I mean, they're so "free" right now they can't even go out of their houses at night for fear of getting shot.

Look, nobody liked Saddam. He was a vicious criminal. But things over there are a pretty serious mess right now, and it didn't have to be this way. Lots of people saw it coming. And now, for an American to be whining about how much money it cost to "free" the Iraqis and how the...

You're changing the subject over and over again. You started out bitching about how the Iraqis aren't paying enough for all the hard work we've done for them. Looks to me like they've made plenty of sacrifices. It also doesn't look like this "free country" stuff you keep talking about is really worth much -- I mean, they're so "free" right now they can't even go out of their houses at night for fear of getting shot.

Look, nobody liked Saddam. He was a vicious criminal. But things over there are a pretty serious mess right now, and it didn't have to be this way. Lots of people saw it coming. And now, for an American to be whining about how much money it cost to "free" the Iraqis and how the Iraqis ought to be ponying up a little more money seems like it's in pretty bad taste.

Bad taste would be trying to slant the facts to make things seem worse than they actually are.

This clip started with the position that this war is for the oil based upon twisting the news of a plan for free trade for the rights to get out out of the ground in Iraq.

If and when it happens, part of the oil revenue should go to pay for the war. It probably won't, which proves that the US is not the invader, because it we really wanted to we'd just lay claim the the entire country and take the oil. We'd build army bases around the oil rigs and destroy anything and anyone who comes into the kill zone.

The reality is the companies that win the bids will be the ones that can offer Iraq the hi...

Bad taste would be trying to slant the facts to make things seem worse than they actually are.

This clip started with the position that this war is for the oil based upon twisting the news of a plan for free trade for the rights to get out out of the ground in Iraq.

If and when it happens, part of the oil revenue should go to pay for the war. It probably won't, which proves that the US is not the invader, because it we really wanted to we'd just lay claim the the entire country and take the oil. We'd build army bases around the oil rigs and destroy anything and anyone who comes into the kill zone.

The reality is the companies that win the bids will be the ones that can offer Iraq the highest amount of profit to get the oil out of the ground, bottom line.

UpStateMike refers to the Gourley-Johnson-Spagat critique of the Lancet paper which alleges that there is a "main street bias"--that the Lancet study disproportionately sampled houses close to main streets where you are more likely to see violent attacks. Thus, so the claim goes, they overestimated violent deaths.

In the Lancet paper, the authors make clear they randomly chose main streets in a locale, and then randomly chose a residential street that intersected with the main street. The data collectors randomly numbered the houses on that residential street, and randomly selected one house, and interv...

UpStateMike refers to the Gourley-Johnson-Spagat critique of the Lancet paper which alleges that there is a "main street bias"--that the Lancet study disproportionately sampled houses close to main streets where you are more likely to see violent attacks. Thus, so the claim goes, they overestimated violent deaths.

In the Lancet paper, the authors make clear they randomly chose main streets in a locale, and then randomly chose a residential street that intersected with the main street. The data collectors randomly numbered the houses on that residential street, and randomly selected one house, and interviewed 40 households in a chain, starting from that house. So, three points: (1) they excluded houses that were on main streets; (2) their "starting" household was not necessarily close to the main street; and (3) even if their starting household was close to a main street, I find it hard to believe that a substantial proportion of the 40 households in the chain were close to the main street.

Moreover, It turns out that the Lancet team also took pains to survey residential streets that did not intersect with main streets, but they cut this information from the paper at the suggestion of the peer reviewers.

Les Roberts, one of the Lancet study's co-authors, gave his take on the "main street bias" argument here. Tim Lambert, a computer scientist blogger who has expertise in statistics, gives his take here, here, and here.