Lancet: 600,000 Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq

[busybody..]

Lancet: 600,000 Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq

By extrapolating the fact that Hans Blix reported1 50 Al Samoud-2 missiles, 331 Al Samoud-2 engines, 70 deployed Al Samoud-2 warheads, 75 deployed Al Samoud-2 missiles, 40 warheads in manufacture, 32 warheads in training, 2 long range propellant casting chambers, 14 155mm chemically filled shells, 49 liters of 97% purity mustard gas, 500 ml of thiodiglycol chemical precursor, 18 122mm chemical warheads, 224.6 kg of growth media, and 40 vials of toxin standards, in Iraq just prior to the Coalition invasion, the Lancet estimates that Saddam Hussein indeed had 600,000 units of WMD at his disposal, by multiplying those findings by thousands.

Just leaving a speaking engagement at a pro-Hezbollah rally in London, Lancet’s head, Dr. Richard Horton, adds:

“this is in fact more accurate than our usual apolitical election time death count because it’s based on actual evidence rather than undocumented polls conducted at completely random Iraqi neighborhoods, like Fallujah.”

 

[busybody..]

Not interesting?

Only when it shows what YOU want?

 

[Sean]

Not interesting?

Only when it shows what YOU want?

Funny you should say that:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1919977,00.html

 

[kbate]

By those standards, my house, with my gun safe and lily plant tissue culture room (containing over 2 litres of culture medium) and over 5000 rounds of ammuition - multiplied by thousands (because that seems a good way to make a story) - could kill off the human race 22 times over.

Send me some marines. Tough female ones please.

 

[wgbseb]

Regardless of who is right, Iraq is clearly not on anyone's "Must See" vacation list. The place is fucked in many ways, for many years to come.

 

[Sean]

This method is now tried and tested. It has been the basis for mortality estimates in war zones such as Darfur and the Congo. Interestingly, when we report figures from these countries politicians do not challenge them. They frown, nod their heads and agree that the situation is grave and intolerable. The international community must act, they say. When it comes to Iraq the story is different.

No comment BB? You and the rest of the kill the ragheads crowd are fond of screaming about the thousands dead in Darfur.

 

[Sean]

By those standards, my house, with my gun safe and lily plant tissue culture room (containing over 2 litres of culture medium) and over 5000 rounds of ammuition - multiplied by thousands (because that seems a good way to make a story) - could kill off the human race 22 times over.

Send me some marines. Tough female ones please.

Your house alone, no. But a random sampling of a couple of thousand houses might give you a reasonable idea about the number of weapons in homes in the US, no?

 

[The Mutt]

30,000, 300,000, 600,000. Who cares? They're just mooselimbs.



I hear Haliburton has been feeding them to our troops.

 

[busybody..]

30,000, 300,000, 600,000. Who cares? They're just mooselimbs.



.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[kbate]

Your house alone, no. But a random sampling of a couple of thousand houses might give you a reasonable idea about the number of weapons in homes in the US, no?

Yes - sample enough - about 1 million - and you would have sufficient data and a margin of error of 1% - sample 1000 and you have nothing - the margin of error is over 10000%.

 

[Sean]

Yes - sample enough - about 1 million - and you would have sufficient data and a margin of error of 1% - sample 1000 and you have nothing - the margin of error is over 10000%.

Not in the JH study. Even taking the absolutely lowest value still puts the deaths at around 380,000.

 

[Ajax_Prime]

Not in the JH study. Even taking the absolutely lowest value still puts the deaths at around 380,000.

lowest absolutely worthless value that is.

 

[kbate]

Not in the JH study. Even taking the absolutely lowest value still puts the deaths at around 380,000.

Another with extrapolated results. We couldn't begin to keep numbers such as that hidden. We can't even keep a freaking pedophile congressman hidden.

 

[Sean]

Another with extrapolated results. We couldn't begin to keep numbers such as that hidden. We can't even keep a freaking pedophile congressman hidden.

But Congress isn't 8000 miles away locked up in the green zone. I'm told by friends that are out there that journalists very rarely leave the safety of the green zone. Most have never been outside Baghdad. Those that do tend to be embeds.

 

[kbate]

But Congress isn't 8000 miles away locked up in the green zone. I'm told by friends that are out there that journalists very rarely leave the safety of the green zone. Most have never been outside Baghdad. Those that do tend to be embeds.

Were the numbers truly that high - we would be hearing far more screaming than a few obscure studies. Journalists manage to come up with every American war crime - real or imagined within a week or two, but the giant mass grave for half a million Iraqis has missed their attention?

Even if the Bushies are right and it is ONLY 30,000 - I find that number staggeringly disgusting as well.

 

[Sean]

Were the numbers truly that high - we would be hearing far more screaming than a few obscure studies. Journalists manage to come up with every American war crime - real or imagined within a week or two, but the giant mass grave for half a million Iraqis has missed their attention?

Even if the Bushies are right and it is ONLY 30,000 - I find that number staggeringly disgusting as well.

No argument from me on your last point. And what makes you think we've heard of every US, or British, war crime?

 

[kbate]

No argument from me on your last point. And what makes you think we've heard of every US, or British, war crime?

Mostly because they're busy passing bills to legalise nearly everthing that would have been a war crime last year.

 

[garbage can]

Yes - sample enough - about 1 million - and you would have sufficient data and a margin of error of 1% - sample 1000 and you have nothing - the margin of error is over 10000%.

Uhmmm, if it's a random sample, the margin of error should be about +/- 3%

 

[busybody..]

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.10.12.SurveySays-X.gif