50.000 is definately too low, since the IBC allready says approximately 45.000 civilians have been both killed and have their death reported in at least two english-language papers. That would leave 5.000 for killed combatants and unreported death in a chaotic war country...

I read John Kerry's statement and I do not see where he smears his fellow veterans. As far as I can see he only refers to Detroit investigations where 150 vets testified about war crimes they commited. What he says about the general things happening in Vietnam is "We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals."

If anything that is smearing the leadership in the US, and quit a lot of what he says can be said about the Iraq occupation too IMHO. Horrible things have happened in Iraq and officers have hardly been held responsible, let alone people higher up in the hierarchy. But saying that does not equal smearing the troops IMHO.

I've frequently read people saying that the whistleblowers of some of the crimes commited in Iraq (Abu G'hraib) are traitors to their fellow soldiers, or smearing the troops. Do you feel that way too? Can a soldier never say that things are wrong without wronging his fellow-soldiers? Where does the moral obligation to try to stop wrongdoing begin?

Rereading this makes me realize that it could be read as quit agressive. That is not the intend so blame my English for that; I am really curious about where those borders are.

John Kerry before the Senate Foreign Relations committee:

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Kerry didn't claim those were isolated incidents, but instead claimed that they were acts common to all soldiers in Vietnam. It is difficult for me not to consider that a smear.

Conversely, I'm not going to argue with you regarding Iraq. I think that way too many people have been permitted to wiggle off the hook for actions they permitted or ordered in Iraq, and I think that the Army's refusal to court-martial anyone above the rank of Captain is shameful.

I do not think that those who blew the whistle on Abu Ghraib are traitors; I think they're heroes who took a big chance and I know at least one of them is paying a heavy price for his courage. But that's not what Kerry did. Kerry made claims not based on what he saw, but what he believed. The 'Winter Soldiers' were made up of a lot of people who weren't even soldiers, who claimed to have seen things in Vietnam when they had never even been there. If Kerry wanted points for courage, he would have gone public with any real atrocities he saw committed during his four months in country. He never did that, though. That would have taken real courage, and I've seen nothing of John Kerry over the past 30 years to suggest he possesses an iota of moral courage. To compare his actions to those of the soldiers who risked real reprisals over telling the truth about Abu Ghraib is to denigrate the courage of the soldiers who really did take risks.

And, for the record, you didn't sound too aggressive, at least not to my ears. Also, I concur that 50,000 is too low, but I was using it for illustrative purposes.

We seem to be in agreement about most points :)

I always read Kerry's statement as a referral to the 150 vets that had testified as doing those things. Indeed, it creates an image of more wide-spread abuses, but for me it is more a complaint about the setting, the environment, that makes it possible. But I've not followed his statements about this subject or his career closely, so I just wondered where this strong feeling came from.

I didn't want to discuss Iraq as such, but just vented about the fact that higher command should have been at least investigated. On which we agree.

When I'm (for instance) complaining about how easy civilians are targetted at militairy checkpoints in Iraq I'm quite often imagening one of my sons in the position of the troops there - and imagening how damaging it would be for such a young and moral person (as most troops are) to realize that they have killed innocent bystanders, parents, women and children.

All soldiers have to either die or come back to our western world and live with their deeds. Things that happen "over there" in a group, in a certain atmosphere, will for most people be re-evaluated later in life, from more normal circumstances. It is the obligation of their command that they can justify it fully, even if they see past the spur-of-the-moment action to what really happened.

Closest thing to being internationally attacked for us would be Sbrenica I think. Though it is not realistic to expect 400 demoralized (out of supplies like food and ammunition) soldiers to protect thousands and thousands of refugees in a specific area people do feel that a certain percentage of our troops should have sacrificed themselves to show that we were seriously engaged. After the investigation our governments resigned. Not because of the outcome (which is what most people assume), but because it was their responsibility to place our troops in that position and make sure that they could do what was promised - and they did a really bad job.

If you divide the number of those supposedly killed by violence by the months the study covers, you come up with 15,000 deaths a month, or 500 a day.

It is annoying to see so much commentary about the study that, when critical, makes such basic mistakes about what it says. Your post does this, and you need to start over and rethink. I understand that your overall point is that the number itself is not that critical to the basic notion of whether any level of death makes sense. But still, it is important not to jettison relevant information for unsound reasons.

The Lancet report does not claim that the number reflects those killed by violence. It is describing "excess" deaths since the invasion above the pre-war death rate from all causes. And "excess" deaths simply means the number greater than that which would occur if the same death rate pre-war continued post-war.

For example, increased deaths from illness due to degraded medical care would be included. If the increased deaths could be explained by an epidemic unrealted to the war, the study would still pick it up. It is not making any direct causal connection between actual war related activity and deaths. It is simply comparing the pre-war and post-war death rates, and calculating a total of deaths since the war that exceeds death rates pre-war.

It is actually a very sound study, and I have yet to see any criticism of it make much sense. It is subject to a very large margin of error because of the difficulty of doing the study. But even then, the stastical method used tends to undercount the data, rather than overcount.

Perhaps you should consider actually reading the study before you make claims that are, in fact, inaccurate. The study states, in no uncertain terms, that "Of post-invasion deaths, 601027 (426369–793663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire." You are correct that those are deaths above those that would have already been expected, but that only makes my suspicion of the numbers grow, as that means there are even more corpses that nobody is finding.

But in any case, if it's your position the study "does not claim that the number reflects those killed by violence," maybe you ought to let the editors of The Lancet know, so they can remove the above-quoted verbiage from the report.

Hi Andrew,

I can't imagine why you didn't cross-post this at Obsidian Wings :)

I just made the above post -- thought my info was in the message. Sorry.

As for John Kerry, you said this:

Kerry didn't claim those were isolated incidents, but instead claimed that they were acts common to all soldiers in Vietnam. It is difficult for me not to consider that a smear.

Where did he purportedly claim that the Winter Soldier remarks were acts common to all soldiers? What words allegedly imply this? I submit that there is no such reasonable interpretation of his words.

You need to rethink your own bias on this topic. It seems that while those who blew the whistle on Abu Gharib were heroes, Kerry's similar remarks about testimony concerning war crimes in Viet Nam is some horrible dishonor.

Your attitude about Kerry is not that different from the dispicable hazing received in the military by those who blew the whistle on Abu Gharib. Fortunately for them, there were pictures. For Kerry, there is an enormous amount of supporting evidence (not just the Winter Soldiers), but somehow that is irrelevant.

The history is that there was significant problems with brutality by the US military in Viet Nam, nor was it a surprising turn of events. People sent to fight botched wars based on falsehoods tend to get frustrated and do bad things. Soldiers not adequately trained in anti-guerilla warfare, and frustrated by a poorly conceived war, tend to do bad things. It makes no sense to slam Kerry for pointing that out about Viet Nam, and yet declare as heroes the people observing similar problems in Iraq.

It may make no sense to you. It does not necessarily follow, however, that it makes no sense.

Kerry claimed there were atrocities. Yet he did nothing to address them beyond appearing before the Senate committee and joining VVAW. The people who blew the whistle on the Abu Ghraib atrocities faced horrible ostracism and worse in order to stop those activities. To compare them with Kerry diminishes their courage and is inappropriate.

And I see I already pointed this out above, but I'll try one more time just in case.

Abu Ghraib: soldiers volunteered information to the chain of command resulting in those activities being curtailed and at least some people being punished, at significant risk to their persons.

Vietnam: Kerry makes speech before Senate, uses that notoriety to become Senator Do You Know Who I Am?, D, MA. If you cannot see any different between Kerry and the soldiers who spoke up about Abu Ghraib, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Which is not to say that my personal bias regarding Kerry is unimpeachable. Only that I refuse to equate Kerry's speech with far more courageous acts.

But if you really want to argue the impressive moral acumen of a man who threw his medals over the White House fence before he threw someone else's and who continues to insist that he ran a CIA operative into Cambodia on Christmas Eve...

Andrew -- I agree and sorry for being unclear. Your post does cite to the higher number of all deaths -- not those linked to violence.

And the number reflects all causes of violence, including crime (which is rampant). And the study indicates that a very large percentage of those deaths are documented. The bodies are being found and recorded. Again, other than a knee-jerk reaction of "I don't believe it," there is little constructive criticism of the method of the study out there.

It should serve as a wake up call. Until someone equally reputable undertakes an equally serious effort to try to figure out how much carnage has resulted, it is just willful denial to peg the death figure below the low range of the Lancet estimate.

One of the problemns of our policy is the extent to which it is based on deliberate disinformation by those in charge. Bush administration officals knock the Lancet figure, but based on what? The US has not been trying to make this determination on its own, for what reason? I understand the sound reason for de-emphasizing body counts in view of Viet Nam experience, but deliberately obscuring the carnage resulting from war is not a good idea. And yet the reason why the number seems so startling is because in the first instance, the powers seek to undercount the number.

About the numbers of the Lancet study: most people who disagree with the results mainly claim that the number is higher than their gut tells them it should be [channeling Colbert here...]. But if we agree that the number of civilians is at least 45.000 (more or less in the middle of the IBC count), how many deaths would be acceptable?

IBC says: The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization). We agree that deaths from any deliberate source are an equal outrage, but in this project we want to only record those deaths to which we can unambiguously hold our own leaders to account. In short, we record all civilians deaths attributed to our military intervention in Iraq.

So if the US & allies are responsible for 45.000 civilian deaths, how many enemy combattants would you expect? As many combattants as civilians? Twice as much? Three combattants for each civilian?

Kerry claimed there were atrocities. Yet he did nothing to address them beyond appearing before the Senate committee and joining VVAW. The people who blew the whistle on the Abu Ghraib atrocities faced horrible ostracism and worse in order to stop those activities. To compare them with Kerry diminishes their courage and is inappropriate

Well, your bias is on full-blown display. The problem is basing it on non-fact.

Kerry never claimed that he witnessed atrocities. So claiming he should have done what others did who were witnesses, and is scum for not having done so, makes no sense whatsoever.

I guess doing a great deal more than most to try to stop the Viet Nam war and bring attention to the atrocities does not count in your book, or even worse, means that he was scum since he did not witness it. That's a pretty crappy standard for making one guy a hero and the next scum.

So an Iraqi veteran who did not witness Abu Gharib, but who spoke out about it in testimony to Congress based on those who did witness it, is scum in your book. At least, that's the reasonable inference to draw from your posture.

dutch,

That was kind of the point of my essay. Even at the low end, the price seems too high.

dm,

The fact the researchers were able to get death certificates for 92% of the deceased is a point against the study, not for it. That means that we ought to be able to check Iraqi government records and find ~540,000 death certificates over the past three years. Yet the deadliest month of combat we've heard about has only reported ~4,000 deaths. No, I can't prove that the study is inaccurate, but when the study tells me that 15,000 people have been dying a month, which would mean that during particularly violent times we should see spikes of 30,000-45,000 or more dying a month, and nobody else is reporting anything close to that, it just doesn't add up.

If that's willful denial, well, you're entitled to your own opinion. Personally, I have a hard time arguing that we should just passively accept the study's results rather than examining its conclusions with a critical eye. That's how real science works: critical examination, not passive acceptance of what you're told.

Andrew: you assume that death certificates are reported back to the government. I think the bureacracy is less well organized in Iraq.

Look at this article for a feel. And as noted there: the deaths in the Iraq security forces and police are not counted by IBC and I've seen numerous reports about killing those. So the number is at least 45000 civilians plus Iraqi security forces & police, plus 'enemy combattants'.

I agree that even 50.000 is a hugh number - and my gutfeeling is too that 600.000 is too high. But so far all I know is that most of the country is not covered and that the methodology that leads to the higher estimates is normally used for estimates of deaths in Congo, Sudan, Saddam's Iraq, etc.

I have difficulty comparing Kerry with Darby. Different times, and most of Kerry is before my time. Truth be told I didn't think Kerry very inspiring - but I fail to see the attraction of Bush too. However, you should recognize that the claims you make about Kerry (medals, christmas trip) are repeats of a smearing campaign that has created more FUD than facts (see for an overview of accusations and findings this wikipedia article, or this eyewitness report of someone about the throwing incident).

I do admire those who dare to follow their conscience, even if keeping your mouth shut and going with the flow is much easier. I'm not sure I would have the guts. One of the harder lessons of life is that doing the right thing is not always rewarded: all to often people pay a hefty price instead of being rewarded.

"Kerry didn't claim those were isolated incidents, but instead claimed that they were acts common to all soldiers in Vietnam."

It's entirely possible that I'm missing the paragraph where you sustained that.

Possibly you could repeat it, again, please?

dutch,

As I said, I'm sure the total deaths are greater than 50,000. But my point remains: if 15,000 people are dying from violence in Iraq every month, as the study suggests, then they're doing an absolutely amazing job of hiding it.

As for the smearing campaign, you illustrate why I don't bother much with ObWi any more. Might I suggest to you that my observations might be based on a little bit more than just right wing talking points? I don't use 'that's just a left wing talking point' to buttress my arguments, I fail to see why I cannot be afforded the same courtesy.

You may rest assured that I am well aware of the various claims made about John Kerry during the 2004 election. I was blogging actively at the time; if you search my archives, you'll find plenty of essays I wrote addressing various claims and counterclaims.

It is a fact that John Kerry carries a hat that he claims was given to him by a CIA agent before he dropped him in Cambodia. It is also a fact that Swift Boats were not used for covert insertion missions because they were not remotely covert: they were loud and easy to detect. It is a fact that this CIA agent cannot be found and that there is no record of Kerry's boat being sent on such a mission. Your own Wikipedia article has the excerpt of Kerry's speech in which he claimed to be in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, sent there by President Nixon a month before President Nixon took office.

As for the medals, (and your link is broken, btw), Kerry may or may not have actually thrown his medals over the fence, but he certainly was willing to let people believe that he had until being a war hero was useful to his career again, at which time suddenly his medals reappeared.

Or shall we discuss Kerry's three Purple Hearts, none of which caused him to miss so much as a day of duty? I mean, talk about a lucky guy; no wonder he lost in 2004, he used up all his good luck in 1968. I'm willing to stipulate that Kerry got all three Purple Hearts fair and square (although I'd feel a lot better about it if he would release his records), but I think the fact he took advantage of the policy to go home eight months early speaks volumes to his character.

Kerry is, at best, an opportunist who has taken advantage of his life circumstances to become part of the elite. President Bush is, of course, quite similar in that. I was not particularly attracted to either candidate in 2004, and am less so now.

Gary, I thought my comment disasters had chased you away for good. I suppose the mention of Senator Kerry was too galling to resist, huh? ;)

I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony....

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Kerry begins by stating that he is speaking on behalf of a larger group of veterans, and that they would all give the same testimony as he is giving. That suggests to me that his testimony is intended as an indictment of far more than just John Kerry and his band of merry men, aka the Winter Soldiers. He then goes on to claim that 'we' personally committed atrocities, etc. While I suppose there are other ways to parse his testimony, I do not believe it is unreasonable to read it as I have: Kerry speaks for lots of, if not all, veterans, and they all committed and/or witnessed atrocities. Is that not what his testimony reads? I understand that his point was probably to indict the government and not his fellow soldiers, but I doubt it was George Bush's intent to turn Iraq into a charnel house, but here we are.

Good to have you back. I've hired Stacy from Sekimori to try and fix my comments, so hopefully we'll see some progress soon.

I have no idea why the first paragraph of the preceeding is red and bold; that was not intentional.

Of course, this report suggests that The Lancet is probably on to something, regardless of the precise numbers involved.

That means that we ought to be able to check Iraqi government records and find ~540,000 death certificates over the past three years.

Perhaps, although I seriously doubt that you would be able to do so in any one location. I have not heard anything about such a check, and it would be interesting to hear more info about the death certificate bureaucracy in Iraq to assess this method of corroboration (I have yet to see anything on this that is illminating one way or the other). That is also true in the US, by the way (record keeping decentralized). You'd have to go to many local jurisdictions to track it down (assuming that the second step -- reporting the record data to centralized bureaucracy is not working). I doubt that centralized record keeping methods have stayed intact in Iraq.

What do you think is going on when the Lancet researchers claim to have seen that number of death certificates, if you don't believe it's true? Lying about it? Looking at fake certificates? Counted wrong?

I have a hard time arguing that we should just passively accept the study's results rather than examining its conclusions with a critical eye. That's how real science works: critical examination, not passive acceptance of what you're told.

Who with a view different from yours suggests not looking at it with a critical eye? And so far as the real scientists go, they have not found anything out of whack in the study.

To be argumentative, so much of the criticism of the report is urging to look at with a jaundiced rather than a critical eye.

My own reaction to the report was skepticism because the number seemed high. But reading about it and the criticism of it has only given it greater legitimacy. The bottom line is that the number is probably a significant six figure number.

What do you think is going on when the Lancet researchers claim to have seen that number of death certificates, if you don't believe it's true? Lying about it? Looking at fake certificates? Counted wrong?

This is a joke, right? Or do you just completely not understand statistics? The study authors don't claim to have seen 540,000 death certificates. They claim (and I believe them) that 629 deaths were reported, and that they asked for 545 death certificates and were shown 501. So my numbers were off; for 600,000 excess violent deaths/655,000 excess deaths, a records check (which would not be simple, as I'm sure you're correct that the records are distributed) ought to find around 500,000 death certificates.

The bottom line is that the number is probably a significant six figure number.

I'm pretty sure that much is true, given what we know. But there's a big difference between 100,000 and 600,000, and my guess would be that the number is probably closer to the former than the latter.

Andrew:

Your parsing of Kerry's remarks to justify your conclusion is worse than strained.

Kerry starts by saying that he is there on behalf of an organization representing many veterans -- I assume he is referencing the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War. He asks that his testimony reflect the views of those many veterans in his group, which by the way was only a fraction of the veterans of the war. He is not stating that the remarks represent that behavior or conduct of those veternas.

Later, he refers to 150 veterans testifying at the Winter Soldier proceeding. It is clear that his reference to atrocities is not "we" (i.e., Kerry, the whole organization he is acting for, and all other veterans) but "they";, i.e., the 150 who testified. There is no reasonable way to read it otherwise. He at no point indicates that all veterans have seen or engaged in atrocities. His point is that the war involves a lot of evil by some in the US that is not being acknowledged. His point is that the US is threatened by the military's tolerance of such a level of evil.

For example, not even the 150 who testified indicated that the acts they referenced were "common to all soldiers." Kerry is also not saying that -- where do you get off then adding that disgusting gloss to it? Frankly, use this as a moment to reflect about the extreme exaggeration of your own remark on this.

This whole point is a side show to the post, but if you want readership from both sides of the aisle, then you should expect to be challenged about such inflammatory stuff. You can stick with your view, but it seems fair to then say that at least on this topic, you prefer bias over reason.

OK, let's make this clear: one more personal insult and you're gone. You want to argue your points, go ahead, but I'm not going to spend my money so you can insult me.

I'll address your other points once you've made your decision.

"seen that number of death certificates"

This is a joke, right? Or do you just completely not understand statistics?

I am referring to them seeing 92% death certificates for the number of dead uncovered in their sample -- not that they claim to have seen certificates for the much larger extrapolated number. Your counter-argument is rather unfair as it does not make sense to suppose I was making the reference you posit. So I ask you again -- it is pretty significant that for a random sample, they find such a high number of certificates. That strongly supports their analysis unless you just don't believe that they saw such a high proportion of certificates.

"One more personal insult and you are gone"

Well, it seems to me that you feel free to dish out the same rhetoric about which you are complaining. It's your sandbox -- you make the rules and can run it that way if you want.

I wrote a post (7:18 pm) that is almost entirely analysis. I read through it again to find what triggered your reaction about personal insults. The choices seem to be:

1. "...your conclusion is worse than strained."

Does not seem to be a personal insult, though I freely admit it is a harsh assessment that I think is warranted given what you are saying on that point (Kerry allegedly slandering all Viet Nam vets).

2. "...adding that disgusting gloss" ... "extreme exaggaeration"

Does not seem to be a personal insult, but again is a harsh assessment that is warranted for the same reason (Kerry allegedly slandering all vets is disgusting if without a basis and is an extreme exaggeration from the evidence cited to support it).

3. "...it seems fair to then say that at least on this topic, you prefer bias over reason."

This remark is limited to just this one point (Kerry's statement and your description of it as defaming all veterans). There remains no basis for this slander of Kerry. I have said that your argument on this one point shows bias on this one point -- pretty tepid as personal insults goes. It is really a conclusion as to why you adhere to a conclusion not supported by any evidence. It seems to stem from strong dislike of Kerry, and therefore a willingness to draw the conclusion (Kerry slandered all vets) when that did not happen.
____

Look -- if you find yourself this upset by a long post that is almost entirely analysis and challenges what seems to be a prejudice on your part, then I will absent myself. You have made a very ugly accusation without any meaningful support, and call it a personal attack when that is bluntly pointed out. It is not personal -- you are a fine fellow which is why I drop by to see your writing; it is your argument on this point that stinks.

Not at my usual computer, and I forgot to type in my personal info again for that last post.

I am calling your commentary such as 'strained analysis' and 'no reasonable person' personal insults, because that's certainly what they are. Or do you deny that what you're saying is that I'm making this up rather than saying what I think?

I may well be wrong about Kerry, I'm more than willing to admit that. But I see no reason to converse with someone who a) expects me to admit when I'm wrong but is unwilling to consider the possibility I may be right, and b) laces his commentary with personal observations that have no purpose but to be insulting.

Maybe my interpretation of Kerry's remarks in incorrect. But to say that I'm straining to come up with that interpretation just to defend my biases is insulting. You think I'm wrong, say so, and back it up, but please spare me the suppositions about my motives. It's insulting, it wastes time, and it doesn't further your argument. Really, how hard would it be for you simply to say 'That's not how I view the Kerry statement' and explain your own parsing?

As for me, if I have insulted you, please point it out and I'm more than willing to apologize. I'll concede that your comments have angered me, whether that's your intent or not, because you have made observations that are insulting and uncalled for. And the argument that because you feel I'm doing the same to Kerry doesn't hold water. When Senator Kerry shows up to debate his position, he can insult me if he feels he's been insulted. You don't get that right by proxy, just because you feel he's been insulted.

how hard would it be for you simply to say 'That's not how I view the Kerry statement' and explain your own parsing?

I clearly did do that, in some detail. Sorry for any extra hyperbole, though I do believe your remarks concerning Kerry that I took issue with to be irresponsible. (particularly since it poisons our politics -- the "Kerry slandered vets in his Congressional testimony" meme is itself slander -- there is no polite way to make that counterpoint). What you take issue with is the attack on your contrary analysis, which cannot avoid being barbed on this point.

And I tend to see my remark "strained analysis" less personal than your remark "do you just completely not understand statistics?" Frankly, I don't chafe at such from you as much as you seem to from me; I see it as a normal byproduct of rough and tumble discourse that is largely centered around facts (rather than flame wars, which none of this is).

And I think it is clear that I am knocking your argument -- you are enlarging it into an attack on you rather than your argument. Hey, it's perfectly normal to be a nice guy and think dumb things. I've have that proved to me on more than one occasion.

You know, and I say this with no intention of being rude or insulting, but you started this entire discussion by at best making a serious error of fact about the study, something you seem wholly unable to concede. And you've just gone from there, insisting that you have to set the terms of the debate. There will be no possibility admitted that you might be incorrect. There will be no possibility admitted that you may have erred in any way. I, on the other hand, am expected to 'rethink' my position at your every whim and to do nothing but concede your points. And you seem utterly mystified why I might find your style of debate annoying at best.

I am an emotional person. It is one of my many flaws. As should be clear, I dislike John Kerry; this is an emotional reaction, and therefore it should not come as any surprise that I may react emotionally to arguments with that position. Yet you insist on using inflammatory rhetoric in your attempts to make your case. If you can't see why remarks like 'you need to rethink your position,' 'strained analysis,' 'no reasonable person would think that' and so on are annoying, then I don't know what else to say. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think so. (At a minimum, my wife concurs that such remarks are condescending and rude. Granted, she's my wife, but I suspect other people might consider such remarks in a similar vein.)

Let's take a simple one: no one reasonable would think that. OK, so my choices are that I'm not reasonable, or I don't really think that. Since I know that I do think that, what you're saying is I'm unreasonable. Now, I'm not a logician by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it doesn't take too much logic to figure that if I am unreasonable, you're wasting your time conversing with me, and that if I am reasonable you're poisoning the discussion with insults. When you say something like that, all I can assume is that you have no interest in persuading me of the merit of your position, but have descended to assertion rather than argument, at which point I either get mad or I tune you out.

I have the feeling that you have a very difficult time conceiving of the possibility you're ever wrong. That's not uncommon, but it isn't conducive to discussion. You say that my claim about Kerry's speech before the Senate is slander, and that there is no polite way to say otherwise. With all due respect, if you really believe that, you need to get just a little more creative. First of all, despite your claims otherwise, you have refused to take the simplest step of caveating your claims with 'I think,' indicating to me that you are not willing to argue, you just want me to assent to your point of view. Well, I'm not interested in that. If the facts support your beliefs, then I'm more than willing to be convinced. But if you're not willing to even concede the possibility you might be wrong, I am curious why you seem to believe that I should not treat my arguments similarly. Granted, we'd never get very far, but then I'm not going to get anywhere as long as you refuse to concede the possiblity of error, so I have very little motivation to even bother to talk to you. I may as well argue evolution with a creationist.

I think it is clear that I am knocking your argument

This really illustrates the point brilliantly to me. You think it's clear, therefore it's clear and the problem must be on my end. The thought never appears to enter your head that, just maybe, you haven't made things as clear as you think. Nope, it's got to be the other guy's fault.

I just can't see any way to argue with you, because you give no impression of wanting to argue. You want to assert. You want to tell me how it is and have me agree. Sorry, I'm not going to waste my time with that.

And yes, I realize you think you've done that. I'm telling you that you haven't. If you're really interested in communication, then you'll start by internalizing this rule: if you say something and the other person interprets it differently than you did, then if you want to be understood, you'd better change your approach; insisting that the other person change his approach of listening to match your method of speaking isn't going to get you very far.

You said:

The study claims that Iraq has suffered 655,000 excess deaths since the U.S. invasion began, a frightening sum.

I pointed out that this statistic reflects all deaths from all causes, which is true. The violent death figure is a little lower. The flaw in my point is that the number difference is not that important between the two. I admit that, and wish I had left out this one point as it does not matter much.

But how does that then justify this remark by you?

you started this entire discussion by at best making a serious error of fact about the study, something you seem wholly unable to concede.

Who is engaging is heated personal attacks? And frankly, can I use the same words about you and Kerry? You have made a serious error of fact about Kerry and his testimony before Congress, something you seem wholly unable to concede.

That is a fair thing to say, according to your rules of civility? I think what I have said on the point is less heated than your own phrasing.

I said this earlier:

you are enlarging it into an attack on you rather than your argument.

Your response seems to confirm this. Attacks on your aguments morph into alleged personal attacks on you, which allegedly justifies your personal attacks in response.

You claimed a couple of times that I said this, "no reasonable person would think that', and I cannot find any such statement. The nearest one I could find was:

Later, he refers to 150 veterans testifying at the Winter Soldier proceeding. It is clear that his reference to atrocities is not "we" (i.e., Kerry, the whole organization he is acting for, and all other veterans) but "they";, i.e., the 150 who testified. There is no reasonable way to read it otherwise.

The reference to "reasonable" is to specific words in the speech and how can they be interpreted. You chose to respond as if this argument about the meaning of words is a personal attack on you.

And you never responded to the point being made about how the words reference the 150 who testified about atrocities, and reflects Kerry's overall contention that atrocities were frequent. Just as "up" does not became "down," Kerry's reference to the testiomny of the 150 to support the larger point that atrocities were happening all too often cannot become 'all vets were involved in atrocities.'

I said that these words cannot reasonably be read in this manner. By your own words, it would have been proper to have instead said:

You have made a serious error of fact about Kerry and his testimony before Congress, something you seem wholly unable to concede.

As if your own choice of words is somehow more appropriate debate than mine. I believe that your retorts commit the sin you accuse me of far more often than I have ever committed that sin.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: