Lancet Letters

We already know the methods used were only reliable enough to find between 8,000 and 194,000 excess deaths at 95% confidence. Seems like that ought to say enough by itself.

I guess we know why they won't confine themselves to the statistically significant findings: those findings don't support their political position.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, life goes on getting a little better every day thanks to the removal of Saddam. At least, according to the Iraqis. But what do they know, they just live there.

ABCNEWS Poll 03/14/04
Poll: Most Iraqis Ambivalent About the War, But Not Its Results
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversar…

These results are from an ABCNEWS poll conducted among a random, representative sample of 2,737 Iraqis in face-to-face interviews across the country from Feb. 9-28 2004

Ratings of Specific Local Conditions

Better Worse Same (Compared to prewar)
Schools 47% 9 41
Household basics 47 16 35
Crime protection 50 21 21

Medical care 44 16 38
Clean water 41 16 40
Local gov't 44 16 29
Additional goods 44 17 35
Security 54 26 18

Electricity 43 23 32
Jobs 39 25 31

So apparently Iraqis like those estimated 100,000 excess deaths, and view them as a sign things are getting better. Or, um... maybe the Lancet study was wrong.

Sorry, cleaned up a bit.
Ratings of Specific Local Conditions: Better - Worse - Same (Compared to prewar)
Schools 47% 9 41
Household basics 47 16 35
Crime protection 50 21 21
Medical care 44 16 38
Clean water 41 16 40
Local gov't 44 16 29
Additional goods 44 17 35
Security 54 26 18
Electricity 43 23 32
Jobs 39 25 31

your numbers indicate that the percentage of iraqis that think things are 'same or worse' than when they lived in a dilapidated country under a murderous dictator is:

relating to:

Schools 50%
Household basics 51
Crime protection 41
Medical care 54
Clean water 56
Local gov't 45
Additional goods 52
Security 44
Electricity 54
Jobs 56

And you manage to see that as a positive?

TallDave: Given your concerns about the adequacy of the sample size and the manner in whichit was obtained would you please provide evidence as to your assertion that the ABCLive sample was " a random, representative sample of 2,737 Iraqis in face-to-face interviews across the country". I think this might be an important point given your previous position on the Lancet study.

From the article:

This poll was conducted for ABCNEWS, ARD, the BBC and NHK by Oxford Research International of Oxford, England. Interviews were conducted in person, in Arabic and Kurdish, among a random national sample of 2,737 Iraqis age 15 and up from Feb. 9-28. The results have a two-point error margin.

Oh, where to start:

How were the random names selected?
Did thet ask for proof of the answers?
How are the locations distributed?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Chorlto - you beat me by three minutes. Next time I'll type quicker! ;-)

A rather small percentage of the Congo survey deaths were actually violent deaths (I believe it amounted to just over 10%.) Roberts citing Roberts is less than useful, especially as we don't know how accurate were either one of these summaries to begin with. And the Kosovo study was many times more thorough (67 deaths stood for 10,000, whereas the Iraq survey is 1/10th as precise at least.)

Yelling, Chorlto: I've looked at the ORI's methodology and it seems sound; the confidence intervals are obviously quite wide, but I don't see any particular reason to suggest it's biased egregiously. Have a look at the full survey, however, and you'll see that Iraqis aren't quite the shiny happy people of that excerpt.

TellDave,

LOL! Good one, that may fool a grade-school audience. Of course, you can add the # that thinks things are the same to the number that think they are better and then the numbers are higher than yours. Yeah, that's definitely a positive.

dsquared,

Of course, I wouldn't argue that they're "shiny happy people" either. But it certainly presents a glaring contradiction to the Lancet study: how can so many more Iraqis think things are better than prewar as opposed to worse if they're supposedly dying at such a higher rate than prewar? Unless of course they like dying more.

TallDave. Still waiting for an answer to my question.
Yelling: Do you think TallDave will answerour questions.
dsquared: Thanks for the comment but I would like to hear TallDave's logic for seeing the survey as sound.

Pascal, AFAIK, the Congo was not smart bombed, it was more retail than wholesale, and displacements of large populations accounted for a whole lot of the misery.

TallDave, the ABCNews poll does not contradict the Lancet study. People who are close relatives of the dead Iraqis are unlikely to be pleased, but this is still a relatively small fraction of the population, so it is possible for these people to be unhappy but the majority pleased to see Saddam gone.

And like some other commentators, I am suprised that you don't display the same sceptism abolut sampling to this poll. The Lancet study checked the results against death certificates -- how do we know that the Iraqis in this new poll aren't just saying what they think the interviewer wants to hear?

I think more importantly that survey is over a year old.

I just love Tim's journalism.
Tim wrote:
"Stephen Apfelroth claims that cluster sampling is an invalid methodology. This criticism was dealt with way back in November. Apfelroth is wrong. ".
on the very same point, Roberts et al write:
"Unfortunately, as Stephen Apfelroth rightly points out, our study and a similar one in Kosovo,3 suggest that in settings where most deaths are from bombing-type events, the standard 30-cluster approach might not produce a high level of precision in the death toll. "
Near as I can read it, Tim's heroes, Roberts et al, are saying that Apfelroth is correct.
Tim ? Get it wrong ?
guess I will be getting banned again.
per :-)

Tim,

So your argument is: conditions were so much worse after the war than before the war that 100,000 more people died, but most people didn't notice, and if they did notice they didn't really care much, and in fact they not only didn't notice or care they actually thought things were going much better than before. Sorry, doesn't pass the laugh test. Unless you're arguing Iraqis like dying or are really, really unobservant.

Heh. Those "Lancet denialist" denunciations are looking a bit ironic now.

Would they notice? For fun, let's try applying the numbers to a place we know better - America. I know, there are a lot of differences between America and Iraq, but just play along for a minute for some rough perspective. Let's see, Iraq has 25 million people or so. America has about 300 million -- but let's call it 250 million just to be very conservative and to make the math super extra easy for those following along at home. Extrapolating the Lancet estimate to our population, do you think we would notice or care if a million extra people died over a period of a year and a half or so? That's quite a few more than we lose to all kinds of cancer combined over that same time period http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1x_Cancer_in_America_20…. If that many people were dying and you polled us a year into that time period, would we be telling pollsters how much better life was in practically every way than before that trend started? Would people in any country?

All the "why aren't you skeptical about the sampling" questions,

I think dsquared answered that one from a technical perspective, but I have to say: doesn't that work both ways? Why are you so eager to believe the Lancet sampling was good, and so quick to question the sampling here?

The Lancet study checked the results against death certificates -- how do we know that the Iraqis in this new poll aren't just saying what they think the interviewer wants to hear?
You're really reaching now. Besides, what makes you think the interviewer wanted to hear good news? It's easier to argue based on polls of the media that any correction in a media-sponsored poll should actually go toward the positive

Asteele (3x),
The Lancet study covers 17.8 months after the war. This poll was taken 12 months after.

dsquared,

I would expect ABCNews to use sound methodology in its polls. Some of the results of this one, however, do not coincide with on-the-ground facts that are well documented, and are simply not in dispute. Even Bush and his war cheerleaders dropped all pretense on most of these issues some time ago. The inclusion of data from Kurdistan is also problematic because those living in that region have simply not had to deal with most of the direct negative effects of the war and occupation. In fact, the inclusion of Kurdistan data certainly explains, at least in part, at least some of the questionable numbers.

The results that clearly contradict uncontested facts on the ground are

* Crime protection. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever tried to dispute the fact that with the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq came a soaring crime rate that has made daily life for "ordinary" Iraqis extremely treacherous. The murder, kidnapping for ransom, rape, robbery, car jacking, and other violent crimes, is simply out of control. This is one of several reasons that the streets of Iraq, once among the safest in the world, are now among the most dangerous.

* Medical care, according to an abundance of reports, has also deteriorated severely overall. There were, in fact, a number of reports on this issue in the U.S. press at about the time of this poll.

* Clean water. There is abundant documentation showing that the supply of water of any sort has been undependable. Taps have often been dry over large areas for days at a time. Added to this is the U.S. military's practice since the beginning of the invasion of cutting off water to entire towns and cities (Basra, at the start of the invasion, and Falluja during U.S. sieges are but two examples).

* Security. This is perhaps the strangest result of all. Prior to the U.S. invasion and occupation the streets were among the safest in the world. Anyone could walk or drive or ride anywhere at any time of the day or night, alone or or not and be confident of returning home without incident. Since the U.S. invasion and occupation you are taking your life in your hands to leave your house, especially if you are a woman or a girl. Families are afraid to send their kids to school.

* Electricity. Again, a very strange result given the well documented reality on the ground.

* Jobs. This one is difficult to understand given the documented 60-70% unemployment rate.

David Bell/per, yes you just got banned again. Deliberately posting falsehoods to disrupt the discussion will get you banned. You know full well that Roberts et al do not agree with Apelroth.

TallDave,

No time to go into detail now, but for a number of reasons the ABCNews poll is irrelevant to your claims regarding the Lancet study. In addition, although you did post the date the poll was published, you introduced it in a pretty misleading way.

I am sure I am not being socratic enough for you, but I do the best I can with my extremely limited knowledge and abilities.

Shirin,

It's easy to make unsupported claims to support your position. You're going to need to cite some actual evidence (beyond the anecdotal) if you expect to be taken seriously.

I'm not sure you understand what I mean, so to clarify: merely claiming something is well-documented is not providing evidence. You can claim it's well-documented that the Moon is made of green cheese; that doesn't make it so. If what you claim is true, well, then you need to provide some of that allegedly abundant documentation showing these problems were worse after the war than before the war, because this poll shows Iraqis overwhelmingly disagreed with that assessment one year out, and even more overwhelmingly expected things to continue to get better. And please, no anecdotal "an Iraqi man on the street said such-and-such" stories as evidence; if you're going to claim this survey is wrong you need real competing surveys showing a systemic worsening in these conditions.

I'm not going to waste my time debating your unsupported claims (some of which are so absurd they're amusing; are you getting this info from Baathists?), but on the methodology I should point out the obvious fallacy of your claim that Kurds should not be included in the ORI study of Iraq. Kurds are Iraqis too; why would a sample that excluded them be more representative of Iraq? That's on its face a nonsensical assertion. And of course the Kurds were included in the Lancet study (although some claim they were undersampled).

TallDave, it is quite beyond belief that anyone who follows the news can be unaware of the realities on the ground in Iraq with respect to the items I listed. Far from being a secret, this information has since the occupation began been so frequently and readily available in mainstream publications that it should be common knowledge by now. All you have to do is pick up a newspaper now and then.

I really don't have a lot of extra time, but since you seem to be unaware of these realities, here are just a few of the vast multitude of sources regarding the continuous rise in violent crime that has plagued Iraqis and contributed significantly to their lack of security since the invasion.

"Murder, rape, and kidnapping have skyrocketed since March 2003, forcing Iraqi children to stay home from school and women to stay off the streets at night. Violent deaths rose from an average of 14 per month in 2002 to 357 per month in 2003." Institute for Policy Studies, September 30, 2004

"In Baghdad alone, officials at the central morgue counted 8,035 deaths by unnatural causes in 2004, up from 6,012 the previous year, when the U.S. invaded Iraq. In 2002, the final year of Saddam Hussein's regime, the morgue examined about 1,800 bodies.

"Of the deaths occurring now, 60% are caused by gunshot wounds, officials say." Los Angeles Times 20 March, 2005.

"There was also a marked increase in the number of abductions, and in some cases killings, of both Iraqi and foreign nationals. This high level of insecurity had a particularly negative impact on the ability of women and girls to go to jobs, attend school, or otherwise move outside the home. " HRW Country Summary, January, 2005

"We headed across town to Baghdad's anti-kidnapping unit. The officer we met didn't want to be identified. A colleague was killed after appearing in the media.
Every week more people are abducted, but even here they don't know how many." BBCNews 24 March, 2005

"BAGHDAD, 10 Jan 2005 (IRIN) - Parents in Iraq are becoming increasingly concerned over the safety of their children following reports of hundreds of child kidnappings last year, officials say. Families are being asked for huge ransom payments by unknown criminals and some of them have even sold their homes and cars to pay." IRIN, 11 January, 2005.

"Rings that kidnap Iraqis thrive in security vacuum

As many as 5,000 Iraqis have been kidnapped in the last year and a half, and officials say the motive has more to do with ransom than intimidation." New York Times, March 27, 2005.

"According to Houzan Mahmoud, the UK representative of the Organisation of Women's Freedom in Iraq, "from the start of the occupation, rape, abduction, 'honour' killings and domestic violence have became daily occurrences. A lack of security and proper policing
have led to chaos and to growing rates of crime against women. Women can no longer go out alone to work, or attend schools or universities. An armed male relative has to guard a woman if she wants to leave the house." Institute for Policy Studies, September 30, 2004

Unemployment:

" Mr. Bremer said there is a staggering unemployment rate in Iraq that may exceed 50 percent. Voice of America, 10 June, 2003

" BAGHDAD - Riots in several southern cities this week have underscored the deep social challenges being brought on by rampant unemployment throughout Iraq" Iraq Today, January 19, 2004

"A study by the college of economics at Baghdad University has found that the unemployment rate in Iraq is 70%. " Al Jazeera, 1 August, 2004

"Unemployment stands at 53% according to a survey taken in July, said an official source in the Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation. The source added that the ministry was now conducting a third survey to determine the change in the rate of unemployment during the period surveyed. Meanwhile, a committee from the International Monetary Fund confirmed that unemployment stands at more than 50% of the workforce." This translated paragraph is at IWPR, September 13, 2004 . The full text of the article can be found at Al Bayan Sorry, but the text is in "a few local phrases" - aka Arabic.

"Iraq has a huge unemployment problem.

" the rampant unemployment and high rates of poverty in Iraq."" CSIS, September, 2004

"Officially, unemployment stands at more than 60 percent, according to unverified statistics from the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MLSA)." IRIN, 25 Nov, 2004

"With 30 per cent of Iraq's adult workforce and 50 per cent of its youth jobless, a United Nations-sponsored international conference today adopted a declaration underlining the crucial role of employment in the reconstruction and development of the war-torn country." UN News Centre, 13 December 2004
" The planning ministry reports a slight improvement in unemployment figures in the country but at the same time warns the army of jobless Iraqis is the main impediment to security.
"There has been a tiny slump of about 1.3 percent in unemployment in last year's fourth quarter," according to Suham Mohammed of the Central Statistics Bureau, the ministry's statistical arm.
".she stressed unemployment rates were "extremely high".
"Non-government organizations say unemployment could be as high as 65% in Iraq. Az Zamman, 1 February, 2005 (English edition)

"this poll shows Iraqis overwhelmingly disagreed with that assessment one year out"

That is an extremely interesting interpretation given the fact that 1) for the most part the majority found things were NOT better, 2) the results included Kurdistan, which unlike the rest of the country did not experience "shock and awe", was not invaded or occupied and in which daily life was disrupted minimally for only a few weeks.

In any case, documented facts on the ground are one thing and perceptions and opinions are quite another.

"if you're going to claim this survey is wrong..."

Is putting words into your opponent's mouth part of this Socratic debate you keep talking about? I have not claimed the survey is wrong. What I have said is that some of the survey results do not coincide with actual documented conditions. Given that opinions and actual conditions are two entirely different things, saying that an opinion survey does not coincide with actual conditions cannot reasonably be construed as saying the opinion survey is wrong.

"you need real competing surveys showing a systemic worsening in these conditions."

Is trying to refute arguments about apples by talking about oranges also part of Socratic debate? I ask because you seem to to think you can refute documented facts on the ground by citing opinion polls.

"I'm not going to waste my time debating your unsupported claims (some of which are so absurd they're amusing; are you getting this info from Baathists?)"

Is trying to discredit your opponent by a combination of ridicule and assignment of guilt by association also part of Socratic debate?

"I should point out the obvious fallacy of your claim that Kurds should not be included in the ORI study of Iraq. Kurds are Iraqis too; why would a sample that excluded them be more representative of Iraq?"

More of the Socratic debate technique of misrepresentation and misattribution. I did not say that a sample that excluded Kurds would be more representative of Iraq. The point is that unlike the rest of Iraq, Kurdistan did not experience "shock and awe" or any of its sequelae, including occupation, "insurgency", and soaring rates of violent crime. In Kurdistan life has scarcely been disrupted at all by the invasion and occupation of Iraq (except by the machinations of their two corrupt and brutal rival dictators, but that is nothing new for them). In other words, in contrast to the rest of the country it has been business as usual in Kurdistan. It is misleading to include a region that did not experience the death, devastation and disruption of "shock and awe", invasion and occupation in an opinion poll in the rest of the country, which did experience "shock and awe", invasion and occupation without at least making the contrasting experiences clear to the readers. (I would love to see someone do a survey of Kurds living outside of Kurdistan because anecdotal evidence indicates that attitudes and opinions of Kurds living outside of Kurdistan, who did experience "shock and awe" and all of its extremely ugly sequelae, are very different from those of Kurds living in Kurdistan.)

"That's on its face a nonsensical assertion."

Is simply calling something nonsensical on its face considered effective refutation in Socratic debate?

"And of course the Kurds were included in the Lancet study (although some claim they were undersampled)."

Another example of the Socratic debate apples and oranges technique?

Shirin,

You briefly mention the Kurd's two "corrupt and brutal dictators".
I've read enough about the Talabani and Barzani clans, their decades-long links to Saddam and their human rights abuses to have an idea of what you're referring to here.
But for the benefit of the people who like to wave the bloody shirt of Hallabja and the Anfal campaign, it might be helpful if you were to expand on that.
For example, is it true that both the major Kurdish parties included on their electoral lists for the recent election people who were directly involved in carrying out the Anfal campaign?

Security:

"Sexual Violence and abduction of Women and girls in Baghdad" Human Rights Watch report, July, 2003

"The continuing high level of insecurity, first and foremost, has a negative impact on the lives of ordinary Iraqis, who cannot access basic services, especially safe drinking water and health care, and whose personal safety is endangered when they venture out of their homes to do simple things such as going shopping or to work, or taking children to school. One particularly negative effect of the fear of kidnap or assault has been the restriction of women's and girls' freedom of movement, which reduces their ability to participate in education and employment.Furthermore, a considerable number of families have not yet sent their children back to school because of similar threats at universities and schools. Iraqi Al-Amal Association, November, 2003

"The level of insecurity in the Centre and South of Iraq remains high. Violence escalated last week, particularly in the areas of Najaf, Kerbala, Nasiriya and Baghdad. The current campaign of insurgent violence is leading to significant civilian losses." Save the Children, March 6, 2004

"Every day Iraqis face threats to their lives and security. Violence is endemic, whether in the form of attacks by armed groups, abuses by the occupying forces, or violence against women. Millions of people have suffered the consequences of destroyed or looted infrastructure, mass unemployment and uncertainty about their future.
"A year after the war began, Iraqi civilians are still being killed every day.
"The lack of law and order continues to be a major concern in many areas of Iraq. AI delegates witnessed firsthand the devastating impact the lawlessness is having on the lives of ordinary Iraqis, whether it be looting, revenge killings, kidnappings or violent sexual crimes.
"In the aftermath of war, women and girls have increasingly faced violent attacks, including abduction, rape and murder, as a result of the breakdown of law and order. Many women were too afraid to leave their homes, and girls were being kept away from school. Women who have been victims of violence in the street or home have virtually no hope of obtaining justice.
"After a year of war, lawlessness, spiralling violence and economic hardship, Iraqis face an uncertain future. " Amnesty International, 18 March 2004

"More than a year after the occupation of Iraq, civilians are still being killed unlawfully every day by Coalition Forces, armed groups and individuals. In recent weeks hundreds of civilians have been killed as clashes between Coalition Forces and armed groups and individuals opposed to the occupation have intensified. In Falluja alone, at least 600 people, including many children, have been killed during clashes between Coalition Forces and insurgents.

In southern Iraq, dozens or possibly hundreds of civilians have been executed by armed groups and individuals since the start of the occupation. Killings often take place in the street in broad daylight. The violence is fuelled by the easy availability of small arms. Individuals, even the police, are reluctant to talk about these killings because they fear that speaking out will endanger their lives and those of their families. No one claims responsibility for these killings. The fact that the perpetrators are anonymous and the motivation often unclear only adds to people's sense of fear and insecurity. Iraqis appear to have no confidence that the British Army or the Iraqi police can protect them from such attacks or that the perpetrators will be held accountable before the law. It is therefore no surprise that in a recent poll conducted in Iraq by Oxford Research International, nearly 65 per cent of people interviewed said the restoration of public security in Iraq was their top priority." Amnesty International, May, 2004

"BAGHDAD, 30 Dec 2004 (IRIN) - Iraq's Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) has sent instructions to universities across the country to cancel mid-term exams for colleges they say are in dangerous locations due to insecurity and threats from insurgents.

"It doesn't look like things are getting better in the country," Dr Mustafa Karim, a teacher at the college of pharmacy at the university, told IRIN." IRIN, 30 December, 2004

Ian Gould,

Thanks for asking about the two corrupt Kurdish despots. I will try to gather my thoughts and information into something cohesive and reasonably articulate in the next few days. I doubt I will have time, though, to meet some people's very high socratic standards, and I hope I can be forgiven for that.

Electricity:
"Trotochaud said basic services such as electricity, telephones, clean running water and sanitation continue to be abysmal. She said if they are lucky, they have two hours of electricity a day in their Baghdad house.
" "After a week in a private home, I'm beginning to understand the frustration of Iraqi life: managing without electricity for 12 hours a day, as temperatures soar into the 100s; going without water because an electrical power surge fried the water pump; or purchasing perishables one day, only to throw them out the next for lack of refrigeration," Atlanta Journal Constitution, August 20, 2003

"It's getting worse, step by step," said Ahmed Khalid Hussein, chief engineer at the Salaam electric substation in north Baghdad, as another blackout engulfed the neighborhood in which he sat." Boston Globe, December 20, 2003
".according to calculations in a new General Accounting Office report released Tuesday..
"In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces. Knight Ridder, July 31, 2004
"The Situation Today: The Administration has only spent $1 billion out of over $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction in Iraq. Crime remains a principal concern in the daily lives of all Iraqis. Electric power availability is at only 60% of the occupation's target." "This Week," ABC, 9 Sept. 2004. Foreign Policy Leadership Coauncil

"Last week we had a total blackout lasting two days, before that we used to get 6 hours of 'scheduled' electricity, meaning one and a half hours of power for every four without. At the moment, it has slightly improved to two hours for every four totalling 8 hours a day with recent promises from the Minister of Electricity to increase the electricity hours to 12 per day very soon as a New Year gift for Iraqis. Jolly! The same minister who, just three weeks ago, advised Iraqi citizens, with a straight face, to go buy electric generators instead of relying on his ministry." Healing Iraq Blog, December 25, 2004

"On 12 January, Major General Thomas Bostwick of the US Army Corps of Engineers told reporters that Iraqi power plants now generate 3,500 -3,600 megawatts daily, much less than the 4,400 megawatts daily output immediately before the invasion. Electricity is often available for 12 hours or less a day in Baghdad and most of the country receives less than three hours supply." CAABU, January, 2005
" Electricity output is down about 20 percent from before the war and down a third from its high of a few months ago, despite more than $500 million in investment by the United States. For more than a month, the average Baghdad resident has been getting about one hour of electricity followed by 10 hours of blackout" Chicago Tribune, January 16, 2005
"Adding to their sense of desolation, Basra residents now receive electric power only four hours a day, the least in anyone's memory, before or after the American invasion." New York Times, January 19, 2005
"Last December [December, 2002], most homes in the Baghdad area received 20 hours of electricity a day, with a pair of two-hour planned outages. This winter, most Iraqis receive just eight hours a day, each two hours on followed by four hours off.
"Economists see little hope for big improvements in 2005: Overall, Iraq has less electricity each day than a year ago." The State.com, March 16, 2005

Shirin,

Thanks, you posted exactly what I predicted you would: anecdotal evidence. That's why I don't bother debating you.

I wonder if you're even aware of the main reason Baghdad gets less electricity now than in 2002. Hint: it has nothing to do with generation.

I did not say that a sample that excluded Kurds would be more representative of Iraq.

LOL another example of why it is a complete waste of time to try to debate you. If you didn't believe that, what was your point in saying Kurds should not be included in the ORI study of Iraq? Either it's more representative to include them and they should be included, or it isn't and they shouldn't. You made a nonsensical, illogical statement, and now you're defending it with more nonsensical, illogical statements. If there's a way to debate an unending stream of self-contradictory nonsense, I don't know what it is.

Here's a response stream of good news, just to point out how useless anecdotal evidence is.

Good news from Iraq, Part 26 [15,000 words (I'm not kidding) deleted. Next time, post a link. TL]

It is simply ironic to hear TallDave explain that he won't debate Shirin because he uses anecdotal evidence. I am not sure, but I don't think that word means what TallDave thinks it means.

Seems to me that what Shirin is doing is completely reasonable. You say that in the opinion of Iraqis, things are getting better. Shirin says that may very well be the opinion of Iraqis, but the problem in this case is the inclusion of an area that did not experience "shock and awe" and did not have but a couple of weeks of disruption, and the fact that objective evidence suggest that regardless of the opinion of Iraqis things are, in fact, not better.

You have yet to answer any of these points. Instead you seem to want to whine that you don't like Shirin evidence (without even an attempt to show the evidence is no good)and attempts to be mysterious, ie: "I wonder if you're even aware of the main reason Baghdad gets less electricity now than in 2002. Hint: it has nothing to do with generation."

Wow I am not sure what your point is here, but it seems a bit silly. Your hint is hardly a hint, and I am not sure how this helps your point. It may very well have nothing to do with generation, but if it does have something to do with infrastructural damage and lack of repair...

Here is an idea, why don't you tell us why. Then when you are done showing us why, in spite of Baghdad getting less electricity now, Iraqis are should be happy, why don't you spend some time answering Shirin's points instead of crying about how unfair he debates and using that as an excuse not to debate?

I mean, it's just an idea.

Baghdad received less power now than pre-invasion, in part, because the coalition is diverting power from Baghdad to other parts of the country.
The reasoning is that Baghdad was unfairly favored by Saddam and that this is soem sort of redistribuyive justice.
Unfortunately this reasoning ignores several points: such as that a much higher proportion of Baghdadis live in high-rise apartments that need lifts; airconditioning and electric pumps for water supply; major urban areas like Baghdad need electricity for refrigerated food storage and for water and seage services; Baghdad had a disproportionate amount of Iraq's industrial base and Baghdadis were more affluent than the average Iraqis and therefore owned more electrical appliances.
However if you look at the Brookings Institute Iraq Index you'll see that the total amount of power generated each month is indeed below pre-invasion levels.

Ah yesm, that good ol anecdotal evidence

"In 13 of Iraq's 18 provinces, electricity was available fewer hours per day on average last month than before the war. Nearly 20 million of Iraq's 26 million people live in those provinces. Knight Ridder, July 31, 2004

"The Situation Today: The Administration has only spent $1 billion out of over $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction in Iraq. Crime remains a principal concern in the daily lives of all Iraqis. Electric power availability is at only 60% of the occupation's target." "This Week," ABC, 9 Sept. 2004. Foreign Policy Leadership Coauncil"

I suggest that TallDave walk himself down to the rent a clue stand and buy a dictionary.

"The Administration has only spent $1 billion out of over $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction in Iraq."
Bas as that sounds the actual situation is worse - a recent article I read (I forget the source but can find it again if I really have to) reproted that up to 75% of the budget of many reconstruction programs is being spent on security.