Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 16:15:09 -0400 From: "J. Colaco < jc>" <[email protected]>
response to the voice of reason on GoaNet aka Missao Zalem: Bringing Mario back to his favourite topic - The Lancet, Volume 364, Issue 9448, Pages 1857-1864 available at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673604174412/fulltext Mario observes: Having confirmed that he was unable to understand the difference between democratic elections in Goa "since 1961" and "in 1961 and in 1962" we now see Jose jump to another topic that he understands even less. He chooses to regale us with a link to an ancient report in Lancet DATED OCTOBER 29, 2004, titled, "Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey" The researchers who conducted this learned survey breathlessly report their findings that more people died after the invasion of Iraq than before. Brilliant. For example we learn, "The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6—4·2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period." Brilliant. And, "The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death." Brilliant. And, "Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children." Oh no! Those coalition forces were homicidal maniacs when compared to the Saddam regime, targeting the same women and children they had come to liberate! This research study would be equivalent to a serious research study telling us that the risk of death in Hiroshima and Nagasaki increased ten-thousand-fold or more after they were nuked when compared with the prenuking period, and that most of the deaths were due to the citizens being torn apart by bomb fragments and collapsing debris and incineration and nuclear radiation and not by myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders. Or, a research study telling us that women's waistlines increase during pregnancy when compared to before they got pregnant, and that the increase was "mainly attributed" to the sperm donor and the pregnancy and not due to over-eating. The brilliant researchers from Lancet do not tell us who exactly was attributing the violent deaths to "coalition forces", who were under strict orders to try and avoid civilian casualties and were prosecuted, tried and convicted if found to be targeting civilians. There were no such restrictions on Al Qaeda and the Sunni and Shia sectarian extremists who started attacking each other after the fall of the Saddam regime instead of joining forces to rebuild the country having been freed from brutal dictatorial oppression by the previous regime. The researchers also insinuate that coalition forces were targeting women and children, which tells us more about the personal anti-liberation political bias of the researchers than it does about the facts. Finally, deep within the report, we see the following disclaimer, "Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes." Indeed. Somehow, no one told the brilliant and perspicacious researchers from Lancet that the coalition forces were actually engaged in trying to stop the violence that erupted after the fall of the Saddam regime. I hope their "further verification" ascertained that, but I'm not holding my breath. Finally, someone needs to inform Jose that those anti-liberation insurgents he sympathized with were unable to prevent Iraq from becoming a free and democratic republic, now engaged in solidifing their nascent democracy.
