In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Jan 13, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

I do not think you know anything about the technical or methodological
issues surrounding this issue.

He might not.... but then, neither do I. But the discussion is helping
some
of us to learn.

What'cha been learning from this discussion thus far?

I'd heard of the differing numbers in studies, but really hadn't ever looked
into them. Who was behind what, how they come up with the numbers, that sort
of thing. Although I'm not sure it really matters if it's 100,000 dead or
650,000. If it were a member of your own family that was dead, what
difference would it make if it were even just that one person? And if you're
detached enough that 100,000 doesn't bother you, how do you come up with a
number that would?

Well, it seems pretty straight forward to think that, for those who clamored for
the war, a smaller number of casualties is easier to defend than a big one. Of
course, some people who clamored for the war aren't all that concerned with any
number.