Mr.Blairs interview on radio Echo of Moscow

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Jun 11, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.echo.msk.ru/interview/36918/q.html

    It will be 13 June. What would be the most interesting question to him?

    I invite everybody to ask own questions or/and elaborate one common question and repeat it many times. No doubt that in this case it would be sounded during the interview.
     
  2. Ask him why he's eliminating all the Scottish Regiments :lol:
     
  3. Good question, especially taking into account his 'Scottish team'.
     
  4. Sorry one addition. On mentioned page

    http://www.echo.msk.ru/interview/36918/q.html

    there are questions to mr.Blair also in English including this

     
  5. "P.M. Blair, a year ago the eminent British medical journal "Lancet" estimated Iraqi non-combatant casualties attributable to the invasion at around one hundred thousand. Do you challenge the accuracy of that estimate and if so, on what grounds?

    "About those Iraqi missiles, the ones that could be prepared for a strike against the United Kingdom in 45 minutes. Where are they?"
     
  6. I'll challenge the Lancet study right here: the statistical result was 98,000 (95%, 8,000-196,000). This means that they were 95% sure (which is not that great in epidemiology) that the number of casualties lies between 8,000 and 196,000. This is clearly unmitigated cr@p.
     
  7. Stoatman wrote:

    I'll challenge the Lancet study right here: the statistical result was 98,000 (95%, 8,000-196,000). This means that they were 95% sure (which is not that great in epidemiology) that the number of casualties lies between 8,000 and 196,000. This is clearly unmitigated cr@p.

    The Lancet article is, alas, widely being quoted as gospel. Until I read Stoatman's post I took its reliability for granted.

    How did something like this make it into a peer-reviewed journal?
     
  8. Politics, my good man - a lot of formerly reputable journals have been politicised recently and are getting increasingly tabloid in their shock horror headlines. If the peer-reviewers have the same agenda as the author, the cr@p gets posted. A lot of research on anthropogenic global warming gets peer-reviewed and published because it generates headlines, publicity, and more importantly, government funding. Studies contradicting the theory of anthropogenic global warming don't make it into the journals, since they're "off-message" & don't generate funding. Then, people do literature reviews & claim that the scientific consensus says such-and-such, which of course it would be.