Estimated 655,000 dead in Iraq

[freethefly 6]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html?nav=rss_world/mideast

I wonder how Bush and his group of warmongers sleep, knowing what they are responsible for? How in the world is this making the world a safer place? So, they killed a few terrorist but at what cost? No wonder why the Iraqi people dispise the U.S..
At this rate the death toll will soon top over 1 million. How many more "terrorist" has this created. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice should all stand trial for what can only be compared to the worst crimes against humanity. I for one am ashamed at what our government has done (invaded a country that poised no threat) and not done (captured Bin Laden who does poise a threat, and dealt with the number one threat from the beginning - N. Korea whom I said nearly 3 years ago IS the biggest threat, someone said I was crazy to think that!)

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[DZJ 0]

That number seems excessive to me. A figure like that seems more on par with years of industrialised total war, rather a few years of terrorism and counter-insurgency.

Given that the same group published a controversial estimate of 100,000 as early as 2004, part of me suspects they're deliberately proposing contentious numbers. I find myself questioning their motives.

[NCclimber 0]

This same research group released/published another study in October 2004 - just before the election. It claimed the number of "additional" deaths in the first 18 months after the invasion was 100,000. Oddly, that study was pretty much ignored by the media. With the number a Bush detractors out there, I couldn't help but wonder why that earlier study didn't get more coverage.

Now, the same group has produced another study, claiming the number of "additional" deaths, since the US invasion, is over 655,000.

Assuming both studies are correct, it looks like there were an additional 555,000 deaths (655,000-100,000=555,000) in the last two years. Another way to look at these two studies, in the first 18 months in Iraq, additional deaths averaged 67,000 per year. Since then, the rate has more than quadrupled.

Iraq Body Count has approximately 24,000 deaths in the same period. This new study is 23 times higher.

I'd be interested in hearing a reasonable explanation for these discrepancies.

[Butters 0]

If there is a bully at a school and I remove the bully from the school, am I responsible for everyone fighting because there is no bully?

Did the government kill these people or did these people kill each other? These people did not like each other before we became involved and now don't like us because we became involved.

PS: I find it hard to believe that ~2.5% of the Iraq population has been killed. Do you have any more sources to corroborate the statistics?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[NCclimber 0]

That kind of rationale further supports the position that we never should have invaded, in the first place.

Kinda shoots that whole "Spreading Democracy" premise in the foot.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Did the government kill these people or did these people kill eachother?

The invasion set this in action. Had Bush not invaded, these deaths would not occured. Regardless what Saddam was he would not had allowed his country to fall the way the Bush admin and the current government(?) has. Whether the numbers are correct or not the death rate is far above what it would had been had Bush not waged an illegal war on the Iraqi people. I can only imagine that the North Korean people are hoping that Bush has no plans to "liberate" them.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Butters 0]

Quote

That kind of rationale further supports the position that we never should have invaded, in the first place.

Kinda shoots that whole "Spreading Democracy" premise in the foot.

I wasn't using rationale. I was looking for rationale.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[kallend 1,654]

Quote

If there is a bully at a school and I remove the bully from the school, am I responsible for everyone fighting because there is no bully?

Did the government kill these people or did these people kill each other? If you study your history you will realize these people did not like each other before we became involved and now don't like us because we became involved.

PS: I find it hard to believe that ~2.5% of the Iraq population has been killed. Do you have any more sources to corroborate the statistics?

If we interfere in the internal affairs of another nation and that interference leads to disaster, then YES, we are responsible.

That appears to tbe the case in Iraq, and our motives for going there were not pure.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Butters 0]

If our government was corrupt, another country removed our government because we could not, and we began killing each other then is it the fault of the country that removed our corrupt government or the fault of us?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[kallend 1,654]

Quote

If our government was corrupt, another country removed our government because we could not, and we began killing each other then is it the fault of the country that removed our corrupt government or the fault of us?

I agree that the number of fatalities is partially due to the fact that our government overthrew their government causing a state of chaos. However, I can not fully blame our government when it is their people doing so much of the killing.

Our government IS corrupt. How would you feel if Mexico invaded to fix it for us?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Butters 0]

Can you name a government that is not corrupt? What are you doing about it? Are you moving, are you running for government, are you ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rasmack 0]

Quote

PS: I find it hard to believe that ~2.5% of the Iraq population has been killed. Do you have any more sources to corroborate the statistics?

How about the original Lancet study? The pdf is too large for me to upload due to the 100k limit. The Lancet is considered a high-impact journal (think World Series) within clinical medicine and even though the researchers probably have a political standpoint of some sort you probably will not be able to pinpoint major errors in their methodology. In other words: If anyone wants to shout "political bias", they'd better be prepared to back it up.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[Butters 0]

I appreciate you giving another source. However, after reading the article it is apparent that the statistics can not be proven to be accurate any more than the other statistics presented by other parties.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[billvon 2,444]

>Iraq Body Count has approximately 24,000 deaths in the same period.

Iraq Body Count only uses deaths confirmed by at least 2 independent sources. Most deaths in Iraq are not reported at all, much less by 2 independent sources. In addition, Iraq Body Count confines itself to civilian deaths, and ignores insurgent, US troop and Iraq troop deaths.

[billvon 2,444]

>If there is a bully at a school and I remove the bully from the school,
>am I responsible for everyone fighting because there is no bully?

If you claim you are removing the bully to stop the fighting - then yes, you are responsible for your plan failing. Especially if you start 33% of the fights, and make it clear that you're going to keep starting fights - and you use the same tactics the bully used.

>Did the government kill these people or did these people kill each other?

We killed about a third, the government of Iraq killed some percentage (via death squads) insurgents killed the rest.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

>Iraq Body Count has approximately 24,000 deaths in the same period.

Iraq Body Count only uses deaths confirmed by at least 2 independent sources. Most deaths in Iraq are not reported at all, much less by 2 independent sources. In addition, Iraq Body Count confines itself to civilian deaths, and ignores insurgent, US troop and Iraq troop deaths.

From the article above:

Quote

The great majority of deaths were also substantiated by death certificates.

So Iraq Body Count misses over 95% of the deaths because they can't get that second source. For the sake of argument, let's say soldier deaths (US, Iraqi & insurgent) are 20,000. If you add those to the Iraq Body Count numbers, we're still around 10% of this new estimate.

Do you really think nine out of ten deaths, specifically those linked to US intervention, go unnoticed... unreported?

[billvon 2,444]

>Do you really think nine out of ten deaths, specifically those linked to US
>intervention, go unnoticed... unreported?

In Baghdad, dozens of bodies show up every day, tortured and shot in the head. Those are only the ones that the torturers were unable to hide. They find lots of bodies (and body parts) floating in the river downstream of Baghdad. If you find 50 bodies snagged by the side of the river one day, how many didn't get snagged, and are on their way out to sea?

Also, deaths in Baghdad get reported often. Fallujah and Ramadi, less so. Small towns? I'd be suprised if many deaths there get reported at all, especially when reporting the death to a secterian police squad could be fatal if you are of the wrong sect.

Now, note that those deaths do not go UNNOTICED; they just go unreported. The people who notice them are the same people that are talking to Iraqi doctors, who generated much of the data for this report.

BTW the people who notice them are also leaving in record numbers. Hundreds of thousands are fleeing the country to avoid getting caught up in the escalating violence.

[kallend 1,654]

Quote

>Do you really think nine out of ten deaths, specifically those linked to US
>intervention, go unnoticed... unreported?

In Baghdad, dozens of bodies show up every day, tortured and shot in the head. Those are only the ones that the torturers were unable to hide. They find lots of bodies (and body parts) floating in the river downstream of Baghdad. If you find 50 bodies snagged by the side of the river one day, how many didn't get snagged, and are on their way out to sea?

Also, deaths in Baghdad get reported often. Fallujah and Ramadi, less so. Small towns? I'd be suprised if many deaths there get reported at all, especially when reporting the death to a secterian police squad could be fatal if you are of the wrong sect.

Now, note that those deaths do not go UNNOTICED; they just go unreported. The people who notice them are the same people that are talking to Iraqi doctors, who generated much of the data for this report.

BTW the people who notice them are also leaving in record numbers. Hundreds of thousands are fleeing the country to avoid getting caught up in the escalating violence.

Today's Baghdad count :

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

What's your point?

That there's a lot of on going violence in Iraq?

[shropshire 0]

Does it actually matter what the real number is?

No matter what the true value.... it's Too High and has no doubt caused untold pain to the friends and families of any of them... Shame on us.


.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 2,444]

>What's your point?

You seemed suprised that the apparent death rate has quadrupled. Scores of bodies showing up on the streets every day in Baghdad certainly suggests that the death rate has gone up a lot.

[billvon 2,444]

>Shame on us.

A quote from Bush today indicates we should be saying "shame on them" -

"I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to — you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate."

So it's Iraqis tolerating the violence that allows it to continue. They're the reason there's so much violence! (Well, them and the democrats.)

[shropshire 0]

What a astute fellow you have there.

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 1,654]

Quote

What's your point?

That there's a lot of on going violence in Iraq?

My point? Public service.

It's relevant to the discussion, more important than the Foley affair, and if no-one keeps reminding us of the misery Bush's war is causing EVERY DAY, someone will come on here and tell us how much we have improved the lot of the Iraqis.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

What's your point?

That there's a lot of on going violence in Iraq?

My point? Public service.

Well, heck fire.

Here's my bit of public service for today:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aatZlsRzu6fw&refer=home