Study: 655,000 Iraqis die because of war

[Tr0n]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_death_toll

NEW YORK - A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."

In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer.

 

[Raziaar]

No doubt the number is high... but over half a million seems a little too high.

 

[Tr0n]

Read the whole article.

 

[Absinthe]

See, my strategy was to win them over with cake and pie.

 

[gick]

Hmmm, I'm sceptical of this. I'm not expert on statistics and data gathering, but relying on a house to house survey seem kinda dubious. People will lie, body counts and morgue reports will not.

In fact, I'm almost certain that this is bullshit.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

It's not really too much of a leap to go from the unofficial (and probably incomplete) body count of around 100 000 to this estimate of 600 000.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Politics, politics, politics...ugh. I am so sick of it!

Sad though for all those who are accurately represented somewhere in the death toll.

 

[Rupertvdb]

it isn't going away

 

[CptStern]

if the respected medical journal the Lancet came up with a (conservative) figure of 100 k with a potential of upwards of 200 k in a single year (2004) it stands to reason that a figure of 600k could be reached in an additional 2 years (on the high end) ..a few other studies whose numbers vary somewhat but the conclusion is the same: a shitload of iraqis are dying:

Most disturbing and certain about the results, is that over 80 percent of violent deaths were caused by U.S. forces and that most of the people they killed were women and children. None of the deaths we recorded involved intentional wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers, instead being mostly from artillery and aerial weaponry. When I presented these results to about thirty Pentagon employees last fall, one came up to me afterwards and said, "We have dropped about 50,000 bombs, mostly on insurgents hiding behind civilians. What the [expletive] did you think was going to happen?"

but this is very interesting:

Our survey team's [Lancet] 100,000 death estimate for the first 18 months after the U.S. led-invasion equates to about 101 coalition-attributed violent deaths per day


A report in the New England Journal of Medicine in July 2004, based on interviews with returning U.S. soldiers, suggests an unintentional non-combatant death toll of 133 deaths per day.

A survey led by a group in Norway (see report at www.fafo.no) estimated 56 violent deaths per day over the first year of occupation but the authors speculate that the estimate is low.

A widely cited survey by the People's Kifah (an Iraqi political group) estimated 152 violent deaths per day over the first seven months of occupation, but proper documentation of the supposed door-to-door record has not be obtained.

http://www.alternet.org/story/31508/

those were mostly caused by Coalition forces (bombing/artillery) ..so if you take into account violence from terrorism/break down in law and order the figure could easily reach to the hundreds of thousands ..the bagdhad morgue alone accounts for about 30,000 bodies a year ..and they estimate only 10% of casualties actually make it to the morgue


I'm reserving judgement till all facts have come in but that's not likely for at least another decade (as was the case with desert storm) but I have no problem believing the casualty figures are well above the 300k mark

 

[PvtRyan]

This study, Stern, shows that only 31 percent has died because of coalition forces. Most Iraqi's have been killed by Iraqi's.

I still think it's weird how there was a whole outrage when Clinton got his cock sucked and people saying he should resign, but Bush and many other politicians lied about a war that killed half a million, and I really don't hear shit about it?

 

[CptStern]

100% of casualties in iraq have been caused by the Coalition ..they're responsible for every last death in iraq either directly or indirectly ..the US lied their way into iraq and because of that over 300,000 iraqis have lost their lives

without this (bush announcing invasion) there is no this

 

[VictimOfScience]

True.

And without this there would be no this (though it goes much farther back some might say).

 

[PvtRyan]

100% of casualties in iraq have been caused by the Coalition ..they're responsible for every last death in iraq either directly or indirectly ..the US lied their way into iraq and because of that over 300,000 iraqis have lost their lives

without this (bush announcing invasion) there is no this

Well, then don't quote something that says "80 percent have died because of direct result of American fire".

 

[CptStern]

how does this current report refute the Lancet's report? they found that 80% of the casualties in their study were caused by coalition forces ..dispute their findings if you must but the yahoo article does nothing to refute the lancet claim

 

[PvtRyan]

It does, when it says that only 31 percent of casualties were directly inflicted by coalition troops.

 

[CptStern]

it's from the same source: they're both from the Lancet ..obviously their numbers have fluctuated since 2004. This study does nothing to refute the original study because at the time the figure was 80% ...btw where are you getting the 31% figure from?

True.

And without this there would be no this (though it goes much farther back some might say).

that's a bit of stretch dont you think? even if by some chance circumstance (6 degrees of seperation? I'm not seeing the link) you came to that conclusion it's still not a direct link ..my statement directly ties the bush admins lies with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of iraqis

 

[PvtRyan]

it's from the same source: they're both from the Lancet ..obviously their numbers have fluctuated since 2004. This study does nothing to refute the original study because at the time the figure was 80% ...btw where are you getting the 31% figure from?

Well, I got it from a Dutch source. But I see it on CNN.com too and probably most other newssites.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/index.html

 

[CptStern]

both studies are by the Lancet: one does not refute the other..in the original lancet study they concluded that the majority killed up to that point were killed by coalition bombing whereas this current study says that the majority were killed by:

gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions

obviously things have changed in 2 years

 

[gick]

that's a bit of stretch dont you think? even if by some chance circumstance (6 degrees of seperation? I'm not seeing the link) you came to that conclusion it's still not a direct link ..my statement directly ties the bush admins lies with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of iraqis

WWII (specifically the holocaust) led to the creation of the state of Israel (yes, I know lots of Jews were trying to get it established beforehand, but the Holocaust was what got the rest of the world on side), and the US support for Israel is one of the main motives for OBL and his ilk.

 

[Solaris]

My god that is horrible.
Why are we letting our leaders getting away with this?

 

[SAJ]

Sources of violence : (totals, mar 03-jun 06)

Violent, coalition - 31%
Violent, other - 24%
Violent, unknown -45%
(from table 2 of the report)


So, yes It can be said that the coalition directly caused 31% of the violent deaths, but that doesnt take into account the 45% of deaths that cant be accurately attributed to any party/agency.
Bearing in mind also that the 24% of deaths attributed to "violent, other" includes government agencies and criminal acts, not neccesarily just "insurgent" activity or sectarian violence.

I felt that the figures from the last estimate (lancet) were low, but nothing prepared me for this.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

My god that is horrible.
Why are we letting our leaders getting away with this?

Don't be confused by alarmist rhetoric. The thing that needs to be considered now is how low the blame game has run. Ultimately, if I choose to shoot my neighbors dog, is'int it my choice? Is'int it my responsibility, not my countries?

Soldiers - Insurgents - Leaders; yes, blame them.

But, be careful in which how you blame them. Specifically, if I murder someone wether I was invading their home or if they were invading mine, it still matters that I murdered them under the possible two circumstances given. That still makes me a murderer.

 

[Solaris]

Don't be confused by alarmist rhetoric. The thing that needs to be considered now is how low the blame game has run. Ultimately, if I choose to shoot my neighbors dog, is'int it my choice? Is'int it my responsibility, not my countries?

Soldiers - Insurgents - Leaders; yes, blame them.

But, be careful in which how you blame them. Specifically, if I murder someone whether I was invading their home or if they were invading mine, it still matters that I murdered them under the possible two circumstances given. That still makes me a murderer.

Dear sir/madam,

You are correct in stating that if you shot your neighbours dog it would be your choice. Assuming of course that the act was unprovoked and you did it of your own free will. However, I do not believe that you shooting your neighbours dog, unprovoked and of your own accord is a correct analogy to represent the current situation in Iraq; it is grossly over simplified and suggests that Soldiers/Insurgents shoot people with no reasoning behind their acts. Also, your country does not order you to shoot dogs, these soldiers and quite often pilots and artillery units are ordered to bomb targets, that whether they know of it or not, contain civilians, often women or children. The consequences for these soldiers if they choose not to do as they were told, can be execution.

Surely, the responsibility for the killing of Iraqi civilians can not solely lie on the shoulders of the individual soldiers themselves. I would hold that those who order them to do such acts, and show such negligence to the fact that the targets, at the very least may contain civilians hold a lot of the responsibility.

The only defense the Bush administration could have, to defend it self from the hostility thrown at it now that we know the impact the Iraq invasion and occupation has had on the civilian death toll, would be that they were unaware, perhaps naive of the resistance and collateral damage that would occur. Surely they are still responsible for their mistakes, especially when the stakes are so high.

Yours ect.
Solaris

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Wow, that was ... quite soundly a beating. :thumbs:

 

[Krynn72]

Hmmm, I'm sceptical of this. I'm not expert on statistics and data gathering, but relying on a house to house survey seem kinda dubious. People will lie, body counts and morgue reports will not.

In fact, I'm almost certain that this is bullshit.

*knock knock*
"yes?"
"Hi, Im doing a survey on the death toll of the war here. Can I ask you how many people you know have died so far?"
"Jeez, I know like a thousand people, lets see... there was..."
"A thousand people you say? Interesting."
*writes down number and walks to next house*

 

[gick]

Yeah, thats pretty much the point I was trying to make. It just seems to be a very unreliable way of gathering evidence, particularly on such an emotive subject.

 

[CptStern]

it's the same method they used to determine deaths from aids in rwanda ...the lancet is a respected medical institution ..they dont just make arbitrary guesses ..read their methodology ..it's based on field reports by medical professionals from the UK and Iraq

 

[0mar]

*knock knock*
"yes?"
"Hi, Im doing a survey on the death toll of the war here. Can I ask you how many people you know have died so far?"
"Jeez, I know like a thousand people, lets see... there was..."
"A thousand people you say? Interesting."
*writes down number and walks to next house*

It was a bit more complicated than that

Their methodology was used for several other disasters as well and no one seems to question those numbers.

 

[SAJ]

*knock knock*
"yes?"
"Hi, Im doing a survey on the death toll of the war here. Can I ask you how many people you know have died so far?"
"Jeez, I know like a thousand people, lets see... there was..."
"A thousand people you say? Interesting."
*writes down number and walks to next house*

we're talking about Iraq here, not Florida's election results.


Anyway,here's some more info on the study's scientific validity.......

The controversial results of the first survey were backed by Bradley Woodruff, a medical epidemiologist at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who was quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Education on January 27, 2005: "Les [Les Roberts, co-author of the first survey] has used, and consistently uses, the best possible methodology ... Indeed, the United Nations and the State Department have cited mortality numbers compiled by Mr. Roberts on previous conflicts as fact - and have acted on those results. [He] has studied mortality caused by war since 1992, having done surveys in locations including Bosnia, Congo, and Rwanda. His three surveys in Congo for the International Rescue Committee, a nongovernmental humanitarian organization, in which he used methods akin to those of his Iraq study, received a great deal of attention. 'Tony Blair and Colin Powell have quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity,' he added."

Further underscoring the validity and authenticity of the survey methodology are two important facts: first, that the leg work has been conducted by eight Iraqi doctors and second, that the recent survey came up with the same estimate for immediate post-invasion deaths as the previous survey. Additionally, the figures are backed by official evidence as the greater majority of deaths were substantiated by death certificates.

Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention for several years, said that the survey method is "tried and true," and that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have." His view was backed by Sarah Leah Whitson at the Human Rights Watch in New York, who testified, "We have no reason to question the findings or the accuracy."

Here it is worth recording that the survey's estimate of Iraq's pre-invasion death rate, which was used as the baseline of the survey, was roughly the same as the one used by both the CIA and the US Census Bureau.

Source

 

[gick]

Jeez, maybe he is right about the numbers.

;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;( ;(