655,000 Iraqis dead due to US invasion!

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by whitecity, Oct 11, 2006.

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. Horrid statistic if accurate...

     
  2. So the Iraq War hasn't been a complete waste of ordnance then... :twisted:
     
  3. I think that a better representation is that of Iraq Body Count who actually list the dead and their sources.

    And they claim 48693 deaths - just a slight difference isn't there
     
  4. Should that figure be ten times higher than the US or UK govt will admit?

    There'll be some spin coming out to counter this one - how's Phoney Tony going to explain this one away then?
     
  5. "That might have been alive if not for the US invasion"

    What a load of pants!

    I propose 800,000 might have been killed by saddam if his breakfast was served cold ffs.

    What a f**king non-story, does it include cancer sufferers who may have had there desease cured if someone in saddams government had discovered a cure.
     
  6. 655,000 Iraqis dead due to US invasion!

    You're point being? :twisted:
     
  7. Crikey - some cancer rates!!!

    "The research compares mortality rates before and after the invasion from
    The estimated death toll is equal to about 2.5% of Iraq's population, and averages out at more than 500 additional deaths a day since the start of the invasion." If these figures are accurate then they are certainly thought provoking.
     
  8. I think you find that the Epidemological methods are sound and widely used WHO, CDC, HPA etc etc... I have not read the fine print of the article, but if they are correct in there assertions we should start to affect the Iraqi National Health Stats decline....i.e. Population Growth (although this is affected by migration) and more tellingly Life expectancy, if that has declined or is starting to decline then to an extent the these stats will be corborated.

    The sad fact is:

    We choose to invade.
    The security situation is not good.
    Clan, Tribal, Ethnic killings and a continued attacks against Civ Pop, ISF and MNF continue at very high rate.

    The numbers maybe on the highside but the Body Count Numbers are on the low side so pick a number between the two and you might just get it correct!
     
  9. How many were Islamic blue on blue?
     
  10. Sounds a bit like dodgy statistics to me. The actual number of deaths recorded in the survey was 629. To extrapolate this over the entire country and come up with 600,000+ deaths is a bit far fetched.

    It's a bit like saying 'We selected half a dozen random households in the Falls Road in Belfast. 99% supported the IRA. We therefore conclude that there is near universal support for the IRA in Northern Ireland.'
     
  11. psssst.......wanna korean dictionary? glows in the dark.
     
  12. You cannot ignore this.

    These chaps are a recognised research institution, they followed a scientific methodology to make an estimate and the results published following peer review.

    They didn't pick a "random selection along the Falls Road. If you bothered to read the survey report you would find that they selected the locations using random GPS locations and picking the nearest locality to it. The study includes estimates of the likelyhood that ALL of these were conflict hotspots. They also ignored the result from Fallujah in their 2004 report.

    Iraq Body Copunt is flawed because the press reports may not cover all deaths - particularly where there is most disorder.

    The families had death certificats for 80% of the dead -and there is a susspicion that the figure may be under reported if an entire family is killed.

    If this scientific report is wildly out and can be safely ignored, then why bother with any medical research at all?
     
  13. Seconded: ask yourself this "By what factor would the authors have to over-estimate deaths in Iraq, in order to arrive at a figure of 'actual' deaths that I could 'safely' ignore?".

    Even if you chop their estimates by 2/3 - it's still appalling.
    [align=center] :x :x :x [/align]
     
  14. My Bold
     
  15. The report is still a bit dodgy. It's kind of strange logic to say coalition troops are responsible for terror attacks committed against the civilian population by insurgents. It also doesn't take into account insurgents attacking workers when they're building or renovating hospitals, water treatment facilities, and other developement projects. Those things are also under-reported. Both good things and bad things are being ignored, and are being boiled down to statistical analysis and number crunching. Things are alot more complicated. Almost every report/survey of the situation has had some bias (pro or anti)