655,000 Iraqis dead due to US invasion!

#1
Horrid statistic if accurate...

BBC said:
'Huge rise' in Iraqi death tolls

An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university.

The research compares mortality rates before and after the invasion from 47 randomly chosen areas in Iraq.

The figure is considerably higher than estimates by official sources or the number of deaths reported in the media.

Full text here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm
 
#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.
 
#7
mark1234 said:
"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.
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
mark1234 said:
"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.
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!
 
#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.'
 
#12
Ancient_Mariner said:
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.'
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
Pteranadon said:
You cannot ignore this.
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
merkator said:
Horrid statistic if accurate...

BBC said:
'Huge rise' in Iraqi death tolls

An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for THE DIRTY CHOGGI BARSTOOLS WHO ARE RIPPING THEIR OWN COUNTRY APART TRYING TO START A CIVIL WAR, according to a survey by a US university.

The research compares mortality rates before and after the invasion from 47 randomly chosen areas in Iraq.

The figure is considerably higher than estimates by official sources or the number of deaths reported in the media.

Full text here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm
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)
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#16
There's no point going into great arguments about this - people's opinions are already far too polarised for that. you either choose to beleive that, on average, over 500 people a day have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion, or you do not.

I do not. Even at the height of the sectarian killings, after the Golden Mosque bombing, there was nothing like 500 deaths a day. To say that this is an average over the whole period is utter nonsense.

That's the wonderful thing about 'statistics'. They can mean absolutely anything that a statistician wants them to.

Saddam was an extremely evil and vile despot. He supported terror (Abu Nidal, for example), invaded Iran, invaded Kuwait, massacred thousands of Shi'a (and there is actual mass proof of that - not like this study) and tens of thousands of Kurds (likewise, they've dug up thousands of the bodies). Anyone who says that the war to remove him was not justified is working on a very odd moral compass indeed, and the fact that his removal did not result in universal peace and love is not the point.

Those who are jealous of, and detest, America, will continue to do so, using this new study as a vehicle to do so. Perhaps they should consider what else could have been done to stop Saddam, and his regime, if not the invasion.

Most of Iraq is far, far better off now than it was. Fact.
 
#17
OldSnowy said:
There's no point going into great arguments about this - people's opinions are already far too polarised for that. you either choose to beleive that, on average, over 500 people a day have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion, or you do not.

I do not. Even at the height of the sectarian killings, after the Golden Mosque bombing, there was nothing like 500 deaths a day. To say that this is an average over the whole period is utter nonsense.

That's the wonderful thing about 'statistics'. They can mean absolutely anything that a statistician wants them to.

Saddam was an extremely evil and vile despot. He supported terror (Abu Nidal, for example), invaded Iran, invaded Kuwait, massacred thousands of Shi'a (and there is actual mass proof of that - not like this study) and tens of thousands of Kurds (likewise, they've dug up thousands of the bodies). Anyone who says that the war to remove him was not justified is working on a very odd moral compass indeed, and the fact that his removal did not result in universal peace and love is not the point.

Those who are jealous of, and detest, America, will continue to do so, using this new study as a vehicle to do so. Perhaps they should consider what else could have been done to stop Saddam, and his regime, if not the invasion.

Most of Iraq is far, far better off now than it was. Fact.
I can agree with a lot of what you said. However, while most of Iraq is better off and peaceful, the intense violence in central Iraq needs to be addressed. We have a vicious, albeit concentrated violence, and pretending it isn't there won't stop it. Just as pretending Saddam was not a genocidal and sadistic madman doesn't bring back the slaughtered Shia and Kurds. Just like pretending the Taliban is gone doesn't make them go away.
 
#18
Chief_Joseph:

So, what is your 'master' plan for solving the problems that you mention in your post?
 
#19
OldSnowy said:
Saddam was an extremely evil and vile despot. He supported terror (Abu Nidal, for example), invaded Iran, invaded Kuwait, massacred thousands of Shi'a (and there is actual mass proof of that - not like this study) and tens of thousands of Kurds (likewise, they've dug up thousands of the bodies). Anyone who says that the war to remove him was not justified is working on a very odd moral compass indeed, and the fact that his removal did not result in universal peace and love is not the point.
It is the point, if your not improving the situation for the Iraqi people I fail to see the point at all.

OldSnowy said:
Those who are jealous of, and detest, America, will continue to do so, using this new study as a vehicle to do so. Perhaps they should consider what else could have been done to stop Saddam, and his regime, if not the invasion.
Why Iraq? Whats so special about Iraq?

Why not China, DPRNK, Zimbabwe, Sudan.....etc?

All these countries murder/oppress their populations as they see fit with nothing more than words from the UN as censure....whats the difference?

I know what the difference is, you know what the difference is, just say its the Oil and be honest.

Its the bullsiht I can't stand, just be honest.....
 
#20
Chief_Joseph said:
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 a lot more complicated. Almost every report/survey of the situation has had some bias (pro or anti)
I don't think that is what it says. It is more like:

Terror attacks against the civilian population - some of which are committed by ethno-religiously motivated individuals, others by insurgents opposed to foreign troops in Iraq - are part of a wider pattern of violence - some of it by Coalition troops and private military contractors - which is increasing in frequency and killing increasing numbers of non-combatants.

These things did not happen with this degree of frequency before the US-led invasion.


It's not nice - but it looks methodologically sound.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top