America has now killed more Iraqi civilians than Saddam

Kytro · 10-11-2006, 02:26 AM

Iraqi Death Toll Exceeds 600,000, Study Estimates - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON -- A new study asserts that roughly 600,000 Iraqis have died from violence since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, a figure many times higher than any previous estimate.

The study, to be published Saturday in the British medical journal the Lancet, was conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health by sending teams of Iraqi doctors across Iraq from May through July. The findings are sure to draw fire from skeptics and could color the debate over the war ahead of congressional elections next month.

The Defense Department until 2004 eschewed any effort to compute the number of Iraqi dead but this summer released a study putting the civilian casualty rate between May and August at 117 people a day. Other tabulations using different methodologies put the range of total civilian fatalities so far from about 50,000 to more than 150,000. President Bush in December said "30,000, more or less" had died in Iraq during the invasion and in the violence since.

Well, damn. That really sucks, it virtually kills the reasoning "to free the Iraqis"

Diamond Cross · 10-11-2006, 03:18 AM

Sorry, but Saddam's killed an estimated two million civillians.

Kytro · 10-11-2006, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Sorry, but Saddam's killed an estimated two million civillians.

I was going from the quote in the article:

Human Rights Watch has estimated Saddam Hussein's regime killed 250,000 to 290,000 people over 20 years.

If the US managed in a few years to kill more than Saddam did in 20. It's the same net effect.

mididoctors · 10-11-2006, 03:57 AM

thats a huge number on a population base in just 3 years..

if that was the USA the figure would be 6 million.. which is about half the rate the soviet lost people in ww2...

I suspect that source is not correct.. though associated deaths due to the war is probably bloody high.

also who killed who is debatable

Saddam is also responsible for starting a war which killed > 500,000 people

Hitler is seen as responsible for WW2 so why not Saddam...

OTOH Saddam was encouraged by the USA in the Iran-Iraq war so that one may boomerang.

overall such number comparisons are not overly useful when they all fall in the same order of magnitude by virtue of rate...

the thing that stands out is the situation is far worse that it should be irrespective of who is killing who... and in that sense the US is responsible

Boris
London

smokie700 · 10-11-2006, 05:40 AM

So now america is the cause of every death in Iraq? I guess when the terrorists or insurgents kill people the death is chalked up to America.

Kytro · 10-11-2006, 06:01 AM

The Lancet study, funded largely by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies, said while the percentage of deaths attributed to the U.S.-led coalition has decreased over the past year, coalition forces were involved in 31% of all violent deaths since March 2003. Most of the deaths in Iraq, particularly in the past two years, have been caused by insurgent, terrorist and sectarian violence.

31% of 600,000= 186,000

In just 3 years. Without the invasion the remaining number would have been significantly lower.

How can anyone still claim they are "better off".

7th Ninjai · 10-11-2006, 06:36 AM

We have created the conditions in Baghdad where 100 people are dying in violence per day. They are having the same death toll we experienced with 9/11 monthly and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. It's shameful what we've done.

kinggovernor · 10-11-2006, 07:06 AM

iraqi doctors are not the best source of information

Kytro · 10-11-2006, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

iraqi doctors are not the best source of information

Even if they are out by 50%, it would still be "worse" conditions brought about by the invasion.

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 07:40 AM

The US probably also killed more Japanese than did the Japanese regime. So what's the point?

Scrum · 10-11-2006, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The US probably also killed more Japanese than did the Japanese regime. So what's the point?

We didn't invade Japan.
We didn't go to war with them and use the "their leaders were slaughtering the people" excuse after our first reason was proven wrong.
Japan actually attacked us.
Comparing WWII to the clusterfuck in Iraq is reprehensible.

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

We didn't invade Japan.

We didn't go to war with them and use the "their leaders were slaughtering the people" excuse after our first reason was proven wrong.

Japan actually attacked us.

Comparing WWII to the clusterfuck in Iraq is reprehensible.

The specifics are irrelevant. The main similarity is that we are at war, and war is hell. To count bodies or deaths causes by either side is ridiculous when at war. It matters not.

Scrum · 10-11-2006, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The specifics are irrelevant......

Specifics like "should we attack them?" and "did they attack us?" don't matter right?

So can we stop talking about 9/11 now? They were at war with us after all and talking about bodies and deaths caused is ridiculous, right?

mididoctors · 10-11-2006, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The specifics are irrelevant. The main similarity is that we are at war, and war is hell. To count bodies or deaths causes by either side is ridiculous when at war. It matters not.

that can't be right..

if the war aim was global freedom and peace and body count no object you could just nuke everyone else preemptively

thresholds of what is acceptable must exist.. they are not isolated from "method"

there would be no Nuremberg or Saddam trial... the holocaust would be irrelevant etc...

are there war crimes or just the prosecution of the losers.. if you believe the later then most of the crimes the US is accused of are probably true by your own reckoning even if the US has not committed them yet!

at the end of the day what is the point?

Boris
London

thomez · 10-11-2006, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The specifics are irrelevant. The main similarity is that we are at war, and war is hell. To count bodies or deaths causes by either side is ridiculous when at war. It matters not.

I don't even know how to respond to that with a serious reply.

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by mididoctors

if the war aim was global freedom and peace and body count no object you could just nuke everyone else preemptively

That doesn't bode well for the politics of America, does it?

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by thomez

I don't even know how to respond to that with a serious reply.

Well, this post certainly doesn't fit the bill.

thomez · 10-11-2006, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Well, this post certainly doesn't fit the bill.

I guess not.

Dumpy Dooby · 10-11-2006, 09:41 AM

The Defense Department until 2004 eschewed any effort to compute the number of Iraqi dead but this summer released a study putting the civilian casualty rate between May and August at 117 people a day. Other tabulations using different methodologies put the range of total civilian fatalities so far from about 50,000 to more than 150,000. President Bush in December said "30,000, more or less" had died in Iraq during the invasion and in the violence since.

Seeing as how the study hasn't released the specifics on their methodology (simply saying such useful gems as, "This is a standard methodology that the U.S. government and others have encouraged groups to use in developing countries," which means absolutely nothing to me), I see no reason to believe any one particular figure over another.

You can believe Bush when he says 30K, or you can believe Burnham when he says 600K, or anything in between.

ballz2wallz · 10-11-2006, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Seeing as how the study hasn't released the specifics on their methodology (simply saying such useful gems as, "This is a standard methodology that the U.S. government and others have encouraged groups to use in developing countries," which means absolutely nothing to me), I see no reason to believe any one particular figure over another.

You can believe Bush when he says 30K, or you can believe Burnham when he says 600K, or anything in between.

Is that a result of US attacks or attacks by their own people (aka insurgents, terrorists, militias, etc.)

I don't think you can blame the US when they are killing themselves. They do this around the world every day. Is that our fault as well?