View Full Version : The death toll among Iraqi civilians...
Neil Young
11-10-06, 10:12 PM
...since the illegal US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 has reached 2.5% of the population, according to a report in The Lancet today. That's an estimated 655,000 people. Incredible.
For those in need of context, that's more than the number of French (600,000), Czechs (415,000), Americans (400,000) and British (388,000) killed in the whole of World War 2.
...since the illegal US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 has reached 2.5% of the population, according to a report in The Lancet today. That's an estimated 655,000 people. Incredible.
For those in need of context, that's more than the number of French (600,000), Czechs (415,000), Americans (400,000) and British (388,000) killed in the whole of World War 2.
Ouch. :D
But yes, that is a shocking statistic. Shocking.
desertscouser
11-10-06, 10:37 PM
...since the illegal US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 has reached 2.5% of the population, according to a report in The Lancet today. That's an estimated 655,000 people. Incredible.
For those in need of context, that's more than the number of French (600,000), Czechs (415,000), Americans (400,000) and British (388,000) killed in the whole of World War 2.
Truly disgusting, but at least the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein ;)
:whatever:
Hollowman
12-10-06, 12:47 AM
Be interesting to see what iraqbodycount say about this.
Red Chilli
12-10-06, 12:58 AM
...since the illegal US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 has reached 2.5% of the population, according to a report in The Lancet today. That's an estimated 655,000 people. Incredible.
For those in need of context, that's more than the number of French (600,000), Czechs (415,000), Americans (400,000) and British (388,000) killed in the whole of World War 2.
The counter claim is that the method for estimating the numbers is flawed. From what I am led to believe, the method involves taking 'surveys' by visiting areas and asking about who lives where and who used to live there and has anyone died recently. A bit like a census I suppose. Then the numbers are extrapolated to include the whole population.
This method must be open to bias therefore altering the accuracy of the figures. Even a 0.1 % error is a massive difference in terms of individuals.
Whatever the method I'm sure the death toll is more than the governments would have us believe and we will probably never know an accurate figure.
...since the illegal US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 has reached 2.5% of the population, according to a report in The Lancet today. That's an estimated 655,000 people. Incredible.
For those in need of context, that's more than the number of French (600,000), Czechs (415,000), Americans (400,000) and British (388,000) killed in the whole of World War 2.
How many left to go .... :confused:
the world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein
The antics going on with his trial are very frustrating. People getting killed, Saddam throwing his toys out of his pram every 2 minutes. Anyone else think he's just trying to drag it on now?
To be fair to Saddam (not that I think we should) it's in absolutely his best interests to keep the shambles of his trial running as long as possible - it further undermines the Iraqi government, and provides inspiration to those still fighting.
All in all, the country is in absolute turmoil, and the buck stops with Saddam, George, and Tony - the 3 Amigos, if you will.
Whether the Lancet figures are correct or not, it does show that figures given so far are woefully inaccurate.
What it boils down to is the "we don't do body counts" attitude of the British and American forces has made it impossible for anyone to accurately predict how many people have been killed.
By going after Saddam for reasons which had nothing at all to do with terrorism means that the USA and Britain are not in a position to deal with areas where international forces are required like Sudan, and have allowed North Korea to pursue their weapons programme almost unhindered.
So in effect they have contributed to making the world a far more dangerous place and have done more to aid the cause and ideology of al qaeda, than al qaeda could have ever done on their own.
Even the greatest "victory" of this post Saddam Iraq, the killing of Al Zarqawi is a joke, because under Saddam, someone like him would not have had the ability to operate.
Snigger
12-10-06, 09:36 AM
...since the illegal US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 has reached 2.5% of the population, according to a report in The Lancet today. That's an estimated 655,000 people. Incredible.
For those in need of context, that's more than the number of French (600,000), Czechs (415,000), Americans (400,000) and British (388,000) killed in the whole of World War 2.
and yet roughly 400,000 less than the number of people murdered under Hussein's reign in Iraq - an estimated 200,000 of which were tortured to death in Iraq's gulags.
Neil Young
12-10-06, 09:41 AM
The counter claim is that the method for estimating the numbers is flawed. From what I am led to believe, the method involves taking 'surveys' by visiting areas and asking about who lives where and who used to live there and has anyone died recently. A bit like a census I suppose. Then the numbers are extrapolated to include the whole population.
This method must be open to bias therefore altering the accuracy of the figures. Even a 0.1 % error is a massive difference in terms of individuals.
Whatever the method I'm sure the death toll is more than the governments would have us believe and we will probably never know an accurate figure.
The British and American governments have predictably rejected the figures and the techniques used. However, much the same methods have been used in Darfur and DR Congo and yet they accept those figures without question.
warrenpeace
12-10-06, 09:44 AM
...since the illegal US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 has reached 2.5% of the population, according to a report in The Lancet today. That's an estimated 655,000 people. Incredible.
For those in need of context, that's more than the number of French (600,000), Czechs (415,000), Americans (400,000) and British (388,000) killed in the whole of World War 2.
How have the Lancet come up with this figure?
It has been about 3 and a half years since the start of the war so on these figures it follows that 500 or so civilians are dying every day as a result of the invasion. That is frightening if true but I would be interested to know how the count can be accurate.
Anfield Mole
12-10-06, 09:45 AM
Ah well, shit happens.
Snigger
12-10-06, 10:08 AM
Intersting isn't it - Iraq is invaded under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction so we waltz in there and kick ass. North Korea is detonating nukes and we do nothing.
Anfield Mole
12-10-06, 10:15 AM
Intersting isn't it - Iraq is invaded under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction so we waltz in there and kick ass. North Korea is detonating nukes and we do nothing.
Ah comeon, even George W Bush isn't stupid enough to invade a country with actual nukes.
Snigger
12-10-06, 10:19 AM
Bush is stupid enough for just about anything - problem with NK is they have China on their side.
Anfield Mole
12-10-06, 10:24 AM
Bush is stupid enough for just about anything - problem with NK is they have China on their side.
Stupid yes, but would you say the he is a **** ? :D
Snigger
12-10-06, 10:30 AM
Stupid yes, but would you say the he is a **** ? :D
I have no idea what that word could be so can't comment :eyebrow:
Anfield Mole
12-10-06, 10:33 AM
I have no idea what that word could be so can't comment :eyebrow:
:D
alunevans
13-10-06, 05:12 AM
The British and American governments have predictably rejected the figures and the techniques used. However, much the same methods have been used in Darfur and DR Congo and yet they accept those figures without question.
yep i read this was standard epidemiology which is a scientifically highly regarded method, and that 92% of those surveyed were able to produce death certificates too, which means that there is paper documentation to back up claims in almost all cases.
a very damning report indeed, especially when one considers the thousands killed as a result of UN sanctions before the war.
desertscouser
13-10-06, 05:25 AM
The British and American governments have predictably rejected the figures and the techniques used. However, much the same methods have been used in Darfur and DR Congo and yet they accept those figures without question.
What? Double standards?! Well, I never... ;)
Neil Young
13-10-06, 08:16 AM
What? Double standards?! Well, I never... ;)
:D
As Shaggy would say, "Ooh, I know."
Hollowman
13-10-06, 03:12 PM
Don't we also use these techniques to measure our television audiences...?
the hilarious thing about this is that the bush "regime" is trying to make out that the Lancet figures are not credible. I mean how fuckin hysterical is that? The lancet is one of the most esteemed research journals in existance. They wouldn't have gone near the report if they'd thought it hadn't been carried out with total rigour.
As for snigger's comparison with Hussein's muderous record. Are you saying that the british and american forces are 50% less murderous/evil/- than Hussein?
What a fucking mess, we illegally invade a country based on made-up intelligence. Then change the record to say that we did it to liberate the poor iraqi people from a regime that was murdering them by the bucket load, then continue where the old (evil) regime left off.
The Glove
14-10-06, 11:12 AM
What made up intelligence?
I was under the impression that it was the US which supplied Iraq with WMD's, no? They havent used them so they still must be there.
Hollowman
14-10-06, 11:33 AM
Never read The Lancet in my life, and know it only by reputation. They were involved in that Norwegian cancer "study" that was made up though, right?
Abdul Alhazred
14-10-06, 08:21 PM
Never read The Lancet in my life
removes HM from Council of Alphas mailing list and informs relevant authorities
weeps for the children
Red_Polo
15-10-06, 12:01 AM
What made up intelligence?
I was under the impression that it was the US which supplied Iraq with WMD's, no? They havent used them so they still must be there.
UN weapons inspectors almost completely destroyed Iraq's WMD capability after the first Gulf War. Scott Ritter who was one of those weapons inspectors said during the build-up to the recent Gulf War:
"There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.
We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services.
If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple.
As of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance."
As posted above, the US didn't supply the iragi regime with WMD. They did kit it out with extensive supplies of conventional weapons and intelligence.
The small amount of WMD material was totally decomissioned by the UN post the first iraqi war - what there was of it - which wasn't much.
The pre-war intelligence about the biological weapons labs had come from a single source, an Iraqi defector used by German intelligence who was codenamed Curveball. He was an alcoholic fantasist.
full story of the whole shambles here, exercpts form bob woodward's new book:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2404016,00.html
Snigger
16-10-06, 09:55 AM
As for snigger's comparison with Hussein's muderous record. Are you saying that the british and american forces are 50% less murderous/evil/- than Hussein?
No, just pointing out that there are humanitarian issues involved as well as WMD, real or not.
The humanitarian issues were not used as a reason for invasion - initially anyhow - when it was obvious that you'd more likely find leprechauns in iraq than WMD it was cooked up as one of the reasons.
Unfortunately humanitarian issues don't count as a legal argument for war. The UN mandate - such as it was - only gave permission to use force due to the WMD argument.
Hollowman
16-10-06, 06:09 PM
Bush was actually pretty consistant in his pledge for regime change in Iraq. It was moreBlair who put all his eggs in the WMD basket. Not to say that Bush didn't claim WMDs also.
Snigger
16-10-06, 06:13 PM
The humanitarian issues were not used as a reason for invasion - initially anyhow - when it was obvious that you'd more likely find leprechauns in iraq than WMD it was cooked up as one of the reasons.
Unfortunately humanitarian issues don't count as a legal argument for war. The UN mandate - such as it was - only gave permission to use force due to the WMD argument.
I'm not saying they were given as a reason - I'm just saying that there were humanitarian issues of a very large scale in Iraq - particularly against the kurds. We all know the real reason for the invasion of Iraq and it never had anything to do WMD.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.