NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html

haven't I seen this exact same thread title a couple times now?

No war is bloodless.

I'd like to note that the confirmed number is actually about 15,000 civilians. This is obviously a tiny sample, but how tiny is that really?

33 Towns...61 deaths...am I reading this right? How did they come up with 100k?


http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Thats been around for a while now.

15,000 seems to be a whole lot more accurate of a number than 100,000

15,000 seems to be a whole lot more accurate of a number than 100,000

It seems more accurate because you have trouble considering the possibility that the US could be wrong.

33 Towns...61 deaths...am I reading this right? How did they come up with 100k?


http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

There's a lot of doubt cast on that number...

15,000 seems to be a whole lot more accurate of a number than 100,000
I suspect it's around 50-000 to 75,000 myself.

It seems more accurate because you have trouble considering the possibility that the US could be wrong.
Indeed, because spurious statistical models, and highly biased scientists who would only allow the "study" to be published before the election are always accurate.

And we all know that http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ is so heavily biased towards the US government...

Which of us would really count them? I'm not up for the job! I think Lancet is very high and 15000 very low. I'm not sure of the number but it is large, too large. By the way, do any of these counts include those Iraqi citizens killed by car bombing, and other attacks carried out by various resistance groups operating in Iraq? Are those not also civilians killed in this war? Are they only civilians when thier deaths occur as a result of the actions of one side?

These extremely high figures make Saddam Hussein look even more like the bastard he really was.

Thanks Letila!

By the way, do any of these counts include those Iraqi citizens killed by car bombing, and other attacks carried out by various resistance groups operating in Iraq? Are those not also civilians killed in this war? Are they only civilians when thier deaths occur as a result of the actions of one side?

That's part of the problem with this "study". It's using a line of thought that says, "When a nation occupies another nation, it is responsible for everything that happens in the occupied nation." In other words, if $Iraqi is walking around and gets hit by lightning and dies, it's America's "fault" and would be counted in that "study". Even deaths that have absolutely nothing to do with America are counted. That's part of how they got such an outrageous number.

Whether it's 15 or 100 thousand is not really the issue. Let us for arguements sake go with 50,000, which seems a reasnoble 'reading reading between the lines' kind of figure. Everyone one of those 50,000 will have had relatives and friends, children, parents, partners and so on. Most of these people probably didn't have much inkling about world situation or their freedoms relative to the west; like most citizens they wanted to feed their kids, keep their jobs and more than likely took most of their political and spitirual council from their local mosque. Day to day, Saddam or Bush probably didn't mean very much to them. But now they have a very real reason to hate and a very obvious focus for that hatred and it comes with stars and stripes. As an occupied nation with no military response to this they have only one option, turn to terrorism, or as they will see it, freedom fighting. Thus each of those 50,000 leaves one if not more angered, vengeful willing warriors to fight on. Now I ask you, how does creating 50,000+ new recruits for Jihad against the USA help in the so called 'War on Terror?' It is not that I am pro-saddam or anti-bush, I just can't see how damage on this scale can do anything but exacerbate an already volatile situation in a way that will take generations to heal.

Whether it's 15 or 100 thousand is not really the issue. Let us for arguements sake go with 50,000, which seems a reasnoble 'reading reading between the lines' kind of figure. Everyone one of those 50,000 will have had relatives and friends, children, parents, partners and so on. Most of these people probably didn't have much inkling about world situation or their freedoms relative to the west; like most citizens they wanted to feed their kids, keep their jobs and more than likely took most of their political and spitirual council from their local mosque. Day to day, Saddam or Bush probably didn't mean very much to them. But now they have a very real reason to hate and a very obvious focus for that hatred and it comes with stars and stripes. As an occupied nation with no military response to this they have only one option, turn to terrorism, or as they will see it, freedom fighting. Thus each of those 50,000 leaves one if not more angered, vengeful willing warriors to fight on. Now I ask you, how does creating 50,000+ new recruits for Jihad against the USA help in the so called 'War on Terror?' It is not that I am pro-saddam or anti-bush, I just can't see how damage on this scale can do anything but exacerbate an already volatile situation in a way that will take generations to heal.
Would those 50000+ not exist if not for this war? Or would they simply be easier to recruit elsewhere? Or not even easier? What is 50000 more in a region that breeds millions to hate the US? I like the term jihadists more than radicals though, I don't think this is a radical movement. It is much more msainstream than anyone in the West is willing to admit. This isn't the reason for Islamic fundamentalism nor is Israel. It is a clash of cultures and ideaology.

In other words, if $Iraqi is walking around and gets hit by lightning and dies, it's America's "fault" and would be counted in that "study".

what are you talking about?

what are you talking about?
I'm talking about the shady methods used by the author of this study. See the first post.

I can tell you that Iraq Body Count uses only deaths reported in at least two major news sources - they have a list of the ones they use - from either Iraqi resistance or US action. It seems fair to me to say that al of those deaths occured because the US invaded Iraq.

I can tell you that Iraq Body Count uses only deaths reported in at least two major news sources - they have a list of the ones they use - from either Iraqi resistance or US action. It seems fair to me to say that al of those deaths occured because the US invaded Iraq.

a more accurate picture would be look at the total killed during the Saddam years, plus the dead in the Iran Iraq War and the First Gulf War, and then compare them to the figures since the US invasion...

and how many were killed since the US invasion by Allied and government forces and how many killed by misadventure/normal criminal activity, and how many killed by disorder (which the invasion did create) and how many killed by the insurgents...

but none of the studies quoted in any of the treads I have seen give us those numbers.

a more accurate picture would be look at the total killed during the Saddam years, plus the dead in the Iran Iraq War and the First Gulf War, and then compare them to the figures since the US invasion...

and how many were killed since the US invasion by Allied and government forces and how many killed by misadventure/normal criminal activity, and how many killed by disorder (which the invasion did create) and how many killed by the insurgents...

but none of the studies quoted in any of the treads I have seen give us those numbers.


In theory, the USA is has a higher Per Annual death rate of Iraqi Citizens than Saddam ever did. :rolleyes: At the current rate, if you extrapolate it, you're going to be far more bloody that Saddam ever was.

In theory, the USA is has a higher Per Annual death rate of Iraqi Citizens than Saddam ever did. :rolleyes: At the current rate, if you extrapolate it, you're going to be far more bloody that Saddam ever was.

Your right. We kill innocent Iraqis because we like it.

I forgot.

Americans = Nazis :rolleyes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html

The actual study doesn't seem to be up at the moment, but it may be later. (http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9446/early_online_publication)

A) It's fairly old and has been discussed before here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=369426).
B) It's an extrapolated estimate, not able to actually be demonstrated.
C) It appears to be based on faulty methodology.
D) It apparantly includes combatants.
E) The math work out to a casualty rate of 200 a day. With the high number of imbeded reporters, this level of atrocities would have been reported long ago.
F) The authors seem to have acknowledged the lack of percision.
G) The 100,000 figure is an upper limit.

Some good commentary on the Lancet study:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3352814
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/

It's called a logical fallacy (or not, it could be attributed to raw stupidity) to try to compare a per-year death ratio consisting of two to five years of testing to a man who was in power for nearly thirty years, especially when the two to five years are in a war time situation.

Don't worry, no matter how many times you try to repeat yourself with unsubstantiated numbers and self-delusioned "principles"/assumptions, no one is going to buy into it.