NationStates Jolt Archive

The study, conducted by the British medical journal The Lancet (one of the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed journals in the world), has found that approximately 655,000 people have been killed in the Iraq war.

Some "highlights" from the study (if you can call them that):

* death toll is 12 times higher than previously estimated
* 2.5% of the prewar population have been killed
* Coalition forces have been responsible for 31% of the deaths

That's one hell of a comma.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/index.html

Source text:

BALTIMORE, Maryland (CNN) -- War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.

Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.

"Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq." (Watch as the study's startling results are revealed -- 1:55 Video)

The survey, being published online by British medical journal The Lancet, gives a far higher number of deaths in Iraq than other organizations. (Read the full report -- pdf)

Researchers randomly selected 1,849 households across Iraq and asked questions about births and deaths and migration for the study led by Gilbert Burnham of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland.

They extrapolated the figures to reflect the national picture, saying Iraq's death rate had more than doubled since the invasion.

Iraqis "bear the consequence of warfare," the report said, comparing the situation with other wars: "In the Vietnam War, 3 million civilians died; in the Congo, armed conflict has been responsible for 3.8 million deaths; in East Timor, an estimated 200,000 out of a population of 800,000 died in conflict.

"Recent estimates are that 200,000 have died in Darfur [Sudan] over the past 31 months. Our data, which estimate that 654,965 or 2.5 percent of the Iraqi population has died in this, the largest major international conflict of the 21st century, should be of grave concern to everyone."

The researchers estimated that an additional 654,965 people have died in Iraq since the invasion above what would have been expected from the pre-war mortality rate. They did not ask families whether their dead were civilians or fighters. (Read the report's appendix, including methodology and charts -- pdf)

Violence claimed about 601,000 people, the survey estimated -- the majority killed by gunfire, "though deaths from car bombing have increased from 2005," the study says.

The additional 53,000 people who are believed to have been killed by the effects of the war mostly died in recent months, "suggesting a worsening of health status and access to health care," the study said. It noted, however, that the number of nonviolent deaths "is too small to reach definitive conclusions."

Other key points in the survey:

# The number of people dying in Iraq has risen each year since March 2003.

# Those killed are predominantly males aged 15-44.

# Deaths attributed to coalition forces accounted for 31 percent of the dead.

# Although the "proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006 ... the actual numbers have increased each year."

The authors said their method of sampling the population is a "standard tool of epidemiology and is used by the U.S. government and many other agencies."

Professionals familiar with such research told CNN that the survey's methodology is sound.

Information for the survey was collected by Iraqi doctors, and analysis was performed by the faculty of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in cooperation with the Center for International Studies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Death certificates confirmed families' accounts in 92 percent of cases, the researchers said.

It has been very difficult to pin down fatality numbers during the Iraq conflict.

The private British-based Iraq Body Count research group puts the number of civilian deaths at between 43,850 and 48,693. Those figures are based on online media counts and eyewitness accounts.

"The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks)," the group's Web site says. "It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion."

The latest estimates were released less than a month ahead of U.S. midterm elections that could change the balance of power in the House and Senate, now controlled by Republicans.

This is terrible.

It's all in the name of liberation and freedom, man! Like, we gotta break through to the cosmos and feel the waves of life, y'know?

I look forward to seeing the bloodthirsty Busheviks wriggle their way out of this one.

The study, conducted by the British medical journal The Lancet (one of the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed journals in the world), has found that approximately 655,000 people have been killed in the Iraq war.

Some "highlights" from the study (if you can call them that):

* death toll is 12 times higher than previously estimated
* 2.5% of the prewar population have been killed
* Coalition forces have been responsible for 31% of the deaths

That's one hell of a comma.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/index.html

Source text:


It would appear by these numbers that every death in Iraq since the war started has been caused by the war then.

War must cure cancer, heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, car accidents, birth related deaths, old age, infections...

That number is absurdly high, and counting deaths that are in no way related to the occupation. Although it could be argued that many of those deaths would not of happened had we not destroyed the basic services of the country.

It would appear by these numbers that every death in Iraq since the war started has been caused by the war then.

War must cure cancer, heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, car accidents, birth related deaths, old age, infections...

Maybe you should try reading the story.

"Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq."
The researchers estimated that an additional 654,965 people have died in Iraq since the invasion above what would have been expected from the pre-war mortality rate.

Freedom is on the march - nobody said it wouldn't march on a corpse-paved road... :(

Well at least the Iraqi people don't have to worry about the brutal and murderous Saddam Hussein.:rolleyes:

It would appear by these numbers that every death in Iraq since the war started has been caused by the war then.

War must cure cancer, heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, car accidents, birth related deaths, old age, infections...

Re-read the OP: 601,000 are listed as being attributable to violence, leaving about 50,000 open to other causes.

Well at least the Iraqi people don't have to worry about the brutal and murderous Saddam Hussein.:rolleyes:

Hussein was a total bastard, but he's preferrable to what we have now. Moreover, we had no business overthrowing him.

Holy mother of fuck.

Read the story, why don't you.

Canada has approximately 619 deaths per day with a 32-33 million population.

Iraq has approximately 555 deaths per day with a 26-27 million population.

Canada has 225,935 deaths per year. And according to this report, there is less than 200,000 dying per year in Iraq.

Is Canada at war?

Congratulations, we've killed more than 1,000,000 Iraqis. 500,000+ by sanctions (Albright herself admitted this, and, with extreme callousness, said it was "worth it"), and now 600,000+ from this unconstitutional, unprovoked war. And let's not forget Gulf War I...

:(

Hussein was a total bastard, but he's preferrable to what we have now. Moreover, we had no business overthrowing him.

I agree with you. I was being sarcastic. I thought the eye rolling smiley would convey that message. Acutally I thought Hussein was good for Iraq and the region could have used more leaders like him.

I agree with you. I was being sarcastic. I thought the eye rolling smiley would convey that message. Acutally I thought Hussein was good for Iraq and the region could have used more leaders like him.

I know you were being sarcastic.

And I don't know about "good," but he had at least a few redeeming features: he tolerated religious freedom, treated women as equals, modernized the country, and was anti-al Qaeda. Not that it excuses his brutality, but even so, he was better than some of his counterparts, and we could have (and should have) capitalized on his hatred of Islamic fundamentalism and worked with him.

Re-read the OP: 601,000 are listed as being attributable to violence, leaving about 50,000 open to other causes.

Canada has a higher civilian death rate that Iraqis? Go figure. Iraq's population SHOULD have over 200,00 dead per year.

Canada has a higher civilian death rate that Iraqis? Go figure. Iraq's population SHOULD have over 200,00 dead per year.

Read the article. These deaths are above and beyond the normal death rate.

Simply terrible. Really, absolutely terrible.

I know you were being sarcastic.

And I don't know about "good," but he had at least a few redeeming features: he tolerated religious freedom, treated women as equals, modernized the country, and was anti-al Qaeda. Not that it excuses his brutality, but even so, he was better than some of his counterparts, and we could have (and should have) capitalized on his hatred of Islamic fundamentalism and worked with him.

I agree with you completely.

I agree with you completely.

I wish you were Secretary of State. ;)

Canada has approximately 619 deaths per day with a 32-33 million population.

Iraq has approximately 555 deaths per day with a 26-27 million population.

Canada has 225,935 deaths per year. And according to this report, there is less than 200,000 dying per year in Iraq.

Is Canada at war?

No really. Read the article. It's done by a research department at Johns Hopkins, and is conducted through household census counting. In fact:

Here is the study itself. (http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf)

It's talking about Violent Death, not death in general. I'm sure you're quite tired, and this study is quite long, but it might be useful to catch a glimpse of the horizon at some point.

The Coalition is responsible for only 31% of those deaths, and yet we are blamed for all 100%, I'm beginning to get annoyed by certain Iraqi groups, we gave them a golden oppurtunity to rebuild their country as a democracy without authouritarian control, and they just turn to murdering eachother, blaming the resulting carnage on us!

And if anyone comes up with any prowar insults aimed at me, I think that's rich from people who would be perfectly willing to see the Iraqis suffer and die under Saddam while they sit in their comfortable free societies.

I wish you were Secretary of State. ;)

Why? Do you really want to be bombing Iran and North Korea right now? I'm not good at negotiating with people who piss me off. I'd resort to violence.

No really. Read the article. It's done by a research department at Johns Hopkins, and is conducted through household census counting. In fact:

Here is the study itself. (http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf)

It's talking about Violent Death, not death in general. I'm sure you're quite tired, and this study is quite long, but it might be useful to catch a glimpse of the horizon at some point.

And really, the Canadian census reports the number of deaths in Canada rose 1.9% in 2002, continuing a long-term upward trend. A total of 223,603 people died, up from 219,538 the previous year. Over 110,000 women died that year.
link (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040927/d040927a.htm)

Iraq and Canada have similar populations, I'm assuming Canada's infrastructure hasn't been bombed out and this has somehow detered people from getting medical help there. Thus, it's a perfectly good example for a compare of number of deaths to expect in Iraq (if there was no war).

It appears as if War cures ALL other deaths in Iraq... :rolleyes:

Why? Do you really want to be bombing Iran and North Korea right now? I'm not good at negotiating with people who piss me off. I'd resort to violence.

At least you're not an unwilling al Qaeda recruiter, like the administration is.

The Coalition is responsible for only 31% of those deaths, and yet we are blamed for all 100%, I'm beginning to get annoyed by certain Iraqi groups, we gave them a golden oppurtunity to rebuild their country as a democracy without authouritarian control, and they just turn to murdering eachother, blaming the resulting carnage on us!

And if anyone comes up with any prowar insults aimed at me, I think that's rich from people who would be perfectly willing to see the Iraqis suffer and die under Saddam while they sit in their comfortable free societies.

Opposition to the war =/= love for, or approval of, Saddam or his murderous tactics.

The Coalition is responsible for only 31% of those deaths, and yet we are blamed for all 100%, I'm beginning to get annoyed by certain Iraqi groups, we gave them a golden oppurtunity to rebuild their country as a democracy without authouritarian control, and they just turn to murdering eachother, blaming the resulting carnage on us!

And if anyone comes up with any prowar insults aimed at me, I think that's rich from people who would be perfectly willing to see the Iraqis suffer and die under Saddam while they sit in their comfortable free societies.

They don't want democracy. They never did. The Shiites wanted an Islamic republic similar to Iran with them in control of the wealth and jobs. The Sunnis wanted to maintain the status quo where they controled the wealth and lived in a fairly secular and modern society. The Kurds, well, they really want no part of Iraq at all. They want a Kurdish homeland and control of the Northern oil fields. Saddam was the only thing keeping them from killing each other and we got rid of him.

They don't want democracy. They never did. The Shiites wanted an Islamic republic similar to Iran with them in control of the wealth and jobs. The Sunnis wanted to maintain the status quo where they controled the wealth and lived in a fairly secular and modern society. The Kurds, well, they really want no part of Iraq at all. They want a Kurdish homeland and control of the Northern oil fields. Saddam was the only thing keeping them from killing each other and we got rid of him.

Exactly. Appalling and horrific as Saddam was, he was the one figure capable of holding the country together. Now Iraq is a massive orgy of terror, repression, bloodshed, and havoc. Yes, Saddam killed hundreds of thousands, and yes I look forward to him roasting on a skillet in Hell. But how is Saddam killing hundreds of thousands different from this war killing hundreds of thousands? Either way, innocent people are getting fucked over. The difference is, now Iraq is a living hell AND a terrorist haven.

It appears as if War cures ALL other deaths in Iraq... :rolleyes:

Ok. Try this. According to the study:

Non-violent deaths went from 98% of cause to 46%, post invasion.

Violent deaths went from 2% to 55%.

Compare Canada, post holiday season.

And really, the Canadian census reports the number of deaths in Canada rose 1.9% in 2002, continuing a long-term upward trend. A total of 223,603 people died, up from 219,538 the previous year. Over 110,000 women died that year.
link (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040927/d040927a.htm)

Iraq and Canada have similar populations, I'm assuming Canada's infrastructure hasn't been bombed out and this has somehow detered people from getting medical help there. Thus, it's a perfectly good example for a compare of number of deaths to expect in Iraq (if there was no war).

It appears as if War cures ALL other deaths in Iraq... :rolleyes:

Read the damn article. The deaths as a result of the normal death rate are not counted in the 655,000 figure.

Ok. Try this. According to the study:

Non-violent deaths went from 98% of cause to 46%, post invasion.

Violent deaths went from 2% to 55%.

Compare Canada, post holiday season.

So are you suggesting that violence happens to those that would have died of heart attacks (or other natural causes) on the same day (or year)?

Because the Iraqi death total should have gone up by 52% or more if violent deaths are people that weren't going to statistically be one of the dead for that year during a non-war year. But it has not happened according to the population expectations for annual deaths.

Read the damn article. The deaths as a result of the normal death rate are not counted in the 655,000 figure.

You mean like this part of the article?

Ali Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, said in a statement that the report "gives exaggerated figures that contradict the simplest rules of accuracy and investigation."

Because that part is about right...

I look forward to seeing the bloodthirsty Busheviks wriggle their way out of this one.

The really hardcore Busheviks will simply choose to cast aspersions on the Lancet, or look to some "blogger" to do the same, on their behalf.

The really hardcore Busheviks will simply choose to cast aspersions on the Lancet, or look to some "blogger" to do the same, on their behalf.

True.

The really hardcore Busheviks will simply choose to cast aspersions on the Lancet, or look to some "blogger" to do the same, on their behalf.

That or they might try something really bizarre, like actually counting bodies instead of interviewing 1849 households, when determining how many people died in Iraq during the last three years...

It would appear by these numbers that every death in Iraq since the war started has been caused by the war then.

War must cure cancer, heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, car accidents, birth related deaths, old age, infections...



Oh worry..Ali Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, said in a statement that the report "gives exaggerated figures that contradict the simplest rules of accuracy and investigation."



Pathetic attempts at playing with numbers are really boring.


Hey look at the bright side IF true...at this rate they will run out of fighters REALLY fast !


Read the damn article. The deaths as a result of the normal death rate are not counted in the 655,000 figure.

I suggest you direct people to reading usefull bullshit like Penthouse forums...at least you can or may get a rise out of it..

But it seems you fellas jumped on this piece of shit report like a life raft in the ocean...hmmmm maybe you did get a rise out of it ?

Look the key to a good lie ( or passing off a screwed up report ) is to mix in enough truth and to NOT exagerate beyond belief.

The Coalition is responsible for only 31% of those deaths, and yet we are blamed for all 100%
Actually, we're indirectly responsible for 90% of the remaining deaths, because we caused the violence and instability that killed the ones we didn't.

The study, conducted by the British medical journal The Lancet (one of the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed journals in the world), has found that approximately 655,000 people have been killed in the Iraq war.

Some "highlights" from the study (if you can call them that):

* death toll is 12 times higher than previously estimated
* 2.5% of the prewar population have been killed
* Coalition forces have been responsible for 31% of the deaths

That's one hell of a comma.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/index.html

Source text:
Quote:
BALTIMORE, Maryland (CNN) -- War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.

Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.

"Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq." (Watch as the study's startling results are revealed -- 1:55 Video)

The survey, being published online by British medical journal The Lancet, gives a far higher number of deaths in Iraq than other organizations. (Read the full report -- pdf)

Researchers randomly selected 1,849 households across Iraq and asked questions about births and deaths and migration for the study led by Gilbert Burnham of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland.

They extrapolated the figures to reflect the national picture, saying Iraq's death rate had more than doubled since the invasion.

Iraqis "bear the consequence of warfare," the report said, comparing the situation with other wars: "In the Vietnam War, 3 million civilians died; in the Congo, armed conflict has been responsible for 3.8 million deaths; in East Timor, an estimated 200,000 out of a population of 800,000 died in conflict.

"Recent estimates are that 200,000 have died in Darfur [Sudan] over the past 31 months. Our data, which estimate that 654,965 or 2.5 percent of the Iraqi population has died in this, the largest major international conflict of the 21st century, should be of grave concern to everyone."

The researchers estimated that an additional 654,965 people have died in Iraq since the invasion above what would have been expected from the pre-war mortality rate. They did not ask families whether their dead were civilians or fighters. (Read the report's appendix, including methodology and charts -- pdf)

Violence claimed about 601,000 people, the survey estimated -- the majority killed by gunfire, "though deaths from car bombing have increased from 2005," the study says.

The additional 53,000 people who are believed to have been killed by the effects of the war mostly died in recent months, "suggesting a worsening of health status and access to health care," the study said. It noted, however, that the number of nonviolent deaths "is too small to reach definitive conclusions."

Other key points in the survey:

# The number of people dying in Iraq has risen each year since March 2003.

# Those killed are predominantly males aged 15-44.

# Deaths attributed to coalition forces accounted for 31 percent of the dead.

# Although the "proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006 ... the actual numbers have increased each year."

The authors said their method of sampling the population is a "standard tool of epidemiology and is used by the U.S. government and many other agencies."

Professionals familiar with such research told CNN that the survey's methodology is sound.

Information for the survey was collected by Iraqi doctors, and analysis was performed by the faculty of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in cooperation with the Center for International Studies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Death certificates confirmed families' accounts in 92 percent of cases, the researchers said.

It has been very difficult to pin down fatality numbers during the Iraq conflict.

The private British-based Iraq Body Count research group puts the number of civilian deaths at between 43,850 and 48,693. Those figures are based on online media counts and eyewitness accounts.

"The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks)," the group's Web site says. "It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion."

The latest estimates were released less than a month ahead of U.S. midterm elections that could change the balance of power in the House and Senate, now controlled by Republicans.

The previous study by the Lancet, citing 100,000 deaths, was severely flawed. I expect this one is equally flawed.

100,000 Dead—or 8,000How many Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war?
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 6:49 PM ET

The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.

The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:

We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.
http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2108887&

And the wiki on the previous study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq) (which touches this one as well) has a nice well balanced overview of the criticisms.

That number is absurdly high, and counting deaths that are in no way related to the occupation. Although it could be argued that many of those deaths would not of happened had we not destroyed the basic services of the country.

They are indeed ridiculous. This is what comes of flawed surveys with even more flawed analysis, topped off with highly politicised spin.

The really hardcore Busheviks will simply choose to cast aspersions on the Lancet, or look to some "blogger" to do the same, on their behalf.

Bullshit. I think Bush is a disgustingly incompetent war criminal. I also think the Lancet's study is severely flawed bullshit.

That or they might try something really bizarre, like actually counting bodies instead of interviewing 1849 households, when determining how many people died in Iraq during the last three years...

Indeed.

So are you suggesting that violence happens to those that would have died of heart attacks (or other natural causes) on the same day (or year)?

Because the Iraqi death total should have gone up by 52% or more if violent deaths are people that weren't going to statistically be one of the dead for that year during a non-war year. But it has not happened according to the population expectations for annual deaths.


We estimate that, as a consequence of the coalition
invasion of March 18, 2003, about 655 000 Iraqis have died
above the number that would be expected in a non-conflict
situation, which is equivalent to about 2·5% of the
population in the study area. About 601 000 of these excess
deaths were due to violent causes. Our estimate of the
post-invasion crude mortality rate represents a doubling
of the baseline mortality rate, which, by the Sphere
standards, constitutes a humanitarian emergency.


.

be prepared for FOX news to do a story on this report while blaming the Democrats for causing all of those deaths (possibly for even starting the war).

be prepared for FOX news to do a story on this report while blaming the Democrats for causing all of those deaths (possibly for even starting the war).

LMAO :D

The previous study by the Lancet, citing 100,000 deaths, was severely flawed. I expect this one is equally flawed.

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2108887&

And the wiki on the previous study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq) (which touches this one as well) has a nice well balanced overview of the criticisms.

They are indeed ridiculous. This is what comes of flawed surveys with even more flawed analysis, topped off with highly politicised spin.

The authors said their method of sampling the population is a "standard tool of epidemiology and is used by the U.S. government and many other agencies."

Professionals familiar with such research told CNN that the survey's methodology is sound.

Information for the survey was collected by Iraqi doctors, and analysis was performed by the faculty of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in cooperation with the Center for International Studies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Death certificates confirmed families' accounts in 92 percent of cases, the researchers said.

That doesn't sound very flawed to me. Besides, the criticisms in the Wiki article are directed at the first study, and the issues raised there have been countered by the study's authors.

Actually, we're indirectly responsible for 90% of the remaining deaths, because we caused the violence and instability that killed the ones we didn't.


Really now...so the actual people doing the killing have no responsibility.



Sounds like very liberal thinking...:D


http://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.php



Wednesday, December 14th, 2005
Study Shows Civilian Death Toll in Iraq More Than 100,000

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the 1,000th day of the U.S. war on Iraq, we look at a subject that usually receives little attention -- the Iraqi civilian death toll since the war began. We speak with Dr. Les Roberts, the lead researcher of a study released last year on the number of deaths in Iraq, which put the toll at more than 100,000. [includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush was asked about the Iraqi civilian death toll on Monday following his speech at the Philadelphia World Affairs Council.

Q: Since the inception of the Iraqi war, I'd like to know the approximate total of Iraqis who have been killed. And by Iraqis I include civilians, military, police, insurgents, translators.
THE PRESIDENT: How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq.
President Bush’s comments took many by surprise because the administration has said little over the past 1,000 days on how many Iraqis have died because of the war and occupation. Since Bush spoke on Monday, several officials denied the government was keeping a tally on Iraqi deaths. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said that Bush was "citing public estimates," not a government-produced figure. Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Barry Venable said there is no official tally of civilian deaths in Iraq. However, Venable said the U.S. military does collect data on deaths from insurgent attacks. If the government did keep close tabs on Iraqi civilian deaths, they might likely find the number is far higher than 30,000.

Last year the prestigious British medical journal the Lancet published a study estimating that over 100,000 Iraqi civilians had died because of the war. The study determined that the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion. We are joined in Washington by the lead researcher of that report.


Les Roberts, co-author of a 2004 study on civilian mortality in Iraq since the invasion. He is an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.



They were SO sure they were accurate A YEAR ago with the 100,000


So why are they NOW so sur this year ...only the number is 655,000 ...


Hey WTF...they have white coats so they MUST be believed !!1

I call for Monty Python to make sense of this riddle..

The last report was DESROYED by the peer review process...cant wait to see this one get NUKED ..


Bwaaaahahhahaha

They should be out selling beer or cars ....at least then the stupidy and lying would have a purpose and some idiots would buy something .

Really now...so the actual people doing the killing have no responsibility.



Sounds like very liberal thinking...:D
:rolleyes:

If we had not invaded, Iraq would not be mired in lawless bloodshed today, and those thousands of "collateral deaths" would never have happened. No invasion = no insurgency = no deaths caused by insurgent attacks.

The previous study by the Lancet, citing 100,000 deaths, was severely flawed. I expect this one is equally flawed.


http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2108887&

And the wiki on the previous study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq) (which touches this one as well) has a nice well balanced overview of the criticisms.



They are indeed ridiculous. This is what comes of flawed surveys with even more flawed analysis, topped off with highly politicised spin.



Bullshit. I think Bush is a disgustingly incompetent war criminal. I also think the Lancet's study is severely flawed bullshit.



Indeed.

That doesn't sound very flawed to me. Besides, the criticisms in the Wiki article are directed at the first study, and the issues raised there have been countered by the study's authors.



As it's 2:30 am here, I am going to bed now, and I won't be online but very briefly until fairly late tomorrow, I'll have to wait until later to 1) point out the multiple flaws in the first study in more detail, 2) review this one and poke holes in in, but I'll just point out for now that I am already highly skeptical of it due to 1) the flaws in the previous study and what appear, at first glance, to be repeations of those flaws and 2) what appear at first glance to be excessively high numbers.

Good night, and fare thee well. :)

The first report...that came up with 100,000 was destroyed.

I reference this one and has since neen dismissed as claptrap...even by peace groups ..:D

seems they desire some credibility after all .

Iraq death toll 'soared post-war'


Iraqis are now 58 times more likely to die a violent death, Lancet
Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.
A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.

Unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10,000 to over 37,000.

The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing".

Responding to the Lancet article, a Pentagon spokesman defended coalition action in Iraq.

'Precise fashion'

"This conflict has been prosecuted in the most precise fashion of any conflict in the history of modern warfare", he said.

UK foreign secretary Jack Straw said his government would examine the findings "with very great care".

But he told BBC's Today that another independent estimate of civilian deaths was around 15,000.

The Iraq Body Count, a respected database run by a group of academics and peace activists, has put the number of reported civilian deaths at between 14,000-16,000.



The Lancet published research by scientists from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the US city of Baltimore.

They gathered data on births and deaths since January 2002 from 33 clusters of 30 households each across Iraq



Just one of the articles..there are so many its not funny .


This one should find a home with the looney left for a little while until the looney lefts own scientist admit it is so flawed to be barely usefull as toilet paper .

But hey ...Cindy Sheehan ...has got something new to read .

Can you say "liberal propaganda"? I'm doubtful of the statistics claiming that 50 000 people died, but 650 000 is just ludicrous. People will sink to any depths in a vain attempt to discredit the Iraq War. Guess what? This is the greatest amount of people who have died, and it's less than 50 000.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Can you say "liberal propaganda"? I'm doubtful of the statistics claiming that 50 000 people died, but 650 000 is just ludicrous. People will sink to any depths in a vain attempt to discredit the Iraq War. Guess what? This is the greatest amount of people who have died, and it's less than 50 000.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

While I personally doubt the figure to be a high as the new lancet study suggests, perhaps you might have more success with your points if you tried some real arguments as to why it's wrong rather than just shouting liberal every time someone says something you don't like.

It's just an idea.

recent story in cnn just completely discredited that study as unscientific and possibly bias.

recent story in cnn just completely discredited that study as unscientific and possibly bias.

you have a link?

It's just an idea.

Fine. Their methodology was completely flawed.

Fine. Their methodology was completely flawed.

Well done :)

And now you expand on that hypothesis and we can have a debate. It's not that difficult is it?

Can you say "liberal propaganda"? I'm doubtful of the statistics claiming that 50 000 people died, but 650 000 is just ludicrous. People will sink to any depths in a vain attempt to discredit the Iraq War. Guess what? This is the greatest amount of people who have died, and it's less than 50 000.

That is comparing apples and oranges; IraqBodyCount is counting the number of reported deaths, the Lancet study the increase in mortality rate.

The latter method generates higher figures, yes, but also gives a better impression of the number of deaths caused by the invasion.

And now you expand on that hypothesis and we can have a debate. It's not that difficult is it?

According to the article, they based their information on a random survey of under 2000 people. That is most decidedly not scientific.

Well done :)

And now you expand on that hypothesis and we can have a debate. It's not that difficult is it?

Name one part of the data collection for this report that IS defendable. Then we might have something to discuss. As of the evidences and arguments in this thread have shown, the entire premise of the report has been utterly and thoroughly debunked already. If you can show that it has any redeeming features at all then there might be something to talk about again.

According to the article, they based their information on a random survey of under 2000 people. That is most decidedly not scientific.

It does lead to an unacceptably high margin of error, but consider - even if they are 90% off and the real figure is 65,000, that is still 65,000 people who would not have died had this bloodshed not been instigated by the invasion. 65,000 people slaughtered by a pointless and unnecessary war.

Consider that for a moment.

And it should be noted that it is just as possible that they are just as off in the opposite direction.

...
And it should be noted that it is just as possible that they are just as off in the opposite direction.

Riiight... I think we would have noticed that Iraq was void live citizens :p

Riiight... I think we would have noticed that Iraq was void live citizens :p

+/- 90% actually gives a range of 65,500 - 1,244,500, hardly approaching Iraq's total population.

Of course, 90% was just a random percentage I came up with to make my point, so that is hardly relevant.

According to the article, they based their information on a random survey of under 2000 people. That is most decidedly not scientific.
If you understood anything about statistics, you'd know that reasonably reliable conclusions can be drawn from relatively small, random samples of the general population. Polls work this way all the time.

+/- 90% actually gives a range of 65,500 - 1,244,500, hardly approaching Iraq's total population.

Of course, 90% was just a random percentage I came up with to make my point, so that is hardly relevant.

It was entirely relevant; and remarkable too because you reached your report summary results using the exact same methodology they used.

Name one part of the data collection for this report that IS defendable. Then we might have something to discuss. As of the evidences and arguments in this thread have shown, the entire premise of the report has been utterly and thoroughly debunked already. If you can show that it has any redeeming features at all then there might be something to talk about again.

The fact that it is the standard method of data collection regarding mortality figures in a war zone? That "Professionals familiar with such research told CNN that the survey's methodology is sound"? That the figures garnered from this round of surveys support the figures from the first round and vice versa, suggesting that the massive criticism of the first survey may not have been quite so deserved?

According to the article, they based their information on a random survey of under 2000 people. That is most decidedly not scientific.

Random survey of 1800 houses, they talked to over 12000 people. This is how they do this type of survey, even you must realise that talking to all 27000000 inhabitants of Iraq would be unfeasible.

All of the deaths in Iraq (and a lot of other places) can be blamed on one thing: the psychotic groups of extremist muslims. Why can't they be like normal muclims and just co-exist? Why is it a rule that you must completely annihilate anyone with even the slightest difference of opinion?! You know what the only thing fanatical muslims hate more then Christians and Jews is? Any other sect of Islam!

Grrr... people who blow up civilians in an attempt to "make the world hear them" have no place in this world!

Grrr... people who blow up civilians in an attempt to "make the world hear them" have no place in this world!

As opposed to people who blow up civilians in order to remake the world in the way they think it should be?

Oh worry..

Hey look at the bright side (655,000 dead)...at this rate they will run out of fighters REALLY fast ! Its a well know fact.. the Generals claim every Iraqui Man,Woman,Child they kill.. is an insurgent.

All of the deaths in Iraq (and a lot of other places) can be blamed on one thing: the psychotic groups of extremist muslims. Why can't they be like normal muclims and just co-exist? Why is it a rule that you must completely annihilate anyone with even the slightest difference of opinion?!
"the damn muclims"
"they are stupid"
"they are savages"
"they are crazy"
"they hate US because we are the beacon of Justice and freedom"
"Why cant they be normal.. like US"(\sarcasm of course)

All of the deaths in Iraq (and a lot of other places) can be blamed on one thing: the psychotic groups of extremist muslims. Why can't they be like normal muclims and just co-exist? Why is it a rule that you must completely annihilate anyone with even the slightest difference of opinion?! You know what the only thing fanatical muslims hate more then Christians and Jews is? Any other sect of Islam!
Hey, I've got a theory: maybe it can be blamed on the complete breakdown of law and order that was directly caused by the invasion -- a power vaccuum that allowed these extremist insurgents to infest Iraq in the first place. Saddam may have been a ruthless dictator, but at least he kept the peace.

Random survey of 1800 houses, they talked to over 12000 people. This is how they do this type of survey, even you must realise that talking to all 27000000 inhabitants of Iraq would be unfeasible.

I see. How do they verify that the data extracted from those 12 000 people is true? Do they use various sources to extensively cross-check all their information against possible lying? Do you think that Iraqi civilians are not going to lie to make the war appear more terrible than it actually is? How random are those 1800 people selected? After all, the situation in Iraq does not permit itself to certain people being interviewed, and the distribution of interviewees was extremely skewed. There are numerous holes in their methodology.

Do you think that Iraqi civilians are not going to lie to make the war appear more terrible than it actually is?

Um... yes? Should they think otherwise?

Or do the Iraqi civilians hate the war so much that they will lie to hurt the United States? (Might that be indicative of something?)

Or do the Iraqi civilians hate the war so much that they will lie to hurt the United States? (Might that be indicative of something?)

It doesn't take a large quantity of hate to lie -- it's not a difficult or risky process. They would not necessarily want to hurt the US, either -- they may simply wish to garner international sympathy. If it's indicative of anything, it's indicative of an increasing quantity of Islamo-fascists corrupting (and killing) the Iraqi people.

I see. How do they verify that the data extracted from those 12 000 people is true? Do they use various sources to extensively cross-check all their information against possible lying? Do you think that Iraqi civilians are not going to lie to make the war appear more terrible than it actually is? How random are those 1800 people selected? After all, the situation in Iraq does not permit itself to certain people being interviewed, and the distribution of interviewees was extremely skewed. There are numerous holes in their methodology.

They asked for death certificates, in 92% of cases where a death was reported the recieved them.

The randomness of the 1800 households was assured as they were selected using a random number generator.

Did you even read the report before you dismissed it? All this information is in it, it's only 15 pages long for gods sake.

There are numerous holes in their methodology. comparing them to the US gov estimates?? "we have only killed some 30000 civileans"

the US gov never attempted any kind of methodology when estimating the Iraqui death toll..

I bet Bush does not even know how to spell "methodology." :D

I see. How do they verify that the data extracted from those 12 000 people is true? Do they use various sources to extensively cross-check all their information against possible lying? Do you think that Iraqi civilians are not going to lie to make the war appear more terrible than it actually is? How random are those 1800 people selected? After all, the situation in Iraq does not permit itself to certain people being interviewed, and the distribution of interviewees was extremely skewed. There are numerous holes in their methodology.

Post 47 had your answer if you bothered to read the thread:

The authors said their method of sampling the population is a "standard tool of epidemiology and is used by the U.S. government and many other agencies."

Professionals familiar with such research told CNN that the survey's methodology is sound.

Information for the survey was collected by Iraqi doctors, and analysis was performed by the faculty of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health in cooperation with the Center for International Studies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Death certificates confirmed families' accounts in 92 percent of cases, the researchers said.

comparing them to the US gov estimates?? "we have only killed some 30000 civileans"

the US gov never attempted any kind of methodology when estimating the Iraqui death toll..

I bet Bush does not even know how to spell "methodology." :D
Actually, the Pentagon hasn't even bothered (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83544,00.html) tracking casualties, saying such a statistic would be impossible to estimate.

Impossible? Or politically inconvenient?

Can you say "liberal propaganda"?
Can you say "is sometimes accurate"?
I'm doubtful of the statistics claiming that 50 000 people died, but 650 000 is just ludicrous. People will sink to any depths in a vain attempt to discredit the Iraq War. Guess what? This is the greatest amount of people who have died, and it's less than 50 000.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
From the US military - "We don't do body counts".

How the hell is this accurate?

The randomness of the 1800 households was assured as they were selected using a random number generator.

Let's say you have 60 houses. 10 of them have 10 people living there and 50 have 3 people living there. Let's assume that the death rate is much higher among families with less people, as they are less likely to have children and are thus more independent and more likely to be fighting the American peacekeepers or against various terrorists. So, the mortality rate in the households with 3 people is 1/3, while that in the households with 10 people is 0.5/10. Randomly selecting 6 households out of the 100 total will most likely give you 1 house with 10 residents and 5 houses with 3 residents. So you then compute the death toll to be 1 * 5 + 0.5 * 1 = 5.5 per 6 households. So you'd need to know the total number of people living in the households to calculate the total casualties, correct? However, some people are bound to lie about the number of people in the particular household. If you simply extrapolate, then there will be a bias against the less numerous big houses with lots of people. The total number of dead is actually 0.5 * 10 + 1 * 50 = 55 out of 250. However, if you just say that 5.5 people per 6 households died, and that households have on average 3 people, you'd get that 5.5 out of 18 died, which is false.

Let's say you have 60 houses. 10 of them have 10 people living there and 50 have 3 people living there. Let's assume that the death rate is much higher among families with less people, as they are less likely to have children and are thus more independent and more likely to be fighting the American peacekeepers or against various terrorists. So, the mortality rate in the households with 3 people is 1/3, while that in the households with 10 people is 0.5/10. Randomly selecting 6 households out of the 100 total will most likely give you 1 house with 10 residents and 5 houses with 3 residents. So you then compute the death toll to be 1 * 5 + 0.5 * 1 = 5.5 per 6 households. So you'd need to know the total number of people living in the households to calculate the total casualties, correct? However, some people are bound to lie about the number of people in the particular household. If you simply extrapolate, then there will be a bias against the less numerous big houses with lots of people. The total number of dead is actually 0.5 * 10 + 1 * 50 = 55 out of 250. However, if you just say that 5.5 people per 6 households died, and that households have on average 3 people, you'd get that 5.5 out of 18 died, which is false.
You're assuming a lot to craft an idiosyncratic argument that proves nothing about the issue at hand. Nice try, though.

Let's say you have 60 houses. 10 of them have 10 people living there and 50 have 3 people living there. Let's assume that the death rate is much higher among families with less people, as they are less likely to have children and are thus more independent and more likely to be fighting the American peacekeepers or against various terrorists. So, the mortality rate in the households with 3 people is 1/3, while that in the households with 10 people is 0.5/10. Randomly selecting 6 households out of the 100 total will most likely give you 1 house with 10 residents and 5 houses with 3 residents. So you then compute the death toll to be 1 * 5 + 0.5 * 1 = 5.5 per 6 households. So you'd need to know the total number of people living in the households to calculate the total casualties, correct? However, some people are bound to lie about the number of people in the particular household. If you simply extrapolate, then there will be a bias against the less numerous big houses with lots of people. The total number of dead is actually 0.5 * 10 + 1 * 50 = 55 out of 250. However, if you just say that 5.5 people per 6 households died, and that households have on average 3 people, you'd get that 5.5 out of 18 died, which is false.

Which is why they interviewed blocks of 40 houses at 50 random sites across the country.

You are making a massive assumption about the probability of deaths in a household being dependant on the size of the household as well.

Edit:Seriously dude, all this is in the report, it's linked to in the CNN article and I'll provide a link to it as well.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/11/human.cost.of.war.pdf

Well scientists/statisticians say that the methodology is sound and that any way you look at it statistically, hundreds of thousands of people have more than likely died as a direct result of the war, BUT the Bush administration, a General, NS conservatives as well as other conservatives and Iraqi politicians are saying that its not credible.

Well duh! As if they are going to recognize something that hurts them politically. And we all know Dubya has no faith in science anyway.

Edit:Seriously dude, all this is in the report, it's linked to in the CNN article and I'll provide a link to it as well.

Bush claimed that the study had been debunked and that neither General Casey nor the Iraqi government put much faith in it. I trust Bush. Therefore, I think this study is utter bullshit. Hell, they may be simply fabricating all the data because they know that nobody will cross-check them or reproduce their "experiment." I can claim that I drop a book from 10 meters above the ground and that it takes 20 seconds to fall to the ground; however, that would be a blatant lie, even if my methodology was correct.

Bush claimed that the study had been debunked and that neither General Casey nor the Iraqi government put much faith in it. I trust Bush. Therefore, I think this study is utter bullshit. Hell, they may be simply fabricating all the data because they know that nobody will cross-check them or reproduce their "experiment." I can claim that I drop a book from 10 meters above the ground and that it takes 20 seconds to fall to the ground; however, that would be a blatant lie, even if my methodology was correct.

Ah, so we're back to blind faith in Shrub. Never mind that this report will hurt them in November, if he says it's not true then he must be on the level.

You really need to learn to think for yourself, one day it'll come in useful, I'm sure of it.

Edit;Come to think of it, you're really talking out of your arse, if you want to check the validity of the data then just randomly select a couple of the surveyed households and go talk to them, if the data is fabricated then it'll soon become apparent when their story doesn't match the recorded data, no need to reproduce the whole experiment.

Bush claimed that the study had been debunked and that neither General Casey nor the Iraqi government put much faith in it. I trust Bush. Therefore, I think this study is utter bullshit. Hell, they may be simply fabricating all the data because they know that nobody will cross-check them or reproduce their "experiment." I can claim that I drop a book from 10 meters above the ground and that it takes 20 seconds to fall to the ground; however, that would be a blatant lie, even if my methodology was correct.
You distrust a scientifically sound study of the Iraq war... because Bush said that their intelligence was flawed?

:) *quiver* :D

*bursts into riotous laughter*

Bush claimed that the study had been debunked and that neither General Casey nor the Iraqi government put much faith in it. I trust Bush. Therefore, I think this study is utter bullshit. Hell, they may be simply fabricating all the data because they know that nobody will cross-check them or reproduce their "experiment." I can claim that I drop a book from 10 meters above the ground and that it takes 20 seconds to fall to the ground; however, that would be a blatant lie, even if my methodology was correct.


Because politicians and generals know so much more about statsitics than statisticians?

If this one is true then the last one was full of shit.

So are they both full of shit or just one of them ?

And why are they so far off from even the ardent liberal anti war Bush and America hating .orgs in the world ?

THey didnt do it right ?:p

If this one is true then the last one was full of shit.

So are they both full of shit or just one of them ?

And why are they so far off from even the ardent liberal anti war Bush and America hating .orgs in the world ?

THey didnt do it right ?:p


The last one was done how long ago?

Arent the aveage numbers of daily deaths higher now? Yes

Also this one is simply more accurate because they surveyed more people.

Which ardent anti war bush and america hating orgs and what are their numbers?

The last one was done how long ago?

Arent the aveage numbers of daily daiths higher now? Yes

Also this one is simply more accurate because they surveyed more people.

Which ardent anti ware bush and america hating orgs and what are their numbers?


Read the tread and follow the links.

If this one is true then the last one was full of shit.

So are they both full of shit or just one of them ?

And why are they so far off from even the ardent liberal anti war Bush and America hating .orgs in the world ?

THey didnt do it right ?:p

Have you read the report? Do you have anything meaningful to say or are you content to follow the 'Georgie says is not true so it mustn't be' line of reasoning?

Read the tread and follow the links.

I did - I didnt see any anti-war bush and america hating groups with numbers of deaths in Iraq.

Could you name them? Also tell me their numbers and how they came about those numbers.

Or do you really know anything about this at all and are just talking out of your ass to defend your hero Bush ?

I don't think I've ever seen you make a single reasonable post ever.

I did - I didnt see any anti-war bush and america hating groups with numbers of deaths in Iraq.

Could you name them? Also tell me their numbers and how they came about those numbers.

Or do you really know anything about this at all and are just talking out of your ass to defend your hero Bush ?

I don't think I've ever seen you make a single reasonable post ever.

Bush is an Idiot with large balls . Far from a hero.

I read the report its as flawed and foolish as the first one and since its BY THE SAME group who fucked up the first one ...why should I give it any credibility ?


Jump on the dumbass bandwagon and when in a few weeks it gets peer reviewed and skewered will you be brave enough to come back and admit you were an idiot for falling on it like it was gospel ?

If this report is ever legitimised I will be the first to admit I am wrong.

Call me when pigs fly and its proven legit . JUST LIKE THE LAST ONE.

BY THE SAME PEOPLE.


BTW I looked on this page and found this link...http://www.iraqbodycount.org/


Big pro war group....


Named and identified victims of the war in Iraq:
a memorial, February 2006

Almost since the beginning of our project, concerned individuals and citizen's groups have drawn attention to Iraqi victims of the war in public readings and displays using names compiled by Iraq Body Count (IBC). These lists have been based on media reported civilian deaths and an on-the-ground survey conducted in 2003 by CIVIC.

We have now updated IBC's list to include names recorded to February 2006, and formatted it as a print-ready PDF file which can be downloaded from the links below. The list contains some 3,670 individuals, including a minority for whom only a partial name or familial relationship could be established.

In any use of these names please give due honour to the unidentified dead not in this list whose numbers far exceed these named victims. For every identified individual on the list there are another 9 confirmed Iraqi civilians killed for whom we do not have identifying information. In contrast, virtually every coalition soldier killed can be identified by name and other biographical information.

There is no organised effort to name all victims of the war. Only when all have been identified and duly recorded can there be any talk of respecting their memory.

To those who knew and loved them, and are in no need of reminding, we offer our condolences.


A4 size US letter size

PDF readers can be obtained from Adobe.


Another bunch of war mongers


The worldwide update of reported civilian deaths in the Iraq war and occupation.
The IRAQ BODY COUNT Database
This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion.

Results and totals are continually updated and made immediately available here and on various IBC web counters which may be freely displayed on any website or homepage, where they are automatically updated without further intervention. Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. This method is also used to deal with any residual uncertainty about the civilian or non-combatant status of the dead. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.



Whats the fault with their methodology and fact checking ??????


http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Bush is an Idiot with large balls . Far from a hero.

I read the report its as flawed and foolish as the first one and since its BY THE SAME group who fucked up the first one ...why should I give it any credibility ?


Jump on the dumbass bandwagon and when in a few weeks it gets peer reviewed and skewered will you be brave enough to come back and admit you were an idiot for falling on it like it was gospel ?

If this report is ever legitimised I will be the first to admit I am wrong.

Call me when pigs fly and its proven legit . JUST LIKE THE LAST ONE.

BY THE SAME PEOPLE.

I said I have more faith in the credibility of statiticians than I do politicians. if the report is proven wrong then I will certainly not defend it.

Now since you have read the report, please share with the class what flaws you found in it.

It doesn't take a large quantity of hate to lie.
Does that mean that you are a liar by your own definition?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11753917&postcount=518

And I think that you express a very large quantity of hate in that post, so by your own definition then, you are a huge liar?

I said I have more faith in the credibility of statiticians than I do politicians. if the report is proven wrong then I will certainly not defend it.

Now since you have read the report, please share with the class what flaws you found in it.

The methods used and the conclusions based on them...other than that it was perfect .

Ah, so we're back to blind faith in Shrub. Never mind that this report will hurt them in November, if he says it's not true then he must be on the level.

Another similar report made the same institution was proven fraudulent once before -- I'm wary of placing faith in it a second time. Also, it would be extremely easy for them just to fabricate data and claim that it is the truth. There is no way to check of the data is consistent without going out and interviewing each person again...unlesss, of course, the names of the people were not published for the sake of "anonymity" (read: being able to lie through their teeth). Bush, on the other hand, is a thoroughly honest and honorable character -- that article is written by phonies, liars, and lefties.

Whats the fault with their methodology and fact checking ??????

The two are counting different things. You are comparing apples and oranges.

The methods used and the conclusions based on them...other than that it was perfect .

explain how the methods used were flawed

And I think that you express a very large quantity of hate in that post, so by your own definition then, you are a huge liar?

Wow, what faulty logic. Consider a similar example, replacing "lie" with "say 'bloobaheega' every second word." It doesn't take a lot of hate to say "bloobaheega" every second word. I expressed a very large quantity of hate in that post. Therefore, by my definition, I say "bloobaheega" every second word. See how woefully inadequate that is?

Bloobaheega! (couldn't resist)

Wow, what faulty logic. Consider a similar example, replacing "lie" with "say 'bloobaheega' every second word." It doesn't take a lot of hate to say "bloobaheega" every second word. I expressed a very large quantity of hate in that post. Therefore, by my definition, I say "bloobaheega" every second word. See how woefully inadequate that is?
You did notice that I said using "your definition", not mine, yours. Whose logic is inadequate?

explain how the methods used were flawedthey are flawed because the US gov says so.

No I am counting dead people.

Remember ...hell remember..can theyeven PROVE 600,000 out of 26 million people even DIED in Iraq durring this period ?:p


Not for anything but if you actually pull your head out of the bullshit ..

That would be an INTERESTING obsevation...I mean its hard to misplace 655,000 dead people ...even if some got vaporized by car bombs..:rolleyes:


The Iraqis would notice I assure you ...they invented math . Not Al Gore.

Yep I am certain the Iraqi people would notice 600000 dead people even if they died fom trans fats .

The math teacher PROVES using numbers that 2 plus two equals three.

Who's going to hire you as a cashier ?


Statitical study my ass.

You did notice that I said using "your definition", not mine, yours. Whose logic is inadequate?

No, I never defined a "liar." I simply said that is does not require an exorbitant amount of hate to lie. The logical conclusion to be drawn from this statement is that it is possible to lie even if you do not possess a large quantity of hate. You, however, drew the conclusion that if you express a large quantity of hatred, you are a liar. You cannot weasel your way out of this one -- you were wrong.

No I am counting dead people.

Remember ...hell remember..can theyeven PROVE 600,000 out of 26 million people even DIED in Iraq durring this period ?:p




Out of interest, would you cock a sceptical eyebrow at 2,000 dead in the past month?

explain how the methods used were flawed



I'll tell you what I'll waste MY time showing you something you can see for yourself if you can explain what happened to all the dead people and why no one noticed they died .:D


Like the Iraqis ,,,the ones who live in Iraq and notice when say a son dies or a mom...:rolleyes:


You do know the Iraqis can actually count and evenn pay attention when their relatives and friends croak..they actually have a civilization and all ...


Tell me how they missed all the dead dudes ?

Tell me how they missed all the dead dudes ?

Why do you think they did?

INTERESTING obsevation...I mean its hard to misplace 655,000 dead people ...even if some got vaporized .. (and its even harder to misplace 2.500.000)(...) you forgot poland. (I can use your own logic against you)

I'll tell you what I'll waste MY time showing you something you can see for yourself if you can explain what happened to all the dead people and why no one noticed they died .:D


Like the Iraqis ,,,the ones who live in Iraq and notice when say a son dies or a mom...:rolleyes:


You do know the Iraqis can actually count and evenn pay attention when their relatives and friends croak..they actually have a civilization and all ...


Tell me how they missed all the dead dudes ?


Are you sayign that Iraqis are claiming that noone in Iraq is dying?


I'd love to see your source on that one. We hear about violent deaths in IRaq all the time.

So do you know the number of deaths per day/month/year in your little town? I know I don't and I can count fairly well.

No, I never defined a "liar." I simply said that is does not require an exorbitant amount of hate to lie. The logical conclusion to be drawn from this statement is that it is possible to lie even if you do not possess a large quantity of hate. You, however, drew the conclusion that if you express a large quantity of hatred, you are a liar. You cannot weasel your way out of this one -- you were wrong.
Actually, what you said was:

It doesn't take a large quantity of hate to lie.
so then, let's try it this way. I, unlike you, don't hate anyone at all, therefore I am less likely than you to lie. :D

so then, let's try it this way. I, unlike you, don't hate anyone at all, therefore I am less likely than you to lie. :D

No, there is no correlation between the amount of hate someone has and the frequency of their lives. I said that you don't need a lot of hate to lie -- in fact, possessing hate isn't a prerequisite to lying successfully. You may not be a likely liar, but you cannot gauge one's honesty by his amount of hate.

No I am counting dead people.

Remember ...hell remember..can theyeven PROVE 600,000 out of 26 million people even DIED in Iraq durring this period ?:p
Can you prove that six hundred thousand extra people didn't die?
That would be an INTERESTING obsevation...I mean its hard to misplace 655,000 dead people ...even if some got vaporized by car bombs..:rolleyes:
The US rarely mentions the fact that it's killed hundreds of thousands of Afghanistanis by cutting off whole areas of the country from the rest of the world - that includes food supplies.
The Iraqis would notice I assure you ...they invented math . Not Al Gore.
The Iraqi people did not invent maths. They used the Arabic number system, which is what we use at the moment, rather than the Roman Numeral system which would otherwise have been used.

A critical difference, I'm sure you'll agree.
Yep I am certain the Iraqi people would notice 600000 dead people even if they died fom trans fats .
It's a fairly vast country... a few thousand here, a few thousand there, and over a couple of years that's harder to trace. You've also got Fallujah in there - a whole shitload of people died there.
Who's going to hire you as a cashier ?
A cashier can be utterly innumerate, their till means that they don't have to rely on their mind to do anything.

Does this report state how those alleged 600 something thousand Iraqis died? I'm sure it doesn't mention how most of the Iraqi's who are dieing are killed by the hands of other Iraqi's and other insurgents.

How about the Iranians and Syrians sneaking in. These road side bombs. I bet that most of the dead Iraqis overall have been killed by their own people. But then again, everything is America's fault. We're the mass murderers.

No worries, I won't even attempt to convince you other wise. Because you all are always going to be right. You want to believe that America is evil or as Chavez claimes Bush is the Devil, more power to you. I don't care.

Can you prove that six hundred thousand extra people didn't die?

The US rarely mentions the fact that it's killed hundreds of thousands of Afghanistanis by cutting off whole areas of the country from the rest of the world - that includes food supplies.
The Iraqi people did not invent maths. They used the Arabic number system, which is what we use at the moment, rather than the Roman Numeral system which would otherwise have been used.

A critical difference, I'm sure you'll agree.

It's a fairly vast country... a few thousand here, a few thousand there, and over a couple of years that's harder to trace. You've also got Fallujah in there - a whole shitload of people died there.

A cashier can be utterly innumerate, their till means that they don't have to rely on their mind to do anything.

Interesting, so we have killed more than 650,000 Iraqis and hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan. By that we surely have killed more than a million people. Oh where's the source for Afghanis killed by Americans?

Don't you think that if this were true, which I highly doubt, that the world would have pulled together to stop America from it's Mass Murder.

Why hasn't anybody stepped up to the plate to put the Murderous Americans in their place? Oh wait, maybe that's what the NK is going to do. Maybe that's the real reason for them wanting nukes.

I say that those statistics is a bunch of horse shit. Most of those dead people are from the extremists killing their own people. They've been doing it for decades now even centuries. But that's okay, I understand the bandwagon "Blame America First"

Does this report state how those alleged 600 something thousand Iraqis died? I'm sure it doesn't mention how most of the Iraqi's who are dieing are killed by the hands of other Iraqi's and other insurgents.

How about the Iranians and Syrians sneaking in. These road side bombs. I bet that most of the dead Iraqis overall have been killed by their own people. But then again, everything is America's fault. We're the mass murderers.

No worries, I won't even attempt to convince you other wise. Because you all are always going to be right. You want to believe that America is evil or as Chavez claimes Bush is the Devil, more power to you. I don't care.

actually if you read it you will see that it most certainly does say that about 30% of the 600,000 deaths were at the hands of the US armed forces.

and the rest are still BECAUSE of the war which was started by the US, even if perpetrated by Iraqis or groups foreign to Iraq.

Also, it would be extremely easy for them just to fabricate data and claim that it is the truth. There is no way to check of the data is consistent without going out and interviewing each person again...unlesss, of course, the names of the people were not published for the sake of "anonymity" (read: being able to lie through their teeth). Bush, on the other hand, is a thoroughly honest and honorable character -- that article is written by phonies, liars, and lefties.
The astonishing thickness of your irony is making me doubt your seriousness...

its hard to misplace 655,000 dead people ...even if some got vaporized by car bombs..:rolleyes:


The Iraqis would notice I assure you ...they invented math . Not Al Gore.

Yep I am certain the Iraqi people would notice 600000 dead people even if they died fom trans fats .
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596

Note the dates.

Does this report state how those alleged 600 something thousand Iraqis died? I'm sure it doesn't mention how most of the Iraqi's who are dieing are killed by the hands of other Iraqi's and other insurgents.
If you'd at least read to the second paragraph of the article...

Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.

I get the feeling that most critics of this study haven't even bothered reading it.

That or they might try something really bizarre, like actually counting bodies instead of interviewing 1849 households, when determining how many people died in Iraq during the last three years...

But that was the "coalitons" job, which for some reason I couldn't possibly fucking guess at, they didn't do, apparently.

The system used is applied all over the world - its a bog-standard method of estimating deaths. And why didnt they get a larger sample? Too dangerous...which says much....

The first report...that came up with 100,000 was destroyed.

I reference this one and has since neen dismissed as claptrap...even by peace groups ..:D

seems they desire some credibility after all .



Just one of the articles..there are so many its not funny .


This one should find a home with the looney left for a little while until the looney lefts own scientist admit it is so flawed to be barely usefull as toilet paper .

But hey ...Cindy Sheehan ...has got something new to read .

Could you please explain the "loony left" credentials of the "lancet".

Interesting, so we have killed more than 650,000 Iraqis and hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan. By that we surely have killed more than a million people. Oh where's the source for Afghanis killed by Americans?
Euronews, bloody ages ago, in some kind of mini-documetary thing.
Don't you think that if this were true, which I highly doubt, that the world would have pulled together to stop America from it's Mass Murder.
Not really, since nobody cares about the Afghanis, the Iraqis are, however, rather a different matter.

To put it bluntly.
Why hasn't anybody stepped up to the plate to put the Murderous Americans in their place?
Because most nations see that Afghanistan = full of bandits and drug-runners and hence it's OK.
Oh wait, maybe that's what the NK is going to do. Maybe that's the real reason for them wanting nukes.
Brilliant diversion - but no.

NK wants nukes because they're a very valuable bargaining chip in politics and it's currently very isolated.
I say that those statistics is a bunch of horse shit. Most of those dead people are from the extremists killing their own people. They've been doing it for decades now even centuries. But that's okay, I understand the bandwagon "Blame America First"
69% are non-Coalition forces, so yes, people in Iraq itself.

And the US is the enabler, so of course it gets blamed...

Could you please explain the "loony left" credentials of the "lancet".
They have an education, which seemingly counts.

The astonishing thickness of your irony is making me doubt your seriousness...

What irony are you talking about? These guys have been proven to be frauds, while Bush has remained, as I previously stated, thoroughly honest and honorable. If it had not been for the liberal media which constantly smeared him, his approval ratings would be higher. That, however, is another matter. I guess the writers of the fiction article decided 100,000 wasn't enough for shock value, so they cranked it up to 650,000. The US government, the Iraqi government, and the LA Times dispute their claim and say that it is bullshit.

What irony are you talking about? These guys have been proven to be frauds, .

Where, when and by whom?

If its a good enough method to estimate deaths in the Congo, why does it suddenly go bad in Iraq?

One thing that arouses my BS meter is the date of release

The 100,000 dead study was released on 29th Oct 2004 ONE week before the election, now a new study shows 655 000 dead TWO weeks before the congressional elections

SO in 2 years we've killed 1/2 million people thats a rate of 20800 per month for the past 2 years, yet the same media that is blerting away with this story claims things like:
"Bloodiest month in Iraq since 2003 when 2000 ppl are killed"

El-supremo Boris

PS Although we use so called arabic numerals, they are actually Indian in origin.

What irony are you talking about? These guys have been proven to be frauds, while Bush has remained, as I previously stated, thoroughly honest and honorable.

Awwww. I have thoroughly enjoyed your trolling up to this point. Seems like you went a bit overboard with that one. Well, better luck with the next nick.

One thing that arouses my BS meter is the date of release

The 100,000 dead study was released on 29th Oct 2004 ONE week before the election, now a new study shows 655 000 dead TWO weeks before the congressional elections

SO in 2 years we've killed 1/2 million people thats a rate of 20800 per month for the past 2 years, yet the same media that is blerting away with this story claims things like:
"Bloodiest month in Iraq since 2003 when 2000 ppl are killed"

El-supremo Boris

PS Although we use so called arabic numerals, they are actually Indian in origin.

This is the Lancet. Does it strike you as a primarily political magazine?
http://www.thelancet.com/

Awwww. I have thoroughly enjoyed your trolling up to this point. Seems like you went a bit overboard with that one. Well, better luck with the next nick.

What are you talking about? You claim that I'm a troll, yet you don't post any evidence to negate my claims. Do you know why? Because deep down, you know that I'm right, and you can't stand to argue against the truth. Deep down, you know that Bush is honest even though the liberal media has been spoon-feeding you propaganda to the contrary. It's all right to fight against indoctrination, you know -- just try to present a coherent argument to refute my points, if you can. Otherwise, you may wish to re-examine your own position. And what makes you think I'm a troll? It's a fact that these guys already published a similar paper which was disproved in 2004 (they did it 1 week before the election, too). Who do you trust: some phony "scientists" or Bush? The choice, to me, is obvious. Only one of them was caught in an outright lie, and it wasn't Bush.

What are you talking about? You claim that I'm a troll, yet you don't post any evidence to negate my claims. Do you know why? Because deep down, you know that I'm right, and you can't stand to argue against the truth. Deep down, you know that Bush is honest even though the liberal media has been spoon-feeding you propaganda to the contrary. It's all right to fight against indoctrination, you know -- just try to present a coherent argument to refute my points, if you can. Otherwise, you may wish to re-examine your own position. And what makes you think I'm a troll? It's a fact that these guys already published a similar paper which was disproved in 2004 (they did it 1 week before the election, too). Who do you trust: some phony "scientists" or Bush? The choice, to me, is obvious. Only one of them was caught in an outright lie, and it wasn't Bush.

For the second time, where, when and who was it that "proved" the original study to be a 'fraud'?

Why is the method used suddenly flawed when used in Iraq, but is not flawed when used in other conflict situations?

How about this...
We call in the Space Marines and have the Inquisition declare an Exterminatus on the Middle East?
If we burn the whole area down to the bedrock, no more problems.
And a vast empire of unimaginable power takes the blame, we cant hit back, so no problems.
>_>
<_<

What are you talking about? You claim that I'm a troll, yet you don't post any evidence to negate my claims. Do you know why? Because deep down, you know that I'm right, and you can't stand to argue against the truth. Deep down, you know that Bush is honest even though the liberal media has been spoon-feeding you propaganda to the contrary. It's all right to fight against indoctrination, you know -- just try to present a coherent argument to refute my points, if you can. Otherwise, you may wish to re-examine your own position. And what makes you think I'm a troll? It's a fact that these guys already published a similar paper which was disproved in 2004 (they did it 1 week before the election, too). Who do you trust: some phony "scientists" or Bush? The choice, to me, is obvious. Only one of them was caught in an outright lie, and it wasn't Bush.
Right. It was obvious before, you don't have to rub it in.

The US government, the Iraqi government, and the LA Times dispute their claim and say that it is bullshit.the US Gov has no credibility.. and the Iraqi hats are in fact a Gov installed by an ocupation Army.

So that leaves you with the LA-LA times.

Right. It was obvious before, you don't have to rub it in.

Your condescending tone is quite irritating, you know. There have been multiple studies which have consistently put the death toll at 300,000 or under -- this is the first one to put it over 300,000. Why the hell should I automatically assume that all those studies were flawed instead of thinking that maybe, just maybe, this one study done by the same people who got refuted in 2004, is correct? It's propaganda -- nothing more. I'm not buying it.

The US government has much credibility and I consider the Iraqi government installed by the will of the people.

Fixed for accuracy.

Your condescending tone is quite irritating, you know. There have been multiple studies which have consistently put the death toll at 300,000 or under -- this is the first one to put it over 300,000. Why the hell should I automatically assume that all those studies were flawed instead of thinking that maybe, just maybe, this one study done by the same people who got refuted in 2004, is correct? It's propaganda -- nothing more. I'm not buying it.

Who refuted it?

Why is the lancet, as briefly described below, engaging in "propoganda"?
("The Lancet is one of the oldest and most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, published weekly by Elsevier, part of Reed Elsevier. It was founded in 1823 by Thomas Wakley, who named it after the surgical instrument called a lancet, as well as an arched window ("to let in light").http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lancet)

Your condescending tone is quite irritating, you know. There have been multiple studies which have consistently put the death toll at 300,000 or under -- this is the first one to put it over 300,000. Why the hell should I automatically assume that all those studies were flawed instead of thinking that maybe, just maybe, this one study done by the same people who got refuted in 2004, is correct? It's propaganda -- nothing more. I'm not buying it.
Oh, you ARE buying it. Maybe not today, but some time in the future. You play the hard core Bushevik, right? You'll try your best, but reality will catch you eventually, like it has done over and over.

Fixed for accuracy.there is a Mod ruling that says you are breaking forum rules when you "fix-it" that way.

there is a Mod ruling that says you are breaking forum rules when you "fix-it" that way.

Many of my posts have been "fixed" that way -- in fact, Wanderijar (or however you spell his name) has a "fixed" version of one of my quotes in his sig.

Jack Cafferty just asked the following question on CNN:

Who do you believe when it comes to the death toll of Iraqi civilians -- MIT and Johns Hopkins or the Bush administration?

Click here (http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5t.html?65) to answer it (select the 7-8PM option). He'll read some of the better responses on-air at 8PM EST.

Let the world hear your thoughts!

Fixed for accuracy.

By fixed, I hope you mean "neutering the horrible truth." Sixty six percent of Iraqis want the US to leave now, and more than half consider the US occupation a bad idea from the start.

Yes, the Lancet was so reliable last time, statistics-wise...

Not that I don't condemn this war absolutely.

Jack Cafferty just asked the following question on CNN:



Click here (http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5t.html?65) to answer it (select the 7-8PM option). He'll read some of the better responses on-air at 8PM EST.

Let the world hear your thoughts!(7 p.m.: Who do you believe when it comes to the death toll of Iraqi civilians -- MIT and Johns Hopkins or the Bush administration?)
This would be a good NSG poll.

This would be a good NSG poll.
I don't know why I didn't do that at first. Oh yeah -- maybe it's because I was so disgusted with the whole issue I didn't even think about it.

Poll coming...

Let the world hear your thoughts!

Done.

MIT and Johns Hopkins, while undoubtedly containing many bright scientists, also have a strong liberal slant. With elections so close, it is hard to trust such institutions to be objective and not resort to last-minute propaganda in the form of reporting greater death tolls than actually exist. They may intentionally skew their results to paint a gloomy picture of Iraq when such a situation does not exist. The administration, on the other hand, is a trustworthy entity composed of highly educated people who have much more information at their disposal and more man-power on which to base their results. I'd take the Bush administration over MIT or Johns Hopkins any day of the week.

I should note that pithy comments have the best chance of being read, if that's what you're going for.

Poll coming...thumbs up.

Done.

MIT and Johns Hopkins, while undoubtedly containing many bright scientists, also have a strong liberal slant. With elections so close, it is hard to trust such institutions to be objective and not resort to last-minute propaganda in the form of reporting greater death tolls than actually exist. They may intentionally skew their results to paint a gloomy picture of Iraq when such a situation does not exist. The administration, on the other hand, is a trustworthy entity composed of highly educated people who have much more information at their disposal and more man-power on which to base their results. I'd take the Bush administration over MIT or Johns Hopkins any day of the week.

So what are the Bush administrations numbers? Last I heard they didnt keep a body count because it was too much of a task for them. Got any links?

So what are the Bush administrations numbers? some 30000.

and NO.. its not a typing error.

some 30000.

and NO.. its not a typing error.


I thought that was their number in 2004... no deaths have occured since then?

I thought that was their number in 2004... no deaths have occured since then?its the (US gov) number I heard @ CNN..
I dont have the year.

some 30000.

and NO.. its not a typing error.
That wasn't even an official count; it was just Bush's offhand guess. So a number Bush gives off the cuff with no facts or research, but plenty of bias? That sure is credible. Much more credible than statistical analysis.

See him cite the "figure" in this Daily Show clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzXfLFRA2c0).

So what are the Bush administrations numbers? Last I heard they didnt keep a body count because it was too much of a task for them. Got any links?They simply ran out of fingers.

But it's in the name of justice, democacy and the 'merican way, so it's ok.

He's reading answers now.

EDIT: Surprise, surprise: all but one agreed with The Lancet study. Not unlike this thread's poll, I see...

its the (US gov) number I heard @ CNN..
I dont have the year.

I did some digging around for numbers.

There's a CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.casualties/) from 2005 about an estimate of 26,000 deaths between Jan. 2004 and Sept. 2005. Not a total number, but the only "official" number I could find.

The count at Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) has a total of around 43,000-48,000 dead. The accuracy of the site has apparently been called into question on many occasions, but these are the only numbers I could find besides the Lancet study.

It doesn't take a large quantity of hate to lie.

You may not be a likely liar, but you cannot gauge one's honesty by his amount of hate.
Perfect!! :D

If that's true, then you deserve a nice, warm, chocolate-chip cookie with sprinkles. That was great! :D

EDIT: And it is true, so:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/19/275px-Choco_chip_cookie.jpg

:D

He's reading answers now.

EDIT: Surprise, surprise: all but one agreed with The Lancet study. Not unlike this thread's poll, I see...

I actually left an answer saying that I agree with the bush administration because they dont have a political agenda

Canada has approximately 619 deaths per day with a 32-33 million population.

Iraq has approximately 555 deaths per day with a 26-27 million population.

Canada has 225,935 deaths per year. And according to this report, there is less than 200,000 dying per year in Iraq.

Is Canada at war?
No, they just return to their mothership sooner because it's too cold there.

Perfect!! :D

Those two statements are by no means contradictory -- I'm afraid I cannot see your point. My point was that anyone can lie, regardless of the amount of hate they possess, and both those statements reinforce that idea.

Now, by no means am i a supporter of the iraq war, but i really can not come to agree w/ how they went about collecting this data. I mean, they just took 1700 households and extrapolated it for the entire nation. I'm not saying that extrapolating can't be used effectively in polling but it was severly misused in this poll. Polls are supposed to be used to gauge opinion or individual action and methods for those kind of polls are not applicable to body counts. There is a seriously high probablility of overlapping of casualty reports and number raising by the families themselves.

It doesn't take a large quantity of hate to lie.

You may not be a likely liar, but you cannot gauge one's honesty by his amount of hate.

My point was that anyone can lie, regardless of the amount of hate they possess
How profound!! :D

Very rarely have I ever been truly ashamed to be an American.

Reading this and then seeing the Bush Administration's reaction, I can honestly say that today is one of those rare days.

Now, by no means am i a supporter of the iraq war, but i really can not come to agree w/ how they went about collecting this data. I mean, they just took 1700 households and extrapolated it for the entire nation. I'm not saying that extrapolating can't be used effectively in polling but it was severly misused in this poll. Polls are supposed to be used to gauge opinion or individual action and methods for those kind of polls are not applicable to body counts. There is a seriously high probablility of overlapping of casualty reports and number raising by the families themselves.Right, yeah, really?, REALLY?, Yeah? /per sentence.

I bet Bush does not even know how to spell "methodology." :D

Or pronounce it. ;)

Very rarely have I ever been truly ashamed to be an American.

Reading this and then seeing the Bush Administration's reaction, I can honestly say that today is one of those rare days.
Think nothing of it. We still love you as a nation.

How profound!! :D

You posted a series of false assertions to the contrary, so I wouldn't be making such flippant posts if I were you.

By fixed, I hope you mean "neutering the horrible truth." Sixty six percent of Iraqis want the US to leave now, and more than half consider the US occupation a bad idea from the start.

I call bullshit. A lot more than sixty six percent want us gone now.

Very rarely have I ever been truly ashamed to be an American.

Reading this and then seeing the Bush Administration's reaction, I can honestly say that today is one of those rare days.

Why? If you opposed the war and Bush from the start - which I assume you have - you have nothing to be ashamed of.

I did some digging around for numbers.

There's a CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.casualties/) from 2005 about an estimate of 26,000 deaths between Jan. 2004 and Sept. 2005. Not a total number, but the only "official" number I could find.thanks for bailing me out.

I find it absolutely hilarious that some jumped up kids on an internet forum defending their idol, and with a massive political agenda, apparently know more about everything than the Lancet, a nearly 200 year old medical peer-review journal which is one of the most respected of any kind in the world, and has absolutely no political agenda to push, despite having no facts, no proof, no studies conducted to help prove their points, and no solid argument (hell, no real argument at all, solid or not) against the study.

Brilliant.

Now, by no means am i a supporter of the iraq war, but i really can not come to agree w/ how they went about collecting this data. I mean, they just took 1700 households and extrapolated it for the entire nation. I'm not saying that extrapolating can't be used effectively in polling but it was severly misused in this poll. Polls are supposed to be used to gauge opinion or individual action and methods for those kind of polls are not applicable to body counts. There is a seriously high probablility of overlapping of casualty reports and number raising by the families themselves.

Actually the methods used are not ideal... its a war zone its not as easy as it might sound, but I think they have actually done a pretty good job considering the circumstances. Plus of the 547 deaths recorded 501 are backed up with death certificates.. thats a pretty good percentage for a war torn country I would have thought.

As to the Canadian death rate vs the Iraq death rate it actually makes a pretty good confirmation point. The death rate was about 2x normal during the post invasion period. So effectively they are saying that normally 650,000 iraqis would have died during the 3.5 year period but instead they estimate that 130,000 died. As pootwaddle pointed out the death rates in canada (and other studies of Iraq) were about the same. About 650000 a year. So if they can estimate the prewar rates reasonably accurately (assuming that iraq was about as good a place to live as canada, bad assumtion I know, no offence to canadians, but if anything its gonna be an under estimate right) then the post invasion rates are likely to be not a bad estimate either.

As to the Iraq body count site. Its numbers are of "Reported deaths" its likely to be pretty much a minimum value. When you are having 110 people blown up in car bombs do you bother to report 1 guy shot dead down the street?

Yes the confidence intervals are quite wide.. but not nearly as bad as the first study.. 95% CI in this study is from 400 000 to 950 000. 400 000 is still a really big number, but is it unreasonable? If about 0.7% of the population dies avery year would a war going on cause an additional 0.7% increase?

And just using "common sense" How much would you expect the death rate to increase in a war zone? Does double the normal rate seem like such a stretch?? I tried to find some stats quickly so.... Trends in UK Statistics since 1900 (http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf#search=%22mortality%20rates%20during%20ww2%20statistics%22)During WW1 and WW2 death rates in the UK were about double normal......

Why? If you opposed the war and Bush from the start - which I assume you have - you have nothing to be ashamed of.

Because I could have done more. I could have spent more time handing out brochures and talking to people. I could have done more to denounce the idiot fake-film makers and tried harder to bring the truth to light. I could have marched more and spoken more (I'm actually a very persuasive public speaker) and covered more ground.

My nation started this ... my nation refuses to end this ... my nation perpetuates this. I am ashamed of my nation. I hate that we have become the United States of Denial ... I only hope November will change that ... but I really doubt it.

While I don't speak for this Administration or the People of the United States, I must extend a formal apology. I could have done more. My country could have done more. I'm sorry.

Because I could have done more. I could have spent more time handing out brochures and talking to people. I could have done more to denounce the idiot fake-film makers and tried harder to bring the truth to light. I could have marched more and spoken more (I'm actually a very persuasive public speaker) and covered more ground.

My nation started this ... my nation refuses to end this ... my nation perpetuates this. I am ashamed of my nation. I hate that we have become the United States of Denial ... I only hope November will change that ... but I really doubt it.

While I don't speak for this Administration or the People of the United States, I must extend a formal apology. I could have done more. My country could have done more. I'm sorry.

You didn't elect the fuckers responsible. And most of the sheep who support him wouldn't have listened, anyway. People like that never listen to reason, only to fear.

So where is John University stationed at in Iraq?

I dont trust Bush as far as I could throw a full sized cherry tree but I think the military report of 50K sounds about right.

So where is John University stationed at in Iraq?

I dont trust Bush as far as I could throw a full sized cherry tree but I think the military report of 50K sounds about right.

Yea, because they certainly wouldn't have an agenda to push.

654,965 dead?

What an incredibly precise number to throw out there.

Because I could have done more. I could have spent more time handing out brochures and talking to people. I could have done more to denounce the idiot fake-film makers and tried harder to bring the truth to light. I could have marched more and spoken more (I'm actually a very persuasive public speaker) and covered more ground.

My nation started this ... my nation refuses to end this ... my nation perpetuates this. I am ashamed of my nation. I hate that we have become the United States of Denial ... I only hope November will change that ... but I really doubt it.

While I don't speak for this Administration or the People of the United States, I must extend a formal apology. I could have done more. My country could have done more. I'm sorry.


On Nation States you are mostly apologising to the choir I reckon. Sorry dont feed the bulldog. If you sincerely feel this way and your core sensibilities hurt from the weight of death you feel you could and should have prevented, then your time on the internet could be better spent attempting to save the remaining survivors in Iraq rather than playing a political game. Get ye to a soapbox and a constant letter writing campaign etc to make reparations for your earlier sloth. If however you are just making a political speech to sound pious and empathetic then rave on Mac Duff.

But Iraq HAD to be done. It would have been done eventually by Gore, Kerry, Rudy G, Hilary, Jeb, or Ralph Nader.

Look I know Bush is the most dangerous president in history. (mostly because of his cowboy tongue w/ "get em dead or alive" Axis of Evil" and all that) But it all comes down to :
Did we stop a bio/chem attack on UK and/or USA by invading Iraq! Yes we did. (imho)

So why were these bio/chems not found? How could they just magicly disappear? Nothing magical about driving a truck to Iran or Syria.

Trucks were seen pulling away from sites that were about to be inspected before the war. If Sadamm didnt have WMD then he is the stupidest man in history. He could have let inspectors do their jobs and he would still be in charge, sitting at home, drinking wine and eating cheesy-poofs!

So the death toll of Iraqis surpasses that of US citizens in our Civil War and for some reason its still just, ethnic violence? bullshit, its the biggest civil war in the world right now. Iraq is a shithole, it always has been, and always will be, we just made things even worse. We didnt defend ourselves. there never has been or never were going to be any WMD's. Saddam was to incomopotent. The best we can do now is split the country in to 3 completely seperate nations, Of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ites.

That the study is such an outlier makes me doubt it, with most reliable sources reporting a casualty ratio of 75,000->85,000 excess dead, and several other sources putting it up around 100,000 (the Lancet study of 2004, which, was a fundamentally flawed study, I might add).

So the death toll of Iraqis surpasses that of US citizens in our Civil War and for some reason its still just, ethnic violence? bullshit, its the biggest civil war in the world right now. Iraq is a shithole, it always has been, and always will be, we just made things even worse. We didnt defend ourselves. there never has been or never were going to be any WMD's. Saddam was to incomopotent. The best we can do now is split the country in to 3 completely seperate nations, Of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi'ites.

Nah, the Congo still takes the cake for biggest civil war, with something like 3 million dead.

Nah, the Congo still takes the cake for biggest civil war, with something like 3 million dead.

He said "in the world right now."

The Second Congo War officially ended in 2003.

654,965 dead?

What an incredibly precise number to throw out there.

It's the middle of the range, just like the previous Lancet study of 2004, they have an absolutely enourmous range (something like 400-500 thousand is the total statistical spread), with a reasonably high confidence that it falls somewhere within that range. The number itself just happens to be the dead center number, but, statistically, it's just as likely as the high or the low ends of that range.

That the study is such an outlier makes me doubt it, with most reliable sources reporting a casualty ratio of 75,000->85,000 excess dead,

Which sources?

and several other sources putting it up around 100,000 (the Lancet study of 2004, which, was a fundamentally flawed study, I might add).

Out of date.

Which sources?
Generally, the United Nations and the Iraq Death Count or Iraq Body Count or whatever it's called.



Out of date.

I know, I'm saying that the Lancet study of 2004 was the previous high mark, no study since, or before, has hit that number, save this study only.

In fact, the same problems that plagued the 2004 study continue to plague this study.






Listen, I'm not doubting that loads of people have died in Iraq, and that the US made a horrendous goddam mistake, but, as I've said in the past, there is absolutely no reason to inflate these numbers. They are horrifying as it is, but the studies that were published in the Lancet suffer multiple flaws (which I have laid out in detail in past threads) and using them undermines the credibility of the case to leave Iraq, by bringing other bits of information into question.

Both the Bush Administration and the folks who ran this study are screwing with the numbers for political reasons, which are contemptible. We're talking about real human lives here, not some talking point on the The O'Reilly Factor or some crap show like that. Don't screw with the data just for your own political advantage.

According to the article, they based their information on a random survey of under 2000 people. That is most decidedly not scientific.
ummm...sorry to burst your bubble there, but a random survey of 2000 people is most decidedly scientific. Which shows yet another area you know nothing about.
fyi, nearly all polls conducted are done so with ~1000 people. This gives a 3.8% error rate (meaning the true figure is between +/- 3.1% of what is reported).
A random sample of 2000 people would give us a 2.2% error rate.

Generally, the United Nations and the Iraq Death Count or Iraq Body Count or whatever it's called.

They are not counting excess deaths.

I know, I'm saying that the Lancet study of 2004 was the previous high mark, no study since, or before, has hit that number, save this study only.

No study has been measuring the same thing.

In fact, the same problems that plagued the 2004 study continue to plague this study.

High margin of error and doubts about the pre-war mortality rate?

The margin of error is a big problem, yes, but it could just as easily mean that the real number is somewhere in the 1,000,000 range as far less than this study indicates.

The difference in the pre-war mortality rate accounts for how much of the excess death difference? I doubt it makes the numbers much lower than the study indicates.

I see. How do they verify that the data extracted from those 12 000 people is true? Do they use various sources to extensively cross-check all their information against possible lying? Do you think that Iraqi civilians are not going to lie to make the war appear more terrible than it actually is? How random are those 1800 people selected? After all, the situation in Iraq does not permit itself to certain people being interviewed, and the distribution of interviewees was extremely skewed. There are numerous holes in their methodology.

You realise that if this was true, and that they couldn't go into areas that were too dangerous, then the 655000 is understated?
If they only interviewed people in 'safe' areas, logically we must infer that they are less at risk from violent death than those in the more dangerous areas.

It's the middle of the range, just like the previous Lancet study of 2004, they have an absolutely enourmous range (something like 400-500 thousand is the total statistical spread), with a reasonably high confidence that it falls somewhere within that range. The number itself just happens to be the dead center number, but, statistically, it's just as likely as the high or the low ends of that range.

Since this precise number is so very unrounded and it is the exact center of the range it means that at least one of the two numbers which are the extremes of the range is also a very precise number and not rounded in any meaningful way.

They are not counting excess deaths.
Yes, yes, they are counting deaths by violence, which is primarily akin to excess deaths in the case of Iraq. There are a handful of excess deaths that are not violence related, according to this study, but the difference could easily account for by other factors, such as the problems with the pre-war death rate.



No study has been measuring the same thing.
I believe I've read that this study and the earlier Lancet study are done by the same people, with the same methodology.



High margin of error and doubts about the pre-war mortality rate?

The margin of error is a big problem, yes, but it could just as easily mean that the real number is somewhere in the 1,000,000 range as far less than this study indicates.
I personally don't count the high margin of error as much of a problem, although I wish it had been a smaller margin of error, but if I had a nickel I wished for something to be more precise, I'd be rich.

The difference in the pre-war mortality rate accounts for how much of the excess death difference? I doubt it makes the numbers much lower than the study indicates.

Actually, it can. Given that the pre-war mortality rate that the studies both used was 5.0 per 1000, and the actual rate was somwhere around 8.3 per 1000. This difference could account for as much as 89,000 deaths.

It's the middle of the range, just like the previous Lancet study of 2004, they have an absolutely enourmous range (something like 400-500 thousand is the total statistical spread), with a reasonably high confidence that it falls somewhere within that range. The number itself just happens to be the dead center number, but, statistically, it's just as likely as the high or the low ends of that range.

Actually thats not really true... the high mark is just as likely as the low mark.. but both are much less likely than the figure being around 650 000. Its very likely that the distribution is like a bell curve (http://www.testconstruction.com/Bell-Curve-est.gif).

So for a 95% CI the values are apparently between 400 000 and 950 000 but for a 80% CI they could be more like say 600 000 and 700 000.

Yes, yes, they are counting deaths by violence, which is primarily akin to excess deaths in the case of Iraq. There are a handful of excess deaths that are not violence related, according to this study, but the difference could easily account for by other factors, such as the problems with the pre-war death rate.

Yes, but they are being counted in different ways. The Lancet study compared the mortality rates; the others are just counting known instances of violent death.

The difference is not particularly surprising; in a country as wrecked and conflict-ridden as Iraq, lots of violent deaths will never be counted.

And the trends do match up.

Actually, it can. Given that the pre-war mortality rate that the studies both used was 5.0 per 1000, and the actual rate was somwhere around 8.3 per 1000. This difference could account for as much as 89,000 deaths.

So a little more than half a million instead of 650,000?

Does it really matter, at this point?

Actually thats not really true... the high mark is just as likely as the low mark.. but both are much less likely than the figure being around 650 000. Its very likely that the distribution is like a bell curve (http://www.testconstruction.com/Bell-Curve-est.gif).

So for a 95% CI the values are apparently between 400 000 and 950 000 but for a 80% CI they could be more like say 600 000 and 700 000.

I see I worded my sentence poorly, I ought to try to avoid that. That's what twelve hours of work and class will do to the brain. *blagh*

Yes, but they are being counted in different ways. The Lancet study compared the mortality rates; the others are just counting known instances of violent death.

The difference is not particularly surprising; in a country as wrecked and conflict-ridden as Iraq, lots of violent deaths will never be counted.

And the trends do match up.


Iraq was wrecked before the war, medical care was sparse, there were massive food problems, and economic conditions were downright grim. They chose the 5 per 1000 number because it tends to fit with most countries death rates. Iraq's was much higher.


So a little more than half a million instead of 650,000?

Does it really matter, at this point?

It doesn't matter. It stopped mattering after 2, for Christsakes. What I'm opposed to is that you're using horribly flawed data, and you're hurting the "Get the fuck out of there" argument when you do this.

OK.. a thought just occurred to me.

92% of deaths were confirmed by death certificates...

So why do we need the study at all??

If they have death certificates they had to be given out right? By who? and if they were given death certificates where is the paper work at the other end. I mean surely if they were given death certificates then the authority that gave them to them has records?? Can't they just go to the source and count the number of people who died before and after? Otherwise whats the point of the whole death certificate business anyway?

OK.. a thought just occurred to me.

92% of deaths were confirmed by death certificates...

So why do we need the study at all??

If they have death certificates they had to be given out right? By who? and if they were given death certificates where is the paper work at the other end. I mean surely if they were given death certificates then the authority that gave them to them has records?? Can't they just go to the source and count the number of people who died before and after? Otherwise whats the point of the whole death certificate business anyway?

Thank you. A voice of reason.

They supposedly have 92% death certificate verification, fine, count death certificates and add 8%. But they aren't going to do that, you do know that right?

The Iraqi government calls this report entirely bogus, and there is a reason for that, if anyone gives out the death certificates, they do. Either way the report is erroneous.

Thank you. A voice of reason.

They supposedly have 92% death certificate verification, fine, count death certificates and add 8%. But they aren't going to do that, you do know that right?

The Iraqi government calls this report entirely bogus, and there is a reason for that, if anyone gives out the death certificates, they do. Either way the report is erroneous.for what reason do two highly respected organizations have to give a false report? Why was the Bush admisration always reluctant to give an estimate of civilian deaths, if any group has cause to give a false report it would be the ones trying to justify the war.



What's worse than living under the rule of a murderous tyrant in a third world country???















Being liberated by the USA!

Thank you. A voice of reason.

They supposedly have 92% death certificate verification, fine, count death certificates and add 8%. But they aren't going to do that, you do know that right?

The Iraqi government calls this report entirely bogus, and there is a reason for that, if anyone gives out the death certificates, they do. Either way the report is erroneous.

But its not that simple... I mean if the Iraqi government had those records then the study would never have gone ahead in the first place.

If the study is so bogus and the Government has the real mortality statistics then all they have to do to discredit it is release the actual value. My guess is that they have no more idea than anyone else. Either that or a more unlikely but still possible explanation.. the actual rates are even worse.....

But thats beside the point, all I was confused about was the purpose of the death certificate.. I mean whats the good of it if no one is keeping track of it? You presumably don't get one unless you front up to some "official" organisation, but then what happens to it.

Is it really just red tape for the sake of red tape?

Why are stats so hard to get your hands on when the data is supposedly collected?

Iraq was wrecked before the war, medical care was sparse, there were massive food problems, and economic conditions were downright grim.

Thanks to our sanctions.

Thanks to our sanctions.

I've always thought that all the people who died in Iraq during that period should be added to the current toteboard as well.

I've always thought that all the people who died in Iraq during that period should be added to the current toteboard as well.

I fully agree.

I've always thought that all the people who died in Iraq during that period should be added to the current toteboard as well.

In total, US imperialism makes Saddam Hussein look like a pathetic amateur.

In total, US imperialism makes Saddam Hussein look like a pathetic amateur.

A sobering thought, isn't it? :(

A sobering thought, isn't it? :(

Indeed. It is quite saddening.

Our government's hands are not merely dirty, they are soaked in blood. And the vile loathsome criminal who launched this disgusting act of aggression remains in power.

Indeed. It is quite saddening.

Our government's hands are not merely dirty, they are soaked in blood. And the vile loathsome criminal who launched this disgusting act of aggression remains in power.

If only we had more people like you in the world, people who denounce repression and bloodshed no matter who commits it, and are never afraid to stand up for peace.

Our government's hands are not merely dirty, they are soaked in blood. And the vile loathsome criminal who launched this disgusting act of aggression remains in power.
Too bad he's also immune to prosecution for any war crimes.

Too bad he's also immune to prosecution for any war crimes.

He is!? What the fuck, over?!!? :mad:

He is!? What the fuck, over?!!? :mad:
Infuriating but true. You can thank the Republican-dominated Congress for passing that one.

http://www.rubyan.com/politics/2006/09/bushcheney_escape_war_crimes_p.html

Too bad he's also immune to prosecution for any war crimes.
Unless of course SCOTUS strikes down the law that protects him.

I have. About to go again. I've yet to see anything there that even comes CLOSE to the numbers reported here. The one site posted that showed a little under 50,000 is quite a bit more on the reasonable side. 655,000 is so absurd it's reprehensible that anyone even believes it...outside of that fact that you're so against the war you've got a hard on over the "fact" that your wettest of wet dreams is true and America is just as evil and hateful as you hoped.

In the mean time...for those of you who refuse to seek truth, Iraq has power/water/sewer service in areas they didn't BEFORE the war started. They have more access to hospitals than they did BEFORE the war started. Those car bombs going off in those crowded marketplaces? Guess what...there were NO crowded marketplaces before the war.

Bah...not worth going on.

I dont know why they didnt just go for the cool million?

I have. About to go again. I've yet to see anything there that even comes CLOSE to the numbers reported here. The one site posted that showed a little under 50,000 is quite a bit more on the reasonable side. 655,000 is so absurd it's reprehensible that anyone even believes it...outside of that fact that you're so against the war you've got a hard on over the "fact" that your wettest of wet dreams is true and America is just as evil and hateful as you hoped.

In the mean time...for those of you who refuse to seek truth, Iraq has power/water/sewer service in areas they didn't BEFORE the war started. They have more access to hospitals than they did BEFORE the war started. Those car bombs going off in those crowded marketplaces? Guess what...there were NO crowded marketplaces before the war.

Bah...not worth going on.

Anectodal evidence versus genuine research... I'll go with the latter, thanks.

But its not that simple... I mean if the Iraqi government had those records then the study would never have gone ahead in the first place.

If the study is so bogus and the Government has the real mortality statistics then all they have to do to discredit it is release the actual value. My guess is that they have no more idea than anyone else. Either that or a more unlikely but still possible explanation.. the actual rates are even worse.....

But that’s beside the point, all I was confused about was the purpose of the death certificate.. I mean what’s the good of it if no one is keeping track of it? You presumably don't get one unless you front up to some "official" organization, but then what happens to it.

Is it really just red tape for the sake of red tape?

Why are stats so hard to get your hands on when the data is supposedly collected?


You see, that's just it, you missed the operative problem.

IF the 92% death certificate claim IS correct, then the government knows how many have died by virtue of completing 92% of all deaths recording.

IF the 92% death certificate claim IS INCORRECT, a lie, then the government still might know what the death rate really is BUT the report survey is not proven to be incorrect and erroneous and essentially useless.

IF the report and survey and the government agencies are ALL wrong, then we can assume that we cannot know the actual death tally without first determining who and where and when, WE should find out how many have died before we make assumptions about policy in Iraq.

Unless of course SCOTUS strikes down the law that protects him.

We can only hope.

I have. About to go again. I've yet to see anything there that even comes CLOSE to the numbers reported here. The one site posted that showed a little under 50,000 is quite a bit more on the reasonable side. 655,000 is so absurd it's reprehensible that anyone even believes it...outside of that fact that you're so against the war you've got a hard on over the "fact" that your wettest of wet dreams is true and America is just as evil and hateful as you hoped.

In the mean time...for those of you who refuse to seek truth, Iraq has power/water/sewer service in areas they didn't BEFORE the war started. They have more access to hospitals than they did BEFORE the war started. Those car bombs going off in those crowded marketplaces? Guess what...there were NO crowded marketplaces before the war.

Bah...not worth going on.
Iraq's utilities and sanitation are far below where they were pre-war, and hospitals are almost always overcrowded and understaffed and undersupplied.

Did we stop a bio/chem attack on UK and/or USA by invading Iraq! Yes we did. (imho)
How exactly? Iraq had years to do that and never did, so why do you figure they were going to some time soon?

So why were these bio/chems not found? How could they just magicly disappear? Nothing magical about driving a truck to Iran or Syria.

Trucks were seen pulling away from sites that were about to be inspected before the war. If Sadamm didnt have WMD then he is the stupidest man in history. He could have let inspectors do their jobs and he would still be in charge, sitting at home, drinking wine and eating cheesy-poofs!
If he did have them, why idn't he use them against the US forces when they invaded? It was pretty obvious the US wasn't going to back out as quick as they did last time round, so what did he have to lose?

btw, the inspectors were doing their job and issued a report saying he had none, which has been backed up since.

I must ask you where you get your info from. A congress report released recently found that Saddam had no WMDs, wasn't a threat to the US and had no ties with al Qaeda - indeed, it said he was actively against them. Which, considering their opposing ideologies is not particularly surprising.
Considering the Congress report took several months to compile and was based in part on classified documents, if you're saying Saddam had WMDs and was intending to use them against the West, I can only conclude you either have access to unreleased highly classified documents that are contrary to all other reports available, or you're talking out of your arse.
mmm...which conclusion to choose?
Occam's Razor makes this decision very easy...

You see, that's just it, you missed the operative problem.

IF the 92% death certificate claim IS correct, then the government knows how many have died by virtue of completing 92% of all deaths recording.

Actually it doesn't really work that way... all the government has to do is count up all the deaths each year previous to the invasion and compare that to all the deaths post the invasion and the difference in rate would be attributable to effects from the invasion.

The difference is bound nbot to be all from coalition troops. In fact according to the report 67% of the extra deaths are not attributable to the coallition (even by the families of the victims) and are probably just from the increase in lawlessness and terrorist bombing etc ... but the source is fairly irrelivant as the cause is the destabilising effect of the invasion regardless of who actually does the killing...

"In late September, the Iraqi Government barred the Baghdad central morgue and the Health Ministry from releasing figures to the media. Now, only the Government is allowed to release figures."
SMH: At least 600,000 civilians killed in Iraq, study finds (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/at-least-600000-civilians-killed-in-iraq-study-finds/2006/10/11/1160246197531.html)

Ah.. so thats why they had to do an independant study.. the government refuses to release actual figures.. Seems to me that if they knew the actual figures were much lower than those being quoted it would be benificial for them to release those figures...

A congress report released recently found that Saddam had no WMDs, wasn't a threat to the US and had no ties with al Qaeda - indeed, it said he was actively against them.

You talking about the report, one month before the last presidential election?
With politians scrambling for their jobs? The one mostly based on Sadamm's say so?

EDIT: The one where it says the CIA warned the White House about not sending enough troups in in 2K3?

That doesn't sound very flawed to me. Besides, the criticisms in the Wiki article are directed at the first study, and the issues raised there have been countered by the study's authors.
As it's 2:30 am here, I am going to bed now, and I won't be online but very briefly until fairly late tomorrow, I'll have to wait until later to 1) point out the multiple flaws in the first study in more detail, 2) review this one and poke holes in in, but I'll just point out for now that I am already highly skeptical of it due to 1) the flaws in the previous study and what appear, at first glance, to be repeations of those flaws and 2) what appear at first glance to be excessively high numbers.

While it does seem some of the methodological errors were addressed, I remain skeptical for the following reasons:

1) The study is retrospective. Prospective studies are more accurate.
2) There are still serious questions about the sampling methodology, due to the difficulties of accurate sampling in Iraq.
3) The base crude mortality rate is a questionable estimate.
4) The attribution of deaths is entierly subjective, and the study admits there is no means of independent verification.
5) The results appear to be a significant outlier in comparison to other estimates.

The figure - the highest estimate for the civilian death toll in the war - breaks down to about 15,000 violent deaths a month, quadruple the number of deaths for July given by Iraqi government hospitals and the morgue in Baghdad and published last month in a United Nations report on Iraq.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/at-least-600000-civilians-killed-in-iraq-study-finds/2006/10/11/1160246197531.html

6) The presence of serious statistical flaws in the 2004 study cause me to cast a more skeptical eye on this one.
7)


More importantly, my objections are to the reporting of the results.

1) The results are being presented as conclusive facts, when they are not.
2) The results are being reported in a sensational fashion, particularly
3) The results are seeming being misrepresented for political gain.


That the study is such an outlier makes me doubt it, with most reliable sources reporting a casualty ratio of 75,000->85,000 excess dead, and several other sources putting it up around 100,000 (the Lancet study of 2004, which, was a fundamentally flawed study, I might add).

Indeed.

What I'm opposed to is that you're using horribly flawed data, and you're hurting the "Get the fuck out of there" argument when you do this.

Exactly so.

Too bad he's also immune to prosecution for any war crimes.Unless of course SCOTUS strikes down the law that protects him.

There's always the possibility (however unlikely) of a Universal Jurisdiction arrest... :)

We can only hope.

Indeed.

Long before there were pollsters there were epidemiologists, MD's with the expertise to study trends in causes of death, it's a science. These people are experts in the field of collecting data, they developed it. Questioning their ability is absurd these are not amatuers with a political agenda. If they say 650,000 have died because of the war I'll believe it before I believe any info that comes out of the Whitehouse that defintely has a political agenda and will deliberately interpret data to favour their policies.

Long before there were pollsters there were epidemiologists, MD's with the expertise to study trends in causes of death, it's a science. These people are experts in the field of collecting data, they developed it. Questioning their ability is absurd these are not amatuers with a political agenda. If they say 650,000 have died because of the war I'll believe it before I believe any info that comes out of the Whitehouse that defintely has a political agenda and will deliberately interpret data to favour their policies.

The problems are multifold. But to address ytour specific objections: they aren't saying that 650,000 died, it's being misreported, and there appear to be methodology problems.

We can only hope.

I wouldn't bank on it, CK.

I look forward to seeing the bloodthirsty Busheviks wriggle their way out of this one.

ROFLMAO!!!

I wouldn't bank on it, CK.

Nor would I. :(

I recall Robert McNamara saying every US President since WW2 was guilty of war crimes(he included himself as a war criminal as well) but the victor never goes on trial. The USA not recognizing the World Court's right to judge americans should tell us something.

I have. About to go again. I've yet to see anything there that even comes CLOSE to the numbers reported here. The one site posted that showed a little under 50,000 is quite a bit more on the reasonable side. 655,000 is so absurd it's reprehensible that anyone even believes it...outside of that fact that you're so against the war you've got a hard on over the "fact" that your wettest of wet dreams is true and America is just as evil and hateful as you hoped.

In the mean time...for those of you who refuse to seek truth, Iraq has power/water/sewer service in areas they didn't BEFORE the war started. They have more access to hospitals than they did BEFORE the war started. Those car bombs going off in those crowded marketplaces? Guess what...there were NO crowded marketplaces before the war.

Bah...not worth going on.



Standalonia... my guess is you stand alone because you talk out of your ass so much your breath stinks so bad that it drives people away.

Actually the methods used are not ideal... its a war zone its not as easy as it might sound, but I think they have actually done a pretty good job considering the circumstances. Plus of the 547 deaths recorded 501 are backed up with death certificates.. thats a pretty good percentage for a war torn country I would have thought.

As to the Canadian death rate vs the Iraq death rate it actually makes a pretty good confirmation point. The death rate was about 2x normal during the post invasion period. So effectively they are saying that normally 650,000 iraqis would have died during the 3.5 year period but instead they estimate that 130,000 died. As pootwaddle pointed out the death rates in canada (and other studies of Iraq) were about the same. About 650000 a year. So if they can estimate the prewar rates reasonably accurately (assuming that iraq was about as good a place to live as canada, bad assumtion I know, no offence to canadians, but if anything its gonna be an under estimate right) then the post invasion rates are likely to be not a bad estimate either.

As to the Iraq body count site. Its numbers are of "Reported deaths" its likely to be pretty much a minimum value. When you are having 110 people blown up in car bombs do you bother to report 1 guy shot dead down the street?

Yes the confidence intervals are quite wide.. but not nearly as bad as the first study.. 95% CI in this study is from 400 000 to 950 000. 400 000 is still a really big number, but is it unreasonable? If about 0.7% of the population dies avery year would a war going on cause an additional 0.7% increase?

And just using "common sense" How much would you expect the death rate to increase in a war zone? Does double the normal rate seem like such a stretch?? I tried to find some stats quickly so.... Trends in UK Statistics since 1900 (http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf#search=%22mortality%20rates%20during%20ww2%20statistics%22)During WW1 and WW2 death rates in the UK were about double normal......

Hmmmm, yes, very good thought process you have there.

This report is a lie. No civilains have been killed, only terrorists and saddam supporters<.< >.>

damn iraqis. Die so easily. poor americans. god bless the military occupation.

Where did they hide all them bodies :D

Where did they hide all them bodies :D
They WPed them in Fallujah, before giving them a bit of MK77 to seal the deal, it seems.