655 000+ deaths in iraq so far

[whogivesadamnit]

Wow that's really alot of people.. This is truly a stupid war. Wonder what Bush thinks of that statistics, he probably doesn't give a shit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,18928 88,00.html

article

[Korriken]

obviously you don't understand war. In war, people, well, they die. if you think thats a lot of deaths, you should look at world war 2, that was even worse with over 50,000,000 deaths.

also it doesnt tell you that the insurgents are causing the vast majority of the deaths, not the american military.

its not the american military's fault that the insurgents are blowing up civilians.

[whogivesadamnit]

still, this did not have to happen. Things have not gotten better.
And yea ofc world wars had more victims but this is ALOT too! Just because Hitler did worse things, doesn't make this fair. And indirectly Bush created all those terrorists who make daily life there a living hell.
I just hope it will get better at a time..

[JudgeDredd]

At 3/21/07 08:39 AM, Korriken wrote: its not the american military's fault that the insurgents are blowing up civilians.

Yeah, i mean it's like releasing all the animals in a massive zoo. For the sake of every animal's freedom, there's bound to be more than a few "predator mishaps".

[Memorize]

At 3/21/07 08:16 AM, whogivesadamnit wrote: Wow that's really alot of people.. This is truly a stupid war. Wonder what Bush thinks of that statistics, he probably doesn't give a shit.

And you're an idiot when the official death toll is 60,000 while many other sources say about 100,000. Also, that little death toll is how many have died SINCE the US invasion, not because of the US invasion.

Basically they're going around asking if someone died in the family since 2003 and that's it. Hardly seems fair. Not to mention these are the same people who claimed that 9k-100k died within a year alone.

All I have to say to them is that their little way of pulling a statistic sounds like bullshit.

[IllustriousPotentate]

That seems a gross over estimation.

www.iraqbodycount.org puts the count at 65,000. They collaborate their counts with news reports, etc. So while there's the potential that 65,000 may be under the actual figure, I'm inclined to believe that the total is closer to 65,000 than 655,000.

[Korriken]

At 3/21/07 08:49 AM, whogivesadamnit wrote:

. And indirectly Bush created all those terrorists who make daily life there a living hell.

thats gotta be my favorite bullshit liberal catchphrase. these "terrorists" have hated america for years before the invasion. they consider us subhuman animals that must be exterminated. if you went to iraq and told them "i oppose the war the us has launched and we wish for you to succeed." what would they do? take you hostage, demand the us leave or you die. naturally enough they will kill you. they do not give a rats ass who you are, if you're not a muslim, you're an animal in their eyes.

[AMFYOYO]

Yeah, and at least 65,000 isn't a waste of human life for a pointless war. It's not a lot of people anyway, don't worry about it. Also I heard they live in caves so they basically aren't even human.

[RedSkunk]

At 3/21/07 11:38 AM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: That seems a gross over estimation.

www.iraqbodycount.org puts the count at 65,000. They collaborate their counts with news reports, etc. So while there's the potential that 65,000 may be under the actual figure, I'm inclined to believe that the total is closer to 65,000 than 655,000.

You should know better. IBC is a lowball totaling of deaths directly attributable to violence. They only add when the death has been confirmed by several sources. Those 65k are the deaths that are reported, in a war zone. The Lancet studies extrapolate deaths attributable to the conflict more broadly. Reading the article linked, about half of the deaths in this study are the result of direct conflict. The rest are the result of a complete collapse of infrastructure and law & order. They're comparing the death rate pre and post invasion. These numbers are in excess of what could have been expected had the US not invaded.

The 655,000 is the median estimate. The Lancelot's low-ball is 392,000. Half of which is 150,000 (the amount Lancet claims are due directly as a result of the conflict). I don't believe it's a gross leap of faith to say the IBC is under-calculating these deaths by such a scale, considering the limitations of the IBC's methodology.

[BocesPlayer]

At 3/21/07 08:39 AM, Korriken wrote: obviously you don't understand war. In war, people, well, they die. if you think thats a lot of deaths, you should look at world war 2, that was even worse with over 50,000,000 deaths.

also it doesnt tell you that the insurgents are causing the vast majority of the deaths, not the american military.

its not the american military's fault that the insurgents are blowing up civilians.

That's all that really needs to be said. There is really no point to this discussion.

[RedSkunk]

At 3/21/07 04:49 PM, BocesPlayer wrote: That's all that really needs to be said. There is really no point to this discussion.

Then don't post, buck-o.

[TheBlueBullet]

Kudos to stupidity

[Gunter45]

"Most deaths were from gunshot wounds (56%), with a further 13% from car bomb injuries and 14% the result of other explosions."

Wow, 13% from car bombs, huh? I wonder who's been using those...

[RedSkunk]

At 3/21/07 04:57 PM, Gunter45 wrote: "Most deaths were from gunshot wounds (56%), with a further 13% from car bomb injuries and 14% the result of other explosions."

Wow, 13% from car bombs, huh? I wonder who's been using those...

Hey Gunter, I was just wondering if you had statistics on how many people were killed by car bombs in Iraq in 2002. Either a raw number or as a percentage of total deaths. Thanks!

[Gunter45]

At 3/21/07 05:04 PM, RedSkunk wrote: Hey Gunter, I was just wondering if you had statistics on how many people were killed by car bombs in Iraq in 2002. Either a raw number or as a percentage of total deaths. Thanks!

Eh, I just got that from the source. Personally, I don't trust those percentages I posted at all. I just think it's funny to lambast the United States using a source that shows that a significant portion of deaths were caused by the insurgency.

[lapis]

At 3/21/07 02:37 PM, RedSkunk wrote:

Hey wow, am I seeing a ghost or something?

[RedSkunk]

At 3/21/07 05:34 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Eh, I just got that from the source. Personally, I don't trust those percentages I posted at all. I just think it's funny to lambast the United States using a source that shows that a significant portion of deaths were caused by the insurgency.

You seemed to have missed my point. Let me make an analogy. If I yelled fire in a theater and caused disorder, who's fault is it that people got trampled?

[Memorize]

You would think that if 3% of their population were killed off as a direct result of the war, that more than 27% of them would think they're in civil war.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

655 000+ deaths?

I wonder why.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

At 3/21/07 07:13 PM, Jesus-made-me-do-it wrote: 655 000+ deaths?

I wonder why.

Here's another

[Altarus]

Here are a few of the reasons that I do not believe the Lancet study:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php

And this comes from IBC, hardly a pro-war organization! But if you really want to see the Lancet study thoroughly debunked, go read my post on the OBT awhile back.

[Altarus]

At 3/21/07 07:40 PM, Jesus-made-me-do-it wrote: Here's another

Those are what the terrorists in Iraq actually look like though.

[Elfer]

At 3/21/07 05:34 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Eh, I just got that from the source. Personally, I don't trust those percentages I posted at all. I just think it's funny to lambast the United States using a source that shows that a significant portion of deaths were caused by the insurgency.

Yeah, considering insurgencies have a tendency to spring up without warning, I'm sure that the insurgency forming at the same time as the US invasion was just a coincidence.

[Jesus-made-me-do-it]

At 3/21/07 07:45 PM, Altarus wrote:

At 3/21/07 07:40 PM, Jesus-made-me-do-it wrote: Here's another

Those are what the terrorists in Iraq actually look like though.

OK how about this

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 3/21/07 02:37 PM, RedSkunk wrote: The 655,000 is the median estimate. The Lancelot's low-ball is 392,000. Half of which is 150,000 (the amount Lancet claims are due directly as a result of the conflict). I don't believe it's a gross leap of faith to say the IBC is under-calculating these deaths by such a scale, considering the limitations of the IBC's methodology.

Good point. When you assume an low end ratio of 1 reported death from violence to 1 unreported death, the IBC and Lancet actually start to match up, especially as you increase the number of unreported deaths to the reported number to a more realistic ratio.

It seems hard to wrap your head around it, but when you really sit down and think about it, it makes sense.

[RedSkunk]

I can't believe you just wrote that. I was just about to go into the lounge and start bitching about remembering why I left and how I wish I didn't start posting again.

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

At 3/21/07 08:05 PM, Jesus-made-me-do-it wrote:

At 3/21/07 07:45 PM, Altarus wrote:

At 3/21/07 07:40 PM, Jesus-made-me-do-it wrote: Here's another

Those are what the terrorists in Iraq actually look like though.

OK how about this

Go back to general until you learn to do something yourself instead of copy/pasting.
or contribute nothing on a professional level, like me.

[Gunter45]

At 3/21/07 05:47 PM, RedSkunk wrote: You seemed to have missed my point. Let me make an analogy. If I yelled fire in a theater and caused disorder, who's fault is it that people got trampled?

You're assuming that the people have to start going ape and trampling each other.

At 3/21/07 07:57 PM, Elfer wrote: Yeah, considering insurgencies have a tendency to spring up without warning, I'm sure that the insurgency forming at the same time as the US invasion was just a coincidence.

This actually goes to both your arguments: the fact that the insurgency is so violent that they kill so many of their own people isn't normal. Usually when a country is repelling foreign invaders, tens of thousands (according to those statistics) of the people you're fighting for don't die by your direct actions.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 3/21/07 10:34 PM, RedSkunk wrote: I can't believe you just wrote that. I was just about to go into the lounge and start bitching about remembering why I left and how I wish I didn't start posting again.

Hey, I can't be an ass all of the time. :P

But seriously though, you're right. 655,000 is a lot of people killed, and it's easy to dismiss as a politically motivated overestimation or hyperbole, like I did. But when you sit down and think, like you point out it's easy to see.

Sadly.

When they talk about a car bomb killing 20 people in Iraq, that's part of the 65,000 on the IBC count. Those are the ones that are reported. War's effects go beyond the front lines. And it's staggering to think that for every person we hear about that gets killed in Iraq, there's nine dying quietly.

It...gives you pause.

That's like, in a manner of 4 years, the entire population of Washington, D.C. being killed.

That's, in a manner of 4 years, like killing the entire population of Atlanta, and then working one's way out towards me, where I live, my home, my family.

It's just...unfathomable. It hits you like a ton of bricks...

For political profit.

Let me stop before I take the thread off topic.

[Durin413]

We must stay in Iraq though. Eventually they will run out of insurgents. Long before we run out of troops. And if they are coming in from other countries, than we must threaten them. Control their people and keep them from fucking up Iraq or well go fuck you up.

The goal of the insurgents isn't to kill every last one of us. They realize that is impossible. However, they do hope to make us run. They've already scared the democrats away.

Also, I seriously doubt the number is above 200,000 even. And Iraq could take another 10 years. But should we stay the course, the world will turn out as a better place. If we spread to the other countries in the Middle East, perhaps we could end thousands of years of slaughter.