|
|
|
|
|
| How many Iraqis Killled??????
Posted: 10/11/2006 10:24:03 AM | Is it safer in Bagdad or Iraq than in Wash DC, LA, or ?? I dont think it is.
range from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths. We have made a huge mess of this.
At least 600,000 civilians killed in Iraq, study finds
Sabrina Tavernise in Baghdad
October 12, 2006
MORE than 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 US invasion, a study by American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated.
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.
The number of civilian deaths that month was the highest since the war began.
The study, which was released on Tuesday, is the second by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The figure of 600,000 is an estimate, not a precise count, and the researchers acknowledged a margin of error that meant the toll could range from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths.
The study uses samples of casualties from Iraqi households to extrapolate an overall figure of 601,027 Iraqis dead from violence between March 2003 and July 2006.
The findings of the previous study, published in 2004, had been criticised as high, in part because of its relatively narrow sampling of about 1000 families, and because it carried a large margin of error.
The new study is more representative and the sampling is broader, the researchers said. They surveyed 1849 Iraqi families in 47 different neighbourhoods across Iraq, based on population size, not on the level of violence, they said.
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.
The US military has disputed Iraqi figures, saying they are far higher than the true number of deaths from the insurgency and sectarian violence, in part because they include natural deaths and deaths from ordinary crime. However, the military has not released its own figures for the death toll.
Iraq's mortality rate before the war was about 5.5 people per 1000 per year, the study found. The rate rose to 19.8 deaths per 1000 people in the year ending in June.
Gunshot wounds were the most common cause of death, at 56 per cent of all violent deaths, while car bombs accounted for about 13 per cent. The proportion of deaths caused by the US military declined from March 2003 to June 2006.
The vast majority of deaths documented were substantiated by death certificates. The researchers asked for certificates 87 per cent of the time; when they did, more than 90 per cent of households produced them.
Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at New York's Columbia University who worked for the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention for many years, called the survey method "tried and true". "This is the best estimate of mortality we have," Professor Waldman said.
His view was echoed by Sarah Leah Whitson, an official of Human Rights Watch in New York. "We have no reason to question the findings or the accuracy" of the survey, Ms Whitson said.
The New York Times, The Washington Post
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/11/2006 10:38:32 AM | Thats alot of souls.
Not doubting it, but man that seems high.
I thought it might be close to 200,000 but im sure they have more knowledge than i | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/11/2006 10:41:30 AM | | The question is what are you going to do about it. facts mean nothing we are all responsable. so what are we to do......... | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/11/2006 12:00:11 PM | | We are going to do nothing except continue to cause it. It's how we get wealth. We use our military to impose our will on other nations. Our excuse is they don't respect human rights like we do. Oil has many uses in modern life. | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/11/2006 9:04:11 PM | Excuse me but if you looked a little deaper into that study you'd find that Darmouth interviews 1,000 Iraqi families and determined 600,000 Iraqis have been killed. HOWEVER THE STUDY HAS A 400,000 TO 800,000 MARGINE OF ERROR. Maybe there was some kind of miracle in Iraq and 200,000 dead souls are now walking the earth again.
If you're going to use numbers from studies then MAKE SURE YOU INCLUDE ALL OF THE INFORMATION. | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/11/2006 9:22:44 PM | Uhm, Serenity, since you got those numbers from the article he quoted, doesn't that mean he did include the information?
Also, do you think 400 000 dead is acceptable? | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/11/2006 9:50:19 PM | HOWEVER THE STUDY HAS A 400,000 TO 800,000 MARGINE OF ERROR
You misunderstand the margin of error figures.
MAKE SURE YOU INCLUDE ALL OF THE INFORMATION
The study, by researchers from the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the School of Medicine at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, was published in the peer-review journal the Lancet.
Check page 12 of the report. There, it is stated that "the confidence interval ranges from 426,369 to 793,663. That means that were are 95% certain that the correct number is between those two, and 601,027, is the statistically most probable number."
Even if you look at the low end of the CI, the number is huge - 426,369 (~63%)
...and not as statistically probable (95%) as 601,027.
By the way, the method used a larger sample group than was needed, 1849 in a random cluster methodology.
This same method is used to establish policy by:
United Nations
The US government
The Canadian government
The USAID-supported Demographic and Health Surveys
Unlike the methods used by: Iraq Body Count (IBC), US Department of Defence, Iraq Ministry of Health; which use "passive surveillance" techniques, the study published in the Lancet was done door-to-door.
As the Lancet is one of the most respected peer reviewed journals in the world, the idea that this study is somehow not credible is a bit of a stretch. | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/11/2006 10:52:26 PM | besides, one death is too many.
did you see Bush's reaction to the question today?
scary.
please, please, please America wake up and smell the sulphur! | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/11/2006 11:12:47 PM | I just heard that 96% of all the nuclear weapons in the world are in USA or former Soviet Union. Yet the whole world is upset because tiny little Korea MIGHT have one, or two?
The insane suicide that we now call civilization is mind numbing in extreme.
I am glad I have been drinking my own water, or someting like that, but it still is hard to be witnissing this mass murder insanity and not think I must be the one who is nuts.
No soul should live or die in terror.
It's not that kind of planet, and I KNOW most of us are not those kind of people.
Yet this murder and terror continues to be played out in horrors everywhere. From Gas sniffing in the Yucon to missing shamons in the amazon, it utterly amazes me that this can truly be real. Thank you for numbers, and this post. Sometimes the only way to reach someone is to match their frequency. And for some people, statistics and numbers match theirs, and "presto" they "get it"! | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/12/2006 1:01:27 PM | If that number is true, then i'm afraid, USA has killed far more Iraqis than Saddam did with the Kurds.
Not to count the kids that died from the depleted uranium bullets left from the gulf war years.
Instant democracy my @ss, mr Bush. USA have invaded, and destroyed a nation and left it in civil war. Good thing the american oil, weapon and construction companies interests are served well... | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/12/2006 1:31:52 PM | | onlylove it doesn't say all of the deaths are due to US forces. It includes terrorists and in country militias. | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/12/2006 2:05:11 PM | it doesn't say all of the deaths are due to US forces.
I don't think he was referring to the men and women serving in Iraq, the finger is being pointed at an administration's idiotic foreign policy, and the collective delusion that they can fight a war on an ideology, the very thing that inspired the ideology in the first place.
Actually, the study goes into a lot of indepth analysis as to what constitutes "before" and "after" in terms of root causality.
The predicted cancer and infant mortality rates due to DU munitions alone are going to ensure that this invasion is going to keep on killing civilians for generations.
The terrorists and militias weren't operating there until AFTER the US invaded, on false pretenses.
Even US Intel makes it clear that the "War on Terror" has been the "Promotion of Terror".
(BTW, from the beginning, this was the stated objective of Al Qaida, ....I guess they acheived their objective, didn't they?)
Call it what you want to call it, it walks like a stupid idea, talks like a stupid idea, looks like a stupid idea.
It was a stupid idea.
The US taxpayers foot the bill, the Iraqi people pay with their lives, the boots on the ground pay with their lives, and one in five of them are coming home disabled, when they do come home alive.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20061011-111138-7518r
....and then, there ARE those making a profit from the whole mess.
Follow the money.
The "privileged few", are making a killing, ...off of making a killing. | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/12/2006 2:31:19 PM | | Late, I like your style. Follow the money. How anybody except the actual perps in this case can't see it is beyond me. I can understand the people behind this whole thing not seeing it. They have to justify it somehow because if they don't that would mean they are killing for money. It's either that or they are in denial. The world is going down and these guys are profiting off of it. WAKE UP | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/12/2006 2:35:38 PM | | Serenity....with all due respect you are simply playing the same spin game that washington has taught you...do not lose sight of the real issues squabbling over mathematical semantics. The US invaded and toppled the existing government. The chao that fllows is therefore their responsibility...it matter not who is killing who and how many...what matters is the US policy had brought about the deaths of ver half a million people....think about that....people were in tears and forever changed when 3000 were killed in New York....but hundreds of thousands mean nothing. | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/12/2006 2:46:33 PM | How anybody except the actual perps in this case can't see it is beyond me.
Those who do see them and speak out are called "Anti-American" by those who can't see.
Aside from the few rogue elements in any country's forces (think % of population here), the boots on the ground serve with honour, they are not to blame for this fiasco, or any of them. They deserve nothing but the eternal gratitude of those they serve.
There's money being made off of every war, it's blood money.
Those who serve are doing so under false pretenses, any way you cut it.
And, it's not their fault.
Questioning the motives of administrations who draw their numbers from the corporate hegemony, who in turn hire the retired elected officials from all parties to serve in their lobbies?
Who are the only ones who live in a world where war is a primary source of revenue?
That's not Anti-Soldier, Anti-American, or any "wing".
It's Pro - Accountability, Pro - Democracy, and Anti - Killing for Profit.
It'a Anti-War.
It's also "supporting the troops".
To think, ...that "Anti War" is in some people's minds, an epithet.
Good PR, ....now follow the money, read history books, and watch the dog continue to chase its tail.
Also note that what the POTUS is calling "not credible", is the very methodology that his own government uses to establish policy, and the fact that the study was published in one of the (if not the), worlds highest respected peer-reviewed scholarly journals the Lancet. | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/12/2006 4:43:19 PM | | I think the war is only one part of it too. Think of the deaths that resulted by sanctions imposed against Iraq, depriving them of food and medicine ever since the first Gulf War. It may not have been a military offensive, but it was still a form of warfare aimed to cause upheaval in the country, and hopefully a rebellion against the "dictator" that was allowing his people to starve. But I'm sure Iraqis knew what we know now... regardless of what kind of monster Hussein was, the WMD card that was being played to justify the sanctions as well as the impending war was bogus. That's why the "rebellion" never occurred. | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 17 | |
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/12/2006 6:37:33 PM | Either way you look at it, 600,000 people died. That's a huge burden
for Georgie and it can't be repeated enough times....this is the most
evil man the world has ever encountered. The terrorists killed 2900
people....George killed 600,000. That man will have to live with that
for ever. Hopefully God, if there is one, will deal with him appropriately.
I hope the next time he laughs like an idiot at the podium, somebody would jump
on stage and beat the crap out of him. | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/12/2006 6:46:30 PM | | What did people think would happen when they sent their armies off to war, a pillow fight? | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/12/2006 7:31:21 PM | And this is what Bush says about it:
PRESIDENT BUSH: No, I don’t control it a credible report, neither does General Casey and neither do Iraqi officials. I do know that a lot of innocent people have died and it troubles me and grieves me. And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to — you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate.
I love the bold part. 
Q -- the 30,000, Mr. President? Do you stand by your figure, 30,000?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I stand by the figure. A lot of innocent people have lost their life -- 600,000, or whatever they guessed at, is just -- it's not credible. Thank you.
He doesn't know how "Guess" of such things are done, does he?
Meanwhile two publich health researches state the following:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB116052896787288831-lMyQjAxMDE2NjEwMDUxMjA4Wj.html
Paul Bolton, a public-health researcher at Boston University who has reviewed the study, called the methodology "excellent" and said it was standard procedure in a wide range of studies he has worked on. "You can't be sure of the exact number, but you can be quite sure that you are in the right ballpark," he said.
A similar, smaller study by the same team in 2004 put the number of deaths at the time at 9,000 to 194,000. That report drew fire for the breadth of its estimate. In part to offset such criticism, the researchers said they picked the largest sample possible for this survey, after considering the high level of danger involved in sending teams door-to-door in Iraq.
http://healthvsmedicine.blogspot.com/2006/10/old-death-in-new-iraq.html
Are these results reliable? They are in fact the most reliable information we have about this subject. Particularly powerful confirmation comes from the very close match in this survey between deaths reported to have occurred in 2003-2004; and the results from a similar study conducted by the team in 2004. That of course had an entirely different sample of households, but used the same methods. People often misunderstand the concept of the confidence interval. It is far more likely that the true number of violent deaths is close to 600,000, than that it is close to 427,000. People also do not understand how a sample consisting of such a small percentage of the population can give us confidence in saying something about the entire population. But that results from the laws of probability, which assure that state lotteries and casinos will always win
Can we call this genocide yet?
[quote[I hope the next time he laughs like an idiot at the podium, somebody would jump
on stage and beat the crap out of him.
And when some does it, he is labelled "terrorist" right away.
| |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/14/2006 9:24:51 AM | | 600 000 is roughly the population of Austin Texas.If there was any justice in the world Bush and co would be banged up in the hague for war crimes.Im afraid their isn't any justice. | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 21 | |
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/14/2006 9:59:45 AM | We don't know what waits for George tommorow or in 5 years. I'm actually
convinced he will be brought before Hague courts and charged with
war crimes. Seriously. This world is in termoil and something has got
to give soon....the USA has to sign on to the war crimes court and if
they don't, countries like China, EU will force them to. And then it's
naked pic's of George in his underwear. | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/14/2006 12:31:17 PM | Are the numbers really that important ?
Is "only" 50,000 or 100,000 "better" somehow ?
The real point is that a lot of people are....dead. 
We've seen 2,660 Iraqi civilians killed in Sept. 06 in Baghdad alone. It's an escalating number. 2,222 died in August. In July 06 2,884 died (3,590 was the country total for that month.)
The 44,000 to 49,000 figure by Iraq body count is only what's taken from media reports - and that is certainly not all of those who have died.
Iraq roughly twice the size of Idaho, with about 27 million citizens.
What we are seeing now are 9/11 type death tolls there EVER SINGLE MONTH, in a population roughly one tenth the size of the USA - and a great deal of them concentrated in one city.
Baghdad is a city of roughly six million people, and you can imagine the psychological effect of losing that many people ( and that's not counting a figure for people that are being hurt - both physically and mentally) every single month.
That's how this entire issue must be seen. | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/14/2006 8:08:20 PM | You know that this "study" was conducted by going door to door and asking people how many people they think might have been killed that they know of. That seems like it might not be completely accurate.
Let's say it is completely accurate. The same study also says that 70% of those were killed by terrorists, not coallition forces.
Still for some reason their are people in this country pulling for our defeat, condemning George Bush, not saying a word about Muslim extremists, and then wondering why some of us call their patriotism and loyalty to America into question. | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 24 | |
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/14/2006 8:19:19 PM | The vast majority of the deaths were substantiated by death certificates.
The point of the assessment was not to necessarily place blame
on the coalition, but instead, it was to illustrate that the death
estimates used by politicians and the media are utterly false.
The conventional body count estimates are based on someone reading the newspapers
and counting the dead based only on stories that made the morning
paper.
2.5% of the Iraqi population has been wiped off the map.
People can derive whatever they want from the report....some would say
bringing Iraqi-style democracy at the cost of 600,000 lives isn't worth it....me.
Congress is getting ready to spend $20 million USD on a end-of-war Iraq
party. I doubt any of the 600,000 families have much to celebrate or will
get an invitation. | |
|
| How many Killled??????
Posted: 10/14/2006 8:27:38 PM | You know that this "study" was conducted by going door to door and asking people how many people they think might have been killed that they know of. That seems like it might not be completely accurate.
Nope, it was a scientific cluster sample, the overwhelming majority produced death certificates.
The sample group was larger than what was needed, the study was also peer reviewed by the Lancet.
Let's say it is completely accurate. The same study also says that 70% of those were killed by terrorists, not coallition forces.
They weren't there before.
Hence: Before/After
Still for some reason their are people in this country pulling for our defeat, condemning George Bush, not saying a word about Muslim extremists, and then wondering why some of us call their patriotism and loyalty to America into question.
And there are those who will attempt to wrap moronic foreign policy in a flag to hide the stupidity of trying to solve a problem with what caused it in the first place. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
