latimes.com — According to a new study by ORB, a British polling agency that has conducted several surveys in Iraq, the total number slain during more than four years of war was more than 1.2 million. According to its findings, nearly 50% of households in Baghdad and 22% nationwide had lost at least one member to war-related violence.
Sep 15, 2007 View in Crawl 4
bugsy187Sep 17, 2007
" Estimated 654,965 additional deaths in Iraq between March 2003 and July 2006"Johns Hopkins University<a class="user" href="http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html">http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html</a>
timmygoatSep 17, 2007
first off...to say that Kuwait was'rightfully' part of Iraq is absurd. Iraq is an artificial construct. The people of Kuwait have absolutely no connection to the Bathist. Different tribe and religious sect.And to say that it is one thing to have your own people brutalize is shocking to me. I think they would say that they prefer to have NO ONE brutalize them. As far as civilian casualties...we don't purposely target civilians. The real person responsible for the damage caused by Desert Storm is Saddam. He took his country down a path of ruin. He squandered billions of weapons and palaces while his people suffered. He keep them under wraps with a police state that murdered hundreds of thousands.his mistake was to let his ambitions take across his own boarders. Sadly...if a dictator keeps in the family as it where, they can get away with it.
timmygoatSep 17, 2007
I assume you understand that a newspaper can report on something without endorsing it. They reported on this new study but drew no conclusions as to it's veracity.However, the La Times did look into the earlier Lancet study and their conclusion was that it was not credible. You asked for sources I gave you one. The LA Times. If you'd like to know how they came to this conclusion please google it. He spoke on behalf of the LA Times and said the Lancet study was wrong. here is another source for you. the Iraq Body Count...no friend of the war...opposed to the war. They looked at the Lancet survey and their conclusion was that the numbers where way off. (go to their site and read their analysis)IBC says "In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the author (of the Lancet study) have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data." The extreme implications they talk about are things like the unlikely hood of 1000 civilian deaths everyday going unreported. That's how many would have to a happen for this to be true. And that just ain't possible. I can site more sources all day long. But I grow tired of doing your work for you. They have this thing called google. Try it some time.
anonymouzSep 17, 2007
Truth is the US foreign policy sucks.ps. death to fox news
parasitewaspSep 17, 2007
I'm shocked, shocked that this post was dugg down just by pointing out flaws in the statistic method. So if the numbers suggested don't match up with your politics then it's junk science and the post deserves to be dugg down....lmfaoDugg down because you feel the need to not subject others to differing ideas.
clone206Sep 17, 2007
Sorry, I was given a misleading quote about that number that came from NBC news. Now that I see the entire quote I realize it's in reference to the first study appearing in the Lancet; the one that came out to a number of 100,000 civilian casualties at the time: Brian Williams: "'Iraq Watch' tonight, and one measure of the high cost of war. A new study from Johns Hopkins University estimates that 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the start of the war, the majority as a result of U.S. air strikes." - NBC Nightly News.You're right that the second Lancet study does not show the same proportion, but the first one did. And the second one still shows an alarmingly high number. I appreciate you pointing out my mistake, because it does show that the U.S. is no longer directly the leading cause of civilian deaths. Allow me to amend my "main point" by saying that shortly after the initial invasion, the U.S. was the largest direct cause of civilian deaths. Now that we've failed to properly secure the country, our role in the continuing deaths is more indirect, but we still have some culpability. As far as my first point being inaccurate, good job on clearing that up. I'm actually somewhat glad it's not technically true.
joot2112Sep 24, 2007
I agree IBC is a conservative estimation (STATISTICALLY speaking of course). I just have trouble believing it would be off by an order of magnitude.