What is Digg?122 Comments
- toneii, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34The nazis couldn't believe what they had done either, folks...
Let me ask - is it acceptable that we don't know how many we have killed? - muddhb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Maybe 655,000 is too high an estimate, does that mean the ~40,000 is acceptable? These people who have died were not soldiers, they include women, and children. And for what?? A lie, that's what.
- itistoday, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Leave it to Digg commentators to turn this into a debate about which war was worse, WWII or Iraq? 655,000 or 12 Million?
Who gives a *****?!?
A LOT of innocent people ***** died and lost the opportunity to *LIVE*. War always leads to tragedy and innocents being killed for no good reason; they should all be condemned.
Because our President felt like invading a country (that did not ask to be "liberated") hundreds of thousands of civilians were murdered. Imagine what it must be like for them, put yourself in their shoes. Always do that whenever you have an evil thought. - nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18On what basis? Have you been to Iraq? How many people have you interviewed?
- Baconn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Iraq was safer and more stable under Saddam's rule. The U.S. invasion was made with a shocking lack of foresight into the inevitable conflict between the Muslims sects.
- niczar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14I'm in a real bind here. Who am I to believe? A peer-reviewed study by respected academics published in a prestigious scientific journal, or the ramblings of political hacks who have been proven wrong times and times over ...
Boy that's really a hard choice ... - peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@drpepper
I am a lifelong Atheist, and I know that the Christian Science Monitor is just about the most reliable news source out there. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, you probably have never read the paper or heard that they are quite respected by anyone who likes the truth.
If something is disagreeing with the CS monitor, it is almost always wrong.
Christian Scientists may be nut jobs (they don't use western medicine even for things like setting bones), but their news paper is solid. - cecinestpasvrai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@dr pepper
"Despite its name, the Monitor was not established to be a religious-themed paper, nor does it directly promote the doctrine of its patron church. However, at its founder Eddy's request, a daily religious article has appeared in every issue of the Monitor. Eddy also required the inclusion of "Christian Science" in the paper's name, over initial opposition by some of her advisors who thought the religious reference might repel a secular audience."
-wikipedia
know what you're talking about. - nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15Proof of genocide?
OK . . . here's some.
Depleted Uranium is a radioactive heavy metal generated in nuclear reactors, contaminated with plutonium, and the US uses this crap as penetrators on its projectile weapons as heavy armor on their tanks and other transports.
_No one_ disputes that when this crap is burned & pulverized it gets inhaled or eaten and that inhaling or eating depleted uranium causes cancer and birth defects. DU is more toxic than mercury and impossible to clean up.
The UN says that depleted uranium is a Weapon of Mass Destruction. We've scatted hundreds of millions of pounds of the crap all over iraq and afghanistan, poisoning iraqi civilians for generations to come.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02a-woiq.htm
Do your own research. You might take a few extra minutes to look into the thousands of US soldiers who say they too have been poisoned by Depleted Uranium.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=tons+of+depleted+uranium+used+in+iraq - UberC, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16??? Hitler killed 12 million.
- dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Ask any rightwing christian fascist why, they're all terrorists.
- cecinestpasvrai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Yeah. Agreed. "did some research" does not translate to the conservative blowhard you linked to.
"A new, already widely discredited study (done through polling, not hard facts), claims that the U.S. is responsible for 655,000 Iraqi deaths, or roughly 2.3% of that nation's population (not the 50,000 other groups report). What they're claiming then, is that the war in Iraq has been nearly as destructive, relative to the area affected, as World War II, where 2.5% of the World's population died."
Read through that a couple times. Try and point out the logic. Just try. I dare you. - tslag, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The idea of the study is that they would not be suicide bombing if we had not invaded. These are deaths that would not have happened, statistically, if we had not invaded.
- nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Makes sense to me. WWII was a bigger battle ground. We've thrown a huge amound of men and materials at a country a small fraction of the size of europe during wwII and the war has gone on for quite a long time.
PS: You know, you could go to Iraq (I know people who have) and start doing a more accurate body count :) If the truth is really important then I think that's the right thing to do. - peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+913 times to high? That is just wrong. All of the figures that put the Iraqi death toll in the 50,000 range base their numbers off of news stories and nothing else, this method is used to determine the lowest possible number that could be claimed and is certainly false.
But this is what it comes down to:
A scientific study done by group of researchers who you and I have no reason whatsoever to believe have political goals(except that we may not like the results) Vs. people who are definitely partisan using the method that would yield the lowest possible death numbers.
Based on the empirical evidence presented on methodology and political affiliation/motivation this study is clearly more reliable than others that are out there. There is simply no getting around that. Conventional wisdom is very often wrong, studies using scientific methodology are rarely wrong.
Before people allege that a study is politically motivated, they need to consider deeply that their own reactions to that study must be suspected of political motivation. Studies done with scientific methodology are far more reliable than anyone's judgment as to their accuracy, and that is simply a fact. - TheSak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
- Renuvian, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Way to go! Perfect example of making a totally meaningless comparison and calling it an argument. You definatly disproved this study's accuracy!
- martian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Sounds like you're the one with the political agenda.
Even if the author does have an agenda, does that mean the information presented is incorrect?
If you're going to say something is incorrect, you better have more proof than the typical neocon ***** of "you'd have to be loony to believe that" - tslag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6From TFA: " For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July."
What the hell did you read? - peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11This scientifc study must be wrong, after all, some guy blogged that it was. /sarcasm
- jknevitt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Says Sp4nk, the professional statistician.
- NTak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The number dead due to the Iraq War (insurgency, US killings, or otherwise) is greater than those that died at the hands of Saddam. Think about that.
- peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Well-written: perhaps, well reasoned: Certainly not.
An Ad Hominem, declaring the study and the researchers 'liberal' does not an argument make. - peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6And people wonder why terrorists want to kill us.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Yep, we "beat" Saddam and did it in only a few years.
- pagit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8What gets failed to mention is how many are killed by U.S., United Kingdom, Australia, South Korea, Italy and Poland and how many Iraqis are killed by their own people and insurgents.
I bet a huge percentage is Iraqi vs Iraqi - far more than coalition forces.
IEDs and other bombings, kidnappings, shootings, beheadings, etc. against fellow countrymen. - malkir, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I love how everyone is arguing over an article that talks about a study. We haven't even seen the study yet, all we have are claims, not facts. They interviewed households, huh? How many? what area's of Iraq? are they basing it upon a theoretical population that they arrived at due to pre-wartime trends or based upon the original population? I mean, *****, I'm no scientist but none of you have enough information to argue about this yet.
- petsounds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The margin of error is high, yes, but even at the lowest end of the scale of error, we're still talking about roughly 450,000 killed. (There was an interview today on NPR's To The Point discussing this study)
- peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@pagit
Unfortunately the one that made it to the front page is among the worst of the articles covering this 600,000 dead story.
The research, and explanations talk about a feedback loop, where US attempts to kill or capture insurgents who do violence to Iraqis and US soldiers create more insurgents that do violence against other Iraqis and US Soldiers.
You push a grocery cart down a hill in San Fransisco, you may not have given the thing all of the impetus, but you're still responsible for whoever gets hurt. - ProximaC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Seriously, this study is probably wildly over-blown, but think about it for a bit.... How many deaths will it take before it's "too many"? This war isn't likely to end anytime soon, and it's likely we'll never know the real number of dead civilians.
- cbearnm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7This is one where the methods of the survey are vital to judge it's merits.
Were all the interviews done in the Baghdad area? - That would skew the results severely.
Were the interviewees asked about their own household or their family, or those they know? - This would result in one death counting as multiple counts.
How represented were the far outreaches of the country? - Almost all of the violence is within 60 miles of Baghdad.
Let's take a survey about violent crime in southside Chicago or inner Detroit and extrapolate that out to the population of America. Particularly when one crime might be mentioned by 10-20-50 families. That is not scientific at all. I would have received an F for such a survey in my intro Statistics courses. (No offense to those that live in those places)
I talked to a soldier on his way home for R&R from Camp Anaconda, about 60 miles from Baghdad and in 9 months he NEVER had to unholster his gun. This has been echoed by many soldiers that I have talked to outside of the Sunni triangle. By and large, Iraq is not a battlefield. Baghdad is. That's not to say there is no violence in rural Iraq, but you have to question why every report we hear is from within 30 miles of Baghdad. There are exceptions, but they are exactly that, exceptions.
As far as Iraq being safer under Saddam, you are insane or you are a walking talking point for the left. In almost 30 years, nearly 3 million Iraqis were killed, either in war or through genocide. That's 100,000 per year. In the nearly 4 years since the war started, on the high side, let's use the 50,000 number, that 12,500 per year. That is reducing the risk by 87.5%. I'll take those odds any day.
Any study that has more than a 5% margin of error is to be discarded. With a country as varied as Iraq, 1,800 families is not a significantly sizable study. The methods in this study are laughable at best. The scientific community would dismiss this without considering it. You have to wonder about the motivation of the press even releasing the information. Oh wait, it's from Breitbart and AP, that puts it into perspective.
Any study that admits "The work updates an earlier Johns Hopkins study _ that one was released just before the November 2005 presidential election. At the time, the lead researcher, Les Roberts of Hopkins, said the timing was deliberate", has to have it's results discounted.
BTW - where do you see that this was a peer reviewed. The only peer reviewed studies mentioned were those that estimated deaths as 44,000-49,000. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I just took a poll. I have a co-worker who has family still in Iraq. They don't know one person killed in the last three years. So my research shows that no one died.
Little back ground: His family is Christian Kurds that live along side Sunni Muslims, Shi’a, and Yezidi. They have not seen prosperity like they have now in a century.
My point is if this poll only covers Baghdad then the poll with be very skewed. Most of the violence is contained in the city and most everyone out side the two large cities life has gone back to normal. - martian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5What do you have to refute any of the claims made?
- bollox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I'm sorry, a death toll based on asking the people in Iraq is complete and utter crap. Its innacurate as well as skewed by the fact that most of these people hate the US."
Why do they hate the US? Oh yeah - because they are evil and hate your freedoms.
Not because the US invaded their country in an illegal war and murdered hundreds of thousands of people.
How many did the sanctions kill before the war? Is that included in the figures? What about depleted uranium? Is that included? The knock-on effect on public health of decimated utilities? Bombed hospitals?
Youre right - asking people is complete and utter crap. They cant be objective as you. You twit. - Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There are momments like this that any American has to seriously think "Are we the baddies?". I mean not even Germans believed they were the bad 'till the whole Nazi scum surfaced to them making them to renounce their past leaders and feel ashamed for what their country caused to the world, OK the right word is "betrayed", betrayed from their own people, from their own leaders.
- mherskovitz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3According to www.iraqbodycount.net, the total number of civilian deaths in Iraq as of October 9, 2006 is between 43,850 and 48,693. According to their website:
"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."
What is most interesting is that this website is one of the first mentioned by the report itself in its notes.
So the statistical survey, which must be difficult to do accurately in such a dangerous country like Iraq, comes up with 600,000 dead while the actual reported body count from an organization the report cites, has less than 50,000 dead. Either way it is a tragedy but the larger number is simply absurd propaganda. - arcticJKL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Does someone have a link to a more detailed report?
"For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July"
I assume this was 1849 people from across the country? What questions did they ask?
"The survey participants attributed about 31 percent of violent deaths to coalition forces.?"
What does that mean? Did they ask "What percent of deaths do you think were caused by coalition forces?" Did they ask, "How did he die" (Shot by errant bullet, died of starvation during siege?) - schlurp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"World War II, where 2.5% of the World's population died."
maybe you should at least read your own links, retard - mrcoderga, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Just ask your own congressperson for how many have died in the Iraq occupation. Visit his or her web site and contact them. You can Google it to find it.
The House of Representatives has the formal responsibility to fund this and every military occupation, or not.
From counting the beans to counting the human beings, your person in Congress is being paid good money to be your official source for military costs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-young/then-how-many-have-died-_b_31468.html - spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4yes yes, throw out some completely unfounded body counts out there. we don't need any solid evidence, just ask a bunch of people how many people they think died. Then add everyone's numbers up, and we have a new proof that bush needs the boot! we will put it on the internet, everyone will come to the site, and get up in arms over our numbers, calling for bush's impeachment! hmmm yes, YES!
- tslag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3burry
- nfulton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe I should just start ignoring the stupid people . . . Folks who think killing innocent people in a war over WMD that never existed is A-OK for example. Folks who can't figure out how slaughtering or starving someone's kid might turn them into a terrorist. Or wonder why torture is such a bad thing. Or think we have trillions to spend on a war we should never have been fighting in the first place . . .
I mean, how smart can they be?
On the off chance I convince them not to be utter asses (which God knows their parents, clergymen, school teachers and friends couldn't do) are they likely to do any heavy lifting when it comes to running the country or solving the world's great problems?
Probably not.
When there is a fire burning down your house, you don't hand water buckets to the village idiot. You just kick his butt out of the way and put out the damned fire.
The solution to ending the war has everything to do with punishing and/or replacing the congressmen who continue to support it because it lines their pockets and keeps them in office and ignoring the blood thirsty few who just want the killing to go on forever and don't mind letting you foot the bill for all the bullets and bombs. - peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Before anymore people make claims about the study how about reading it.
Here it is in PDF
http://web.mit.edu/cis/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf - Baconn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Human Rights Watch estimated that 290,000 Iraqis went "missing" during Saddam's rule (http://tinyurl.com/ftzu3). I'd like to see a source for that 1 million figure.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Has anyone looked at their sources for this study?
http://www.iraqbodycount.net
They use the media to track the body count figures. I guess we are to assume the media reports all of the killings and get the accurate body count and how they died from across Iraq? - arcticJKL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You know we don't have a draft any more.
- AzzardX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3They're blowing themselves up, the coalition would leave and the toll would still rise.
Anyway, my sleeping ain't worse when I learn that there are less muslims on Earth because they're blowing their guts up to kill other muslims. - wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Polls are stupid. I think we can however safely assume that the deathtoll of Iraqis is "a ***** lot" however you count it.
- Louis11, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4well said... the larger the group surveyed the more accurate the data. 100 iraqis is a trivial number in regards to the bigger picture of a rather large population.
- thegoldstandard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How could any of you believe a government run study over this independent one?
We have no way of knowing exactly how many have died, and the government can only be expected to not want to accurately know, because the bottom line is that all of these people (both US and Iraqi) have died because WE attacked THEM. -
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is