What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.462 Comments
- doctorfungi, on 01/31/2008, -37/+108Sorry, but I call *****. Please hear me out before you digg me down though.
It's amazing how the majority of diggers are sensible enough to acknowledge that polls based on small sample sized are morbidly inaccurate, yet buy into these kinds of studies which use -literally- the exact same method as small sample polling to get their results.
These are my gripes with this "survey":
* The survey based the number of households to apply its average to on a 1997 census. It's now 2008, 11 years later, and the number of households is guaranteed to have increased by a significant amount since then. The population of Iraq has increased by 4-5 million in Iraq since 1997. This is a 19% increase in population, and the survey assumes that the number of households hasn't increased even 1%. This would significantly throw the already inaccurate end result off.
* This survey was a revision of a previous survey that concluded 1.2 million had died. This is a 16% difference to the old survey (that used the same methods over a smaller sample size). This indicates that the methods being used to reach these numbers are dramatically flawed, and that the larger sample sizes are showing a decrease in the number of deaths compared to the smaller sample sizes.
* We have been in Iraq for around 1800 days now. The number of deaths concluded by this survey indicates that, on average, 522 Iraqis have died every single day since the beginning of the conflict. Keep this drastic figure in mind for the rest of these points.
* The highest one-day civilian death toll in Iraq, according to all media outlets ranging from independent Middle-Eastern media, to independent American media, to the main stream media, is no higher than 250. This means that every foreign and domestic media agency has failed to detect even half the deaths of the average daily death toll that ORB alleges.
* This study implies that around 900,000 people have died due to combat without ever having a death certificate issued.
* In combat, we typically see more wounded on the battlefield than are killed. If this normality were to apply to this figure (which it should, considering that most attacks are car bombs which typically leave a 3:1 wounded:death ratio), literally millions of Iraqis have been wounded without checking into a hospital.
There is no need to achieve drastically unrealistic death toll numbers through poor survey methods to call Iraq a humanitarian crisis and a tragedy. The above facts I have pointed out are based on minimal research, and show how easy it is to debunk such a number. - theNazz, on 01/31/2008, -33/+87The Bush Administration had hung Saddam for a lot fewer deaths...
- whatthefu, on 01/31/2008, -12/+50Skip the blogspam: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international ...
- tinko, on 01/31/2008, -64/+99Genocide
- Paroparo, on 01/31/2008, -18/+53*****? Yes.
War crimes? Without a doubt.
Genocide? No.
A genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national group. This is just a war for profit where lots of innocent people get killed. Still horrible, but genocide is simply not the right word for it. - pintomp3, on 01/31/2008, -23/+56war crimes.
- sonnybobiche, on 01/31/2008, -11/+43At the same time, and this is quoted from the NYtimes article that crooksandliars reports from, "the highly watched Iraq Body Count website quotes the death toll at approximately 88,000."
One of these is wrong. - MakiNavaja, on 01/31/2008, -40/+71Where does this figure put Bush in terms of his ranking on history's all-time-most-heinous-leader list?
In one hundred years will people look back on him and say, "He made an honest mistake that, umm, coincidentally resulted in the death of over a million people." ... or ... "He intentionally manipulated information to misguide the nation and coerced its allies into sewing wanton destruction upon a nation that posed no danger, resulting in the death of over a million people."? - jkbowman, on 01/31/2008, -21/+48Last night, during the Republican debates, Huckabee said we must leave Iraq with honor.
How do you invade a country that never attacked you, bomb the daylights out of their infrastructure, light a powder keg that results in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent people, and then leave with freakin "honor"? - simplicityiskey, on 01/31/2008, -5/+28As Paroparo mentioned, you may not agree with the war, but it is not genocide, and in my honest opinion, it is naive and irresponsible to suggest that it is.
- inactive, on 01/31/2008, -43/+66"My administration has a job to do, and we're going to do it. We will rid the world of the evil-doers." - George Bush (September 14, 2001)
- He needs to take his own damn advice.......***** Nazi
- - orangefly, on 01/31/2008, -6/+29i think 88,000 is enough to get upset about....
- poidh, on 01/31/2008, -16/+31This is perhaps the most unscientific survey ever carried out.
1 million deaths but only 100,000 bodies. Maybe my ethnocentric self just doesn't realise that when 90% of Iraqi people die, they vanish into thin air.
Anyway, I conducted my own survey earlier today and it said that over 10 billion Iraqis have died since the war began. I'm going to get crooksandliars to report it so that gullible people can accept it without question.
Digg.com - a place where teenagers come to remind the rest of us that they have no life experience and haven't worked out how to think for themselves yet. - inactive, on 01/31/2008, -15/+30I don't know where he ranks, but he should be handcuffed and sent to jail. NO PARDON.
- Sogui, on 01/31/2008, -4/+18You're using that word, but I don't think you know what it means
- Entheoddity, on 01/31/2008, -10/+24Learn the definition of genocide before trying to get some diggs kid.
- ronpaul20008, on 01/31/2008, -18/+32I don't know why you're getting dug down, i agree... his grandfather funded the nazis, he's a member of skull & bones.. they taught him how to make fortunes from the war machine - weapons, oil, opium, soldiers & cheap labor & creating a white-only one world government, while controlling the masses & minimizing dissent. He may look stupid, but he's doing an exemplary job, and is ready to pass the baton onto mccain.
- daonlyfreez, on 01/31/2008, -2/+15You can't, that is the whole point, they don't want to leave...
The use of the word "honor" in this context is simple propaganda-trickery: how can you possibly be against "honor"? - Firehed, on 01/31/2008, -5/+18It would be far more insulting to ignore the parallels between Hitler's rise to power and the steps that have been taken by GWB and to allow it to happen again. Maybe it's because I've actually studied the holocaust, but the parallels are remarkably strong and really should be staring most people in the face.
- oldhick, on 01/31/2008, -6/+18They asked 2000 people and then they made some statistical estimates. There is no way that number could be wrong!!!
- gummih, on 01/31/2008, -4/+16"History will judge me" - George W. Bush
Indeed it will Mr. Bush. Hopefully the judicial system will too. - inactive, on 01/31/2008, -29/+41I wrote this as an answer to Wosat's post, but I put too much work in it to let it be just a reply to a buried comment, so here:
How is it Bush's fault?
1 Lying about WMD's and Iraq's ties to al Qaeda 935 times in the run up to the war.
2 Going in with too few troops to maintain order.
3 Dismantling the Iraqi army, thereby making the problem of not being able to maintain order in two ways (fewer soldiers to do so and more potential insurgents with a grudge and military training)
4 De-Baathification, again making the problem of maintaining order greater and creating a new pool of people with a grudge.
5 Massive corruption and incompetence from the start as reported in Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekara (He presents the tenure of presidential viceroy L. Paul Bremer between May 2003 and June 2004 as an all-too-avoidable disaster, in which an occupational administration selected primarily for its loyalty to the Bush administration routinely ignored the reality of local conditions until, as one ex-staffer puts it, "everything blew up in our faces." Chandrasekaran unstintingly depicts the stubborn cluelessness of many Americans in the Green Zone—like the army general who says children terrified by nighttime helicopters should appreciate "the sound of freedom." and This revealing account of the postwar administration of Iraq, by a former Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post, focusses on life in the Green Zone, the American enclave in central Baghdad. There the Halliburton-run (and Muslim-staffed) cafeteria served pork at every meal—a cultural misstep typical of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which had sidelined old Arab hands in favor of Bush loyalists. Not only did many of them have no previous exposure to the Middle East; more than half had never before applied for a passport. While Baghdad burned, American officials revamped the Iraqi tax code and mounted an anti-smoking campaign. Chandrasekaran's portrait of blinkered idealism is evenhanded, chronicling the disillusionment of conservatives who were sent to a war zone without the resources to achieve lasting change. http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Life-Emerald-City-I ... )
So yeah, the Bush administration is directly responsible for this godsawful mess and don't you forget it.
As for this: "The fact is that since Bush ordered the surge in troops, violence and death rates have dropped significantly." There is no fact there. Correlation is not causation. The number of US deaths dropping for a while (it is back up) is mainly from other causes (more aerial bombardments which cause more civilian deaths but fewer US casualties, the ceasefire by the Mahdi Army, the US using proxy militias that pose a very high danger in the long term but mean fewer US casualties in the short run etc.). The violence in Baghdad is mostly down because the sectarian cleansing there has been completed. During the surge most of the remaining Sunnis in the capital fled to Syria, so they are not being killed anymore...
So once that falls apart, this comment: "All these European countries love to complain about the deaths, but since it's been proven that more troops increase security, why don't they send troops of their own?" is total nonsense too. Nothing has been proved except that ethnic cleansing, once successful means fewer people get killed. Yay... So first of all that statement is nonsense because more troops do not mean more security (and many Iraqis will tell you that they think the troops are the main cause of violence, not that anyone is listening), but second: why should anybody else take on the responsibility of cleaning up this mess when the creators of the mess are still in charge? That would be like mopping up without repairing the leak first. First there needs to be a schedule for pulling out US troops and giving Iraq REAL independence, then we can talk about peace-keeping forces. - inactive, on 01/31/2008, -8/+20You make a compelling argument.
- Wacer, on 01/31/2008, -28/+39Where is the proof of this? Not even the Arab world thinks this number is correct. I am not saying its wrong, just that there have been groups in past that have been criticized for their method of counting and who they say killed those people. How many have been killed by groups over their killing their own fellow countrymen?
- Andareed, on 01/31/2008, -2/+12Different methodologies of counting. One study might count only those iraqis killed directly by US forces. Another might include people killed by rebels, arguing that these rebels wouldn't exist if not for the invasion. Further still, another study might count people who died of disease due to poor infrastructure, caused by the US destroying that infrastructure in their bombings.
- inactive, on 01/31/2008, -11/+21There's probably more truth to that than you realize. The United States illegally invaded Iraq. A war pushed under false pretenses -- a world warned of the "slam-dunk evidence" and feared into submission with rhetoric of a "mushroom cloud" was all it took to do the dirty work. It isn't an easy problem to solve at this juncture, but hopefully world leaders will grow a pair because God knows that the Democrats aren't going to.
- JessicaLF77, on 01/31/2008, -4/+14Excellent, well worded argument.
- PurpleSfinx, on 01/31/2008, -6/+15""My administration has a job to do, and we're going to do it. We will rid the world of the evil-doers." - George Bush (September 14, 2001)"
So his next step is suicide? - simplicityiskey, on 01/31/2008, -2/+11You mean like the burning of the Reichstag? Kristallnacht? Night of the Long Knives? Bush is coming to the end of his final term, are you suggesting that between now and November he's going to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and seize absolute power?
- inactive, on 01/31/2008, -13/+22WTC = 2749
War on terror = one million
Two words:
*****
Disgusting! - Liam76, on 01/31/2008, -1/+10Ppopulation in N Ireland is closer to twice that (1.9mil)
- KataLieb, on 01/31/2008, -1/+10Here for example, by Lancet, the leading BRITISH journal of medicine. Their tallies indicate that already in 2006 the US invasion had caused 665 000 extra deaths. Two years later one million. Very probable and likely, since the situation has only gotten worse or stayed the same.
Heres the original Lancet pdf: http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/ ...
And an article about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
Of course you can cry and deny all you like, but Lancet is a scientific medical journal, and their methods are scientific and trustworthy. But when did the ***** apologists ever care about science? Its creationism, intelligent design and ***** that captivates their imaginations... - ivandir, on 01/31/2008, -10/+19I wonder why the British are the only ones that are investigating this?
- satanswetnipple, on 01/31/2008, -9/+17Just like Bush used a different methodology than Saddam when it cam to deaths of Kurds. Yes, the west were told over and over about the "tens of thousands (MAYBE MORE!!!!!!!!!)" Kurds that died, but by Saddam's numbers only a couple of thousand Kurds died under his rule.
So what we will see here is the christian nazi double standards. It is OK to count every death Saddam caused directly and indirectly, but it is not OK to count every death Bush caused directly or indirectly. - inactive, on 01/31/2008, -23/+30And god drat it, McCain will make it a 100 million Iraqis if he has to to win the war for America and freedom!
- simplicityiskey, on 01/31/2008, -1/+9I think what he was suggesting was that people who use a census from 1997 to determine the number of Iraqis in 2008 cannot be trusted with their results.
- ampersand2001, on 01/31/2008, -11/+19because the american people are being censored. the press is a propaganda machine. don't get me started on television.
- Pssdoff, on 01/31/2008, -6/+14Watch, in 10 minutes this will read "reported by diggers as inaccurrate"
- moskaudancer, on 01/31/2008, -0/+7Actually Stalin's death toll was closer to 30 million, and Mao's was around 50 million. The concentration camps killed "only" about 12 million people, but since he started a war that killed about 72 million people, I think it's safe to say he's responsible for those deaths, too.
- jerryparid, on 01/31/2008, -11/+18I want to come to your house and bash you on the head; who the ***** started this mess?
- Liam76, on 01/31/2008, -6/+13It was a survey of what 2k houses? Hardly a large enough sample size. And if it was conducted like the lancet study with a few small areas given more weight it is even more questionable. It doesn;t even go into how they define "household".
- kooft, on 01/31/2008, -4/+11I believe Iraq Body Count counts media reports of deaths in Iraq, whereas this report was an actual survey of Iraqi households.
- simplicityiskey, on 01/31/2008, -5/+12Considering how many people saw the folks of New Orleans looting and pillaging during Katrina, using them as an example isn't a good decision.
- ManOfVirtues, on 01/31/2008, -2/+9And he was installed into power buy us (the US Government) in the 70's
- inactive, on 01/31/2008, -4/+11i disagree with most of your points but i'll digg you up just because it is refreshing to see people here actually take their time to think over what they are about to write.
- pintomp3, on 01/31/2008, -7/+13justifications aside, preventive war is illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war - vdgmr1213, on 01/31/2008, -2/+8But...but...in GTA the bodies disappear!!
- leexy, on 01/31/2008, -4/+10Of course they have been criticized. Unless you actually catalog and record each corpse, critics will always point out that extrapolation can be flawed. However, it is the best thing one can do in this situation, and the figures aren't all that inaccurate. There is a good reason the US military decided to stick to the "we don't do body counts" line; if not, the implications would have been catastrophic for Bush's agenda. You are very welcome to criticize the studies, but when those efforts are peer-reviewed, and you can't be bothered to come out with an alternative figure based on scientific method, I'll take the former any time.
I am an Arab, and I know damn well what goes on in the Arab street. Let me make it clear that every time a bomb is detonated in a market killing Iraqis, a substantial part of the blame is put on the US invasion and the terrorist safe haven it created. - CarzorStelatis, on 01/31/2008, -1/+7Not in the International Criminal Court he isn't.
- elipabst, on 01/31/2008, -1/+7So you think the US is perpetrating sectarian violence in Iraq? These kinds of Iraqi-on-Iraqi killings are exactly the kinds of things the US is trying to prevent.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 460 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is