655,000 deaths in Iraq since invasion? - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Lanny_MacDonald · 10-12-2006, 12:21 PM

Bush doesn't seem to agree.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I hate to say it, but I agree with Bush, that number seems incredibly high. Unfortunately, the number that is being reported (~50,000) seems incredibly low. The true number obviously lay in between.

What is really interesting about this projection is that it is done using the military's own formula and conducted by Johns Hopkins University in conjuction with an Iraqi university. That's an awfully prestigious university to put their reputation on the line like that. If it were another university it likely wouldn't be that credible, but Johns Hopkins? Wow. Makes you sit up and take notice and consider the incredible cost in human life that is being rung up over in Iraq all because of an unnecessary invasion.

Crazy Flamer · 10-12-2006, 12:27 PM

As they said in the article, the survey might have been done with some bias. And I agree that 655,000 does sound a little high.

TheyCallMeBruce · 10-12-2006, 12:36 PM

That would mean more than 400 iraqis are killed a day? That is way far fetch.

troutman · 10-12-2006, 12:50 PM

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. 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.

min 43850 max 48693

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ:2754
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ:20468

North East Goon · 10-12-2006, 01:04 PM

Was watching Baghdad ER the other day - what an eye opener. The freaking injuries are horrific. It's quite an emotional show and would have the most staunch conservatives wondering what the US is doing over there.

RougeUnderoos · 10-12-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. 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.

min 43850 max 48693

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ:2754
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ:20468

Yeah, but that only takes into account the media-reported deaths. With the chaos going on over there I'm sure every dead civilian doesn't get into the paper.

I doubt this 650 thousand number as well though.

A few weeks ago on Bill Maher a guest (some activist-type celebrity, I can't remember who) referred to "130 thousand dead civilians" two or three times and nobody challenged that number. Maher and whatever Republican they had on there just let it go like it was a given.

Resolute 14 · 10-12-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by North East Goon

Was watching Baghdad ER the other day - what an eye opener. The freaking injuries are horrific. It's quite an emotional show and would have the most staunch conservatives wondering what the US is doing over there.

War is never pretty, and frankly, the resulting injuries would not change the heart or mind of anyone with a stake in what is going on.

Lanny_MacDonald · 10-12-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. 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.

min 43850 max 48693

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ:2754
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ:20468

I thought this site has long been considered on the "low" side. It also does not take into consideration the deaths from lack of infrastructure, disease, environmental concerns caused by the invasion (unexploded ordinances, depleted uranium, etc.) as well as the fighting between the sects. The death toll from 9/11 will forever be ~3,000, even though that number has already increased by 25% because of the long term health effects of the incident. I think the criteria at bodycount is too tight, and the criteria of the Hopkins study too broad. The true number is likely between those.

North East Goon · 10-12-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

War is never pretty, and frankly, the resulting injuries would not change the heart or mind of anyone with a stake in what is going on.

Like the troops families?

Agamemnon · 10-12-2006, 01:15 PM

Whats the big difference between 50 and 650 thousand deaths? Aren't both numbers beyond staggering? I don't see the hangup... if its 50 thousand... jesus, that is a LOT of dead people.

Iowa_Flames_Fan · 10-12-2006, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Whats the big difference between 50 and 650 thousand deaths? Aren't both numbers beyond staggering? I don't see the hangup... if its 50 thousand... jesus, that is a LOT of dead people.

I agree that both numbers are staggering--though I think there is an important difference, if only in terms of "situational optics," to use a horrifying euphemism.

I agree that the number may be in between. This is a study with a huge level of uncertainty built in--it claims that the number of deaths is between around 380,000 to over 900,000. Honestly, the lower number might not be that far off. If you adjust it a little to account for the problem that their methodology (canvassing house-to-house) might produce a small amount of double-reporting, you'd get a number somewhat lower but still astonishingly, mind-bogglingly high. But at least it shows that the 50,000 number is likely to be way off. You can't account for that difference merely by reference to the flaws in their methodology. No study is perfect, but this one is persuasive enough to be very disturbing.

SeeGeeWhy · 10-12-2006, 02:11 PM

What are the losses of the 'coalition'? I'd be damned if the ratio was anything less than 10:1 for dead Iraqis to dead coalition force members.

Table 5 · 10-12-2006, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

War is never pretty, and frankly, the resulting injuries would not change the heart or mind of anyone with a stake in what is going on.

of course not, all these guys are back at home in the comfort and safety of their U.S homes.

octothorp · 10-12-2006, 02:57 PM

This is the same methodology used in gathering mortalities in any conflict, and it always produces controversy. Some estimates of deaths in Darfur are 400,000 or higher, using a similar methodology (sampling households, producing a deaths-per-day-per-10,000 figure, then extrapolating out to the whole population); not surprisingly, the US state department finds the numbers are between 60,000 and 160,000. More people dying in Iraq than Darfur? I find that hard to believe, but since both followed the same methodology, I guess I have to believe it; it would be inconsistent to suggest that the numbers found in Darfur are right while the numbers found in Iraq are wrong.

blankall · 10-12-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

What are the losses of the 'coalition'? I'd be damned if the ratio was anything less than 10:1 for dead Iraqis to dead coalition force members.

the ratio is way bigger than that. Coalition losses are easily tracked. They number under 3000.....

Most of the fighting going on now is Iraqis killing Iraqis. Suicide bombings in markets are easier targets than American troops.

White Doors · 10-12-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Whats the big difference between 50 and 650 thousand deaths

i dunno, over 1/2 million people?

Agamemnon · 10-12-2006, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Doors

i dunno, over 1/2 million people?

Does that matter? 50,000 and 650,000 are both ridiculous numbers. I don't see it as any greater/lesser of a tragedy, once you're in the 1000's it's a catastrophy.

But thanks for the basic math, you proved you can do it!

White Doors · 10-12-2006, 03:29 PM

I think that 600,000 most certainly does matter!

Agamemnon · 10-12-2006, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Doors

I think that 600,000 most certainly does matter!

And I said 600,000 deaths doesn't matter?

I believe what I said was that I didn't see the big difference between either number, both are travesties. I'm not shocked by 650 but ambivalent towards 50, not sure why anyone would be.

RougeUnderoos · 10-12-2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

And I said 600,000 deaths doesn't matter?

I believe what I said was that I didn't see the big difference between either number, both are travesties. I'm not shocked by 650 but ambivalent towards 50, not sure why anyone would be.

The worst part of this is some guy in Iraq with a dead kid is hearing the Yank politicians and talking heads saying "no no no no, it was only 50 thousand".

I'm sure he'll also be happy to see this whole thing turned into an argument that contains the phrase "liberal dominated media picked up on this story..."