Study: 100,000 Excess Civilian Iraqi Deaths...

[arsenal]

I am no stats expert, but even with my limited stats knowledge, I do know that extrapulating numbers from a fairly small population is a very dangerous thing.

In the article it states that they polled 33 cluster surveys of 30 households each. First off "cluster" does not mean random. Already the results are going to be biased. Second 2/3 of the violent deaths where reported in Fallujah, the INSURGENT held city. There could be a question of weither the actual numbers killed are true civilians, or insurgents.

[Igottago]

I just can't believe people still want to ignore the lies and back the Bush government. But like someone posted earlier, this war will do nothing but increase terrorism to an extent we can't even imagine. Wait 'til the children in Iraq who lost family grow up....whether Bush wins or not he's already created a giant mess.

[Flame On]

I'm not a huge Bush fan, I back him in this election I think this comment in a nutshell summerises my inability to understand the Bush point of view.
I mean if I was republican and leaned right, I could sway from Bush for 1 election with the amount of evidence against him/them. At some point where are the morals? If I don't agree with the actions or stances that a government I support/has just taken, if I don't feel they've deserved my vote, I won't give it to them.
Also putting aside the controversialness of F9/11, there was a scene with a woman who's house and relatives had been bombed and killed by the US. She was shrieking with shear anger and sadness. In that scene I thought, if someone did that to my family I would become a terrorist. I don't want anyone to die or condone it, but kill my mom and I'll throw that out the window. I think most humans are the same. The US is upsetting a lot of humans right now. IMO

[Five-hole]

Good post Flame On.

It seems like it's easy for anybody to understand the point of view of the terrorists unless they're Republican. Which seems really strange to me because their viewpoints are not all that different. "You screwed us, we're going to screw you harder."

I honestly can't fathom why people continue to back Bush regardless of things that come to light despite his administration's best efforts to conceal them. I understand that when you lean right, you want to continue to lean right, but that doesn't mean that you should continue to support a corrupt, deceitful, murderous administration. As Flame On said, you can abstain or vote Nader -- or, gasp, even vote Kerry -- for this one election to show your displeasure with the current administration.

I've yet to hear ANYBODY give a cogent defense of Bush that isn't just pandering to usual right wing rhetoric. There's a difference between backing Bush and being Republican, you know.

[moon]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 28 2004, 04:53 PM
And who could blame a nation from wanting to park a nuke in the middle of an American city? How anyone can not agree that Bush and Co. are criminals and have committed attrocities against humanity is beyond me? I'm blown away by those numbers and I'm ashamed to say I know people who back Bush. A lot of Americans are going die soon for no other reason than Bush refused to consider his actions.

:unsure:

This may be one of the stupidest comments that I have ever read/heard.

[transplant99]

Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq

There is NO evidence beyond what this group "thinks" and "assumes", that these numbers are anyting close to reality. They say so themselves.

I would be willing to bet that this number is WAY lower than what is suggested. Not that it makes the loss of life any less terrible, but this is the kind of "reporting" that so many clobber other media sources for, and call it "government controlled garbage, that doesnt tell the real story".

[Flame On]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 29 2004, 05:15 AM
Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq

There is NO evidence beyond what this group "thinks" and "assumes", that these numbers are anyting close to reality. They say so themselves.

I would be willing to bet that this number is WAY lower than what is suggested. Not that it makes the loss of life any less terrible, but this is the kind of "reporting" that so many clobber other media sources for, and call it "government controlled garbage, that doesnt tell the real story".

So give it a very unlikely margin of error, say 90 percent. That's still 10,000 people!! Imagine what the US would do if half that were slain at home. Hell even if the right would say "we need more troops on the ground so that we can be more precise and not bomb from 30,000 feet" that would be better. If that raises the draft issue, who cares, the whole of the US seems to agree with the war, they should be putting their money where their mouths are.

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 29 2004, 01:07 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 29 2004, 01:07 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 28 2004, 11:53 PM
And who could blame a nation from wanting to park a nuke in the middle of an American city? How anyone can not agree that Bush and Co. are criminals and have committed attrocities against humanity is beyond me? I'm blown away by those numbers and I'm ashamed to say I know people who back Bush. A lot of Americans are going die soon for no other reason than Bush refused to consider his actions.

:unsure:

So you're apalled by Bush's actions in Iraq yet you couldn't blame anyone for wanting to take revenge on that tenfold?

Sometimes you'd be better off not posting Lanny. [/b][/quote]
Somebody has to explain to me exactly the US was avenging by attacking Iraq?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Oct 29 2004, 01:40 PM

So you're apalled by Bush's actions in Iraq yet you couldn't blame anyone for wanting to take revenge on that tenfold?

Sometimes you'd be better off not posting Lanny.

Somebody has to explain to me exactly the US was avenging by attacking Iraq? [/quote]
Nothing.

Who said the US was avenging something? That's people on your side of the fence throwing out that line. I didn't say it so don't bring it up in response to something I did say please.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 28 2004, 08:01 PM
Sure thing Bingo, saying stupid things. Like marginalizing 100,000 civilian deaths just to support a moron of a politician? Sure. And you think for a second that there is not a massive number of people in Iraq, let alone the rest of the Middle East, who would love to see a mushroom cloud over an American city? Well you're kidding yourself. And I think that if you went to that part of the world and asked them who is saying stupid things, they would say those make excuses for and support Bush. Its completely out of character for a Bush supporter, but consider them before you think how stupid a comment is.

No ...

It's stupid to say you are embarassed for anyone that disagrees with your way of thinking.

I wouldn't do that.

That would incite an internet riot and belittle a very valid way of thinking and opinion.

I don't feel the need to marginalize left thinking people when they disagree with me. I'm completely comfortable in that I may see things differently than others.

Are you really that intolerant of others, or do you just like a good dust up on the internet?

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Flame On@Oct 28 2004, 10:59 PM
I'm not a huge Bush fan, I back him in this election I think this comment in a nutshell summerises my inability to understand the Bush point of view.
I mean if I was republican and leaned right, I could sway from Bush for 1 election with the amount of evidence against him/them. At some point where are the morals? If I don't agree with the actions or stances that a government I support/has just taken, if I don't feel they've deserved my vote, I won't give it to them.
Also putting aside the controversialness of F9/11, there was a scene with a woman who's house and relatives had been bombed and killed by the US. She was shrieking with shear anger and sadness. In that scene I thought, if someone did that to my family I would become a terrorist. I don't want anyone to die or condone it, but kill my mom and I'll throw that out the window. I think most humans are the same. The US is upsetting a lot of humans right now. IMO

Fair enough ... I'll try to explain that further.

I'm not a big fan of Bush as a leader, but I do back his party in this election. I don't like how religion creeps in, and I don't think he's done a good job of defending or making clear some of his parties positions. For one, I don't blame him for the flawed intelligence, but I wish he had come clean on the fact that it looked like there were no WMD in Iraq before the media made it a feeding frenzy.

But back to the election ...

I'm still to the right side (socially Liberal like I said before) because I think the issue needs to be taken to that region now, and not left to fester.

I fear the Democrats and Kerry in particular because I worry they'll put their heads back in the sand and send the world back to a pre 911 world. Kerry has had to move a long way right in his party to attempt to win this election, and I'm not convinced he won't move back to the left if he gains power.

I may have thought your way (move to the Dems for this election) if Lieberman was the ticket instead, but he's not.

Make any sense?

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by Flame On+Oct 29 2004, 07:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Oct 29 2004, 07:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-transplant99@Oct 29 2004, 05:15 AM
Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq

There is NO evidence beyond what this group "thinks" and "assumes", that these numbers are anyting close to reality. They say so themselves.

I would be willing to bet that this number is WAY lower than what is suggested. Not that it makes the loss of life any less terrible, but this is the kind of "reporting" that so many clobber other media sources for, and call it "government controlled garbage, that doesnt tell the real story".

So give it a very unlikely margin of error, say 90 percent. That's still 10,000 people!! Imagine what the US would do if half that were slain at home. Hell even if the right would say "we need more troops on the ground so that we can be more precise and not bomb from 30,000 feet" that would be better. If that raises the draft issue, who cares, the whole of the US seems to agree with the war, they should be putting their money where their mouths are. [/b][/quote]
About 15 000 civilian deaths have been confirmed as a result of US or insurgent actions:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

This is seperate from the '100 000 dead' report that spawned this thread though. And I agree with you, lets say we snip of 90% of those numbers it still leaves 10 000 dead due to 'violence, much which caused by U.S. air strikes on towns and cities.' Nothing I would simply write off. And besides, I thought Rambo declared an end to the war and 'Mission Accomplished' when he landed on that aircraft carrier?