Iraqi civilian toll since the invasion is estimated at 100,000

By Elisabeth Rosenthal International Herald Tribune

More than 100,000 civilians have probably died in Iraq as direct or indirect consequences of the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to a study by a research team at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
.
The report was scheduled for publication on the Internet Friday by The Lancet, the English medical journal.
.
The figure is far higher than previous mortality estimates....

....Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it.
International Herald Tribune

Oh well. Estimates like these are useless and stupid. Besides, its worth the oil

Sad. but atleast you admit it.

Read the actual study here: http://www.jhsph.edu/Press_Room/Press_R ... _Iraq.html

I call bullshit on the grounds of a very small sample size (146 vs. 46 deaths - are you kidding me?) and the fact that they released the study early.

There is no doubt that a lot of Iraqis died as a result of the war, but doesn't mean we have to sensationalize their deaths and try and turn them into a poltical gain for Kerry campign.

Most authentic figures have it somewhere at 14000 to 16000

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

What makes those numbers more authentic? At first glance it just looks like a website put up by a few people, anyone can do that. The article I quoted at least sourced a respected research University.

I don't claim to know what the right numbers are but until we know more I don't see any reason to take that website's word over the researchers at JH.

"The bigger the lie"........ Adolph

Ironically, when iraqbodycount.net was originally quoted in your International Herald article, they had only estimated the maximum to be 17,000 but now that number is almost 10 times more. Someone in the article claimed that their 100000 estimate was "conservative," so the 14000-16000 death estimate makes sense considering it includes deaths from "inadequate health care or sanitation," which may not be related to the miltary action at all and used just to inflate the numbers.

There are several professors/research on iraqbodycount's team: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/contacts.htm Although many of them have specialities in music...

I'm not gonna pass judgement on this yet, because estimates are often very different from the actuals.

I learned that the hard way from playing the BO derby.

Again, these are ESTIMATES; they calculated using highly sophisticated model called Excel, by extrapolating the threefold increase in deaths in the sampled households. The number of deaths went from 42 to 146, so they get the 100,000. The sample size is very low and their methods are not documented.

IraqBodyCount, for all its deficiencies, at least lists tha names of the people who died (even if they're double-counted sometimes).

iraq body count has been used by many sites for their estimates ... so far, your numbers are the only ones I've seen that have contradicted them ..

I do not know if iraqbosycount is indeed correct but so far, its the only one thats shown more validity than any other ...

I think that figures not going to have good legs, i see a 95% decline in two years when America decides to fuck off home.

And the war-and-ongoing-poverty genre isnt tradtionally leggy. Plus next weekend sees the beginning of A WAR IN ANOTHER COUNTRY WITH OIL, thats big budget competish for the American forces.

ANYWAY i wouldnt trust any figures about iraq for about a month. Politicans are more powerful than small countries.

Guess people just don't understand that war kills everybody in the area... Don't need to go and try making poetry out of it.

Two bloody wars
a hundred thousand dead
biased report

That seems more realistic to me. 100,000 seems truly exaggerated.

At least Iraq wasn't bombed with Napalm...

I wouldn't doubt those figures, they seem about right to me. If you look at all the bombs we dropped I suprised it's not higher

People wouldnt think this way if it were on our soil, and innocent americans were dying bc of it.
Its all peachy keen, as long as its "OVER THERE"

Use that arguement on families of lost ones from 9/11 and see how easy that goes over rusty. Sorry, statements like that can be spun in so many directions that at one point someone with as stable, respected, and powerful a government as our own needs to start seeing that. Its that very discourse that has now got more support, networking, and funding for terrorist organizations. People have actually increased in their sympathy for the area (which really is horrible). The same people that freaked out when the Taliban blew up those two giant Buddhas are now begging us to cut it out. And we just say "This is war, there are unfortunate casulties." And Al Qaeda said the same thing to pilots too I'm sure. Something along the lines of "Don't feel bad about all the abused Latino janitors (SEIU lost more members in the Two Towers than any other organization) and all the lower class female secretaries that are just trying to make ends meet. This is war, there will be casulties, and they need to die for the greater point of getting our point across and rendering the power structures in the U.S. immobile."

I'd prefer if you at least said something like, "Well the death is a dark point that I'm willing to take responsibility for because...*some reason which I'm not going to provide because I can't think of one.* In which case you would at least feel some responsibility for the near 20,000 that have died out there. The way you frame it as *inevitable* sure must help you sleep better at night, but it doesn't hold water when dealing with international relations or address any sort of concept of ethical standards.

-Dolce

Thank you, you just justified the killing of 3000 americans during 9/11 and why America should have never attacked Afghanistan

**Waiting patiently for someone to come and speak about how that attack WAS aimed at innocents only ... patiently waits**

Heh.

I'm not going to go there. But if you frame this in terms of war, then this is "us vs. them". And I'd rather have "us" wint, than "them".

No .. not really .. thats not how I was gonna frame it .. : )
but just for the sake of it ... you'd rather have 'us' while they'd rather have 'them'

kinda f'ed up isn't it.

lol btw best avatar....EVER!!! i'm going to go ahead and use it at another site :wink: if you don't mind.

I'm not justifying all the deaths there. I'm just saying that war kills people and it's a sad thing. 9/11 was an act of war and 3000 people died there. It's sad that they are dead but war kills people!

And call me an idiot but I'd rather it be them dying then me when a war breaks out. And if you all think of it, you'd be saying the same thing.

umm no .. not really Rusty ..

if someone came up to me today and said hey you know what, I wana kill you but theres this person who you know nothing about and I'll kill them instead .. just say the word ...

trust me ... Theres no way in hell I'm gonna say kill me but theres no way in hell I would ever wanna live another day knowing that i technically took another person's life for no reason whatsoever ... basically, I'll probably just cry and plead without giving an answer and worse comes to worse, I hope I do the honorable thing in my head and make my own defense(offense, whatever that applies)