An Estimated 600K Iraqis Have Died in the War

[yojimbo]

@elucidator

My God, what have we done?

Made one of the biggest mistakes in modern history.

[glee]

OK, there wern’t any WMD’s. :rolleyes:

And loads of people have died. :smack:

But at least the end is in sight.

[Martin_Hyde]

@vibrotronica

Yeah, MIT and Johns Hopkins “doctors” and “statisticians” are just a bunch of foaming-at-the-mouth, Bush-hating Michael Moores and Jane Fondas. We can’t have killed more than 100,000, tops! Why do they hate America so much?

Considering the man from Johns Hopkins who was in charge of the survey said, “it was intentional” that both the survey he conducted in 2004 and the one being conducted now coincided with elections it makes me doubt him very seriously. I’d prefer my statisticians not have biased axes to grind.

[Squink]

@glee

But at least the end is in sight.

Army: Troops to stay in Iraq until 2010

[BrainGlutton]

@Pochacco

The methodology of this assessment is pretty straightforward. They picked about 1800 families at random and interviewed one member of the family about recent deaths before and after the invasion. In about 80% of the cases they were able to confirm what the family member was telling them with a death certificate. They used that information to calculate the yearly mortality rate in Iraq. It came to 13.3 deaths per 1000. The pre-invasion mortality rate was calculated to 5.5 deaths per 1000, which apparently closely matches pre-war assessments from other sources. The 655,000 figure is a nation-wide extrapolation based upon the difference between the pre- and post-war death rates.

I presume, then, that that figure includes people who have not been violently killed, but who have died because the war’s damage kept them from getting clean drinking water, etc.?

[The_Hamster_King]

@BrainGlutton

I presume, then, that that figure includes people who have not been violently killed, but who have died because the war’s damage kept them from getting clean drinking water, etc.?

Yes. However the bulk of the excess deaths – 601,000 – were from violence.

[Revtim]

@Martin Hyde

Considering the man from Johns Hopkins who was in charge of the survey said, “it was intentional” that both the survey he conducted in 2004 and the one being conducted now coincided with elections it makes me doubt him very seriously. I’d prefer my statisticians not have biased axes to grind.

Yeah, how dare he actually try to provide hard data for Americans to base their decisions on, instead of political catchphrases and soundbites from TV ads.

[John_Mace]

While good statistics are always helpful in determining policy, I’m not sure what the value is in this case of arguing about the details. So many Iraqis have died in the aftermath of the US invasion that we must reach the conclusion that the invasion wsa a collosal mistake. And that’s not even mentioning the whole WMD fiasco, which pales in the comparsion of loss of human life. Now, I’ll be the first to point out that primary blame for killing in the sectarian violence belongs with those doing the killing, but we are the defacto police force in Iraq, and we screwed up royally by creating the conditions where such violence was inevitable and not planning well enough to deal with that inevitability.

Add on top that these deaths the fear so many Iraqis have in going about their day-to-day existance, it’s no wonder they hate us as they do. At this point, I think the best we can hope for is that James Baker’s assessment of the situation and recomendations will be taken seriously by the Bush administration. I believe he should be releasing it before the end of this year. I’m afraid that even if the Dems win big in November that they will be unable to force Bush to change his policies. Even if Bush took the tiny, tiny step of announcing a timetable for withdrawl, I think the payback in increased Iraqi support would be enormous.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Revtim

Yeah, how dare he actually try to provide hard data for Americans to base their decisions on, instead of political catchphrases and soundbites from TV ads.

In fact, it this study is correct, it’s practically his DUTY to release it in a way that has the maximum political effect.

Now, I eagerly await the debunking of this study on empirical grounds rather than the typical knee-jerk smearing of the author’s motivations … . :rolleyes:

[Squink]

@Revtim

Yeah, how dare he actually try to provide hard data…

But collecting that ‘hard data’ is in defiance of long standing Iraqi and US policy:
Iraq’s Health Ministry stops counting civilian dead

December,2003
Iraq’s Health Ministry has ordered a halt to a count of civilians killed during the war and told its statistics department not to release figures compiled so far, the official who oversaw the count told The Associated Press on Wednesday.
…
Dr. Nagham Mohsen, the head of the ministry’s statistics department, said the order was relayed to her by the ministry’s director of planning, Dr. Nazar Shabandar, who said it came on behalf of Abbas. She said the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which oversees the ministry, also wanted the counting to stop.

[elucidator]

So long as someone is telling you the truth, it is no consequence why he’s telling the truth.

[Revtim]

@Pochacco

In fact, it this study is correct, it’s practically his DUTY to release it in a way that has the maximum political effect.

Exactly. Arguments about the timing of the study are tantamount to complaining about being provided data about car performance when you’re looking to buy a new car.

Until there are actual data-based objections to this study, those complaints are just so much whining.

[Bippy_the_Beardless]

@BrainGlutton

I presume, then, that that figure includes people who have not been violently killed, but who have died because the war’s damage kept them from getting clean drinking water, etc.?

Yes but the report also stated that the rate of non-violent deaths hadn’t increased significantly.
I do think the report’s sample size was a bit small though.

[vibrotronica]

…as opposed to the endless congressional investigations that won’t be available until after the election. Wouldn’t want to be able to know how the White House handled pre-war intellegence so we can make a decision based on those facts, would we? Wouldn’t want to know how the House handled a member who liked to handle little boys before the election, would we? The only criterion we should make our November decisions on are the negative ads we see on TV.

Either tell us why you have a problem with the methodology of this study or STFU.

[Giraffe]

@Martin Hyde

Considering the man from Johns Hopkins who was in charge of the survey said, “it was intentional” that both the survey he conducted in 2004 and the one being conducted now coincided with elections it makes me doubt him very seriously. I’d prefer my statisticians not have biased axes to grind.

One of the most basic questions facing an electorate is whether their representatives have done a good job in their previous term of office. Revtim’s performance review analogy is perfect – the time to look back and reflect on the results of incumbents’ policies is at decision time.

I think we would have a far stronger democracy if we were to view incumbents critically at every election and send the message that any of our representatives who does a poor job will be tossed, regardless of party. Whether this data affects that conclusion is a personal issue, but I think it’s absolutely appropriate to make available to voters while they make it.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@Martin Hyde

Considering the man from Johns Hopkins who was in charge of the survey said, “it was intentional” that both the survey he conducted in 2004 and the one being conducted now coincided with elections it makes me doubt him very seriously.

Cool. You doubt him. Now show me the bit where his statistics are wrong, would ya. Because otherwise I have to go to bed in the knowledge that I’m a citizen of a country that played a part in killing 600,000 people.

Oh fuck. We really do appear to be just a bunch of cunts that history is going to footnote with “here’s how evil you can be if you attach absolutely no value to life for people outside of your own country”.

[Marley23]

@John Mace

While good statistics are always helpful in determining policy, I’m not sure what the value is in this case of arguing about the details.

I agree with you in principle, and I thought the invasion was a bad idea before anybody died. However, if the death toll over there is six or 15 or 20 times what we’ve been told, I’d say that’s pretty significant.

[Alonzo_John_Blitz]

Originally posted by Elucidator:

… Can’t get my head around it, don’t know whether to cry or puke.

Can’t we do both? Multitasking, my friend, multitasking.

[RedFury]

@Martin Hyde

Considering the man from Johns Hopkins who was in charge of the survey said, “it was intentional” that both the survey he conducted in 2004 and the one being conducted now coincided with elections it makes me doubt him very seriously. I’d prefer my statisticians not have biased axes to grind.

You’re a fucking asshole. But surely you knew that already.

How many are “enough” for you to stop trying to “justify” the unprovoked butchery you continue to support?

Revolting piece of putrid flesh.

[RedFury]

@Martin Hyde

Considering the man from Johns Hopkins who was in charge of the survey said, “it was intentional” that both the survey he conducted in 2004 and the one being conducted now coincided with elections it makes me doubt him very seriously. I’d prefer my statisticians not have biased axes to grind.

You’re a fucking asshole. But surely you knew that already.

How many are “enough” for you to stop trying to “justify” the unprovoked butchery you continue to support?

Scumbag.