How many Iraqis have died because of the war & occupation?

[Ryan_Liam]

@RedFury

From the heart of the Kremlin, of course.

Should I be on the lookout for black choppers?

Thought so.

[RedFury]

@Ryan_Liam

Thought so.

Shows how much you know.

:::::whooosh!:::::

[pervert]

@RedFury

From the heart of the Kremlin, of course.

Should I be on the lookout for black choppers?

Yes. Because you know how paranoid we all are about those rowdy footballers!

[Ryan_Liam]

@pervert

Yes. Because you know how paranoid we all are about those rowdy footballers!

I don’t know what to says more shocking, you all thinking I actually believed him or, no wait thats it

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@PatriotX

This is a more narrowly defined set - ‘reported killed by the occupation’ opposed to ‘as a result iof the occupation’. Thus those who died as a result of poor drinking water or from a lack of available healthcare are not included.

Wrong. In fact, your examples are expressly contradicted by IBC. From IBC’s description of their methods (all emphasis added):

Our methodology requires that specific deaths attributed to US-led military actions are carried in at least two reports from our approved sources. This includes deaths resulting from the destruction of water treatment plants or any other lethal effects on the civilian population. The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to “collateral damage” by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization).

And from further up the same page:

In the current occupation phase this database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@xtisme

They have a blurb on the Lancett study as well. Personally, as I said in the two or three other threads that Lancett came up in, I don’t find it very useful for various reasons.

I’m with xtisme on this one. Here’s a Slate article from a guy that (if I remember correctly) was and is against the Iraq war. He gives what I think are some pretty valid criticisms. Mind you, I don’t think the Lancet figures are totally useless, but I think there are a number of serious problems with them.

[PatriotX]

@Age Quod Agis

Wrong. In fact, your examples are expressly contradicted by IBC. From IBC’s description of their methods (all emphasis added):And from further up the same page:

Fair enough.

[RedFury]

@pervert

Yes. Because you know how paranoid we all are about those rowdy footballers!

Which only shows you’re not into pre-conceptions…like others.

How’s that old adage go? Something to the tune of “better to let others think you’re an idiot…”?

[Ryan_Liam]

better to be considered a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[the_approximate_walker]

@Shodan

Or perhaps another from the same page:
Fortunately, your side is without power in Iraq at the present moment. So is Saddam’s side.

I don’t say it is the same side, but you are both making the same complaints.

Regards,
Shodan

Shodan,
you missed this one…

Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.
George Orwell

[PatriotX]

So we’re looking @ somewhere in the neighborhood 18k civilian deaths (documented ones) and combatant deaths of 10 to 20 times the number of US casualties or 15k to 30k for a grand total of about 40k not counting undocumented civi deaths which may range from~ 0 - 175k.

[Age_Quod_Agis]

@PatriotX

So we’re looking @ somewhere in the neighborhood 18k civilian deaths (documented ones) and combatant deaths of 10 to 20 times the number of US casualties or 15k to 30k

I don’t know that I agree with the figure that I’ve bolded. Or, perhaps a better way to say it would be that I don’t know that this number bears any relation to reality.

It looked to me like Squink just sort of pulled that number out of thin air. It didn’t seem to be based on any studies or reports, but rather Squink’s general feeling from reading the casualty figures in various newspaper stories over the past few years. But we don’t have any reason to believe that Squink’s general impression is accurate. The actual ratio could be much higher or even much lower. We just don’t know.

Moreover, many of the American military casualties seem to be from things like roadside bombs, which wouldn’t actually bear any relation to the casualty ratio because they weren’t casualties from a conventional battle against enemy forces, and there were likely to be zero enemy casualties because there likely weren’t any enemies at the scene. Plus, I strongly suspect that some of the American casualties were from non-combat related activities: car accidents, casualties in training exercises, medical emergencies, etc. Again, those casualties should not be included in a casualty ratio because they were not combat related casualties.

For all I know, that 15K to 30K number could be exactly accurate. But the number could actually be much higher or much lower. (In fact, I’d guess it’s much higher, but I don’t have any real basis for that.) I just don’t have much faith in that number’s accuracy.

@PatriotX

for a grand total of about 40k not counting undocumented civi deaths which may range from~ 0 - 175k

If that 0 to 175K number is based on the Lancet study, they may be civilian or military deaths. From IBC:

Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website’s front-page headline “100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion”, [link] the authors clearly state that “many” of the dead in their sample may have been combatants [P.7]).