650,000 dead due to Iraq War.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_death_toll

Only 31% of americans say we are winning.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/War%20on%20Terror_Monthly_Update.htm

These 2 facts seem to dove-tail nicely.

Mission accomplished.

This must be a sad day.
The people who came up with this number have outDopped even you.

PS - Yes or no. Are polls to be considered a legitimate source for our discussions?


PPS - Is the Harold Ford in your signature line the same one who was claiming to be a lawyer in campaign literature?

I'm in agreement with Brooks. THat number is way off. Like the article states, it's all politics.

Yeah I know it's hard to believe that people die by the thousands from small things like carpet bombing, cruise missiles, constant artillery pounding, civil war ... :rolleyes:

Yeah I know it's hard to believe that people die by the thousands from small things like carpet bombing, cruise missiles, constant artillery pounding, civil war ... :rolleyes:
====================================

Sad that so many people have died, whatever the number.
Wonder how many was Arab killing Arab?

====================================

Sad that so many people have died, whatever the number.
Wonder how many was Arab killing Arab?

Very good question.

The study comes to you courtesy of the same group that produced the previous study and used the same methodoloy that was so widely derided by academics.

It's value is only in how long it holds up in the bird cage.

The study comes to you courtesy of the same group that produced the previous study and used the same methodoloy that was so widely derided by academics.

It's value is only in how long it holds up in the bird cage.

If you're so sure the number is wrong ... how about offering up the correct number.

If you're so sure the number is wrong ... how about offering up the correct number.
Exactly 104,317, and don't question me because I KNOW! :rolleyes: :@@:

The study comes to you courtesy of the same group that produced the previous study and used the same methodoloy that was so widely derided by academics. It was not derided by academics. If you got a link produce it.

Most people cited Iraqi Body Count which only documents deaths reported inat least 2 papers. With the way both sides have been murdering reporters this number is abysmally small compared to the true count.

The military has a secret count. They have also been releasing numbers when it fits for propaganda. Then it came out that they don't count car bombings and numerous other common causes of death in Iraq, so thas complte bullshit.

660,000 does not sounds far off when thinking about the lack of food, cutting off water and medicine, secratarian violence, carpet bombing, bombing hospitals, etc. I'd say it might be a little high but thats based on absolutly nothing but speculation. (500,000+)

The methadology this study used was cluster sampling and is commonly used in natural disasters and extreme conflicts where counting the dead can be difficult. It has been proven effective and accurate in many conflicts and natural disasters. Clust sampling is used to find out the estimate of mortality.

1,849 Iraqi families were sampled. They went to 47 different neighborhoods across Iraq to get their data. Most in the scientific community agree with cluster sampling and it has been used in the past, however now that it is showing something negative about Iraq this method is now doubted.

According to the survey results, Iraq's mortality rate in the year before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people; in the post-invasion period it was 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The difference between these rates was used to calculate "excess deaths."

Of the 629 deaths reported, 87 percent occurred after the invasion. A little more than 75 percent of the dead were men, with a greater male preponderance after the invasion. For violent post-invasion deaths, the male-to-female ratio was 10-to-1, with most victims between 15 and 44 years old.

Gunshot wounds caused 56 percent of violent deaths, with car bombs and other explosions causing 14 percent, according to the survey results. Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said.

Burnham said that the estimate of Iraq's pre-invasion death rate -- 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people -- found in both of the Hopkins surveys was roughly the same estimate used by the CIA and the U.S. Census Bureau. He said he believes that attests to the accuracy of his team's results. - Washington Post

660,000 does not sounds far off when thinking about the lack of food, cutting off water and medicine, secratarian violence, carpet bombing, bombing hospitals, etc. I'd say it might be a little high but thats based on absolutly nothing but speculation. (500,000+)
Secretarian, secratarian? What, are some hot blondes wailing on each other to get a job for an executive?

The term is sectarian for future reference.

Well, in 2002, (the last poll I can remember) 43% of Americans thought Elvis was still alive. Since then, I have always thought polls were rather a measure of determining the level of misinformation, rather than the level of truth.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061011/iraq_deaths2_061011/20061011?hub=World

2,600 in September 2006. If we use an average of 2,000 per month for the last 36 months=72,000
660,00! It may be high but you can never underestimate, The American Will To Kill and the fact we will never know for sure.

Secretarian, secratarian? I've brought this up before. He's not easily embarassed.

The American Will To Kill and the fact we will never know for sure.:Your first 10 posts had shock value, but now it's getting silly and old.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/11/world/11cas_graphic_lg.gif

I'm waiting to see why this report if "false". Any actual evidence?

So, 300,000+ people, or just over 1% of the Iraqi population is being killed every year. That's about 26,000 deaths per month, or just under 1000 per day. That is much higher than any other report I have seen. To put these numbers into some perspective, the total US military killed in WWII was about 300,000.

It is to be noted that of these about 250 deaths per day are attributed to coalition forces and about 300 per day to "others", the remainder are "unknown".
This compares to about 250 violent deaths per day 3 years ago. Of those about 80 were attributed to coalition forces and 60 to "others".

This is not the picture painted by any media outlet. I cannot comment on the veracity of the data.

It was not derided by academics. If you got a link produce it.

Most people cited Iraqi Body Count which only documents deaths reported inat least 2 papers. With the way both sides have been murdering reporters this number is abysmally small compared to the true count.

The military has a secret count. They have also been releasing numbers when it fits for propaganda. Then it came out that they don't count car bombings and numerous other common causes of death in Iraq, so thas complte bullshit.

660,000 does not sounds far off when thinking about the lack of food, cutting off water and medicine, secratarian violence, carpet bombing, bombing hospitals, etc. I'd say it might be a little high but thats based on absolutly nothing but speculation. (500,000+)

Actually it was.

See the Slate article. Which took the study apart based on its methodology.

Beth Osborne Daponte, senior research scholar at Yale University's Institution for Social and Policy Studies, put the point diplomatically after reading the Lancet article ...."It attests to the difficulty of doing this sort of survey work during a war. … No one can come up with any credible estimates yet, at least not through the sorts of methods used here."


http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/

Chicago Boyz took it apart as well, again using it's own methodology.

http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/2004_10.html

One of the hilarious conclusions to be drawn from said study is that using a pre-war UNICEF study of infant mortality in iraq and the Lancet study look at iraqi infant mortality is that war in iraq improves infant mortality!

http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002549.html

:Your first 10 posts had shock value, but now it's getting silly and old.

What? You lost the will to stay the course in Iraq?
I suppose the deaths in Iraq have nothing to do with the American will to be there and to kill as necessary?
Face it, if were not there I'm pretty sure the death count would be a lot lower. On both sides.

So, 300,000+ people, or just over 1% of the Iraqi population is being killed every year. Um...Iraq War 2 started in March 2003. Its been 3.5 years. Thats 188,500 a year.

The Slate article was good. I just think its funny that no one was denouncing their methods when they were estimating genicdal deaths in Africa.

I'd be nice if they actually gave the spread rather then the median in the AP article.

This article doesn't even give a spread:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6045112.stm

Now this doesn't mean that 600,000 Iraqis haven't died. It just means we have no solid proof there of.

Well then I guess the only solid number there is is the IBC which puts the deaths around 50,000. By their own accord they only have triple reported deaths (not double as I said earlier) so its bound to be far lower than the actual death count. What percentage of the dead do you think the media can actually cover in the middle of a war zone where most of them huddle in a hotel in the green zone. I'd say they most likely miss a mojority of the deaths. So lets agree on a number. I'd say 150,000-200,000 is reasonable. That means that IBC is reporting 1/3 - 1/4 of the actual deaths. Keep in mind we are talking all deaths as a result of the invasion. That includes people dead from water being shut off in Falluja, mass graves in falluja, snipers, lack of food, lack of medicine, bombed hospitals, civil war carpet bombings etc...

Of course that isn't taking into account all te people who have already and will start dying/miscarriaged from DU.

Sorry 550lbG, but 12 deaths per 1000 people is about 300,000 per year. We can argue about the population of Iraq, (I am assuming 26 million) but it won't change the result much.

Now this doesn't mean that 600,000 Iraqis haven't died. It just means we have no solid proof there of.If they claimed 3.7 million have died you could make the same argument.

it just said "violent deaths".. it didnt say "by american troops"... i bet america has many more "violent deaths" in new york city alone in that time period...

what a dumb number and a dumb article to come out with.. trying to persuade and mislead people to think its actually america killing 650,000 people a year... LMAO... yea, and Lebron James is going to average 220 points a game this year too.

Nature has a way of evening things out every now and then.
There are checks and balances in all matters related to world population it would seem.

Affluent suburbanites aren't procreating fast enough? Shoot, they'll adopt eventually. Things even out.

Urban minorities breeding at too fast a rate, and raising welfare babies?
Shoot, those kids will grow up to be gang-bangers and they'll mostly kill each other off. Things even out.

A scruffy collection of desert-dwelling Bedouins become oil-rich in a half a generation, become overtaken by a brutal dictator in another half a generation, and then breed prolifically over the next 40 years?
Shoot, we'll come in there and clean house if need be.
Things even out.

650,000 or 50,000. What does it matter? All partisan politics aside, answer me this;

How many of you really give a rat’s ass about the Iraqi people?
Most of you won't get up off your fat asses to stop a child-abuser on your own street, call the police on crystal-meth dealers in your own neighborhood, or go to the polls on Election Day to vote for the candidates of your choice. You lethargic, pampered, nervous, cringing, arm-chair quarterbacks.
So now the Iraqi people are your number one concern?

Drop the partisan-political bullshit, please.
Threads like this are as transparent as tissue-paper.
And just about as substantial.

650,000 or 50,000. What does it matter? All partisan politics aside, answer me this;

How many of you really give a rat’s ass about the Iraqi people?
Most of you won't get up off your fat asses to stop a child-abuser on your own street, call the police on crystal-meth dealers in your own neighborhood, or go to the polls on Election Day to vote for the candidates of your choice. You lethargic, pampered, nervous, cringing, arm-chair quarterbacks.
So now the Iraqi people are your number one concern?

Drop the partisan-political bullshit, please.
Threads like this are as transparent as tissue-paper.
And just about as substantial.

whoa... to the point.. and yet i agree... i think every single person in here should look in the mirror after that soapbox-worthy speach.

Very well put Sparky, very good point.. and i hope everyone listens because its something that needs to be addressed.

Threads like this are as transparent as tissue-paper.


Yes.......this thread would only be a *substantial* one if it were the Demoncrats who had presided over the worst foreign policy disaster (iow, the Iraq misadventure) of the past 100 years.

_______________________________________________

"In the long and harrowing national nightmare we presently find ourselves trapped in, a filthy brand of governance has emerged, entrenching itself deep into our society with its claws of violence and destruction. It is a government devoid of honor or integrity; living, breathing and spewing lies and deceits, exploiting fear and insecurity to achieve its goals and manipulating an entire nation suffering through its post 9/11 insecurity and slumber into blindly following its evil dictates."___________Manuel Valenzuela

Here's a little info for the fucktards who think this thread is "insubstantial";

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The death toll among Iraqis as a result of the US-led invasion has now reached an estimated 655,000, a study in the Lancet medical journal reports today.

That's around 2.5% of the population.


http://www.juancole.com/2006/10/655000-dead-in-iraq-since-bush.html

A big new Johns Hopkins study published in The Lancet that suggests that the US misadventure in Iraq is responsible for setting off the killing of twice as many civilians as Saddam managed to polish off in 25 years.

A careful Johns Hopkins study has estimated that between 420,000 and 790,000 Iraqis have died as a result of war and political violence since the beginning of the US invasion in March, 2003.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/news/news%20pdfs%20mjm/human%20cost%20of%20war%20-%20final%20oct%209.pdf

Bullshit, sir.
And you don't get off that easily.

The point was, people of any given political persuasion will leap onto any given sound-byte or urban legend, if it supports the position of the party of their particular leaning. From the comfort of their den, hunkered over their computer keyboard.

But how many of them are actually willing to back their political posturing with actual deeds? How many have earned the right to even complain?


I myself have taken the hard right over the easy wrong, and intervened in situations of waste, fraud, and abuse.
I myself have helped the local community (and the assisted the local police force) and shut down not one, but two drug houses.
And more importantly perhaps;
I myself have been to Iraq.
I have made friends with Bedoiun families, and I have inter-mingled with the local populace. Without me blowing them up, and without them blowing me up.

So back to my original point;
Do you constant critics care more about the Iraqi people, or do you care more about slagging the current Commander In Chief?

The point was, people of any given political persuasion will leap onto any given sound-byte or urban legend,.......

A Johns Hopkins study is a bit more than a "sound bite" or an "urban legend".

If anyone is guilty of peddling bullshit here, it is you.

Do you constant critics care more about the Iraqi people, or do you care more about slagging the current Commander In Chief?

I do care, deeply, about hundreds of thousands of innocent people on the other side of the world being thrown under the goddamned Hummer just because GWBush and his greedy Big Oil cronies are out to reap billions in profits from the "New Pearl Harbor" situation that they were so desperate to have happen.

I also care deeply about pointing out how despicable the political cabal is that led us into the insane misadventure in Iraq.

And so name one positive thing you are doing to remedy your crisis situation, sir.

Aside from complaining bitterly to the great unwashed masses on the internet.
How exactly are you stepping up to the plate and making a difference?

Because let's be honest.
Debating with people like me on the internet is just like kissing your sister;
It's fleetingly-interesting, but it ain't like the real thing.

Just what are you willing to do to make a difference in this world?

And so name one positive thing you are doing to remedy your crisis situation, sir.

I am doing something.

One thing.

...trying to accumulate enough money so that I can move to another country.

Just what are you willing to do to make a difference in this world?

Put as much distance as possible between me and the millions of ConservaFascist, Bible-thumping, flag-wavers that this nation is overrun with.

Well at least that's something.

PM me. I'll send you some money.
I can't offer much, but every journey begins with a single step anyway.

And I wish you peace, wherever it is that you end up, sir.

The Johns Hopkins study was vetted by several organizations including Zogby.

FT? What will your running away do for any Iraqi? You just make it sound as if Sparky is correct.