• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

34,000 Iraqi civilians killed in 2006, U.N. reports

K

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Let's see now, let's put this war in Iraq in perpective shall we?

We discover today that nearly 35,000 Iraqis died last year in the war and, if this war was in the United States, the comparable rate would be... yikes, the equivalency of death would be nearly half a million dead Americans last year.

Did you hear that?

Nearly 500,000 Americans died in 2006 due to political violence between the Democrats and Republicans and there is no end in sight. 82 Democrats were killed yesterday when a bomb went off in Times Square and the day before 102 Republicans died a violent death as they were leaving a party at a popular Washington DC golf course.

Now that's I call putting putting the war in Iraq in subjective evaluation of relative significance. :cool:

What do you all think?














34,000 Iraqi civilians killed in 2006, U.N. reports - CNN.com

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- More than 34,000 civilians were "violently killed" across Iraq last year, with an average of 94 killed every day, according to a new United Nations report.

The bimonthly Human Rights Report of the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, covering November and December, tallied the casualties of nearly a year of relentless sectarian strife, which skyrocketed after the bombing of a Shiite mosque in Samarra on February 22.

The grim figures came on a day when shootings and bombs, including a "massive" car bomb near a university, killed dozens of Iraqis in Baghdad. (Full story)

"According to information made available to UNAMI, 6,376 civilians were violently killed in November and December 2006, with no less than 4,731 in Baghdad, most of them as a result of gunshot wounds," the report said...
 
Oh look!
Important information deliberatly left out, as usual by the OP:

"Compared to the number killed in September and October, there has been a slight reduction. It is evident however that violence has not been contained but has continued to claim a very high number of innocent victims. During 2006, a total of 34,452 civilians have been violently killed and 36,685 wounded."

The death toll in the U.N. report is nearly three times the number reported by the Iraqi government, according to The Associated Press.

The government has disputed previous figures released by the United Nations as "inaccurate and exaggerated," AP said.

The report said the "situation is particularly grave in Baghdad" and that "sectarian violence, especially in Baghdad, is singled out as a major cause for an ever-growing trend in displacement and migration of all Iraqis, as well as the targeting of various professional groups, including educators, medical professionals, journalists, judges and lawyers, religious and political leaders."

"Action by terrorist groups and sectarian killings which are fueled by the insurgency, continue to be the main source of violence in the country," the report said.
 
Goobieman said:
Oh look!
Important information deliberatly left out, as usual by the OP:

"Compared to the number killed in September and October, there has been a slight reduction. It is evident however that violence has not been contained but has continued to claim a very high number of innocent victims. During 2006, a total of 34,452 civilians have been violently killed and 36,685 wounded."

The death toll in the U.N. report is nearly three times the number reported by the Iraqi government, according to The Associated Press.

The government has disputed previous figures released by the United Nations as "inaccurate and exaggerated," AP said.

The report said the "situation is particularly grave in Baghdad" and that "sectarian violence, especially in Baghdad, is singled out as a major cause for an ever-growing trend in displacement and migration of all Iraqis, as well as the targeting of various professional groups, including educators, medical professionals, journalists, judges and lawyers, religious and political leaders."

"Action by terrorist groups and sectarian killings which are fueled by the insurgency, continue to be the main source of violence in the country," the report said.
Click to expand...

I think I'll take the UN's numbers; they don't have an image to protect or an agenda to push.
 
Goobieman said:
Oh look!
Important information deliberatly left out, as usual by the OP:

"Compared to the number killed in September and October, there has been a slight reduction. It is evident however that violence has not been contained but has continued to claim a very high number of innocent victims. During 2006, a total of 34,452 civilians have been violently killed and 36,685 wounded."

The death toll in the U.N. report is nearly three times the number reported by the Iraqi government, according to The Associated Press.

The government has disputed previous figures released by the United Nations as "inaccurate and exaggerated," AP said.

The report said the "situation is particularly grave in Baghdad" and that "sectarian violence, especially in Baghdad, is singled out as a major cause for an ever-growing trend in displacement and migration of all Iraqis, as well as the targeting of various professional groups, including educators, medical professionals, journalists, judges and lawyers, religious and political leaders."

"Action by terrorist groups and sectarian killings which are fueled by the insurgency, continue to be the main source of violence in the country," the report said.
Click to expand...




Quite frankly, I don't believe this report much either... I sincerly believe that the number of reported deaths from this article are skewed and that the true number of deaths in Iraq last year is no doubt probably double, maybe triple that amount. Easily!
 
southern_liberal said:
I think I'll take the UN's numbers; they don't have an image to protect or an agenda to push.
Click to expand...

:rofl

Of -course- not. Not the UN. The UN doesnt have any reason to have an agenda, especially in Iraq.

:roll:
 
reaganburch said:
Exactly, because the UN just LOVES the United States... always have, right?
:rofl
Click to expand...

The UN, consisting of primarily non-democratic nations, obviously has US interests as its primary concern, and as such, cannot possibly have an agenda.
 
Goobieman said:
The UN, consisting of primarily non-democratic nations, obviously has US interests as its primary concern, and as such, cannot possibly have an agenda.
Click to expand...

Exactly... because Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran and Syria are our biggest allies, right? And if we succeed, then everybody succeed.... rising water lifts all boats are their mottos...
 
I don't know how the UN would know that...........They are not even in Iraq......


The Iraqqi government reported a little over 16,000 Iraqis killed in 2006....I will take their figures rather then the whacked out useless UN who are to busy raping teenage girls in Africa.......
 
KidRocks said:
Quite frankly, I don't believe this report much either... I sincerly believe that the number of reported deaths from this article are skewed and that the true number of deaths in Iraq last year is no doubt probably double, maybe triple that amount. Easily!
Click to expand...

Why do you think it's so high?
 
"Action by terrorist groups and sectarian killings which are fueled by the insurgency, continue to be the main source of violence in the country,"

Insurgents killing? No way?!
 
Marilyn Monroe said:
Why do you think it's so high?
Click to expand...

I really wish there was an answer to this that's better than "George Bush has a (R) next to his name" -- but there isn't. :(
 
reaganburch said:
You're right, they don't have an image to protect, their image has been blown a long time ago...

No agenda to push? :rofl
Click to expand...

Oh, please do tell, what is there agenda?

Also, tell me, how has their imaged been blown? The U.S. is the one with image problems, were stuck in a quagmire, the UN isn't. I'd say they're doing find. Thanks to that maniac in the White House, I can't say the same for my country.
 
Goobieman said:
The UN, consisting of primarily non-democratic nations, obviously has US interests as its primary concern, and as such, cannot possibly have an agenda.
Click to expand...


Okay, Goobie dude, tell me, what is the UN's agenda in Iraq?
 
WOW 34,000
thats is a HUGE Drop in deaths considering we were just told there have been 655,000 killed since the invasion :shock::lol:
 
Goobieman said:
The death toll in the U.N. report is nearly three times the number reported by the Iraqi government, according to The Associated Press.
Click to expand...
If the IG #s are proportioned to the US population what would that give us?
What is (10k per 26M)yr * (300M/26M)?

That's a 9-11 three times a month for a year.
​
 
Here are the actual deaths of Iraqis in 2006:

cbs5.com - Iraq: 16,273 Iraqis Died Violently In 2006


Iraq: 16,273 Iraqis Died Violently In 2006
(AP) BAGHDAD As enraged crowds protested the hanging of Saddam Hussein across Iraq's Sunni heartland Monday, government officials reported that 16,273 Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police died violent deaths in 2006,
 
Let's see now, let's put this war in Iraq in perpective shall we?

We discover today that nearly 35,000 Iraqis died last year in the war and, if this war was in the United States, the comparable rate would be... yikes, the equivalency of death would be nearly half a million dead Americans last year.

Did you hear that?

Nearly 500,000 Americans died in 2006 due to political violence between the Democrats and Republicans and there is no end in sight. 82 Democrats were killed yesterday when a bomb went off in Times Square and the day before 102 Republicans died a violent death as they were leaving a party at a popular Washington DC golf course.

Now that's I call putting putting the war in Iraq in subjective evaluation of relative significance.

What do you all think?
Click to expand...

That's an interesting comparison, and a good way to put it in perspective.
Iraq is not a huge country, and it doesn't have a very large population, comparatively.
And from what I've read, their population is young, median age around 19. A lot of kids and young adults, not a lot of middle-aged and old people like here in the states, where our median age is 35.3 years.

I guess, if there's any consolation to be had, it's that the families that had the resources to get out, did (over 80% of Iraq's professionals have fled the country, from what I read).
The people who are left... hopefully at least some of them came there by choice, to fight in the war.
They still don't deserve to die, but that's a known factor, a known possibility when you go off somewhere to fight in a war; you might get killed.
The ones I feel worst for are the families that simply didn't have the resources to get out, and are now trapped in an endless warzone.
 
Comparing the deaths in Iraq today to the population in the US today is completely idiotic and useless. You can't compare two countries that are in completely different states of development.


How about this: People keep on calling the Iraqi situation a "civil war." Fine. Let's assume that it is.

In 1865, the US had a population of around 40,000,000. During the course of our civil war, the US suffered 620,000 deaths, equal to 1.55% of the population.

In 2003, Iraq had a population of around 27,000,000. So, for their "civil war" to be as bloody as our civil war, they would have to suffer 418,500 deaths. The total so far is nowhere near that, and credible estimates are in the range of 55,000, which would be 0.2% of the population, about 1/8th of the rate of deaths during the US civil war.

Furthermore, this method even completely neglects the fact that it is far easier to kill someone nowadays with our technology than it was back in the 1860's, so one would actually expect it to be significantly higher.
 
Goobieman said:
Oh look!
Important information deliberatly left out, as usual by the OP:

"Compared to the number killed in September and October, there has been a slight reduction. It is evident however that violence has not been contained but has continued to claim a very high number of innocent victims. During 2006, a total of 34,452 civilians have been violently killed and 36,685 wounded."

The death toll in the U.N. report is nearly three times the number reported by the Iraqi government, according to The Associated Press.

The government has disputed previous figures released by the United Nations as "inaccurate and exaggerated," AP said.

The report said the "situation is particularly grave in Baghdad" and that "sectarian violence, especially in Baghdad, is singled out as a major cause for an ever-growing trend in displacement and migration of all Iraqis, as well as the targeting of various professional groups, including educators, medical professionals, journalists, judges and lawyers, religious and political leaders."

"Action by terrorist groups and sectarian killings which are fueled by the insurgency, continue to be the main source of violence in the country," the report said.
Click to expand...
So you would have us accept the word of the Iraqi "Government" over independent UN observers? Is tht because the Iraqi "Government" has creditability about anything? Name something the Iraqi "Government" has been creditable about...go on...share with us please!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom