Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000 (1 Viewer)

[26 X World Champs]

Some very upsetting news out of Iraq regarding the death toll due to the war. I wonder how many people would be alive today had we not invaded Iraq and had left Hussein a powerless wuss?

600,000 is really outrageous....that's 2.2% of the population of Iraq!

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000

By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 11, 2006; Page A12

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.

It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group.

The surveyors said they found a steady increase in mortality since the invasion, with a steeper rise in the last year that appears to reflect a worsening of violence as reported by the U.S. military, the news media and civilian groups. In the year ending in June, the team calculated Iraq's mortality rate to be roughly four times what it was the year before the war.

Of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

 

[aps]

World Champs! You beat me to the punch. I read this article this morning and planned on posting it. Frankly, the number of Iraqi deaths makes me sick.

I was glad to see a poll that showed 83% of respondents thought that Bush was either hiding something or mostly lying when he discussed how the war in Iraq was going. I am thrilled at the thought of people seeing Bush for the lying sack of poop that he is. "Oh, everything is going just as planned in Iraq." Yeah right. Shut up, Bush--will ya?

Here's the link to the poll:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/10/us/politics/10poll.html

 

[PeteEU]

Expect the folloing reaction from certain people on the right.

1. Its a liberal lie.
2. Clinton did it.
3. Do you want Saddam back in charge?

I remember when the first report from the same people over a year ago, the right was falling over itself to do damage control, citing other reports, offical reports and so on, basicly anything to discredit the report.

Fact is that its an estimate only (an argument that was never really used), and the numbers that will most likely be used to counter act this estimate are even more flawed as they do come from offical side, an offical side that is inaccurate and totaly biased often.

Its not long ago that we learned from offical US sources that the number of deaths in Bagdad had fallen, which was in direct conflict with the reality on the ground and then we learn the US military had changed the way they counted "deaths".

But not to worry, the right wing spin machine will soon be set in motion to counter act this "liberal clinton gay accusation" against thier polices.

Yes I am in a pissy mood :2razz:

 

[Goobieman]

Fact is that its an estimate only...

Thats exactly right. It is an estimate.

Hard facts, please.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You people are a freaking joke.


A) The last time this group came out with a numbers study on the Iraq body count was in October of 2004 just an innocent
a-political coincidence I'm sure.

B) Rather than counting on those little things called bodies they rather based their findings on house to house surveys because you know it's alot easier just to make up a number rather than to do that annoying little thing like actually figuring out what the real number is by by doing something radical like, I don't know, COUNTING THE BODIES!, which has infact been done by a group named oddly enough "Iraq Body Count" which you know actually counted the bodies and doesn't put the number above 50,000 which is well below the 200,000 killed in the single genocidal act called the Anfal campaign perpetrated by Saddam against the Kurds.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

C) What you failed to mention is that the study also show that 70% of these imagined deaths recorded in this study (that should be placed on the fiction rack) were due to terrorists, sure is a good reason to cut and run you know let up on that whole war on terror thing.

jack asses.

 

[TurtleDude]

Propaganda, nothing less. That is about as many people killed in the Civil war-a war where thousands of people marched into massed rifle and cannon fire-a war where dysentary, typhoid and other diseases had no medical countermeasures.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Propaganda, nothing less. That is about as many people killed in the Civil war-a war where thousands of people marched into massed rifle and cannon fire-a war where dysentary, typhoid and other diseases had no medical countermeasures.

Look up at my last post this study is a ****ing joke.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Some very upsetting news out of Iraq ...

Forgive me if we see right through your phoney baloney concern. In this election cycle, you are joyously celebrating this news. Anything for power, right?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

You people are a freaking joke.


A) The last time this group came out with a numbers study on the Iraq body count was in October of 2004 just an innocent
a-political coincidence I'm sure.

B) Rather than counting on those little things called bodies they rather based their findings on house to house surveys because you know it's alot easier just to make up a number rather than to do that annoying little thing like actually figuring out what the real number is.

C) What you failed to mention is that the study also show that 70% of these imagined deaths recorded in this study (that should be placed on the fiction rack) were due to terrorists, sure is a good reason to cut and run you know let up on that whole war on terror thing.

jack asses.

O my ............

I really like number 3 the best. Why are certain people so willing to forget about the obvious. We are not killing these people there killing each other. Fictious bodies need plenty of numbers...

 

[CurrentAffairs]

C) What you failed to mention is that the study also show that 70% of these imagined deaths recorded in this study (that should be placed on the fiction rack) were due to terrorists,

Come on Trajan, don't ruin their fun. You know President Bush went to Iraq and pulled the trigger himself.

 

[TurtleDude]

Forgive me if we see right through your phoney baloney concern. In this election cycle, you are joyously celebrating this news. Anything for power, right?

Bingo. feigned indignation at its most hysterical apex

 

[Hobbes]

You people are a freaking joke.


A) The last time this group came out with a numbers study on the Iraq body count was in October of 2004 just an innocent
a-political coincidence I'm sure.

B) Rather than counting on those little things called bodies they rather based their findings on house to house surveys because you know it's alot easier just to make up a number rather than to do that annoying little thing like actually figuring out what the real number is by by doing something radical like, I don't know, COUNTING THE BODIES!, which has infact been done by a group named oddly enough "Iraq Body Count" which you know actually counted the bodies and doesn't put the number above 50,000 which is well below the 200,000 killed in the single genocidal act called the Anfal campaign perpetrated by Saddam against the Kurds.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

C) What you failed to mention is that the study also show that 70% of these imagined deaths recorded in this study (that should be placed on the fiction rack) were due to terrorists, sure is a good reason to cut and run you know let up on that whole war on terror thing.

jack asses.

While the estimate may well be off , your reasoning in part B is also off. If you're going to discredit an estimate have your facts straight first. The house to house surveys invovled viewing death certificates of the deceased which seems to be as definitive as viewing an actual body.

 

[Iriemon]

You people are a freaking joke.


A) The last time this group came out with a numbers study on the Iraq body count was in October of 2004 just an innocent
a-political coincidence I'm sure.

B) Rather than counting on those little things called bodies they rather based their findings on house to house surveys because you know it's alot easier just to make up a number rather than to do that annoying little thing like actually figuring out what the real number is by by doing something radical like, I don't know, COUNTING THE BODIES!, which has infact been done by a group named oddly enough "Iraq Body Count" which you know actually counted the bodies and doesn't put the number above 50,000 which is well below the 200,000 killed in the single genocidal act called the Anfal campaign perpetrated by Saddam against the Kurds.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

C) What you failed to mention is that the study also show that 70% of these imagined deaths recorded in this study (that should be placed on the fiction rack) were due to terrorists, sure is a good reason to cut and run you know let up on that whole war on terror thing.

jack asses.

This estimate is better than any the Bush administration ever produced. These deaths were based upon death certificates. The deaths based on body count site are based on published reports will necessarily underestimate the number because bodies are not always found or reported.

Whether its 50,000 or 500,000, it makes 9-11 pale by comparison.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

While the estimate may well be off , your reasoning in part B is also off. If you're going to discredit an estimate have your facts straight first. The house to house surveys invovled viewing death certificates of the deceased which seems to be as definitive as viewing an actual body.

Not really

A) by their own claim they only recieved death certificates in 92% of their cases and their is no way to validate that even that is the case.

B) Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings scholar who compiles civilian casualty estimates and who was critical of the last study, called the survey method flawed. "The study is so far off they should not have published it. It is irresponsible," he said. "Their numbers are out of whack with every other estimate," and he continued: "the method used by the Hopkins researchers this time was seriously flawed."

C) "They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election. "This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.

D) Are you honestly asserting that a projection based on a house to house survey is just as good as actually counting the deaths?

E) Obviously the researcher involved thinks the answer to the above question is yes: Speaking of the new study, Burnham said: "the estimate was much higher than others because it was derived from a house-to-house survey rather than approaches that depend on body counts or media reports."

Ya because you know you wouldn't want to do something radical like counting the bodies while conducting a body count that would just be poor science. :roll: jackass

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This estimate is better than any the Bush administration ever produced.

No this estimate is a crock of sh!t.

These deaths were based upon death certificates.

No it was based upon house to house surveys and projections you know because doing something radical like actually counting the bodies would just be poor analysis.

The deaths based on body count site are based on published reports will necessarily underestimate the number because bodies are not always found or reported.

OK I got you so it's your assertion that this estimate based on death certificates is more accurate because bodies that are recorded in actual body counts are sometimes not found right? Well tell me how do you get a death certificate and determine the cause of death without a body? If this report was based on death certificates then their projection would only represent an actual body count in which the bodies were found now wouldn't it?

Whether its 50,000 or 500,000, it makes 9-11 pale by comparison.

Ya I know and the fact that even your study found that 70% of the deaths were caused by terrorists is a real good reason to cut and run and let up on that whole war on terror thing.

A) By their own claim they only recieved death certificates in 92% of their cases and their is no way to validate that even that is the case.

B) Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings scholar who compiles civilian casualty estimates and who was critical of the last study, called the survey method flawed. "The study is so far off they should not have published it. It is irresponsible," he said. "Their numbers are out of whack with every other estimate," and he continued: "the method used by the Hopkins researchers this time was seriously flawed."

C) "They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election. "This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.

D) Are you honestly asserting that a projection based on a house to house survey is just as good as actually counting the deaths?

E) Obviously the researcher involved thinks the answer to the above question is yes: Speaking of the new study, Burnham said: "the estimate was much higher than others because it was derived from a house-to-house survey rather than approaches that depend on body counts or media reports."

Ya because you know you wouldn't want to do something radical like counting the bodies while conducting a body count that would just be poor science. :roll: jackass

 

[MSgt]

War always has a way of getting people killed. I guess "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" is just a slogan meant for white Americans. All the brown and black sufferring all over the Islamic world that gives way to terrorist activity should be left to rot under their oppressive governments and leaders.....right? We are to only act after their hardened element inevitably rises up and attack as we have seen a plethora of times in the past?

People that wish a return to the "America they know" should open their eyes. The America "they know" supports dictators. The America "they know" turns it's back on growing tyranny for that black gold. The America "they know" is being cast off for the America we used to be before they knew it. The days of fighting for right, no matter who it benefits is back. It's here. America is supposed to fight for the little guy. It is supposed to defend the weak against aggressors. It's over due that we dispense with that historical sham that a tyrant must be in the act of tyranny across his borders before good men do something - never mind that Saddam attacked across his borders twice and payed for suicide bombers in Isreal while enjoying his status as "soveriegn."

"655,000" is unfortunate, but is also no where near what is to come. The number will rise greatly over the next few decades throughout the Islamic world. We face human monsters who are fighting for the past and when they are not satisfied with their abilities to kill Americans, they simply satisfy their blood lust by slaughtering their own. Which brings out the ignorant sentiment of the West that "death equals failure." Nothing could be further from the truth. Those Muslims that are braving the bullets and the bombs of their Radicals will shape Iraq's future. And collectively, Muslims throughout the world in the decades to come will shape the future of Islam. (Men that cling to the past always fall to men who face forward.)

Ahmenadejad's quest for nukes, Zaqawi's Sudan, Afghanistan's Tali-Ban, Lebanon's Hezbollah, Saddam's Iraq, Ethiopia's future, etc......these are all battlegrounds. Are people still wandering around in the dark waiting for a politician or a news reporter to explain the commonalities amongst these? This war is generational and no President in the future will be able to deny it.

So many of you just don't get it. Some of you just refuse to. Partisan enslavement is just too inticing.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

OK for the sake of argument let's say that this prepostorous study is accurate then they also claim that 70% of Iraqi deaths are due to the terrorists so why don't the headlines read: "458,[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE]500 Innocent Iraqi's Killed by Jihadists."

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
This estimate is better than any the Bush administration ever produced.

No this estimate is a crock of sh!t.

Disagree. But which Govt estimate of Iraqi civilian death is better in your opinion?

No it was based upon house to house surveys and projections you know because doing something radical like actually counting the bodies would just be poor analysis.

A count based on news reports is not a complete number either.

OK I got you so it's your assertion that this estimate based on death certificates is more accurate because bodies that are recorded in actual body counts are sometimes not found right? Well tell me how do you get a death certificate and determine the cause of death without a body? If this report was based on death certificates then their projection would only represent an actual body count in which the bodies were found now wouldn't it?

Depends upon the % of bodies found and reported of those actually killed. I don't "know" either way. But I don't discount that the number killed may be significantly higher than the body count reports.

Ya I know and the fact that even your study found that 70% of the deaths were caused by terrorists is a real good reason to cut and run and let up on that whole war on terror thing.

No, the really good reason that we should "cut and run" is because this was an unjustified war based on misrepresentations and "mistakes" by our government, our our indefinite stand and die policy is increasing the number of radical terrorists and hurting our "war" on terror more than helping.

 

[Goobieman]

OK for the sake of argument let's say that this prepostorous study is accurate then they also claim that 70% of Iraqi deaths are due to the terrorists so why don't the headlines read: "458,[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE]500 Innocent Iraqi's Killed by Jihadists."

Because that would put the blame where it belongs, rather on GWB where the liberals want it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Disagree. But which Govt estimate of Iraqi civilian death is better in your opinion?

"Iraq Body Count" is not a government estimate it is run by an anti-war group.

A count based on news reports is not a complete number either.

It's not based soully on news reports it's based on counting the bodies from any source.

Depends upon the % of bodies found and reported of those actually killed. I don't "know" either way. But I don't discount that the number killed may be significantly higher than the body count reports.

What the hell are talking about? Peep this buddy if this report was based on death certificates then it is only a reflection of those bodies that have been found.

No, the really good reason that we should "cut and run" is because this was an unjustified war based on misrepresentations and "mistakes" by our government, our our indefinite stand and die policy is increasing the number of radical terrorists and hurting our "war" on terror more than helping.

The national intelligence estimate also says that cutting and running would be a disaster; furthermore, is it your honest assertion that we should cut and run to let the terrorists slaughter innocent Iraqis in peace?

 

[Hobbes]

Not really

A) by their own claim they only recieved death certificates in 92% of their cases and their is no way to validate that even that is the case.

B) Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings scholar who compiles civilian casualty estimates and who was critical of the last study, called the survey method flawed. "The study is so far off they should not have published it. It is irresponsible," he said. "Their numbers are out of whack with every other estimate," and he continued: "the method used by the Hopkins researchers this time was seriously flawed."

C) "They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election. "This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.

D) Are you honestly asserting that a projection based on a house to house survey is just as good as actually counting the deaths?

E) Obviously the researcher involved thinks the answer to the above question is yes: Speaking of the new study, Burnham said: "the estimate was much higher than others because it was derived from a house-to-house survey rather than approaches that depend on body counts or media reports."

Ya because you know you wouldn't want to do something radical like counting the bodies while conducting a body count that would just be poor science. :roll: jackass

Here's what you claimed before:

B) Rather than counting on those little things called bodies they rather based their findings on house to house surveys because you know it's alot easier just to make up a number rather than to do that annoying little thing like actually figuring out what the real number is by by doing something radical like, I don't know, COUNTING THE BODIES!, which has infact been done by a group named oddly enough "Iraq Body Count" which you know actually counted the bodies and doesn't put the number above 50,000 which is well below the 200,000 killed in the single genocidal act called the Anfal campaign perpetrated by Saddam against the Kurds.

You claim they made up numbers. FALSE.

You claim that counting bodies is more accurate than statistical analysis using death certificates from those polled. If the bodies were literally lined up and counted , you would be right . But thats not what actually happens as you and I both know. There is a bureaucratic process of a brand new government that has only recently started putting out data. And that government controls the numbers coming out of the morgues. In other words, there's bias and subjectivity invovled . Suddenly the accuracy of body counting becomes that much harder and attempting to discover the body count through other tried and true methods such as statistical analysis makes a little sense.

Basically you're contesting the wrong part of the survey. The problem is more so with how balanced their survey was of the whole country.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Here's what you claimed before:



You claim they made up numbers. FALSE.

You claim that counting bodies is more accurate than statistical analysis using death certificates from those polled. If the bodies were literally lined up and counted , you would be right . But thats not what actually happens as you and I both know. There is a bureaucratic process of a brand new government that has only recently started putting out data. And that government controls the numbers coming out of the morgues. In other words, there's bias and subjectivity invovled . Suddenly the accuracy of body counting becomes that much harder and attempting to discover the body count through other tried and true methods such as statistical analysis makes a little sense.

Basically you're contesting the wrong part of the survey. The problem is more so with how balanced their survey was of the whole country.

Except for one thing I'm not basing my statistics on the figures put out by the Iraqi government I'm basing them on the numbers collected by "Iraq Body Count," which has been collecting the data since the begining of the war.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Speculation is no substitute: a defence of Iraq Body Count
Executive Summary


Printable
Version
(108kB)




1
Contents


Printable
Version
(491kB)


Documenting civilian deaths: an ultimate moral responsibility


2A misdirected campaign against IBC

2.1Character and tactics of the anti-IBC campaign

2.2IBC's response - and a precautionary note

3Is IBC a "gross" undercount?

3.1What is IBC being measured against?

3.2IBC's critics understate our death-rate by almost a factor of two

3.3IBC's critics overlook that deaths-per-day vary over time

3.4Three of the studies do not qualify as rigorous contributions

3.5Studies with different inclusion criteria are not directly comparable

3.6Legitimate comparisons between studies and the strength of ILCS

3.6.1IBC compared to ILCS

3.6.2Lancet compared to ILCS

3.7Needless confusion on the civilian/combatant question

3.8Conclusion: In sum, a baseless charge

4Does IBC underrepresent deaths caused by US forces?

4.1Lancet shows a similar proportion of US-caused deaths to IBC

4.2Reported casualties for 2005 correlate to the number of air strikes

4.3Conclusion: IBC "cover-up" conjectures are without foundation

5There are no "gross errors" that IBC needs to correct

6Getting back to the really important issues AAppendices

Related Content from IBC

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/defended/index.php

......................................................................................

 

[Iriemon]

"Iraq Body Count" is not a government estimate it is run by an anti-war group.

Of course. There is no government count; the Bush administration doesn't keep track of how many civilians have died because of Bush's war, for obvious reasons.

The national intelligence estimate also says that cutting and running would be a disaster; furthermore, is it your honest assertion that we should cut and run to let the terrorists slaughter innocent Iraqis in peace?

The NIE says that the war in Iraq is causing an explosion of growth in terrorists.

If Muslims want to kill each other after we leave that is their business. Obviously our presence there is not stopping the violence and deaths but inducing it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Of course. There is no government count; the Bush administration doesn't keep track of how many civilians have died because of Bush's war, for obvious reasons.

So what the hell are you talking about?

The NIE says that the war in Iraq is causing an explosion of growth in terrorists.

No it says that it has become the "cause celebre" for the jihadist movement, these people were jihadists before they came to Iraq and they will be jihadists after we leave. Wow attacking jihadi's makes them what stop the presses.

If Muslims want to kill each other after we leave that is their business.

Don't ever dare say to me that you care about the lives of the Iraqi people again.

Obviously our presence there is not stopping the violence and deaths but inducing it.

And you base this on what? That 70% of the deaths are caused by terrorists and are aimed more at Iraqi civilians than at coalition forces? Our withdrawal will not end the killing rather it will leave the Iraqi's absolutely defenseless from these terrorist murderers. Your solution to ending the killing seems to be giving the murderers free reign to murder at will. Good call. :roll: