Violent Deaths in Iraq Dropped in August

[Navy Pride]

Maybe things are starting to turn around in Iraq much to the sorrow of the naysayers from the left here in the U.S.who preach we never can win in Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6050620,00.html

Violent Deaths in Iraq Dropped in August

Thursday August 31, 2006 8:31 PM


AP Photo BAG118

By RAWYA RAGEH

Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Preliminary Health Ministry figures released Thursday show violent deaths in Iraq dropped substantially in August from record levels the previous month, despite a surge of killings in Baghdad in the past week.

Civilians accounted for most of the recorded deaths.

At least 973 violent deaths were recorded throughout Iraq in August as of Wednesday, Dr. Riad Abdul Amir of the Health Ministry's statistics bureau told The Associated Press. They included 715 civilians, 80 Iraqi soldiers, 74 police and 104 ``terrorists,'' he said.

The term ``terrorists'' likely include both Sunni and Shiite militants.

 

[Iriemon]

Yeah, I'm sure this means they are in the last throes. Really. We mean it this time.

Can we withdraw the troops and stop creating more terrorists now?

 

[Navy Pride]

Yeah, I'm sure this means they are in the last throes. Really. We mean it this time.

Can we withdraw the troops and stop creating more terrorists now?

I know this news is very disappointing to you..........

The plan is and will always be to withdraw our troops when the Iraqis can handle the security......

We will never cut and run like you and your liberal friends want us to do.....

 

[Billo_Really]

Of coarse August was a drop off! Anything's better than July. Which was their highest month (3500 deaths) since the invasion.

 

[Iriemon]

I know this news is very disappointing to you..........

The plan is and will always be to withdraw our troops when the Iraqis can handle the security......

We will never cut and run like you and your liberal friends want us to do.....

So let's see, when deaths are going up, we need to stay in there because pulling out isn't manly, and when deaths are going down, we need to stay in there because pulling out isn't manly.

But I agree with Bush in power we will never leave. He's a pass the buck kind of guy and will leave this mess to the next president deal with, just like he said.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Maybe things are starting to turn around in Iraq much to the sorrow of the naysayers from the left here in the U.S.who preach we never can win in Iraq.

Well coming down from "record levels" is nice.

I hope we stay below the record levels of last month. It'd sure be relatively swell if this past month was the worst of it.

What did they say during the Depression about turning corners? Prosperity's just around the corner. We've been turning so many corners that we're dizzy.

 

[Navy Pride]

Come on, where are the left wing doom and gloomers?

 

[disneydude]

yeah.....a decrease from the RECORD levels from the month before. God, its interesting how these neo-con Bush Apologists define progress.......Mission accomplished.

 

[Parmenion]

Anyone care to explain why America are there to begin with? There were a lot less deaths there before the invasion...

 

[Billo_Really]

It looks like the Pentagon agree's with the lib's on this one:

Pentagon gives gloomy Iraq report

And true to form, the Administration rejects anything that doesn't fit policy:

Bush: Iraq Has Not Fallen Into Civil War

It just blows my mind that people could elect someone who doesn't give a damn about them!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Bush: Iraq Has Not Fallen Into Civil War

I remember way, way back in 2003 when the WH and various members of the pro-war party were busy denying that there was a guerrilla war in Iraq. I can't help but wonder if the denials of a civil war are of a similar nature.

 

[RightinNYC]

Anyone care to explain why America are there to begin with? There were a lot less deaths there before the invasion...

You sure of that?

By the most conservative estimates, counting documented civilian slaughters alone, Saddam killed 600,000 people over 24 years, an average of 70/day.

Since the war began, approximately 43,000 civilians have died in violent actions, an average of 35/day for the 41 months we've been at war.

That's half as many people killed each day.

 

[Iriemon]

You sure of that?

By the most conservative estimates, counting documented civilian slaughters alone, Saddam killed 600,000 people over 24 years, an average of 70/day.

The conservative estimates I have seen put the number in the 250k range. the vast majority of these were during the Iran-Iraq war, and in '91 following the Bush inspired Shia and Kurdish insurgencies. The number of deaths reported since '91 are < 10,000.

Since the war began, approximately 43,000 civilians have died in violent actions, an average of 35/day for the 41 months we've been at war.

That's half as many people killed each day.

 

[Parmenion]

You sure of that?

By the most conservative estimates, counting documented civilian slaughters alone, Saddam killed 600,000 people over 24 years, an average of 70/day.

Since the war began, approximately 43,000 civilians have died in violent actions, an average of 35/day for the 41 months we've been at war.

That's half as many people killed each day.

Any website with a page rank of 4 or lower is not worth its salt period.

America is responsible for at least 250,000 deaths in Iraq:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm

and

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LAN410A.html

The deaths during the war with Iran are not to be included. Deaths during war time cannot be considered to be genocide upon the people of a country who die as by products of such a war. That is like saying that the deaths of the few millions american soldiers during WW2 are genocide upon the American populace by its own government. That is a very basic argument to take with little or no water being held by it.

 

[RightinNYC]

The conservative estimates I have seen put the number in the 250k range. the vast majority of these were during the Iran-Iraq war, and in '91 following the Bush inspired Shia and Kurdish insurgencies. The number of deaths reported since '91 are < 10,000.

Care to share a source for those conservative estimates of 250,000 deaths due to US forces?

(Aside from the propaganda sources cited below?)

Iraqbodycount is the most thoroughly organized and detailed site discussing death toll out there.

 

[Alex]

I read a report that deaths were expected to decrease only because harsher weather in the Middle East is coming. It has nothing to do with a loss of will or American troops getting somewhere with insurgents.

 

[RightinNYC]

Any website with a page rank of 4 or lower is not worth its salt period.

Hahahah, great method of research. Too bad the sources I cited were the first ones to show up from my searches.

America is responsible for at least 250,000 deaths in Iraq:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11674.htm

and

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LAN410A.html

Your first site is a propaganda site, and your second site is a continuation of Les Roberts' debunked "100,000 dead due to US forces" report that came out a week before the 2004 election.

If you go back and search the forum, you will see thread after thread where Roberts' methodology is thoroughly debunked. He took 73 deaths in one small town, determined their causes (by his own methods), and then extrapolated that to a nation of 27 million. Anyone who takes that seriously has absolutely no idea of how statistics work.

The deaths during the war with Iran are not to be included. Deaths during war time cannot be considered to be genocide upon the people of a country who die as by products of such a war. That is like saying that the deaths of the few millions american soldiers during WW2 are genocide upon the American populace by its own government. That is a very basic argument to take with little or no water being held by it.

Why is it that the same people who claim Saddam cannot be held responsible for half a million deaths because of a needless war are usually the same people who claim that Bush has the blood of 2,700 US soldiers on his hands?

If you claim that deaths during wartime should not be counted against the countries involved in the war, then why are you even blaming the US for the deaths now?

Personally, I think that a country involved in a war must take some responsibility for the deaths of that war. So I acknowledge that in the course of the US invasion, around 43,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed (although the vast majority have been killed by their own people or foreign terrorists). I also acknowledge that in the course of Saddam's invasions of Iran and Kuwait, in his genocide of the Kurds, and in the disappearance of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's during his reign (which I did not tally in my count), over 600,000 KNOWN deaths occurred because of his actions.

 

[Iriemon]

Care to share a source for those conservative estimates of 250,000 deaths due to US forces?

(Aside from the propaganda sources cited below?)

Iraqbodycount is the most thoroughly organized and detailed site discussing death toll out there.

There is some misunderstanding.

You wrote: "By the most conservative estimates, counting documented civilian slaughters alone, Saddam killed 600,000 people over 24 years, an average of 70/day."

To which I responded: The conservative estimates I have seen put the number in the 250k range. the vast majority of these were during the Iran-Iraq war, and in '91 following the Bush inspired Shia and Kurdish insurgencies. The number of deaths reported since '91 are < 10,000.

I never said anything about deaths due to US forces. My contention is with the "conservative" estimate of 600,000 civilian slaughters under Hussein.

The 250k figure I used is based upon Human Rights Watch estimates:
"... we estimate that in the last twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule the Iraqi government murdered or “disappeared” some quarter of a million Iraqis, if not more ..." [2003 article].
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

I took your use of the word "conservative" to mean "careful, cautious, erring on the low side" as opposed to "conservative" meaning figures political conservatives might use.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Iriemon
I took your use of the word "conservative" to mean "careful, cautious, erring on the low side" as opposed to "conservative" meaning figures political conservatives might use.

Good one, Irie!

Out of a possible 10, I give you an RS [Rebuttal Score] of 8.75!
(You might not understand the preceding, but RightatNYU will)

 

[Iriemon]

Good one, Irie!

Out of a possible 10, I give you an RS [Rebuttal Score] of 8.75!
(You might not understand the preceding, but RightatNYU will)

Well, I guess I should be proud, though I wasn't trying to score anything. I'll have to figure out system.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Iriemon
Well, I guess I should be proud, though I wasn't trying to score anything. I'll have to figure out system.

Downstairs, Appleboy thought it would be interesting to rate posts just to shake things up.

Dumb and funny.

Then again, I like stupid s.hit!

 

[RightinNYC]

There is some misunderstanding.

You wrote: "By the most conservative estimates, counting documented civilian slaughters alone, Saddam killed 600,000 people over 24 years, an average of 70/day."

To which I responded: The conservative estimates I have seen put the number in the 250k range. the vast majority of these were during the Iran-Iraq war, and in '91 following the Bush inspired Shia and Kurdish insurgencies. The number of deaths reported since '91 are < 10,000.

I never said anything about deaths due to US forces. My contention is with the "conservative" estimate of 600,000 civilian slaughters under Hussein.

The 250k figure I used is based upon Human Rights Watch estimates:
"... we estimate that in the last twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule the Iraqi government murdered or “disappeared” some quarter of a million Iraqis, if not more ..." [2003 article].
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

I took your use of the word "conservative" to mean "careful, cautious, erring on the low side" as opposed to "conservative" meaning figures political conservatives might use.

I'm sorry, I thought you were saying that the "conservative" (used in the same sense as you intended) figured for Iraqi civilians killed by US forces were 250,000, not the Saddam figures. My bad.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Anyone care to explain why America are there to begin with? There were a lot less deaths there before the invasion...

Total fabrication with no basis in reality.

 

[Pen]

It appears that the OP's violent deaths count was a tad premature or it's another case of political spin.

Body Count Triples

Body Count in Baghdad Nearly Triples
By Ellen Knickmeyer
The Washington Post

Friday 08 September 2006

Morgue's revised toll for August undermines claims by leaders of steep drop in violence.

Baghdad - Baghdad's morgue almost tripled its count for violent deaths in Iraq's capital during August from 550 to 1,536, authorities said Thursday, appearing to erase most of what U.S. generals and Iraqi leaders had touted as evidence of progress in a major security operation to restore order in the capital.

You were waiting for "who" to respond? :roll:

 

[tecoyah]

Total fabrication with no basis in reality.

I think Not.....perhaps you might want to reword that statement, in light of studies done by multiple entities....Heres one for you:

"Findings The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6-4·2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1·5-fold (1·1-2·3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LAN410A.html

Of course you will say "The Lancet" is Biased....right?