Violent Deaths in Iraq Dropped in August

[RightinNYC]

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?

Tec, this is the same Les Roberts study that has been debunked over and over and over. It was released 7 days before the 2004 election in a blatant attempt to sway the results.

Roberts took SIXTY THREE documented deaths in Iraq, asked their family members what caused them, and then extrapolated that to a nation of 27 million people. It's an absolute joke of a study, and completely useless.

 

[Billo_Really]

62,006 - the number killed in the 'war on terror'
By David Randall and Emily Gosden Published: 10 September 2006

The "war on terror" - and by terrorists - has directly killed a minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million refugees and cost the US more than the sum needed to pay off the debts of every poor nation on earth.

If estimates of other, unquantified, deaths - of insurgents, the Iraq military during the 2003 invasion, those not recorded individually by Western media, and those dying from wounds - are included, then the toll could reach as high as 180,000.

What is so important that would make this worth it?

 

[Iriemon]

Anyone else see this?

Baghdad death stats in question

The U.S. military says its claims of declining deaths in Baghdad don't include victims of car bombings or mortar attacks, which has allowed officials to say security has improved dramatically.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15478116.htm

 

[RightinNYC]

Anyone else see this?

Baghdad death stats in question

The U.S. military says its claims of declining deaths in Baghdad don't include victims of car bombings or mortar attacks, which has allowed officials to say security has improved dramatically.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15478116.htm

I heard about this...if it's true, then it means the drop isn't near as significant as before (though there's still a decent size drop).

Hope its not true.

 

[faithful_servant]

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

Oddly enough, I think that there are a few organizations that would disagree with you....

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hrdossier.pdf
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_situation_in_Saddam's_Iraq
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030404-1.html
http://www.siyassa.org.eg/esiyassa/ahram/2003/4/1/FILE3.HTM
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/24452.htm
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=167864
http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/18877.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/html/under_saddam.stm
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2000/427/427p22d.htm
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0211.htm
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr.html
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1079494683058_5/?hub=Special
http://www.reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml

 

[Iriemon]

Oddly enough, I think that there are a few organizations that would disagree with you....

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hrdossier.pdf
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_situation_in_Saddam's_Iraq
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/news/20030404-1.html
http://www.siyassa.org.eg/esiyassa/ahram/2003/4/1/FILE3.HTM
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/24452.htm
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=167864
http://www.state.gov/g/wi/rls/18877.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/uk_dossier_on_iraq/html/under_saddam.stm
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIESIRAQ
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2000/427/427p22d.htm
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0211.htm
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr.html
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1079494683058_5/?hub=Special
http://www.reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml

I'd agree that over his 30 year reign, more Iraqis died under Hussein. But the vast majority were during the Iran-Iraq war in the first Gulf war and the Bush admin inspired insurgencies in 1991 that Hussein put done. I have found little support that more than 10,000 or half that number died since 1992. If you compare from 1992 onwards, Iraqis are dying much faster today, many more have died since the Bush invasion in 2003 than from Hussein in 1992-2003.

If you are going to count humanitarian reasons, it would have made sense to invade in the 80s, when he was Reagan/Rummy's good buddy, or in the 90s, when he was fighting the insurgents, than in 2003.

 

[RightinNYC]

I'd agree that over his 30 year reign, more Iraqis died under Hussein. But the vast majority were during the Iran-Iraq war in the first Gulf war and the Bush admin inspired insurgencies in 1991 that Hussein put done. I have found little support that more than 10,000 or half that number died since 1992. If you compare from 1992 onwards, Iraqis are dying much faster today, many more have died since the Bush invasion in 2003 than from Hussein in 1992-2003.

If you are going to count humanitarian reasons, it would have made sense to invade in the 80s, when he was Reagan/Rummy's good buddy, or in the 90s, when he was fighting the insurgents, than in 2003.

As true as this may be, is that a defensible logic? I mean, "He killed way more people back then, he's slowed down on the genocide now" isn't exactly a shining recommendation. Hell, Pinochet hasn't killed a single person for the last 16 years, and he's still being held accountable for his actions.

Furthermore, its impossible to predict what the future will bring. Who's to say that in two years, he wouldn't have decided to start another ethnic cleansing campaign?

Not saying that that inherently justifies the war, but just that it doesn't preclude it from being a reasonable action.