Adding to the 500,000 Iraqis already killed by U.N. sanctions approved by the Clinton administration, 100,000 have died as a result of the war President Bush was given unconstitutional authority to wage by members of Congress that include Senators John Kerry and John Edwards.

But it was worth it to remove a brutal dictator...

Truly sad those figures aren't more commonly reported.

War is hell.

The americans I talk to feel a lot safer. So it did work. I haven't heard any colour coded alerts in about two months. Damn good work W!!! Now if you can stop throwing the word terrorist around like your president isn't terrorizing a country. People might start respecting you again.

The war-supporters ain't touching this thread.

What a clusterfuck.



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11227527%255E2703,00.html

back PRINT-FRIENDLY VERSION EMAIL THIS STORY


Iraq civilian toll 'more than 100,000'
Correspondents in Baghdad
October 30, 2004
MORE than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the US-led invasion of Iraq in March last year, according to a new scientific study.

The toll far exceeds all previous estimates, and the survey's publication yesterday - just days before the US presidential election - was bound to cause controversy by reinforcing the impression that events in Iraq were out of control.

The research, done in Iraq this September by a team of US and Iraqi scientists, was published on the online edition of The Lancet.

It suggests that the majority of civilian deaths have been due to military activity, with those caused by violence rising sharply in recent months.

The coalition forces keep records of casualties among their own troops, but neither the US nor Britain has attempted to count how many civilians have been killed.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has previously estimated 10,000 civilian deaths.

A group of British academics called Iraq Bodycount, which compiles figures from witness accounts and media reports, recently put the number at between 14,160 and 16,289. Britain's Defence Ministry was yesterday sceptical about the new study's findings. "No figures that are produced are reliable at this stage," a spokesman said.

The report was compiled by a team led by Les Roberts, a public health expert from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore in the US.

They surveyed households in 33 regions of the country. They then compared civilian mortality rates before and after the invasion.

Independent statisticians who have analysed the data said yesterday that the scientists' methodology was strong, and the civilian death count could well be conservative.

They said the work effectively rubbished suggestions by US authorities that civilian bodycounts were impossible to conduct. In coming to a total of 100,000 civilian deaths, the team excluded Fallujah, where two-thirds of violent deaths recorded had occurred.

Experts said that including this area, where collecting data remains highly dangerous, would push the number of civilian deaths much higher.

Dr Roberts said yesterday that the death toll from bombing suggested a pressing need to alter air strike strategies.

"We can say with absolute confidence that both mortality and violent deaths have gone way up," he said. "Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths, and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths."

Overall, the risk of death was found to be 2.5 times greater after the invasion. The risk was 1.5 times higher if mortality around the hotspot of Falluja was excluded.

The survey's publication came as Japan's embassy in Baghdad said it was checking a report that the body of an Asian had been found in Iraq, as fears mounted over the fate of a Japanese hostage threatened with death. Japanese news agency Kyodo reported the body had been found in Tikrit, 180km north of Baghdad, but was unable to say whether it was kidnapped Japanese Shosei Koda, 24. Tokyo had rejected demands by the al-Qa'ida-linked insurgents holding Koda that Japan withdraw its 600 soldiers from Iraq by late Thursday, local time.

ill touch it, but only cause i just logged on and saw it

how many of those civilian deaths are directly from the result of the US forces there?

First, the people that died because of the sanctions, you can credit those to Saddam, since he was the one that wouldn't follow the sanctions.

Second, how many of these "civilians" are Iraqi fighters?

You are correct on this one, and in fact instead of feeding and medicating his people he spent available money elsewhere. That argument was always a red herring.

What if half of them were? 50,000 a better number?

Yes, it is actually a better number. It isn't a good number, but it is a better number.

The point is, the 100,000 number may be very misleading.

How many are not going to die as a result of Saddam's regime being removed? If that number is greater than 100,000, then we're completely justified. This is where foresight comes in. When weighing any two options, you're generally supposed to look at BOTH the pros and the cons.

I doubt they would count civilians as Iraqi insurgents. They'd be much more prone to put them in the "Dead Enemies" category, to show how much progress is being made in defeating the insurgents.

This is fuckin' ridiculous! 50,000 low ball, 100,000 high ball. That's 16-30 9-11s. For those who don't remember Iraqi civilians had nothing to do with attacking this country ever, they didn't ask to be "liberated", and they do not deserve to die because our Administration deems them collateral damage.

Doesn't anyone ever realize that by killing all these Iraqi's we are just creating thounsands more lil Laden's that will hate everything America stands for because they invaded and occupied their country and turned it into a terrorist breeding ground.

Sweet Jesus.

You're assuming, apparently, that the country will emerge from the anarchy that exists there, and the violence will stop.
Certainly when looking at all pros and cons one must also consider whether the primary goal in Iraq is even attainable. Is a secure democracy possible there? I don't think so.

Well, that's a completely different argument altogether. If it's not attainable, then 1 death is too many. If it is attainable, 100,000 deaths is not too many. Basically, the validity of this war has nothing to do with how many people die, it is about whether it is actually going to accomplish its objective.

I bet you'd feel differently if even one of those deaths affected you directly.

Using this logic it is a shame about one hundred thousand AMERICANS didn't die on 911. Then maybe the general public would wake up and realise that the government with their policies had more to do on 911 then the people who flew the planes. Go back into your hole you call the states and please don't come back out.

Actually, no.

And I can't quite figure out why you must attempt judgment upon my character in order to make a point.

exactly... it's so easy when it is just a bunch of iraqis... for fuck's sake people

I think that anyone who can attempt to justify 100,000 civilian deaths ought to have their character called into question. But that's just me.

I think this is what $üñ_Dë\/|L is trying to say:

"The end" in this case, is not attainable.