Iraqi Deaths Estimated at 655,000 According to Johns-Hopkins

[maltese]

30 responses in the last 24 hours or so.... interesting that not a one asks any questions about the study itself. If Bush says his numbers are based on Generals, then questions are asked about source (perhaps rightfully so.) But an article is published by a group of researchers right before an election....and look, the same researchers published a study in the same magazine on the same subject right before the LAST election. In interviews, they admitted that the last one was political in nature. But heavens, THIS one must be completely dispassionate.

This is a study of mortality rates... any death which the researchers feel wouldn't have happened during the Hussein regime is counted, but others are not. It's based on a random household survey, using statistical epidimelogical methods. No opportunity for an agenda creeping into the methodology there, is there?

Criticisms of the methods is hardly limited to Bush supporters or conservatives. Human Rights Watch, no friend of the Bush Administration, said the following regarding the original study, according to the Washington Post:

"The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting," said Marc E. Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, which investigated the number of civilian deaths that occurred during the invasion. "These numbers seem to be inflated."​

And I'm amazed at the incredible condescension involved with the attitude that if one group of middle eastern residents is engaged in the pastime of killing other middle eastern residents, that it must be all Bush's fault - because heavens, getting rid of the tinpot dictator that was killing a different number of residents to keep the two groups from killing each other... why, that's the only way the poor benighted folks of the region could possibly keep from killing each other.

 

[maltese]

Perhaps it is the only way---we had no business going in and messing with a sovereign nation's self-rule and, having done so, proven that it hasn't helped at all. In fact, the situation has hurt the region.

You, of course...my good libertarian friend, suffer from the rare malady of actually having formed a consistent opinion about 'foreign adventures', one that's based on something other than who is currently President. We'll need you to take this principled positions somewhere other than these perfect good sectarian squabbles that masquerade as discussion here, wouldn't want to wander into any actual discourse by accident.

Tell me, if I told you that those researchers noted a pronounced increase in deaths along the North American eastern seaboard during the period of 1776 to 1783, would you passionately condemn the French for 'messing with a sovereign nation's self-rule'? Certainly their efforts didn't help! Look at the huge spike in the death toll!!

 

[maltese]

As to your other weak objections, I suggest you re-read the first para of this story:

That paragraph is exactly my point. The researchers were the ones who chose the methods on whether a given death would or wouldn't have occurred. There's a little room for controversy there, don't you think?

Now maltese, must you question the motives of everyone, excepting those who share your so-called "political beliefs?" We're a poorer, more divided nation because of these sorts of political sentiments, and still we are so far from the truth on even WHY we are fighting in Iraq. Further, so many on the right were willing to accept all those fake administration-funded polls coming out of Iraq -- you know, the ones that said how very glad the Iraqis are that we are occupying their nation and slaughtering their brothers -- that it seems, well, a tad "hypocritical" for these same people to disagree with other numbers.

I don't have a problem with questioning anyone's numbers. And you're right, while I still think that going into Iraq was the correct thing to do, I think that Bush has done a piss-poor job on explaining why it was the right thing. And I have no problem with Americans asking their president to explain those actions... I just have a problem with using a rather political, controversial study as the only basis for those questions.

 

[maltese]

http://www.uniraq.org/documents/HR ...N. Assistance Mission in Iraq's Human Rights"

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060921/D8K98K180.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/iraq.main/

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/

 

[Kulindahr]

Now maltese, must you question the motives of everyone, excepting those who share your so-called "political beliefs?" We're a poorer, more divided nation because of these sorts of political sentiments....

Of course he must, faux general -- we need someone to be your mirror!

He needs more practice, though; he's lots more polite and less prone to irrational screeching than you.

 

[Kulindahr]

Maltese, how DARE you question those figures! I mean, really, they MUST be true -- they had Iraqis on the team, didn't they?!

 

[acenchad2]

"You win a prize for that,for telling lies like that,so well that I believed it.I never felt cheated.You were the chosen one the pure eyes of Noah's dove choirboys and angels stole your lips and your halo.In your reckless mind you act as if you've got more lives,in your reckless eyes you only have time and your love of danger,to it your no stranger." Noah's Dove-Natalie Merchant

If we can not absorbed a single death or casualty how can we absorbed 655,000?Are we immune to war and its casualties?Is the television and video games masked the reality of it?Is it because they are not americans,that their death is of lesser value and we don't have to quantify it?What makes as think that this is not immoral and do not deserve a condemnation?
We flaunt ourselves to the world as freedom fighters,advocates of peace and democracy,freedom of speech and expressions are use as model for any civilized nations in the world which we claimed we pioneered.We even detest anyone who claims that if they have a chance to live in america that they will take the chance in a heartbeat.
Why politics and religion needs to be over lives lost and destructions of people in other parts of the world.Why is that?Does it make you clean?Morally right? Superior?Civilized?If 9/11 was done by radical islam fanatics,is it fair then to say that 655,000 Iraqi's death is the end result by the action of a christian president?
Why are you not disturbed?Is there a humanity left in you?What's the difference in evil of a brutal dictator than our support with the same results of casualties and destructions?
What do we have to be proud of now?Our politics,our religion,our being an american,our race,our self loathing,self centered culture?
We can create more havoc and destructions and more lives lost with our actions in that region,but we can never heal and find a peace in their wounded soul.

"In your reckless mind ,you act as if you've got more lives,in your reckless eyes,its never too late for a chance to seize some final breath of freedom"
Noah's Dove-Natalie Merchant

 

[greydog]

I wonder how many newspapers in the U.S. carried this headline?
The Vancouver Sun, Oct. 12, 2006;
654, 965 Iraqi civilians dead since the invasion: That's more people than live in Vancouver. The study to be published today by the British medical journal - the Lancet, said more than 600,000 killed, more than 10 times the estimates.
U.S President George W. Bush dismissed the number as "not credible."
The estimate is much higher than others because it was derived from a house-to house survey, rather than approaches that depend on body counts or news reports.
The majority of Canadians are horrified by GWB -- He must be the anti-christ!

 

[vote-me]

I can't beleive more people haven't disputed the figure, So The Lancet Report states that the Iraqi death toll has topped 650,000... that truely is a horrible figure, I however have to take up issue with it...

1914-1918, four years of high-intensity warfare - British dead, 652,000.

1936-1945, six years of high-intensity warfare - British dead, 460,000.

2003-2006, three years of low-intensity warfare - Iraqi dead, 650,000??

I'm not defending anyone, or being disrespectful to the thousands who have died but I think its hugely unhelpful for such reports to be estimating such high numbers when history tells us that the figure is unattainable considering the intensity of the warfare and period its been going on for. The relationship between 'the west' and islam is already less then great!

 

[ryankeith]

I can't beleive more people haven't disputed the figure, So The Lancet Report states that the Iraqi death toll has topped 650,000... that truely is a horrible figure, I however have to take up issue with it...

1914-1918, four years of high-intensity warfare - British dead, 652,000.

1936-1945, six years of high-intensity warfare - British dead, 460,000.

2003-2006, three years of low-intensity warfare - Iraqi dead, 650,000??

I'm not defending anyone, or being disrespectful to the thousands who have died but I think its hugely unhelpful for such reports to be estimating such high numbers when history tells us that the figure is unattainable considering the intensity of the warfare and period its been going on for. The relationship between 'the west' and islam is already less then great!

Low intensity warfare? What world are you living in?

The type of warfare is different than back in the early 1900's. Missles, bombs, air attacks, the types of weapons used can wipe out large numbers of people at one time. The number of car bombs being reported every week typically has a high death count each time they occur.

To compare this war to wars in the early 1900's to discredit the study and determine the number given is "unattainable" due to the numbers presented in those wars is simply rediculous.

 

[vote-me]

Low intensity warfare? What world are you living in?

The type of warfare is different than back in the early 1900's. Missles, bombs, air attacks, the types of weapons used can wipe out large numbers of people at one time. The number of car bombs being reported every week typically has a high death count each time they occur.

To compare this war to wars in the early 1900's to discredit the study and determine the number given is "unattainable" due to the numbers presented in those wars is simply rediculous.

Other then the first 'shock and awe' stage the warfare has been on the whole low intensity when you compared it to the Two World Wars which were faught not only on Land but at Sea and in a much more horrific way.

When looking at the First WW the intensity of the fighting in the trenches was massive compaired to the 10 day war waged against saddams regime (I shall take into account the 'after-war' situation in a moment). In WW2 the enemy (Nazi's) didn't care who they killed and blanket bombed London and other major Cities without any care of who they killed; the bombing at the beginning of the Iraq war was for the most part targeted away from highly populated civilan areas unlike during the Second World War.
Your arguement about technological advances resulting in more deaths is an interesting one, due to these changes the allied forces can direct their bombs more accuratly so this should result in less civilans being killed - I understand the power of the bombs used is significantly higher, but the sheer ammount used and dropped over UK cities and targeted at its military during the second world war must be signifanty more then during the Iraq war.

Yes Iraq has a suicide problem, but I find it hard to see how more Iraqi's (upto 500 a day.) are being killed every week by car bombs and shootings (on top of the conflict dead) then in the trenches, the channel/atlantic and UK Cities attacked nightly and without discretion during a period of World War Two. Although any death is disgraceful I think the 655,000 is wrong (the Iraq Body Count estimates deaths at around 45,000-50,000), yes hundreds of thousands of people may have died but to accredit them all to the war is misleading and thousands would have been killed if Saddam remained in power.

I wasn't for the war, but the figure to me makes no sense - ask 1,849 households and come out with such a huge figure is in my opinion bad research and looking at it and other articles discussing it more needs to be done to get a clear picture of the cost of the war!

 

[Kulindahr]

I realized today just what part of Johns Hopkins did the study. Aren't these the people who consider bullets a disease?