Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What really is the Iraq body count?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
liberalnurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 12:22 PM
Original message
What really is the Iraq body count?
Was *bush actually right when he said 30,000 Iraqi dead since the invasion of Iraq? I searched Google and here is where I was sent.

This site validates his statement ....WHICH MAKES ME SICK!

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

I recall hearing at least 100,000 died during the Falluja....was that posturing on our side?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
zbird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. That site uses media-reported deaths as its source.
Edited on Sun Dec-18-05 12:30 PM by zbird
from their FAQ:

"We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."

Note the bolded type (emphasis mine). They acknowlege the actual count is likely much higher.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greeby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. I don't think we'll really know until a census can be taken
Although jeebus knows when it'll be safe enough to do that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well over a year ago, The Guardian posted that there were over
100,000 dead Iraqis. I can just imagine what it is now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
4. JOHNS HOPKINS AND LANCET REPORT OF DEATHS...
SORRY BUT THIS IS OLD AND THE LINK NO LONGER WORKS..had it in my files...dated in my files 10/28/04...

SO MODS I AM POSTING IN FULL...IF THERE IS A PROB WITH THAT REMOVE AND I CAN PM ANYONE INTERESTED!

that said..this is an article from befoore the election last year...

'xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

link no longer works..but this was the link...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041028/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_death_toll

Household Survey Sees 100,000 Iraqi Deaths

5 minutes ago Middle East - AP


By EMMA ROSS, AP Medical Writer

LONDON - A survey of deaths in Iraqi households estimates that as many as 100,000 more people may have died throughout the country in the 18 months after the U.S. invasion than would be expected based on the death rate before the war.



There is no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began, but some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000. As of Wednesday, 1,081 U.S. servicemen had been killed, according to the U.S. Defense Department.


The scientists who wrote the report concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision," because the quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study. The interviewers were Iraqi, most of them doctors.


Designed and conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, the study is being published Thursday on the Web site of The Lancet medical journal.


The survey indicated violence accounted for most of the extra deaths seen since the invasion, and air strikes from coalition forces caused most of the violent deaths, the researchers wrote in the British-based journal.


"Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children," they said.


The report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher said he wanted it that way. The Lancet routinely publishes papers on the Web before they appear in print, particularly if it considers the findings of urgent public health interest.


Those reports then appear later in the print issue of the journal. The journal's spokesmen said they were uncertain which print issue the Iraqi report would appear in and said it was too late to make Friday's issue, and possibly too late for the Nov. 5 edition.


Les Roberts, the lead researcher from Johns Hopkins, said the article's timing was up to him.


"I emailed it in on Sept. 30 under the condition that it came out before the election," Roberts told The Asocciated Press. "My motive in doing that was not to skew the election. My motive was that if this came out during the campaign, both candidates would be forced to pledge to protect civilian lives in Iraq (news - web sites).


"I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea, but I think that our science has transcended our perspectives," Roberts said. "As an American, I am really, really sorry to be reporting this."


Richard Peto, an expert on study methods who was not involved with the research, said the approach the scientists took is a reasonable one to investigate the Iraq death toll.


However, it's possible that they may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq, said Peto, a professor of medical statistics at Oxford University in England.


To conduct the survey, investigators visited 33 neighborhoods spread evenly across the country in September, randomly selecting clusters of 30 households to sample. Of the 988 households visited, 808, consisting of 7,868 people, agreed to participate in the survey. At each one they asked how many people lived in the home and how many births and deaths there had been since January 2002.


The scientists then compared death rates in the 15 months before the invasion with those that occurred during the 18 months after the attack and adjusted those numbers to account for the different time periods.


Even though the sample size appears small, this type of survey is considered accurate and acceptable by scientists and was used to calculate war deaths in Kosovo in the late 1990s.


The investigators worked in teams of three. Five of the six Iraqi interviewers were doctors and all six were fluent in English and Arabic.





In the households reporting deaths, the person who died had to be living there at the time of the death and for more than two months before to be counted. In an attempt at firmer confirmation, the interviewers asked for death certificates in 78 households and were provided them 63 times.

There were 46 deaths in the surveyed households before the war. After the invasion, there were 142 deaths. That is an increase from 5 deaths per 1,000 people per year to 12.3 per 1,000 people per year — more than double.

However, more than a third of the post-invasion deaths were reported in one cluster of households in the city Falluja, where fighting has been most intense recently. Because the fighting was so severe there, the numbers from that location may have exaggerated the overall picture.

When the researchers recalculated the effect of the war without the statistics from Falluja, the deaths end up at 7.9 per 1,000 people per year — still 1.5 times higher than before the war.

Even with Falluja factored out, the survey "indicates that the death toll associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq is more likely than not about 100,000 people, and may be much higher," the report said.

The most common causes of death before the invasion of Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and other chronic diseases. However, after the invasion, violence was recorded as the primary cause of death and was mainly attributed to coalition forces — with about 95 percent of those deaths caused by bombs or fire from helicopter gunships.

Violent deaths — defined as those brought about by the intentional act of others — were reported in 15 of the 33 clusters. The chances of a violent death were 58 times higher after the invasion than before it, the researchers said.

Twelve of the 73 violent deaths were not attributed to coalition forces. The researchers said 28 children were killed by coalition forces in the survey households. Infant mortality rose from 29 deaths per 1,000 live births before the war to 57 deaths per 1,000 afterward.

The researchers estimated the nationwide death toll due to the conflict by multiplying the difference between the two death rates by the estimated population of Iraq — 24.4 million at the start of the war. The result was then multiplied by 18 months, the average period between the invasion and the survey interviews.

"We estimate that there were 98,000 extra deaths during the postwar period in the 97 percent of Iraq represented by all the clusters except Falluja," the researchers said in the journal.

"This isn't about individual soldiers doing bad things. This appears to be a problem with the approach to occupation in Iraq," Roberts said.

The researchers called for further confirmation by an independent body such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the World Health Organization (news - web sites).

The study was funded by the Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins University and by the Small Arms Survey in Geneva, Switzerland, a research project based at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva.

http://www.thelancet.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
5. 30,000 is probably a good starting point
for civilian casualties. not the people we killed and then claimed were insurgents, whether we had proof or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
converted_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. 100,000 to 200,000....
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=HAS20051216&articleId=1491
snip-
The conservative estimate of more than 100,000 Iraqi deaths was published in the reputed and peer-reviewed British medical journal the Lancet. If one includes the atrocities in Fallujah, Ramadi, al-Qaim, Tel Afar, Hillah, Baghdad and the daily mayhem instigated by U.S. forces and their collaborators, the number of Iraqis killed since March 2003 would be in the 200,000 mark or even more. It also estimated that 85 per cent of all violent deaths are by “coalition forces” and that many of these are due to U.S. aerial bombardments. The majority of the victims were innocent women and children.

According to Robert Fisk of the Independent; “The Ministry of Health figures in July alone, was 1,100 Iraqi deaths in Baghdad alone. If you spread that across, Mosul, Kirkuk, maybe Irbil , all way down to Basra , through the months, and you must be talking of 3,000 to 4,000 a month. That's 36,000 to 48,000 a year”. This makes the “100,000 figure of rightly as being quite conservative”, added Fisk. This figure has been recently substantiated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. The fact that Bush so openly claims 30,000 is a huge clue
that there are more than likely 5 to 6 times that many Iraqis dead due to Bush's war. The fact that he can utter 30,000 and people aren't in an uproar is another story altogether.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
8. How high? Too god damned high.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. 100,000 died in Fallujah? not a chance
there where only 20-30K people in the whole city when it was attacked.

Taking into consideration several sources I believe we're just shy of 100K deaths.

Or about 30x the toll on 9/11. Whatever that means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
10. I would add that Bush was parsing words...30,000 ARE dead, plus
about 70,000 more at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
11. dupe
Edited on Sun Dec-18-05 01:00 PM by linazelle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
12. They call that the "CIVILIAN" deaths ... and count "insurgents" separately
The current estimate of "INSURGENT" deaths I've seen is around 56,000. Here's a Washington/Moonie Times article from back in July that puts the count at 50,000.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050726-121818-8711r.htm


Isn't it nice we're killing "insurgents" at double the rate we're murdering "civilians"? (We can tell by their uniforms, of course.)

BTW ... those numbers don't include uniformed Iraqi forces, either. :shrug:

Iraq = death and destruction, American-style. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalnurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
13. If we could home in on good , reliable facts
regarding the Iraqi civilian dead....it would be a powerful slap in *bush's face. He probably thinks it is true. I think they lost 30,000 the first 2 days of "Shock-n-Awh....this coming from an observer with an IQ higher than an eggplant.

To pander such data is an insult to the lost souls. They may be haunting souls at this point.:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
converted_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. You don't find Lancet reliable?
Edited on Sun Dec-18-05 01:25 PM by converted_democrat
on edit- They said 100,000 quite sometime ago. I would think that number would be a good place to start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalnurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. On CNN....the oriental , female reporter at the WH....she
mentioned the 30,000 quote by the resident adding that they, the hound-dogs, want to be sure that his quote was not "an Official" count. This tells me the media wants more facts on this but are lost on where to find them. Plus they are always scared......

I find Lancet credible.....but they are not getting out there in the MSM.....That is why I posed the question......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
converted_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Did you read the link I posted up above?
Edited on Sun Dec-18-05 06:27 PM by converted_democrat
If you look there, or if you have time look it up in the DU archives, you'll see that the Lancet study was heavily censored here in the US. (There was a thread really recently about it.) No joke. First, they tried to discredit it, and when that did not work, they went into censor mode. I found it to be extremely interesting reading, and it was my first experience really understanding that we are not being told the whole story. If you have the time, it's really worth looking for.(I'd look it up for you, but I'm late to a Christmas Party.) If you look it up via the DU archives, use the keywords...Lancet Censor...and you should find it with no problem. If you can't find it, post back, and I will find it for you tomorrow.

on edit- Hubby is still isn't ready to go yet, so I went ahead and looked up the DU link for you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5616912
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalnurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-18-05 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Thank you so much.....
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
converted_democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-19-05 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. No problem..You're welcome...
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC