Why we don't have accurate body counts of Iraqi civilian Deaths.

[Flabbergasted]

I had a talk today with a guy about the Lancet study concluding 600,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.

I was curious why we don't have verifiable body counts and how counter criticism of the study?

As it turns out his brother, who is a producer with ABC, says that Iraqi media censors out most mentions of Iraqi civilian deaths which is what most body counts are based on. So the result is a vastly understated count of civilian deaths.

[fooj]

1. The report in question is the same report used to count

deaths in Kosova and Somalia. I'll go with Lancet/Hopkins on this one.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

2. Guess all those brown skin bodies all look alike

definate surpression of the acutally count. Real power is keeping things out of the news.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Because Barbara Bush didn't want to waste her beautiful mind.

Why should we hear about body bags and deaths," Barbara Bush said on ABC's "Good Morning America" on March 18, 2003. "Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

[central scrutinizer]

4. It's not just those killed by violence

Many of those additional deaths would be due to destruction of sanitation and water infrastructure. Deaths from Depleted Uranium poisoning. Deaths from malnutrition because food trucks can't get through. Increased disease and destroyed hospitals. Etc. This is why you don't hear about 770 deaths per day. When somebody dies quietly and slowly, it doesn't make the news. No blood = no coverage.