washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01098.html
Add this to the top estimate of 7,000 killed during the invasion and the 1,650 US troops and you get 20,650. Wonder how those researchers got 100K? The week before the election? wonder if they have had a chance to “revise” their findings?
20 per day in a nation of 27 million works out to a 0.00007 percent chance of being killed each day. How many people per day die in traffic accidents? of heart attacks? old age?
That’s not bad at all. I love GW Bush. He hardly kills anyone. Look at Korea.
Hmmm…
raq’s insurgency is led largely by members of the Sunni Arab minority that was toppled from power with Saddam Hussein. Foreign Arab fighters are largely blamed for the suicide bombings that now claim most of the lives.
[/quote]
cant Israel somehow be worked into this?
And oh yeah…“I blame George W. Bush.”
iraqbodycount.net/
I don’t know who is claiming 100 billion casualties. Maybe the Neocon strawman who makes you all feel warm and oookie inside.
Answers about how the Lancet survey got the 100,000 figure at the iraqbodycount.net/press/ under November 7th.
Yes, now that the puppet government has been installed, they can take on some of the extensive burden of lying that Bush and Cheney have had to shoulder for so long. This is certainly something to celebrate and crow about. Oh yes, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said it, it must be gospel. WTF is Interior Minister Bayan Jabr anyway? He’s probably a cousin to former Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf. Do you have one of those “God said it, I belive it, that settles it” bumper stickers on your Land Rover or something? The US official policy has been to not even estimate “collateral damages” (read: dead innocent civilians whose families have been destroyed). And to not allow reporters. I believe the Lancet number of 100,000.
Um, you believe the figure of 100,000 and yet also believe the Iraqi Body Count figure of 22,000 ish? What?
Anybody know what the ratio of Iraqis to human beings is anyway? It’s got to be pretty high because neither 20,000 nor 100,000 dead hajis seems to register much either way other than to cause Bush supporters to complain about being unfairly shafted in a bad body count.
There’s got to be some kind of major tipping point between 100,000 and 300,000 though because at 300,000 – Saddam’s body count – you become a spawn of Satan and/or the second-coming of Adolf Hitler.
Below 100K you’re the second coming of Thomas Jefferson – or Joe McCarthy – depending on your political point of view and above 300K you’re evil incarnate. That’s some kind of tipping point.
The problem I have with the 100 000 body count is that it was being bandied about by anti-Bush groups almost immediately after Iraq was invaded, and hasn’t changed at all in the last two years!.
What would they have me believe? That 100 000 Iraqis dropped dead the very minute the first American stepped foot over the border, and no more have died since then?
[quote=“fred smith”]
20 per day in a nation of 27 million works out to a 0.00007 percent chance of being killed each day. How many people per day die in traffic accidents? of heart attacks? old age?[/quote]
I went for British civilians killed in WW2 (using some rough figures and iffy maths so please feel free to correct 
) as a comparison and it comes out better than Iraq 
population - 50000000 (from 1950 - nearest I could find)
deaths - 60595 (from here)
days - 2074 (using VE day as the end date)
((60595/2074)/50000000)*100) = about 0.00006
Again, my maths and figures are very rough so fire away 
.
[quote=“butcher boy”][quote=“fred smith”]
20 per day in a nation of 27 million works out to a 0.00007 percent chance of being killed each day. How many people per day die in traffic accidents? of heart attacks? old age?[/quote]
I went for British civilians killed in WW2 (using some rough figures and iffy maths so please feel free to correct ) as a comparison and it comes out better than Iraq
population - 50000000 (from 1950 - nearest I could find)
deaths - 60595 (from here)
days - 2074 (using VE day as the end date)
((60595/2074)/50000000)*100) = about 0.00006
Again, my maths and figures are very rough so fire away .[/quote]
I don’t know but I think 20,000 dead Britons would get everyone’s attention no matter what the cause. I think the “tipping point” for dead Brits is actually somewhere down in the low teens or upper single digits so I think your math is flawed if only because you’re comparing apples to oranges here.
I wonder what the odds of being an American citizen killed on U.S. soil by terrorists are?
Well 15,000 French elderly died in the heat wave and no one cared. So now we have fewer killed by the insurgency and everyone is using it as a tool to bash Bush, why? Did he kill them? Is he responsible for their deaths? How many Iraqis were dying before?
millions under Saddam to silence in the West, 12,000 under Bush and non-stop concern, peace protests, etc. What gives? Does that make sense to anyone here?
From the http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ website:[quote]Iraq Body Count only includes reports where there are feasible methods of distinguishing military from civilian deaths (most of the uncertainty that remains in our own count - the difference between our reported Minimum and Maximum - arises from this issue). Our count is purely a civilian count.[/quote]
The Iraq Body Count is conservative. They use just the facts as reported in the media, though they try to analyze the media to get the most accurate figures in their judgement. So to assume that there have been about 20000 or so civilian deaths reported in newspapers and other media since the Iraq invasion would be correct.
This would not include any Iraqis killed in aerial strikes, as aerial strikes are targeted at militants, unless the US/media was very sure that the US had made a mistake in choosing its target.
In addition, the Iraq Body Count subtracted from the actual body count all the people who died before the invasion. This is to “correct” the death count by taking into account the fact that people do die naturally. The Iraq Body Count counted how many people had died on average before the invasion, and subtracted that average from the civilian death count reported in the media.
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.
So according to Iraq Body Count itself, it is likely that many if not most civilian deaths went unreported in the media.
No, he didn’t kill them, but he did go into Iraq with fuck all useful planning about what to do when celebrations were over. I’m just waiting to hear how ‘desperate’ the insurgents are again, these same insurgents who have been desperate for the past 2 years.
BTW, I think figures from this Iraqi gov are probably about as reliable as those from the previous interim one,the CPA and the one before that.
Come on Fred, I’m wondering what your response to this will be. It would appear that you cited a source without fully investigating it. Say it ain’t so. Put us straight on the truth of this one.
i want to take a poll. you make your choice, saddam or the current situation.
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01098.html
Add this to the top estimate of 7,000 killed during the invasion and the 1,650 US troops and you get 20,650. Wonder how those researchers got 100K? The week before the election? wonder if they have had a chance to “revise” their findings? [/quote]
Fred, once again I wonder if you need to brush up your reading comprehension, or maths, or logic skills. Maybe all three. (I assume you are not intentionally misleading anybody.)
12,000 is number is the number of civilians the insurgents have killed in the last 18 months.
It is totally distinct from the number of civilians the coalition forces have killed.
It is a fraction of the total number of civilians killed.
It certainly is not a total number of deaths resulting from the coalition invasion (even when you add in a 7,000 here and 1,600 plus there).
False choice. Like saying twenty years ago the only choice was between accepting the inevitable expansion of Soviet communism or global thermonuclear war.
How about no Saddam, no Darfur, no Kim Jong Il, no Guantanamo, no religious wars masquerading as wars of liberation, no 3,000,000 stateless Palestinians penned up in a U.S. taxpayer financed ghetto – and no ‘current situation.’
Just liberty and justice for all without taking ends-justify-the-means shortcuts to nowhere.
[quote=“spook”]
How about no Saddam, no Darfur, no Kim Jong Il, no Guantanamo, no religious wars masquerading as wars of liberation, no 3,000,000 stateless Palestinian penned up in a U.S. taxpayer financed ghetto – and no ‘current situation.’
Just liberty and justice for all without taking ends-justify-the-means shortcuts to nowhere.[/quote]
How about the sooner the better.
Human Rights Watch and Iraqibodcount have placed the death toll of all at 22,000 to 25,000. So no so different from the figures I provided. That would mean approximately 1500 to 4500 deaths from US hands most likely the lower figure and those were mostly insurgents killed in combat. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that the US is responsible for massive numbers of deaths from troops “attacking wedding parties?”
Anyway, has anyone ever got a figure that even comes close to approximating the claim made just “one week before” the election of 100K? No. Hmmm Strange that… Must have been an unintentional statistical er discrepancy?