600K + Iraqis killed since 2003?

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm

Another controversial study. Without doubt supporters of the war will try to wipe it off the table, while opponents will declare it as valid proof.

However, predictions on the basis of a representative data basis are common practice in statistics and social sciences. Depending on body counting alone will mean you miss all those bodies that no one will ever see - this latter method is unreliable as well.

Since I estimated the death toll in Iraq on 400-500 thousand myself, I consider the value of this study of 655 thousand as possible and within reasonable range. The overwhelming majority of these losses are non-combatants.

Which means that the US invasion has led to a situation where 2.5% of the overall population in Iraq has been killed so far.

For comparsion, the second Gulf War 1991 has costed 100.000 Iraqi soldier's life and around 45.000 civiialns, according to Baghdada, while the US says that 300.000 Iraqi soldiers had been "wounded" and 2.500 civilians got killed.

The first Gulf War between Iraq and Iran costed an estimated 1 million people their lifes.

[fredbass]

Well I think numbers like that are quite misleading. People are dying for all sorts of reasons and it's just one big lump sum, however accurate or not.

You've got radicals who kill anyone who supports democracy. And you've got the other side who's killing them. And you've got the innocent bystanders in between.

And if the U.S. military leaves, the numbers are going to double. Bet me on that one. :shifty:

[Konovalov]

Well I think numbers like that are quite misleading. People are dying for all sorts of reasons and it's just one big lump sum, however accurate or not.

From Washington post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html)on the subject it states:


A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/iraq.html?nav=el) since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.


So the survey is claiming that these deaths are directly attributable to the Iraq war and not to just all sorts of other factors such as dying of old age and so forth. This is contrary to your burshing off of Skybirds posted info.

If this survey is remotely accurate then indeed it is truly shocking. But all the statistical surveys carried out seem to span such a massive wide ranging variance that I really am not sure as to what the true figure is. I recall the survey that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet which claimed 100,000 people had died as a result of the Iraq war which was double the figure claimed by the Iraq Body Count group at the time.

[fredbass]

The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.

Based on what you've just shown, it's quite possible that the survey could be untrue. But again, regardless of the numbers, high or low, my original point still stands.

[bradclark1]

You've got radicals who kill anyone who supports democracy. And you've got the other side who's killing them. And you've got the innocent bystanders in between.

What difference does it make? Dead is dead. Give it a 20% variance and it's still a hell of a lot.

[fredbass]

You've got radicals who kill anyone who supports democracy. And you've got the other side who's killing them. And you've got the innocent bystanders in between.

What difference does it make? Dead is dead. Give it a 20% variance and it's still a hell of a lot.

So?

Ok, let me be a little bit clearer: It may be a lot, but once the U.S. leaves, there may be an all out civil war, which will easily double the numbers.

It's a sad situation, but we're trying. To avoid your worst fears, The U.S. should double the number of troops or the Iraqis should triple the size of theirs.

[waste gate]

In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer.


More politics.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_death_toll

[STEED]

The media is a propaganda machine and all sides are using it to the max. I no longer trust what I am reading, seeing and hearing on these major events. :nope:

[Konovalov]

In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer.


More politics.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_death_toll

True, but both sides play it and spin things. I would tend to agree with the comments in that article made by Cordesman:


"They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.

"This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.


I have tremendous respect for Cordesman from the CSIS and have over the last few years downloaded and read many of his detailed reports/analysis on the situation in Iraq. Cordesman is not some right or left leaning political hack. His analysis is for the most part spot on IMHO, often critical yet also complimentry when warranted of the current US Administrations handling of this war. I almost sense from his comments that he is insulted from a professional standpoint of this new statistical study that has been released.

[CCIP]

Disgusting. There is absolutely no justification for this. And if anyone claims that even a notable majority of this 600,000 were terrorists or somehow related to the war on terror... well...

And with 31% attributed to Americans, I think this again underlines my idea of a 'clean, democratic' war. This is not a clean war. This is not a justified war. There is no war based more or less on principle rather than fact where 600,000 mostly-civilians die that is justified. This is disgusting, and that's all I can say to it.

[Immacolata]

You've got radicals who kill anyone who supports democracy. And you've got the other side who's killing them. And you've got the innocent bystanders in between.

What difference does it make? Dead is dead. Give it a 20% variance and it's still a hell of a lot.
.

It's a sad situation, but we're trying. To avoid your worst fears, The U.S. should double the number of troops or the Iraqis should triple the size of theirs.

IF the us never went there chasing weapons of mass deception in the first place a safe bet would be that a lot more people would have been alive. Oppressed, but alive. Im sure if you asked the dead people they would pick saddams iron rule over the US militarys jihad magnetic rule in a heart beat.

The political side of it is possibly muddles: the numbers are exaggarated to use as an argument against the war and the bush administration or parts thereof. The humanitarian side of it is however clear cut. Be it 300000 or 600000 - so many casualties are not acceptable. Saddam was a bastard, but at least he was THIER bastard!

[fredbass]

Come on people. They're killing themselves. :doh:

I won't lose any sleep over that fact. :roll:

[August]

IF the us never went there chasing weapons of mass deception in the first place a safe bet would be that a lot more people would have been alive. Oppressed, but alive. Im sure if you asked the dead people they would pick saddams iron rule over the US militarys jihad magnetic rule in a heart beat.

I would take issue with the "safe bet" part. First off your theory ignores any casualty numbers Saddam and his henchmen would continue to rack up and second you forget the huge numbers of dead Iraqis that were claimed to be victims of economic sanctions, which would have continued as long as he remained in power. Lastly, even that doesn't include those dead outside of Iraq that he would have had a hand in with his support of Palestinian and other anti-Israeli/anti-western groups.

[ASWnut101]

its war, people die.
get over it, war will not stop.

[Skybird]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html

A report on it in the WP. NYT also had it reported, but it seems I somehow lost my access to their site, I must repair that.

For statistical experts in the audience, the calculation in that analysis bases on the principle of so-called cluster-analysis. This is a method that is often used in psychological projects as well as in estimations concerning the number of deaths after natural desasters. Cluster-Analysis shares some theoretical intention with factor analysis and regroups variables in multi-variable designs by fuctions that in principle are intercorrelations. Cluster analysis for the most delivers reliable results with medium or low chances for huge errors.

[waste gate]

For statistical experts in the audience, the calculation in that analysis bases on the principle of so-called cluster-analysis. This is a method that is often used in psychological projects as well as in estimations concerning the number of deaths after natural desasters. Cluster-Analysis shares some theoretical intention with factor analysis and regroups variables in multi-variable designs by fuctions that in principle are intercorrelations.

In English??

[Skybird]

For statistical experts in the audience, the calculation in that analysis bases on the principle of so-called cluster-analysis. This is a method that is often used in psychological projects as well as in estimations concerning the number of deaths after natural desasters. Cluster-Analysis shares some theoretical intention with factor analysis and regroups variables in multi-variable designs by fuctions that in principle are intercorrelations.

In English??

Hm...?

whatever your question should mean, maybe this helps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_clustering

[bradclark1]

For statistical experts in the audience, the calculation in that analysis bases on the principle of so-called cluster-analysis. This is a method that is often used in psychological projects as well as in estimations concerning the number of deaths after natural desasters. Cluster-Analysis shares some theoretical intention with factor analysis and regroups variables in multi-variable designs by fuctions that in principle are intercorrelations. Cluster analysis for the most delivers reliable results with medium or low chances for huge errors.

My head hurts. :doh:

[The Avon Lady]

Listen to the Lancet editor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7BzM5mxN5U) and decide whether you would buy leftist statistical data from this propagandist with a PHD.

Over 3 years, Lancet's claims would mean 600 killed per day. It's also something like a 250 to 1 kill ratio. Yeh. Sure. And all this is done without seeing a single corpse.

They say September was a bad month for Iraq, with some 2700 people killed. Do the math over 3 years.

I don't buy it, not for a moment. :nope:

[STEED]

Well said AL. :up:

[Hylander_1314]

It also states that 31% were attributable to US actions, so who commited the other 69%? Terrorists maybe?

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,442049,00.html

It's not a precise count, and researchers acknowledged a range of 426,369 to 793,663 deaths -- a margin of error of almost 200,000.

[blue3golf]

I might be reading it wrong but the artice said they interviewed the families. If that is the case then of course the number is going to be huge because I guarantee that if the "victim" was a militant or insurgent or terrorist, whatever you wanna call them now days the family will deny it and they chalk it up as a civilian death. I'm sure there are thousands of legitimate civilian deaths, but I would bet that at least half of those numbers were combatants without a uniform.

Just my two cents for what its worth.

[NEON DEON]

Listen to the Lancet editor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7BzM5mxN5U) and decide whether you would buy leftist statistical data from this propagandist with a PHD.

Over 3 years, Lancet's claims would mean 600 killed per day. It's also something like a 250 to 1 kill ratio. Yeh. Sure. And all this is done without seeing a single corpse.

They say September was a bad month for Iraq, with some 2700 people killed. Do the math over 3 years.

I don't buy it, not for a moment. :nope:

If it is 3 years they speak of then it breaks down to about 550 a day.

2,660 + lets say for the sake a padding it a bit 340 Iraqi military deaths.

3,000 a month

That is 100 vs 550

The actual count is off by 5 and half times! (if you believe the report)

Now that is one hell of a variance.

I Don't believe it and I am not even a Republican.

More examples of extremist views being pawned off as facts.

600 k my #%s! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

Since the poll included asking for death certificates to verify the claims, there should be no problem, going through the appropriate Iraqi ministry (Interior?) and finding all 600K of the death certificates, right? :roll:

Fun with math.

[Narcosis]

"Estimates are pure fantasy".

No consideration of the facts, that more are dying in Iraq due to Sunni and Shia Muslims killing each other.

The BBC used to be respected, they are now regarded on the same lines as the Mirror.

Classic example, The London Anti War protest figures.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm


This BBC article says in its heading “million march in London”
In its article below the picture it says “Hundreds of Thousands”
Below that figure it says “750,000”
Below that it mentions, estimation of “Two million”

Well, this is BBC reporting, Slap stick any figure. AS long as gullible people out their believe the BBC. Then we can see many reapeating the ignorant BBC waffle.

[Skybird]

It has nothing to do with the BBC this time - they didn't do the calculations.

Death certificates: i would be surprised if in a war zone all killed persons really receive their certifiocate. So, AL, if I take your argument, then I would expect that there are even more killed people than those 600K for whom you wish to find detah certificates in Iraqi interior ministry (that is said to have even no complete personnel records on it's security organization - and these people are still alive).

The number of kills per day varied over three years, linear projections like being done by AL and Neon do not work well here. If the statistics are competently done, i would expect to see some accoirding "weighting" of values, in that regard.

the authors themselves admit that the m,argin of error is not small, 430K to 790K. However, I think it is safe to assume that the real numbers are much higher than what the Iraqi government, the military and Bush (60K, 50K, 30K) are saying, becasue all three of these have massive interest to keep the published numbers as low as possible, and add a better shine to the miserable overall situation. Iraq is a great success and full of promises for the future, isn't it...? :88)

I do not defend the number in this new statistics and say they are right. However, I say that the official numbers are probably as wrong as well, and that the real kill rates are much higher. I also do not believe anyone telling peole that the events in regions that are more distanced from the central government and the known hotspots of activity are as wellknown and have their informational input considered by medias or governmental statistics as well. Many regions of the country are warzones, with broken comm lines, and rugged terrain.

So, the truth is to be found somewehere between the military's 60K and the 430-790K of the new statistics.


The new study samples 1,849 families in 47 different neighborhoods across Iraq. Researchers said the selection of geographical areas in 18 regions across the country was based on population size, not the level of violence. In 92 percent of the sampled homes, they said, families had death certificates.

"The best of what you can expect"
Statistics experts in the United States who reviewed the study said the interviewing methods looked legitimate. Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, said talking to urban dwellers chosen at random was "the best of what you can expect in a war zone."

But he added that the number of deaths in the families interviewed -- 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion -- was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country during the war.

The study included about 53,000 non-violent deaths that the authors said should be attributed to the war because of its effect on health care. Gilbert Burnham, the study's lead author, defended the figures by saying they showed an increase in death rates that was similar to the increase shown by another civilian casualty project, Iraq Body Count, which collates deaths reported in the news media. But Iraq Body Count puts the current maximum death toll at just short of 49,000.

[The Avon Lady]

So, the truth is to be found somewehere between the military's 60K and the 430-790K of the new statistics.
Fine.

That statement alone debunks the phonies at Lancet.

I have yet to understand how the Iraqi government figures are debunked.

[STEED]

The way things are going on out there, there will be no government. I heard on the radio America's patience is running out and Iraq has got three months to get it's act together. So better get those death certificates quick.

[NEON DEON]

These guys present as being anti US and anti Iraq war and look at their total dead

Max: 48,693

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[The Avon Lady]

Your lipstick's smeared. :yep:

[STEED]

Just out of interest why is the Lancet is poking it's nose in a civil war? :hmm:

Must be a slow month on the medical news front. ;)

[Narcosis]

May be the figures are not that far off, if this goes on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=na0IxaMmatA

[Skybird]

These guys present as being anti US and anti Iraq war and look at their total dead

Max: 48,693

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
their statistics exclusively base on kills being reported in public media. Means: they are not accurate, too, and necessarily must be assumed to be much higher. Or do you think every kill throughout Iraq has a reporter counting it?

[NEON DEON]

These guys present as being anti US and anti Iraq war and look at their total dead

Max: 48,693

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
their statistics exclusively base on kills being reported in public media. Means: they are not accurate, too, and necessarily must be assumed to be much higher. Or do you think every kill throughout Iraq has a reporter counting it?

Yes. Almost as silly as taking a sampling of death certificates and projecting it onto the entire population as opposed to doing the research and counting all the death certificates in the population.

[Skybird]

Iraqbodycount does no projections, it only reads newspapers and makes scratches on a list. the mehod only works if newspapers cover ALL deaths there are, and iraqbodycounts reads ALL newspapers, and filter out double messages.

Projections are needed to come even close to the real value. That's what usually is done in zones of natural desaster, war, etc, as well as domestic polls, consumer predictions and election predictions as well. To define statistical criterions for how a sample should be defined to be representative for the total population, weighing these samples to compensate for local differences, and then doing a projection on that basis, is common practice, really. the better part of all statistcial methods being used in science are basing on probabilities, and representaive sampling instead of totalling complete populations. It's the second best thing to doing the research and collecting all certificates there are. If you are in a country where that kind of research is not possible, since there is war and chaos and violence, some areas are no-go zones, administrative structures are partially broken, partially corrupt or incompetent - what do you do then? the second best thing, I think.

[Fish]

May be the figures are not that far off, if this goes on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=na0IxaMmatA

This video has been removed due to terms of use violation

[The Avon Lady]

If this survey is remotely accurate then indeed it is truly shocking. But all the statistical surveys carried out seem to span such a massive wide ranging variance that I really am not sure as to what the true figure is. I recall the survey that was published in the British medical journal, The Lancet which claimed 100,000 people had died as a result of the Iraq war which was double the figure claimed by the Iraq Body Count group at the time.
In fact, the Iraq Body Count group themselves have responded to the Lancet study: Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php).

I find the last sentence of that press release somewhat interesting.

[The Avon Lady]

Another article: 655,000 War Dead? A bogus study on Iraq casualties (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108).

[kiwi_2005]

IMHO - US troops should just go home, they got Saddam, they wasted his sons. They did the deed. They are not going to change Iraq to how they want it. For americans sake they should call it a day & let iraq take care of their problems. Save USA mothers the agony of losing their sons.

[NEON DEON]

Another article: 655,000 War Dead? A bogus study on Iraq casualties (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009108).

Nice post AL. :up:

I think your fun with numbers comment was spot on.

"And so, while the gender and the age of the deceased were recorded in the 2006 Johns Hopkins study, nobody, according to Dr. Roberts, recorded demographic information for the living survey respondents. This would be the first survey I have looked at in my 15 years of looking that did not ask demographic questions of its respondents. But don't take my word for it--try using Google to find a survey that does not ask demographic questions.

Without demographic information to assure a representative sample, there is no way anyone can prove--or disprove--that the Johns Hopkins estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths is accurate"


You don't have to verify the data. Trust us;)

[Narcosis]

The number of civilians reported to have been killed during the Iraq war and subsequent military presence is being recorded by the campaign group Iraq Body Count.

On 15 September 2006 it put the total number of reported civilian dead at 40,775 to 45,559 and the number of police dead at 2,437.

The issue of counting the number of Iraqis killed since the US-led invasion is highly controversial and the figure is disputed.
The US and UK military authorities do not record the number of civilians killed by their forces. The security situation and administrative chaos also make counting extremely difficult.


So where does 600,000 come from? If No one else but this group are actually counting?


Sounds to me the 600,000 figure, is some what like the Threat of "WMDs". Just waffle with no substance of proof.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4525412.stm




(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4525412.stm)

[Skybird]

The number of civilians reported to have been killed during the Iraq war and subsequent military presence is being recorded by the campaign group Iraq Body Count.

On 15 September 2006 it put the total number of reported civilian dead at 40,775 to 45,559 and the number of police dead at 2,437.

The issue of counting the number of Iraqis killed since the US-led invasion is highly controversial and the figure is disputed.
The US and UK military authorities do not record the number of civilians killed by their forces. The security situation and administrative chaos also make counting extremely difficult.


So where does 600,000 come from? If No one else but this group are actually counting?


Sounds to me the 600,000 figure, is some what like the Threat of "WMDs". Just waffle with no substance of proof.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4525412.stm




(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4525412.stm)


These guys present as being anti US and anti Iraq war and look at their total dead

Max: 48,693

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
their statistics exclusively base on kills being reported in public media. Means: they are not accurate, too, and necessarily must be assumed to be much higher. Or do you think every kill throughout Iraq has a reporter counting it?

Also see the many arguments pro and contra on page 1.

[fredbass]

Well if they could put the legs, arms and head back on the body, I think the count would be more accurate. :know:

[August]

Well if they could put the legs, arms and head back on the body, I think the count would be more accurate. :know:

Of if like Hezbollah they'd stop counting corpses 5 times...