600K + Iraqis killed since 2003?
 

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.

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:

From Washington post article on the subject it states:

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.

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.

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.

More politics.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/...aqi_death_toll

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:

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

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...001442_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.