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.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by 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.

From Washington post article on the subject it states:

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq 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]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

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]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

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.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Another article: 655,000 War Dead? A bogus study on Iraq casualties.

Nice post AL.

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