War's Iraqi Death Toll Tops 50,000

LA Times

Higher than the US estimate but thought to be undercounted, the tally is equivalent to 570,000 Americans killed in three years.

At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to statistics from the Baghdad morgue, the Iraqi Health Ministry and other agencies — a toll 20,000 higher than previously acknowledged by the Bush administration.

Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since.

In the three years since Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled, the Bush administration has rarely offered civilian death tolls. Last year, President Bush said he believed that "30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis."

The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from "military clashes" and "terrorist attacks" from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137.

According to a 2003 Times survey of Baghdad hospitals, at least 1,700 civilians died in the capital just in the five weeks after the war began. An analysis by Iraqi Body Count, a nongovernmental group that tracks civilian deaths by tallying media reports, estimated that 5,630 to 10,000 Iraqi civilians were killed nationwide from March 19 through April 2003.

I think the Numbers speak pretty much for Themselves.

There are many reports, which are very difficult to obtain, and are not really detailed and the numbers vary alot. And since Coalition troops "Do Not Do Bodycounts On Iraq CIVILANS" nobody actually knows the real number of Iraqi Civilans killed.

But I think that the number is even Higher then this New Death Toll, which actually already tops the Bush goverment "Official Story".

Unfortunately, one signature of modern warfare is that civilians represent the greatest proportion (most estimates cite numbers approaching 75% or 3 of 4) casualties of recent conflicts, wars and insurgencies. Sanitizing war of civilian casualties will not happen; the Iraq conflict is no exception and it is simply very highly publicized….


mg.

So what is your point. If it's awareness that's excellent. However in a war (illegal or not) there is always going to be collateral damage. It is unfortunate but that's the way war operates. It is sad indeed. But the numbers I think are a great deal higher than what has been revealed.
This war (not going to debate that issue -not today) is going to be around for a long time. So you and I had better get ready for the numbers.
I may be mistaken but was there not a lot more killed in WW2, Korea, and vietnam. No one harps on that either.
But that was an interesting read.

posted by Souljah

At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to statistics from the Baghdad morgue, the Iraqi Health Ministry and other agencies — a toll 20,000 higher than previously acknowledged by the Bush administration.

The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from "military clashes" and "terrorist attacks" from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137.

There are many reports, which are very difficult to obtain, and are not really detailed and the numbers vary a lot. And since Coalition troops order "Do Not Do Body Counts On Iraq CIVILIANS" nobody actually knows the real number of Iraqi civilians killed. I think the number is even higher then this New Death Toll, which actually already tops Bush’s government "Official Story.”
[Edited by Don W]

John McLaughlin on the McLaughlin Group this AM gave the Iraqi civilian toll as 127,590. He also said the US Armed Forces have lost 2,511 KIA, and 57,263 men and women to wounds serious enough to end their service career, battle shock or traumatic stress syndrome, and several to suicide although he did not number those.



[edit on 6/25/2006 by donwhite]

One point to make.

Well if that is the truth that 50.000 has died . . . well US policy of not keeping track of Iraqi civilian deaths comes to mind.

But then again US also has a policy of "sympathy payments" of $1,000 for an injury and $2,500 for a life.

Then you do the math and see how well an Iraqi life is worth and paid with tax payer money.

But do we really know how many has died or more important does the American people really cares to know.

Take a look at Iraq body count which only counts Iraqi deaths reported in the media. Their research shows between 38475 and 42889 deaths.
www.iraqbodycount.net...

What this misses is that…
1. More journalist have been killed in Iraq than during Vietnam www.google.co.uk...
2. Its Muslim tradition to bury their dead as quickly as possible (preferably before sunset). www.sfusd.k12.ca.us...

“The Funeral (Janazah) is described (adapted and shortened from IslamicArt site, encyclopedia): "Muslims around the world bury the dead as quickly as possible, preferably before sundown on the day of death.” www.sfusd.k12.ca.us...&Entertainment/Rites.html

3. Iraq body count will probably not be reporting every death in the media. Though I assume they will be doing a good job, in which case this should be the smallest factor.

4. For perspective: Anything between 100,000 and 300,000 thousand Iraqis died during Gulf War one. www.pbs.org...
Even the U.S reckons 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted, and 60,000 were taken prisoner: www.cryan.com...

P.S Iraq’s population is 26,783,383 (according to the online CIA fact book anyway) www.cia.gov...
This is almost exactly half that of the United Kingdom, or one 10th that of the United States.

What this Continues to Miss…

How many Iraqis have been abducted by “common” criminals for ransoms? Or because of internal terrorism-civil war? This is directly relevant to the cost of our actions because both are direct results of the breakdown of law and order which itself is a result of Saddam’s removal from power-the coalitions removal from power.

What this continues to Miss: How many Iraqis die due to almost non existent health care? Before 1991 Iraq’s healthcare system was on a first world standard with 93% of its people having access to a free ,modern high quality healthcare system…www.salaam.co.uk...
Do people see what I mean about Saddam’s 60 palaces being an extremely small amount of total Iraq expenditure? One half way through construction at the time of the gulf war, was still half way through construction at the beginning of our current mission “liberation” and liquidation.
Anyway over 92 percent of the population were literate. Today it is totally third world with equipment still missing-destroyed from the time of the looting, to the shortage of drugs. You might not want to believe it but under the Occupation Iraq’s shortage of medicine is worse than it was under the oil for food programme
www.irinnews.org...

www.irinnews.org...

www.google.co.uk...

They even suffer from a shortage of painkillers, with outside charity being badly needed as this list shows www.maic.org.uk... I heard on TV how even in the British controlled section of Basra a hospital there has no painkillers.
Also How many Iraqis will continue to die in years to come from not just unexploded bombs but by far more importantly the effects of depletive uranium used in armour piercing shells. In this war it has been used in built areas. Whilst it only realises alpha and beta particles the trouble is that this low level of radioactivity gives it a half life of 4.2 billion years. Furthermore the effects from DU come in when it is vaporised upon impact. Particles can then be inhaled or accumulated in the food chain. This causes radiation to be realised at point blank range within the human body. The effects are thought to be mostly birth defects, although cancers in Iraq are thought to have risen by 50% after the first gulf war, in this war we have used at least 1500 tonnes compared with Gulf War ones 300 tonnes. The military establishment still denies its risks though the arms manufactures admit it as is shown by the clothing and air conditioning the provide their employees.

Historical Note
Of course Iraqis have been used to shortages of painkillers under the U.N sanctions. And whilst we say Saddam abused the oil for food programme by using it to fund his regime (prevent the anarchy of today?) It IS WORTH REMEMBERING sanctions started in August 1991 whilst the oil for food programme started in October 1997. en.wikipedia.org... furthermore about 25 percent was always intended for Kuwait and not Iraqis. I.e. under the programme design of 65 billion dollars worth of oil 46 would go to Iraq.
46,000,000,000 divide 26,783,383 (Iraqis population) equals 171.74 U.S dollars for every man woman in child in Iraq from the oil for food programme. This is 171.74 U.S dollars per person the six years of its operation, not per year. See this pro oil food programme source which inadvertadly admits this www.un.org...

Of course if Saddam really did selfishly steel billions of dollars from the programme then a lot less than 171 dollars over 6 years would have reached the average Iraqi. Therefore in the face of the same sanctions that prevented chlorine for tap water the oil for food programme was-is a government publicity farce. End of Historical Note.

Conclusion
So yeah I think 50,000 Iraqi deaths is a BIG underestimate. As for the future who knows what the effects of the social and political destability our actions have unleashed, and the total effects the DU we have used will cause?
I just wish the U.K and American government would respect the ideal of an informed democracies justice to count the Iraqis we kill. But like our weapons our actions show we are not really there for the Iraqis just our regional goals and ideologies.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted by Liberal1984

Take a look at Iraq body count which shows between 38,475 and 42,889 deaths.
What this misses is that…
1. More journalist have been killed in Iraq than during Vietnam
2. Its Muslim tradition to bury their dead as quickly as possible (preferably before sunset).
3. Iraq body count will not be reporting every death in the media.
4. For perspective: Anything between 100,000 and 300,000 thousand Iraqis died during Gulf War one. Even the U.S reckons 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted, and 60,000 were taken prisoner:
P. S Iraq’s population is 26,783,383. This is almost exactly half that of the United Kingdom, or one 10th that of the United States.
How many Iraqis have been abducted by “common” criminals for ransoms?
How many Iraqis die due to almost non existent health care? Before 1991 Iraq’s healthcare system was on a first world standard with 93% of its people having access to a free modern high quality healthcare
Anyway over 92 percent of the population were literate. Today it is totally third world with equipment still missing-destroyed from the time of the looting, to the shortage of drugs.
You might not want to believe it but under the Occupation Iraq’s shortage of medicine is worse than it was under the oil for food program
How many Iraqis will die in years to come from not just unexploded bombs but by far more importantly the effects of depleted uranium used in armour piercing shells. at least 1500 tonnes compared with Gulf War one’s 300 tonnes.
It IS WORTH REMEMBERING sanctions started in August 1991 whilst the oil for food program started in October 1997. Oil for Food $46,000,000,000 divide 26,783,383 (Iraqis population) equals $1,717.40 for every Iraqi from the oil for food program. per person the six years of its operation.

Conclusion
I think 50,000 Iraqi deaths is a BIG underestimate. I just wish the UK and American government would respect the ideal of a democracies to count the Iraqis we kill. But like our weapons our actions show we are not really there for the Iraqis just our regional goals and ideologies. [Edited by Don W]

More Later, L84


[edit on 6/25/2006 by donwhite]

I must have missed a 0 in the 46 billion so its actually 1703 U.S dollars per Iraqi provided by the oil for food programme. That's less than 284 dollars a year, and about 5.5 dollars a week (less than one a day). This is before you consider any money taken out by ether corrupt U.N officials or Saddam's administration.
And don't forget there was no oil for food programme for the first 6 years of U.N sanctions.
This just reinforces the idea that America and Britain are very evil countries because we are governed by very evil people. And I don't believe its our peoples fault because we have very little to do with their rise to power, or even sometimes candidate selection for a leadership race. That said nearly all of us could do more to resist them.

donwhite Could you please say what your getting to in plain English (I promise I won't be offended). What do you mean by a closet Orwellian? I'm not an Orwellian because my goal is to leave this world a richer place for my existence than without it; and the more I do that the happier I will be. I would not be happy however if I was born into the sort of world found in George Orwell's 1984. That said I will support just about anything providing I believe it's going to leave the world a richer place, or at the very least if it’s the best of all other practical-reasonable options (and therefore a good attempt or step towards doing so).

posted by Liberal1984

donwhite, Could you please say what your getting to in plain English (I promise I won't be offended). What do you mean by a closet Orwellian? I will support just about anything providing I believe it's going to leave the world a richer place

I always regarded Orwell more as a forecaster of the outcome of events he saw unfolding in the world. Written more as a warning to us of what not to do. Unfortunately as I see it, the world has ignored Orwell to its great disadvantage. So, in my own way, I meant that as a compliment.

Lets not forget about what is to happen in the future from all the use of Depleted Uranium. How many babies born deformed, how many cases of cancer etc etc. If its affecting our troops, it will surely affect the Iraqis in the long term once that stuff starts entering the water tables and the scrap metals irradiated works its way into peoples homes.


Pie

Souljah can you make up your mind and use one source or another. In the past few months you have used figures ranging from a low of 32k to a high of 120,000.

Last month as I recall you used the Iraq body count which has a low around 32 and a high around 42k, but now you are using a figure of 50k in fact you state it is over 50k yet the source you used states it is only 49,137.

One can only assume you cannot read your own sources

You might as well give it up; jumping to the highest source of the month only makes you come out with mud on your face



[edit on 6/25/2006 by shots]

It's hardly Souljah's fault that there are so many different figures saying different things. In fact that responsibility lies solely with No 10 and the White House for agreeing that Iraqi civilian deaths aren’t worth counting.
When I do my internet research I often just state whatever I get with the links provided. But my question to you is which way do you think Souljah's figures are wrong? Do you think they are an over estimate or an under estimate? And why? Or are you (perhaps a bit like me and Souljah) a bit to few confused by the conflicting information to state your opinion? Although I personally have no problem in stating my opinion; partly because I've being filling a CD with a list of good ATS and internet links. This is something I would recommend to anyone on ATS to help reduce Google search confusion. It's a bit like a diary; boring to begin with but you appreciate it in the end, only its a hell of lot easier than a diary and politically speaking a great deal more interesting too.

Still would be grateful to know why (if you have an opinion) on which way you think Souljah's casualty figures should go up or down?

posted by Liberal1984

It's hardly Souljah's fault that there are so many different [Iraqi civilian casualty] figures . . that responsibility lies solely with No 10 and the White House for agreeing that Iraqi civilian deaths aren’t counted. Still would be grateful to know why on which way you think Souljah's casualty figures should go up or down? [Edited By Don w]

This started in Vietnam. As a way of measuring our progress in the war, because we were not taking and holding territory, we began to issue a daily body count of enemy killed. Pretty soon even our people in Vietnam began to take it seriously. Commanders - who ought to have known better - began to ask for “numbers” and this went up the chain of command to the very top. LBJ’s daily briefing included the number of enemy killed the previous day.

After the war we learned front line units made up the numbers to keep the brass in the rear satisfied. The numbers bore no relationship to reality. If you felt good, you sent in high numbers, if you felt bad, you sent in low number. It was that simple. New 2Lts however, were not privy to the methodology. Taking their task as platoon leader too seriously, many of them conflicted with the soldiers doing the bleeding and dying. This caused more than a few cases where a fragmentation grenade were tossed into the 2Lt’s tent. End of problem. US estimates of Vietnamese casualties in the War are 1 million. The Vietnamese estimate is 3 million. I assume that includes WIA as well as KIA. I also assume the number includes civilian casualties.

We did not do that in War Two. We did get periodic KIA, WIA and POW numbers for both sides. Usually after a notable battle. Like when we lost at Kasserine Pass, or won at El Alamein. Or Stalingrad. Or when we finally won at Monte Casino. Or finally won at the Ardennes Forest - Battle of the Bulge. But no one ever gloated over dead enemy. Even the numbers at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were given “reluctantly.” As also Iwo Jima and Okinawa. And etc.

I think it is important to have the real numbers - as close as anything in war can be real - for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is to know if what you are doing is worth the cost. I think we should have the flag dropped coffins at Dover AFB on the tube, too. Se we can all be reminded that war is hell. We need to know what we are engaged in as a nation has its consequences. And in the case of war, to be constantly reminded of that which we often prefer to “forget.”

Long Live Geo W. President until January 20, 2009. Leader of the Free World. [An old title we bestowed on US presidents.]


[edit on 6/26/2006 by donwhite]

So what Souljah,
This is great news; i hope in reality the toll is much higher at least by an order of magnitude. Every attack of sectarian violence leads to less Muslims in the world.
I find it extremely humerous that Shia and Sunni find it necessary to remove each other from the gene pool. If you add their depradations against each other to the number of terrorists killed in action plus normal death rates ....the future is bright indeed. In that, the Muslims will exterminate themselves. Plus, anything that makes you upset or angry Souljah brings me great joy.

In that, the Muslims will exterminate themselves.

What a nasty view on life, do you not agree war is wrong? Muslims will not "exterminate" themselves, there has been trouble there for many years.

Plus, anything that makes you upset or angry Souljah brings me great joy.

Why get personal?

Saddam should be free

Denied... No war is not wrong. War is a normal human way of dealing with major issues between states. However, I do agree that the "war" in Iraq is wrong. As an American, I do not accept Bush's reasons for attacking Saddam. Bush states that poor Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and associates with terrorists. So we must invade and unseat Saddam from power...what bunk. America should have left Saddam alone IMHO. Saddam is one of the few who really know how to rule properly and wage war properly. He is one of the last remaining power brokers
following in the proud footsteps of Stalin, Hitler and Mussolinni.

Originally posted by irontyrant
This is great news; i hope in reality the toll is much higher at least by an order of magnitude.

Why is that?

You Enjoy Images such as THIS?

Every attack of sectarian violence leads to less Muslims in the world.

Kind of a RACIST Statement - but then again, so are all your posts, filled with Intolerance and Hatred.

I find it extremely humerous that Shia and Sunni find it necessary to remove each other from the gene pool.

You find it FUNNY while Brothers kill each other?

No Comment...

If you add their depradations against each other to the number of terrorists killed in action plus normal death rates ....the future is bright indeed.

What is the Definiton of a Terrorist?

For you it is probably a Turban Wearing Camel Jockey.

This Is Terrorism.

In that, the Muslims will exterminate themselves.

Your Hatred toward Muslim Religion is really worrying.

Have you been to a Doctor?

Or yet better - I think you should join the US Army (if you did not already); I think they will be most happy to receive such a well educated person to lead them to victory.

Plus, anything that makes you upset or angry Souljah brings me great joy.

We shall see about who will get angry and upset...

Originally posted by Liberal1984


But my question to you is which way do you think Souljah's figures are wrong?

I did not say they were right nor did I say they were wrong. What I did say was he always uses the highest figures of the month. Also take note he also inflates them every time too make them look worse then they actually are.

My thought:

Ironic how more Iraqi's have been killed by Arabs than by Americans, but most people in the world blame all of the Iraqi deaths on the US.

Independence is hard, Freedon doesn't come easy or cheap. To suggest this is a trajedy caused by America is to wish for dictatorship back in Iraq. It is stunning to me how many actually are making that argument and think they are making an intellectually valid point.

Thank god early Americans were made by tougher stuff than people are today, or I'd be a British citizen still.