Iraq conflict has cost 1.2 million lives

Iraq conflict has cost 1.2 million lives

observer.guardian.co.uk

A startling new household survey of Iraqis released last week claims as many as 1.2 million people may have died because of the conflict in Iraq - apparently lending weight to a 2006 survey in the Lancet that reported similarly high levels.

More than one million deaths were already being suggested by anti-war campaigners, but such high counts have consistently been rejected by US and UK officials.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Protesters gather to march on Capitol
Bush to Announce Troop Cut in Iraq
Top U.S. general admits Iraq war mistakes
21 Days to Open the Gates of Hell

Shocking numbers to say the least, if these numbers are indeed accurate.

Many people seem to expect high casualty numbers in Iraq, however most of these "numbers" reflect the Iraqi population, is it their price for freedom and democracy, or the Bush administration's failing and failed policies?

Meanwhile in Iran...

observer.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Alert Al Gore and his environmentalist gangs. That's 1.2million less carbon footprint!

I posted the same article on war on terror thread earlier.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

This is the reliable source that the polls came from.

www.opinion.co.uk...

Sad very sad, but we also need to take into consideration that this may included exile Iraqis that nobody knows what happen to them or where they are residing now.



[edit on 15-9-2007 by marg6043]

There's also several milion people dislocated from Iraq residing in neighbouring countries. Causing all sorts of problems in their host countries.

This action in Iraq is said to have been to keep the Middle East unstable and it worked like a charm. Never has the middle east been this volatile and unstable.

reply to post by thematrix


We're not done yet, Iran is in the cross-hairs now, a few well placed nukes could achieve a greater death toll in Iran than the numbers from Iraq in far less time, much more cost effective war plan?

Didnt Iraq have a pre-war population of about 25 million people? If so, then 1.2milllion dead is about 4.8% of a pre-war population. If 4.8% of the US population died, it would come to be about 14.4million people. Now thats something to think about. Imagine how big your town/city/metropolitan area is. Then, imagine how many of your town/city/metro-areas it would take to fill a 14.4million death toll. F-ing insane. Only a sub-human could enjoy war and be totally immune to number like these. Just think about how Bush and Cheney and the rest of them can act all normal, laughing, smiling, waving, having a good time, even if these numbers arent correct there are people dying because of their greed and lies. True swine.

I hope my numbers are correct. I hope their numbers arent.


[edit on 15/9/07 by Pfeil]

reply to post by Pfeil


We need to take into consideration the amount of Iraqi people that are on exile due to the dangerous situation in their nation.

This could be into the millions in neighboring countries, but our government has made a good effort to keep the information from prime news and only the death of the so call insurgents are taken into consideration.

In my books any death can be an insurgent because the death can not talk to defend themselves.

Then of course after Iran, we'll have to deal with Syria as the Arab/Muslim nations continue their quest for nuclear weapons, once we've taken these Middle Eastern nations from the hands of "terror supporting regimes" we can then have such powerful control over the world's oil that ALL nations will have to bow to U.S. economic and military power.

Why stop there?

Then again, perhaps the world can hold its collective breath and be thankful the U.S. presidency has a term limits, the Clock is ticking Mr. President!

(Edited - misread a previous post)

The insurgency in Iraq probably saved us from a slugfest throughout the middle east. Iraq was probably the perfect place to fight anti-west "terrorist" and was absolutely not planned with that in mind. Im very curious why the White House hasnt tried to spin that angle of the war in Iraq for support. Centrally located amonst almost all of the countries that hate the US, it is a great place to have under control if any of the other countries nearby need to be delt with. As for Iran, any war with Iran will be fought in Iraq. Why leave a nation to go on the offensive in another when you can just stay put and continue operating near already established based. Iran is already, according to reports, involved in Iraq on a small basis. No need to go after them when theyll come to you. Dont expect any march to Tehran on CNN with Geraldo Rivera drawing maps for everyone on live feed.

[edit on 15/9/07 by Pfeil]

Originally posted by Pfeil

Also, according to you killing civilians is perfectly OK because they may be insurgents? Your boderlining on qualifying for running for a office with that view.

Care to explain this? I do not see anywhere in my post me supporting the death of Innocent. See when our government claims insurgency deaths, we have to take their word because the death can not talk to defend themselves.

Sorry, I just read what you were saying to fast and totally misread it. I apologize.

But we are talking about civilian death not insurgent. Im not sure where your going with that.

[edit on 15/9/07 by Pfeil]

Originally posted by Pfeil
But we are talking about civilian death not insurgent. Im not sure where your going with that.

Very simple, insurgent is somebody fighting the occupation in Iraq that happens to be US and whatever coalition is still around.

But when people get killed once death is hard to tell who is who, they can not tell their story and claim their Innocence.

So is easier to claim that they are all insurgents, as long as is insurgents dying is OK and looks good.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by marg6043]

Cost 1.2 million lives... for NOW. With the globalists plans to stay there at least 30 years, the figure could grow over 6-8 millions... Hitler would be proud.

Originally posted by Pfeil
Only a sub-human could enjoy war and be totally immune to number like these.

Have you ever played the game Command & Conquer: Red Alert? There was a cut-scene in the game where Stalin (in the game universe) said something like "when you kill a person, it is a tragedy. When you kill ten million, it is a statistic."

I suspect those who cheer for war only consider this a statistic. It's sad, but I'm sure I'm not far from right. Case in point, see the post above mentioning Al Gore.

Btw, if you consider the worldwide effects the war has had, the death toll as a direct result of it, is nothing to disregard either.

Over here for example, Belgium, I know for a fact that people die each year because of the high fuel prices. In some cases the prices have gone up 4x their pre-war levels.

People dying Either due to carbon monoxide poisoning, because they fired up old coal or wood stoves again, because they couldn't pay for the fuel for heating or because they payed for their heating and afterwards couldn't afford the right medical treatment or people that simply couldn't afford heating at all. And thats in one of the more prosperous countries on the globe.

This is only one of the many effects this has had on a global scale, thats costing lives. If the death toll in Iraq itself isn't high enough, start thinking wider and further then just Iraq and imagine what the global impact has been.

Worst is, as noted before, these politicians involved in starting and perpetuating this war care nothing for millions of dead, even if there is plenty of them in their own countries.

Btw, about statistics, 1.5 million people out of 6 billion dead as a statistic means you killed 1 out of every 4000 people on the globe.
Statistics can be molded and interpreted to suit any cause you want. Just because of what some megalomaniac like Stalin said, doesn't mean we should agree that its right for our politicians to see things like that.



[edit on 16/9/07 by thematrix]

Originally posted by thematrix
Statistics can be molded and interpreted to suit any cause you want. Just because of what some megalomaniac like Stalin said, doesn't mean we should agree that its right for our politicians to see things like that.

Actually Stalin didn't actually say that. I was quoting Stalin in the Alternate Universe of C&C: Red Alert. I personally don't agree with the statement but like mentioned before, I'm sure there are people who don't deserve to be called human who do.

While the numbers of lost lives in Iraq as a result of this war and conflicts are high, the numbers of displaced Iraqis are just as shocking. The impact of this war and conflicts, constant violence, death and destruction along with economic woes have left far too many Iraqis is a perilous and depressing situation, with few alternatives other than escaping with what they can carry and moving away from troubled areas, usually refugee camps where conditions may not be much better, can you imagine how these people who have lost everything feel about this war?

Please see this report for more:

U.N.: 4.2 Million Iraqis Now Displaced

That was from just over three months ago, so those numbers likely have risen. As we focus on security and stabilization of Iraq it seems the Iraqis lost and displaced are as another member pointed out above in this thread just statistics.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Originally posted by Beachcoma
Actually Stalin didn't actually say that. I was quoting Stalin in the Alternate Universe of C&C: Red Alert. I personally don't agree with the statement but like mentioned before, I'm sure there are people who don't deserve to be called human who do.

Actually, he did....

reply to post by stumason


Really? I thought that was just part of the video game. You learn something new everyday.