Iraq conflict has killed a MILLION people: Study

Iraq conflict has killed a MILLION people: Study

www.reuters.com

LONDON (Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups.

The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes.

The last complete census in Iraq conducted in 1997 found 4.05 million households in the country, a figure ORB used to calculate that approximately 1.03 million people had died as a result of the war, the researchers found.

The margin of error in the survey, conducted in August and September 2007, was 1.7 percent, giving a range of deaths of 946,258 to 1.12 million.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 30-1-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

Sigh...

I don't even know what to say. This is so sad.

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 30-1-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


The problem with surveys like that is that they don't account for a lot of variables.

3 big problems these surveys can't reconcile are-
A- observed attacks creating mass casualties.
B- different areas of Iraq have had different levels of violence(or no violence since '03), so you can't extrapolate a figure for the entire country based upon what may be true in another.
C- was their family member an insurgent?

[edit on 30-1-2008 by BlueRaja]

This is horrific, half of them are children.

Already the Lancet, a leading medical authority, concluded over 600.000 violent deaths in 2003 and 2004, but, as was being pointed out, their method of counting was likely to be a clear underestimate of the total number. web.mit.edu...



[edit on 30-1-2008 by ergoli]

At least most of them weren't Americans.

reply to post by BlueRaja


Are you denying the holocaust that has been created due to Western invasion?

I am not saying Saddam was a saint by any means, but Iraq had some sort of order during his rule.

Now the rule of the gun is in place of a tyrant. Which is better?

The innocent are still suffering regardless my friend.

A MILLION? That's more than the Rwandan genocide and this time its perpetrated DIRECTLY by Western troops.

How can you possibly support this war? No progress has been made in the five years we've been there.

Do we want the legacy of the American 'Empire' to be that of death and destruction?

Or do you honestly not give a # about anyone but yourself?

Originally posted by BlueRaja



3 big problems these surveys can't reconcile are-
A- observed attacks creating mass casualties.
B- different areas of Iraq have had different levels of violence(or no violence since '03), so you can't extrapolate a figure for the entire country based upon what may be true in another.
C- was their family member an insurgent?

A doesn't make any difference, they are dead as a result of our un-mittigated pre-emptive attack, subsequent invasion and occupation of that country.

B be is irelevent unless you can give an answer that applies to Iraq. You saying what may be true in anorther works if there WAS another. They are only talking about Iraq.

C if he was an Iraqi insurgent and is dead he doesn't count? There is a reason you ask that question but how it makes a difference in the aggregate deaths can not be invalidated .

[edit on 30-1-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by biggie smalls
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

Are you denying the holocaust that has been created due to Western invasion?


How can you possibly support this war? No progress has been made in the five years we've been there.

Do we want the legacy of the American 'Empire' to be that of death and destruction?

Or do you honestly not give a # about anyone but yourself?

I am saying I don't believe those numbers are accurate. I think they are a gross exaggeration. Am I saying a lot of folks haven't suffered? No.
Whatever the real number of Iraqi casualties, 90% or more are as a result of insurgent/terror attacks, so trying to put the sole blame on the US is bogus too.

As for progress- the Iraqis had free elections, and have a non-tyrannical government. Violence is down 60-90%, 15 or more of the 18 provinces are stable, etc... for starters.

As for your last question, I'm not sure how anything I said could have led you to that conclusion.

Originally posted by Conspiriology

A doesn't make any difference, they are dead as a result of our un-mittigated pre-emptive attack, subsequent invasion and occupation of that country.

B be is irelevent unless you can give an answer that applies to Iraq. You saying what may be true in anorther works if there WAS another. They are only talking about Iraq.

C if he was an Iraqi insurgent and is dead he doesn't count? There is a reason you ask that question but how it makes a difference in the aggregate deaths can not be invalidated .

[edit on 30-1-2008 by Conspiriology]

A-It does make a difference if the number is significantly different, which I believe it to be. Numbers like these would require many events where very large casualty rates occurred(much larger than have been observed). They'd have to occur in areas of large population densities, as your not gonna have 1 million killed, one at a time.

B- I'm talking about Iraq. Iraq has 18 provinces, numerous ethnic groups, rural, urban, nomadic peoples, etc.. even in the most violent period, 14 of the 18 provinces were stable. My point is you can't go into an area that has a lot of attacks, take a survey, and then extrapolate figures, when the other 14 provinces don't have violence(or any statistically significant amounts of violence). It will throw off your survey accuracy. It would be like taking a survey in the early 80s among male homosexuals and intravenous drug users, about the frequency of HIV/AIDS, and then extrapolating the figures into the entire population. That would've resulted in a statistic saying that 250 million Americans had HIV/AIDS.

C- it does make a difference if their loved one was an insurgent, as that would increase the likelihood of them having a violent death vs. John Q Public walking down the street minding their business. It's known as a high risk behavior. The only way this statistic would be useful, is each of the 4+ million households had at least one insurgent in their family.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by BlueRaja]

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

 

C- was their family member an insurgent?

[edit on 30-1-2008 by BlueRaja]

You know, one problem I have with questions like this is-What exactly constitutes one being an "insurgent"?

People fighting against our troops because they don't like our presence in their region? People retaliating after their family members are killed by "friendly fire" or an errant bomb drop?

I mean you military people no disrespect, but if the shoe was on the other foot, and the roles reversed, and this was happening to me on my home continent, then I would surely be labled as an "insurgent" for my reaction to how I felt about these people and what was happening to my countrymen. I would not sit back idly if this was happening to me on my soil, and I don't think most other human beings would either.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


My point was that if their loved one was an insurgent, they'd have a much higher likelihood of a violent death, than the average Iraqi. What about all the Iraqis that didn't view us the way you're trying to portray the insurgents. What about the ones that were killed by their fellow man, or that are helping the US rid their country of these folks because they're tired of the violence?

reply to post by BlueRaja



You mean like these ones?

www.ipsnews.net...

Listen man, my problem isn't with the soldiers, they're only following orders. My problem is with our foreign policy. If we're being completely honest and truthful, this conflict is going nowhere, and the longer we occupy their homeland, the more their hatred for us is growing. The more skirmishes, the more these death numbers rise, and the more it fuels long term hatred.

I think we're long overdue to bring our boys home and worry about protecting ourself and advancing our own nation, not getting and staying involved in all of these foreign wars and occupations.


[edit on 30-1-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

Originally posted by BlueRaja



A-It does make a difference if the number is significantly different, which I believe it to be. Numbers like these would require many events where very large casualty rates occurred(much larger than have been observed). They'd have to occur in areas of large population densities, as your not gonna have 1 million killed, one at a time.

First of all that's a BIG "if" and secondly what you "believe it to be" is one thing the 300,000 dead bodies found after Bush Sr spent 30 days of non stop bombing in Desert Storm would qualify as large casualty rates after the "million man" army was crushed by all that ordnance.

B is sooo full of ,,,well let me put it this way Province or no province whether 100 die in one and 2000 in another THEY ALL ADD UP TO 2100 DEATHS IN THAT COUNTRY It's real academic guy.

C- You can "create" qualifiers that invalidate those deaths as not legitimate but the families surviving those dead DON"T GIVE A DAMN what "risk assessment" you talk about.

ALL THEY KNOW IS THAT ONE DAY THEY WERE ALIVE AND THE NEXT THE UNITED STATES CAME IN AND BLEW UP THERE HOUSE!

Lose the tunnel vision Raja and face the facts

WE WERE WRONG FOR ATTACKING THEM AND NOTHING WE DO IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT OR MAKE ANY OF THE MILLION WE GENOCIDE (THATS RIGHT I SAID GENOCIDE) is going to bring them back to life.

If you want to talk about soldiers dying in Vain THAT WHOLE DAMN WAR IS IN VAIN!

Got it yet??"??"?


- Con

Originally posted by BlueRaja
What about the ones that were killed by their fellow man, or that are helping the US rid their country of these folks because they're tired of the violence?

Your point is futile IMO. The insurgents wouldn't be fighting in the first place if it wasn't for us, so saying "if they were an insergent, of course they are more likely to have a violent death" is BS. How about: If we weren't there to begin with, then there would be no insurgents.

Plus, the Iraqi on Iraqi violence wouldn't be happening either if it wasn't for our presence.

[edit on 1/30/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The problem with surveys like that is that they don't account for a lot of variables.

Yeah like the Body Count in 3 of the most violent areas.

The research covered 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Those that not covered included two of Iraq's more volatile regions -- Kerbala and Anbar -- and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work.

Or the entirety of the combat in Afghanistan... There are rumors of a new Spring Offensive by the Taliban and the US has upped the numbers there for an expected ongoing conflict.
My god over a million people, just to hang one man?

Just one example that comes to mind is the interpretors we used. Their families couldn't even know that they were helping us, because the insurgents would kill them as well as the interpretor if they found out.

Other examples would be neighborhood watches where locals let insurgents know in no uncertain terms that they'd be killed on sight, and in many cases were. Insurgents would use their neighborhoods to fire mortars and rockets against US forces, which would result in counterbattery fire(which as you can imagine isn't pleasant if it's your neighborhood). The residents got tired of it, and started killing insurgents whenever they saw them trying to stage attacks.

Another example is the tips lines which have been very effective. Locals would report locations of arms caches, who the insurgents were, their bases of operations/safe houses, etc...

Yet another example is the droves of Iraqis who joined the Army and Police forces, even when many of them were being murdered by insurgents, because they wanted a better Iraq for their families.

Al Anbar province today is a prime example. Prior to the surge, it was by far the absolute worst area of Iraq, and had all but been written off by the US and the Iraqis. Now it's one of the safest areas in Iraq.

Originally posted by twitchy
My god over a million people, just to hang one man?

Don't let them fool you into thinking that is the reason we are there.

reply to post by Griff


No-it'd just be Saddam doing it if we weren't there. Once the insurgency is defeated, then Iraqis will have an opportunity they've never had before, to live in peace, without fear of being brutalized by a tryannical government.

reply to post by twitchy


So you've basically just disregarded every point I made with regards to the likelihood of 1 million being accurate.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Just one example that comes to mind is the interpretors we used. Their families couldn't even know that they were helping us, because the insurgents would kill them as well as the interpretor if they found out.

Hmmm...you said it right there. "Helping us". If we weren't there to begin with, this violence wouldn't exist.

Other examples would be neighborhood watches where locals let insurgents know in no uncertain terms that they'd be killed on sight, and in many cases were. Insurgents would use their neighborhoods to fire mortars and rockets against US forces, which would result in counterbattery fire(which as you can imagine isn't pleasant if it's your neighborhood). The residents got tired of it, and started killing insurgents whenever they saw them trying to stage attacks.

Again. Simple solution. No US occupation....no insurgency. Boy, that's a tough one to figure out.

Another example is the tips lines which have been very effective. Locals would report locations of arms caches, who the insurgents were, their bases of operations/safe houses, etc...

And this changes the fact that all this wouldn't be happening if we weren't there?