100,000 reasons

Ramius75

Deity
Joined
May 5, 2003
Messages
6,218
Location
Sing City
Study: 100,000 Excess Civilian Iraqi Deaths Since War

By Patricia Reaney

LONDON (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in violence since the U.S.-led invasion last year, American public health experts have calculated in a report that estimates there were 100,000 "excess deaths" in 18 months.

The rise in the death rate was mainly due to violence and much of it was caused by U.S. air strikes on towns and cities.

"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," said Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal.

"The use of air power in areas with lots of civilians appears to be killing a lot of women and children," Roberts told Reuters.


The report came just days before the U.S. presidential election in which the Iraq war has been a major issue.


Mortality was already high in Iraq before the war because of United Nations sanctions blocking food and medical imports but the researchers described what they found as shocking.


The new figures are based on surveys done by the researchers in Iraq in September 2004. They compared Iraqi deaths during 14.6 months before the invasion in March 2003 and the 17.8 months after it by conducting household surveys in randomly selected neighborhoods.


Previous estimates based on think tank and media sources put the Iraqi civilian death toll at up to 16,053 and military fatalities as high as 6,370.


By comparison about 849 U.S. military were killed in combat or attacks and another 258 died in accidents or incidents not related to fighting, according to the Pentagon.


VERY BAD FOR IRAQI CIVILIANS


The researchers blamed air strikes for many of the deaths.


"What we have evidence of is the use of air power in populated urban areas and the bad consequences of it," Roberts said.


Gilbert Burnham, who collaborated on the research, said U.S. military action in Iraq was "very bad for Iraqi civilians."


"We were not expecting the level of deaths from violence that we found in this study and we hope this will lead to some serious discussions of how military and political aims can be achieved in a way that is not so detrimental to civilians populations," he told Reuters in an interview.


The researchers did 33 cluster surveys of 30 households each, recording the date, circumstances and cause of deaths.


They found that the risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher than before the war.


Before the war the major causes of death were heart attacks, chronic disorders and accidents. That changed after the war.


Two-thirds of violent deaths in the study were reported in Falluja, the insurgent held city 50 km (32 miles) west of Baghdad which had been repeatedly hit by U.S. air strikes.


"Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes," Roberts added in the study.


Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, said the research which was submitted to the journal earlier this month had been peer-reviewed, edited and fast-tracked for publication because of its importance in the evolving security situation in Iraq.


"But these findings also raise questions for those far removed from Iraq -- in the governments of the countries responsible for launching a pre-emptive war," Horton said in an editorial.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/st...f/story/0002/20041028/1457167130.htm&sc=rontz

So what the price to remove a tyrant from power ? Can this be justified ? How true is this claim ? even if the number is half, can it be justified ? Will those mastermind behind all this pay ?

Lets discuss.
 
Not so much'Here
HERE
HERE

I'm not saying that these deaths are not horrible, but I would rather die being liberated than live in fear
 
It was published in the Lancet, so obviously they know their research and haven't plucked it out of the air.

They had a guy on the radio a moment ago. They carried out the work by interviewing people about people they know who had died, and extrapolating the results. Obviously, this isn't perfect either, but is better than guesswork, which is what happens in airstrikes on cities not held by US forces.

You can get comment on the text here http://www.thelancet.com/journal , if you register.

[edit] actually you can get the full text as a pdf
 
Sorry for the last edit, hit post instead of go advance....
 
I guess US officials would comment that like "those people have died for the freedom and democracy" or "collateral damage is regrettable, but necessary". :rolleyes:
 
Winner said:
I guess US officials would comment that like "those people have died for the freedom and democracy" or "collateral damage is regrettable, but necessary". :rolleyes:

Unfortunately I have to agree with you, I have the same feelings.
 
Burned this question to death. Repeatedly. In many threads.

Sites trying to count Iraqi dead in current violence are plagued with problems: duplicate counts, second-hand hearsay, people being buried without even being properly identified.

People disputing my numbers on Saddam's body count before we invaded ran along the same lines. However, I'm certain his number is seven figures.
 
Just been having a read. The paper only measure the difference in death rates pre and post invasion, not numbers killed by troops. There was a 58 fold increase in the incidence of violent death. 84% were due to coalition activity, but few due to ground troops. It does not include Falluja data, which was regarded as an outlier because the increase was very large. It mentions that there was a many-fold increase in murder. It does acknowledge there are limitations on validity due to methodological difficulties, but says it is better than passive surviellance.
 
To everyone the numbers he likes. Usually these figures are exaggerated. Under peaceful circumstances people tend to die as well.
 
BasketCase said:
Sites trying to count Iraqi dead in current violence are plagued with problems: duplicate counts, second-hand hearsay, people being buried without even being properly identified.

This isn't a website, but a piece of research in a leading mediacl journal that actually involved going over to Iraq and interviewing people. To control people making it up, they asked to see death certificates in some cases. Sure there are other problems but don't try to discredit the work unless you have at least read it.
 
This news makes me feel really quite ill. And very angry. Those stupid ****ing ****s who backed the war. How nice it is to be isolated from all that death and destruction. 3000 died in 9/11, 100,000 dead in Iraq: who are the terrorists now, mmm?

Moderator Action: Warned for language
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Scuffer said:
Just been having a read. The paper only measure the difference in death rates pre and post invasion, not numbers killed by troops. There was a 58 fold increase in the incidence of violent death. 84% were due to coalition activity, but few due to ground troops. It does not include Falluja data, which was regarded as an outlier because the increase was very large. It mentions that there was a many-fold increase in murder. It does acknowledge there are limitations on validity due to methodological difficulties, but says it is better than passive surviellance.

Quote from The Independent:

"The first scientific stufy of the human cost of the Iraq war suggests that at least 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives since their country was invaded in March 2003.

More than half of those who died were woman and children killed in air strikes"
 
Not sure why you have quoted me and put things in bold, but yeah, it says those things too. Well, it gives you the data.
 
zulu9812 said:
Quote from The Independent:

"The first scientific stufy of the human cost of the Iraq war suggests that at least 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives since their country was invaded in March 2003.

More than half of those who died were woman and children killed in air strikes"
I just want to be sure that I understand this correctly.

Does that mean that coalition air strikes have killed more than 50.000 Iraqi civilians since March 2003?
 
No, it means more than half of those killed by coalition forces were women and children. On the other hand, 42% of death in Iraq were as a result of coalition activity, 79% of those by airstrikes. That makes about 33,000 dead by airstrikes.

It must be remembered that this is a result of interviewing approx 6300 Iraqis and extrapolating. If some had brothers killed by militants or something then the figures would change accordingly. This is not a body count study, which are lousy for reason described by basketcase earlier.

[edit - made a mess of calcs]
 
I should point out that the 100,000 estimate is a conservative one - i.e. it could be a lot more.

I remember all too well Colin Powell and Tommy Franks saying that they don't 'do' body counts.
 
That’s a huge scandal.

If would be nice if other institutions could follow up on these reports.
 
Back
Top Bottom