Iraq conflict has killed 1,000,000 Iraqis: Survey

[jAZ]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080130/wl_nm/iraq_deaths_survey_dc

Iraq conflict has killed a million Iraqis: survey 2 hours, 48 minutes ago

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

ORB originally found that 1.2 million people had died, but decided to go back and conduct more research in rural areas to make the survey as comprehensive as possible and then came up with the revised figure.

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.

Estimates of deaths in Iraq have been highly controversial in the past.

Medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed report in 2004 stating that there had been 100,000 more deaths than would normally be expected since the March 2003 invasion, kicking off a storm of protest.

The widely watched Web site Iraq Body Count currently estimates that between 80,699 and 88,126 people have died in the conflict, although its methodology and figures have also been questioned by U.S. authorities and others.

ORB, a non-government-funded group founded in 1994, conducts research for the private, public and voluntary sectors.

The director of the group, Allan Hyde, said it had no objective other than to record as accurately as possible the number of deaths among the Iraqi population as a result of the invasion and ensuing conflict.

(Reporting by Luke Baker; editing by Andrew Roche)

[Cochise]

This canard has been posted many times, I believe.

[jAZ]

This canard has been posted many times, I believe.
This is a new study out today.

The previous study was back in 2004 and suggested only 100,000.

[Chief Henry]

and....

[Brock]

I'd bet every dime I have that isn't true.

[patteeu]

This canard has been posted many times, I believe.

This is a new canard. The last canard (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-10-10-iraq-dead_x.htm) I remember was from a little over a year ago (just in time for the big election push) and estimated the number of Iraqi dead at 600,000. I guess this means we've mowed down 400,000 with the surge, or alternatively, the new democrat Congress has the blood of 400,000 iraqis on their fail-to-withdraw-like-they-promised hands.

[Donger]

I doubt that figure. Iraq only has a population of ~27 million.

[HonestChieffan]

lol
bull

[jAZ]

I'd bet every dime I have that isn't true.
That "that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict"?

That's not hard to believe.

[jAZ]

I doubt that figure. Iraq only has a population of ~27 million.
"The last complete census in Iraq conducted in 1997 found 4.05 million households in the country"

[Donger]

That "that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict"?

That's not hard to believe.

27,000,000 * .2 = 5,400,000?

[jAZ]

The weakness of the (any) study is the definition of the concept of "as a result of the conflict".

[Brock]

That "that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict"?

That's not hard to believe.

That one million Iraqis are dead as a result of the Iraq war. I don't believe that's true. I don't believe it is anywhere near that number.

[jAZ]

27,000,000 * .2 = 5,400,000?
"...one death in their household..."

[jAZ]

That one million Iraqis are dead as a result of the Iraq war. I don't believe that's true. I don't believe it is anywhere near that number.
What would you believe? What's the largest number that makes sense in your eyes?

[Chief Henry]

What is this thread suppose to mean exactly ?

Oh ya, Bush is da debil .

[Donger]

"...one death in their household..."

Ah, I see where you're going. Sorry.

However, do you really think that almost 4% of the population has died as a result of the war?

[Cochise]

"48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance."

[Brock]

What would you believe? What's the largest number that makes sense in your eyes?

The body count website is probably much, much closer to being accurate.

[memyselfI]

It doesn't matter as long as we are 'winning'...

[jAZ]

Ah, I see where you're going. Sorry.

However, do you really think that almost 4% of the population has died as a result of the war?
Hardly a first. That's a relatively modest number if you think about it given that we are keeping watch over a civil war. 10% of our entire population died during our own civil war.

[HonestChieffan]

Quite honestly....

I dont care.

[Cochise]

Hardly a first. That's a relatively modest number if you think about it given that we are keeping watch over a civil war. 10% of our entire population died during our own civil war.

Might there be some differences in the way wars are fought now, 150 years later, that could explain this? :spock:

[Brock]

Hardly a first. That's a relatively modest number if you think about it given that we are keeping watch over a civil war. 10% of our entire population died during our own civil war.

Wow, what a hilarious rationale. You're aware war tactics have changed slightly since then I hope.

[Donger]

Hardly a first. That's a relatively modest number if you think about it given that we are keeping watch over a civil war. 10% of our entire population died during our own civil war.

That's not even close to being accurate, jAZ.

[jAZ]

The body count website is probably much, much closer to being accurate.
Arguably, that number is a minimum figure... given that it's only "documented" deaths meaning those handled by formal means.

4% of the population isn't an unreasonable guesstimate.

[pikesome]

That "that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict"?

That's not hard to believe.

Looking at their data charts (Link (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/New%20Casualty%20Tabs.pdf) ) they count people reported as killed in accidents and kidnapping as well as two categories "other" and "don't know/refused". In some cases it looks like those could be 20-30% of the responses.

[Cochise]

I wish we could have fought this war in a civilized way, like WW2.

[patteeu]

Wouldn't it be swell if America was the central front in our GWoT instead of Iraq?

[jAZ]

That's not even close to being accurate, jAZ.

Ouch...
I'm wrong.

I read this...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html

... wrong. Thought the "total service members" line was total service member deaths.

More like 1-1.5%. But that's just service members.

[Brock]

Arguably, that number is a minimum figure... given that it's only "documented" deaths meaning those handled by formal means.

4% of the population isn't an unreasonable guesstimate.

Sorry, it's quite unreasonable.

[Donger]

Ouch...
I'm wrong.

I read this...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html

... wrong. Thought the "total service members" line was total service member deaths.

More like 1-1.5%. But that's just service members.

No one is perfect. But for comparison, ~4% of the Japanese population died during WWII.

[Cochise]

No one is perfect. But for comparison, ~4% of the Japanese population died during WWII.

Do those figures include combat casualties and civilian deaths both?

[Donger]

Do those figures include combat casualties and civilian deaths both?

Yes.

[jAZ]

Looking at their data charts (Link (http://www.opinion.co.uk/Documents/New%20Casualty%20Tabs.pdf) ) they count people reported as killed in accidents and kidnapping as well as two categories "other" and "don't know/refused". In some cases it looks like those could be 20-30% of the responses.
Good link...

Here's the Wikipedia page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Here's the question:

"How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (ie as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof."

72% - None
14% - One death
4% - More than One death
10% - Don't Know/No Answer

Here's Q2:

"And how were they killed? Was it a result of...?"

40% Gunshot
21% Car Bomb
8% Other blast
8% Arial Attack
6% Accident
4% Sectarian Violence
1% Kidnapping/Killing
2% Other
9% Don't Know/Refused

[jAZ]

No one is perfect. But for comparison, ~4% of the Japanese population died during WWII.
So 4% isn't at all unreasonable.

[jAZ]

Sorry, it's quite unreasonable.
Per Donger's stat... tell that to the Japanese.

[jAZ]

Wouldn't it be swell if America was the central front in our GWoT instead of Iraq?
Yes, because Iraq is all about terrorism.

:rolleyes:

[Donger]

So 4% isn't at all unreasonable.

Are you serious?

[pikesome]

So 4% isn't at all unreasonable.

We fire bombed and nuked them twice. It seems a bit unreasonable to figure they'd be similar in percent.

[jAZ]

Are you serious?
I'm quite serious, but maybe I'm missing your point.

[jAZ]

We fire bombed and nuked them twice. It seems a bit unreasonable to figure they'd be similar in percent.
They weren't fightiing each other in a civil war either.

[jAZ]

They weren't fightiing each other in a civil war either.
The affect of a civil war is that each "victory" (kill) is also another dead Iraqi... no matter matter which side it comes on.

[Donger]

I'm quite serious, but maybe I'm missing your point.

jAZ, we dropped two nuclear weapons on the Japanese, not to mention the firebombings. Here's a list of cities, percentage destroyed and comparable US cities (not sure how this will format):


Yokohama 58 Cleveland
Tokyo 51 New York
Toyama 99 Chattanooga
Nagoya 40 Los Angeles
Osaka 35.1 Chicago
Nishinomiya 11.9 Cambridge
Siumonoseki 37.6 San Diego
Kure 41.9 Toledo
Kobe 55.7 Baltimore
Omuta 35.8 Miami
Wakayama 50 Salt Lake City
Kawasaki 36.2 Portland
Okayama 68.9 Long Beach
Yawata 21.2 San Antonio
Kagoshima 63.4 Richmond
Amagasaki 18.9 Jacksonville
Sasebo 41.4 Nashville
Moh 23.3 Spokane
Miyakonoio 26.5 Greensboro
Nobeoka 25.2 Augusta
Miyazaki 26.1 Davenport
Hbe 20.7 Utica
Saga 44.2 Waterloo
Imabari 63.9 Stockton
Matsuyama 64 Duluth
Fukui 86 Evansville
Tokushima 85.2 Ft. Wayne
Sakai 48.2 Forth Worth
Hachioji 65 Galveston
Kumamoto 31.2 Grand Rapids
Isezaki 56.7 Sioux Falls
Takamatsu 67.5 Knoxville
Akashi 50.2 Lexington
Fukuyama 80.9 Macon
Aomori 30 Montgomery
Okazaki 32.2 Lincoln
Oita 28.2 Saint Joseph
Hiratsuka 48.4 Battle Creek
Tokuyama 48.3 Butte
Yokkichi 33.6 Charlotte
Uhyamada 41.3 Columbus
Ogaki 39.5 Corpus Christi
Gifu 63.6 Des Moines
Shizuoka 66.1 Oklahoma City
Himeji 49.4 Peoria
Fukuoka 24.1 Rochester
Kochi 55.2 Sacramento
Shimizu 42 San Jose
Omura 33.1 Sante Fe
Chiba 41 Savannah
Ichinomiya 56.3 Sprinfield
Nara 69.3 Boston
Tsu 69.3 Topeka
Kuwana 75 Tucson
Toyohashi 61.9 Tulsa
Numazu 42.3 Waco
Chosi 44.2 Wheeling
Kofu 78.6 South Bend
Utsunomiya 43.7 Sioux City
Mito 68.9 Pontiac
Sendai 21.9 Omaha
Tsuruga 65.1 Middleton
Nagaoka 64.9 Madison
Hitachi 72 Little Rock
Kumagaya 55.1 Kenosha
Hamamatsu 60.3 Hartford
Maebashi 64.2 Wheeling

[jAZ]

jAZ, we dropped two nuclear weapons on the Japanese, not to mention the firebombings. Here's a list of cities, percentage destroyed and comparable US cities (not sure how this will format):
What you are saying is that the US killed 4% of the Japanese population during WWII.

This survey is saying that the combined totals of both US invasion, on going action, terrorist bombings and resulting violence and civil war all combine to account for ~4% of total Iraqi's dead.

I'd venture to guess most of those figures are NOT from American soldiers.

[pikesome]

They weren't fightiing each other in a civil war either.

True but with the population density of Japan and the fact we purposely hit pop centers I'm a bit suspicious of the Iraqi death figures. I don't know they're wrong but it doesn't seem quite right. Those numbers would have required 708 people to be killed by the war each an every single day for 1400-some days. Definitely possible but...

The same company also has a survey showing a dislike of the current situation on their page too. And all of the data for the casualties was via interview. I couldn't find any mention of independent verification (or even if that is possible).

[Donger]

What you are saying is that the US killed 4% of the Japanese population during WWII.

This survey is saying that the combined totals of both US invasion, on going action, terrorist bombings and resulting violence and civil war all combine to account for ~4% of total Iraqi's dead.

I'd venture to guess most of those figures are NOT from American soldiers.

I realize that you want the number to be true, but historical factual comparisons don't support it. Sorry.

[jAZ]

Yokohama 58 Cleveland
Tokyo 51 New York
Toyama 99 Chattanooga
Nagoya 40 Los Angeles
Osaka 35.1 Chicago
Nishinomiya 11.9 Cambridge
Siumonoseki 37.6 San Diego
Kure 41.9 Toledo
Kobe 55.7 Baltimore
Omuta 35.8 Miami
[...]
That list seems to be at best, wildly misleading...

According to Wikipedia... 20% of those deaths in Japan were civillians (~500K). The other 80% were soliders (~2,000K).

500K out of 71M doesn't reconcile with 58% of Cleveland, 51% of New York, 99% of Chattanooga, 40% of Los Angeles, 35.1% of Chicago, 55.7% of Baltimore, 35.8% of Miami, etc.

[Donger]

That list seems to be at best, wildly misleading...

According to Wikipedia... 20% of those deaths in Japan were civillians (~500K). The other 80% were soliders (~2,000K).

500K out of 71M doesn't reconcile with 58% of Cleveland, 51% of New York, 99% of Chattanooga, 40% of Los Angeles, 35.1% of Chicago, 55.7% of Baltimore, 35.8% of Miami, etc.

The equivalent American city is based on geographic size, not population.

[jAZ]

The equivalent American city is based on geographic size, not population.
Well that's imporant infomation to consider.

Other imporant information?

1) As I said before... "The weakness of the (any) study is the definition of the concept of "as a result of the conflict"."

2) That 4% was air attacks alone.

3) There was no civil war in Japan.

2 & 3 - to one degree or another - off set the dramatic nature of our bombing of Japan.

According to this...

http://www.usa-patriotism.com/articles/wt/operation_downfall-01.htm

Estimates at the time were that invasion would have had 5M+ dead.

That's an additional 7% beyond the air campaign.

[Donger]

Well that's imporant infomation to consider.

Other imporant information?

1) As I said before... "The weakness of the (any) study is the definition of the concept of "as a result of the conflict"."

2) That 4% was air attacks alone.

3) There was no civil war in Japan.

2 & 3 - to one degree or another - off set the dramatic nature of our bombing of Japan.

According to this...

http://www.usa-patriotism.com/articles/wt/operation_downfall-01.htm

Estimates at the time were that invasion would have had 5M+ dead.

That's an additional 7% beyond the air campaign.

I think one major point you are missing is scale. During WWII in Japan, we were basically sending thousands and thousands of bombers over their cities, basically leveling them. Even with that (and two nukes), we still only killed 4% of the population.

If you think that death is comparably rampant in Iraq, I'd say you are wrong.

But by all means keep arguing.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

FWIW, to those who believe it unpossible, 25% of the population of Poland was killed in WWII.

[Donger]

FWIW, to those who believe it unpossible, 25% of the population of Poland was killed in WWII.

More like 19%, but yes, still a staggering number isn't it.

[Donger]

And, I don't think that anyone is disputing that death on that scale (~4%) is possible, just that it isn't happening in Iraq.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

More like 19%, but yes, still a staggering number isn't it.

I actually conflated the 25 million Soviets with the Polish percentage.

[Donger]

I actually conflated the 25 million Soviets with the Polish percentage.

You pinkos are NOT having a good day with numbers, I'll say that.

;)

['Hamas' Jenkins]

You pinkos are NOT having a good day with numbers, I'll say that.

;)

Goddammit, you sonofabitch, I told you, the correct terminology is

"Purveyor of false populism".

[jAZ]

I think one major point you are missing is scale. During WWII in Japan, we were basically sending thousands and thousands of bombers over their cities, basically leveling them. Even with that (and two nukes), we still only killed 4% of the population.

If you think that death is comparably rampant in Iraq, I'd say you are wrong.

But by all means keep arguing.
Man you are dense.

First (again), I've said repeatedly now, that the survey's weakness is that it relies upon the interpreation of those surveyed to define what deaths in their household are related back to the invasion.

I don't know if you keep ignoring this acknolegement or if you just wish it to not exist.

But in any case, your analogy has it's own limitations, and I'm point them out.

Again, no civil war in Japan. Up to 20% may have been killed in Japan had invasion occured (as in Iraq). 1.5% of the entire Amiercan population were SOLDIERS who died during or civil war.

Oh, and your math was wrong. It's under 3%.

18-20% X 4,000,000 (households) / 27,000,000 people = 2.6 - 2.9%.

[Donger]

Goddammit, you sonofabitch, I told you, the correct terminology is

"Purveyor of false populism".

Da comrade! I serve ChiefsPlanet!

[Donger]

Man you are dense.

First (again), I've said repeatedly now, that the survey's weakness is that it relies upon the interpreation of those surveyed to define what deaths in their household are related back to the invasion.

I don't know if you keep ignoring this acknolegement or if you just wish it to not exist.

But in any case, your analogy has it's own limitations, and I'm point them out.

Again, no civil war in Japan. Up to 20% may have been killed in Japan had invasion occured (as in Iraq). 1.5% of the entire Amiercan population were SOLDIERS who died during or civil war.

Oh, and your math was wrong. It's under 3%.

18-20% X 4,000,000 (households) / 27,000,000 people = 2.6 - 2.9%.

That's fine, jAZ. I wouldn't expect you to admit you were wrong twice in one thread.

1,000,000/27,000,000 = 3.7%

[jAZ]

And, I don't think that anyone is disputing that death on that scale (~4%) is possible, just that it isn't happening in Iraq.
I'm saying that no one on this thread has anything but gut feel to dispute this study. I've personally offered the only specific criticism of the weakness of the study. Eveyrone else is basically saying "nuh-uh!".

So that sort of vauge response ("nuh-uh!") begets the vague "these numbers aren't even unreasonable" response supported by plenty of evidence showing that's it's not unreasonable.

And again, I'm the only person on this thread who's offered any specific criticism as to how/why the number might be flawed.

[Donger]

I'm saying that no one on this thread has anything but gut feel to dispute this study. I've personally offered the only specific criticism of the weakness of the study. Eveyrone else is basically saying "nuh-uh!".

So that sort of vauge response ("nuh-uh!") begets the vague "these numbers aren't even unreasonable" response supported by plenty of evidence showing that's it's not unreasonable.

And again, I'm the only person on this thread who's offered any specific criticism as to how/why the number might be flawed.

You've been given comparative figures from history, based on a massive world war. Basically unrestrained warfare.

Iraq is neither.

[Donger]

Heh. China had almost the same deaths (~4%) both civilian and military during WWII as this survey suggest has occurred in Iraq.

[jAZ]

That's fine, jAZ. I wouldn't expect you to admit you were wrong twice in one thread.

1,000,000/27,000,000 = 3.7%
Doh... mine is # of households with a death per 27,000,000. Which is basically meaningless.

3.7% is correct.

[jAZ]

You've been given comparative figures from history, based on a massive world war. Basically unrestrained warfare.

Iraq is neither.
Your assumption is that all these deaths are all at the hands of the restrained American troops. Or that all those killing in Iraq are following our lead on restraint.

The death in Iraq is quite unrestrined.

[Donger]

Your assumption is that all these deaths are all at the hands of the restrained American troops. Or that all those killing in Iraq are following our lead on restraint.

The death in Iraq is quite unrestrined.

No, I'm assuming that the level of death in Iraq is nowhere near what is was in Japan when we were dropping nuclear weapons and incendiary bombs all over the country's population centers with thousands of B-29s.

As you've been shown, even during out own civil war, the percentage wasn't even 4% Not even half that, to be precise.

[Cochise]

51651

[Brock]

FWIW, to those who believe it unpossible, 25% of the population of Poland was killed in WWII.

Yes, WWII was a global bloodbath, where a large number of people also starved to death and died from disease, along with wholesale murder. Iraq does not compare in any form or fashion.

[HonestChieffan]

Seems that the data supports that the best thing in a war is to have the other side have more die than your side.

[patteeu]

Seems that the data supports that the best thing in a war is to have the other side have more die than your side.

And it also supports the idea of fighting "over there" rather than "over here".

[HonestChieffan]

And it also supports the idea of fighting "over there" rather than "over here".

That as well.

[jAZ]

And it also supports the idea of fighting "over there" rather than "over here".
That as well.
As if the Iraqis were going to be fighting their civil war on the streets of Chicago.

What a disconnect from reality it takes... seriously.

[Iowanian]

Pure Bullshit.

We're talking 20 carat Gold nugget encrusted bullshit.

[Cochise]

Pure Bullshit.

We're talking 20 carat Gold nugget encrusted bullshit.

d00d 10% of america died during the civil war :Scanlon:

[patteeu]

As if the Iraqis were going to be fighting their civil war on the streets of Chicago.

What a disconnect from reality it takes... seriously.

If you remove US casualties, deaths caused by the US, al Qaeda and affiliated islamist casualties, and deaths caused by al Qaeda and affiliates from the total figure, how many do you think you have left? Seriously.

[Iowanian]

If something bad happend in my town, and lets say 100 people were killed, it would be EASY to assume that more than 20% of homes could claim they had an immeidate family member killed in the event.

The problem with using those numbers to calculate death tolls, is it doesn't account that in large, distributed families, a single death of a patriarch could affect and be claimed by numerous households.

That is merely 1 of issues i have with the numbers, not even including the average Iraqi's attendance in the "bagdad bob's truth telling seminar".

[jAZ]

If you remove US casualties, deaths caused by the US, al Qaeda and affiliated islamist casualties, and deaths caused by al Qaeda and affiliates from the total figure, how many do you think you have left? Seriously.
Why would you remove "deaths caused by the US"? As if we've only ever killed AQI, even during the invasion.

:rolleyes:

However, I bet 95%+ of the deaths in Iraq are NOT AQI or islamists.

[HonestChieffan]

I figure it this way...not paying a lot of attention to statistical analysis...

Wars are hard to have without folks dying. It seems to go hand in hand. Sherman learned in our Civil War that the fastest end to the war was to break the will of the enemy not focus on killing the enemy in battle but move through and around them and break the will of the leadership. Worked very well. ( I can give you the name of an excellent biorgraphy on Sherman). The end result that he and others focus on is to end the war, not just keep on killing...kill as many as you need to and tear their heart out. And not get too many of your guys killed in the process. If we kill enough of the right people, and if the enemy kills enough of the wrong people, then the locals will finally demand through their action that this comes to an end. If the number is 50 or 1 million its irrelevant. Clearly, not enough have perished yet but it seems that the good guys over there have finally started to say enough is enough.

The sooner its over, the better. But we have to make sure its over.

[patteeu]

Why would you remove "deaths caused by the US"? As if we've only ever killed AQI, even during the invasion.

:rolleyes:

However, I bet 95%+ of the deaths in Iraq are NOT AQI or islamists.

That's not an answer to the question I asked. I'll ask it a different way. What percentage do you think were US personnel (including contractors), AQI/islamists, or people killed by either US personnel (including contractors) or AQI/islamists?

Let's say the answer is 30% just to be generous to your civil war theory. That means 300,000 (according to this study's death count) are directly related to our GWoT. Why would we want to fight that kind of war on our soil?

[Cochise]

Why would you remove "deaths caused by the US"? As if we've only ever killed AQI, even during the invasion.

:rolleyes:

However, I bet 95%+ of the deaths in Iraq are NOT AQI or islamists.

Given that most of the deaths according to the survey are gunshots or gar bombs, does this mean that our forces are setting up car bombs and randomly shooting people at a clip of 200,000 a year?

Since our initial strength there was about 250,000 in total, I guess we'd need to be doing that for everyone to have killed on average 4 Iraqis. Probably twice that many or more, if you factor out people in non-combat roles or who (just by happenstance) don't happen to have killed anyone.

Our guys out there on patrol must need a lot of ammo, too, since I think it said only 9% of the supposed deaths were from air ordinance.

[jAZ]

That's not an answer to the question I asked. I'll ask it a different way. What percentage do you think were US personnel (including contractors), AQI/islamists, or people killed by either US personnel (including contractors) or AQI/islamists?

Let's say the answer is 30% just to be generous to your civil war theory. That means 300,000 (according to this study's death count) are directly related to our GWoT. Why would we want to fight that kind of war on our soil?
Several things are massively wrong with your thinking.

1) This war is creating AQI where it never existed. It's creating "militant islamists" where they would never have been. Avoid the war and 95% of those AQI types in Iraq would never have joined an AQI movement. In other words, the vast majority of those that you can rightly count wouldn't have ever existed were we to not have invaded.

2) Given that we did invade, and that foreign fighters are now part of the AQI movement... that number is no where near 30%. More like less than 5% as I suggested before.

3) Putting aside the point in #1 above from the calculations for a second (that this war created terrorist-type enemies where none existed before)... "people killed by either US personnel (including contractors)" is a far broader catagory than just people who might try a terrorist attack on the US.

Your logic here is ridiculous on every level.

[jAZ]

Given that most of the deaths according to the survey are gunshots or gar bombs, does this mean that our forces are setting up car bombs and randomly shooting people at a clip of 200,000 a year?

Since our initial strength there was about 250,000 in total, I guess we'd need to be doing that for everyone to have killed on average 4 Iraqis. Probably twice that many or more, if you factor out people in non-combat roles or who (just by happenstance) don't happen to have killed anyone.

Our guys out there on patrol must need a lot of ammo, too, since I think it said only 9% of the supposed deaths were from air ordinance.
No one is saying that 1,000,000 deaths are at the hand of American soldiers. It's a civil war with wide spread ethnic cleansing underway (through killing and migration). They are killing each other, but that's a result of our invasion.

[patteeu]

Several things are massively wrong with your thinking.

1) This war is creating AQI where it never existed. It's creating "militant islamists" where they would never have been. Avoid the war and 95% of those AQI types in Iraq would never have joined an AQI movement. In other words, the vast majority of those that you can rightly count wouldn't have ever existed were we to not have invaded.

2) Given that we did invade, and that foreign fighters are now part of the AQI movement... that number is no where near 30%. More like less than 5% as I suggested before.

3) Putting aside the point in #1 above from the calculations for a second (that this war created terrorist-type enemies where none existed before)... "people killed by either US personnel (including contractors)" is a far broader catagory than just people who might try a terrorist attack on the US.

Your logic here is ridiculous on every level.

I think this whole thread is ridiculous. The study lacks credibility IMO, as does your 5% guess (particularly if the study says 9% are related to air ordinance alone). But regardless of the exact number of casualties in Iraq and regardless of how they really break down and regardless of how many of those would translate to a conflict of a completely different nature, there's no dispute possible with the argument that if we are going to fight, it's better to do so elsewhere than it is to fight here, IMO.

[HonestChieffan]

I think this whole thread is ridiculous. The study lacks credibility IMO, as does your 5% guess (particularly if the study says 9% are related to air ordinance alone). But regardless of the exact number of casualties in Iraq and regardless of how they really break down and regardless of how many of those would translate to a conflict of a completely different nature, there's no dispute possible with the argument that if we are going to fight, it's better to do so elsewhere than it is to fight here, IMO.


EEEEKK LOGIC run run away!!!!

[jAZ]

The study lacks credibility IMO, as does your 5% guess (particularly if the study says 9% are related to air ordinance alone).
Not all of our attacks have been on AQI. Why can't you get your head around that point.

Hell, the "shock and awe" was entirely air attacks and at the time, there was arguably only ONE AQI-type person in Iraq at the time.

Your logic is so tied up in Bush propaganda you can't even think clearly here.

[patteeu]

Not all of our attacks have been on AQI. Why can't you get your head around that point.

Hell, the "shock and awe" was entirely air attacks and at the time, there was arguably only ONE AQI-type person in Iraq at the time.

Your logic is so tied up in Bush propaganda you can't even think clearly here.

Well of course, we have an apparently irreconcilable difference of opinion about what constitutes an attack in furtherance of our GWoT and what doesn't.

[Cochise]

No one is saying that 1,000,000 deaths are at the hand of American soldiers. It's a civil war with wide spread ethnic cleansing underway (through killing and migration). They are killing each other, but that's a result of our invasion.

Because your post said "deaths caused by the US". So basically you are ascribing responsibility to the US if someone in some backwater village kills someone else for whatever reason.

Yeah, I guess if I come into a gas station at 2am and pop the old lady behind the register, it could be said that the owner of the station 'caused' the death.

[HonestChieffan]

They were killing each other before th invasion and will after we leave. Absurd to say we are the evil one cause there is collateral damage.

[jAZ]

...there's no dispute possible with the argument that if we are going to fight, it's better to do so elsewhere than it is to fight here, IMO.
Hardly.

If our fighting over there creates more enemies and that number grows geometrically or exponentially rather than shrinks with our extended presence there.... then fighting "them" over there is a stupid idea. All it does is create a larger pool of them to have to defend our homeland against.

And ultimately, the only protection against them coming here is whatever protection we put in place to keep them out of here.

And that protection is what secures our nation. Not any sort of war we are fighting in Iraq.

Your logic pretends that "they" can't fight in Iraq and simultaneously send 25 more terrorists to the US to strike again another 9 years later.... just like last time.

Seriously... you are smarter than your reasoning on any of this non-sense.

[Cochise]

They were killing each other before th invasion and will after we leave. Absurd to say we are the evil one cause there is collateral damage.

The Baathists were probably good at maintaining security and preventing sectarian violence, unless of course you count the violence and death they perpetrated themselves.

[jAZ]

Because your post said "deaths caused by the US". So basically you are ascribing responsibility to the US if someone in some backwater village kills someone else for whatever reason.

Yeah, I guess if I come into a gas station at 2am and pop the old lady behind the register, it could be said that the owner of the station 'caused' the death.
I thought the thread was perfectly clear....

"More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003".

Did I use an badly formed short hand? I don't (and haven't ever) meant to ascribe the deaths to be literally "deaths caused by the US", but rather those as described in the quote above.

[jAZ]

They were killing each other before th invasion and will after we leave. Absurd to say we are the evil one cause there is collateral damage.
BS. He Saddam did one thing for his country. He ruled by force and as such, he kept the civil war that's going on now... at bay.

And no one is saying anything about "evil" but you.

The underlying point is that this war is far more costly than anything figure that was used drum up support for invasion. The decision to go to war was enormously stupid and wrong from the get go.

The cost in US lives is far too much. The cost in Iraqi lives is far greater than anyone was ever willing to admit.

Our invasion is responsible for the deaths, but that doesn't make anyone "evil" for ordering it or carrying it out.

[patteeu]

Hardly.

If our fighting over there creates more enemies and that number grows geometrically or exponentially rather than shrinks with our extended presence there.... then fighting "them" over there is a stupid idea. All it does is create a larger pool of them to have to defend our homeland against.

And ultimately, the only protection against them coming here is whatever protection we put in place to keep them out of here.

And that protection is what secures our nation. Not any sort of war we are fighting in Iraq.

Your logic pretends that "they" can't fight in Iraq and simultaneously send 25 more terrorists to the US to strike again another 9 years later.... just like last time.

Seriously... you are smarter than your reasoning on any of this non-sense.

I reject your rationalization of retreat. I believe we are at war even if you don't.

[Duck Dog]

If something bad happend in my town, and lets say 100 people were killed, it would be EASY to assume that more than 20% of homes could claim they had an immeidate family member killed in the event.

The problem with using those numbers to calculate death tolls, is it doesn't account that in large, distributed families, a single death of a patriarch could affect and be claimed by numerous households.

That is merely 1 of issues i have with the numbers, not even including the average Iraqi's attendance in the "bagdad bob's truth telling seminar".


I wonder why jiz is ignoring this post?

[Donger]

BS. He Saddam did one thing for his country. He ruled by force and as such, he kept the civil war that's going on now... at bay.

And no one is saying anything about "evil" but you.

The underlying point is that this war is far more costly than anything figure that was used drum up support for invasion. The decision to go to war was enormously stupid and wrong from the get go.

The cost in US lives is far too much. The cost in Iraqi lives is far greater than anyone was ever willing to admit.

Our invasion is responsible for the deaths, but that doesn't make anyone "evil" for ordering it or carrying it out.

It sounds like you think the Iraqi people were better off under Hussein.

[HonestChieffan]

BS. He Saddam did one thing for his country. He ruled by force and as such, he kept the civil war that's going on now... at bay.

And no one is saying anything about "evil" but you.

The underlying point is that this war is far more costly than anything figure that was used drum up support for invasion. The decision to go to war was enormously stupid and wrong from the get go.

The cost in US lives is far too much. The cost in Iraqi lives is far greater than anyone was ever willing to admit.

Our invasion is responsible for the deaths, but that doesn't make anyone "evil" for ordering it or carrying it out.


Yes you are probably right. Stupid Kurds anyway. And thoise other muslims didnt matter they were like bad muslims that didnt matter much. Old Sadam was basically deep down a pretty good ole boy, just misunderstood by thr rest of the world.

And hell yea, wars bad and we can build a new place where those buildings were. That was just a wackjob bunch and they wouldnt do that again, lord knows they learned their lesson.

Old Bush and the rightys, thats where the issue is.

Your logic is so flawed.

[jAZ]

I reject your rationalization of retreat. I believe we are at war even if you don't.
I'm speaking only about what we should done at the time. Not what our options are now.

[jAZ]

It sounds like you think the Iraqi people were better off under Hussein.
Sounds like you are trying hard to put words in my mouth.

I think the American People would be better off had we not invaded. Covertly supporting over-throw of Saddam BY IRAQIS themselves? That would have been a far better option for us to persue.

[Donger]

Sounds like you are trying hard to put words in my mouth.

I think the American People would be better off had we not invaded. Covertly supporting over-throw of Saddam BY IRAQIS themselves? That would have been a far better option for us to persue.

I'm glad that my "hearing" was incorrect.

[jAZ]

I wonder why jiz is ignoring this post?
You are right, I should have addressed that post shortly after it was made. I got side tracked with something here when he posted that... but I think Iowanians post deserves rep.

It's good to have someone at least try to address the merits/weakness of the study in a meaningful way. Even if somewhat flawed. I'll reply directly in the next post.

[Cochise]

Sounds like you are trying hard to put words in my mouth.

I think the American People would be better off had we not invaded. Covertly supporting over-throw of Saddam BY IRAQIS themselves? That would have been a far better option for us to persue.

What other conclusion can we draw from your commentary than you think they were better off under Hussein?

Surely if you believe that 4 or 5% of the country is dead today, you wouldn't say they are better off. There's only one logical conclusion.

[jAZ]

If something bad happend in my town, and lets say 100 people were killed, it would be EASY to assume that more than 20% of homes could claim they had an immeidate family member killed in the event.

The problem with using those numbers to calculate death tolls, is it doesn't account that in large, distributed families, a single death of a patriarch could affect and be claimed by numerous households.

That is merely 1 of issues i have with the numbers, not even including the average Iraqi's attendance in the "bagdad bob's truth telling seminar".
The best shot you have with this reasoning is to say that the respondant... didn't listen to the question clearly.

Because the question itself asked the following...

"How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (ie as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof."

They would have to almost deliberately ignore that last words out of the surveyor's mouth in order to have the confusion you are talking about here.

Again, the most likely point of entry for over reporting is in having Iraqis who might broadly blame American's for deaths that weren't really related to the war directly. Ie, "the war here is causing so much stress that my brother shot my cousin... I blame America!" When really it was just a fight over a poker game, or something.

[jAZ]

What other conclusion can we draw from your commentary than you think they were better off under Hussein?
My conclusion is the today as it's been since the before invasion. American isn't going to be better off after invasion. We as a nation are far worse off.
Surely if you believe that 4 or 5% of the country is dead today, you wouldn't say they are better off.
Well, by your logic here, 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths would mandate that everyone MUST say the same. At that point, it's not about my opinion at all, now is it?

As I said before, my POV on this has never been about what's best for the Iraqi people. It's always been about what's best for the American people. And this was always a war that was bad for America. And there are a lot of wars that would could possible undertake that could arguably make one group of people better off or if done badly worse off.

But that's not my concern. Never has been. If we can do it without hurting our nation... great. I'm not isolationist. But this war never fit that description.

[Iowanian]

Its still Bullshit Jaz...I don't buy those numbers any more than I do the idea that your prefered "oppussum playind dead" defense strategy is effective.