Enough of the Iraqi body count threads

[Deudalus]

This really deserves its own thread so I'll just put it up there:

The numbers I'm quoting come from The Independent UK which is far from a conservative paper. This story was also reprinted on www.commondreams.org if any of you want to read it there:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0915-07.htm

Worst attacks

28 August 2003 - 85 dead

Among those killed by the car bomb attacks at Najaf shrine is the Shia cleric Muhammad Baqr Hakim

1 February 2004 - 109 dead

Twin attacks on Kurdish parties' offices in Irbil

2 March 2004 - 181 dead

Suicide bombers attack Shia festival-goers in Karbala and Baghdad

24 June 2004 - 100 dead

Co-ordinated blasts in Mosul and four other cities

28 February 2005 - 125 dead

Suicide car bomb hits government jobseekers in Hillah

16 July 2005 - 54 dead

Suicide bomber detonates fuel tanker in Musayyib

Simple math here try to stay with me:

The bloodiest day in Iraq was a day in which 181 Iraqis died lets go ahead and round that up to 200.

The new estimate that just came out said we have killed 1,000,000 Iraqis.

Now if you divide 1,000,000 Iraqis by 200 you wind up with 5000 days which would be the time required for 1,000,000 Iraqis to die if the bloodiest day were repeated over and over again everyday.

The only problem is that doesn't happen and we haven't even been in Iraq for 1800 days yet.

In order for the 1,000,000 Iraqi death toll to be reachable in 1,800 days we then 555 Iraqis would have to die due to violence today.


So you can have your polls, your surveys, and whatever statistics you want but at the end of the day sprinkle a little common sense on top and then you can have your truth.

 

[jpeyton]

How many people died during "Shock & Awe"?

How many died when we were fighting to capture Iraq's largest cities?

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
How many people died during "Shock & Awe"?

How many died when we were fighting to capture Iraq's largest cities?

Obviously it must have been 900,000.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: jpeyton
How many people died during "Shock & Awe"?

How many died when we were fighting to capture Iraq's largest cities?

Obviously it must have been 900,000.

You're the guy who thinks the largest single day total was 181 dead, even though we were running extensive bombing campaigns in population centers across the nation during "Shock & Awe".

 

[gentobu]

I also think the numbers from this latest study are exaggerated. Here is my post from the other thread.

The main question on the survey was:

"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."

The results were:
None: 78%
One: 16%
Two: 5%
Three: 1%
Four or more: .002%

Also,

ORB reported that "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."

Wikipedia article
The actual numbers from ORB. (PDF)

I'm sure the math checks out, but I'm still a little skeptical about the 1 million+ deaths though. I looked into the civilian death counts for WW2 and found that Japan had 580,000 civilian deaths after having 68 cities bombed, and Germany had about 1.6 million civilian casualties. According to the survey 48% of the people listed died as a result of gunshot wounds; so thats 480,000 deaths from gunshots alone, which is almost as much as all of Japan's civilian casualties after having been fire bombed, carpet bombed, and nuked. That's also more than the 416,000 US troops who died during WW2!

Wikipedia WW2 casualty breakdown
Wikipedia Strategic Bombing during WW2

 

[Siddhartha]

Nope, there has not been enough threads about how many have died and injured because of the US's invasion of Iraq.

As a reality check, we should erect billboards on Times Square, and across from the White House and Capitol building that keep an accurate count of how many people have died or been injuried by this war.

 

[Lemon law]

The question is and remains. Who has caused the deaths of more Iraqi civilians, Saddam Hussein or GWB? GWB is still hard at work to be #1 as a war time President.

Should not we know and find ways to answer these questions? When is the cure worse than the decease? To deny that the cure can be worse than the decease is denial itself.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Nope, there has not been enough threads about how many have died and injured because of the US's invasion of Iraq.

As a reality check, we should erect billboards on Times Square, and across from the White House and Captitol building that keep an accurate count of how many people have died or been injuried by this war.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

And what about U.S. sanctions before the invasion? Think that might factor in?

 

[fskimospy]

That is because you are (deliberately?) ignoring the fact that the largest numbers of deaths across Iraq are not coming from individual attacks, but from the background violence that is part of everyday life there. You can't have a post that ignores this and then talk about how common sense dictates something.

 

[BucsMAN3K]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The question is and remains. Who has caused the deaths of more Iraqi civilians, Saddam Hussein or GWB?

Are you fucking kidding?

No one is going to even come close to the real number of Iraqi deaths as a result of this war, and to even suggest that Saddam Hussein is not the answer to that question is fucking asinine.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: BucsMAN3K

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The question is and remains. Who has caused the deaths of more Iraqi civilians, Saddam Hussein or GWB?

Are you fucking kidding?

No one is going to even come close to the real number of Iraqi deaths as a result of this war, and to even suggest that Saddam Hussein is not the answer to that question is fucking asinine.

Are you trying to say that Saddam accounted for more Iraqi deaths then our occupation? By the time we're done there that is exceedingly unlikely. Iraqis are currently dying at a rate HUGELY in excess of the death rate during Saddam's reign. Depending on what estimates you choose for deaths attributable to Saddam, etc, we may have already passed him. (and in only 6 years! Eat that Saddam!) Now I guess you can argue about how many of these deaths were really caused by 'ol George, but he certainly created the situation in which they happened... so there's an argument for it.

If you want to count deaths in the Iran-Iraq war to him then of course we've still got a long way to go, but I don't know if that's exactly fair.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Nope, there has not been enough threads about how many have died and injured because of the US's invasion of Iraq.

As a reality check, we should erect billboards on Times Square, and across from the White House and Captitol building that keep an accurate count of how many people have died or been injuried by this war.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

And what about U.S. sanctions before the invasion? Think that might factor in?

As a reality check, we should erect billboards on Times Square, and across from the White House and Capitol building that keep an accurate count of how many people have died or been injuried since the 1991 Iraqi war.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BucsMAN3K
Are you fucking kidding?

No one is going to even come close to the real number of Iraqi deaths as a result of this war, and to even suggest that Saddam Hussein is not the answer to that question is fucking asinine.

Don't waste your team on reason. Lemon's a far-left nutjob who thinks the USA is worse off with Saddam dead, and that his crimes against humanity are eclipsed by George Bush. Such is the bubble of a far-left kook.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you want to count deaths in the Iran-Iraq war to him then of course we've still got a long way to go, but I don't know if that's exactly fair.

You can't count deaths from that war because the US funded, equipped, and gave their blessings to Saddam for that war. He couldn't have waged it otherwise.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Nope, there has not been enough threads about how many have died and injured because of the US's invasion of Iraq.

As a reality check, we should erect billboards on Times Square, and across from the White House and Capitol building that keep an accurate count of how many people have died or been injuried by this war.

Or we could just continue to make threads in P&N. But only if you use common sense.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: BucsMAN3K
Are you fucking kidding?

No one is going to even come close to the real number of Iraqi deaths as a result of this war, and to even suggest that Saddam Hussein is not the answer to that question is fucking asinine.

Don't waste your team on reason. Lemon's a far-left nutjob who thinks the USA is worse off with Saddam dead, and that his crimes against humanity are eclipsed by George Bush. Such is the bubble of a far-left kook.

Name calling aside, what is your estimate of how many Iraqis Saddam has killed?

From what I have read, 200,000 - 300,000 Iraqis have been killed by Saddam.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4555000.stm

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/IRAQ913.htm

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The reality of the situation is that we bombed an innocent population to eliminate one impotent tyrant. After the fact we spin it. 20,000? 200,000? 1,000,000? Not one death was needed. Now we talk about how many innocents were killed and who killed the most, us or Saddam. We argue that only the deaths directly out of the barrel of a US gun should count, and none that are a direct consequence of the war we elected to make. Our poor judgment that allowed the current deaths don't count.

We're the good guys, and that means we can do no wrong. The winners never do.

 

[Capitalizt]

Your analysis completely ignores deaths through starvation brought about by the chaos and lack of infrustructure following the bombing. Millions of people were displaced/lost, and thousands died of starvation. Just because they weren't killed by bombs doesn't mean they should not be included in the body count.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
This really deserves its own thread so I'll just put it up there:

The numbers I'm quoting come from The Independent UK which is far from a conservative paper. This story was also reprinted on www.commondreams.org if any of you want to read it there:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0915-07.htm

Worst attacks

28 August 2003 - 85 dead

Among those killed by the car bomb attacks at Najaf shrine is the Shia cleric Muhammad Baqr Hakim

1 February 2004 - 109 dead

Twin attacks on Kurdish parties' offices in Irbil

2 March 2004 - 181 dead

Suicide bombers attack Shia festival-goers in Karbala and Baghdad

24 June 2004 - 100 dead

Co-ordinated blasts in Mosul and four other cities

28 February 2005 - 125 dead

Suicide car bomb hits government jobseekers in Hillah

16 July 2005 - 54 dead

Suicide bomber detonates fuel tanker in Musayyib

Simple math here try to stay with me:

The bloodiest day in Iraq was a day in which 181 Iraqis died lets go ahead and round that up to 200.

The new estimate that just came out said we have killed 1,000,000 Iraqis.

Now if you divide 1,000,000 Iraqis by 200 you wind up with 5000 days which would be the time required for 1,000,000 Iraqis to die if the bloodiest day were repeated over and over again everyday.

The only problem is that doesn't happen and we haven't even been in Iraq for 1800 days yet.

In order for the 1,000,000 Iraqi death toll to be reachable in 1,800 days we then 555 Iraqis would have to die due to violence today.


So you can have your polls, your surveys, and whatever statistics you want but at the end of the day sprinkle a little common sense on top and then you can have your truth.

Your link says *Published on Thursday, September 15, 2005 by the Independent/UK
You keep jumping from bloodiest day, and bloodiest single attack
I can think of one attack in a Yazidi village last year killed the magic number of 550
Lord does that prove over a million deaths??

All these polls keep forgetting that there is over 4 million Iraqi's sitting in refugee camps in foreign countries mainly because family members were slaughtered
http://www.refugeesinternation...nt/article/detail/9679

TLC will probably be in shortly to explain perspective, and how your whole breaking this down into daily figures is retarded.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: BucsMAN3K

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The question is and remains. Who has caused the deaths of more Iraqi civilians, Saddam Hussein or GWB?

Are you fucking kidding?

No one is going to even come close to the real number of Iraqi deaths as a result of this war, and to even suggest that Saddam Hussein is not the answer to that question is fucking asinine.

Are you trying to say that Saddam accounted for more Iraqi deaths then our occupation? By the time we're done there that is exceedingly unlikely. Iraqis are currently dying at a rate HUGELY in excess of the death rate during Saddam's reign. Depending on what estimates you choose for deaths attributable to Saddam, etc, we may have already passed him. (and in only 6 years! Eat that Saddam!) Now I guess you can argue about how many of these deaths were really caused by 'ol George, but he certainly created the situation in which they happened... so there's an argument for it.

If you want to count deaths in the Iran-Iraq war to him then of course we've still got a long way to go, but I don't know if that's exactly fair.

Its just as fair as all the morons counting every single Iraqi dead and saying "the US killed them".

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider


We're the good guys, and that means we can do no wrong. The winners never do.

The winners? If the data, stats, expenditures, casualties, ect. to date, define winning, I certainly don't want to know what losing would be like.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you want to count deaths in the Iran-Iraq war to him then of course we've still got a long way to go, but I don't know if that's exactly fair.

You can't count deaths from that war because the US funded, equipped, and gave their blessings to Saddam for that war. He couldn't have waged it otherwise.

And the insurgents wouldn't be killing thousands of Iraqis today if they weren't being funded and equipped by someone else, so I guess we can't count all of the deaths over the last few years either.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you want to count deaths in the Iran-Iraq war to him then of course we've still got a long way to go, but I don't know if that's exactly fair.

You can't count deaths from that war because the US funded, equipped, and gave their blessings to Saddam for that war. He couldn't have waged it otherwise.

And the insurgents wouldn't be killing thousands of Iraqis today if they weren't being funded and equipped by someone else, so I guess we can't count all of the deaths over the last few years either.

Weapons come from everywhere

This is Oct 06

The Pentagon cannot account for 14,030 weapons ? almost 4% of the semiautomatic pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and other weapons it began supplying to Iraq since the end of 2003.

Numerous Americans have been busted for *losing* weapons since then too

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you want to count deaths in the Iran-Iraq war to him then of course we've still got a long way to go, but I don't know if that's exactly fair.

You can't count deaths from that war because the US funded, equipped, and gave their blessings to Saddam for that war. He couldn't have waged it otherwise.

And the insurgents wouldn't be killing thousands of Iraqis today if they weren't being funded and equipped by someone else, so I guess we can't count all of the deaths over the last few years either.

We've been through this already. The US openly supplies weapons to all sides in Iraq.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: eskimospy
If you want to count deaths in the Iran-Iraq war to him then of course we've still got a long way to go, but I don't know if that's exactly fair.

You can't count deaths from that war because the US funded, equipped, and gave their blessings to Saddam for that war. He couldn't have waged it otherwise.

And the insurgents wouldn't be killing thousands of Iraqis today if they weren't being funded and equipped by someone else, so I guess we can't count all of the deaths over the last few years either.

Weapons come from everywhere

This is Oct 06

The Pentagon cannot account for 14,030 weapons ? almost 4% of the semiautomatic pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and other weapons it began supplying to Iraq since the end of 2003.

Numerous Americans have been busted for *losing* weapons since then too

The insurgents are not getting ALL of their weapons and funding from us. Saddam did not get ALL of his weapons and funding from us in the Iran-Iraq war either. You can't have it both ways, if you say that you can't blame Saddam for the deaths during the Iran-Iraq war because he would not have been able to wage that war without money and arms from the US, then you can't blame us for the deaths in this war, because the insurgents would not be able to wage it without another source of arms and funding.