The Cost . . .

[CaptnKirk]

Is life

Making conservative assumptions:

 

[conjur]

How do they determine excess deaths? There was a high rate of mortality before the war given some of the humanitarian conditions.

 

[chess9]

So, Iraq is less safe now than before we invaded?

With the problems in Fallujah and Ramadi, the kidnappings and daily car bombings how can any rational person say Iraq is better off? Those people now have a devil bigger than Saddam Hussein.

-Robert

 

[conjur]

Here's the report

Civilian deaths have risen dramatically in Iraq since the country was invaded in March 2003, according to a survey conducted by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Columbia University School of Nursing and Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. The researchers found that the majority of deaths were attributed to violence, which were primarily the result of military actions by Coalition forces. Most of those killed by Coalition forces were women and children. However, the researchers stressed that they found no evidence of improper conduct by the Coalition soldiers.

The survey is the first countrywide attempt to calculate the number of civilian deaths in Iraq since the war began. The United States military does not keep records on civilian deaths and recordkeeping by the Iraq Ministry of Health is limited. The study is published in the October 29, 2004, online edition of The Lancet.

?Our findings need to be independently verified with a larger sample group. However, I think our survey demonstrates the importance of collecting civilian casualty information during a war and that it can be done,? said lead author Les Roberts, PhD, an associate with the Bloomberg School of Public Health?s Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies.

The researchers conducted their survey in September 2004. They randomly selected 33 neighborhoods of 30 homes from across Iraq and interviewed the residents about the number and ages of the people living in each home. Over 7,800 Iraqis were included. Residents were questioned about the number of births and deaths that occurred in the household since January 2002. Information was also collected about the causes and circumstances of each death. When possible, the deaths were verified with a death certificate or other documentation.

The researchers compared the mortality rate among civilians in Iraq during the 14.6 months prior to the March 2003 invasion with the 17.8 month period following the invasion. The sample group reported 46 deaths prior to the March 2003 and 142 deaths following the invasion. The results were calculated twice, both with and without information from the city of Falluja. The researchers felt the excessive violence from combat in Falluja could skew the overall mortality rates. Excluding information from Falluja, they estimate that 100,000 more Iraqis died than would have been expected had the invasion not occurred. Eighty-four percent of the deaths were reported to be caused by the actions of Coalition forces and 95 percent of those deaths were due to air strikes and artillery.

?There is a real necessity for accurate monitoring of civilian deaths during combat situations. Otherwise it is impossible to know the extent of the problems civilians may be facing or how to protect them,? explained study co-author Gilbert Burnham, MD, associate professor of International Health at the Bloomberg School of Public Health and director of the Center for International, Disaster and Refugee Studies.

?Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey? was written by Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi and Gilbert Burnham. Roberts and Burham are with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Lafta and Khudhairi are with the College of Medicine at Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. Garfield is with the Columbia University School of Nursing.

The study was funded by the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Small Arms Survey in Geneva, Switzerland.

 

[chess9]

With n=7,800, I'd say they should have a fairly good distribution of data points, so I wouldn't write this study off by any means.

Perhaps Allawi's governement should start keeping and publishing daily stats and names, ala Perknose's stickied post?

-Robert

 

[conjur]

CNN International has picked up this story

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WO...ast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

LONDON, England -- Public health experts have estimated that around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the United States invaded Iraq in March last year.

In a survey published on the Web site of the Lancet medical journal on Friday, experts from the United States and Iraq also said the risk of death for Iraqi civilians was 2.5 times greater after the invasion.

There has been no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began 18 months ago, but some non-government estimates have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000.

The researchers surveyed nearly 1000 Iraqi households in September, asking how many people lived in the home and how many births and deaths there had been since January 2002.

They then compared the death rate among those households during the 15 months before the invasion with the 18 months after it, getting death certificates where they could.

The experts from the United States and Iraq said most of those who died were women and children and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths.

The study was designed and conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad.

'More likely to die'
While the researchers said the risk of death was 2.5 times more likely after the invasion, they conceded that the risk was 1.5 times higher if mortality around Falluja was excluded.

Two-thirds of violent deaths recorded in the study were reported in the Sunni triangle city of Falluja.

Even with a 1.5-times increase in deaths since the invasion, the number of deaths would be more than 98,000, although this estimate would be much greater if Falluja data is included, the study showed.

While the major causes of death before the invasion were heart attack, stroke, and chronic illness, the risk of dying from violence after the invasion was 58 times higher than in the period before the war.

Most people died from violence after the invasion, the survey said, with most of the households interviewed saying air strikes from coalition forces were to blame.

While the researchers said the sampling was small, in an editorial alongside the survey, Lancet editor Richard Horton said interviewing more households would have improved the precision of the report, "but at an enormous and unacceptable risk to the team of interviewers."

He added that the study's central observation -- that more civilians have died following air strikes -- is convincing.

"With the admitted benefit of hindsight and from a purely public-health perspective, it is clear that whatever planning did take place was grievously in error," said Horton.

"Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths not fewer. This political and military failure continues to cause scores of casualties among non-combatants. It is a failure that deserves to be a serious subject for research."

'Very, very sorry'
The researchers said the findings raise questions for those responsible for launching a pre-emptive war.

The report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher told The Associated Press he wanted it that way.

"I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea, but I think that our science has transcended our perspectives," Les Roberts from Johns Hopkins told AP.

"As an American, I am really, really sorry to be reporting this."

Even though the sample size appears small, this type of survey is considered accurate and acceptable by scientists and was used to calculate war deaths in Kosovo in the late 1990s, AP reported.

An expert on study methods who was not involved with the research, said the approach the scientists took was a reasonable one to investigate the Iraq death toll.

But Richard Peto, who is professor of medical statistics at Oxford University, cautioned AP the researchers may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq.

The researchers called for further confirmation by an independent body such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the World Health Organization.

 

[Mayax]

Originally posted by: chess9
So, Iraq is less safe now than before we invaded?

With the problems in Fallujah and Ramadi, the kidnappings and daily car bombings how can any rational person say Iraq is better off? Those people now have a devil bigger than Saddam Hussein.

-Robert

Probably because those two towns don't comprise the entire country.

Pretty obvious.


LA is a pretty good armpit of a town but I don't think I could say it represents all of California. You're talking about two towns put together that still aren't the size of LA, and Iraq is about the size of Ca.
Regardless, even the Iraqis caught killed in the middle of the street with an AK in his hand trying to gun down troops is counted as a civilian.

It ain't all perfume and roses but Iraq is nowere near the bottomless pit of despair news media try to portray it as. Blood and guts sells air time and pays salaries. Mom and apple pie doesn't sell squat...

Well, unless she's a MILF and the pie is a prop in a threesome.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is also discussed here.

 

[Zebo]

Lots of desease, tribal retribution, murders, inadequate medicines and health facilites in addition to the 15,000 or so we slaughtered by "collateral damage"

 

[Ballsack]

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (shortly after the war in Iraq began):

"The targeting capabilities and the care that goes into targeting, to see that the precise targets are struck, other targets are not struck, is as impressive as anything anyone could see -- the care that goes into it, the humanity that goes into it."

Well, let us just hope that the worst is behind us... and that better days are ahead.

BALLSACK

 

[smashp]

The real Question is how may Iraqi and american lives will be lost before this war is over.

1 mil Iraqis

4000 dead Gi's

and even worse the number of wounded.

 

[Forsythe]

I just can't se why Bush was so stupid that he decided to invade!
They could have used other methods to get rid of saddam, that wouldn't have required the same amount of useless deaths.

 

[Red Dawn]

Do you really think the average American gives a rat's ass about Iraqi lives? We like them about as much as they like us which isn't very much!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Do you really think the average American gives a rat's ass about Iraqi lives? We like them about as much as they like us which isn't very much!

They do when talk about the Kurds and the Shiites slaughtered by Saddam. When it's their guy doing it, it's ok. When it's the "bad guy", they're the most humanitarian people on Earth.

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
I just can't se why Bush was so stupid that he decided to invade!
They could have used other methods to get rid of saddam, that wouldn't have required the same amount of useless deaths.

And what other options were there?

 

[Mayax]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Do you really think the average American gives a rat's ass about Iraqi lives? We like them about as much as they like us which isn't very much!

They do when talk about the Kurds and the Shiites slaughtered by Saddam. When it's their guy doing it, it's ok. When it's the "bad guy", they're the most humanitarian people on Earth.

And the Democrats didn't give a rat's ass for eight years while Clinton mostly ignored the problem.

While I don't agree with the methods, the Republicans did something about it instead of ignoring it along with the rest of the world. Now, after we invaded, it's been nothing but "the poor Iraqi civilians! the ppor Iraqi civilians!"

Where was that care and compassion all through Clinton's reign?

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: Forsythe
I just can't se why Bush was so stupid that he decided to invade!
They could have used other methods to get rid of saddam, that wouldn't have required the same amount of useless deaths.

And what other options were there?

Seriously?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Mayax

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Do you really think the average American gives a rat's ass about Iraqi lives? We like them about as much as they like us which isn't very much!

They do when talk about the Kurds and the Shiites slaughtered by Saddam. When it's their guy doing it, it's ok. When it's the "bad guy", they're the most humanitarian people on Earth.

And the Democrats didn't give a rat's ass for eight years while Clinton mostly ignored the problem.

You conveniently seem to have forgotten the it was the Dub's father who betrayed them and turned his and America's back on them right after the first Gulf War

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: Forsythe
I just can't se why Bush was so stupid that he decided to invade!
They could have used other methods to get rid of saddam, that wouldn't have required the same amount of useless deaths.

And what other options were there?

Seriously?

It's a serious question, I would like to hear other ways of getting rid of Saddam.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: Forsythe
I just can't se why Bush was so stupid that he decided to invade!
They could have used other methods to get rid of saddam, that wouldn't have required the same amount of useless deaths.

And what other options were there?

Seriously?

It's a serious question, I would like to hear other ways of getting rid of Saddam.

Continued Sanctions, poison his Viagra, assassinate him, etc.

 

[Mayax]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Mayax

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Do you really think the average American gives a rat's ass about Iraqi lives? We like them about as much as they like us which isn't very much!

They do when talk about the Kurds and the Shiites slaughtered by Saddam. When it's their guy doing it, it's ok. When it's the "bad guy", they're the most humanitarian people on Earth.

And the Democrats didn't give a rat's ass for eight years while Clinton mostly ignored the problem.

You conveniently seem to have forgotten the it was the Dub's father who betrayed them and turned his and America's back on them right after the first Gulf War

And you conveniently forgot that it was the "coallition of allies" that Kerry speaks so highly of that made him do it.

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Mayax

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Do you really think the average American gives a rat's ass about Iraqi lives? We like them about as much as they like us which isn't very much!

They do when talk about the Kurds and the Shiites slaughtered by Saddam. When it's their guy doing it, it's ok. When it's the "bad guy", they're the most humanitarian people on Earth.

And the Democrats didn't give a rat's ass for eight years while Clinton mostly ignored the problem.

You conveniently seem to have forgotten the it was the Dub's father who betrayed them and turned his and America's back on them right after the first Gulf War

Only because that would have broken up the coalition. Bush Sr. said in an interview after his term if he had the chance to do it over he would have gone to Baghdad, regardless of what the international community would have thought, because he knew it was the right thing to do.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Mayax

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Mayax

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Do you really think the average American gives a rat's ass about Iraqi lives? We like them about as much as they like us which isn't very much!

They do when talk about the Kurds and the Shiites slaughtered by Saddam. When it's their guy doing it, it's ok. When it's the "bad guy", they're the most humanitarian people on Earth.

And the Democrats didn't give a rat's ass for eight years while Clinton mostly ignored the problem.

You conveniently seem to have forgotten the it was the Dub's father who betrayed them and turned his and America's back on them right after the first Gulf War

I also believe the the Dub's Daddy realized that it would have been a major Clusterfsck if did did keep his word to them..much like the Clusterfsck Iraq is now!


And you conveniently forgot that it was the "coallition of allies" that Kerry speaks so highly of that made him do it.

 

[Yzzim]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: Forsythe
I just can't se why Bush was so stupid that he decided to invade!
They could have used other methods to get rid of saddam, that wouldn't have required the same amount of useless deaths.

And what other options were there?

Seriously?

It's a serious question, I would like to hear other ways of getting rid of Saddam.

Continued Sanctions, poison his Viagra, assassinate him, etc.

Continued Sanctions - we obviously know that wasn't working, since sanctions were on him for ~13 years and he was still in power. Didn't help that the French were abusing the Oil-For-Food program therefor bypassing sanctions.

Assassinate Him - "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, assassination." - Executive Order 12333, signed by President Reagan in '83

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Yzzim
Continued Sanctions - we obviously know that wasn't working, since sanctions were on him for ~13 years and he was still in power. Didn't help that the French were abusing the Oil-For-Food program therefor bypassing sanctions.

Assassinate Him - "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, assassination." - Executive Order 12333, signed by President Reagan in '83

The sanctions did prevent Hussien from reinstituting his WMD and Nuclear Weapons program amd severly weakened his army. He was no longer a viable threat to us or his immediate nieghbors so I think they worked rather well.