100,000 excess deaths reported in Iraq since the war started

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris



Well, their study DID take into account the Saddam-era mortality rate and said it was half of what it is right now, which means this point is pretty much pointless.
.

youre confusing the Hopkins study with the IBC study.

[lord of the mark]

and let me ask you this - there were plenty of folks who said that they would welcome it if Iraqis overthrew Saddam - they just opposed the US doing it, because of implications for international law, etc.

Now IF the Iraqis had overthrown Saddam is not likely that the Sunni Arabs in general, and the Baathists. Wahabis and others privileged under the old regime in particular would have fought to retain power? Aided by foreign forces, as now? And that the Shiites and Kurds would have fought to establish the new regime? In a civil war probably far bloodier than what we have seen in Iraq? If what you would have liked to see (an internal overthrow of Saddam) would have resulted in as many, or more deaths as the current troubles, is there any meaning to "blaming the invasion"

What to do Iraqis think. From what I can read, among the majority Shias and some others as well, there is anger at the US not for invading, but for not coming down harder and faster on the terrorists. The Allawi govt is under considerable pressure from the southern tribes to deal with Fallujah, and to do so soon.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
and let me ask you this - there were plenty of folks who said that they would welcome it if Iraqis overthrew Saddam - they just opposed the US doing it, because of implications for international law, etc.

Now IF the Iraqis had overthrown Saddam is not likely that the Sunni Arabs in general, and the Baathists. Wahabis and others privileged under the old regime in particular would have fought to retain power? Aided by foreign forces, as now?

Few people, I suppose, are technically opposed to Saddam being deposed; the problem is probably that in the current state of Iraq, democracy is hardly feasible anyway, which means that he would be replaced by someone as bad, worse, or marginally better.

What to do Iraqis think. From what I can read, among the majority Shias and some others as well, there is anger at the US not for invading, but for not coming down harder and faster on the terrorists. The Allawi govt is under considerable pressure from the southern tribes to deal with Fallujah, and to do so soon.

America has never been terribly popular over there anyway. Most Iraqis have many reasons to be angry at America, first their long-term presence (who wants foreign troops running his own country), and on top of that the lack of benefits brought by this presence.

Originally, the average Iraqi was probably skeptic-to-hostile about American occupation, and now, seeing its failure, is probably absolutely furious. America just missed an opportunity to prove them wrong when it was still time.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by GePap


No, we are responsible for deaths that occured due to events that would not have happened without the war- events that might have occured with or without the war don't count.

You would also have to account for deaths that were prevented that would have happened were it not for the war. Of course that is not saying that a life lost for a life saved is a justification, but its a point of note when discussing statistical responsibility.

I would also question the degree of culpability or responsibility; being a required condition for the increase in deaths does not mean the increase is wholly are even partially the responsibility of the requisite condition. Failures related to duty of care would also have to exist for that to be so.

[Tripledoc]

This is how it happens.

Journalist Seymour Hersh who broke the ABU Graib and My Lai.

HERSH: I got a call last week from a soldier -- it's different now, a lot of communication, 800 numbers. He's an American officer and he was in a unit halfway between Baghdad and the Syrian border. It's a place where we claim we've done great work at cleaning out the insurgency. He was a platoon commander. First lieutenant, ROTC guy.
It was a call about this. He had been bivouacing outside of town with his platoon. It was near, it was an agricultural area, and there was a granary around. And the guys that owned the granary, the Iraqis that owned the granary... It was an area that the insurgency had some control, but it was very quiet, it was not Fallujah. It was a town that was off the mainstream. Not much violence there. And his guys, the guys that owned the granary, had hired, my guess is from his language, I wasn't explicit -- we're talking not more than three dozen, thirty or so guards. Any kind of work people were dying to do. So Iraqis were guarding the granary. His troops were bivouaced, they were stationed there, they got to know everybody...

They were a couple weeks together, they knew each other. So orders came down from the generals in Baghdad, we want to clear the village, like in Samarra. And as he told the story, another platoon from his company came and executed all the guards, as his people were screaming, stop. And he said they just shot them one by one. He went nuts, and his soldiers went nuts. And he's hysterical. He's totally hysterical. And he went to the captain. He was a lieutenant, he went to the company captain. And the company captain said, "No, you don't understand. That's a kill. We got thirty-six insurgents."

You read those stories where the Americans, we take a city, we had a combat, a hundred and fifteen insurgents are killed. You read those stories. It's shades of Vietnam again, folks, body counts...

You know what I told him? I said, fella, I said: you've complained to the captain. He knows you think they committed murder. Your troops know their fellow soldiers committed murder. Shut up. Just shut up. Get through your tour and just shut up. You're going to get a bullet in the back. You don't need that. And that's where we are with this war.

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000172.html

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


"Violence accounted for most of the excess death and air strikes from (U.S.-led) coalition forces accounted for the most violent deaths," the report added"


Spiff, it really helps to read the linked article.

Yep, read it afterwards. I shouldn't post when I'm tired and unwilling to make any effort

I don't feel like using this study. Not because of CNN's spin, but because the scientist seems overly biased on the issue (as the 2003 article appears). Besides, even if the amount of victims is true, the causes may very well be different, given that the causes of deaths are testimonies.

However, I do not rule out that the amount of victims may be far superior than what IBC says as well, given that their methodology is to count the deaths that can be confirmed by media or medical sources.

In any case, I am glad the war didn't kill 500,000 as many feared prior to it. And nonetheless, I'm still opoosing it, like I have been from the beginning.

[Agathon]

Oxblog responds: The application of this standard is even more striking. It includes not just those civilians killed by insurgents' bullets and bombs in the heat of battle, but civlians deliberately murdered by suicide bombers affiliated with the insurgents. This is a total perversion of the concept of moral reponsibility.

The people who write Oxblog are obviously thick.

It is not a perversion of the concept of moral responsibility if you understand that in any sane (i.e. not rightwing) sense. For example, if you, as a policy maker, knowingly adopt policies which you have good reason to believe will increase the number of deaths from violent crime, you are responsible for those deaths if you do it. The criminals who commit the murders are also responsible - responsibility is not a zero sum game, we must always consider the consequences of our decisions on the decisions that others will be likely to make.

Bush and Co. were told numerous times that this was likely to happen, that there would likely be an insurgency in response to an invasion, and that the death rate would spike for numerous reasons all connected with the invasion. Therefore, they are responsible for 100,000 needless deaths in just over a year. That's worse than Saddam.

Both Bush and Blair are no more than common criminals.

[Agathon]

Well, this means that America should be responsible for the increase in common crime.

Yes. It was a foreseeable consequence.

It's just like the person who refuses to tell the Nazi soldiers that he has Jews living in his basement. Sure, they are responsible for killing the Jews if he tells them, but he is responsible too, if he knows that they will kill the Jews.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes. It was a foreseeable consequence.

Actually, before and during the war, a humanitarian crisis was foreseen (and preparations were made), but the extent of the political crisis -as Saddam's regime collapsed nearly instantly at the fall of Baghdad- baffled everyone. The initial surge of crime after Saddam wasn't foreseeable, at least not to that extent.

[Agathon]

Actually, before and during the war, a humanitarian crisis was foreseen (and preparations were made), but the extent of the political crisis -as Saddam's regime collapsed nearly instantly at the fall of Baghdad- baffled everyone.

It didn't baffle me, or any of the people I know who predicted social collapse. There was a reason Saddam was a tyrant, and that reason is that Iraq is a very unstable country with high ethnic and religious tensions.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
It didn't baffle me

Gee... since you knew for sure what was going to happen, and didn't do anything to stop it, doesn't that make you resposible as well... and just as much a common criminal as Bush and company

[Agathon]

Gee... since you knew for sure what was going to happen, and didn't do anything to stop it.

"Ought" implies "can". Last time I looked, I was not the leader of a superpower or a high placed government advisor.

But I did attend all the Toronto anti-war rallies (and they were bloody cold too). That's about the best I could do, other than telling my students about the evils of Bush (which I refuse to do on principle).

[Lefty Scaevola]

I am not sure how far it is off. What do you think the ration of combatant to collateral deaths is? The combatant deaths among the Iragis isurgents and terroists interlopers may since the end of major combat may well exceed 30,000. There was likely over 4,000 in the heaviest month, April 2004. Many in the "we do not take body counts" army are keeping an informal score card, but all such numbers are very aproximate.

[Sava]

This topic has made me angry.

I feel better after posting this image.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon


"Ought" implies "can". Last time I looked, I was not the leader of a superpower or a high placed government advisor.

But I did attend all the Toronto anti-war rallies (and they were bloody cold too). That's about the best I could do, other than telling my students about the evils of Bush (which I refuse to do on principle).

What class do you teach Agggy?