600,000 killed by Bush's war in Iraq

[Tingkai]

To build on what Jaakko said, the study started with the mortality rate before the invasion, 5.5 deaths/1,000 people. That rate would include deaths like those from domestic violence, people dying of other crime and old age.

Through a survey of 12,800 people, the study found the mortality rate after the invasion had increased to 13.3/1,000 people per year.

So remove the pre-existing death rate and the difference of 7.8 deaths/year results is the 654,000 number. That's not the total number of dead. It does not include the number of deaths that would have occurred without the war.

The 50,000 non-violent deaths represents things like more old people or children dying because of things like the lack of medical aid, destruction of infrastructure leaving them to the elements.

So the 600,000 number represents violent deaths from the war. It does not including pre-existing death rates -- caused by things like old age, murder and domestic violence -- that cannot be attributed to the war..

[Victor Galis]

Ok, so they did compare mortality rates.

[debeest]

And finally, clarity is brought to this thread. The death rate in Iraq is now 2.42 (yep!) times as high as it was before the US "rescued" the Iraqi people from the murderous tyrannical despot. That's the bottom line, folks, no need for further discussion.

[notyoueither]

A death rate with a margin of error?

[Patroklos]

The figure breaks down to about 15,000 violent deaths a month, a number that is quadruple the one for July given by Iraqi government hospitals and the morgue in Baghdad and published last month in a United Nations report in Iraq.

And this one is based on surveys. Awesome. In other words it is a guess.

in part because they include natural deaths and deaths from ordinary crime, like domestic violence.

You can probably knock off 50K for car accidents, and other 50K for heart disease, another 50K for cancer, another 1K for drowning in bathtubs…

An over 25% margin of error? People got paid for this?

US, french germans. All of them sold nasty stuff to Sadam.

The point ?

If your not concerned enough to care about the facts of your own arguement, why should I?

[RGBVideo]

A death rate with a margin of error?

If there's a margin of error, it must be SCIENCE! And science is an authority, not a method! So SCIENCE backs this survey!

...this is the line of reasoning used by the Finnish press. "Study proves that 600 000 have died because of Iraq war"... sigh.

Originally posted by Patroklos
And this one is based on surveys. Awesome. In other words it is a guess.

You think they pulled the number out of their ass, too? Welcome to the club. They only did it so the masochistic knee-jerk anti-US army western press could use the authority of "scientific studies" to support their mental image of cruel US soldiers raping and pillaging the completely innocent and peace-loving people of Iraq.

[Fake Boris]

Death rate multiplies by a 2.5 factor. Doesn't take rocket science to figure the cause. You've lost, guys.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Bull****. There were never any transfers of CW agents to the Iraqi government. Saddam was able to buy precursor ingredients (hell, I can do that, legally), and equipment to make the stuff, load it, and handle it (that was done pretty poorly, and most of the above wasn't US made or paid).

A few posts later than that I already said that also France and Germany were involved in that one.

But that does not mean we didn't provide him with the capabaility to gass the Kurds no ? So technically no, it was not US gas, it was only made by components he got from the US, France and Germany. Big deal.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Jaakko
I thought Pentagon didn't do bodycounts. How did the Pentagon arrive at its numbers? Is it the same that is at Iraqbodycount.org that only list deaths that have been successfully reported and verified, and as such obviously nowhere near the actual number?

Not sure but it was on NPR.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Patroklos


If your not concerned enough to care about the facts of your own arguement, why should I?

Well, you're obviously not.

No go back and play on your little boat. Oh and do not forget to be OUTRAGED at the North Koreans.

Man, having an imaginary two feet long dick is a major drag, isn't it?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by dannubis


A few posts later than that I already said that also France and Germany were involved in that one.

But that does not mean we didn't provide him with the capabaility to gass the Kurds no ? So technically no, it was not US gas, it was only made by components he got from the US, France and Germany. Big deal.

You forgot Switzerland and Japan as well. Most of the specialist equipment he bought from Switzerland while many of the chemical components he also bought from Japan.

The short anwser is you were totally wrong and now you won't admit it. The US didn't give Saddam jack cheese when it comes to chemical weapons. Saddam bought the components and the equipment needed legelly from over a half dozen different companies and the technical know how needed to build WW1 era chemical weapons (like Saddam had) can be found in any good library. Face it, Saddam got them all by himself aided by the greed of various companies who didn't ask questions and complacient governments who were just to busy to bother checking it out.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by dannubis


A few posts later than that I already said that also France and Germany were involved in that one.

But that does not mean we didn't provide him with the capabaility to gass the Kurds no ? So technically no, it was not US gas, it was only made by components he got from the US, France and Germany. Big deal.

You can buy precursor components anywhere. I can legally buy them here. They're virtually all dual use items.

[MikeH]

Bush can't just say "I don't like those numbers" it's a massive peer reviewed study published in the Lancet based on what's currently seen as the most accurate way to count these figures. It's not just some bull**** made up to make the gov't look bad. But I bet the Bush/Blair gov'ts spin their way out of it. And probably next week we'll have quotes by the same people, from lancet studies, telling us why we have to stop smoking or stop eating cheese or casualty figures from Somalia or something.

BTW the number they estimate was due to direct coallition action is around 200,000

You can read the editor of the Lancet's comment about the article here, describing the methodology:

http://www.thelancet.com/

(reproduced on the Guardian site where you don't need to register, not sure if any other news organisations have it on there too)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1920005,00.html

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Oerdin


You forgot Switzerland and Japan as well. Most of the specialist equipment he bought from Switzerland while many of the chemical components he also bought from Japan.

The short anwser is you were totally wrong and now you won't admit it. The US didn't give Saddam jack cheese when it comes to chemical weapons. Saddam bought the components and the equipment needed legelly from over a half dozen different companies and the technical know how needed to build WW1 era chemical weapons (like Saddam had) can be found in any good library. Face it, Saddam got them all by himself aided by the greed of various companies who didn't ask questions and complacient governments who were just to busy to bother checking it out.

And that contradicts how what I said ? The US governement AND OTHERS knew what he was buying and they knew what he was doing with it. So basically you can not invoke the attacks against the kurds as something that the west has absolutely nothing to do with.

[Straybow]

Sorry, you can't extrapolate a survey of a couple thousand families into nationwide figures. It only works with census figures extrapolating from the broad survey to account for the little pockets of the undersampled.