See other War, War, War Articles
Title: Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit
Source:
The Independent
URL Source: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/118356
Published: Feb 14, 2007
Author: Les Roberts
Post Date: 2007-02-14 09:58:38 by leveller
Keywords: None
Views: 32157
Comments: 457
The US and Britain have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide 14 February 2007 On both sides of the Atlantic, a process of spinning science is preventing a serious discussion about the state of affairs in Iraq. The government in Iraq claimed last month that since the 2003 invasion between 40,000 and 50,000 violent deaths have occurred. Few have pointed out the absurdity of this statement. There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate. First, if it were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq. For those of us who have been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems simply ridiculous. Secondly, there have to be at least 120,000 and probably 140,000 deaths per year from natural causes in a country with the population of Iraq. The numerous stories we hear about overflowing morgues, the need for new cemeteries and new body collection brigades are not consistent with a 10 per cent rise in death rate above the baseline. And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10. There are several reasons why the governments involved in this conflict have been able to confuse the issue of Iraqi deaths. Our Lancet report involved sampling and statistical analysis, which is rather dry reading. Media reports always miss most deaths in times of war, so the estimate by the media-based monitoring system, http://Iraqbodycount.org (IBC) roughly corresponds with the Iraq government's figures. Repeated evaluations of deaths identified from sources independent of the press and the Ministry of Health show the IBC listing to be less than 10 per cent complete, but because it matches the reports of the governments involved, it is easily referenced. Several other estimates have placed the death toll far higher than the Iraqi government estimates, but those have received less press attention. When in 2005, a UN survey reported that 90 per cent of violent attacks in Scotland were not recorded by the police, no one, not even the police, disputed this finding. Representative surveys are the next best thing to a census for counting deaths, and nowhere but Iraq have partial tallies from morgues and hospitals been given such credence when representative survey results are available. The Pentagon will not release information about deaths induced or amounts of weaponry used in Iraq. On 9 January of this year, the embedded Fox News reporter Brit Hume went along for an air attack, and we learned that at least 25 targets were bombed that day with almost no reports of the damage appearing in the press. Saddam Hussein's surveillance network, which only captured one third of all deaths before the invasion, has certainly deteriorated even further. During last July, there were numerous televised clashes in Anbar, yet the system recorded exactly zero violent deaths from the province. The last Minister of Health to honestly assess the surveillance network, Dr Ala'din Alwan, admitted that it was not reporting from most of the country by August 2004. He was sacked months later after, among other things, reports appeared based on the limited government data suggesting that most violent deaths were associated with coalition forces. The consequences of downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq are profound for both the UK and the US. How can the Americans have a surge of troops to secure the population and promise success when the coalition cannot measure the level of security to within a factor of 10? How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of resentment in Iraq if they are not sure if, on average, one in 80 families have lost a household member, or one in seven, as our study suggests? If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide, and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will they credibly be able to criticise Sudan or Zimbabwe or the next government that kills thousands of its own people? For longer than the US has been a nation, Britain has pushed us at our worst of moments to do the right thing. That time has come again with regard to Iraq. It is wrong to be the junior partner in an endeavour rigged to deny the next death induced, and to have spokespeople effectively respond to that death with disinterest and denial. Our nations' leaders are collectively expressing belligerence at a time when the populace knows they should be expressing contrition. If that cannot be corrected, Britain should end its role in this deteriorating misadventure. It is unlikely that any historians will record the occupation of Iraq in a favourable light. Britain followed the Americans into this débâcle. Wouldn't it be better to let history record that Britain led them out? The writer is an Associate Professor at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article2268067.ece
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-90) not displayed.
.
.
.
#91. To: BeAChooser (#88)
Did you know that Ron Brown was really Bin Laden? ROTFLOL!! Kook!!
.
It's not my job, and you know that. When you you go kooky and thrash around like this it just makes it obvious that you can't back up your crap. I pointed out your sources were pure bullshit ten hours ago. You didn't respond. Now that you have had you kooky nose rubbed in it, you are madly pounding google looking for something reasonable. When you come back and spam the thread with crap, and try to hide behind this, I am going to ask you to boil it down to 20 words and cite your source.
.
beachy, if you would stop acting like an irrational nut job, people would stop laughing at you. just a thought. and beachy, there are no such thing as flying saucers and ron brown didn't really come back to life.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Psst. Prozac Beachy, Prozac. It will change your life.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Beachy, out of curiosity, why did Clinton and Ron Brown conspire to hide a conspiracy that didn't exist? Seems awfully complicated to me.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
beachy, i don't think ... wanted to dis the national enquirer. i know you enjoy it and you are perfectly free to read it. i think he objects to your using it to back up the things the voices in your head tell you. maybe if you just post what the voices say it will be more clear.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
So did Goldi kick you off the site for being a kook or for just being obnoxious? It wasn't clear to me.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
It was a conspiracy of Clintonistas that set me up. I got an old NewsMax article that explains how it was done, and how the WMD got moved to Iran as part of the plot. ROTFLOL!!
Hi Loopy, how are you doing? Don't you also consider me one of those scum-bags too?
God is always good! Evasion.
That would be the "Jews" you are talking about, correct?
God is always good! I don't recall you.
Yes, now I do. As soon as I logged in, your message disappeared, so I obviously have you on bozo which means that you too are a scumbag. So fuck off. Don't bother to respond I haven't taken you off bozo, I just wanted you to know that you also are a scumbag.
What is the real death toll of our troops in Iraq? I hear that those that die while in transport out of Iraq are not listed as having been a casualty of the war there. If this is true then the official death toll could be significantly higher if all deaths that resulted from combat in Iraq were listed instead of only the ones who actually got killed there. I also heard that many so-called suicides committed by American troops in Iraq are not being included in the official numbers either. This administration is trying their best to not let people know that many American troops are being killed and many more injured for life by this war based on lies. No press coverage allowed for our returning war dead. I guess the war wouldn't be so popular if more Americans were made aware of the real price of war.
God is always good! Ah, now that's the Loopy I know. :) You seem to think many are scum-bags, why is that?
God is always good! And as for your "Jew" comment, I don't share that "Jew" obsession that some on this board do. I don't hold that there is a "Jew" conspiracy or that all "Jews" are evil. I differentiate that from the State of Israel which I do hold to be pretty damn evil. So it is also possible I bozoed you because you are one of those who posts alot of shit about the "Jews did this" or the "Jews do that". Neither the bots or the racists are worth a shit and both can all go fuck themselves as far as I am concerned.
So you would have us disregard a white paper researched and endorsed by one of the top universities in the world and peer reviewed by one of the two premiere medical journals in the world on the basis of the opinions of mensnewsdaily, The Australian and something called strategypage? And you have the nerve to call other people kooks? ROTFLMAO!!! If these same "sources" wrote articles poo-pooing your Ron Brown conspiracy theory you'd be denouncing them as being the "liberal media." Speaking of Ron Brown, would you please explain the cognitive dissonance you appear to hold in relation to Ron Brown's death and your worship of George "it's only a damned piece of paper" Bush? Surly you realize that if such an event did indeed take place that as president, George "Mission accomplished" Bush would not only know about it but would be an active participant in covering up the crime? KOOK! ROTFLMAO
LOL! Oh shit, Lev. You killed me.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Nice Post Scrapper! Keep on scrapping.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Hey, why are you picking a fight?
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
Not evasion. The truth. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether the death toll back in July of 2006 was 50,000 or 100,000. My point is very clear. The 655,000 number is totally bogus and it demonstrates the lengths to which the anti-war crowd will go. It proves for all their whining about "Bush lied", they are just as willing to lie. And the behavior of everyone on this thread says something too. I'll leave it to the random lurker to figure out what that might be.
And made my morning, too.
the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal bread.
i agree, leveller.
You have referred to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam as part of the justification for the invasion. And now you are saying you have no number of dead civilians killed to make a comparison to. You are a duplicitous asshole to say the least.
hi. welcome to 4. is that Hayek as in Selma? ;)
Chooser wouldn't know a source if it bit him on the ass. Not only that, but he himself is suckered in by the crap he puts up. I think that's the basis for all the kooky conspiracy theories that drive him. Do a search on his name on LP and look at his convoluted nut bunny stories about Ron Brown and the Iraqi WMD. The Ron Brown stuff is pretty far back, maybe 2003 and before, but it's worth the dig if you like to watch panting, wild eyed kooks on a mission from God. Looking at LP, his MO is to first cite a few bullshit sources from goob fooler rags. as he did above. He then spams the page with a massive blast of stream of consciousness drivel. Also as he did above. And if this doesn't work, he resorts to the sort of childish, obnoxious name calling that he's just started over here. Most of this is on other threads right now.
.
Excuse me. I only answered your first paragraph in my post above. You seem be well up on chooser's Rob Brown kookery. Didn't mean to be tedious in my post above. I just hadn't read your other paragraphs.
.
I am curious. Did you fianlly stop your Ron Brown Kookery because, after all these many years, you finally realized that this obession only highligts what an irrational and shalllow conspiracy nut you really are? Or did all your old NewsMax articles just go yellow and crumble to dust? I noticed that you haven't ranted or screamed a word about the guy since you've been over here. I'd be curious to know why.
.
Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam. They were that desperate to jack up the numbers of dead by Saddam, not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes, the non-existent WMD along with all the other lies. How ironic that now a few years into this "war", you are playing down the number of dead in Iraq, and you appear to be implying that the "few" who really have died since the US invaded may not be innocent. What a joke. No one is going to buy this one, no one.
I just went back and looked at your banning thread on LP. Why did Goldi ban you? Was it for being a kook or for just being an asshole? I can't tell from the thread.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
And from watching your posts for the last few years, I would say that neither do you.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
I thought that was Uday who was doing that, and that it was a wood chipper. I figured whoever came up with that piece of propaganda got the idea from watching "Fargo".
No, I'm suggesting that it be ignored based on the specific facts that I laid out in my post ... facts that NONE of you has even attempted to dispute. The 655,000 estimate is many, many times larger than any other estimate (and there are half a dozen others). That should raise a red flag. The report and peer reviewers ignored a major discrepancy between the pre-war mortality estimate derived by the John Hopkins team and the estimate derived by other organizations (such as the UN and WHO) in much larger studies. And these were estimates that the Lancet had endorsed as accurate previously. And this number is one of the key numbers used in determining excess deaths. That should raise a red flag. According to the report, 92 percent of those who claimed deaths in their families were able to provide death certificates to prove it. Therefore, if the study is statistically valid there should be death certificates available for 92 percent of the 655,000 estimated dead. But investigations by anti-Bush, anti-war media sources have not found evidence of anywhere near that number. What they found were numbers closer to those other, much lower estimates. That should raise a red flag. The author of the article and the studies has publically stated he disliked Bush and the war, released the study when he did to negatively influence the election against Bush and the GOP, and admitted that those he hired to conduct the study in Iraq "HATE" (that was his word) the Americans. That should raise a red flag. The Lancet, your premiere medical journal, not only failed in its *peer* review to question why specific numbers used in the study were so vastly different than numbers from previous, larger studies that they had previously blessed, they also reported the deaths as being comprised solely of civilians when the study made no such claim. It doesn't appear as if they even read the study. And they admitted that the peer review process was greatly abbreviated so that the results could be published in time to influence the election. That should raise a red flag. Then we have the behavior of the lead researchers and anti-war left in promoting the study. When interviewers completely misrepresented the results (for example, calling all the dead "civilians"), Les Roberts and others on his team made no effort to correct those falsehoods. And they went on to lie, both directly and by omission, about the methodology they used. That is indisputable. For example, here is what another of the John Hopkins researchers, Richard Garfield, told an interviewer. http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=440 "First of all, very few people refused or were unable to take part in the sample, to our surprise most people had death certificates and we were able to confirm most of the deaths we investigated." That is a LIE since the first study (which is what he was talking about) indicates they only confirmed 7% of them. And Les Roberts did the same thing in an interview . That should raise a red flag. In the interview URLed above, Garfield stated "And here you see that deaths recorded in the Baghdad morgue were, for a long period, around 200 per month." Get that? 200 a month, in one of the biggest and most violent regions in the country. And now Les Roberts is asking us to believe that 15,000 were dying each month in the country since the war began. That should raise a red flag. And by the way, Garfield is another of those who advocated mortality statistics before the war that are widely divergent from those derived using the Les Roberts study interviews. In fact, Richard Garfield said the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. His *expert* opinion was that the rate in 2002 would was 9-10 percent compared to the Les Robert's estimate of 2.9 percent. So why didn't he address that disparity? That should raise a red flag. And the Lancet blessed and championed the conclusions of Garfield back in 2002. So why did they ignore the discrepancy during their peer review of Les Robert's study? That should raise a red flag. And there is more. There is NO physical evidence to support the claim that 655,000 Iraqis were killed from the beginning of the war to mid 2006. There are no bodies. There are not photos of mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter. There are no reporters saying they saw these bodies. There are not US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. That should raise a red flag. In fact, take Dahr Jamail as an example. He's viralently anti-American. He has close ties to the insurgents. Here is his website: http://dahrjamailiraq.com/ "Weary of the overall failure of the US media to accurately report on the realities of the war in Iraq for the Iraqi people and US soldiers, Dahr Jamail went to Iraq to report on the war himself. His dispatches were quickly recognized as an important media resource and he is now writing for the Inter Press Service, The Asia Times and many other outlets. His reports have also been published with The Nation, The Sunday Herald, Islam Online, the Guardian and the Independent to name just a few. Dahr's dispatches and hard news stories have been translated into French, Polish, German, Dutch, Spanish, Japanese, Portuguese, Chinese, Arabic and Turkish. On radio as well as television, Dahr reports for Democracy Now!, the BBC, and numerous other stations around the globe. Dahr is also special correspondent for Flashpoints. Dahr has spent a total of 8 months in occupied Iraq as one of only a few independent US journalists in the country." You go ahead and look on his website for any indication that 500, much less 100 Iraqis were dying every single day back in 2003 and 2004 when he first started reporting from Iraq which was during the period covered by not only the second but the first John Hopkins study. You won't find any indication. That should raise a red flag. Last year was arguably the most violent since the invasion. Yet even the Iraqis reported the number killed was on the order of 16,000 in that year ... an average of 45 a day. That certainly stands in sharp constrast to the John Hopkins researchers (and their proponents) who claim that more than 500 a day have died every day on average since the invasion began. That should raise a red flag. Then there are problems with specific numbers in the studies. For example, the number of dead their methodology gives in Fallujah is so staggering ... so ridiculous ... that even the John Hopkins researchers had to discard the data point. Yet in interviews, Les Roberts has responded as if the Fallujah data was accurate. For example, in an interview with Socialist Workers Online (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php4?article_id=6271), when asked why two thirds of all violent deaths were concentrated in this city, Les Roberts didn't respond "the data was wrong or atypical in Fallujah" as it states in his report. No, he answered the question as if he thought the data point was representative of what happened in Fallujah as a whole. He said "we think that our findings, if anything, underestimated the number of deaths because of the number of empty and destroyed houses. Some of the families probably fled, but many are probably dead. Of those families sticking around in Fallujah, a quarter lost a family member in the few months leading up to the interview." That should raise a red flag. Here are some more articles pointing out problems with the study that I know you won't bother to even read: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887 http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/003153.html#more http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002549.html http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2005/03/the_fallujah_fa.html http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/dveathby.htm http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3352814 http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/858gwbza.asp
Look at it this way, people who spout nonsense will be called on it and exposed. And as long as a poster doesn't become vicious and downright creepy or threaten others they should have the right to express their opinions in the name of free speech. People can always ignore him if they want to.
Ping to #123. Bet you can't dispute a single fact I posted ...
That is such a lie! Saddam wanted a secular Iraq, he did not want any competition with radical Islamic groups, and would have regarded them as a huge threat, but I suspect you already know that! If they actually were in that country, and had he known about them being there he most likely would have had them executed.
I'm only on post #44 but already you are lying way too much on this thread to the point of absurdity!!!
You haven't posted any facts. Just your kooky and unsupported opinions. And here I am dealing with a guy who believes Ron Brown's plane was shot down by a flying saucer. Am I now supposed to care about what he thinks about other things?
.
Prove this, Diana. And by the way, are you familiar with the Black Book Of Saddam? Prove that claim was made by anyone in the US administration. I bet you can't. Care to explain to us where that binary sarin warhead that turned up as an IED came from? Is the ISG lying when they state they have a credible witness who said WMD related items were moved to Syria before the invasion? Can you explain to us why Saddam's regime went to so much trouble to sanitize files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD if there were no WMD or WMD programs? No, I'm disputing a SPECIFIC number. One that is so ridiculous that I'm surprised you'd be taken in by it. Don't mischaracterize what I've said. I neither said or implied that. Do you have to resort to mischaracterizing my statements to win this debate? Why don't you, instead, try to challenge the specific facts I listed in post #123. The joke will be on you folks if you don't even attempt to dispute the facts I listed in post #123.
By the way, you are ignoring my question on your Ron Brown kookery. Let me ask it again so the lurkers can see what a wild eyed nut cake you really are. Why arn't you panting and screaming about Ron Brown on this board? Did you finally realize what a nut you were?
.
If you would do some honest research, and get some genuine facts to back up your bullshit, you wouldn't have to use this "hide behind spam" tactic. Of course, there really arn't any reputable sources to back up your kookery. I suppose that's your problem.
.
Comments (132 - 457) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#92. To: BeAChooser (#88)
What's that? You say you can't? ROTFLOL!
#93. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#94. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#95. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#96. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#97. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#98. To: Minerva (#97)
#99. To: Loopy (#15)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#100. To: BeAChooser (#82)
Then what estimates do you find to be reliable? Estimates that are FAR below 655,000.
#101. To: Loopy (#38)
I'm just sick of toleration of these disgusting pigs who've turned my country into the shithole it now is.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#102. To: RickyJ (#99)
#103. To: RickyJ (#102)
#104. To: leveller (#0)
(Edited)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#105. To: Loopy (#103)
(Edited)
Yes, now I do. As soon as I logged in, your message disappeared, so I obviously have you on bozo which means that you too are a scumbag. So fuck off. Don't bother to respond I haven't taken you off bozo, I just wanted you to know that you also are a scumbag.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#106. To: RickyJ (#103)
#107. To: BeAChooser (#3)
#108. To: leveller (#47)
Are you certain? Please cite your source.
#109. To: scrapper2 (#78)
#110. To: RickyJ (#99)
#111. To: leveller, ALL (#100)
Then what estimates do you find to be reliable?
Estimates that are FAR below 655,000.
Evasion.
#112. To: leveller (#81)
How many 4um threads reach 80 posts
#113. To: leveller (#81)
#114. To: BeAChooser (#111)
Frankly, it doesn't matter whether the death toll back in July of 2006 was 50,000 or 100,000. My point is very clear.
#115. To: Hayek Fan (#107)
#116. To: Hayek Fan (#107)
(Edited)
So you would have us disregard a white paper researched and endorsed by one of the top universities in the world and peer reviewed by one of the two premiere medical journals in the world on the basis of the opinions of mensnewsdaily, The Australian and something called strategypage? And you have the nerve to call other people kooks? ROTFLMAO!!!
#117. To: Hayek Fan (#107)
If these same "sources" wrote articles poo-pooing your Ron Brown conspiracy theory you'd be denouncing them as being the "liberal media."
#118. To: BeAChooser (#111)
(Edited)
#119. To: BeAChooser, leveller (#8)
First of all, you haven't proven the 50,000 were innocent civilians.
#120. To: BeAChooser (#111)
#121. To: BeAChooser (#83)
If it weren't Israel, it would be something else. You FUNDAMENTALLY don't understand what motivates islamofanatics.
#122. To: SmokinOPs, leveller (#25)
Saddam was grinding up atleast that many a day in his plastic shredder
#123. To: Hayek Fan, ALL (#107)
So you would have us disregard a white paper researched and endorsed by one of the top universities in the world and peer reviewed by one of the two premiere medical journals in the world on the basis of the opinions
#124. To: Loopy, leveller (#38)
You accomplish nothing by dealing with BAC. Ask Burkeman1. He tried for years to reason with that thing.
#125. To: ..., ALL (#116)
Chooser wouldn't know a source if it bit him on the ass.
#126. To: BeAChooser (#44)
We know now that al-Qaeda was busy planning mass casualty attacks against the US and its allies from the safety of Iraq long before we invaded.
#127. To: BeAChooser (#125)
#128. To: BeAChooser (#125)
Ping to #123. Bet you can't dispute a single fact I posted ...
#129. To: Diana, ALL (#119)
Before the invasion the Bush administration wanted to falsify the number of people who died as a result of Saddam, going so far as to include long-dead Iranian soldiers from the Iraq/Iran war of the 80s found in mass graves, claming they were actually innocent Iraqi civilians recently killed by Saddam.
not to mention the nonsense that Iraq had the capability to launch missles to the US in 45 minutes,
the non-existent WMD
How ironic that now a few years into this "war", you are playing down the number of dead in Iraq,
and you appear to be implying that the "few" who really have died since the US invaded may not be innocent.
What a joke. No one is going to buy this one, no one.
#130. To: BeAChooser (#125)
(Edited)
#131. To: BeAChooser (#129)
(Edited)
.
.
.