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: 36971
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 (1-78) not displayed.
.
.
.
#79. To: scrapper2 (#78)
what a well reasoned factual post, scrapper.
Scrapper2 for president.
How many 4um threads reach 80 posts? How many are punctuated with posts such as scrapper2's post 78? Diversity of opinion, however ridiculous, breeds adversarial debate and close analysis. 4um can tolerate that.
Estimates that are FAR below 655,000. Estimates that are consistent with the death certificates, images, bodies, news accounts and common sense.
The fact that the terrorists convicted in Jordan admitted they met with al-Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war is proof you are wrong. Odd. Documents show that before the invasion one of al-Zarqawis lieutenants was arrested by Saddam's police and although the arresting officer wrote that he was convinced the man was guilty, the man was ordered released by Saddam himself. It only takes a small amount of WMD to create havoc. Absolutely. And if you doubt this, one has good reason to doubt your grasp of reality. Really? Prove it. Nonsense. WHO and the UN said thousands of innocent Iraqis were dying every single month when Saddam was in control. As many as 5000 a month. Experts say the mass graves in Iraq contain 300,000 or more bodies. A million died in wars that Saddam started with his neighbors. And there was no end in sight. Rather than cooperate with UN inspectors, Saddam did everything he could to nullify the agreement he signed. He continued to pursue WMD and banned long range delivery systems. He continued to deprive his populace of needed food, medicine, and infrastructure repairs. Instead he spent the money on more palaces, his thugs, his Republican guard, his hedonistic sons, secret bank accounts, Palestinian terrorism, and bribes of UN and non-coalition nation officials. ROTFLOL! I love how you folks on one hand whine about the death of Iraqis and on the other hand say what business is their plight anyway. ROTFLOL! Not half as badly as Arab states do. Well, that's one way to look at it. There is another. It had something to do with an organization that has called for the complete destruction of Israel (indeed, one that will not recognize the right of Israel to even exist) firing missiles into Israeli cities and sending in homicide bombers to blow up ... guess what ... innocent civilians. Israel never used WMD against it's own citizens or killed a million in a war. If it weren't Israel, it would be something else. You FUNDAMENTALLY don't understand what motivates islamofanatics.
lol
".....revenge!" Why BAC, you ARE the very Mosssadite piece of shit that I described! Diana was correct. Congratulations on your clarification of Diana's intuition and my assertions.
BAC, why don't you cite two wingnut partisan blogs and an Australian op ed piece to back up your bullshit? That's what you did on the last thread. And given this desperate search for sources, it looks like you are the only one who believes your crap. Taking yoru silly sources to heart is the reason you believe in flying saurcers, Iraqi WMD and your kooky Ron Brown conspiracy crap. Think about it. Garbage in garbage out.
.
Bac, let me clue you in. Just because a kook can spew a conspiracy theory on the internet doesn't mean you have to believe it. Think critically. Now tell us about how the UFO shot down Ron Brown.
.
Why don't you post some pictures of bodies, or news accounts, or death certificates to back up the ridiculous claim that 655,000 excess deaths occurred in Iraq between the start of the war and last July when that report came out. What's that? You say you can't? ROTFLOL!
No sources at all for your bullshit? Ok, I will take Johns Hopkins over a guy who thinks a flying saucer shot down Ron Brown. Namely you. The University is simply more credible than your utterly unsupported bullshit.
.
And please, no more National Enquirer, NewsMax or two man wingnut blogs. And remember, op eds are not factual documents. Even if you have to go all the way to Australia to find one that supports your kooky crap.
.
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.
Comments (120 - 457) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#80. To: scrapper2 (#78)
#81. To: christine (#79)
#82. To: leveller, ALL (#64)
the Lancet number is just as ridiculous as the above assertions
Then what estimates do you find to be reliable?
#83. To: scrapper2, ALL (#78)
Iraq was not a haven for terrorists.
admitted that Saddam was not dealing with AQ or any other terrorists.
Also Iraq was so weakened by sanctions since the first Gulf War it was no threat to the US or its neighbors.
As for the Iraqis brutalized by Saddam - are we any less brutal than Saddam was to Iraqis
hundreds upon hundreds of thousands dead and wounded
our annual kill rate has been a lot higher than Saddam's who was in charge for 24 years.
Also why was Saddam's brutality in particular our problem?
For example, Israel brutalizes the Palestinians 24/7
Israel attacked its neighbor, Lebanon, twice already, most recently this summer,
Israel had far more UN resolutions passed against it than Saddam ever had
Israel's ongoing violent aggression against the Palestinians and the Lebanese has been Bin Laden's best recruiting tool.
#84. To: christine (#79)
what a well reasoned factual post, scrapper.
#85. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#83)
If it weren't Israel, it would be something else. You FUNDAMENTALLY don't understand what motivates islamofanatics.
#86. To: BeAChooser (#83)
#87. To: BeAChooser (#84)
#88. To: ..., ALL (#86)
BAC, why don't you cite two wingnut partisan blogs and an Australian op ed piece to back up your bullshit?
#89. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#90. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#91. To: BeAChooser (#88)
#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.
.
.
.