655,000 Iraqis Killed Since The Invasion

I'm very surprised by that, Brian. I'd have thought that they'd have had some sort of observing going on with the Red Crescent (who surely must have some idea of the dead and the mortally wounded). I'm afraid anything generated by the American Intelligence services would concern me - after all, even with those wunnerful satellites peering at Iraq in minute detail, they were convinced there were SO many cleverly-disguised bomb factories, stockpiles of WMDs, etc.

Anyway, I reckon any of us could do a rough bit of accounting by just noting the numbers killed every day throughout Iraq as a result of the invasion's effect for perhaps a month, then multiplying that by 12. Add perhaps 5% for post-injury mortality and then probably factor another 2% (roughest guess) for persons dying because they couldn't reach doctors in time, and I imagine it would give a pretty close enough figure of the annual death toll.
 
Originally posted by krizon@Oct 13 2006, 01:48 AM
I'm very surprised by that, Brian. I'd have thought that they'd have had some sort of observing going on with the Red Crescent
Click to expand...
You have to remember that the place is somewhat in a state of anarchy. I don't think that the survey carried out by the Johns Hopkins people, US and Iraqi doctors, is far wrong. Bush's 30,000 is fewer than before the invasion!
 
A lot of terrible mistakes made by the US but am i alone in thinking that a having been freed from the dreadful (and this is often forgotten) Saddam regime, the Iraqi people could have made a better fist of going forward?

Because of their godawful religion, which loves to hate and primitive tribalism, an opportunity to make something out of a oil rich society has been seemingly blown away

too idealistic maybe but doesnt alter the fact that a lot of the blame for this is with the pathetic backward thinking greivance loving element of the population
 
Originally posted by clivex@Oct 13 2006, 02:50 PM
too idealistic maybe but doesnt alter the fact that a lot of the blame for this is with the pathetic backward thinking greivance loving element of the population
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's their own fault, the bastards.
 
Originally posted by krizon@Oct 13 2006, 12:44 AM
I don't trust anyone who spells renowned 'reknowned'. :brows: I suspect that 'betsmate' is another fifth columnist, like 'clivex' (employee no. 612706, level 3), spying for a number of government agencies on who sympathises with what or whom. It's not too late to arm yourselves with thermo-nuclear mini-missiles to combat such menaces to free expression. No more than 37 or 655,000,000 people will definitely, or may possibly, die in the fight for freedom. Well worth the sacrifice, I feel.
Click to expand...
I never asked you to trust me and for being a product of the SpellChecker generation I apologise. The rest of your post is bollocks and I won't waste my time responding to it.

My final say on the matter, is that the anti-war/anti-Bush movement has become so strong and is so well supported that it appears to me that often the populous seem eager and willing to believe anything that is said in contrary to it, without pausing to question the motives behind what is being said.

To me this is a dangerous phenomenon - granted not as dangerous as renegade presidents with tanks and nuclear weapons - but worrying nonetheless.
 
Yeah, it's their own fault, the bastards.
Click to expand...

So who is forcing them to kill each other then? The picture is complicated but its ridiculous that the responsibility is deemed to be due to one party only

An opinion which could only comeform the lazy (non?) thinking left who have deemed the muslims to be the "blameless" and the US to be the " blamed"

No bigotry like leftwing bigotry
 
Originally posted by betsmate@Oct 13 2006, 03:18 PM
granted not as dangerous as renegade presidents with tanks and nuclear weapons
Click to expand...
Like the one in the White House?

My final say on the matter, is that the anti-war/anti-Bush movement has become so strong and is so well supported that it appears to me that often the populous seem eager and willing to believe anything that is said in contrary to it, without pausing to question the motives behind what is being said.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that people have lost their jobs in the USA just for questioning whether their country should be in Iraq? My opinion differs from yours - it is that there are far too many people who believe that they must support their government, right or wrong.
 
don't trust anyone who spells renowned 'reknowned'. I suspect that 'betsmate' is another fifth columnist, like 'clivex' (employee no. 612706, level 3), spying for a number of government agencies on who sympathises with what or whom. It's not too late to arm yourselves with thermo-nuclear mini-missiles to combat such menaces to free expression. No more than 37 or 655,000,000 people will definitely, or may possibly, die in the fight for freedom. Well worth the sacrifice, I feel.
Click to expand...

are you

1. trying (and failing badly) to be funny? (left wing humour...the ultimate oxymoron)

2. Genuinely weird and sort of believe that...?

3. a prat?
 
Originally posted by clivex@Oct 13 2006, 03:29 PM
No bigotry like leftwing bigotry
Click to expand...
If that's addressed at me, then i wouldn't call my self left wing. If I'm any sort of "ist2 it'd have to be a realist, a pragmatist or a hedonist.

I just happen to be in complete agreement with that other pinko lefty, general Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the British army.
 
I'd be mildly interested to know the $ to death ratio. It must have been a bit disconcerting to the American people that after a night of blasting 1000's of missiles into the country that only about 30 people were reported dead the next day. At least now they appear to be getting some sort of value for their tax dollar.
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Oct 13 2006, 03:31 PM
Like the one in the White House?

...

Are you aware that people have lost their jobs in the USA just for questioning whether their country should be in Iraq?

...

My opinion differs from yours - it is that there are far too many people who believe that they must support their government, right or wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes, precisely.

Yes again - a symptom of many walks of life when disagreeing with your boss.

Actually I concur, but the reason above means that it is the case. It does however now seem to be "cool" to be anti-Bush/Blair - and it is this ever-growing camp that I was referring to.
 
Clivex - I treat idiocy with idiocy, like for like. You have one reason for being on this forum, it seems: to crudely rubbish any viewpoint contrary to yours, which seems to consist solely of Islam = murdering madmen. You don't appear to post on anything else, but if and when I see you adding some intelligent contributions to the racing section, I might find you more interesting than the one-trick pony you currently appear to be.

And, betsmate, you DO ask us to trust you. Your position is that you've given us data, you've told us to trust your assertion that The Lancet is wrong and that your version of events is correct. When you're asked to back up your assertions, you quote the CIA's figures - an organsiation which is both rabidly partisan and flawed most of the time, but which was catastrophically and unforgivably flawed in its assessments (if any were seriously made) of the potential for renewed interreligious and intertribal conflicts in Iraq post-invasion, and with the pre-9/11 intelligence it supposedly had and ignored - leading directly to the invasion of Iraq and the bodycount to date, both military and civilian, on all sides. So you ARE telling not just me, but this forum, to trust the data you've provided and to ignore that provided by The Lancet/Johns Hopkins.

I would not put much store in anything coming out of any government agency - be it American, British, Iraqi - since they're ridden by warring internal politics, with too much face lost so far, and driven by the desire to recoup some of the faith lost in their decision-making. I would, however, 'trust', or believe more, reports that aren't funded directly by a government holding a very vested interest in their outcome. I hope you find that slightly less bollocks than your avowal that you haven't asked us to trust you.
 
Oh, and by the way, the study made by Johns Hopkins was jointly with Al Mustansiriya University of Baghdad. I'd venture to suggest that the latter has NO reason in promoting anything other than a true picture of the fatalities to date in Iraq. If it was hoping for future US funding, it would be attempting to minimize the death toll. (As reported in the Arab News online today.)
 
What version of events? The figures quoted from the CIA factbook were a demonstration of the death-rates around the world and made no mention of Iraq. I posted them simply for comparison against the claims made in the John Hopkins report about Iraq.

I think you are trying to pick a fight here Krizon and I am not sure why? Have you read this thread properly?
 
I'm not 'trying to pick a fight' with you personally, betsmate, since you're a forum member I like and respect. I'm trying to shift your perception that 655,000 is an unreasonable figure in three years of very intense and varied conflict - from aircraft bombings, tank action, sniper fire, grenades, mines, machine guns, let alone suicide bombers. The figure includes all forms of conflict (rather than just military-induced) casualties from children killed in market-place bombings, to whole families blown to bits in their houses, to poor Iraqi police and army recruits, who've been targetted while queuing to enrol, and blasted away in their hundreds by renegades. The figures will, I would think (in the interests of truth and statistics), include those civilians who've died since direct action critically injured them - figures which aren't reported in our own media.

That's about it, I think, from me.
 
Ok that is fair. 655,000 is not an unreasonable figure. All I was doing was applying the same scrutinisation to it as is readily and often over-zealously applied to statements from the "other side".
 
Originally posted by betsmate@Oct 14 2006, 11:32 AM
Ok that is fair. 655,000 is not an unreasonable figure. All I was doing was applying the same scrutinisation to it as is readily and often over-zealously applied to statements from the "other side".
Click to expand...
These statistics were gathered, analysed and reported by American scientists
 
Originally posted by BrianH+Oct 13 2006, 04:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BrianH @ Oct 13 2006, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-betsmate@Oct 13 2006, 04:05 PM
It does however now seem to be "cool" to be anti-Bush/Blair
Click to expand...
At least I was there in the days before it was fashionable! :lol: [/b][/quote]
when it was not fashionable????????????????????????????????????????
 
To be honest, I thought that when Blair came to power it was wonderful. I believed that a fresh, forward-thinking Labour govt. (in spite of my own Liberal Democrat views) would be far better than either just another round of Toryism or the tired 'old' Labour which was previously set in the aspic of class envy/hatred, and didn't seem to have moved on since 1970. So I was very pleased when a young, dynamic Prime Minister took up the leadership. I think the first term seemed to go rather well, on the face of it. Britain looked refreshed and vigorous.

Sadly, since then, even Labourites strongly opposed to rushing into a hastily-wrought invasion of Iraq have been ignored, at a time when our troops were also heavily committed to Afghanistan. We've also been treated to the dismal spectacle of various major institutions making arses of themselves: the Home Office entirely losing control over asylum seekers, illegal immigrants, overstayers and incoming criminals such as gangmasters and human traffickers. The National Health Service appears to be incapable of running its hospitals to Third World standards at times; schools are bombarded with all kinds of phoney goals to achieve without first consulting the teaching body; our railway timetables are either run very professionally in some areas and particularly amateurishly in others; the Police has blundered its way through some tragic mistakes and has been over-zealous in many areas while being coyly hands-off in others... and then there are the sleazy and silly stories of Cherie and the visa, private schools for the Blair children, Blunkett and the mistress, Mandelson, Prescott and the punch-ups, cash for honours, on and on... sorry, suny bay, it's not a question of whether it's 'fashionable' to bash Blair, but a gradual ennui setting in.

We got used to the Tories' scandals, the endless reinventions of the Welfare State under a vacillating John Major, etc., but it seems that 'New' Labour is just any old party under the covers. Incompetence, misdirection, private misbehaviours, the failure to take leadership responsibility (Clarke et al), endless changes of goals, idiotic political correctness, and the wilful charge in the face of public opposition to support America literally at all costs.

So - no, suny, I and a few million other people had great hopes that Blair and New Labour was going to revitalize British politics, shake out the rubbish, tighten up the ship, and not get bogged down in the same self-defeating, weak and silly scenarios which wrecked the Tories' credibility. Wronggggg!
 
Back
Top