Household Survey Sees 100, 000 Iraqi Deaths

  • Thread starter Arwin
  • 42 comments
  • 1,156 views
2,093
This is bound to come up so might as well start a thread off decently.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Death-Toll.html?oref=login

---------- copyright New York Times ---------------
Household Survey Sees 100, 000 Iraqi Deaths
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 29, 2004


Filed at 10:10 a.m. ET

LONDON (AP) -- Researchers have estimated that as many as 100,000 more Iraqis -- many of them women and children -- died since the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq than would have been expected otherwise, based on the death rate before the war.

Writing in the British-based medical journal The Lancet, the American and Iraqi researchers concluded that violence accounted for most of the extra deaths and that airstrikes by the U.S.-led coalition were a major factor.

There is no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began, but some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000. As of Thursday, 1,106 U.S. servicemen had been killed, according to the U.S. Defense Department.

The scientists who wrote the report concede that the data they based their projections on were of ``limited precision,'' because the quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study. The interviewers were Iraqi, most of them doctors.

Designed and conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, the study was published Thursday on The Lancet's Web site.

The survey attributed most of the extra deaths to violence and said airstrikes by coalition forces caused most of the violent deaths.

``Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children,'' the researchers wrote.

The report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher said he wanted it that way. The Lancet routinely publishes papers on the Web before they appear in print, particularly if it considers the findings of urgent public health interest.

Those reports then appear later in the print issue of the journal. The journal's spokesmen said they were uncertain which print issue the Iraqi report would appear in and said it was too late to make Friday's issue, and possibly too late for the Nov. 5 edition.

Les Roberts, the lead researcher from Johns Hopkins, said the article's timing was up to him.

``I emailed it in on Sept. 30 under the condition that it came out before the election,'' Roberts told The Associated Press. ``My motive in doing that was not to skew the election. My motive was that if this came out during the campaign, both candidates would be forced to pledge to protect civilian lives in Iraq.

``I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea, but I think that our science has transcended our perspectives,'' Roberts said. ``As an American, I am really, really sorry to be reporting this.''

Richard Peto, an expert on study methods who was not involved with the research, said the approach the scientists took is a reasonable one to investigate the Iraq death toll.

However, it's possible that they may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq, said Peto, a professor of medical statistics at Oxford University in England.

Lancet editor Richard Horton wrote in an editorial accompanying the survey that more household clusters would have improved the precision of the report, ``but at an enormous and unacceptable risk to the team of interviewers.''

``This remarkable piece of work represents the efforts of a courageous team of scientists,'' he wrote.

To conduct the survey, investigators visited 33 neighborhoods spread evenly across the country in September, randomly selecting clusters of 30 households to sample. Of the 988 households visited, 808, consisting of 7,868 people, agreed to participate. Each household was asked how many people lived in the home and how many births and deaths there had been since January 2002.

The scientists then compared death rates in the 15 months before the invasion with those that occurred during the 18 months after the attack and adjusted those numbers to account for the different time periods.

Even though the sample size appears small, this type of survey is considered accurate and acceptable by scientists and was used to calculate war deaths in Kosovo in the late 1990s.

The investigators worked in teams of three. Five of the six Iraqi interviewers were doctors and all six were fluent in English and Arabic.
 
``I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea...

So we know there's no bias here.

``Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children,'' the researchers wrote

Yes. That sounds about right. We all know how much the US hates women and children.
 
the article
Researchers have estimated that as many as 100,000 more Iraqis -- many of them women and children -- died since the start of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq than would have been expected otherwise, based on the death rate before the war.
So, in other words, this is just like the NHTSA reports traffic fatalities. 100,000 extra people have died in Iraq since the US coalition invaded, so by definition, the US coalition has killed them all. What about the hundreds and thousands killed by terrorist suicide bombers? Most of them seem to target Iraqis, either civillians or civil officers, and infrastructure targets, leading to further sanitary and power issues. Meanwhile, the terrorists themselves hide among civillians, forcing us to attack in crowded locations in order to get to them.

But of course, Bush and the Americans are totally to blame for all this. Just like when a drunk driver runs a red light and creams a passing car, killing the driver, who just happened to be going 10 mph over the speed limit. That gets blamed in the records as a "speed related fatality", regardless of how irrelevant the speeding was.
 
What about the hundreds and thousands killed by terrorist suicide bombers?

Neon, we're to blame for those too. The suicide bombers are just desperately trying to get us out of there. They're innocent. We're the real bad guys here.
 
Yep I can see how blowing up yourself and your fellow muslims will teach the Americans to mess with them and get them to go home. " You messing with me american infidel ?" ...Take this ! " I blow myself up along with with all these people" .... yep that should show them...
 
It's well known among Muslim extremists: "So much as talk to the Yankee pig, and you are as bad as a Jew."
 
danoff
Neon, we're to blame for those too. The suicide bombers are just desperately trying to get us out of there. They're innocent. We're the real bad guys here.

I can't believe what I'm reading. You're defending gutless men and women who murder innocent civilians. What a bunch of crap!!
 
It does take guts commiting suicide and taking inocents with you. These people are only thinking of when they enter heaven and how much of a martyr they'll be.
 
Poor guys ...


Ariel Sharon, Enron, Unical, the Saudi Royal family, etc ... all thank you for being so frightened.

After 4 more Bush years you'll feel a lot better and safer :lol:
... and wherever you travel, people will love and praise you for all the good you did.


I just hope that wherever I travel, people don't think I'm American because I'm white too.
 
Buggy Boy
I just hope that wherever I travel, people don't think I'm American because I'm white too.

...because people the world over are so idiotic and ignorant as to take out the problems of the world on one traveler.
 
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

These guys don't appear to be particularly pro-US, but they place the Iraqi civillian death toll at less than 20% of what is projected from the small statistical sample in the Lancet article.

It's been 581 days since the coalition invaded Iraq. In order to cause 100,000 civillian casualties in that time frame, we would have had to kill 172 innocent Iraqis per day, every day, for more than a year and a half. I'd like to see some numbers that back that up, more than projections based on word-of-mouth surveys.
 
If and when the time comes for me to go to whatever I am needed in the world, I will go and I will kill the enemy. If the enemy happens to be a 7 year old kid shooting at me with a AK-47 then I will defend myself. I wouldn't kill anyone for the hell of it though.
 
neon_duke
These guys don't appear to be particularly pro-US, but they place the Iraqi civillian death toll at less than 20% of what is projected from the small statistical sample in the Lancet article.


Only 20,000 dead civilians? - well thats alright then 👍

- and how many civilians died in the twin towers? - including someone that i know
 
TheCracker
Only 20,000 dead civilians? - well thats alright then 👍
Civillian casualties are never OK. But that's what happens when your enemy fights a guerilla/terrorist war. It would of course limit the number of civiliian casualties if we pounded the snot out of some empty desert. But that wouldn't be very effective now, would it?

Hussein deliberately cached weapons and ammunition in and around schools, mosques, and hospitals. Those locations then become military targets, because they contain military materials and soldiers of the enemy.

Hussein's fault, or America's? I know my answer.
- and how many civilians died in the twin towers? - including someone that i know
So, we're just supposed to stop when we reach a certain number? Is this really just revenge, then, and not an attempt to rid the world of a menace? I understand now - we're not actually trying to get rid of terrorism for the world, we're just trying to punish innocent strangers for each American killed.

So after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we should have stopped fighting after killing 2,403 Japanese people. Right.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.
:dunce:
 
neon_duke
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

These guys don't appear to be particularly pro-US, but they place the Iraqi civillian death toll at less than 20% of what is projected from the small statistical sample in the Lancet article.

It's been 581 days since the coalition invaded Iraq. In order to cause 100,000 civillian casualties in that time frame, we would have had to kill 172 innocent Iraqis per day, every day, for more than a year and a half. I'd like to see some numbers that back that up, more than projections based on word-of-mouth surveys.

Destroying a country's infrastructure and involving it in a war causes quite a few more deaths than just those by bombs and gunfire alone.

And if you say that 20.000 civilians were worth it, then I'd like to know once more how you define that precious 'it'? Making sure that Iraq didn't happen to have WMDs that they could have possibly given to Al Quaeda who then just might have been able to use that against a U.S. target?
 
Arwin
Destroying a country's infrastructure and involving it in a war causes quite a few more deaths than just those by bombs and gunfire alone.
From the details of that database:
This is a human security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military action by the USA and its allies. This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation. Results and totals are continually updated and made immediately available on this page and on various IBC counters which may be freely displayed on any website, where they will be automatically updated without further intervention. Casualty figures are derived solely from a comprehensive survey of online media reports. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.
And if you say that 20.000 civilians were worth it, then I'd like to know once more how you define that precious 'it'? Making sure that Iraq didn't happen to have WMDs that they could have possibly given to Al Quaeda who then just might have been able to use that against a U.S. target?
Let me reverse that question and put it to you:

How many civillian deaths would be justified in order to remove Hussein, and potential weapons?

Leaving the issue of WMDs aside, how many civillian deaths would be worth it to root out terrorism on a global scale?
 
neon_duke
From the details of that database:

Since you questioned the likelyhood of the 173 a day figure, I just wanted to make sure you understood what factors would be counted in. But it seems you do. 👍

Let me reverse that question and put it to you:

How many civillian deaths would be justified in order to remove Hussein, and potential weapons?

Potential is tough. I'd say none, and would say let's discuss the issue again when there is decent evidence.

Leaving the issue of WMDs aside, how many civillian deaths would be worth it to root out terrorism on a global scale?

Certainly not more than taken by terrorism.
 
Certainly not more than taken by terrorism.

Come on!!! Really? Are you serious about that? Tell me, please, that you didn't think about this statement before you said it! Tell me that this was just an off-the-cuff remark that you didn't really mean!! Please tell me that up reflection you realize just how wrong that remark was.
 
danoff
Come on!!! Really? Are you serious about that? Tell me, please, that you didn't think about this statement before you said it! Tell me that this was just an off-the-cuff remark that you didn't really mean!! Please tell me that up reflection you realize just how wrong that remark was.

No idea. I have really no idea where that came from. Come to think of it, I'm all of a sudden wondering what cure worse than the disease really means. Please enlighten me on the meaning of both!
 
Easy, danoff. Ask him an actual question and don't blow a gasket.
 
I agree, but stuttering in disbelief is not the way to go. This is just a friendly tap on the shoulder, not a mod talking.
 
I agree, but stuttering in disbelief is not the way to go.

Certain truths should be self-evident. I believe this to be one, but I will present reasons why it is self-evident (therby undermining my own claim).

Cost in human life is not the final, total cost of any given issue. Pain can be a cost, slavery can be a cost. Freedom can be worth dieing for – the freedom that cannot be had when a terrorist attack could be around the corner.

Social costs can be much more heavily valued than life itself. If not, then why did so many Americans line to fight for independence when the only cost was taxes, laws and unfair treatment? If human life were the final, total cost of any conflict, then we would never fight another war because surrender would cost fewer lives.
 
Back