| richlevy |
10-15-2006 09:21 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
The 600,000 figure isn't trustworthy, coming as it does from a source that is anti-American-foreign-policy-success first and carefully accurate a distant second. The methodology used to make this estimate is open to considerable question to put it mildly. The actual figure may be a twelfth that -- circa 50,000, and how much of that Iraqi-on-Iraqi in this low-grade civil war?
And still the real brawling stays in the Sunni provinces, after years of troublemaking. Seems it can't spread to any effect, which gives me hope for a democratic and wise and humane future for Iraq.
|
The 600.000 figure doesn't measure actual bodies but compares death rates against a historical average. This means that it is not just considering violence, but also the effects of a severely degraded infrastructure that has still not been rebuilt. Poor sanitation, water, and a lack of electricity make Iraq closer to a third world country than it was before the invasion.
The 600,000 is definitely inaccurate, but probably closer to the truth than the 50,000 who died by violence. Wars in the past have shown that disease kills more people than bullets.
Quote:
One century after the war experts still do not a clear idea about the Spanish casualties in the Spanish American War. Data varies but indicates that between 55,000 and 60,000 men died. Of these men, 90 % died from malaria, dysentery and other diseases; the remaining 10 % died during the battles or later as a consequence of their injuries.
|
Of course, the US, operating on the 'you broke it, you bought it' principle, has been pouring money into Iraq for reconstruction, above the 5 billion a month we are spending on the military. What's shameful is that these hundreds of thousands of deaths only represent the tip of the suffering of the population in spite of the money we are throwing at the problem, money that should have been spent rebuilding the US. This will be the legacy of the Iraq war. |
