Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
And BTW tw, stop "big lieing" about the Iraqi body count, which even the Iraq Body Count says is about 17.5K max. |
Your count (I believe) is based upon the known deaths due to combat and violence. But the British version of the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, published a more comprehensive report from work by Johns Hopkins, the Columbia School of Nursing, and the College of Medicine at Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. These totals are attributed to those who died because of a US invasion. These include the many who are missing, died unnecessarily from diseases, etc. A real death count last year was determined to be about 98,000 Iraqi dead. Again, this is about as responsible a source as one can have.
One reason why those known death rates will be so much lower is demonstrated in the Lancet study. Of 61 violent deaths, only three involved actions by ground forces. 58 deaths were by "helicopter gunships, rockets, or other forms of aerial weaponry". Many who were killed would not make the official reports.
Then we have that 1 Jan 2005 article from The Economist. Often troops would just fire at innocents only because they might be a threat. If he is holding a cell phone as troops pass, then he was shot only because cell phone are used to explode roadside bombs. Where are all these deaths in that official counting? Remember, Americans in Iraq consider virtually everyone as potential enemies. It is that bad - just like Vietnam.
Brookings Institution says between 15,200 and 31,400 "killed as a result of violence from war and crime between May, 2003 and September 30, 2004." But violence only accounts for some of the deaths created by the illegal American invasion. The Lancet study did far more comprehensive surveys to obtain 98,000 deaths with a confidence level of 95%. Furthermore, the actual number is probably far higher. Falluja and Najaf - both had much higher than normal death rates and were removed from the statistical study as was An Bar provience and the region adjacent to the Syrian border. All had much higher death rates due to recent increases in violence.
IOW most deaths would not be reported in the standard 'body counts'. Bottom line - 98,000 is probably a conservative number. The number of dead Iraqi because they were liberated is actually believed to exceed 100,000. This is what happens when a nation is forcefully liberated. Even worse, this is what happens when the invading army was so poorly lead as to have no Phase Four plans.
In a country that tells its reporters to only report good news, the actual body counts are going to be higher. Welcome to Vietnam were the death rates are subverted by the political agenda. No UT, I did not lie. I simply provides a more accurate numbers. 98,000 dead and liberated Iraqis is a reasonable number.
17,000 is only the death rates we know of and only due to violence. The actual death rates created by an American invasion are far higher based upon statistical analysis, how many are killed by air and artillery (therefore not counted), and how Americans now shoot at anyone who might be a danger.
IOW "we had to kill the people to save them." Vietnam deja vu. 98,000 dead Iraqis is a more honest number. 17,000 dead - most dying after they were liberated - demonstrates the immorality of the illegal war.