Iraq Body Count: War dead figures

[I think not]

The campaign group Iraq Body Count has been recording the number of civilians reported to have been killed during the Iraq war and subsequent military presence.

On 1 January 2006 it put the total number of civilian dead at 26,045 to 29,585 and the number of police dead at 1,709.

Iraq Body Count uses a survey of online news reports to produce its running tally, including a "minimum" and "maximum" figure where reports differ, or it is unclear whether a person killed was a civilian.

The figures include not only deaths caused by military action, but also those it considers a "direct result" of Iraq's breakdown in law and order.

In a statement on its website, Iraq Body Count says "civilian casualties are the most unacceptable consequence of all wars" and must be recorded and - if possible - investigated.

Because it relies on deaths reported by the media, it suggests its figures are an underestimate as "many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported".

On 12 December, US President George W Bush said about 30,000 Iraqis had been killed since the war began.

His spokesman later said the figure was not an official one and was based on "public estimates cited by media reports" - a method similar to that used by Iraq Body Count.

Nevertheless, Iraq Body Count's methods and its ability to compile accurate statistics have been questioned by critics, with some arguing that it has greatly underestimated the number of casualties.

One study, published by the Lancet medical journal in October 2004, suggested that poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" had led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq.

The US and UK governments have both said the chaotic situation in Iraq makes it impossible to gather such information accurately.

 

[#juan]

No official estimate

There is no official estimate of the number of Iraqi civilians who have died since the outbreak of the war in Iraq.

Human rights groups say the occupying powers have failed in their duty to catalogue the deaths, giving the impression that ordinary Iraqis' lives are worth less than those of their soldiers for whom detailed statistics are available.

However, the Pentagon spokesman said "there is no accurate way to validate the estimates of civilian casualties by this or any other organisation".

I tend to favour the Lancet estimates of around a hundred thousand Iraqi deaths. An American general brushed off news people with the statement that they "don't do body counts". It is interesting that very comprehensive records are kept of the American casualties, so what he really meant was that they "don't do Iraq body counts".

 

[Curiosity]

Why are we talking like the Iraq people themselves are sitting around watching from afar ???

They have a police force - albeit inadequate against the terrorists and the tribal insurrections, but they have trained a police force and a military force - both of whom monitored the election process.

They, no doubt are keeping track of the Iraq citizen casualties and perhaps have taken that duty on as part of their assignment, thus relieving the Americans of "fudging" the numbers which will be the international accusation no matter if they are spot on with the count.

There will be tribal warfare long after the U.S. military finally leave that piece of land - and the domestic terrorism will continue and the death will continue.

I fully believe Iraq will never be a peaceful country unless they split up into separate land regions and groups such as Kuwait is now.
They have lived for too long under a dictatorship and I doubt very much if they have anything to believe in except their religious belief and traditional customs - which means tribal separation.

I think what would be of more import is how did they die as well as how many?

I see the websites list "since military intervention" and ask for donation - but what about the mass graves which were found within Iraq when the military arrived?

Are these also counted or are we only counting those who have died because of the American occupation?

How many did Hussein slaughter? Do they not count?

How many mock trials and executions of the people? Do they not count?

 

[#juan]

Remember way back when?

This was supposed to be a "liberation". Why, in a "liberation", would we have something called "shock and awe"? Why was "shock and awe" announced to ther whole world? Was the much touted "shock and awe" supposed to capture the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and make them throw flowers in the path of the invading forces? No! Shock and awe was just one more cock up, of many.

 

[I think not]

The US should never have attacked Iraq in such a rush. If Bush wanted to make his point, he should of the very least did what his daddy had done. Rally the world on his side. Be a little more patient. But His Excellency King George the Second knows all.

 

[#juan]

The US should never have attacked Iraq in such a rush. If Bush wanted to make his point, he should of the very least did what his daddy had done. Rally the world on his side. Be a little more patient.

ITN

If G.W. had waited for UN approval, he would have had most of the world on his side. Though I disagreed with this war, I would have gone along with it if the UN had approved it. I think it would have swung a lot of Iraqis if it had UN approval. The rush was completely unjustified. Every American death is payment for that rush.

 

[Curiosity]

ITN/Juan but don't let your ire with GW change the subject...

I agree you are probably right to criticize GW but I thought the topic here was the civilian/military casualties of Iraqi people?

Are the people slaughtered prior to the invasion by the U.S. (is that a better choice of word?) to be counted as well....and those
people executed by Hussein?

Remember the mass graves which have been located ??

What exactly is "body count" referring to? The casualties of war only or pre-war?

 

[I think not]

The US should never have attacked Iraq in such a rush. If Bush wanted to make his point, he should of the very least did what his daddy had done. Rally the world on his side. Be a little more patient.

ITN

If G.W. had waited for UN approval, he would have had most of the world on his side. Though I disagreed with this war, I would have gone along with it if the UN had approved it. I think it would have swung a lot of Iraqis if it had UN approval. The rush was completely unjustified. Every American death is payment for that rush.

Agreed, I wasn't for the war either. Despite the resistance of France, Germany and others, had he insisted on back room diplomacy, it would have been different. At the very least he could of waited just enough to show the world, he's sticking to his plans, he's exhausted every avenue (which I don't believe he did) and did what he said he would.

However, I firmly disagree leaving Iraq in shambles. More work needs to be done, we have to pay for it and I only hope in the end it will have been worth it. All these lives lost.

 

[I think not]

ITN/Juan but don't let your ire with GW change the subject...

It's war and post war casualties. And you're right, the topic isn't Bush.

 

[Curiosity]

ITN

What I am getting at is the country was in terrible trouble even before the US moved in.

The oil for food scandal had pretty much starved the people from health care and regular meals..... their land is a desert of ugliness...and from what I have read on Thunder's blog ... he cried when he landed there because of the condition of the little kids he saw....absolutely no shoes...even some of the boys wearing dresses or garments like long shirts tied in the middle around their legs so they would look like pants. Bugs in their hair - they chewed their nails shorter as they grow out....they are such bright children too and they have missed so much schooling and healthy food.

Nobody talks about all of the horror these poor people were in and much of the killing has been tribal against tribal. Of course the military are (and still will be in the future) responsible for deaths in Iraq.....but it was pretty much a wasteland when the military arrived. Hussein had to be mad. I mean without conscience.

I have to believe the people will find a better life some time in the future but the little ones will probably be teens or adults by the time the country is sorted out and operating within reason and what of those kids' minds from what they have had to witness?

It will probably take a couple of generations of "peace" whatever that will be for Iraq to bloom again. But then it never bloomed for the people of Iraq - only the special ones blessed by Hussein.

 

[I think not]

Sure they talk about the horror before the US moved in, it's all the US's fault, everyone else's shit don't stink. And when you show them evidence that others were the ones giving arms to Iraq, morality is then reduced to a game of numbers and statistics.

Don't you get it by now WC? The United States is the most anti-democratic, materialstic, imperialistic human rights abuser to EVER have existed in the history of the world.

When people side with the likes of Saddam Hussein and against the US, their is only one word that can justify such a stance. Hatred

And then you'll get the argument that it isn't about hating America, it's about everything else but that, they will take it to their grave that they have no hatred. They are "able" to distinguish between the American Government and it's Society, yes, some of them do, to most however, the US is nothing but a cesspool of injustice and unequality that seeks to dominate the world.

Now has the US done bad things? Of course, you have to be deaf, blind and dumb not to believe that. But it isn't the evil force that somehow manages to permeate the world over. Quite the contrary, its the leftist elitists when given the reigns of power (as history has shown repeatedly, that they squash human rights, and distort freedoms to keep everybody dumbed down.

--End Rant

 

[#juan]

No, the topic is not about Bush

Heaven knows we have enough Bush topics to make a very large book.

Iraqi casualties is not a simple subject. Estimates of the civilian deaths range from 10,000 by one source, up to the 100,000 estimated by the british medical journal, Lancet, who went to Iraq and canvassed people about the deaths and then projected the totals. The BBC did a report that included a fly-over and the terrible damage to every city is incredible. When we consider that water and power are still not restored in most areas, do we count as casualties the people who die of disease and other causes?

 

[Curiosity]

Sure they talk about the horror before the US moved in, it's all the US's fault, everyone else's shit don't stink. And when you show them evidence that others were the ones giving arms to Iraq, morality is then reduced to a game of numbers and statistics.

Don't you get it by now WC? The United States is the most anti-democratic, materialstic, imperialistic human rights abuser to EVER have existed in the history of the world.

When people side with the likes of Saddam Hussein and against the US, their is only one word that can justify such a stance. Hatred

And then you'll get the argument that it isn't about hating America, it's about everything else but that, they will take it to their grave that they have no hatred. They are "able" to distinguish between the American Government and it's Society, yes, some of them do, to most however, the US is nothing but a cesspool of injustice and unequality that seeks to dominate the world.

Now has the US done bad things? Of course, you have to be deaf, blind and dumb not to believe that. But it isn't the evil force that somehow manages to permeate the world over. Quite the contrary, its the leftist elitists when given the reigns of power (as history has shown repeatedly, that they squash human rights, and distort freedoms to keep everybody dumbed down.

--End Rant

ITN

You are right in your anger at what has transpired over the years but I think it was a "reason" for the hatred to be overt rather than whispered about many things for years prior to Iraq itself.

I've been there and I know how you feel. This all started when I was just beginning my naturalization application and I kept putting it away and then taking it out again....because what I believed was that people say things they know little about and how easy it is to have someone who is "doing something" to blame. I used to get the response: It is their "foreign policy" which nobody explained to me...and of course after 9/11 the "foreign policy" to invade Iraq and Afghanistan became the raison d'etre.

I don't see the hatred directed to those who stole the oil for food money and didn't deliver the food.... and that one makes me boil.

It's a hot spot for many people and there will probably be more casualties before it is over, plus as you write, the country itself and its systems all have to be rebuilt.

 

[I think not]

WC

I have it covered. I'm patriotic, I'm not nationalistic and most certainly not blind. The US has shed unjustified blood all over Latin America in the past, and I say unjustified, because in most cases it had nothing to do with the Cold War. It had attempted to colonize the Phillipines and flunked, thankfully. Beyond that everything is attributed to the Cold War, that would include but not limited to Vietnam, Korea and others. Like every other country on the planet the US will look after its own interests first and foremost and then worry about the morality of it. I say to those who pick and chose their moral high ground to shove it. Look within your own borders first and then rush to criticize what goes on beyond your little bubble of self-righteousness.

The US is the largest arms dealer in the world, indeed it is, so everybody else is obsolved because of proportionality. Oh really? Leftists don't like bringing up that communism has killed 100 million people worldwide. If they perceive the US to be evil, then let them, we've survived without their "socialist" sickos since 1776.

And in most cases they trip when trying to make a point, take Cuba for example, they will rant and rave and pour into the streets why the US hasn't lifted the trade embargo. Huh? Why would they on one hand condemn the evilness of the international corporations and then want them to engage in more evil trade with Cuba? :?

You got me all rolling here, I think I should stop, I'm going for a beer.

 

[Curiosity]

No, the topic is not about Bush

Heaven knows we have enough Bush topics to make a very large book.

Iraqi casualties is not a simple subject. Estimates of the civilian deaths range from 10,000 by one source, up to the 100,000 estimated by the british medical journal, Lancet, who went to Iraq and canvassed people about the deaths and then projected the totals. The BBC did a report that included a fly-over and the terrible damage to every city is incredible. When we consider that water and power are still not restored in most areas, do we count as casualties the people who die of disease and other causes?

Juan

I doubt if we will ever get an accurate account because some people may have escaped Iraq altogether and are living elsewhere but are counted as missing or dead.

What a mess. I am sure the count is higher than we will ever get for an accurate one.

 

[Curiosity]

ITN

Hope the beer helps - I don't drink so you can have mine too if it will help.

Come back happy and relaxed! WC

 

[Jay]

It's my fault Wednesday's Child. I tease and prod poor ITN all day and drive him to drink....

 

[Curiosity]

Jay

I thought it was me (well maybe Toro too)!