More than 1,000,000 people have died result of the US led Iraq invasion!

[ironsides]

I wish your attitude was an exception ES, but I believe most Americans share your apathy.

Americans don't care that every justification their leaders made for starting this unprovoked war has been proven false. They don't care that as a result the Iraqi people have suffered an estimated equivalent of 300 9/11's. Or going with IBC's verifiable minimum, at least the equivalent of 30 9/11's.

What exactly NEW are you trying to say. You have been saying the same thing over and over again. Yes, we all know you dislike America, dislike Israel, dislike just about everybody except those poor souls who maim and kill using their so called religious laws. How about reading what you keep crying out, you may be right, you maybe wrong. But here are laws of war.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp

Human Rights, just statements anyone can make more like opinions.

Yes, most Americans were duped by the so called WMD's supposedly in Iraq, oops. Bottom line Saddam is out for good, now the people maybe able to setup what ever type of government they want, good or bad. Some of us do get a chance to effect history or the future.

 

[earth_as_one]

What exactly NEW are you trying to say. You have been saying the same thing over and over again. Yes, we all know you dislike America, dislike Israel, dislike just about everybody except those poor souls who maim and kill using their so called religious laws. How about reading what you keep crying out, you may be right, you maybe wrong. But here are laws of war.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp

Human Rights, just statements anyone can make more like opinions.

Yes, most Americans were duped by the so called WMD's supposedly in Iraq, oops. Bottom line Saddam is out for good, now the people maybe able to setup what ever type of government they want, good or bad. Some of us do get a chance to effect history or the future.

True I have an perception that most Americans (not all) are apathetic regarding the consequences of the Iraq war on the Iraqi people. Would you like to post something which contradicts that perception?

I should have said most Americans aren't aware that their country has caused the equivalent of at least 30 and as many as 300 9/11's in Iraq. I'm sure if they knew, it'd bother most Americans. Why do you think I started this string. My mistake. I stand corrected.

You support one side's war crimes and crimes against humanity and simplisticly believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you must support the other side's war crimes and crimes against humanity. Sorry but I don't fit into that category either. I belong to the side in the middle which doesn't support anyone's war crimes. Unlike you, I don't support unprovoked and unjustified violence, by anyone.

I have a problem with our news tending to report one side's atrocties rather than both equally. For balance I post regarding the atrocities not covered covered by our news media. That doesn't mean I support one side or their violence. I support people knowing all the facts, not just the select few presented by our media.

I am driven by a sense of justice and compassion to post against war crimes and crimes against humanity, not hate. I don't hate Israelis, Jews or Americans. In fact I share similar viewpoints with many Israelis, Jews and Americans and frequently I reference these people to back up my points. FYI, three people I repect and admire include Noam Chomsky, Kenneth Roth (Human Rights Watch) and Ilan Pappe (historian). They are all Jewish. Chomsky and Roth are Americans. Pappe is Israeli.

I'm about as anti-American and anti-Semtic as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'tselem and other human rights organizations where I get most of my information.

Yes most Americans were duped into supporting an unprovoked and unjustified war. Oops, more than a million innocent people have died as a result. I have a problem with that, don't you?

I don't believe the Iraq war was a result of faulty intelligence. The entire war was planned and deliberate, including the Iraq demonization and misinformation campaign which preceded it. Faulty intel was given to the American people, but the people responsible knew they were lying to the American people. I have a problem with that, don't you?

I'm aware of international laws regarding war fare. I could list every violation the US made regarding the Iraq war. In general, they relate to starting an unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression, treatement of POWs and torture, treatment of civilians and torture, deliberately attacking civilian targets.... If I listed all the American violations of international laws and statues would that change your opinion?

 

[EagleSmack]

The same thing over and over and over...like a broken record. Droning on and on ...blah blah BLAH blah BLAH.

 

[Cliffy]

I'm aware of international laws regarding war fare. I could list every violation the US made regarding the Iraq war. In general, they relate to starting an unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression, treatement of POWs and torture, treatment of civilians and torture, deliberately attacking civilian targets.... If I listed all the American violations of international laws and statues would that change your opinion?

I doubt it. The Yanks can do no wrong with god on their side. Nothing can reach a brainwashed patriot. Facts would just confuse them.:roll:

 

[catman]

How about the estimated 1.8 trillion dollars spent on the war? Was it worth it?

 

[AnnaG]

"
More than 1,000,000 people have died result of the US led Iraq invasion!"

I can't see how anyone could say that as a certainty. How would they know that some other country didn't have its eyeball on the oil? How'd they know that Sunnis and Shias wouldn't have escalated? How would they know that someone else hadn't been plotting against Sodamn Insane? Perhaps insurgents would have escalated their attacks on marketplaces and the gov't. Perhaps if the US hadn't gone in, the toll would have been 2 million.
Comments like the title of the thread are simply hate mongering.

 

[Just the Facts]

"
More than 1,000,000 people have died result of the US led Iraq invasion!"

I can't see how anyone could say that as a certainty.

Good point AnnaG. The killing is intensifying in Iraq as the Americans pull out. Interesting. Maybe the thread should be "1,000,000 Iraqi's who would otherwise have been killed are still alive as a result of the US led Iraq invasion!"

 

[AnnaG]

Orsimply that "
More than 1,000,000 people have died" SINCE "the US led Iraq invasion!"

 

[gopher]

How about the estimated 1.8 trillion dollars spent on the war? Was it worth it?

Hell no.

That money could have been used to give medical insurance to those who need it. Instead, the profits went to Halliburton and Bechtel among others. As always, socialize the cost, privatize the profit.

 

[AnnaG]

Hell no.

That money could have been used to give medical insurance to those who need it. Instead, the profits went to Halliburton and Bechtel among others. As always, socialize the cost, privatize the profit.

That's the habit, for sure.

 

[earth_as_one]

AnnaG: Who said certainty?

...At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far. From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths...

ORB survey of Iraq War casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1.2 million is a statistical mean. That means its a 50/50 chance the true 2007 number is higher or lower than that number.

The odds are 97.5% likely that the number of deaths is between the upper and lower value.

That's not certainty. The 100,000 + casualty figure from IBC is a provable absolute minimum, not an estimate of the actual total.

Since 2007 more people have died, making it more likely the total is over a million.

Let's put it this way. Before the war, war hawks and the news made similar claims about Saddam Hussein based on far less accurate information. The information was based on estimates looking at Iraq from the outside. They weren't based on surveys, but were best guesses. Then the war hawks twisted the numbers and context to create a perception that an Iraqi human rights catastrophe was ongoing and massive. Most people fell for it.

Open Questions:

1) Why did people accept the numbers used by the war hawks to justify war without question, when they were blatantly misleading and probably inaccurate?

2) Now that the numbers portray the architects of the Iraq war catastrophe as war criminals, why aren't the numbers of Iraq war casualties newsworthy?

IMO AnnaG, Bush and Hussein are equally guilty of war crimes on a similar scale.

Also, pointing out that the Bush administration were war criminals and that most people haven't got a clue about the true scale of death and destruction isn't being anti-American. Its being pro-justice. I have nothing against Americans or any other group of people. I am against individuals who commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Orsimply that "
More than 1,000,000 people have died" SINCE "the US led Iraq invasion!"

Read the study. They claim that since the invasion, more than a million people died violently that would likely still be alive if the invasion hadn't taken place. they count collateral damage by all sides as well as increased crime resulting from anarchy and religious strife.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=88

You might find this informative:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq

 

[EagleSmack]

That's not certainty. The 100,000 + casualty figure from IBC is a provable absolute minimum, not an estimate of the actual total.

IBC doesn't estimate. It actually tracks each and every death by violence.

You do not like their way of counting because the number is too small. You like the BIGGEST number.

 

[AnnaG]

AnnaG: Who said certainty?

You did in your topic title, or might as well have. All I did was point out that what you declared is an impossible thing to declare because we don't know what would have happened if the USA didn't invade. For all we know, the Sunnis and Shias might have killed 2 million. Maybe China would have wanted Iraq's oil and invaded the place themselves. People might have killed each other after the USA invaded but their conflict had nothing to do with the invasion. If it didn't have anything to do with the invasion how could you attribute that to the Americans?

 

[earth_as_one]

IBC doesn't estimate. It actually tracks each and every death by violence.

You do not like their way of counting because the number is too small. You like the BIGGEST number.

You obviously don't understand IBC's numbers mean. IBC's numbers do not represent the total number of Iraqi deaths resulting from this war. It is a count of verifiable civilian deaths and is less than the actual total which can only be estimated.

From IBC

...Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths...

...Our count is purely a civilian count...

...We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording. It is no part of our practice, at least as far as our published totals are concerned, to make any prediction or projection about what the "unseen" number of deaths might have been....

...Amnesty International, which criticized and drew attention to the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime long before the governments which launched the 2003 attack on Iraq, estimated that violent deaths attributable to Saddam's government numbered at most in the hundreds during the years immediately leading up to 2003. Those wishing to make the "more lives ultimately saved" argument will need to make their comparisons with the number of civilians likely to have been killed had Saddam Hussein's reign continued into 2003-2004, not in comparison to the number of deaths for which he was responsible in the 1980s and early 1990s...

Iraq Body Count Press Release 10 (7 Nov 2004) :: Iraq Body Count

IBC doesn't count military deaths which were estimated to be in the tens of thousands within the first few weeks:

...US Army General Tommy Franks reportedly estimated soon after the invasion that there had been 30,000 Iraqi casualties as of April 9, 2003.[27]...
Iraqi Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most of these soldiers were involuntary conscripts who never had a chance. They had families and friends and served their country. I think they deserve to be counted.

Many more Iraqi insurgents died, but since they were belligerents, IBC didn't count them either

IBC also doesn't count probable civilian deaths. That doesn't mean these people didn't die, but that information regarding their deaths failed to meet IBC's strict criteria for being counted. For example, during the seiges of Falluja, most deaths were unreported because civilian authorities and reporters could not get near the city. As a result hundreds or thousands of civilian and insurgent deaths never made IBC's count.

Many Iraqis that died in this conflict were buried by relatives according to local customs without going through a morgue or making the news. IBC didn't count these deaths either.

How many civilians and insurgents that died without meeting the criteria for being counted by IBC can only be estimated, and as you are aware, IBC doesn't do estimates. So you have misinterpreted what IBC's numbers mean. Thay aren't and were never intended to be total count of Iraqi deaths as a result of the war. IBC's numbers could be considered a verifiable minimum.

The studies I quoted on the other hand were intended to estimate the total number of Iraqi deaths resulting from war. I have quoted the most recent estimate which also happens to be the highest. The logic behind this isn't that difficult.

As the war has progressed, more Iraqis died. Therefore more recent estimates are higher than previous estimates.

 

[earth_as_one]

You did in your topic title, or might as well have. All I did was point out that what you declared is an impossible thing to declare because we don't know what would have happened if the USA didn't invade. For all we know, the Sunnis and Shias might have killed 2 million. Maybe China would have wanted Iraq's oil and invaded the place themselves. People might have killed each other after the USA invaded but their conflict had nothing to do with the invasion. If it didn't have anything to do with the invasion how could you attribute that to the Americans?

From IBC above:

...Amnesty International, which criticized and drew attention to the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime long before the governments which launched the 2003 attack on Iraq, estimated that violent deaths attributable to Saddam's government numbered at most in the hundreds during the years immediately leading up to 2003. Those wishing to make the "more lives ultimately saved" argument will need to make their comparisons with the number of civilians likely to have been killed had Saddam Hussein's reign continued into 2003-2004, not in comparison to the number of deaths for which he was responsible in the 1980s and early 1990s...

If you think this war saved lives AnnaG, you are misinformed. Why is it that you accept "estimates" of deaths under Hussein as accurate, yet can't accept estimates of deaths as a result of the US decision to invade and occupy Iraq?

BTW, the Lancet estimates I referenced were "peer reviewed" and published in a scientific journal. I'd say that makes them reliable.

ORB's estimates are newer than Lancet's and their numbers are in line with Lancet's numbers taking into account that they are more recent and Iraqis have continued to die in this war.

 

[AnnaG]

From IBC above:

...Amnesty International, which criticized and drew attention to the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime long before the governments which launched the 2003 attack on Iraq, estimated that violent deaths attributable to Saddam's government numbered at most in the hundreds during the years immediately leading up to 2003. Those wishing to make the "more lives ultimately saved" argument will need to make their comparisons with the number of civilians likely to have been killed had Saddam Hussein's reign continued into 2003-2004, not in comparison to the number of deaths for which he was responsible in the 1980s and early 1990s...

An estimation is an estimation. Your OP did not imply an estimation. It was a clearcut statement. And it's impossible to determine. You should have said. "More than 1,000,000 people have died SINCE the US led invasion".

If you think this war saved lives AnnaG, you are misinformed. Why is it that you accept "estimates" of deaths under Hussein as accurate, yet can't accept estimates of deaths as a result of the US decision to invade and occupy Iraq?

I guess you haven't read my view on war. It is stupid and wasteful. I don't accept estimates as anything other than estimates.

BTW, the Lancet estimates I referenced were "peer reviewed" and published in a scientific journal. I'd say that makes them reliable.

ORB's estimates are newer than Lancet's and their numbers are in line with Lancet's numbers taking into account that they are more recent and Iraqis have continued to die in this war.

martians could estimate, but they would still be estimates.

 

[earth_as_one]

Read post #1 in this string. I claimed the following is a credible statement:

eao

More than 1,000,000 people have died result of the US led Iraq invasion!

The odds of that statement being true back in September 2007 was greater than 50% since the statistical median from ORB's study was 1,033,000.

Chances of that statement being true now almost two years later is even greater, since people continue to die in this conflict.

I don't see what your problem is with these "estimates". Are you saying since these numbers are estimates, they are probably wrong or meaningless? If so then you don't understand the meaning of an estimate.

Another way to interpret the same study would be to say "its 97.5% certain that more than 733,158 deaths resulted from the US led invasion/occupation". Is that a probable enough estimate for you?

Its also possible the number could be less than that. Approximately a 2.5% chance according to ORB. Or about the same chance the number is greater than 1,446,063 deaths.

No one can claim with absolute certainty how many people have died in Iraq as a consequence of the 2003 US led invasion and occupation. Therefore estimates are the best information available.

If you want to cling to a belief that some number lower than 700,000 is the actual number of deaths, then go ahead. I won't say you are wrong. Instead I will say that "its highly unlikely that less than 700,000 people died in this conflict."

Whereas my original 1,000,000 deaths statement is more likely correct than not.

The IBC number isn't an estimate of the total, but a verifiable minimum of civilian deaths only. Since IBC doesn't count belligerents, the chances the actual number of Iraqi deaths including belligerents being more than 100,000 is 100% certain.

Even going with numbers which are 100% certain to be less than the total, we are still talking about enough deaths to use stronger language than stupid and wasteful. I use words like "war crime" and "crime against humanity" to describe death and destruction on that scale.

 

[ironsides]

Very credible statement "The August 2007 Opinion Research Business survey resulted in a statistical mean of 1,033,000 increased violent deaths directly or indirectly related to the US led invasion. Lots of people have died violently in Iraq since 2007. As a result this is a credible statement:"

Based upon Opinion Research Business survey?? Who in their right mind would base anything on a opinion and call it facts.

The Iraq Body Count you mentioned is probably closer to the truth.

 

[ironsides]

How about the estimated 1.8 trillion dollars spent on the war? Was it worth it?

Now that is a very good question. No it was and is not worth it.
We should have ignored public opinion and just gone in and taken the country out, apologize to the world and gone home.

 

[earth_as_one]

Very credible statement "The August 2007 Opinion Research Business survey resulted in a statistical mean of 1,033,000 increased violent deaths directly or indirectly related to the US led invasion. Lots of people have died violently in Iraq since 2007. As a result this is a credible statement:"

Based upon Opinion Research Business survey?? Who in their right mind would base anything on a opinion and call it facts.

The Iraq Body Count you mentioned is probably closer to the truth.

ORB's business is surveys. Did you think their name meant their number is based on Iraqi opinions regarding the total people who have died in Iraq. What are you smoking? :roll:

Here's are older peer reviewed estimate of the total which is in line with ORB's more recent numbers:

The Lancet, one of the oldest scientific medical journals in the world, published two peer-reviewed studies on the effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation on the Iraqi mortality rate. The first was published in 2004; the second (by many of the same authors) in 2006. The studies estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.).

The first survey[1] published on 29 October 2004, estimated 98,000 excess Iraqi deaths (with a range of 8,000 to 194,000, using a 95% confidence interval (CI)) from the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq to that time, or about 50% higher than the death rate prior to the invasion. The authors described this as a conservative estimate, because it excluded the extreme statistical outlier data from Falluja. If the Falluja cluster were included, the mortality estimate would increase to 150% over pre-invasion rates (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.2).

The second survey[2][3][4] published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006. The new study applied similar methods and involved surveys between May 20 and July 10, 2006.[4] More households were surveyed, allowing for a 95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636 excess Iraqi deaths. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were due to violence. 31% of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% to others, and 46% unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56%), car bomb (13%), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13%), accident (2%), and unknown (2%).

Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If 98,000 Iraqis had died after 17 months of war and 601,027 died after 41 months of war, then 1,000,000 deaths after 52 months of war is a credible number.

If you think IBC's numbers are a total, then you don't understand what they are measuring. IBC counts verifiable civilian deaths only. They don't count belligerent deaths or probable civilian deaths. Even IBC states they do not know the total number of civilian deaths and that:

"our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position"
Iraq Body Count Press Release 10 (7 Nov 2004) :: Iraq Body Count

I interpret their statement as they are certain the total number of Iraqi civilian deaths is higher. How do you interpret that statement?

...We should have ignored public opinion and just gone in and taken the country out, apologize to the world and gone home.

IS, If I understand your meaning, you'd wish the US slaughtered every Iraqi and then just apologize afterward.

The only way someone could have such an opinion would be if they don't consider Iraqis to be fellow human beings. When I look at these images, I see dead people. What do you see?

WARNING! GRAPHIC IMAGES OF THE IRAQ WAR
Iraq War Casualty Pictures

Killing people without justification is murder IMHO. Lets review US justifications and perceptions regarding this war:

1) Iraq threatened the US and its neighbors with WMDs .

...By March 2003, Hans Blix (Chief Weapon Inspector) had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament... He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence....

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

also
Security Council 7 March 2003

2) Iraq was linked to the events of 9/11.

18 September, 2003
US President George W Bush has explicitly stated for the first time that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.
BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link

3) Iraq was a humanitarian crisis.

...the Iraq war and the effort to justify it even in part in humanitarian terms risk giving humanitarian intervention a bad name...
War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention

4) The Iraq war was legal

...Mr. Annan (UN Secretary General) was repeatedly asked whether the war was "illegal." "Yes," he finally said, "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."...

Lessons of Iraq war underscore importance of UN Charter - Annan

5) The Iraq war had nothing to do with Iraq's oil
Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity
Future of Iraq: The Spoils of War

If US leaders hadn't illegally invaded Iraq for personal profit, there's a good chance the war in Afghanistan would be over, OBL and his cadre would have been aprehended and the US would not have had an economic meltdown. Today, not only are Iraqis worse off, so are Americans. Not only is the world not safer from terrorism, but as a result of this war, terrorist organizations have a far easier time recruiting angry people who are hostile toward the West generally and the US specifically.

I'd like to see the people responsible held accountable for their crimes, but only the American people can make that happen and that won't happen while they remain ignorant.