Iraqi Deaths Estimated at 655,000 According to Johns-Hopkins

[MadeUpName27]

I believe that this is called "Sowing the Wind."

The Christian Soldiers among us should know what comes next...

[Kulindahr]

You know, for all Bush's bullshit talk about how Iraq is better off today than it was prior to invasion, it's hard to square that assertion with these numbers. The last estimate I heard was that Saddam killed 450,000 Iraqis. Seems Bush is now officially the greatest mass murderer in Iraqi history.

I read that three times, and have come to the conclusion that you don't even read the things you post!
You-re so rabidly anti-Bush that you aren't even rational about it.

[smelter]

You know, for all Bush's bullshit talk about how Iraq is better off today than it was prior to invasion, it's hard to square that assertion with these numbers. The last estimate I heard was that Saddam killed 450,000 Iraqis. Seems Bush is now officially the greatest mass murderer in Iraqi history.

According to the World Factbook, the July 2006 estimate of Iraq's population is 26.8 million. If the estimate of 655,000 deaths is correct, that is over 2.4 percent of the total population ..... a simply staggering figure!

[BoSoxFanVa]

That number is very, very disturbing. I've touched on the death toll in a couple of threads, but nobody wants to talk about it. Why doesn't the press ask the President or our politicians about this?

Can the news out of Iraq get any worse?

[smelter]

It can: Organizers in Iraq announced today that Clay Aiken will be in Iraq for Thanksgiving to sing songs from his latest hit album....

Oh the humanity.

LOL, that's what happens when you have an open-ended torture policy. Given the choice between Aiken singing and water boarding, I'd choose the latter.

[Kulindahr]

It was the calling Bush a "mass murderer" that's irrational in Alfie's post -- the knee-jerk reaction of blaming all those deaths on Bush, as if the man ordered them... which is what "mass murderer" sort of requires.

"Botched" is a VERY good word for the occupation! Iraq was accustomed to a very firm hand, and they should have kept one -- basic common sense (as well as history, anthropology, and probably several other disciplines). Disbanding the army was foolishness, because it made all those people available to the insurrection, dumped them into the unemployed population, and removed a very handy tool for keeping that firm hand. Rumsfeld's argument that Iraqi soldiers would have passed munitions to the terrorists was sound as far as it went, but has he no imagination, or simple reasoning powers? Even high school students I know could foresee that the alternative was worse!
And so it has become: I have little doubt that massive death toll can be traced to former soldiers, as both killers and a large portion of the killed, and very likely the weapons walked off with the soldiers when they were turned loose. Thanks to a couple of friends who are doctors, I have my suspicions about the JH figure, but even the most skeptical doesn't think it's more than 20% too high -- but even that leaves the death toll under Bush's coalition some four times per day what Saddam ever did.

If we're going to label anyone "mass murderer" on account of these deaths, it would be more appropriate to stick that on Rumsfeld, who has made the decisions that led to the violence. But properly speaking the blame has to go on those who decided to do the killing, not those who merely, by their bumbling (Bush) and outright stupidity (Rumsfeld) made it probable.

[turtle]

It was the calling Bush a "mass murderer" that's irrational in Alfie's post -- the knee-jerk reaction of blaming all those deaths on Bush, as if the man ordered them... which is what "mass murderer" sort of requires.

Of course we cannot blame all those deaths on Bush alone.

Yes, "mass murderer" does have the wrong tone. Murder is illegal in a way which the mass killings of authorized war are not.

So how about "mass killer" instead?

A case can sometimes be made for the need for even such massive death and destruction.

If it were up to me, I would deal out a significant amount of death in the South Sahara. I would save a significant number of lives by doing so.

It's a terrible algorithm.

George Bush does in fact carry the primary responsibility for a great number of deaths which turn out to have been worse than unnecessary.

-D

[turtle]

Could you elaborate?

There is a forthright power and land grab being perpetrated in the Sudan right now, which threatens the entire region.

This land grab is being accompanied by open acts of genocide, grand and gross atrocities, and an unwritten official policy of ethnic cleansing.

There is no question who is right and who is wrong, and it is a situation in which it is quite easy to make such distinctions on the ground.

There are a lot of really bad guys there, ones we really could effectively remove.

-D

[Kulindahr]

George Bush does in fact carry the primary responsibility for a great number of deaths which turn out to have been worse than unnecessary.

-D

Remove the word "primary", and I agree heartily. The PRIMARY responsibility always rests on the guy who pulls the trigger, or set off the bomb, or whatever.
I wouldn't call Bush either a mass murderer or a mass killer, he's more like the guy who walked out the door of the dog kennel and didn't latch it, forgetting that the dogs were both (a) trained to kill and (b) hungry. I know his IQ isn't low, in spite of the urban legend, but he has yet to show he even has the creative capacity to rise to the level of mass murderer -- he's too much of a non-starter. He almost reminds me of one of the idiot Roman emperors who let their advisors run things so long as they got to play with their toy soldiers or such... but the record shows he isn't that feeble-minded.

Maybe... we have "negligent homicide" to cover killing when you didn't mean to; is there such a thing as "negligent mass homicide"?

[turtle]

Remove the word "primary", and I agree heartily. The PRIMARY responsibility always rests on the guy who pulls the trigger, or set off the bomb, or whatever.

If the trigger-puller is both dependent and under orders, his is a far lesser responsiblity than that of the person ordering him.

I am not using "primary" in a sequential sense, though an argument could be made that to give the order is the same as to do the act yourself, and that the order, coming before its execution, is primary sequentially as well as in import.

Maybe... we have "negligent homicide" to cover killing when you didn't mean to; is there such a thing as "negligent mass homicide"?

Exactly so.

[Andreus]

truly disturbing

I was there a year ago and i was soundly yelled down by the conservatives at JUb for even suggesting that such a thing was occuring even though I was witnessing it with my own eyes.

of course, i was painted as unpatriotic for questioning the official numbers being released.

I don't expect that there will be much of a change in the behavior of the rigid right... and yes, I know there are moderate repubs here and as I, a modesrate muslim, hate being lumped into the same calssification as the fundamentalists of my kind, I do see the difference.

but its time for the moderate repubs to do the same thing I have been doing... you guys need to try to affect a change from within.

[apt125]

Iraqi deaths estimated at 655,000 according to the emey. Have any of you been in the military. Have any of you been in a war zone. If called I would go to war again to defind your right to be an AMERICAN. If we just turn Iraqi back over, we will see another 911.

War is hell

[smelter]

I listened to Bush's press conference today where one of the questions was about the JH figure of 655,000 deaths. He dismissed the number as being wrong without much in the way of explanation. As part of the question, he was asked if he is sticking by his earlier 30,000 more or less estimate. He hedged by saying that he believes the numbers provided by his generals in the field.

The old saying that 'wishing doesn't make it true' apparently is lost on the King George mentality!

[Andreus]

Iraqi deaths estimated at 655,000 according to the emey. Have any of you been in the military. Have any of you been in a war zone. If called I would go to war again to defind your right to be an AMERICAN. If we just turn Iraqi back over, we will see another 911.

War is hell

i was there

i was shot

i am an american

i have the right to disagree with those that are in power in america, and i would even if i had not been there and had been injured.

I have the utmost respect for the men of the american service. my issue is not with them. It is with the men in suits in washington who sit in bunkers safe from the death and anarchy they create.

have YOU ever been in a war zone? have YOU ever gone to war to defend your counry and your rights?

[smelter]

Here is Bush's actual remarks, not exactly as I remembered but close enough for government work.

Video: Bush disputes Iraq study

[unclaimedblessing]

Either way, all those statistics are horrible.
Watching the network Sunday morning newsprograms last week I saw a gentlemen speaking about the Iraq War. I can't recall his name or what he said. What I do remember were the "factoids" popping up over his head.
In the original Gulf War American losses were approx 1 in 100.
In the current Iraq war American losses are 1 in 10.
The earth of Iraq has sopped up too much blood on all sides. Parents, spouses, children around the world grieve.
We need to hold our leaders responsible for this deadly debacle and insist on policy or staff changes.

[turtle]

Iraqi deaths estimated at 655,000 according to the emey. Have any of you been in the military. Have any of you been in a war zone. If called I would go to war again to defind your right to be an AMERICAN. If we just turn Iraqi back over, we will see another 911.

War is hell

I volunteered on the 20th of September, 1971 and served three years.

Though I was not in a war zone, I was directly affected by Terrorism.

Does anyone remember American GI's being blown up in discos?

My buddy lost half his face.

9/11 was no big surprise to me.

-D

[unclaimedblessing]

This can't be true.
My MSN homepage says Bush disputes the figures. We all know he'd never lie to us.
But then, after he runs out of fingers and toes, counting gets pretty hard for him.

[Kulindahr]

If the trigger-puller is both dependent and under orders, his is a far lesser responsiblity than that of the person ordering him.

1. That argument was disallowed at the Nuremberg war crimes trials.
2. That gets Bush off the hook for most of the violence; the vast majority of those deaths weren't by his orders.

The trigger-puller is always 100% responsible for his/her action, unless being physically manipulated or drugged. The option of saying, "I won't" may be unpalatable, but it is nevertheless an option, and since even before WW II the civilized world has accepted that; it is foundational to prosecution of war crimes.

The application of some Aristotelian thought here might help; I'm thinking of his "four causes" of any event. At the moment my mind is too blurry to even recall more than "formal" and "material" causes, but it's easy enough to say that while these trigger pullers were 100% responsible, and were not under Bush's orders, this does not leave Bush off the hook, because there are three other "causes" that someone is responsible for.

[Kulindahr]

This can't be true.
My MSN homepage says Bush disputes the figures. We all know he'd never lie to us.
But then, after he runs out of fingers and toes, counting gets pretty hard for him.

No, he just pulls out his Texas Instruments calculator.

[maltese]

30 responses in the last 24 hours or so.... interesting that not a one asks any questions about the study itself. If Bush says his numbers are based on Generals, then questions are asked about source (perhaps rightfully so.) But an article is published by a group of researchers right before an election....and look, the same researchers published a study in the same magazine on the same subject right before the LAST election. In interviews, they admitted that the last one was political in nature. But heavens, THIS one must be completely dispassionate.

This is a study of mortality rates... any death which the researchers feel wouldn't have happened during the Hussein regime is counted, but others are not. It's based on a random household survey, using statistical epidimelogical methods. No opportunity for an agenda creeping into the methodology there, is there?

Criticisms of the methods is hardly limited to Bush supporters or conservatives. Human Rights Watch, no friend of the Bush Administration, said the following regarding the original study, according to the Washington Post:

"The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting," said Marc E. Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, which investigated the number of civilian deaths that occurred during the invasion. "These numbers seem to be inflated."

And I'm amazed at the incredible condescension involved with the attitude that if one group of middle eastern residents is engaged in the pastime of killing other middle eastern residents, that it must be all Bush's fault - because heavens, getting rid of the tinpot dictator that was killing a different number of residents to keep the two groups from killing each other... why, that's the only way the poor benighted folks of the region could possibly keep from killing each other.

[maltese]

Perhaps it is the only way---we had no business going in and messing with a sovereign nation's self-rule and, having done so, proven that it hasn't helped at all. In fact, the situation has hurt the region.

You, of course...my good libertarian friend, suffer from the rare malady of actually having formed a consistent opinion about 'foreign adventures', one that's based on something other than who is currently President. We'll need you to take this principled positions somewhere other than these perfect good sectarian squabbles that masquerade as discussion here, wouldn't want to wander into any actual discourse by accident.

Tell me, if I told you that those researchers noted a pronounced increase in deaths along the North American eastern seaboard during the period of 1776 to 1783, would you passionately condemn the French for 'messing with a sovereign nation's self-rule'? Certainly their efforts didn't help! Look at the huge spike in the death toll!!

[maltese]

As to your other weak objections, I suggest you re-read the first para of this story:

That paragraph is exactly my point. The researchers were the ones who chose the methods on whether a given death would or wouldn't have occurred. There's a little room for controversy there, don't you think?

Now maltese, must you question the motives of everyone, excepting those who share your so-called "political beliefs?" We're a poorer, more divided nation because of these sorts of political sentiments, and still we are so far from the truth on even WHY we are fighting in Iraq. Further, so many on the right were willing to accept all those fake administration-funded polls coming out of Iraq -- you know, the ones that said how very glad the Iraqis are that we are occupying their nation and slaughtering their brothers -- that it seems, well, a tad "hypocritical" for these same people to disagree with other numbers.

I don't have a problem with questioning anyone's numbers. And you're right, while I still think that going into Iraq was the correct thing to do, I think that Bush has done a piss-poor job on explaining why it was the right thing. And I have no problem with Americans asking their president to explain those actions... I just have a problem with using a rather political, controversial study as the only basis for those questions.

[maltese]

http://www.uniraq.org/documents/HR%2...an%20Rights%22

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060921/D8K98K180.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/iraq.main/

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/

[Kulindahr]

Now maltese, must you question the motives of everyone, excepting those who share your so-called "political beliefs?" We're a poorer, more divided nation because of these sorts of political sentiments....

Of course he must, faux general -- we need someone to be your mirror!

He needs more practice, though; he's lots more polite and less prone to irrational screeching than you.

[Kulindahr]

Maltese, how DARE you question those figures! I mean, really, they MUST be true -- they had Iraqis on the team, didn't they?!

[acenchad2]

"You win a prize for that,for telling lies like that,so well that I believed it.I never felt cheated.You were the chosen one the pure eyes of Noah's dove choirboys and angels stole your lips and your halo.In your reckless mind you act as if you've got more lives,in your reckless eyes you only have time and your love of danger,to it your no stranger." Noah's Dove-Natalie Merchant

If we can not absorbed a single death or casualty how can we absorbed 655,000?Are we immune to war and its casualties?Is the television and video games masked the reality of it?Is it because they are not americans,that their death is of lesser value and we don't have to quantify it?What makes as think that this is not immoral and do not deserve a condemnation?
We flaunt ourselves to the world as freedom fighters,advocates of peace and democracy,freedom of speech and expressions are use as model for any civilized nations in the world which we claimed we pioneered.We even detest anyone who claims that if they have a chance to live in america that they will take the chance in a heartbeat.
Why politics and religion needs to be over lives lost and destructions of people in other parts of the world.Why is that?Does it make you clean?Morally right? Superior?Civilized?If 9/11 was done by radical islam fanatics,is it fair then to say that 655,000 Iraqi's death is the end result by the action of a christian president?
Why are you not disturbed?Is there a humanity left in you?What's the difference in evil of a brutal dictator than our support with the same results of casualties and destructions?
What do we have to be proud of now?Our politics,our religion,our being an american,our race,our self loathing,self centered culture?
We can create more havoc and destructions and more lives lost with our actions in that region,but we can never heal and find a peace in their wounded soul.

"In your reckless mind ,you act as if you've got more lives,in your reckless eyes,its never too late for a chance to seize some final breath of freedom"
Noah's Dove-Natalie Merchant

[greydog]

I wonder how many newspapers in the U.S. carried this headline?
The Vancouver Sun, Oct. 12, 2006;
654, 965 Iraqi civilians dead since the invasion: That's more people than live in Vancouver. The study to be published today by the British medical journal - the Lancet, said more than 600,000 killed, more than 10 times the estimates.
U.S President George W. Bush dismissed the number as "not credible."
The estimate is much higher than others because it was derived from a house-to house survey, rather than approaches that depend on body counts or news reports.
The majority of Canadians are horrified by GWB -- He must be the anti-christ!

[vote-me]

I can't beleive more people haven't disputed the figure, So The Lancet Report states that the Iraqi death toll has topped 650,000... that truely is a horrible figure, I however have to take up issue with it...

1914-1918, four years of high-intensity warfare - British dead, 652,000.

1936-1945, six years of high-intensity warfare - British dead, 460,000.

2003-2006, three years of low-intensity warfare - Iraqi dead, 650,000??

I'm not defending anyone, or being disrespectful to the thousands who have died but I think its hugely unhelpful for such reports to be estimating such high numbers when history tells us that the figure is unattainable considering the intensity of the warfare and period its been going on for. The relationship between 'the west' and islam is already less then great!

[ryankeith]

I can't beleive more people haven't disputed the figure, So The Lancet Report states that the Iraqi death toll has topped 650,000... that truely is a horrible figure, I however have to take up issue with it...

1914-1918, four years of high-intensity warfare - British dead, 652,000.

1936-1945, six years of high-intensity warfare - British dead, 460,000.

2003-2006, three years of low-intensity warfare - Iraqi dead, 650,000??

I'm not defending anyone, or being disrespectful to the thousands who have died but I think its hugely unhelpful for such reports to be estimating such high numbers when history tells us that the figure is unattainable considering the intensity of the warfare and period its been going on for. The relationship between 'the west' and islam is already less then great!

Low intensity warfare? What world are you living in?

The type of warfare is different than back in the early 1900's. Missles, bombs, air attacks, the types of weapons used can wipe out large numbers of people at one time. The number of car bombs being reported every week typically has a high death count each time they occur.

To compare this war to wars in the early 1900's to discredit the study and determine the number given is "unattainable" due to the numbers presented in those wars is simply rediculous.

[vote-me]

Low intensity warfare? What world are you living in?

The type of warfare is different than back in the early 1900's. Missles, bombs, air attacks, the types of weapons used can wipe out large numbers of people at one time. The number of car bombs being reported every week typically has a high death count each time they occur.

To compare this war to wars in the early 1900's to discredit the study and determine the number given is "unattainable" due to the numbers presented in those wars is simply rediculous.

Other then the first 'shock and awe' stage the warfare has been on the whole low intensity when you compared it to the Two World Wars which were faught not only on Land but at Sea and in a much more horrific way.

When looking at the First WW the intensity of the fighting in the trenches was massive compaired to the 10 day war waged against saddams regime (I shall take into account the 'after-war' situation in a moment). In WW2 the enemy (Nazi's) didn't care who they killed and blanket bombed London and other major Cities without any care of who they killed; the bombing at the beginning of the Iraq war was for the most part targeted away from highly populated civilan areas unlike during the Second World War.
Your arguement about technological advances resulting in more deaths is an interesting one, due to these changes the allied forces can direct their bombs more accuratly so this should result in less civilans being killed - I understand the power of the bombs used is significantly higher, but the sheer ammount used and dropped over UK cities and targeted at its military during the second world war must be signifanty more then during the Iraq war.

Yes Iraq has a suicide problem, but I find it hard to see how more Iraqi's (upto 500 a day.) are being killed every week by car bombs and shootings (on top of the conflict dead) then in the trenches, the channel/atlantic and UK Cities attacked nightly and without discretion during a period of World War Two. Although any death is disgraceful I think the 655,000 is wrong (the Iraq Body Count estimates deaths at around 45,000-50,000), yes hundreds of thousands of people may have died but to accredit them all to the war is misleading and thousands would have been killed if Saddam remained in power.

I wasn't for the war, but the figure to me makes no sense - ask 1,849 households and come out with such a huge figure is in my opinion bad research and looking at it and other articles discussing it more needs to be done to get a clear picture of the cost of the war!

[Kulindahr]

I realized today just what part of Johns Hopkins did the study. Aren't these the people who consider bullets a disease?