, released the findings of a survey of 1,461 adults across the country.
'The ORB survey was based on face-to-face interviews conducted between August 12 and August 19 among a nationally representative sample of 1,720 adults (of whom 1,461 responded), with a standard margin of error of 2.4 percent. Random sampling was used to select those interviewed in 15 of Iraq’s 18 provinces.'
'The ORB survey was based on face-to-face interviews conducted between August 12 and August 19 among a nationally representative sample of 1,720 adults (of whom 1,461 responded), with a standard margin of error of 2.4 percent. Random sampling was used to select those interviewed in 15 of Iraq’s 18 provinces.'
sorry I'm not buying it. show me 1,200,000 million bodies and I'll believe you. and I like how they reference Rwanda. you know how the got the the 800,000 number? dead bodies littering the street for miles around.
if this survey had said 5,000,000 were dead you'd believe only because it fits your agenda.
and of these so called 1.2 million dead, how many were at the hands of Iraqis killing Iraqis and el queda suicide bombers? hmmmm
sorry I'm not buying it. show me 1,200,000 million bodies and I'll believe you. and I like how they reference Rwanda. you know how the got the the 800,000 number? dead bodies littering the street for miles around.
if this survey had said 5,000,000 were dead you'd believe only because it fits your agenda.
and of these so called 1.2 million dead, how many were at the hands of Iraqis killing Iraqis and el queda suicide bombers? hmmmm
You didn't read the article I posted a link to where the head of the survey answers all of the points you've raised.
You're an ignoramus.
there are several other sources that account for deaths in Iraq. they use much more in-depth analysis such as this site http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
they have it near 85,000, still horrible but how can it be so far off your made up number of 1,200,000. based on a survey of 1500 households. 1500. that maybe .001% of the population?
you only like that number cuz its fits your agenda. you would believe 10,000,000
there are several other sources that account for deaths in Iraq. they use much more in-depth analysis such as this site http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
they have it near 85,000, still horrible but how can it be so far off your made up number of 1,200,000. based on a survey of 1500 households. 1500. that maybe .001% of the population?
you only like that number cuz its fits your agenda. you would believe 10,000,000
Iraq body count bases it's findings solely on those deaths reported by two media outlets.
And you think it's accurate?
Iraq body count bases it's findings solely on those deaths reported by two media outlets.
And you think it's accurate?
fuck dude, do some fucking research. regardless IF it were just 2, it would be more accurate then a survey of 1500-1700 random households of a country of millions.
AAP Australian Associated Press
ABC ABC News (US)
ABC[AU] Australian Broadcasting Corporation
ACLU American Civil Liberties Union
ADT (Australian) Daily Telegraph
AFP Agence France-Presse
AFR Australian Financial Review
AFX AFX News
AI Amnesty International
AKI ADN Kronos International
Al-Adalah Al-Adalah
Al-Alam TV Al-Alam TV
Al-Arab Al Arabiya TV
Al-Bawaba Al-Bawaba
Al-Bayan Al-Bayan
Al-Bayy Al-Bayyinah
Al-Furat Al-Furat
Al-Iraq Al-Iraq
Al-Istiq Al-Istiqamah
Al-Ittihad Al-Ittihad
Al-Jaz Al Jazeera (Web)
Al-Jaz TV Al Jazeera TV
Al-Mada Al-Mada
Al-Manarah Al-Manarah
Al-Mashriq Al-Mashriq
Al-Muwatin Al-Muwatin
Al-Shar Al Sharqiyah TV
Al-Sum Alsumaria
ALT Alternet
Al-Taakhi Al-Taakhi
Al-Zaman Al-Zaman
AN Arab News
ANSA ANSA News Agency
AP Associated Press
Arab N Arab News
Arabic N Arabic News
ASB As-Sabah
Asharq Al A Asharq Al Awsat
AT Arab Times
Atl JC Atlanta Journal-Constitution
AUS The Australian
Azzaman Azzaman
BaltSun The Baltimore Sun
BBC BBC
B-berg Bloomberg
BG Boston Globe
Bill Gaz Billings Gazette
BNA Bahrain News Agency
BT Bahrain Times
CBC Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
CBS CBS
CCT Contra Costa Times
CD China Daily
CentCom Central Command
CNA Channel News Asia
CNN Cable News Network
CO Commondreams.org
COX Cox News Service
CP Counterpunch.org
CPC Charleston Post and Courier
CSM Christian Science Monitor
CT Chicago Tribune
CTV CTV.ca
Dar al-Salam Dar al-Salam
DM Daily Mirror (UK)
DPA Deutsche Presse-Agentur
DT(AU) Daily Telegraph (Australia)
eTN eTaiwan News
EXP Expatica (NL)
FNA FOCUS News Agency
Forbes Forbes
Fox Fox News
FT Financial Times
G and M Globe and Mail
GCN Gay City News
GDN Gulf Daily News
GN Gulf News
GSO GlobalSecurity.org
GUA The Guardian
Hi Pak Hi Pakistan
HRW Human Rights Watch
HT Hindustan Times
IE Indian Express
IER Irish Examiner
IFJ International Federation of Journalists
IHT International Herald Tribune
IMN Iraq MediaNet
IND The Independent
INNA Iraqi National News Agency
IOL Independent Online
IOL[SA] Independent Online (South Africa)
IRE Ireland Online
IRIN UN Integrated Regional Information Networks
ISN International Relations and Security Network
ITN Independent Television News (UK)
J Today Japan Today
Jang The Jang News
JaT Japan Times
JT Jordan Times
KCS Kansas City Star
KHT Khaleej Times
KM Kurdish Media
KR Knight-Ridder Newspapers
KTVL KTVL
KUNA Kuwaiti News Agency
LAT Los Angeles Times
Le Monde Le Monde
MAG Mines Action Group
McCla McClatchy Newspapers
MENA Middle East News Agency
MEO Middle East Online
MH Miami Herald
MHS Melbourne Herald Sun
MJ Mother Jones
MLine The Media Line
MN Mercury News
MNF Multi-national Force - Iraq
MO Mosul Observer
MSNBC MSNBC
N24[SA] News 24 (South Africa)
NAT Nando Times
News24 News 24
NewsAU News.com.au (Australia)
Newsday Newsday
Newsweek Newsweek
NINA National Iraqi News Agency
NNN Non-Aligned Movement News Network
NPR National Public Radio
NYT New York Times
NZH New Zealand Herald
NZZ Neue Zürcher Zeitung
OBS The Observer
PA Press Association
Pak T Pakistan Times
Pak Trib Pakistan Tribune
PAP Polish Press Agency
PBS Public Broadcasting Service (USA)
PDN Pakistan Daily News
PDT Pakistan Daily Times
Pen Peninsular, Qatar
PI Philadelphia Inquirer
Prav Pravda
QNA Qatar News Agency
REU Reuters
RFE Radio Free Europe
RFE/RL Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
RLW ReliefWeb
RSF Reporters Without Borders
RTE Radio Telefís Éireann
RWB Reporters Without Borders
S & S Stars and Stripes
Scot The Scotsman
SDU-T San Diego Union-Tribune
Sea T Seattle Times
SFC San Francisco Chronicle
Sky News Sky News
S-L The Star-Ledger
SMan Statesman
SMH Sydney Morning Herald
SNA Sophia News Agency
SPA Saudi Press Agency
ST Sunday Times (London)
St Pet St. Petersburg Times
ST[AU] Sunday Times (Australia)
T. al-Sha'ab Tariq al-Sha'ab (newspaper)
TA The Age
TASS TASS News Agency
TDN Turkish Daily News
TEL The Telegraph
TIME TIME Magazine
Times The Times (London)
TNI The News International (Pakistan)
TOI Times of India
Trib I Tribune India
TS Toronto Star
TTI The Telegraph (India)
UN United Nations
UO Utusan Online
UPI United Press International
US Fed N US Federal News Service
USA-T USA Today
VOA Voice of America
VOI Voices of Iraq
WP Washington Post
WT Washington Times
WV Warsaw Voice
XIN Xinhua News Agency
ZAM Zaman Online
Zmag Zmag.org
sorry I'm not buying it. show me 1,200,000 million bodies and I'll believe you. and I like how they reference Rwanda. you know how the got the the 800,000 number? dead bodies littering the street for miles around.
'3. Why is it so hard for people to believe the Lancet report?
I am an Iraqi and can assure you that the figure given is nearer to the truth than any given before or since.
S Kazwini, London, UK
LR: I think it is hard to accept these results for a couple of reasons. People do not see the bodies. While in the UK there are well over 1000 deaths a day, they do not see the bodies there either. Secondly, people feel that all those government officials and all those reporters must be detecting a big portion of the deaths. When in actuality during times of war, it is rare for even 20% to be detected. Finally, there has been so much media attention given to the surveillance-based numbers put out by the coalition forces, the Iraqi Government and a couple of corroborating groups, that a population-based number is a dramatic contrast...
Of any high profile scientific report in recent history, ours might be the easiest to verify. If we are correct, in the morgues and graveyards of Iraq, most deaths during the occupation would have been due to violence. If Mr. Bush's "30,000 more or less" figure from last December is correct, less than 1 in 10 deaths has been from violence. Let us address the discomfort of Mr. Moore and millions of other Americans, not by uninformed speculation about epidemiological techniques, but by having the press travel the country and tell us how people are dying in Iraq.'
and of these so called 1.2 million dead, how many were at the hands of Iraqis killing Iraqis and el queda suicide bombers? hmmmm
February 2006 - article referring to the survey conducted in 2005.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html
'After excluding any possible statistical anomalies, they estimated that at least 98,000 Iraqi civilians had died in the previous 18 months as a direct result of the invasion and occupation of their country. They also found that violence had become the leading cause of death in Iraq during that period. Their most significant finding was that the vast majority (79 percent) of violent deaths were caused by “coalition” forces using “helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry,” and that almost half (48 percent) of these were children, with a median age of 8...
...the Iraqi Health Ministry reports... have confirmed the Johns Hopkins team’s conclusion that aerial attacks by “coalition” forces are the leading cause of civilian deaths. One such report was cited by Nancy Youssef in the Miami Herald of September 25, 2004 under the headline “U.S. Attacks, Not Insurgents, Blamed for Most Iraqi Deaths.” The Health Ministry had been reporting civilian casualty figures based on reports from hospitals, as Blair said, but it was not until June 2004 that it began to differentiate between casualties inflicted by “coalition” forces and those from other causes. From June 10 to September 10 it counted 1,295 civilians killed by U.S. forces and their allies and 516 killed in “terrorist” operations. Health Ministry officials told Youssef that the “statistics captured only part of the death toll,” and emphasized that aerial bombardment was largely responsible for the higher numbers of deaths caused by the “coalition.” The breakdown (72 percent U.S.) is remarkably close to that attributed to aerial bombardment in the Lancet survey (79 percent).
BBC World Affairs editor John Simpson, in another Health Ministry report covering July 1, 2004 to January 1, 2005, cited 2,041 civilians killed by U.S. and allied forces versus 1,233 by “insurgents” (only 62 percent U.S.). Then something strange happened. The Iraqi Health Minister’s office contacted the BBC and claimed, in a convoluted and confusing statement, that their figures had somehow been misrepresented. The BBC issued a retraction and details of deaths caused by “coalition” forces have been notably absent from subsequent Health Ministry reports.
fuck dude, do some fucking research. regardless IF it were just 2, it would be more accurate then a survey of 1500-1700 random households of a country of millions.
AAP Australian Associated Press
ABC ABC News (US)
ABC[AU] Australian Broadcasting Corporation
ACLU American Civil Liberties Union
ADT (Australian) Daily Telegraph
AFP Agence France-Presse
AFR Australian Financial Review
AFX AFX News
AI Amnesty International
AKI ADN Kronos International
Al-Adalah Al-Adalah
Al-Alam TV Al-Alam TV
Al-Arab Al Arabiya TV
Al-Bawaba Al-Bawaba
Al-Bayan Al-Bayan
Al-Bayy Al-Bayyinah
Al-Furat Al-Furat
Al-Iraq Al-Iraq
Al-Istiq Al-Istiqamah
Al-Ittihad Al-Ittihad
Al-Jaz Al Jazeera (Web)
Al-Jaz TV Al Jazeera TV
Al-Mada Al-Mada
Al-Manarah Al-Manarah
Al-Mashriq Al-Mashriq
Al-Muwatin Al-Muwatin
Al-Shar Al Sharqiyah TV
Al-Sum Alsumaria
ALT Alternet
Al-Taakhi Al-Taakhi
Al-Zaman Al-Zaman
AN Arab News
ANSA ANSA News Agency
AP Associated Press
Arab N Arab News
Arabic N Arabic News
ASB As-Sabah
Asharq Al A Asharq Al Awsat
AT Arab Times
Atl JC Atlanta Journal-Constitution
AUS The Australian
Azzaman Azzaman
BaltSun The Baltimore Sun
BBC BBC
B-berg Bloomberg
BG Boston Globe
Bill Gaz Billings Gazette
BNA Bahrain News Agency
BT Bahrain Times
CBC Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
CBS CBS
CCT Contra Costa Times
CD China Daily
CentCom Central Command
CNA Channel News Asia
CNN Cable News Network
CO Commondreams.org
COX Cox News Service
CP Counterpunch.org
CPC Charleston Post and Courier
CSM Christian Science Monitor
CT Chicago Tribune
CTV CTV.ca
Dar al-Salam Dar al-Salam
DM Daily Mirror (UK)
DPA Deutsche Presse-Agentur
DT(AU) Daily Telegraph (Australia)
eTN eTaiwan News
EXP Expatica (NL)
FNA FOCUS News Agency
Forbes Forbes
Fox Fox News
FT Financial Times
G and M Globe and Mail
GCN Gay City News
GDN Gulf Daily News
GN Gulf News
GSO GlobalSecurity.org
GUA The Guardian
Hi Pak Hi Pakistan
HRW Human Rights Watch
HT Hindustan Times
IE Indian Express
IER Irish Examiner
IFJ International Federation of Journalists
IHT International Herald Tribune
IMN Iraq MediaNet
IND The Independent
INNA Iraqi National News Agency
IOL Independent Online
IOL[SA] Independent Online (South Africa)
IRE Ireland Online
IRIN UN Integrated Regional Information Networks
ISN International Relations and Security Network
ITN Independent Television News (UK)
J Today Japan Today
Jang The Jang News
JaT Japan Times
JT Jordan Times
KCS Kansas City Star
KHT Khaleej Times
KM Kurdish Media
KR Knight-Ridder Newspapers
KTVL KTVL
KUNA Kuwaiti News Agency
LAT Los Angeles Times
Le Monde Le Monde
MAG Mines Action Group
McCla McClatchy Newspapers
MENA Middle East News Agency
MEO Middle East Online
MH Miami Herald
MHS Melbourne Herald Sun
MJ Mother Jones
MLine The Media Line
MN Mercury News
MNF Multi-national Force - Iraq
MO Mosul Observer
MSNBC MSNBC
N24[SA] News 24 (South Africa)
NAT Nando Times
News24 News 24
NewsAU News.com.au (Australia)
Newsday Newsday
Newsweek Newsweek
NINA National Iraqi News Agency
NNN Non-Aligned Movement News Network
NPR National Public Radio
NYT New York Times
NZH New Zealand Herald
NZZ Neue Zürcher Zeitung
OBS The Observer
PA Press Association
Pak T Pakistan Times
Pak Trib Pakistan Tribune
PAP Polish Press Agency
PBS Public Broadcasting Service (USA)
PDN Pakistan Daily News
PDT Pakistan Daily Times
Pen Peninsular, Qatar
PI Philadelphia Inquirer
Prav Pravda
QNA Qatar News Agency
REU Reuters
RFE Radio Free Europe
RFE/RL Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
RLW ReliefWeb
RSF Reporters Without Borders
RTE Radio Telefís Éireann
RWB Reporters Without Borders
S & S Stars and Stripes
Scot The Scotsman
SDU-T San Diego Union-Tribune
Sea T Seattle Times
SFC San Francisco Chronicle
Sky News Sky News
S-L The Star-Ledger
SMan Statesman
SMH Sydney Morning Herald
SNA Sophia News Agency
SPA Saudi Press Agency
ST Sunday Times (London)
St Pet St. Petersburg Times
ST[AU] Sunday Times (Australia)
T. al-Sha'ab Tariq al-Sha'ab (newspaper)
TA The Age
TASS TASS News Agency
TDN Turkish Daily News
TEL The Telegraph
TIME TIME Magazine
Times The Times (London)
TNI The News International (Pakistan)
TOI Times of India
Trib I Tribune India
TS Toronto Star
TTI The Telegraph (India)
UN United Nations
UO Utusan Online
UPI United Press International
US Fed N US Federal News Service
USA-T USA Today
VOA Voice of America
VOI Voices of Iraq
WP Washington Post
WT Washington Times
WV Warsaw Voice
XIN Xinhua News Agency
ZAM Zaman Online
Zmag Zmag.org
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html
'The figures most often cited for civilian casualties in Iraq are those collected by Iraqbodycount, but its figures are not intended as an estimate of total casualties. Its methodology is to count only those deaths that are reported by at least two “reputable” international media outlets in order to generate a minimum number that is more or less indisputable. Its authors know that thousands of deaths go unreported in their count and say they cannot prevent the media misrepresenting their figures as an actual estimate of deaths'
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html
'The figures most often cited for civilian casualties in Iraq are those collected by Iraqbodycount, but its figures are not intended as an estimate of total casualties. Its methodology is to count only those deaths that are reported by at least two “reputable” international media outlets in order to generate a minimum number that is more or less indisputable. Its authors know that thousands of deaths go unreported in their count and say they cannot prevent the media misrepresenting their figures as an actual estimate of deaths'
so instead of believing the site itself you believe some random guy? I'm going to go with the site.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html
'A second feature of the epidemiologists’ findings that has not been sufficiently explored is the one suggested above by Michael O’Toole. Since their report establishes that aerial assault and bombardment is the leading cause of violent death in Iraq and, since a direct hit by a 500 pound Mark 82 bomb will render most houses uninhabitable, any survey that disregards damaged, uninhabited houses is sure to underreport deaths. This should be taken into account by any follow-up studies.
Thanks to Roberts, his international team, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and the editorial board of the Lancet, we have a clearer picture of the violence taking place in Iraq than that presented by “mainstream” media. Allowing for 16 months of the air war and other deaths since the completion of the survey, we have to estimate that somewhere between 185,000 and 700,000 people have died as a direct result of the war. Coalition forces have killed anywhere from 70,000 to 500,000 of them, including 30,000 to 275,000 children under the age of 15.'
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html
'A second feature of the epidemiologists’ findings that has not been sufficiently explored is the one suggested above by Michael O’Toole. Since their report establishes that aerial assault and bombardment is the leading cause of violent death in Iraq and, since a direct hit by a 500 pound Mark 82 bomb will render most houses uninhabitable, any survey that disregards damaged, uninhabited houses is sure to underreport deaths. This should be taken into account by any follow-up studies.
Thanks to Roberts, his international team, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and the editorial board of the Lancet, we have a clearer picture of the violence taking place in Iraq than that presented by “mainstream” media. Allowing for 16 months of the air war and other deaths since the completion of the survey, we have to estimate that somewhere between 185,000 and 700,000 people have died as a direct result of the war. Coalition forces have killed anywhere from 70,000 to 500,000 of them, including 30,000 to 275,000 children under the age of 15.'
one with common sense would realize how inaccurate it is based on the wide range of deaths. translation: they have no idea of the real figures.
but its probably somewhere in the range of 1 and 10,000,000,000
one with common sense would realize how inaccurate it is based on the wide range of deaths. translation: they have no idea of the real figures.
but its probably somewhere in the range of 1 and 10,000,000,000
The authors admit that they have no idea of the 'real figures', but after a few of these surveys have now been conducted - by different organizations - and seeing as they largely corroborate one another, I think we can safely place a conservative estimate at around the 1,000,000 mark.
The authors admit that they have no idea of the 'real figures', but after a few of these surveys have now been conducted - by different organizations - and seeing as they largely corroborate one another, I think we can safely place a conservative estimate at around the 1,000,000 mark.
well we have both presented evidence, I guess we'll agree to disagree and live to lock horns another day. cheers
What's bullshit is all the people who deny that for the first time in 35 years, there is actually hope and the true possibility for a better future in Iraq. That trumps by far all the Abu Grhaib, Guantanamo, blood for oil, false war whinning.
Ya'll are so hung up on the US being there in the first place that you cannot contemplate that Iraq may actually turn out okay.
Don't listen to the media. Don't listen to the Bush admin. Read history and use common sense.
Iraq is not going to turn around in a year, five years, ten years - and it never was. It can be lost in that amount of time, and almost has been. But it will take generational turnover to see true, lasting results in Iraq. We're going to be there until that happens, so get ready.
The fact that so many actually hope the US loses to prove their point or to feel vindicated about false intelegence makes me sick. What a bunch of hypocrite assholes, who want to talk about Bush killing innocents and being a war-monger or not caring about the plight of Iraqi's - when people bash what the US is trying to accomplish there because they didn't agree with it to start with.
Your arguements are null and void at this point. It's like a surgeon who decides to walk away from a heart transplant after it's underway, because he lied to the patient and told him he needed a new heart, when he really didn't.
We're trying to help Iraq damnit!
I agree with this. the reasons for war were wrong but we are there. that can not be changed.
how can you go back and change history? we invaded, it happened. I would love for all of our troops to come home too. but we have a mess to clean up. after billions of dollars and tragic loss of life, conditions are actually starting to improve. deaths are significantly down. Iraqis are returning home and starting to feel a sense of normalcy
how can you go back and change history? we invaded, it happened. I would love for all of our troops to come home too. but we have a mess to clean up. after billions of dollars and tragic loss of life, conditions are actually starting to improve. deaths are significantly down. Iraqis are returning home and starting to feel a sense of normalcy
You said we are there now and can't change that..but we can change that. Can't change the past of brutality of murder no, but we can leave these people in peace, and should.
WE have taken over a foriegn country...the idea that it is settling down is really no surprise...this is the most advanced military on the planet, people can't resist long under that force. And with the violence dished out over the past few years I'm surprised its taken this long. But their will always be resistance, these people have more to fight for. Better to get out now and save lives.
You said we are there now and can't change that..but we can change that. Can't change the past of brutality of murder no, but we can leave these people in peace, and should.
sorry, you are right I did say that, but what I meant is that we invaded (hence putting us there "now"). and you and I want the same thing. "that these people can live in peace"
WE have taken over a foriegn country...the idea that it is settling down is really no surprise...this is the most advanced military on the planet, people can't resist long under that force. And with the violence dished out over the past few years I'm surprised its taken this long. But their will always be resistance, these people have more to fight for. Better to get out now and save lives.
but Iraqis are starting to not see america as the enemy. we are working together. sunni and shittes fighting each other that has also been a huge problem. I dont know if that is getting better or not, only someone who has been there can answer that imo.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I read about this too. and its actually having a positive effect. the more Iraqis come home, the more life starts to return to normal. businesses open, schools open, maybe some even mend bitter relationships with rival sects.
I read about this too. and its actually having a positive effect. the more Iraqis come home, the more life starts to return to normal. businesses open, schools open, maybe some even mend bitter relationships with rival sects.
Sounds like a forced suffering plan to me. The MIC has been tearing this country apart for a long time.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
well Iraqis need to go home at some point. it's their country right? I'm sure once many of them were "forced" they were glad to be home.
and that article you posted is over a year old. but im sure you knew that.
Glad to be in an occupied war torn country with a decimated infrastructure. I wonder if there is a person alive that has ever said that.
So you think forcing more people into an area with an already apparent shortage of resources is a good thing?
As of early 2007, Baghdad gets around 4-8 hours a day of electricity, the rest get 8-12hrs.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Glad to be in an occupied war torn country with a decimated infrastructure. I wonder if there is a person alive that has ever said that.
So you think forcing more people into an area with an already apparent shortage of resources is a good thing?
As of early 2007, Baghdad gets around 4-8 hours a day of electricity, the rest get 8-12hrs.
yes, I'm willing to be bet there are many Iraqis eager to go home to their homeland. a place where they have lived for hundreds of years. should they never return? hopefully those returning Iraqis can get jobs and help repair the countries infrastructure..
yes, I'm willing to be bet there are many Iraqis eager to go home to their homeland. a place where they have lived for hundreds of years. should they never return? hopefully those returning Iraqis can get jobs and help repair the countries infrastructure..
kinda sucks having such a dim outlook on life eh?
Eager under the right circumstances. The rest was static noise...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Will somebody please address what would have happened in Iraq when Saddam eventually died had the US not invaded? I image another 20 or so years of Saddam oppressing his people, pitting Sunnis against Shias, murdering Kurds and keeping his power with brutal tactics - torture and murder. He would have continued to starve his nation's children and deny them medicine while he spends money on lavish palaces. I wonder how many more women Uday and Qusay would have taken to their rape rooms.
When Saddam eventually died, Iraq would have erupted like a freakin powder keg - and without a major and far suprior force in country like the US military - the violence and bloodletting would have known no end.
I agree that the war was initiated on false intelegence, and that Bush and Cheney are lying bastards who use fear to achieve thier agendas. But I also think that in the long run the US has actually saved more lives than it has taken... would anybody care to challenge that?
Will somebody please address what would have happened in Iraq when Saddam eventually died had the US not invaded? I image another 20 or so years of Saddam oppressing his people, pitting Sunnis against Shias, murdering Kurds and keeping his power with brutal tactics - torture and murder. He would have continued to starve his nation's children and deny them medicine while he spends money on lavish palaces. I wonder how many more women Uday and Qusay would have taken to their rape rooms.
When Saddam eventually died, Iraq would have erupted like a freakin powder keg - and without a major and far suprior force in country like the US military - the violence and bloodletting would have known no end.
I agree that the war was initiated on false intelegence, and that Bush and Cheney are lying bastards who use fear to achieve thier agendas. But I also think that in the long run the US has actually saved more lives than it has taken... would anybody care to challenge that?
.
Uday and Qusay would have taken over. then I'm sure the real fun would have begun. along with 40 more years of similar division, rape, torture, and death, only on a grander scale.
Will somebody please address what would have happened in Iraq when Saddam eventually died had the US not invaded? I image another 20 or so years of Saddam oppressing his people, pitting Sunnis against Shias, murdering Kurds and keeping his power with brutal tactics - torture and murder. He would have continued to starve his nation's children and deny them medicine while he spends money on lavish palaces. I wonder how many more women Uday and Qusay would have taken to their rape rooms.
When Saddam eventually died, Iraq would have erupted like a freakin powder keg - and without a major and far suprior force in country like the US military - the violence and bloodletting would have known no end.
I agree that the war was initiated on false intelegence, and that Bush and Cheney are lying bastards who use fear to achieve thier agendas. But I also think that in the long run the US has actually saved more lives than it has taken... would anybody care to challenge that?
.
since we have stolen responsibility - 200,000 dead per year for five years..
Have people ever assembled and overthrown governments before, or maybe middle east dictators are destined to be immortal and have their entire family lineage rule forever unabated for millenia? hmmm
Seems to me the terrorist scenario has rendered the US military quite a workload. Is it somehow ineffective all the sudden?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Comments
'The ORB survey was based on face-to-face interviews conducted between August 12 and August 19 among a nationally representative sample of 1,720 adults (of whom 1,461 responded), with a standard margin of error of 2.4 percent. Random sampling was used to select those interviewed in 15 of Iraq’s 18 provinces.'
sorry I'm not buying it. show me 1,200,000 million bodies and I'll believe you. and I like how they reference Rwanda. you know how the got the the 800,000 number? dead bodies littering the street for miles around.
if this survey had said 5,000,000 were dead you'd believe only because it fits your agenda.
and of these so called 1.2 million dead, how many were at the hands of Iraqis killing Iraqis and el queda suicide bombers? hmmmm
You didn't read the article I posted a link to where the head of the survey answers all of the points you've raised.
You're an ignoramus.
I did read the article. they don't answer the questions. they just give his opinion. which I happen to disagree with.
more personal attacks. keep em comin
they have it near 85,000, still horrible but how can it be so far off your made up number of 1,200,000. based on a survey of 1500 households. 1500. that maybe .001% of the population?
you only like that number cuz its fits your agenda. you would believe 10,000,000
Iraq body count bases it's findings solely on those deaths reported by two media outlets.
And you think it's accurate?
fuck dude, do some fucking research. regardless IF it were just 2, it would be more accurate then a survey of 1500-1700 random households of a country of millions.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/sources/
AAP Australian Associated Press
ABC ABC News (US)
ABC[AU] Australian Broadcasting Corporation
ACLU American Civil Liberties Union
ADT (Australian) Daily Telegraph
AFP Agence France-Presse
AFR Australian Financial Review
AFX AFX News
AI Amnesty International
AKI ADN Kronos International
Al-Adalah Al-Adalah
Al-Alam TV Al-Alam TV
Al-Arab Al Arabiya TV
Al-Bawaba Al-Bawaba
Al-Bayan Al-Bayan
Al-Bayy Al-Bayyinah
Al-Furat Al-Furat
Al-Iraq Al-Iraq
Al-Istiq Al-Istiqamah
Al-Ittihad Al-Ittihad
Al-Jaz Al Jazeera (Web)
Al-Jaz TV Al Jazeera TV
Al-Mada Al-Mada
Al-Manarah Al-Manarah
Al-Mashriq Al-Mashriq
Al-Muwatin Al-Muwatin
Al-Shar Al Sharqiyah TV
Al-Sum Alsumaria
ALT Alternet
Al-Taakhi Al-Taakhi
Al-Zaman Al-Zaman
AN Arab News
ANSA ANSA News Agency
AP Associated Press
Arab N Arab News
Arabic N Arabic News
ASB As-Sabah
Asharq Al A Asharq Al Awsat
AT Arab Times
Atl JC Atlanta Journal-Constitution
AUS The Australian
Azzaman Azzaman
BaltSun The Baltimore Sun
BBC BBC
B-berg Bloomberg
BG Boston Globe
Bill Gaz Billings Gazette
BNA Bahrain News Agency
BT Bahrain Times
CBC Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
CBS CBS
CCT Contra Costa Times
CD China Daily
CentCom Central Command
CNA Channel News Asia
CNN Cable News Network
CO Commondreams.org
COX Cox News Service
CP Counterpunch.org
CPC Charleston Post and Courier
CSM Christian Science Monitor
CT Chicago Tribune
CTV CTV.ca
Dar al-Salam Dar al-Salam
DM Daily Mirror (UK)
DPA Deutsche Presse-Agentur
DT(AU) Daily Telegraph (Australia)
eTN eTaiwan News
EXP Expatica (NL)
FNA FOCUS News Agency
Forbes Forbes
Fox Fox News
FT Financial Times
G and M Globe and Mail
GCN Gay City News
GDN Gulf Daily News
GN Gulf News
GSO GlobalSecurity.org
GUA The Guardian
Hi Pak Hi Pakistan
HRW Human Rights Watch
HT Hindustan Times
IE Indian Express
IER Irish Examiner
IFJ International Federation of Journalists
IHT International Herald Tribune
IMN Iraq MediaNet
IND The Independent
INNA Iraqi National News Agency
IOL Independent Online
IOL[SA] Independent Online (South Africa)
IRE Ireland Online
IRIN UN Integrated Regional Information Networks
ISN International Relations and Security Network
ITN Independent Television News (UK)
J Today Japan Today
Jang The Jang News
JaT Japan Times
JT Jordan Times
KCS Kansas City Star
KHT Khaleej Times
KM Kurdish Media
KR Knight-Ridder Newspapers
KTVL KTVL
KUNA Kuwaiti News Agency
LAT Los Angeles Times
Le Monde Le Monde
MAG Mines Action Group
McCla McClatchy Newspapers
MENA Middle East News Agency
MEO Middle East Online
MH Miami Herald
MHS Melbourne Herald Sun
MJ Mother Jones
MLine The Media Line
MN Mercury News
MNF Multi-national Force - Iraq
MO Mosul Observer
MSNBC MSNBC
N24[SA] News 24 (South Africa)
NAT Nando Times
News24 News 24
NewsAU News.com.au (Australia)
Newsday Newsday
Newsweek Newsweek
NINA National Iraqi News Agency
NNN Non-Aligned Movement News Network
NPR National Public Radio
NYT New York Times
NZH New Zealand Herald
NZZ Neue Zürcher Zeitung
OBS The Observer
PA Press Association
Pak T Pakistan Times
Pak Trib Pakistan Tribune
PAP Polish Press Agency
PBS Public Broadcasting Service (USA)
PDN Pakistan Daily News
PDT Pakistan Daily Times
Pen Peninsular, Qatar
PI Philadelphia Inquirer
Prav Pravda
QNA Qatar News Agency
REU Reuters
RFE Radio Free Europe
RFE/RL Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
RLW ReliefWeb
RSF Reporters Without Borders
RTE Radio Telefís Éireann
RWB Reporters Without Borders
S & S Stars and Stripes
Scot The Scotsman
SDU-T San Diego Union-Tribune
Sea T Seattle Times
SFC San Francisco Chronicle
Sky News Sky News
S-L The Star-Ledger
SMan Statesman
SMH Sydney Morning Herald
SNA Sophia News Agency
SPA Saudi Press Agency
ST Sunday Times (London)
St Pet St. Petersburg Times
ST[AU] Sunday Times (Australia)
T. al-Sha'ab Tariq al-Sha'ab (newspaper)
TA The Age
TASS TASS News Agency
TDN Turkish Daily News
TEL The Telegraph
TIME TIME Magazine
Times The Times (London)
TNI The News International (Pakistan)
TOI Times of India
Trib I Tribune India
TS Toronto Star
TTI The Telegraph (India)
UN United Nations
UO Utusan Online
UPI United Press International
US Fed N US Federal News Service
USA-T USA Today
VOA Voice of America
VOI Voices of Iraq
WP Washington Post
WT Washington Times
WV Warsaw Voice
XIN Xinhua News Agency
ZAM Zaman Online
Zmag Zmag.org
'3. Why is it so hard for people to believe the Lancet report?
I am an Iraqi and can assure you that the figure given is nearer to the truth than any given before or since.
S Kazwini, London, UK
LR: I think it is hard to accept these results for a couple of reasons. People do not see the bodies. While in the UK there are well over 1000 deaths a day, they do not see the bodies there either. Secondly, people feel that all those government officials and all those reporters must be detecting a big portion of the deaths. When in actuality during times of war, it is rare for even 20% to be detected. Finally, there has been so much media attention given to the surveillance-based numbers put out by the coalition forces, the Iraqi Government and a couple of corroborating groups, that a population-based number is a dramatic contrast...
Of any high profile scientific report in recent history, ours might be the easiest to verify. If we are correct, in the morgues and graveyards of Iraq, most deaths during the occupation would have been due to violence. If Mr. Bush's "30,000 more or less" figure from last December is correct, less than 1 in 10 deaths has been from violence. Let us address the discomfort of Mr. Moore and millions of other Americans, not by uninformed speculation about epidemiological techniques, but by having the press travel the country and tell us how people are dying in Iraq.'
February 2006 - article referring to the survey conducted in 2005.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html
'After excluding any possible statistical anomalies, they estimated that at least 98,000 Iraqi civilians had died in the previous 18 months as a direct result of the invasion and occupation of their country. They also found that violence had become the leading cause of death in Iraq during that period. Their most significant finding was that the vast majority (79 percent) of violent deaths were caused by “coalition” forces using “helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry,” and that almost half (48 percent) of these were children, with a median age of 8...
...the Iraqi Health Ministry reports... have confirmed the Johns Hopkins team’s conclusion that aerial attacks by “coalition” forces are the leading cause of civilian deaths. One such report was cited by Nancy Youssef in the Miami Herald of September 25, 2004 under the headline “U.S. Attacks, Not Insurgents, Blamed for Most Iraqi Deaths.” The Health Ministry had been reporting civilian casualty figures based on reports from hospitals, as Blair said, but it was not until June 2004 that it began to differentiate between casualties inflicted by “coalition” forces and those from other causes. From June 10 to September 10 it counted 1,295 civilians killed by U.S. forces and their allies and 516 killed in “terrorist” operations. Health Ministry officials told Youssef that the “statistics captured only part of the death toll,” and emphasized that aerial bombardment was largely responsible for the higher numbers of deaths caused by the “coalition.” The breakdown (72 percent U.S.) is remarkably close to that attributed to aerial bombardment in the Lancet survey (79 percent).
BBC World Affairs editor John Simpson, in another Health Ministry report covering July 1, 2004 to January 1, 2005, cited 2,041 civilians killed by U.S. and allied forces versus 1,233 by “insurgents” (only 62 percent U.S.). Then something strange happened. The Iraqi Health Minister’s office contacted the BBC and claimed, in a convoluted and confusing statement, that their figures had somehow been misrepresented. The BBC issued a retraction and details of deaths caused by “coalition” forces have been notably absent from subsequent Health Ministry reports.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html
'The figures most often cited for civilian casualties in Iraq are those collected by Iraqbodycount, but its figures are not intended as an estimate of total casualties. Its methodology is to count only those deaths that are reported by at least two “reputable” international media outlets in order to generate a minimum number that is more or less indisputable. Its authors know that thousands of deaths go unreported in their count and say they cannot prevent the media misrepresenting their figures as an actual estimate of deaths'
so instead of believing the site itself you believe some random guy? I'm going to go with the site.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html
'A second feature of the epidemiologists’ findings that has not been sufficiently explored is the one suggested above by Michael O’Toole. Since their report establishes that aerial assault and bombardment is the leading cause of violent death in Iraq and, since a direct hit by a 500 pound Mark 82 bomb will render most houses uninhabitable, any survey that disregards damaged, uninhabited houses is sure to underreport deaths. This should be taken into account by any follow-up studies.
Thanks to Roberts, his international team, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and the editorial board of the Lancet, we have a clearer picture of the violence taking place in Iraq than that presented by “mainstream” media. Allowing for 16 months of the air war and other deaths since the completion of the survey, we have to estimate that somewhere between 185,000 and 700,000 people have died as a direct result of the war. Coalition forces have killed anywhere from 70,000 to 500,000 of them, including 30,000 to 275,000 children under the age of 15.'
one with common sense would realize how inaccurate it is based on the wide range of deaths. translation: they have no idea of the real figures.
but its probably somewhere in the range of 1 and 10,000,000,000
The authors admit that they have no idea of the 'real figures', but after a few of these surveys have now been conducted - by different organizations - and seeing as they largely corroborate one another, I think we can safely place a conservative estimate at around the 1,000,000 mark.
well we have both presented evidence, I guess we'll agree to disagree and live to lock horns another day. cheers
I agree with this. the reasons for war were wrong but we are there. that can not be changed.
Actually it can be changed and should be changed
how can you go back and change history? we invaded, it happened. I would love for all of our troops to come home too. but we have a mess to clean up. after billions of dollars and tragic loss of life, conditions are actually starting to improve. deaths are significantly down. Iraqis are returning home and starting to feel a sense of normalcy
WE have taken over a foriegn country...the idea that it is settling down is really no surprise...this is the most advanced military on the planet, people can't resist long under that force. And with the violence dished out over the past few years I'm surprised its taken this long. But their will always be resistance, these people have more to fight for. Better to get out now and save lives.
but Iraqis are starting to not see america as the enemy. we are working together. sunni and shittes fighting each other that has also been a huge problem. I dont know if that is getting better or not, only someone who has been there can answer that imo.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I read about this too. and its actually having a positive effect. the more Iraqis come home, the more life starts to return to normal. businesses open, schools open, maybe some even mend bitter relationships with rival sects.
Sounds like a forced suffering plan to me. The MIC has been tearing this country apart for a long time.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/18/iraq-electricity/
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
well Iraqis need to go home at some point. it's their country right? I'm sure once many of them were "forced" they were glad to be home.
and that article you posted is over a year old. but im sure you knew that.
Glad to be in an occupied war torn country with a decimated infrastructure. I wonder if there is a person alive that has ever said that.
So you think forcing more people into an area with an already apparent shortage of resources is a good thing?
As of early 2007, Baghdad gets around 4-8 hours a day of electricity, the rest get 8-12hrs.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
yes, I'm willing to be bet there are many Iraqis eager to go home to their homeland. a place where they have lived for hundreds of years. should they never return? hopefully those returning Iraqis can get jobs and help repair the countries infrastructure..
kinda sucks having such a dim outlook on life eh?
Eager under the right circumstances. The rest was static noise...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
When Saddam eventually died, Iraq would have erupted like a freakin powder keg - and without a major and far suprior force in country like the US military - the violence and bloodletting would have known no end.
I agree that the war was initiated on false intelegence, and that Bush and Cheney are lying bastards who use fear to achieve thier agendas. But I also think that in the long run the US has actually saved more lives than it has taken... would anybody care to challenge that?
.
Uday and Qusay would have taken over. then I'm sure the real fun would have begun. along with 40 more years of similar division, rape, torture, and death, only on a grander scale.
since we have stolen responsibility - 200,000 dead per year for five years..
what stats u using for Saddam?
were there other alternatives ?
Seems to me the terrorist scenario has rendered the US military quite a workload. Is it somehow ineffective all the sudden?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")