If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
655,000 people now killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.htmlThe death toll among Iraqis as a result of the US-led invasion has now reached an estimated 655,000, a study in the Lancet medical journal reports today.
The figure for the number of deaths attributable to the conflict - which amounts to around 2.5% of the population - is at odds with figures cited by the US and UK governments and will cause a storm, but the Lancet says the work, from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, has been examined and validated by four separate independent experts who all urged publication.
Now let remind ourselves that these are excess deaths. In other words, they would have not happened if the US and Britain hadn't attacked, invaded and occupied Iraq.
To those who still think the war on Iraq was worth it I ask: will this finally change your mind? And if not, how many more will have to die before it does?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
This is clearly a case of the lesser of two evils- and by that I don't mean the Allies are more evil than Saddam- I'm saying that brutal madman as Saddam was, the people of Iraqi were better off under him than they have been since the war.
The current situation is something just about everyone, from observers to journalists to the man in the street had predicted. So the US and British governments must have been even more aware of it, and yet chose to go ahead with their war. If that doesn't qualify as crime against humanity, I don't know what does.
What in retrospect should have been done is not give Saddam unlimited weaponry including WMDs for him to happily use on Iranian soldiers and Kurdish civilians alike while the West looked the other way.
And certainly what should have not been done is to subject the country to one of the most gruelling set of sanctions in human history to make them comply with WMD destruction, and then illegally attack and invade them after they had done just that.
If there was any justice in this world Bush and Blair would be tried in The Hague like the lying war criminal murdering scumbags they are.
Now I'm not sure even Iraq body count is 100% accurate - I think it overeports in some instances and underreports in others. However a counting of casualties is surely a more accurate way to work out figures, though i suspect that the Lancet figures will soon enter folklore and will be quoted as if they were the absolute truth, and the many criticisms of the study ignored.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Criticism
Despite Wiki's flaws it gives a good overview of the criticisms and also the defences of the figures.
Even common sense looking at the news would suggest that a 2.5% fatality rate is much too high for the level of activity which is happening there.
Sectarian and revenge killings are far, far more numerous. Again, you only get to know about groups of 20, 50 bodies found at one place. Hell knows how many single bodies are found daily. There might be criticisms of this report (and you can bet your bottom dollar that the neocons, warmongers and Republican cheerleaders of this world are working overtime to to find holes, real or imaginary, on the report) but it seems well researched and a lot more credible than the bullshit our leaders come up with.
One thing is clear. The actual figures of people killed are many times higher than those supplied by the Iraqi, American and British governments- which have told so many lies and innacuracies they couldn't be trusted to give the time of day.
Another thing is also clear. The Iraqis are far, far, far worse off now than they were under Saddam, with no sign of abaiting. The situation is an utter disaster and an appalling bloodfest that is out of control and that would have not happened had not the US and Britain decided to "liberate" the place.
But any war has casualties. 'Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity' as said by one of those chain mails. It all comes down to personal judgement, there is no ultimate right or wrong, if the government of Iraq had flourished then 655,000 or even 6,550,000 people might be justifiable, because if in the long run it creates a better way of life for everyone then it will pay back more than the suffering and death created.
However, lets look at Iraq. It's gone backwards, not forwards. And it's still slipping backwards, because the ideology and anti-west sentiment has only increased, which causes friction between the 'peacekeepers' (lol, another oxymoron) and the population.
But it's like quicksand, anything anyone does to try and fix the situation just makes it worse. I think they'd have been better off without invading for the sole reason that the quality of life in Iraq is worse now than under Saddam. And will be for the foreseeable future.
Didn't like Saddam, he deserved to go, but he's less important than the people who are now suffering because he's gone...
Look at the Iraqi body count and you'll see plenty of individual deaths
a couple at random
k3975 14 Sep 2006 PM northeast Baghdad near bakery motorcycle bomb 1 [dead]
k3958 12 Sep 2006 - Hay al-Jihad, Wasit policeman gunfire 1 [dead]
Whilst I'm almost certain neocons will criticise this report (Bush has already called it a guess, which is a trifle harsh - I'm critical of it, but wouldn't call it a guess, by any manner of means), but anti-war protesters and Saddamites will be wanking themselves over it.
As supposedly intelligent people, perhaps we ought to look at it warts and all, compare it with other sources (and experience of casualties and casualty reporting from other wars) rather than jump up and down and proclaim it the 'truth'
yes of course, the thought of half a million dead iraqis really does it for me :rolleyes: what a moronic thing to say nqa, why don't you pull your head out of your arse for a minute......
the exact body count figures don't really matter do they, it's fairly obvious that a hell of a lot of people have been maimed and killed for no real reason, and they will continue to do so for years because the u.s. doesn't really care about restoring peace and democracy to the region, they've got their own agenda..........as for whether the iraqis are better off than under saddam, well it's not much good living in a free democratic nation when your dead is it.
ffs you're all talking about innacurate projections and statistics like it's a fucking maths assignment, it isn't these are dead people you're talking about and it shouldn't matter if it's 300,000 or 600,000 cos the whole country is fucked either way, if it's not having an impact on you then maybe you need to see the reality mate, and look what we are doing to them.
*I've edited this post. When posting images of the dead or dying we always ask people to provde links rather than posting images or unclear links.
The images are available through the original link and they are as disturbing as you would expect -
http://iraq-kill-maim.org/kid-kill/kid-kill-01.htm
but ultimately how will they be? Not that it really matters, that's a case for the writers of "what if?" now. What are you going to do about it? It's happened, what's done is done and what needs to be done now is make it better as fast as possible.
We need the two leaders who started this war to be accountable for what they did. We need a mass of resignations from those who lied to the UN, their respective countries and the world. We need a full and unreserved apology from those people for what they have done. We need the two occupying powers to piss off, dismantle their military bases, take away their mercenaries and contractors, and have UN forces in their place.
But instead we have war criminals Bush and Blair still in power, and planning to retire gracefully without consequences for their vile actions, Iraq being plagued with US military bases, and the likes of Halliburton and private American security companies making an absolute killing (in more ways than one) of the situation.
We must keep going on about it. We must not let them get away with what they're done. And more importantly, we must send a clear message to the necons and warmongers of this world that future illegal and morally repugnant imperialistic wars will not be tolerated.
i am not implying that Bush's actions were justified.. definately not. WMDs did not justify such an poorly executed invasion.. and whether they ever justified the war, is a large question, but i would never bother to engage into a debate regarding the justification of the Iraq war, as i haven't recieved back a 2000 word essay i've recently handed in. I still believe the war was unjustified and always have, but the goals, the supposed goals, and i personally believe that it is paramount to the safety of the nations of the globe to intervene, collectively, in countries with alleged nuclear possessions and refusing to comply to over, what, 10 resolutions after the 1st gulf war. But, sadly, the UN is a joke.
It's caused more suffering than good - power and water are unreliable at best, security non existant, unemployment rife, hospitals overstretched, choas on the streets....
Welcome to Freedom, Iraq, don't you just love it?
ETA: sorry bullseye i meant we as in the UK, i could have sworn the UK govt declared war on iraq and sent UK troops over there, and i must have also imagined that we are in fact still occupying the country.........all thanks to our tax dollars and apathy, your right though it's easy to sleep at night when you don't have bombs dropping over your head.
That is all well and good and a practicle solution that many would like to see, however it will never happen. No American President or British Prime Minister shall ever be arrested or put on trial or resign over such a thing and they will undoubtedly protect all the people below them who lied for fear they might blow the whistle if they were not protected. It is the inbuilt flaw of the system to proptect themselves and one another.
Also, which country would provide the amount of UN forces for such a mission as to keep the peace in Iraq? No country has an army or military capability to do so except for the Americans and British, except the Russians who i doubt could afford it or the Chinese who probably wouldnt do it with out a lot of concessions on their favour that no one will want to give. I mean the UN cannot even mount a force to keep the peace in the Sudan can it?
Their is not enough money or enough troops or enough willingness involved with the UN to maintain, enforce or carry out internation law. That is why any powerfully armed country can do what it likes, when it likes, as it likes and has always been able to since the UN was formed! The whole system is wrong.
True the 9/11 attacks did give them the momentum they wanted and needed to carry out their agenda and policy towards the middle east. Though the reason the wait was 10 years was that Bush Snr didnt have the muscle for it and Clinton was a Democrat who despised the Republicans. It wasnt until Bush Jnr came along that the Republicans and their supporters had enough momentum to go ahead with it all...9/11 did really help them though eh.
Personally I think splitting Iraq into 3 states (Sunni, Shia and Kurdish) might be a solution but really it is up to the Iraqis. It would be nice if some Iraqis could actually come online here and post what they want but I guess they don't get the freedom like we do. My guess is that they'd want the US and UK to leave though.
now there's an interesting question......i saw this vid a while ago which suggests the militias are actually funded and created within the Iraqi Interior Ministry, which had (and arguably still has) close ties to the US, and it also points out it wouldn't be the first time the US have colluded with death squads abroad to destablise other countries in order to achieve their objectives.......
http://www.cryingwolf.deconstructingiraq.org.uk/
if anyone thinks the US/UK intelligence services were so dumb they couldn't work out what would be the consequences of invading iraq they should think again, it's pretty obvious now it's exactly what they wanted, destabilise the region to justify a military build up and continued presence for years to come.......
that wasn't an ideal it was a pretext, surely you can spot the difference.
And why don't you fuck off...
Now all the figures are unreliable, but these are more unreliable than most as they are so far out of the ballpark as whatever anyone else has estimated. However because people will now start quoting them uncritically - they'll become the truth. Just like people still quote a million dead in the First Gulf War, when the probable real figures are much, much lower.
Again, whether these figures are really accurate or not isnt the most important issue either - its where we go from now.
The idea that the UN could suddenly magic up 100K troops to wander about and make people love each other is totally bonkers, troops from where? Paid for by whom?
I, sadly, think we have two options - pile troops into the country and really maintain order or leave and just let it fall apart.
1st Earth Battallion? (Sorry, just been watching Jon Ronson)
Indeed. 665,000 (Lancet) is a huge contrast with the other estimates that range from 50,000 to 100,000. The Lancet report is based entirely on the findings of 1,800 families; it's not a comprehensive estimate - it's a guess. (As is the '30,000' figure Bush has used). The better qualified Iraqi officials figure of 40,000 which is supported by the Foreign Office is likely to be a lot closer to reality than 665,000. I think the Iraqis would be in a better position with their records to provide accurate information...
And already 'anti-war' campaigners can't get over themselves with 'shock.' Uncritically, they accept information convenient to their agenda. Of course the anti-war brigade - Respect and the Stop the War Coalition aren't really concerned with Iraqis - they want a snap UK/US withdrawal, they want Iraq left in anarchy and they want the insurgents to succeed.
The Iraq War cannot be undone, the defunct anti-war groups if they had any decency would support the establishment of a secure and stable Iraq rather than seek to undermine every effort at improving things for the Iraqi people.
I do.
Deaths caused by sectarian violence and terrorism per year under Saddam Hussein = 0 (est.)
Deaths caused by sectarian violence and terrorism per year since US-Britain invasion = 200,000 (est.)
No one in their right mind would suggest Saddam was a nice man or that he didn't torture and kill a lot of people. But it is also an undeniable fact that Iraq suffered from no terrorism, no extremism and no religious and sectarian violence under his rule. The country was secular and women could generally walk down the street wearing make up and Western clothes without fear. And folk could go around their daily business without fear of being blown to pieces as they did their grocery shopping in the local market.
His old friend George Galloway might.
"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability."
It was a totalitarian regime...
a) the anti-war brigade is supportive or associated with Respect and Stop the War
b) Galloway and his group speaks on behalf of those who oppose the war
because it's getting rather tiresome now.
And the warmongers and necons of this world should hang their head in shame and admit they were wrong, that the war was founded on lies, and that those behind it are criminals scumbags who should not get away with it.
If someone murdered a member of your family I wonder if you would put up with the argument that "what's done is done, and cannot be undone- better look up to the future eh" the warmongers are so keen on putting forward...