Slashdot Mirror
100,000 Civilians Dead in Iraq
asldihf writes "New Scientist is reporting that 100,000 civilians in Iraq are now dead due to America's war in Iraq. Make sure you vote next week."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
How many of his own people Saddam killed. And how many of those deaths are due to terrorists trying to recapture his legacy.
Don't forget that the body count of civilians is not entirely due to American force. It's just a body count. Lot's have died due to their countrymen's efforts.
You'll have that sometimes...
I was going to make a +5 Funny post about how George W. Bush is keeping us safe, but the subject is just too horrible.
The war on terror is not meant to be won, it's meant to be an excuse for any atrocity.
How can anyone think this is justified? It's sick.
From The Age (Google cache to skip registration): We have records of 600,000 executions and we estimate that 180,000 died in the uprising including the Marsh Arabs. The bombing of Halabja left 5000 dead," Mr al-Huoseyni said.
Like the posting said, make sure you vote--just like the people in Iraq finally had a chance to.
Uh- Kerry always said he would have gone to war too, that's why I voted for Kucinich in the primary. The difference is he would have gone with more troops- even if it meant a draft- and more planning- even if it meant giving the inspectors a few more weeks- and better intelligence- even if it meant confirming every detail- and probably would have actually *bothered* to guard or destroy munitions depots as we went. Plus, as a Democrat, he wouldn't have given in to the Iraqi NRA- he would have disarmed civilians as we invaded as well (how stupid do you have to be to invade a country, destroy it's entire civil government, and NOT disarm the people?). I think all of that would have ended up with fewer battle casualties- and more friendly fire incidents.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Actually the body count is since the american's invaded Iraq. So although some deaths won't be directly from US (or coalition of the willing) military personnel it is still due to the invasion.
...is what would the cost in lives have been if the U.S. had done nothing? In the short term I'm guessing more lives have been lost because of the war, but in the long term, will it have been worth it?
My guess is that history will prove that the war was worth it, not only for Iraqis but for the world as a whole.
I'm interested in seeing the new movie "Voices of Iraq" that just came out. From the reviews I've read, including one on NPR last night, it sounds like it provides evidence that the average ordinary Iraqi is grateful for what the U.S. has done (even though they want us to leave as soon as possible).
Whatever man.
Lets get some things straight. There's never been a "good" war in the history of the world that didn't *first* start because of a power struggle or a politician's false pretense and was *later* justified by pointing to all the good it did.
Slavery and Saving Jews were all post-factum addendums to the Civil War and WW2. The allies FLEW OVER railways that they *knew* led to German Concentration Camps and SENT BACK refugees that had risked their lives to escape.
If you were dead, you wouldn't be glad about your noble sacrifice, you'd be dead.
- They weren't children at that point.
- It wasn't "we", the decision was that of the parents.
- The term "innocent" means nothing except that it exposes the hypocrisy
of the "sanctity of life" that's espoused by pro-lifers only goes so far:
if they are judged guilty of something, kill 'em.
It's easy to defend cute little babies and puppies and kittens
but the real test of faith is when you have to love thy enemy.
The abortion fight is all bullshit, and none of your business.
How many of those 100,000 civilians were involved in attempts to attack American troops? How about the hundreds of thousands of people who are now free from tyranny in Iraq under Sadam's regime?
Interesting...so we were there to help.
Ah, so if another country...say China for instance...were to send troops to America to "help" us we would just lay down our arms, and welcome them with open arms? I mean, they're just trying to help right?
And if by "free from tyranny" you mean "all out civil war" then yeah, that's really something!
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
Can I mod the article as -1:Troll? "Make sure you vote next week?" Let's skip all the rigamaroll...just post at the end of every politics article "And remember...we don't like Bush, we like Kerry!".
I'm pissed when I get modded down for any of my pro-Bush comments, but this is just blatant bias in the text of an article. A little more objectivity wouldn't hurt here.
--trb
> Lets get some things straight. There's never been a "good" war in the history of the world that didn't *first* start because of a power struggle or a politician's false pretense and was *later* justified by pointing to all the good it did.
As in this case, where the "liberation" angle is emergency spin to cover the lack of WMD in Iraq.
Also re your general point, it's not possible for both sides in a war to be right, but it is possible for both sides to be wrong.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Medical statistics have been intimately tied to war, at least since Florence Nightingale. There are obvious reasons for this. In regions of political dispute, one can arguably get the most accurate description of what is happening vis-a-vis life & death from doctors who are, after all, charged with this responsibility. I'd imagine that it's not uncommon for lab scientists to get statistics and evidence about piles of bodies and injury reports, to try to explain what the most likely cause is.
Your analogy is a bit shitty. It's more like Comm. ACM talking about elections; a bit off-topic, but you're fooling yourself if the technical issues and political issues don't overlap.
Exactly! I read a story yesterday about this report and they actually said that the vast majority of the deaths were women and children. That is what tipped me off to conclude that the story was a load of crap. Does anyone honestly think that we would deliberatly attack women and children ONLY? If we were not attacking them deliberately, then why the hell would the vast majority of deaths be women and children? The polls in Iraq clearly show that Iraqis don't want Americans over there. What better way to get them to leave then to undermine their efforts by claiming that they are targeting civilians.
The problem with liberals is that they are much more inclined to believe the enemies of the USA than they are to believe the leaders of the country or even the soldiers that are over there fighting. This is like Howard Dean taking the terrorists commnets after the attack in Spain and saying it is the Presidents fault of the war in Iraq. Spain backing out of Iraq was absolutely the WORST thing that could have happened. All it did was give these morons more reason to hold people hostage, threaten beheadings, and ochestrate more attacks.
If the President wasn't a war-mongerer like you all say he is, then the extremists-to-be in the middle east would still be seething waiting for an opportunity. Bush has forced them to take a side....a side that they probably would eventually take if left alone anyway. The only reason there is more terrorism in the world now is because somebody is standing up and saying we are not going to sit here and take this crap anymore.
Flame away!
Terrorists are considered Civilians according to international reports. Insurgents are considered Civilians according to most international reports.
So what % of those civilians are terrorists and insurgents?
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
None of your quotations are attacking any actual part of the method used in the study, they're just generalisations.
There is no official figure for the number of
Iraqis killed since the conflict began
Well of course there's no fucking official figure. Who could possibly give an "official" figure? God?
some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000.
As time goes on, more people are killed, and it is possible to establish that more people have been killed.
concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision,"
As opposed to most studies which are of infinite precision?
quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study
Well yes.
report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher said he wanted it that way.
And why not? Isn't this the most vital time that people hear this information?
possible that they may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq
However, this information could be biased in either direction. Some areas of Iraq were excluded because they were too dangerous for the investigators; weren't they likely to have suffered more deaths?
more household clusters would have improved the precision of the report
Well obviously. This is true for any study or poll ever published.
It misses the point to say, "Well Sadaam killed 6x the number of people so this course of action was the lesser of two evils."
I think a lot of Americans think it's impossible for an Iraqi to look on us as occupiers rather liberators, unless that Iraqi was somehow closely associated with the regime. Well, I think this number explains a lot. Remember, you can't use gross numbers -- it's always misleading. When you take apart the numbers, some interesting insights occur. Probably a disproporitionate number of people that Sadaam killed were Kurds, whereas a disproportionate number of Iraqis killed by our aerial campaign were non-Kurd. It wouldn't be surprising then to find that Kurds are relatively more likely to support the US occupation than the average Iraqi.
Another way to disaggregate the numbers is by politics. Sadaam probably focused his murderous activities on political enemies and their families. Death by being in the wrong place, on the other hand, is indiscriminate. So if you are a Sunni man in the street, there was nothing you could do short of going out into the hills and hiding to reduce your exposure.
Furthermore, in the attempt to attack the Baathist leadership, I wouldn't be surprised if the impact fell disproportionately in Sunni areas. It's also interesting to note the difference in attitude towards the the occupation among Shii from Baghdad and those in cities like Kerbala.
In any case, the situation we have encountered in Iraq should make us chary of a strategy of leadership assassination by precision munition. Not only did this strategy have very little success, it's civilian cost was greatly underestimated (or at least underrepresented). A clearer understanding of this, along with calculating its impact on post-invasion strategy, might well have lead to different decisions during the major combat phase of the war.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Fuck Soddam, fuck Bush, fuck Kerry, fuck Osama.
Why do these people have the power to start war?
Joe American doesn't want a war.
He wants to screw his girlfriend, work his job, and drink a few beers.
We're all human; why the hell do we let these people make us kill each other?
When both Presidential nominees, Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich, support the war what the hell is "make sure you vote next week" supposed to mean? If you're really against the war you'll be voting Nadar or Badnarik, but I'd be off my rocker to think that's what michael was implying by letting the article through.
Article points:
+100,000 flamebait (for every dead Iraqi by US)
+1,000,000 overrated (for every dead Iraqi by Saddam)
+5 insightful (for accidentally pointing out that the 3rd parties are the only ones against it all)
Direct away from face when opening.
Or at least he led us to believe he was.
Too bad we can't moderate stories as trolls or flamebait.
It was a war people! The purpose of war is to KILL PEOPLE.
It's funny how attitudes have changed. 200 years ago, we would have cited "empire-building" as the reason for invading Iraq, and the world would have been fine with it, just as they were with the English, Dutch, Spanish, French, Danish, Portuguese, Italians, Russians, and Germans.
How many native americans died during Cortez's conquest of Latin/South America? How many Gauls died during Julius Caesar's conquest of Western Europe? How many Persians died at the hands of Alexander's army?
Heck, it wasn't even until last century that the Ottoman and British Empires were laid to rest!
I'm not saying that invading Iraq was the right thing to do - I went on record then saying that I didn't think we had enough cause to invade. But it is an interesting thing to observe, I think, how much different the worlds' attitude toward empires is now.
Would it be okay with you if parents could have their kids euthanized because one parent had lost his/her job and they could no longer afford children? They aren't really people yet.. they're barely five, totally uneducated, provide no meaningful contribution to society and are in fact a drain on our resources and they can't vote, work or own land... not really people yet... it's the parents decision right? What difference would it make to society if they had their kids euthanized? We haven't really invested anything into their futures as yet so what do we care?
Don't try to argue, it is a perfectly valid comparison and you know it.
We only put labels such as fetus, newborn, baby, toddler, child on a young person for convenience in conversation.
How about this labeling comparison
- start with 2 hours after conception - that new person is 2 hours old
- fetus - that new person is 4 months and 2 hours old
- 3rd trimester fetus - that person is 8 months and 2 hours old
- birth - that person is 9 months 22 days and 2 hours old
- first birthday - that person is 1 year, 9 months, 22 days and 2 hours old
- thirtieth birthday - that person is 30 years, 9 months, 22 days and 2 hours old
Do you see that the counting of life begins at conception, not at birth.. you don't lose 9 months + of your life the day you are born... that person is the same person whether 2 hours old or 30 years old. At 30 years old that person has a whole lot more mass but is the same as when that person was 10 years and 1 year and 1 month... they've simply grown a lot in the 30 + years they've been alive.
Killing a 1 hour old person is the same as killing a 30 year old person, except the 30 year old person had a chance to experience life and contribute.. the 1 hour old was deprived of this chance altogether.
I will address the issue of whether a violent criminal should be put to death or not. It's not relevant in that the person being put to death had a choice about how they would live their life. That person chose to commit a violent crime. Death or life imprisonment or rehabilitation or hospitalization... the goal is not to punish the violent criminal but to protect society from said individuals chosen way of life.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
When a U.S. airstrike accidentally kills an iraqi civilian that's a tragedy but it's something that happens in war. When insurgents use car bombs to blow up lines of Iraqi men whose only crime was wanting to help defend their country from terrorist scum, that's a war crime. It's a god-damned shame that too many liberals here on slashdot are quick to see the first act as evil while they dismiss second act as the justified response of a man when his country is invaded.
I know how much you liberals love to hate George W. Bush. Imagine if he cheats his way into power this election and starts executing people who disagree with them. Are you seriously telling me you're going to be mad if the europeans decide they're going to liberate you? That when the EU decides to eliminate the american government and install a real democracy, you guys wouldn't shit your pants with joy knowing that your hated dictator has been deposed? You seriously mean to tell me that instead of working to help secure the newly formed american democracy, you'd decide to kill anyone working with the europeans? Of course you wouldn't, and you know it. If the shoe was on the other foot and you'd been living under the iron grip of a dictator for all these years, you'd be incredibly happy that you were going to have your freedom, and you'd be pissed at those insurgents who were fighting the good men who came to free you. Of course you wouldn't be happy about it when a misplaced EU bomb killed a family member of yours, but i'm sure you wouldn't then decide to capture and decapitate european charity workers.
Please pull your heads out of your collective asses and realize that there is a fight going on, between good people who are fighting for democracy and self determination, and barbians whose goal is to kill anyone who will not submit to their vision of worldwide islamic theocracy.
Those fighting the coalition in Iraq right now are not oppressed Iraqis trying to liberate themselves by foreign oppression, they are evil men whose goal is destroy freedom around the world. I know this may sound naive and stupid when I call men evil, but there's something seriously wrong with you if you don't see people who would intentionally kill civilians and decapitate charity workers as anything but evil. If they really cared so much about iraqi freedom, why would they continually attack the Iraqis who are signing up with the iraqi national guard? Just this past week there were 49 members of the nascent Iraqi Guard were murdered. You mean to tell me that murdering men who were trying to protect your country is something a concerned citizen should do? If you're so blind that you can't see these cowards as anything but victims of United States agression, I hope to god you are never given any power.
My blog
Firstly it started off as WMDs, which are now proved to be complete crap
Then it turned into Osama and Iraq were working together which has not only not been proved, but I believe it was made official this week that there was no link
Then it turned suddenly to regieme change, yeah that's a good one lets throw out one dictator.. and put in one that's several thousand miles away
The problem with the regieme change is there are loads of other countries that are far far worse than Iraq but we like to keep those quiet.
It basically all comes down to the fact that whichever of the many reasons you choose to believe, this was an immoral and illegal war in the opinion of most people, and the US and UK governments think we're all so stupid that we'll just swallow whatever they say. And the sad thing is, a lot of us will.
What's worrying is this: I've watched part of the debates, and I watched some of question time last night. People were heckling and jeering opinions that didn't match their own. No one in the USA (and this is the viewpoint of a fair few UK people) seems to ever listen. Everyone believes whatever they choose to beleive, usually on one-sided evidence and refuses to listen to the other side. Unfortunately, those people are then allowed to vote.
I just hope that whatever does happen, someone keeps their brain in gear, because only when all the world leaders come up from their bunkers and see there is no one and nothing left to rule over, will they realise that nobody wins a war. Nobody.
Get paid to search..It's geniune and
"Have any of them been deliberate? No."
Right on! If I level city blocks to get at insurgents, not deliberately targeting civilians, I'm off the hook!!!
Kill On!
What part of mass murder don't you understand?
The principal crime of Iraq, from the U.S. perspective was to try and control their oil-wealth, and use that resulting power to reduce the likleyhood of Israeli hegemony in the region.
Is that the "politically correct" way these days to describe Iraq's invasion and capture of Kuwait, followed by threats to invade Saudi Arabia? So, is it your contention that the Jews control Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, or that all of the oil in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is really Iraqi oil?
Start considering the 10 or so years of "sanctions", with the millions of casualties, birth-defects, etc.
Are you speaking about the sanctions imposed by the UN (the organization so many people want approving wars these days) after Iraq invaded Kuwait? Are those the same sanctions imposed to force Iraq to dismantle its WMD programs which included chemical weapons used in war against Iran, biological weapons, and a very advanced nuclear weapons program? Are those the sanctions which Saddam tried to game by refrigerating corpses from all over the country and moving them to Baghdad for parades of misery? Are those sanctions the ones that he tried to evade with the Oil for Food program bribes worth billions of dollars to officials from the UN, France, Russia, and a host of other nations and organizations while diverting the money intended for food and medicine to contraband? Never heard of them.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
But it is an interesting thing to observe, I think, how much different the worlds' attitude toward empires is now.
We also frown upon tying people to crosses and lighting them on fire. Funny how times change.
How did this get mod'ed up so high?
... and use that resulting power to reduce the likleyhood of Israeli hegemony in the region.
This is clearly flamebait. Israel has no desire for hegemony over the Middle East. They would like, more than anything else, to be left alone by their neighbors.
Comment removed based on user account deletion