Posted on 12/18/2004 11:57:50 PM PST by sigarms
Edited on 12/19/2004 1:44:00 AM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
The authors of a peer-reviewed study, conducted by a survey team from Johns Hopkins University, claim that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the war. Yet a close look at the actual study, published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet, reveals that this number is so loose as to be meaningless.
The report's authors derive this figure by estimating how many Iraqis died in a 14-month period before the U.S. invasion, conducting surveys on how many died in a similar period after the invasion began (more on those surveys later), and subtracting the difference. That difference—the number of "extra" deaths in the post-invasion period—signifies the war's toll. That number is 98,000. But read the passage that cites the calculation more fully:
We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.
Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)
This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.
[excerpted]
They are counting every terrorist as "civilian casualty".
What was the body count of those murdered or died of malnutrition or sickness under the Hussein regime?
this is sad for two reasons:
First, someone is keeping track of civilian casualities to blame American Troops for the deaths
and Secondly, people are using the deaths of the innocent to further their liberal/socialist agendas.
Civilian casualties happen. Americans Soldiers do not target civilians for no good reason. If we did, there wouldnt be any Iraqis in Iraq anymore. Pretty simple if you ask me....
To the press anyone not wearing full combat gear is an innocent civilian. Of course if they are captured with weapons etc then to the media they become EPWs with full GC rights.
Where do you even draw the line? There is no 'terrorist' faction, anyway, but a whole host of bad guys.
There are local Baathist moneymen/faciliators
Foriegn fighters from Syria and other nations
Iranian intelligence agents/IRGC commandos
Locals hired to plant mines, act as spies, or snipe
Criminal organizations
And a random assortment of malcontents and uncivilized jerks. None of these guys carry I.D. cards that say what is running through their heads when they decide to shoot at Americans. How are a pack of British MDs going to figure out who's a 'civilian' and who's not?
It doesn't take into account how the people died. For instance, how many were killed by Terrorists as they took over homes? How many were terrorists hiding as civilians? How many were killed because they didn't get out of town. If you are a "civilian" with no horse in this race, why on Earth are you staying in the city?
I don't doubt these numbers. If they are true, it means our kill to casuality rate is around 3 to 1. Very doubtful.
I personally think the more terrorists we kill the better.
Civilian deaths, while tragic are an inevitable part of modern war. Never in the history of war has a power gone to such great lengths and risk of its own troops to protect civilians.
It is sad and unfortunate that any civilians, especially women and children, are killed as a result of the hideous and criminal actions of their countrymen who claim to be freedom fighters - but offer only a vision of death and oppression.
The United States cares deeply about their lives and future of the Iraqi people and is doing everything possible to restore security and make possible a nation where life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be fundamental parts of the basic social fabric. It is for this world that individuals on both sides will be called to makethe ultimate sacrifice.
Exactly. If destruction was our plan, there wouldn't be two bricks on top of each other in Iraq right now. I was suprised to see how little of the country was modern looking, and how much of it was still mud huts, dirty villiges and random wanding shepards. If we had any desire to bulldoze every square inch of Iraq, it would have taken us about two months.
Al-Jazeera
Anyone who takes this seriously is out of his/her mind.
How would the press have an accurate count?
I remember similar claims in Afghanistan, when the Taliban took the journalists on some tour, claiming so many killed by the US troops, and the journalists reported those as facts, later they turned out to be total fabrication.
I am quite certain this is the same thing.
yeah pretty much....
If you get out of the big cities, it goes back to the Stone Age quick.
We will see as we rebuild this country what the Iraqis can do. Economically I think they will be alright.....
Are terrorists civilians? They look and act like civilians, except when engaged in acts of terrorism. At that point, they briefly turn into unlawful combatants. But if you shoot them, some random British doctor could wander by and *poof* the terrorist is suddenly a poor civilian.
Terrorists aren't soldiers. They answer to no nation, wear no uniform, and change organizations at whim. But some terrorists are more organized than others. At what point do they become 'terrorists'? Waiting for them to act like terrorists will cost lives.
It's a very muddled problem, especially when no one seems willing to clearly define even the basics of this war.
"the group released a report estimating that, of the 800 Iraqis killed in last April's siege of Fallujah, 572 to 616 of them were civilians, at least 308 of them women and children)."
Another ludicrous claim. The civilians were urged to leave and they did. When we took over Fallujah, the only ones left were the terrorists.
The US troops knew which were the terrorist safe houses, and those were the ones they attacked.
To claim that 600 out of the 800 killed were "innocent civilians" shows what lying bunch this group is.
I agree, they're pretty on the ball, as far as wanting to be modern and prosperous. Once the oil revenues start kicking in, and infrastructure goes up, the place will improve very nicely. Security is the big question mark. Once the place cools down and becomes safe to work in, I think you'll see their economy take off, and run strong.
The thread doesn't have the actual title of the article.
If the US had fallen into absolute tyranny, and a foreign military brought the hope for restoring a life without fear to my family and countrymen, I would accept if I were to die.
....but only if my countrymen picked up the torch.
If I knew I were going to die and my countrymen weren't going to do anything to further themselves, I'd be pretty pissed.
The bottom line is, the deaths of civilians in Iraq is truly lamentable, but no one can honestly state they are being targeted so, as callus as it sounds, these numbers are right now only worth a shaking of the head.
All life is root in warfare. People are killed for every reason. The final judgment of the Iraq campaign will be in 5 or 10 years. For now, we can only hope.
and that is exactly why I have my Iraqi Dinar.
of course I have 30 years to sit on it too :)
It was a city of more than 100,000 people in a desert. Think about it: do you honestly believe a city that size could have, or would have, evacuated completely? Where would they all have gone? Where could they get food and water?
Many of them were simply trapped by circumstances.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.