IAP Political Forum

The estimate relies on polls conducted by a British research company. Iraqis were asked whether they lost a member of the family, and how many. The data was then applied to the number of households according to the 2005. Some areas were not included in the poll for security reason, which might affect the precision of the estimate.

"Given that from the 2005 census there are a total of 4,050,597 households this data suggests a total of 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003. Calculating the affect from the margin of error we believe that the range is a minimum of 733,158 to a maximum of 1,446,063

The poll also questioned the surviving relatives on the method in which their loved ones were killed. It reveals that 48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance."

It's difficult to estimate how many were killed by Coalition forces, how many by Iraqi army/police and how many by insurgents/qQaeda/militias. The 9% reportedly killed by air bombardment are an American achievement (9% of 1220580 is 110000). Remembering the Haditha incident and other of the kind, assume that some of the 586000 presumably killed by gunfire are also an American contribution. As well as some of the 6% killed by "other ordinance" (artillery, tank shelling). The 20% killed by car bombs are al Qaeda's toils. Still, the largest group are probably victims of militias.

The speculative figures might be an exaggeration. But even the reported by media deaths are at the region of 80,000 (acc. to Bodycount). WHile another study (well-known by now) estimated 655,000 killed.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

It looks like many different studies hit the 600,000-700,000 figure. Now they all can be wrong, but, by what a factor? Unless they where wrong by a 20x factor, the numbers still would be appalling.

That's math today? You buy that? Did your teachers tell you that you're all smart and special and brilliant?
If 30 people say that 2+2 is 4, and 1 dunce says 2+2 is 14....the answer does not become a concensus.

You're still special...we all are. Equally.


I know ALOT of people died.
I know the overwhelming majority were killed by terrorism, not by resisting occupation.
What are you suggesting we do with those who killed 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens?

OK so there is a part of me that wants this war to be over not becuase of the deaths. I could give a shit less about the ignorant savages blowing each other up. I am concerned about the expenses the war is incurring.

but an article like this pisses me off becuase of the point its exactly what the terrorists want.

By saying, "This is too much death, we should just leave" we infact tell the terrorists that there is a line over which all they must do is pass and we will crumble like a card house.

Still another part of me says, "Ok, and how many of those deaths are from one group of ignorant savages blowing up another group and then retaliating? If they want it to be over all they must do is say who the terrorists are."

The data collecting methods there seem questionable, which is really too bad because I'd like to know the real number.

not because of the Iraqi deaths. Because of your own. U "give a shit less about the ignorant savages blowing each other up", and so do 90% of your compatriots.

ok....and your point?

2 and half years ago, by the middle of the occupation term, estimates were between 60,000 and 100,000 and that seemed outrageousely high, so much that these numbers were questioned.

I don't think that 900,000 died in the last 2 1/2 years, and only 60,000 in the first 2 1/2 years.

Finaly, you don't count deaths by polling the population.

grossly inflated numbers used for rhetoric and talking points.

Iraqbodycount.org (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) estimates civilian casualities at 84,199, maximum.
Other studies give an estimate of 100,000 ~ 150.000 death, albeit that cannot be verified.
Only IraqBodyCount 's reported deaths are confirmed and documented.

only million? god it would take more 200 years to clean them,,, Iran has nothing to worry about

Hmm... since when have europeans cared about human lives?

Since our disregard for human lives caused that world power was handed over to American, maybe? ::)

First of all what you just said made absolutley no sense at all. How were latinos like myself created again?

I made all sense by answering in kind to your "point". Like now:

Why don't you go ask that to Native American?

So I should ask myself, since I'm descended from Aztecs that you bitch ass Spaniards so lovingly took care of. And no, your sentence didn't make any sense.

Fred wrote:
Iraqbodycount.org estimates civilian casualities at 84,199, maximum.

But, who is behind the killing of the majority of those 84.199 iraquis, folks?

that's not an estimate, that's a number of DOCUMENTED deaths. Estimates premise that vast majority of deaths are unreported.

Estimates also account indirect deaths -people who has died because they couldn't be taken to hospital, or because the hospital lacked resources, as a consequence of the war and the ocupation. Also account people who has died from causes related to the occupaiton, like lack of clean water, of medicines, of necessary foods, lack of electricity... that is, people who would be alive if their country's infrastructure and society hadn't been disrupted by war and occupation. This is how the Lancet reached the 700,000 figure, from children dieing out of not being vaccianted to diabetics who were out of insuline, from people who couldn't go hospital because their car had been destroyed to people who couldn't be attended because hospital was overflooded with victims of an attack... et cetera, et cetera.

Post-wars kill much more people than war itself. Assuming that war is resposible only of people dieing violent deaths is misleading, as war kills in many ways not violent. The own disruption of country and society are deadly themselves, too.

80,000?  :-\

That's probably the number of deaths of "Shock & Awe" terror campaign during first couple days of war. The campaign that was televised live all over the world. Half the friggin earth was watching baghdad set on fire by the flying terrorists. There are some 80,000 detainess held inside the the coalition of terror prisons all over Iraq. Abu-Ghraib is a real-time Hostel for jesus fucking sake ?!

What about the over 300 mutulated bodies found in Iraq everyday for the past 3 years?? 4 million refugees in Iraq and syria??

Anyone believing in the 80K number is politically ignorant. I put the number @ 1 million.

.




Ill informed. Sources?


.

I agree.
True the number of extra deaths must be much more than 80,000.

But things must be state clearly. When we read "one million died from the war" we usualy understand that 1 million died under bombs and gun fires. And in most cases we don't even try to estimate indirect deaths.

I also would like to bring your attention to the fact that most respondent from the poll said that their relatives were killed by american fire, not by indirect causes.

The reason is that it's almost impossible to calculate: First of all, from which other situation would you compare Iraq today? With Iraq under sanction and Saddam's dictature or with an hypothetical alternative evolution of events? I mean if you try to count something had war not occure, what situation would you predict without the war?

Only with this war some are trying to quantify the unquantfiable.

Stating "one million" as indurect deaths is baseless. Ok, some poeple couldn't have treatment because hospitals didn't function properly: How many poeple, would have survived with the health care provided , in normal times in such a country? IMO not that many.

Of course that the war was bad and that it is not tolerable, and that maybe thousands of lifes could have been spared, that's not the question.
But before saying "one million" you have to come with verifiable datas. Else, it's just another side of the propaganda.

Well, I too have an issue with the polling method as probably they couldn't be sure they weren't accounting the same dead multiple times. Iraqis have extended families so if you ask "Has someone from your household died?" they will answer positively even if the victim was not living there but was member of the family. And so it will be accounted as a casualty in every household owned by the extended family, unless you ask and record the personal data to keep track of who has already been reported dead.

The poll can't be serious meaning that 200,000 people died of car bombs (20% of 1,000,000...) ::)

IMO, indirect deaths is equal to half the direct deaths.
In all I think this war has killed 120,000 directly or indirectly.

And this is certainly a maximum.
Remember, we never heard of massive famine or epidemia in Iraq.

The above seems perfectly feasible to me.
Playing with the other numbers....Ariel bombardment has destroyed 67 homes per day for every single day of the war, accounting for 9% of the deaths...Baloney.