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.
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 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."
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.
