Lancet reports Iraq war claims over 650,000 lives

FYI

BALTIMORE, Maryland (CNN) -- War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.

Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.

"Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq." (Watch as the study's startling results are revealed -- 1:55)

The survey, being published online by British medical journal The Lancet, gives a far higher number of deaths in Iraq than other organizations. (Read the full report -- pdf)

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/index.html

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_horton/2006/10/post_499.html

gandalf

And your opinion on this is what exactly?

Please add your comments or I will close this thread!!

FYI

Seriously? Does the murder of 650,000 people require comment?

There has been scant media coverage and we are more than likely awaiting only baseless criticism.

Ireland was used (and offered) as a refueling point for the US war machine. The Irish people, meaning you and me, are complicit in all the crimes that followed.

Delete as you will.

The_Minister

This was posted on indymedia and even that lot wouldn't swallow it. What makes you think that boards will?

Mad Finn

I will stand corrected if proved wrong, but I seem to remember that estimates before the start of the war that it would result in 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths were scoffed at as being way too high for the sort of 'surgical' war that was being planned.

The Allies were going to go in, remove the Republican Guard, free the Iraqi people and be greeted with open arms as liberators.

Now it seems that those estimates were only out by, ooh, 650 per cent.

Unpossible

Im curious as to how many Iraqis are being killed everyday by insurgents (spelling?), because everytime someone post up death tolls here its either "killed by american troops" or "caused by american troops/occupation"

bobbyjoe

Unpossible wrote:

Im curious as to how many Iraqis are being killed everyday by insurgents (spelling?), because everytime someone post up death tolls here its either "killed by american troops" or "caused by american troops/occupation"

Its deaths since the war began not by who killed whom.
The liberators don't bother counting how many they kill so an estimation is required.

Mad Finn

Unpossible wrote:

Im curious as to how many Iraqis are being killed everyday by insurgents (spelling?), because everytime someone post up death tolls here its either "killed by american troops" or "caused by american troops/occupation"

Nobody on this post yet has said they were all killed by American, or even coalition, forces.

What the Lancet is saying is that the situation in place since the coalition invasion has led to 650,000 deaths. Some of us would conclude that those who instigated this invasion bear a heavy responsibility for that.

Maybe some would think it's all the Iraqis own fault? You?

FYI

Unpossible wrote:

Im curious as to how many Iraqis are being killed everyday by insurgents (spelling?), because everytime someone post up death tolls here its either "killed by american troops" or "caused by american troops/occupation"

for insurgent attacks:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5052138.stm

And if you want to get an idea of who's killing who, read the report!

Can The_Minister provide some legitimate criticisms of the study so we can all dispute it's findings?

I presume the reason people perhaps (I'll have to take your word that they do, as it is not my experience) focus on coalition soldiers killing Iraqis because those that invaded Iraq are responsible for all deaths, whether commited by insurgents, lack of supplies, hospitals destroyed, coalition military murders etc.

FYI

The rest of the report has some of the facts:

"Violence claimed about 601,000 people, the survey estimated -- the majority killed by gunfire, "though deaths from car bombing have increased from 2005," the study says.

The additional 53,000 people who are believed to have been killed by the effects of the war mostly died in recent months, "suggesting a worsening of health status and access to health care," the study said. It noted, however, that the number of nonviolent deaths "is too small to reach definitive conclusions."

Other key points in the survey:


The number of people dying in Iraq has risen each year since March 2003.

Those killed are predominantly males aged 15-44.

Deaths attributed to coalition forces accounted for 31 percent of the dead."

A Dub in Glasgo

The relatives of those killed (if they are left) can live in solace that they have been set free

Unpossible

Maybe some would think it's all the Iraqis own fault? You?

Did I say it was all one sides fault?

Its deaths since the war began not by who killed whom.

I know, its just that I get the feeling reading this board sometimes that people are so blinded by their hatred of the USA that they ignore the deaths caused by the "other side", and I dont mean just the deaths caused to bystanders when allied positions are attacked there are a lot of deaths caused by infighting between the Sunni and Shia Muslims.

Still Im not blaming either side, Im just saying the "big nasty yanks" aren't the only ones out there killing. Hopefully it will all stop soon.

oscarBravo

FYI wrote:

Seriously? Does the murder of 650,000 people require comment?

Don't get snippy. If you read the charter, you'd know that all articles copied and pasted from an external source require a comment.

More on this particular rule in the "discussion on the rules" thread.

FYI

Apologies if I sniped, but the question, I felt was absurd:

"And your opinion on this is what exactly?"

I felt the story spoke for itself and any comment would be insignificant.

My bad.

Sand

Im curious as to how many Iraqis are being killed everyday by insurgents (spelling?), because everytime someone post up death tolls here its either "killed by american troops" or "caused by american troops/occupation"

Hey, this isnt the thread for querying or rationality. Its for using questionable estimates to go "For shame, for shame!"

I presume the reason people perhaps (I'll have to take your word that they do, as it is not my experience) focus on coalition soldiers killing Iraqis because those that invaded Iraq are responsible for all deaths, whether commited by insurgents, lack of supplies, hospitals destroyed, coalition military murders etc.

No theyre not.

FYI

Hi Sand,

Fair enough, if you want to dismiss the thread out of hand without a moments consideration that's your right. But please offer others the respect their posts deserve, and respond to them with a modicum of regard for the factual content of their arguments.

The Supreme International Crime - A war of aggression

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Therefore, my statement; "those that invaded Iraq are responsible for all deaths," is evidently true. Do you have a counter argument?

Whatever the tyrannical evil of Saddam he could not of even dreamt of killing this many people (that is, without the support and weaponary of his old 'Western' friends). Look back at the figures, he was killing, at a maximum, a thousand or so political opponents a year.

As for "for querying or rationality", you are completely free to pick apart the study. I provided a link. But as with many critics you prefer evasion, diversion and finally 'ignore it'. The report published by the Lancet has, as yet, no credible critics. You could be the first!

Mexicola

gandalf wrote:

And your opinion on this is what exactly?

It would be nice someday to be able to read some instruction from a moderator which doesnt have the smell of superiority about it. Gandalf, why couldn't you at least give the OP the benefit of the doubt and direct him nicely to the charter. Its comments and attitude like this that makes me turn off boards.

Anyway, in regards to the point in question, it doesnt matter who, what, where, when and how these people were killed, if these figures are correct, it is an incredible waste and loss and someone should be held accountable. After all, it is an illegal war.

Sgt. Sensible

Mexicola wrote:

IAfter all, it is an illegal war.

Yes it is according to Kofi Annan, lovely man, shame no one cares what he says about anything.

Never mind. Now that 'The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq Party' and 'The Islamic Dawa Party' are the two most powerful parties in government, we'll have a western style liberal democracy in no time.

Stupid war supported by very stupid people.

AbusesToilets

FYi,i'd have to take issue with you placing blame for the all the deaths in Iraq squarely on the Coalition forces.The majority of killings taking place at the moment and in the past were perpetrated by various Iraqi factions,often on civilians.These people are responsible for their actions,as individuals and as a group.

FYI

You can take issue with it, but international law also takes issue with wars of aggression.

While their is much in fighting, statistics show most insurgent attacks are focused on coalition forces or forces 'working with' the coalition.

There was no Al Qeada in Iraq prior to the war. There weren't the sectarian fighting (it is common for Iraqis to marry between religious divisions) we now see.

The fact remains, most if not all these +excess+ deaths (thats what the study measures) would not have occured had the coalition not invaded. These deaths were well predicted prior to the invasion, yet the informaiton ignored.

oscarBravo

Mexicola wrote:

It would be nice someday to be able to read some instruction from a moderator which doesnt have the smell of superiority about it. Gandalf, why couldn't you at least give the OP the benefit of the doubt and direct him nicely to the charter. Its comments and attitude like this that makes me turn off boards.

Allow me to direct you nicely to the part of the charter that says "The moderators will not discuss their moderating in the Politics threads. Either PM the moderators, or take it to the [Feedback] forum."

AbusesToilets

The fact that most of the attacks are on those allied to the government doesn't absolve them of their responsibility for their murderous actions.No more than the British army being in N.I. gave the various paramilitary groups the right to murder people.The insurgents are attacking forces of an elected government,which makes them in violation of Iraqi law.Nevermind your International Law,the supposed violations of which would be strongly contested by the coalition forces

FYI

FYI wrote:

There was no Al Qeada in Iraq prior to the war. There weren't the sectarian fighting (it is common for Iraqis to marry between religious divisions) we now see.

That part is debateable.Al Queda would have been somewhere given that they already had some sucess murdering 3000 people in New York.
Wherever they might have concentrated their efforts,they'd still be murdering innocent people.So I'd put it to you what makes making an issue out of who they murder in Iraq more important that who they would murder elsewhere or who they are murdering elsewhere? Is an Iraqi life more sacrifant than an American,British Australian Egyptian or australian?

And as for a lack of sectarianism under Sadam's regime,thats also a questionable point you've made.
Ask the marsh Arab's...

bonkey

Sand wrote:

Hey, this isnt the thread for querying or rationality. Its for using questionable estimates to go "For shame, for shame!"

Why is this estimate any more or less questionable than the vastly lower ones that the Good Guys [tm] are willing to endorse?

So far, I've seen three people reject the figures. You, The_Minister, and Bush himself. Now, I haven't looked into it much, so maybe there's a lot of peopel rubbishing it, and on good grounds, but the three of you have all dismissed it in the same manner.....by not showing why its wrong.

No theyre not.

A well-reasoned and cogent point, just like your refutation of the reliability of the statistics.

As a matter of interest...why is the occupying nation not responsible for the security of the citizens of the nation they have invaded?

My understanding is that this is a long-standing tradition of war and I believe (but haven't had a chance to verify yet) that it is also enshrined in the Geneva Conventions - a document which the US is legally bound by given that they are a signatory and what their own laws say about international agreements they have signed on to.

bonkey

Tristrame wrote:

Al Queda would have been somewhere given that they already had some sucess murdering 3000 people in New York.

That would mean the invasion of Afghanistan failed to meet its objective of seriously reducing the capability of Al Qaeda. But lets not get sidetracked here - one disastrous set of outcomes is enough for any thread.

The warhawks can crow about the success of Afghanistan somewhere else

Wherever they might have concentrated their efforts,they'd still be murdering innocent people.

Arguably.

Of course, if the US or the Coalition of The Willing had gone after Al Qaeda rather than Iraq....who knows what might have happened.

So I'd put it to you what makes making an issue out of who they murder in Iraq more important that who they would murder elsewhere or who they are murdering elsewhere?

Because that very logic was used to go into Iraq.

One of the justifications for the war was that "we are fighting them abroad so that we don't have to fight them at home".

How is this anything but a polite way of saying "We will create a situation where Iraqis die isntead of Americans."

Is an Iraqi life more sacrifant than an American,British Australian Egyptian or australian?

Its less important, apparently. Iraqis die in greater numbers so Americans don't die in smaller numbers.

The numbers from the Lancet are roughly equivalent to the fallout a small nuclear detonation in a big city would result in....so unless we're suggesting that over half a million Iraqis is a fair trade against the (speculative) alternative of a nuclear attack, its pretty hard to argue that more American lives have been saved than Iraqi lives lost by this tradeoff.

If we look at it in a percentage of the national population, its equivalent to even more Americans. The article mentions 2.5% of the population, thats equivalent to around 7 million Americans.

The odds of either (percentage or straight-up body-count) being the cost to the US of not invading (note - not of doing nothing...of not invading. This isn't a binary option) are not something I can quantify, but just consider :

Bodycount is the equivalent of a 911-sized attack roughly every 10 days since 9/11/2001 up to today if we take the body-count.

Percentage=wise, it would be the equivalent of a 9/11-sized attack every single day since the towers were first attaked.

And as for a lack of sectarianism under Sadam's regime,thats also a questionable point you've made.
Ask the marsh Arab's...

Fair point, although I do believe it would be accurate to say there was a relative lack under Saddam, or that there was less under Saddam. Or will someone try and argue that Iraq today is a safer, less sectarian place than under Hussein?

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

How is this anything but a polite way of saying "We will create a situation where Iraqis die isntead of Americans."

Well I was directing my question at the poster and not Bush.
I was asking the poster why the poster would make an issue out of Iraqi lives more so than those in any other country and I used the example of 911 as a pointer that AlQueda were already minded on killing people regardless.

Its less important, apparently. Iraqis die in greater numbers so Americans don't die in smaller numbers.

Again to clarify,I'm asking why one should mirror that logic.

The numbers from the Lancet are roughly equivalent to the fallout a small nuclear detonation in a big city would result in....so unless we're suggesting that over half a million Iraqis is a fair trade against the (speculative) alternative of a nuclear attack, its pretty hard to argue that more American lives have been saved than Iraqi lives lost by this tradeoff.

If we look at it in a percentage of the national population, its equivalent to even more Americans. The article mentions 2.5% of the population, thats equivalent to around 7 million Americans.

The odds of either (percentage or straight-up body-count) being the cost to the US of not invading (note - not of doing nothing...of not invading. This isn't a binary option) are not something I can quantify, but just consider :

Bodycount is the equivalent of a 911-sized attack roughly every 10 days since 9/11/2001 up to today if we take the body-count.

Percentage=wise, it would be the equivalent of a 9/11-sized attack every single day since the towers were first attaked.

I dont think there could be any doubt that theres been no sucessfull attack on U.S soil since 911.Whether that is just co incidence/luck or a genuine result of the emphasis on Iraq-who knows ?I'd assume that Alqueda would like to do an attack in any country from the coalition that it could and it has done on more than a few occasions as well as what it is doing in Iraq-so I'd have to wonder if the lack of an attack in the U.S is really down to something domestically security wise that they are doing right to avoid that (in spite of what they are doing internationally to encourage it).

Fair point, although I do believe it would be accurate to say there was a relative lack under Saddam, or that there was less under Saddam. Or will someone try and argue that Iraq today is a safer, less sectarian place than under Hussein?

I'd agree but with the caveat that,we never could know what would have happened internally there had Sadam remained and had their been no U.S led invasion.
Thats a crystal ball we just dont have.
We can only compare what we know with what we know.

bonkey

Tristrame wrote:

Well I was directing my question at the poster and not Bush.

And I'm neither and still answered.

Shame on me

I was asking the poster why the poster would make an issue out of Iraqi lives more so than those in any other country

Why not ask the people who did the study published in the Lancet?

They clearly felt there was some reason to look at the total human cost of an "elective"war.

And in fairness, you're not asking about why its an issue out of Iraqi lives over those in any other country. You'e asking why its an issue of Iraqi lives over those that might otherwise have been lost elsewhere.

and I used the example of 911 as a pointer that AlQueda were already minded on killing people regardless.

Yes, they were.

But to match the headcoutcount of Iraq (which isn't all Al Qaeda, lets not forget), we'd need a 911-sized event every 9 or 10 days since 911 itself occurred until today. If we limit ourselves to when the US actually went into Iraq, we're looking more at one every 5-ish days.

So its not about the victims being Iraqi. ITs about there being so damned many of them as a result of an operation which was notionally about reducing the threat.

If these figures are in any way accurate, why is it anything other than utterly unacceptable that more people died as the result of this "protective" measure than would have been expected to had said measure not been taken?

After no WMDs were found, all of a asudden the real reason for the invasion was that Saddam was a monster, and that one could see that by the deathtoll his regime caused. The deathtoll is now apparently higher, but all of a sudden its a question of "why are Iraqi deaths important enough to worry about. Sure wouldn't other people have died anyway"?

I dont think there could be any doubt that theres been no sucessfull attack on U.S soil since 911. Whether that is just co incidence/luck or a genuine result of the emphasis on Iraq-who knows ?

Who knows, indeed. Speculation doesn't mitigate the death-toll in Iraq. For all we know, had the US not gone into Iraq, but instead had focussed their 1-billion-a-day budget over the past several years at actually finding and targetting Al Qaeda, who knows what woul dhave happened either. Maybe both American and Iraqi lives would have been saved.

This is all the type of stuff my sig refers to. What would have happened doesn't matter because we simply don't know. What we do know is what was chosen to be done, and what occurred as a result. Thus, we know a cost of the chosen path. We do not know the costs of paths we didn't choose.

Thus, the cost in Iraqi lives cannot be rightly compared to what might have resulted had other paths been chosen. It certainly can't be justified on any "someone else would probably have died anyway, so why focus on the Iraqis" reasoning.

I'd have to wonder if the lack of an attack in the U.S is really down to something domestically security wise that they are doing right to avoid that (in spite of what they are doing internationally to encourage it).

I'd suggest you look at the frequency of international terrorist attacks against the United States on its home soil for a time-period of 5-10 years before 9/11. I seriously doubt you will find that its worse than the post-9/11 world.

As a parallel, consider that the US hasn't had a major hurricane-based disaster since Katrina. Does this suggest that FEMA is doing a better job than before?

I'd agree but with the caveat that,we never could know what would have happened internally there had Sadam remained and had their been no U.S led invasion.

We never could know. Agreed.

So all we can say is that we've traded an alleged 650,000 Iraqi deaths against, well, something.

So remind me again why you asked why the undefined something isn't as important as the Iraqi deaths.

Thats a crystal ball we just dont have.
We can only compare what we know with what we know.

Exactly. So we can't equate the cost of the invasion against the cost that we don't know would have been incurred by not invading.

So we shouldn't consider other lvies that Al Qaeda might have taken had Iraq not been such a tempting target for them, because that doesn't meet your criteria for what is comparable.

Agreed?

jc

banaman

"The warhawks can crow about the success of Afghanistan somewhere else"

Sorry Bonkey, I must have missed something, what success in Afghanistan?

Only Kabul is relatively safe. The rest of the country is in anarchy, opium production has gone throught the roof and NATO says "we can win with more men and equipment" (remember Vietnam?).

Resurgent Taliban? They never went away cos they LIVE there. They are the people of Southern Afghanistan. Slaughtering someone's children will not win their support.
The "warlords" in the rest of the country are cruel, despotic and corrupt leaders. Agianst whom most of the ordinary Afghanis supported the Taliban against them and the Soviets. Why should their allegances have changed? Are we any less foreign?
Don't forget the Brits have a long and inglorious history in Afghanistan.
Our occupation is a mistake and will ultimately be costly to them and us.

bonkey

banaman wrote:

"The warhawks can crow about the success of Afghanistan somewhere else"

Sorry Bonkey, I must have missed something,

You did. The I put after the sentence.

sovtek

AbusesToilets wrote:

The majority of killings taking place at the moment and in the past were perpetrated by various Iraqi factions,often on civilians.These people are responsible for their actions,as individuals and as a group.

I'm afraid the study dismisses that Republican spin point.

Sgt. Sensible

The 'Health' Ministry says that 2660 civilians were killed in Baghdad alone during September. The US troops are getting a right pasting this month too. Whatever way one looks at it, it's a bloodbath and a mess politically. The US stooges have no popular support while the Iranian backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq Party is doing quite well.

All this nonsense so that a party called The Supreme Council For The Islamic Revolution In Iraq could get into power. You couldn't make it up.