Factual Question: Death toll

simon_partridge

Anyone know what the number of Iraqis killed in this war actually is (both civilian and military)? They never ever say the figure on the news so I've no idea.

Cheers.

i doubt anyone will know that till well after the war. Anyway theres no chance of getting an exact figure, since deaths are often added with MIA's etc.

bonkey

Iraq has never released military casualty figures, so there are no accurate numbers on that.

jc

simon_partridge

But do we have a rough idea? Is it thousands, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands??? Forgive me if I'm being naïve

Shorty

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

shotamoose

Well, you could have a look at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/. It's based only on press reports, so there's probably a lot of casualties that simply haven't been covered by journalists yet. This especially applies to anyone who died in shelling of Basra or in the massive battle within Baghdad in the past few days.

It also excludes deaths caused by the war but not through direct military violence, such as through sickness or hunger because of the disruption of supplies. Oh and then there's future deaths and deformities due to use of depleted uranium weaponry.

[edit: Gah, Shorty beat me to it ]

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Beëlzebooze

I would seriously like to know what happened to the Baghdad division. Last week the media only reported thet it had been "destroyed", but never gave a casualty estimate.

I have heard figures of 50% death toll in a 12.000 man strong division. so that would be 6000 killed. Maybe it is true, and the western media do not wish to disclose these kind of death toll's as it would seriously undermine any rational tinking persons perception of this poor excuse of a war.

Meh

Originally posted by shotamoose
Oh and then there's future deaths and deformities due to use of depleted uranium weaponry.

You may be interested in reading this report (long and technical, but worth the read) from the EU's radiation protection expert group. Any statistically significant link between DU weapons and cancer in the general population is very far from proven.

simon_partridge

Originally posted by Meh
You may be interested in reading this report (long and technical, but worth the read) from the EU's radiation protection expert group. Any statistically significant link between DU weapons and cancer in the general population is very far from proven.

Yeah, along with the link between HIV and AIDS and the link between eating dodgy beef and acquiring CJD. Politicians always say it's safe to do something until it's 100% proven it isn't, and only then do they ban it.

OK, so DU weapons might be safe, but don't you think we should err on the side of not risking giving people cancer until we are certain?

Meh

Originally posted by simon_partridge
Yeah, along with the link between HIV and AIDS and the link between eating dodgy beef and acquiring CJD.

The difference is that there's a scientifically well-understood chain of cause and effect linking those things, not to mention tons of research showing a statistically significant link, too.

Politicians always say it's safe to do something until it's 100% proven it isn't, and only then do they ban it.

Good point, but that EU report wasn't written by politicians. It was written by scientists.

OK, so DU weapons might be safe, but don't you think we should err on the side of not risking giving people cancer until we are certain?

Well, by that logic, mobile phones should be banned due to the unproven fears over radiation.

Victor

Originally posted by Shorty
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

This seems to be the civilian casualties only. In two separate battles, the American have claimed to have killed more than 1,000 Iraqis. So I think reasonable estimates start at 3,000 and if the claim about killing 6,000 in one battle is true, then a suitable range is 3,000 - 10,000.