Over 100,000 dead in Iraq So Far

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Iraq death toll 'soared post-war'
Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim.
A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.

Unofficial estimates of civilian deaths had varied from 10,000 to over 37,000.

The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing".
Responding to the Lancet article, a Pentagon spokesman defended coalition action in Iraq.

'Precise fashion'

"This conflict has been prosecuted in the most precise fashion of any conflict in the history of modern warfare", he said.

UK foreign secretary Jack Straw said his government would examine the findings "with very great care".

But he told BBC's Today that another independent estimate of civilian deaths was around 15,000.
The Iraq Body Count, a respected database run by a group of academics and peace activists, has put the number of reported civilian deaths at between 14,000-16,000.

The Lancet published research by scientists from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the US city of Baltimore.

They gathered data on births and deaths since January 2002 from 33 clusters of 30 households each across Iraq.
They found the relative risk, the risk of deaths from any cause, was two-and-a-half times higher for Iraqi civilians after the 2003 invasion than in the preceding 15 months.

'Conservative assumptions'

That figure drops to one-and-a-half times higher if data from Falluja - the scene of repeated heavy fighting - is excluded.

Before the invasion, most people died as a result of heart attack, stroke and chronic illness, the report says, whereas after the invasion, "violence was the primary cause of death".

Violent deaths were mainly attributed to coalition forces - and most individuals reportedly killed were women and children.

Dr Les Roberts, who led the study, said: "Making conservative assumptions we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."

He said his team's work proved it was possible to compile data on public health "even during periods of extreme violence".
The sample included randomly selected households in Baghdad, Basra, Arbil, Najaf and Karbala, as well as Falluja.

Lancet editor Richard Horton said: "With the admitted benefit of hindsight and from a purely public health perspective, it is clear that whatever planning did take place was grievously in error."
Mr Horton concluded: "For the sake of a country in crisis and for a people under daily threat of violence, the evidence we publish today must change heads as well as pierce hearts."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3962969.stm

[mosca]

100,000 'extra' deaths in iraq and somehow they come to the conclusion that most are from the hands of coalition forces. ok.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

100,000 'extra' deaths in iraq and somehow they come to the conclusion that most are from the hands of coalition forces. ok.

Um, no, actually, this is what the report said:

"Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists claim."

And, even more significant:

"A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion."

Do you want to tell us again how much better off the Iraqi people have been since the arrival of the bush crime family?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Schwarzkopf refuses a repeat of 2000 endorsement of Bush

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/19/113646/385

And he says he may vote for Kerry.

We've read over and over again the past few years how the Senior Military has been at odds with the Administration they voted for in 2000. But still, when you see a reversal like this... it shocks you. Things must be in terrible shape.

To understand how big this break is you have to go back to GOP convention in 2000. There, General Schwarzkopf stood on the deck of the Battleship USS New Jersey, and gave a enthusiastic endorsement for Bush:

"... Recalling back to Operation Desert Storm, I can't help asking myself: Wouldn't it be great for our armed forces and for America if we could have another commander-in-chief named George Bush with Dick Cheney on his team?" Schwarzkopf said.

Well for the General, not any more.

General at 2000 Convention

Then this Tuesday on Hardball, Chris Matthews asked Schwarzkopf who he was voting for. He repeatedly pressed him and each time he refused to say Bush. Talk about turn abound and alienation. Not only isn't he going to the convention this time, he disassociated himself with the Republican party. Further, he refused to say anything negative about Kerry and indicated that he may vote for him.

[mosca]

"Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."

ya ya, ok. i'm skeptical.

[Atlas]

"Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."

ya ya, ok. i'm skeptical.

I was over there for a year. Many many civilians are being killed by Americans.. It happens but I feel there is a severe lack of command structure to keep some of these soldiers in line. I remember a couple months ago a report came out and said between 10 and 12,000 had been killed.. I scoffed .. I knew that fact was way off. It's a damn mess over there.. as if we didn't already know that.

[mosca]

you knew from your personal experience over there that 100,000 had been killed by u.s. forces as opposed to the reported 10,000 - 12,000? how so?

[watermock]

This is a total lline of crap. Dead levels are not over 25k, US toops are arond 1200 and other troops are arond 300 if that.

100k is totally idiotic. The dimwits don't even provide more than their own estimate.

It's around 25K on both sides. Go look at the article....it's an a assumption.

"Dr. Les Roberts" Produced this finding. Yeah right. I love it when people throw crap out and consider it fact. He's a stone cold liar that doesn't have a single fact in front ot him.

[watermock]

100k died in one night in Dresden. 500k died in Hiroshima. This fool is just that. He is moving everything into some sort of American fault while we are throwing billions of dollars in aid into the country. Bin Laden isn't throwing a dime into the country is he there dimwit.

[watermock]

What is Usama Bin Ladan doing for the country there smartass?

We have taken nearly a half million tons of bombs and destroyed them in Iraq.

[watermock]

There an estimated million TONS of explosives in Iraq and your pissing and moaning about 380 when it's demonstated that we took them off and destroyed them, they were moved, or god know what happened, like it was some sort of conspiracy. It's totally lucidcrous.

There was no way whatsoever to move these explosives when we controlled the highway. Your a dimwit. Read the evidence.

[Atlas]

you knew from your personal experience over there that 100,000 had been killed by u.s. forces as opposed to the reported 10,000 - 12,000? how so?

Alot of shi t never makes the news. Especially the stuff that happens at night.. I was at the Baghdad airport and there was an attack at the front gate one night and over 60 people were killed. some of them were in nearby buildings.... Never made the news... If the press doesn't find out about the civilian deaths from the hospitals or the Iraqis they won't. The U.S. military will never go around and say how many civilians they killed. The hard part about coming up with true stats is that when someone dies most of the citizens don't take the body to the hospital or tell the press they just bury the person in the back yard and that's it...

[alkemical]

If you kill a man, it's murder - if you kill a thousand it's a statistic, kill 'em all and you're a god.

[mosca]

atlas - sure enough. i see your point ... but still don't see how you relate what you personally experienced with your knowledge of the statistics of how many so-called 'extra deaths' have occured since the u.s invasion of iraq.

[watermock]

Look at the thread.

It's totally out of line. You dimwit, it lists pre and post war deaths. Go look at the tables again you fool.

[watermock]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40469000/gif/_40469847_iraqi_deaths_gra203.gif

Oh, killing terrorists in Fallujiah is bad?

Grow some balls.

[watermock]

Deadly explosion by a suicide bomber this morning in Tel Aviv. They are ****ing animals and noone wants to admidt it.

You people don't get it.

When we kill the enemy it's GOOD you dimwit.

Do you think they care about killing us? WTF is wrong with you?

They kill us at every chance you dimwit. They saw off civillian's heads.

WTF is wrong with you?

We need to kill all of them. We have to kill the terrorists.

WTF is wrong with you? We have to kill them.

[watermock]

Do you know how many died in Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, Hiroshima and Yokohama?

Your a damn idiot.

You tell me the death toll from those cities you geinius.

I pulled your stipid dish out for all to see, something that you were afraid to do.

Your such a piece of crap you couldn't even mention the terrorist city.

Sit down and shut up and let us kill the enemy you stupid ass.

I am not even amused. you need to be biatchslapped. Stupid fooker.

[watermock]

Let's slice your litte pie apart pre invasion.

26 percent violent death. IN NON WAR.

SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP.

You want to play this game?

I will beat you down like a red headed stepchild.

Do you even understand we are in a war?

[mosca]

makes you wonder... why the difference in deaths attributed to a mysterious 'other' between the pre-invasion/saddamn era regime (26%) and post-invasion/american and interim era regime (8%).

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

atlas - sure enough. i see your point ... but still don't see how you relate what you personally experienced with your knowledge of the statistics of how many so-called 'extra deaths' have occured since the u.s invasion of iraq.

He served in Iraq and you didn't.

I respect his knowledge of what's happening in Iraq more than the right-wing chickenhawk spin coming from you on a regular basis.

Your compulsion to minimize and deny the unnecessary death and destruction Bush has caused in Iraq is just plain nauseating.

Two more days until we reaffirm that your "see no evil, hear no evil" attitude in no way represents the mindset of the majority of Americans.

http://www.airfarceone.net/bushrovedance.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/tt/2004/tt041031.gif

[mosca]

nice LABF. once again spinning away from the topic at hand. classic yet predictable. no one's minimizing here. but i guess if we don't bow down and obey your Lancet study then that's unacceptable for you.

haha, you seem eager to get this election over with cos you know kerry's campaign is already heading downhill. more and more people are seeing through kerry's facade in these last few days prior to his defeat.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

haha, you seem eager to get this election over with cos you know kerry's campaign is already heading downhill. more and more people are seeing through kerry's facade in these last few days prior to his defeat.

It must suck to live in a world that doesn't resemble your perceptions or your claims.

November 1, 2004

New Gallup Polls Show Kerry Finishing Strongly

Sunday night, Gallup released their final national poll, based on an unusually large sample (over 2,000 adults), plus six polls in key battleground states (OH, FL, PA, IA, WI and MN). The results indicate that Kerry is finishing strongly and should be in a good position to pull off a victory on Tuesday.

In the national poll, Kerry is ahead by a point among RVs in a 2-way race (48-47) and by 2 points in a 3-way race (48-46). In 2000, it's worth recalling, Gallup's RV result was a better predictor of the final outcome than their LV result, as it has been in three of the last four presidential elections.

After allocating undecideds, Gallup's LV result is a dead heat, 49-49. That's a considerable improvement from their last poll, where Bush was running a 5 point lead, 51-46, among LVs. And keep in mind that in 2000 Gallup's final LV result gave Bush a 2 point lead, while Gore went on to win the popular vote by half a point. In that context, a dead heat final estimate from Gallup makes Kerry look pretty good heading into election day.

Alan Abramowitz below has discussed the significance of Kerry's solid lead among independents in the national poll (8 points among RVs; no LV breakdown available). The poll also shows Bush's approval rating at just 43 percent in the battleground states and Kerry beating Bush by 10 points in those states (52-42).

Speaking of the battleground states, it struck me as quite significant that Gallup's state polls showed Kerry with solid leads in both Ohio and Florida among both LVs and RVs, since those were the two states in the "big three" (OH, FL, PA) that seemed most competitive and were red states in 2000. And, while Gallup's PA poll did show Bush with a lead among LVs, it also showed him trailing among RVs in a state where polls have very consistently shown Bush behind. The most reasonable assumption, it seems to me, is that Kerry is still the odds-on winner in that state.



http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/pollsindex.htm

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

..more and more people are seeing through kerry's facade in these last few days prior to his defeat.

Keep on embarrassing yourself...it will make the celebration on 11/2 that much sweeter.

Electoral College Predicted Final Results

Kerry 291 Bush 242

http://www.electoral-vote.com/pred/index.html

http://www.bartcop.com/one-term-loser.gif

[Atlas]

Everyone has their own opinion and thats great. This is something that comes from ones heart and his/her own beliefs.. All I know is that I got to Kuwait before the war started and I went into Iraq in june. We were looked as heros and people loved us. After months of being their their was no still no security. This is because Bush didn't send enough troops to keep the peace. People were unemployed and not working, This is because out of the $18 billion Congress gave top Bush to spend on the rebuilding of Iraq he has only spent $1 billion. To me this is inexcusable. All that good will the Iraqis gave us in June is gone because of Presidents poor planning and equally poor execution of policies over there.

If Bush would have sent more troops. 200,000 to 250,000 to provide security and spent the money Congess gave him on reconstruction. . There would have already been elections over their and the climate would be the exact opposite of what it is now. Of course this is just my opinion and opinions are like assholes....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...out of the $18 billion Congress gave top Bush to spend on the rebuilding of Iraq he has only spent $1 billion. To me this is inexcusable.

This is typical of the way the bush crime family conducts business.

Always has been.

Thank God these criminals' days are numbered and we can look forward to restoring our democratic system of government.

I feel sorry for Kerry--it's going to take two terms just to repair the damage done by Smirk and his gang of robber barons. (Just like it took Clinton two terms to clean up 12 years of GOP mismanagement and looting.)

[mosca]

I feel sorry for Kerry--it's going to take two terms just to repair the damage done by Smirk and his gang of robber barons. (Just like it took Clinton two terms to clean up 12 years of GOP mismanagement and looting.)

translation: if kerry wins then this will be his excuse anytime things aren't just peachy keen during his term of office.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

translation: if kerry wins then this will be his excuse anytime things aren't just peachy keen during his term of office.

What you present as a "translation" thinking people recognize as right-wing spin.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

translation: if kerry wins then this will be his excuse anytime things aren't just peachy keen during his term of office.

Riiiiight.

Kerry isn't going to inherit one single mess from the Smirk & Sneer misadministration.

Every good Bush Davidian knows BushCo has never made a mistake or a mess during the past four years.

Keep on suckin' back the Kool-Aid.