151,000 Iraqis Killed Since U.S.-Led Invasion (2003 - 2006)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Maybe more...

------------------------------------------------------------
151,000 Iraqis Killed Since U.S.-Led Invasion (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080110/wl_nm/iraq_deaths_survey_dc;_ylt=AqVeGAMatSUuT9PisyTDUCI UewgF)

By Laura MacInnis

GENEVA (Reuters) - About 151,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the three years following the U.S.-led invasion of their country, according to World Health Organization (WHO) research published on Wednesday.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20080109/capt.sge.qzt17.090108155051.photo00.photo.default-512x345.jpg?x=400&y=269&sig=4BfzZDp9ZvD1IwfyHS.0jg--
Iraqis rush to the site of a car bomb attack in the oil rich city of Kirkuk. Two car bombs have exploded outside churches in quick succession in Kirkuk, in the latest in a wave of attacks on Christian buildings, police said.
(AFP/Marwan Ibrahim)

The new study, which said violent deaths could have ranged from 104,000 to 223,000 between March 2003 and June 2006, is the most comprehensive since the war started.

The study drew on an Iraqi health ministry survey of nearly 10,000 households -- five times the number of those interviewed in a disputed 2006 John Hopkins University study that said more than 600,000 Iraqis had died over the period.

While well below that figure, the United Nations agency's estimate exceeds the widely-cited 80,000 to 87,000 death toll by the human rights group Iraq Body Count, which uses media reports and hospital and morgue records to calculate its tally.

"There are a lot of uncertainties in making such estimates," WHO statistician Mohamed Ali, who co-authored the study, told reporters on a conference call.

He said insecurity made parts of Baghdad and Anbar provinces unreachable for those conducting the survey, which included questions about other topics including pregnancy and disease.

Many families also fled their homes as a result of the violence, and some left the country, making it hard to give a precise assessment of the violence in Iraq. As a result, Ali said the margin of error for the toll was relatively high.

LARGE SCALE SURVEY

Still, he said the household survey's large scale gave the findings more weight than previous attempts to estimate the number of Iraqis killed in battles between and among military forces, insurgents and sectarian fighters.

The John Hopkins University report, published by the British medical journal Lancet, which was based on a smaller-scale Iraqi survey, drew criticism from the White House and elsewhere for appearing to exaggerate the Iraqi death rate.

Iraqi Health Minister Saleh al-Hasnawi described the latest WHO report as "very sound" and said the survey indicated "a massive death toll since the beginning of the conflict."
CONT.

[orangeatheist]

Point?

Or academic?

[Bronco Bob]

Point?

Or academic?

The W in WRP.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Point?

Or academic?The other cost of invading countries who were absolutely no threat to us and reading for the people who downplay those numbers and champion a militant country (us).

[orangeatheist]

Ok.

So it was a shot.

Thanks. Just wondering.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ok.
So it was a shot.
Thanks. Just wondering.I've been posting the numbers at various times for over 3 years.

[Hotrod]

Were winning in Iraq and that just kills Sluggo

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Were winning in Iraq and that just kills SluggoWe are winning, explain? Do you mean that the daily death toll is down to numbers of two years ago?

American Deaths (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)
Since war began (3/19/03): 3921

American Wounded Official Estimated
Total Wounded: 28822 23000 - 100000

[Hotrod]

We are winning, explain? Do you mean that the daily death toll is down to numbers of two years ago?

Whoops, you must have missed the fact I finally fell off the Bush bandwagon......I was being sarcastic and pushing your buttons :)

Some on Fox news still claim Iraq was a sucess

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Whoops, you must have missed the fact I finally fell off the Bush bandwagon......I was being sarcastic

Some on Fox news still claim Iraq was a sucessI guess I did, when did that happen? You didn't join a cult or anything did you?

[Hotrod]

I guess I did, when did that happen? You didn't join a cult or anything did you?

LOL even a lifelong born/raised repub can only go so far.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

LOL even a lifelong born/raised repub can only go so far.OK, good! I was hoping you didn't join one of those hippie camps up there in the hills.

BTW, I caught some nice big Rainbows out of Antero recently (5 lb range) :)

[Hotrod]

OK, good! I was hoping you didn't join one of those hippie camps up there in the hills.

BTW, I caught some nice big Rainbows out of Antero recently (5 lb range) :)

Very nice the browns in Blue Mesa are biting strong but nothing in the 5lb range.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Very nice the browns in Blue Mesa are biting strong but nothing in the 5lb range.I was up by there two weeks ago, some open water there still.

Antero is full of big trout, Browns too. 2 fish limit, any size there are so many of them :)
I've been trying to fish the inlet at Pueblo Res but it's been iced up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

151,000 Iraqis Killed Since U.S.-Led Invasion (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080110/wl_nm/iraq_deaths_survey_dc;_ylt=AqVeGAMatSUuT9PisyTDUCI UewgF)



I'm surprised W*GS isn't already here denying and minimizing these figures (or asking "have you heard the word re: Clinton's honker today?")

I guess OrangeGodObsessed is filling in for him.

:D

[Rigs11]

liberated!Ha!

[Bronco Bob]

I heard that Saddam Hussein used to go fishing by throwing hand grenades into the water.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

liberated!Ha!

:yep:

Which brings us to what might just be the most ironic headline of the Bush era:

Bush prods Israel, Palestinians on peace

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080109/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bush_mideast;_ylt=A0WTUZCQpIVHT2gB6RVvaA8F

Bush the peacemaker.

ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! Hilarious!

[Bronco Bob]

:yep:

Which brings us to what might just be the most ironic headline of the Bush era:

Bush prods Israel, Palestinians on peace

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080109/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bush_mideast;_ylt=A0WTUZCQpIVHT2gB6RVvaA8F

Bush the peacemaker.

ROFL! ROFL! ROFL! Hilarious!

Remember this 'toon?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Were winning in Iraq and that just kills Sluggo

Your man at the Times...

http://www.bartcop.com/kristol-failing-upward2.jpg

[Bronx33]

Them damn insurgents need to be more selective.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/mmail-2006-1.jpg

Them damn insurgents need to be more selective.

That's right - Bush's illegal invasion and occupation have nothing to do with it.

http://www.bartcop.com/gop-kool-aid06.jpg

[Bronx33]

Now make up some numbers on how many US troops officially killed these folks or are you just throwing the entire amount at the US because you hate them? be specific! or just guess like we know you are even your initial artical shows a (car bomb) a weapon not currently in the US arsenal.

[Meck77]

The other cost of invading countries who were absolutely no threat to us and reading for the people who downplay those numbers and champion a militant country (us).

But Iraq was a threat to Israel. If you recall that is where the scuds were landing.

[Spider]

Your man at the Times...

http://www.bartcop.com/kristol-failing-upward2.jpg

LOL I remember those quotes ..............and to think people still listen to this asswipe

[Bronco Bob]

But Iraq was a threat to Israel. If you recall that is where the scuds were landing.

Well, some did land in Saudi Arabia. Twenty-eight U.S. soldiers
were killed when one struck a United States Army barracks in
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. In addition one Saudi security guard was
killed by a scud.
OTOH scuds only killed one Israeli directly.

[W*GS]

Does the study say that ~150,000 Iraqis have been killed since 2003, or that ~150,000 excess Iraqi deaths have occurred since then?

And I see LABF is the first to bring up Clinton's cock. As usual.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

But Iraq was a threat to Israel. If you recall that is where the scuds were landing.Iraq was a threat to no one after the Gulf war.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Now make up some numbers on how many US troops officially killed these folks or are you just throwing the entire amount at the US because you hate them? be specific! or just guess like we know you are even your initial artical shows a (car bomb) a weapon not currently in the US arsenal.

What difference does it make?

They would all still be alive today if Bush hadn't invaded their country on false pretenses.

BTW, nice to see you're still trying to play the "criticize Bush's policies = hate America" card. :oyvey:

[Bronco Bob]

What difference does it make?

They would all still be alive today if Bush hadn't invaded their country on false pretenses.

BTW, nice to see you're still trying to play the "criticize Bush's policies = hate America" card. :oyvey:

It's the only card the Bushbots have left to play.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It's the only card the Bushbots have left to play.

And they still try to play it even when everyone is hip to the fraud - that's what amazes me.

[W*GS]

What difference does it make?

They would all still be alive today if Bush hadn't invaded their country on false pretenses.

Some would be, some wouldn't be.

[baja]

Some would be, some wouldn't be.


That's right WAGS some would have choaked on popsicle sticks and the like.

[W*GS]

Or else killed by Saddam Hussein's internal security services.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

I knew it was only a matter of time until W*GS arrived to cover Bush's flank.

[W*GS]

And another miss...

First off, you said "all" of those 150,000 Iraqis would be alive today. Not true.

Also, I asked what that number represented:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1848586&postcount=27

Do you have any idea?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS trying to win the semantic argument again (the only argument he can win here.)

[W*GS]

Well, no - and there's an unanswered question for you.

BTW, if you don't want to get called out for making foolish statements, think more carefully before you write. Sloppy writing is a sign of sloppy thinking - but we already knew that, what with your farthest-left score-n-all...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually, it's your reading comprehension game - not my writing - that's getting sloppy.

When I said "all" I was referring to all the Iraqis who have been killed as a result of Bush's illegal invasion and occupation.

Anyone with the powers of comprehension God gave a fruit fly could understand that.

[W*GS]

Actually, it's your reading comprehension game - not my writing - that's getting sloppy.

When I said "all" I was referring to all the Iraqis who have been killed as a result of Bush's illegal invasion and occupation.

Anyone with the powers of comprehension God gave a fruit fly could understand that.

You're still wrong. You said:

They would all still be alive today if Bush hadn't invaded their country on false pretenses.

"They would all still be alive today" is incorrect. You cannot know that - it's an article of faith, a sign of your BDS.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Gosh, your reading comprehension is getting softer than I thought.

If the class "all" includes "only those members who were killed as a result of Bush's invasion/occupation of Iraq" then we are talking about people who are already dead!

All you are doing is engaging in conjecture or hypothesis about what might have happened had these individuals not been killed in this manner.

[W*GS]

You cannot say that none of those 151,000 Iraqis would have died between 2003 and 2006 if Bush hadn't had Iraq invaded.

Since that is true, your comment:

They would all still be alive today if Bush hadn't invaded their country on false pretenses.

is patently false.

You're just not very good at making rational arguments. Besides, you haven't answered my question in

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1848586&postcount=27

Care to read the source article and give us the answer?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that I will concede your point:

Are you trying to claim, then, that there is some basis upon which to establish a probability that all (or even a small percentage - choose your own number) of those Iraqis who were killed as a result of Bush's invasion/occupation would have died by some other cause(s) during the same time frame?

Please explain how this is so, and give us a percentage figure, if possible.

[W*GS]

You made the claim; you support it.

I've found the answer to my query; let's see if you can find it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So, basically, W*GS' "argument" goes something like this:

Some (he won't venture a guess as to how many) of those 151,000 Iraqis who have died as a result of Bush's illegal invasion/occupation of Iraq might have died from other causes during the same time frame.

Therefore, the fact that 151,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of Bush's invasion is not such a big deal.

Move along folks - nothing to see here.

(Receives rep from all the Bush supporters.)

[cutthemdown]

Iraqis fought the most powerful country and then started a civil war so I'm not surprised the death toll has reached such a staggering number.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Iraqis fought the most powerful country...

It would be more accurate to say that the most powerful country invaded Iraq on false pretenses and, under the leadership of George W. Bush and his party, America attacked a country that did not attack us.

[cutthemdown]

Saddam doomed Iraq when he invaded Kuwait. He made an enemy of the USA and antoganized 3 presidents. I agree though I should have said Iran was attacked by the most powerfull country and then had a civil war, so I'm not surprised at the death toll.

Don't kid yourself though it wasn't just about WMD. That's just what Bush used to get the UN and Congress to let him do what he wanted. It's an old trick for sure and has blown up in Bushes face.

I think if Saddam had played his cards differently he would still be in power. If he would have just bluffed about invading Kuwait or maybe pulled out before making USA attack he would still be in power IMO. He was just so belligerant I think he brought it on himself. I mean no countries even cared we did it. Sure they complained a little but for the most part USA had a free hand to do what we wanted. When no countries will come to your aid in anyway you know that you aren't beloved by the world.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Saddam doomed Iraq when he invaded Kuwait.

Actually, Saddam was doomed when he refused to sign on the same dotted line as the rest of the OPEC countries who agreed to denominate all oil purchases in U.S. dollars and to finance our debt with a percentage of the profits.

Care to guess which other mid east country refused to sign?

Hint: Starts with an "I..." :~ohyah!:

Don't kid yourself though it wasn't just about WMD. That's just what Bush used to get the UN and Congress to let him do what he wanted. It's an old trick for sure and has blown up in Bushes face.


Ya think?

Gosh, this never occurred to me before. ;)

[W*GS]

Therefore, the fact that 151,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of Bush's invasion is not such a big deal.

It is a big deal. Every one of those deaths is on Bush's hands.

Did you find the same answer to my query as I did? If you did, then you would also find that the your statement above is incorrect.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

First he says "it is a big deal" and then he implies that it somehow matters if the total is < 151,000.

Talk about a walking contradiction.

:oyvey:

[orangeatheist]

Geez, this is still going on?

I see that there are a couple of voices of reason here. The rest just like to paint with a broad brush. Go figure.

[W*GS]

First he says "it is a big deal" and then he implies that it somehow matters if the total is < 151,000.

No.

I was merely pointing out that your BDS, as usual, causes sloppy thinking on your part, which comes out in sloppy writing.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ha ha ha! :laugh:

Sounds like W*GS has decided that his only hope of saving face on this thread is to win some sort of "form over substance" argument.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Geez, this is still going on?

I see that there are a couple of voices of reason here. The rest just like to paint with a broad brush. Go figure.

Is this the best the right has to offer?

Now I see why you guys are in such trouble.

[Breaker]

LABF is the same guy that posted that the previous report citing 600,000 killed was an accurate number and was proof of some genocidal conspiracy, now its proven that number was a total fabrication and he won't bother to admit that he blindly takes other peoples word for things in an attempt to continue his one man crusade against Bush.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF is the same guy that posted that the previous report citing 600,000 killed was an accurate number and was proof of some genocidal conspiracy, now its proven that number was a total fabrication and he won't bother to admit that he blindly takes other peoples word for things in an attempt to continue his one man crusade against Bush.

Huh? Link?

And "one man" crusade against Bush?

I didn't realize one man could comprise 2/3 of America.

Such is right-wing arithmetic, I guess. ROFL!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Times are hard for BushBots like Breaker: When confronted with inconvenient facts, e.g., the number of people killed as a result of Bush's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, all he can do is attack the messenger.

Pathetic! :oyvey:

[W*GS]

Sigh. At least LABF got his daily quota of lies, smears, and cheap shots about me out of his system.

Never mind it wrecks his cred and that we all see how he poorly he does in backing up his statements. Those aren't as important as personal attacks on me.