New Study: 655,000 Iraqis Die Because of Bush's War - The Orange Mane

Bronco_Beerslug · 10-11-2006, 04:53 AM

But it's for their own good.

-------------------------------------------------
Study: 655,000 Iraqis die because of war
By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer

NEW YORK - A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.

The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."

In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer.

"Deaths are occurring in
Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study, said in a statement.

The study by Burnham, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and others is to be published Thursday on the Web site of The Lancet, a medical journal.

An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at least one expert was skeptical of the new findings.

"They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election.

"This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said.

The work updates an earlier Johns Hopkins study — that one was released just before the November 2004 presidential election. At the time, the lead researcher, Les Roberts of Hopkins, said the timing was deliberate. Many of the same researchers were involved in the latest estimate.

Speaking of the new study, Burnham said the estimate was much higher than others because it was derived from a house-to-house survey rather than approaches that depend on body counts or media reports.

A private group called Iraqi Body Count, for example, says it has recorded about 44,000 to 49,000 civilian Iraqi deaths. But it notes that those totals are based on media reports, which it says probably overlook "many if not most civilian casualties."

For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July.

The survey participants attributed about 31 percent of violent deaths to coalition forces.

Accurate death tolls have been difficult to obtain ever since the Iraq conflict began in March 2003. When top Iraqi political officials cite death numbers, they often refuse to say where the numbers came from.

The Health Ministry, which tallies civilian deaths, relies on reports from government hospitals and morgues. The Interior Ministry compiles its figures from police stations, while the Defense Ministry reports deaths only among army soldiers and insurgents killed in combat.

The United Nations keeps its own count, based largely on reports from the Baghdad morgue and the Health Ministry.

The major funder of the new study was the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
http://tinyurl.com/p36ys

Spider · 10-11-2006, 05:34 AM

Things not going well , the soccer ball ploy didnt work ..So we bomb more democracy into the bastards ,show these people we are a compasionate , stablizing people

defenseman · 10-11-2006, 05:34 AM

And what is the accuracy of this poll? Plus or minus 400K to 800K. It's pretty much worthless...dman

*This particular poll is getting news coverage. Second, the accuracy of the poll was convieniently not included in the media outlets. Again, this poll is worthless...

Spider · 10-11-2006, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by defenseman

And what is the accuracy of this poll? Plus or minus 400K to 800K. It's pretty much worthless...dman

*This particular poll is getting news coverage. Second, the accuracy of the poll was convieniently not included in the media outlets. Again, this poll is worthless...

I agree , everyone knows it is only 130 K dead ........... About the population of a trailer park in Alabama ..........no biggie

baja · 10-11-2006, 06:12 AM

D man lets the study is 200,000 too high would that make the whole situation acceptable in your eyes?

baja · 10-11-2006, 06:14 AM

Please tell me D man why are we there because I do not know

defenseman · 10-11-2006, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja fan

Please tell me D man why are we there because I do not know

The Iranian influence in the region appears to be the reason presently...Dman

Rohirrim · 10-11-2006, 07:12 AM

We had to destroy their village in order to save it.

baja · 10-11-2006, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by defenseman

The Iranian influence in the region appears to be the reason presently...Dman

No I mean Iraq I'm still trying to understand why we are in Iraq. Can you offer as straight forward explanation that every American can understand as to why we are please.

Spider · 10-11-2006, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja fan

No I mean Iraq I'm still trying to understand why we are in Iraq. Can you offer as straight forward explanation that every American can understand as to why we are please.

we are there to bomb them untill they love us ...........

TailgateNut · 10-11-2006, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by defenseman

The Iranian influence in the region appears to be the reason presently...Dman

I thought it was the non-existing WMD's, or the conections Saddam had with Al-Queda, ........so now it's the Iranian influence.....

eventually we'll be able to shove democracy down their throats, and then we'll be greeted with flowers!

Atlas · 10-11-2006, 08:36 AM

Gee guys it's not like they are American's. 600,000 sounds reasonable

TailgateNut · 10-11-2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atlas

Gee guys it's not like they are American's. 600,000 sounds reasonable

Nice compassionate comment!

defenseman · 10-11-2006, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baja fan

No I mean Iraq I'm still trying to understand why we are in Iraq. Can you offer as straight forward explanation that every American can understand as to why we are please.

I just stated what appears to be the prevailing reason to date based on the media, WH, talking heads etc...etc..... I personally neither agree , nor disagree with it. And, I can't offer a straight forward explanation, nor will I attempt one. That is the WH's job as far as I'm concerned. They have a play book apparently and our running the plays as they go. Ask Rumsfeld, maybe he can explain it. I simply cannot at this point in time...Dman

defenseman · 10-11-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

I thought it was the non-existing WMD's, or the conections Saddam had with Al-Queda, ........so now it's the Iranian influence.....

eventually we'll be able to shove democracy down their throats, and then we'll be greeted with flowers!

Believe what you will. I don't have any explanations right now..dman

TailgateNut · 10-11-2006, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by defenseman

Believe what you will. I don't have any explanations right now..dman

Here are the explanations: 1.Payback for Daddy, money in Halliburtons (Cheneys) coffers, OIL, Scapegoat for the real perps of 9-11, couldn't attack the Saudi's (Bush's buddies),didn't care to go after OBL, War is good for the economy- Idiot in the WH, and last but not least it's what Georgie always wanted to do!

yavoon · 10-11-2006, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rascal

At least they are going to heaven now.

I knew the #'s would be high, but even if they are 1/2 of the 600K that is still unbelievable and unacceptable.

last time they released a body count, like twoish years ago they were off by a factor of 10.

its a useless site, u might as well just makeup a number and conclude its "unacceptable."

Rohirrim · 10-11-2006, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

Here are the explanations: 1.Payback for Daddy, money in Halliburtons (Cheneys) coffers, OIL, Scapegoat for the real perps of 9-11, couldn't attack the Saudi's (Bush's buddies),didn't care to go after OBL, War is good for the economy- Idiot in the WH, and last but not least it's what Georgie always wanted to do!

You forgot Rumsfeld's reasoning, as expressed to Richard Clarke, "There are more targets in Iraq."

TailgateNut · 10-11-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

You forgot Rumsfeld's reasoning, as expressed to Richard Clarke, "There are more targets in Iraq."

Sorry I forgot about the biggest dumbass in the loop! Friggin Hiltler Jr..

Rigs11 · 10-11-2006, 10:59 AM

Come on now..It's called "liberation". Dumbya said so.

Rohirrim · 10-11-2006, 11:12 AM

I don't know how much more liberation those poor Iraqis can take.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN · 10-11-2006, 11:22 AM

Hey, nothing to see here, right?

All that "always err on the side of life" stuff you hear from the Texicutioner's base only applies to fetuses and terminally ill people, right?

(Ooops - make that white fetuses and terminally ill people.)

TailgateNut · 10-11-2006, 11:27 AM

It's doesn't matter, they'll get it, like it or not! At this point most of them would shower Saddam with flowers if he were to return. Our gift is slow torture.
Let's see. No Power, no water, a bunch of terrorists crawling out of the woodwork, daily bombings, thousands of deaths, fugged up infrastructure, ..............It's called DEMOCRACY!

The Lone Bolt · 10-11-2006, 11:44 AM

While I'm sure some of you will probably think I'm biased, I really don't think this 600,000 is a reliable figure. Like the last study from the Lancet that cited 100,000 Iraqi deaths, these new numbers were extrapolated from an extremely small sample size so their methods are questionable. And once again because this is the highest number cited anywhere (by a long shot) the anti-war crowd has accepted it as the Gospel Truth and are citing it as if it were an indesputable fact.

I see much more politics here than science.

Rigs11 · 10-11-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

While I'm sure some of you will probably think I'm biased, I really don't think this 600,000 is a reliable figure. Like the last study from the Lancet that cited 100,000 Iraqi deaths, these new numbers were extrapolated from an extremely small sample size so their methods are questionable. And once again because this is the highest number cited anywhere (by a long shot) the anti-war crowd has accepted it as the Gospel Truth and are citing it as if it were an indesputable fact.

I see much more politics here than science.

so 100,000 instead of 600,000.wow i feel much better.I'm sure the iraqis do too...

10-11-2006, 04:53 AM	#1
Bronco_Beerslug Angling in the Deep Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains Posts: 24,281	New Study: 655,000 Iraqis Die Because of Bush's War But it's for their own good. ------------------------------------------------- Study: 655,000 Iraqis die because of war By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer NEW YORK - A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates. The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics." In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer. "Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study, said in a statement. The study by Burnham, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and others is to be published Thursday on the Web site of The Lancet, a medical journal. An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at least one expert was skeptical of the new findings. "They're almost certainly way too high," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington. He criticized the way the estimate was derived and noted that the results were released shortly before the Nov. 7 election. "This is not analysis, this is politics," Cordesman said. The work updates an earlier Johns Hopkins study — that one was released just before the November 2004 presidential election. At the time, the lead researcher, Les Roberts of Hopkins, said the timing was deliberate. Many of the same researchers were involved in the latest estimate. Speaking of the new study, Burnham said the estimate was much higher than others because it was derived from a house-to-house survey rather than approaches that depend on body counts or media reports. A private group called Iraqi Body Count, for example, says it has recorded about 44,000 to 49,000 civilian Iraqi deaths. But it notes that those totals are based on media reports, which it says probably overlook "many if not most civilian casualties." For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July. The survey participants attributed about 31 percent of violent deaths to coalition forces. Accurate death tolls have been difficult to obtain ever since the Iraq conflict began in March 2003. When top Iraqi political officials cite death numbers, they often refuse to say where the numbers came from. The Health Ministry, which tallies civilian deaths, relies on reports from government hospitals and morgues. The Interior Ministry compiles its figures from police stations, while the Defense Ministry reports deaths only among army soldiers and insurgents killed in combat. The United Nations keeps its own count, based largely on reports from the Baghdad morgue and the Health Ministry. The major funder of the new study was the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. http://tinyurl.com/p36ys

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-11-2006, 05:34 AM	#2
Spider Mr Diplomacy I survived Tebow Mania at the Mane Join Date: May 2001 Location: Elway was just an arm =MacGruder Posts: 84,438 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Miller	Things not going well , the soccer ball ploy didnt work ..So we bomb more democracy into the bastards ,show these people we are a compasionate , stablizing people

10-11-2006, 05:34 AM	#3
defenseman Ring of Famer 2007 record pred. (7-9) Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 9,232	And what is the accuracy of this poll? Plus or minus 400K to 800K. It's pretty much worthless...dman *This particular poll is getting news coverage. Second, the accuracy of the poll was convieniently not included in the media outlets. Again, this poll is worthless...

10-11-2006, 06:12 AM	#5
baja It is what it Is. Pay attention. Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 53,903 Adopt-a-Bronco: Buy My Book	D man lets the study is 200,000 too high would that make the whole situation acceptable in your eyes?

10-11-2006, 06:14 AM	#6
baja It is what it Is. Pay attention. Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 53,903 Adopt-a-Bronco: Buy My Book	Please tell me D man why are we there because I do not know

10-11-2006, 07:12 AM	#8
Rohirrim Partisan Human Cannonball Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater Posts: 48,842	We had to destroy their village in order to save it.

10-11-2006, 08:36 AM	#12
Atlas Draft Defense Early&Often Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 18,526	Gee guys it's not like they are American's. 600,000 sounds reasonable

10-11-2006, 10:59 AM	#20
Rigs11 Ring of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 7,827	Come on now..It's called "liberation". Dumbya said so.

10-11-2006, 11:12 AM	#21
Rohirrim Partisan Human Cannonball Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater Posts: 48,842	I don't know how much more liberation those poor Iraqis can take.

10-11-2006, 11:22 AM	#22
L.A. BRONCOS FAN Mo' holla fo' yo' dolla! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a bunker in an undisclosed location Posts: 52,694	Hey, nothing to see here, right? All that "always err on the side of life" stuff you hear from the Texicutioner's base only applies to fetuses and terminally ill people, right? (Ooops - make that white fetuses and terminally ill people.)

10-11-2006, 11:27 AM	#23
TailgateNut Bleedin' orange! .......as much as tebonites Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mile High Posts: 20,018 Adopt-a-Bronco: Howard Griffith	It's doesn't matter, they'll get it, like it or not! At this point most of them would shower Saddam with flowers if he were to return. Our gift is slow torture. Let's see. No Power, no water, a bunch of terrorists crawling out of the woodwork, daily bombings, thousands of deaths, fugged up infrastructure, ..............It's called DEMOCRACY!

10-11-2006, 11:44 AM	#24
The Lone Bolt Ring of Famer GO CHARGERS!!!! Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA) Posts: 2,871	While I'm sure some of you will probably think I'm biased, I really don't think this 600,000 is a reliable figure. Like the last study from the Lancet that cited 100,000 Iraqi deaths, these new numbers were extrapolated from an extremely small sample size so their methods are questionable. And once again because this is the highest number cited anywhere (by a long shot) the anti-war crowd has accepted it as the Gospel Truth and are citing it as if it were an indesputable fact. I see much more politics here than science.