Iraq Death Toll May Exceed 600 Thousand.

[meshou]

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html)
The BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm)
The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

This is ten to twenty times higher than the usual estimates given, so I suppose we should take the numbers with a grain of salt. After all, I'm sure the other numbers were gotten through objective and--


The same group in 2004 published an estimate of roughly 100,000 deaths in the first 18 months after the invasion. That figure was much higher than expected, and was controversial. The new study estimates that about 500,000 more Iraqis, both civilian and military, have died since then -- a finding likely to be equally controversial.

Both this and the earlier study are the only ones to estimate mortality in Iraq using scientific methods. The technique, called "cluster sampling," is used to estimate mortality in famines and after natural disasters.

... And apparently the others were gotten through "media reports." Shit. Well, maybe the people surveyed were exagger--


The researchers say that in nearly 80% of the individual cases, family members produced death certificates to support their answers.

Shit. And apparently it's been peer reviewed, and the methodology is sound.

How many civilian deaths did Hussein cause, now? I'm having trouble finding actual numbers, but it seems like conservative estimates undercut this figure a little, and don't go much above "perhaps a million."

Well, we've managed to more than keep up. But we can justify this, because any bloodshed other people are doing for freedom is A-OK. Awesome.

[sbw]

bill maher said on his show, over a year ago, on a weekly basis, "bring back saddam." and every time he had a guest he would ask them, "so, trent lott (or whoever), I've been saying every week on this show that we should bring back saddam--am I serious?"

Scott

[meshou]

I guess it's just a statistic.

[nomir_dva]

I guess it's just a statistic.

I don't really know what to say, except that it's quite obvious that governments tend not to give a flying fuck about people who have no direct influence upon them. When Hussein killed people, the U.S. government could use it for political advantage. When people die as a direct result of the situation the U.S. has produced (if not directly at the hands of the U.S. military), then their deaths are an unfortunate inevitability. How many people died in the Korean and Vietnam wars? Six or seven million? I'm sure that was worth it too.

[charred_heart]

How many people died in the Korean and Vietnam wars? Six or seven million? I'm sure that was worth it too.hmphf..

The U.S is good at defending borders, which must be because Americans have never shown an interset in taking land after the independence of the colonies from England and founding the U.S.A.

That is why the U.S was successful in the first Gulf War - they were doing what they do best: defending a country from an invading army.

The are slowly realising however, that to take control of a country they must adopt some of the practices used by past empire nations. If they implement the master/subject dynamic, I don't see how they can encourage a democracy since it would be a forcefully imposed domocracy or a mock democracy.

[Serotonin]

Hmmm, I'm relying more on this one: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Still, the outrage here (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/547_becomes_654965/) is quite humourous. What price adherence?

[nomir_dva]

I don't see how they can encourage a democracy since it would be a forcefully imposed domocracy or a mock democracy.

I think that a legitimate democracy would lead to the election of people who would not share the U.S.'s interests. That's why there won't be a legitimate democracy.

[charred_heart]

I think that a legitimate democracy would lead to the election of people who would not share the U.S.'s interests. That's why there won't be a legitimate democracy.that's one aspect of it, but that's not why it worries me. Let's say this was not an issue, that the Iraqis would vote in representatives the west would have no problem with. It would still be an election that was forced on the Iraqis, a condition to end the occupation for their country. The legitimacy of these eelections and their verdict would be short lived, and instability would return.

[kuranes]

Something that just came to my attention. The "market" view . . . . .

http://iraqforsale.org/

Which scandal ?

http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN11423518.html/?src=092906_MARKETING_CMS_ElecMidArt

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1844247.ece

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq;_ylt=AvGFJX8ISTBm7f.b8RHZB2juOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061013/pl_afp/usiraqunrestpolice_061013002233;_ylt=Agv7_kp9M3iiY8ay.jTOnkRbbBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15213844/

[LongSilence]

Hey, if this is kept up most of the population will be dead within a few years thus largely getting rid of most of the problem.

Also, dead people eventually make more oil, which is nice of them.