Iraqi death toll figures drop again

[Gauvin]

Iraq says 85,694 people have lost their lives in the country's violence from 2004-2008, in the first official report by the government on the Iraqi death toll since the war began.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091014/..._mi_ea/ml_iraq

When debating the war I've heard figures as high as 2 million deaths, to 1 million deaths (all done by George W. Bush) since 2004. Since the John Hopkins study in 2006 put the number at 600 000, the number has dropped, with the WHO putting it at 100-200 000, and now the Iraqi government putting it at 85 000.

I think this is the last that it will drop, and find it ironic that it's closer to George W. Bush's original estimate, than to any of the anti-war people's estimates.

[Phier]

Those high numbers were obviously bogus to start with.

Being they worked for left wing propaganda they were paraded around but a very basic investigation of the methods showed how utterly flawed the 'studies' were.

[Admiral Piett]

It wouldn't matter if it were only a hundred people, that's still a LOT of dead innocent people. It's a shame.

[Stalins Ghost]

85694 or 850694, that's still a lot of people.

[Gauvin]

85694 or 850694, that's still a lot of people.

To put it in perspective, 1 million died in Vietnam (a war Iraq was frequently compared to), 1 million died in the Iran-Iraq war, 100 000 kurds were killed by Saddam's chemical weapons.

It's a lot of people no doubt, but considering it's a lot less Iraqi dead than Saddam himself killed, (let's also admit that many of those 85 000 were killed by Saddam loyalists, religious fanatics, and other Iraqi thugs and murderers) it raises the question of whether it was a necessary, and relatively small cost to depose one of the worst tyrants in the region, and to give Iraqis a chance to decide their future for the first time in their history.

[motiv-8]

Hm, I never thought there would be an issue in which we would be in such complete agreement, Gauvin, good find. I've followed your other posts on Iraq, you have put considerable time into researching the conflicts there. Any particular reason?

[Kanaric]

Being they worked for left wing propaganda they were paraded around but a very basic investigation of the methods showed how utterly flawed the 'studies' were.

Its good it was used for left wing propaganda, because it got bush to finally listen to people who knew what they were talking about instead of Donald Rumsfeld and his party of neocons

[Erik]

When debating the war I've heard figures as high as 2 million deaths, to 1 million deaths (all done by George W. Bush) since 2004.

I don't know which other board you frequent.
But at least here on TWC, I think the "600.000" from the Lancet survey is the highest estimate anyone has used in a debate.

Since the John Hopkins study in 2006 put the number at 600 000, the number has dropped, with the WHO putting it at 100-200 000, and now the Iraqi government putting it at 85 000.

Nonsense.

The numbers haven't dropped, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Around 100.000 (or 85.000 when ignoring 2003) is the counted death toll, which can be seen as an absolute minimum.

600.000 is a statistical estimate, which could very well be much closer to the true death toll than the counted deaths above.
The argument is that most deaths don't get counted, for example because the body is never moved to a hospital but simply dumped in a river.
Remember we are talking about a war zone, so you can't expect always have a doctor available to establish and document the cause of death.

I think this is the last that it will drop, and find it ironic that it's closer to George W. Bush's original estimate, than to any of the anti-war people's estimates.

It's still 3 times as high as Bush's estimate of 30.000.
Now I know Bush said that in 2005, but that was also counting 2003 - the year of the initial invasion which was extremely bloody.

[Phier]

600.000 is a statistical estimate, which could very well be much closer to the true death toll than the counted deaths above.

And pigs could fly out my arse. No Erik, do some research, the methodology of the Hopkins study has been debunked completely. If its right its right the same way a broken clock is right two times a day.

[Erik]

No Erik, do some research, the methodology of the Hopkins study has been debunked completely.

Maybe you care to provide a source then.
Because I've never heard it being debunked.

In either case, it is very unlikely that the counted death toll is also the true death toll.
They say there are over 1 Billion sheep in the world, but I've only ever seen 85.

[Major.Stupidity]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091014/..._mi_ea/ml_iraq

When debating the war I've heard figures as high as 2 million deaths, to 1 million deaths (all done by George W. Bush) since 2004. Since the John Hopkins study in 2006 put the number at 600 000, the number has dropped, with the WHO putting it at 100-200 000, and now the Iraqi government putting it at 85 000.

I think this is the last that it will drop, and find it ironic that it's closer to George W. Bush's original estimate, than to any of the anti-war people's estimates.

You do realize that no one takes the Iraqi government death toll counts seriously/ is widely known to be inaccurate, right?

[dogukan]

Just because pro-American Iraqi governments says it's 85 000 people died doesn't make it true. Even if thats the true official numbers.
As Erik said...

[Erik]

Just because pro-American Iraqi governments says it's 85 000 people died doesn't make it true. Even if thats the true official numbers.
As Erik said...

Plus, the Iraqi government said: AT LEAST 85.000 have died.
Even they admit the real figure can be (a lot) higher.

Note that the quoted section in the OP is not taken from the article.
Gauvin probably made that part up himself, and tried to pass his own creation as a news article.

[Gauvin]

Note that the quoted section in the OP is not taken from the article.
Gauvin probably made that part up himself, and tried to pass his own creation as a news article.

If you look at the last time the story was updated it says 24 mins ago, which means the article has changed since I posted it. I got it hot off the wire! The article was actually only two paragraphs long when I posted it.

This is how news work in the internet age, by-the-minute. I did not change or misquote anything.

[Cougar109]

So in your eyes 85,000 is acceptable?

[Hunter Makoy]

So in your eyes 85,000 is acceptable?

If in a war thats raged for 6 years only 85,000 dead were true? That would be extremely acceptable.

BTW noone ever said it was acceptable in this thread, merely that it was alot lower then previous estimates. But I'm sure that part doesn't matter.

[Cougar109]

If in a war thats raged for 6 years only 85,000 dead were true? That would be extremely acceptable.

BTW noone ever said it was acceptable in this thread, merely that it was alot lower then previous estimates. But I'm sure that part doesn't matter.

I would agree, I don't believe these numbers fully (certainly nowhere near the level the anti-war people are claiming, but somewhere between the WHO and John Hopkins study), but if it is 85,000 that's a job well done. Obviously I would have preferred 0 from the start (stupid war to begin with), and I believe with our level of technology and the enemy we had it should actually have been lower. But considering how poor the war was run for a few years there, if real 85,000 isn't bad at all.

Reason I ask is because I as curious what the OP thought of it. He posted some numbers and left it at that so I just wanted to delve a bit deeper into the topic.

I think that people seem to be willing to accept even such a "low" number as acceptable shows a great disregard for human life and an even more disturbing absence of human compassion.

No amount of civilian casualties is "acceptable," though the fact that there will be civilian casualties is "understandable."

Those are just my two cents though, since anywhere I post now on the internet there seem to be a lot of people who simply disregard life...

Anyway, if these numbers are accurate, then it is better than the estimates which I had seen paraded around when everyone cared about Iraq back in say, '05. Hopefully the number won't rise to an unacceptable level.

War sucks, and should be avoided until every other possible avenue imaginable has been tried several times and unfortunately we never even came close to that with Iraq and Afghanistan. However, war is also a reality, and at this stage of technology people are going to die. They're deaths to the vast majority of the world are nothing but a statistic. Even our own troops deaths get treated as nothing but a statistic to all but their family and close friends. Their numbers are used as nothing but political fuel and fire. Anti-war people (ironically) want this war to be a disaster to prove their point, pro-war people want the numbers to be low not because they truly care and cherish every individual life but so they can, when this is done, take the pedestal and say they were right and their actions were justified in the end.


Every death, in my eyes, is unacceptable. But there are also, as I said, the realities of war. People are going to die, it's simply the nature of such a beast. Actions can't be undone, so a low amount of causalities is about all you can hope for in the end and to a degree is worth some praise simply because the unavoidable was kept down to a minimum.

[Stavroforos]

I think that people seem to be willing to accept even such a "low" number as acceptable shows a great disregard for human life and an even more disturbing absence of human compassion.

No amount of civilian casualties is "acceptable," though the fact that there will be civilian casualties is "understandable."

Those are just my two cents though, since anywhere I post now on the internet there seem to be a lot of people who simply disregard life...

Anyway, if these numbers are accurate, then it is better than the estimates which I had seen paraded around when everyone cared about Iraq back in say, '05. Hopefully the number won't rise to an unacceptable level.

[Hunter Makoy]

I think that people seem to be willing to accept even such a "low" number as acceptable shows a great disregard for human life and an even more disturbing absence of human compassion.

No amount of civilian casualties is "acceptable," though the fact that there will be civilian casualties is "understandable."

Yet the unwillingness to accept any civilian casualties in a war shows a complete lack of realism.

BTW in this context 'understandable' and 'acceptable' are basically the same thing. If you consider no amount of civilian casualties 'acceptable' then you believe that we somehow have the capacity to conduct a military campaign in which literally 0 civilians die.

[Gauvin]

Yet the unwillingness to accept any civilian casualties in a war shows a complete lack of realism.

BTW in this context 'understandable' and 'acceptable' are basically the same thing. If you consider no amount of civilian casualties 'acceptable' then you believe that we somehow have the capacity to conduct a military campaign in which literally 0 civilians die.

You're absolutely correct. The argument that war will result in civilian casualties is an argument that can be made against any war.... it was made against going to war with Hitler, for example, it was made against the American Revolutionaries. It will always be made so long as there is war, but mostly by pacifists, or people who aren't thick enough to think reducing civilian casualties to zero is realistic but oppose wars fought in the interest of America, and want to use the easiest (and most persuasive) argument against war.

I am in no way delighting in the fact that so many people were killed, but rather that so few were killed to topple a brutal tyrant, defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq and give Iraqis a say in their future for the first time in a region plagued by despotism and fanaticism.

Seeing as how I can't revive these people, I can wish for the best possible outcome for their progeny or surviving family members. I am a humanitarian, first and foremost, and I don't think the tragedy of innocent deaths should be followed by capitulation or regression.