Study Claims 655,000 Iraqis estimated to have died from Iraq War

[NimChief]

A new study estimates that as many as 655,000 Iraqis have died due to violence since the U.S.-led invasion in March of 2003.

Linky

Welcome to the world of freedom and liberation Iraqis.

[Tiwaz]

Too high number is my guesstimate.

But real deathcount definitely has 6 digits.

[Erik]

Too high number is my guesstimate.

But real deathcount definitely has 6 digits.

My gesstimate too.

But then the US invaders didn't count casualties, so this type of estimations are the only thing we can go by.

And to be fair: Saddam was judged by the same kind of estimations.

[carl-the-conqueror]

My gesstimate too.

But then the US invaders didn't count casualties, so this type of estimations are the only thing we can go by.

And to be fair: Saddam was judged by the same kind of estimations.

saddam was in power about thirty years, weve been here three

[danzig]

Cool, I eagerly await the study that puts the number of dead Iraqis and 100 million, then 1 billion then 6 billion...this is the SAME group that reported 100,000 dead in 2004 so are we to believe 500,000 people have died in less then 2 years? I call political bs on this story and thread title is misleading a survey of 1800 Iraqis lead to this figure?

[MadBurgerMaker]

Cool, I eagerly await the study that puts the number of dead Iraqis and 100 million, then 1 billion then 6 billion...this is the SAME group that reported 100,000 dead in 2004 so are we to believe 500,000 people have died in less then 2 years? I call political bs on this story and thread title is misleading a survey of 1800 Iraqis lead to this figure?

Well...youre gonna have to wait until...oh...just a guess here....November of 2008 or so....for the next "study" from this group. Sorry Danzig.

[danzig]

Well...youre gonna have to wait until...oh...just a guess here....November of 2008 or so....for the next "study" from this group. Sorry Danzig.

Yeah guess so since their first one was in *gasp* Nov of 2004 this one Nov of 2006 I guess by Nov of 2012 all Iraqis will be reported dead after the group does a random sampling of another 1800 households. I can picture the poll questions "Excuse me sir but are you dead or have you been killed by the Coalition?"...*guy slams the door* ok mark this one off as dead!

[k995]

Cool, I eagerly await the study that puts the number of dead Iraqis and 100 million, then 1 billion then 6 billion...this is the SAME group that reported 100,000 dead in 2004 so are we to believe 500,000 people have died in less then 2 years? I call political bs on this story and thread title is misleading a survey of 1800 Iraqis lead to this figure?

Hmm scientific study on the one hand, guy making fun of it with no shred of evidence on the other hand, who to believe.

Even a US army official stated a number of 50 000 wich is high.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Hmm scientific study on the one hand, guy making fun of it with no shred of evidence on the other hand, who to believe.

Even a US army official stated a number of 50 000 wich is high.

Hold on....let me fix that for you...

"Randomly selected numbers on one hand, guy who knows how this group works on the other hand, who to believe."

"Even a US Army official stated a number of 50,000, which isnt even in the same galaxy as 650,000."

Just thought Id help you out there, ace.

Honestly, until this group publishes their report, Im going to go ahead and assume its about the same as their last one: ridiculously stupid. I mean..hey...I can pick a number between 1 and 150,000,000. Does that make me a credible source for this ****? :hmmm: Is this something I can do for a living? Picking random numbers?

[k995]

Hold on....let me fix that for you...

"Randomly selected numbers on one hand, guy who knows how this group works on the other hand, who to believe."



"Even a US Army official stated a number of 50,000, which isnt even in the same galaxy as 650,000."

Wether you like it or not, the studie was made and it wasnt a "Randomly selected numbers on one hand" its based on facts, wether those were correct I doubt but the number wasnt randomly chosen. So my choice remains, a flawed study or a gy saying he knows better.

Just thought Id help you out there, ace.

Honestly, until this group publishes their report, Im going to go ahead and assume its about the same as their last one: ridiculously stupid. I mean..hey...I can pick a number between 1 and 150,000,000. Does that make me a credible source for this ****? :hmmm: Is this something I can do for a living? Picking random numbers?

Seeing there are only 26 million iraqi's, I wouldnt change to this job

[MadBurgerMaker]

Wether you like it or not, the studie was made and it wasnt a "Randomly selected numbers on one hand" its based on facts, wether those were correct I doubt but the number wasnt randomly chosen. So my choice remains, a flawed study or a gy saying he knows better.

And once again, Ill go with the guy(s) who know how these people came up with their last estimates. They conduced a similar "survey" and came up with a range of 8,000 - 194,000. They selected 100,000. Do you see what we're talking about now?

how do you know they are picking random numbers? Are you knowledgeable enough about the kind of math, statistics and survey techniques used for such kind of projections to disregard it as flawed? I'd be interested about some info about their last report.

Because...I was going by how they came up with the results of their last survey. Same people, pretty much the same type of result (a number hugely over every other estimate at the time), same time frame (election time! yay! the lead researcher even admitted the timing was/is deliberate), etc.

Edit: Heres an article from Slate about the last study:

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/



Seriously...these guys went around and interviewed about 1800 households from 47 neighborhoods across Iraq. They found there were 550 or so people dead from those, and from that, they came up with......650,000.... :hmmm: Of course, there is a similarly massive range with this one, 420,000 - 793,000. At least this time though, they came up with numbers so high, it would still be much much higher than any other estimates/counts/whatever. I wouldve been disappointed in them if they hadnt at least fixed that from their last study.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/wo...498&ei=5087%0A

Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy, said interviewing urban dwellers chosen at random was “the best of what you can expect in a war zone.”

But he said the number of deaths in the families interviewed — 547 in the post-invasion period versus 82 in a similar period before the invasion — was too few to extrapolate up to more than 600,000 deaths across the country.

Donald Berry, chairman of biostatistics at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, was even more troubled by the study, which he said had “a tone of accuracy that’s just inappropriate.”

Thats enough of this for me. If people here want to think this study is credible, by all means, feel free. I personally will go ahead and take the numbers from a place like Iraq Body Count, and then take into account the fact that sometimes the media, hospitals, and military dont report fatalities. Hell...Ill just double the high number from Iraq Body Count, which would put it just under 100,000. Could be too low, could be too high, but at least half of those are actually accounted for and documented.

[Mangalore]

Hold on....let me fix that for you...

"Randomly selected numbers on one hand, guy who knows how this group works on the other hand, who to believe."

"Even a US Army official stated a number of 50,000, which isnt even in the same galaxy as 650,000."

Just thought Id help you out there, ace.

Honestly, until this group publishes their report, Im going to go ahead and assume its about the same as their last one: ridiculously stupid. I mean..hey...I can pick a number between 1 and 150,000,000. Does that make me a credible source for this ****? :hmmm: Is this something I can do for a living? Picking random numbers?

how do you know they are picking random numbers? Are you knowledgeable enough about the kind of math, statistics and survey techniques used for such kind of projections to disregard it as flawed? I'd be interested about some info about their last report.

Otherwise the US army said themselves it's not their job to count civilian deaths so how can one take that number seriously if they say they don't keep track themselves? Otherwise sites like iraqbodycount solely count media deaths, given how restricted movement -and thus movementr of information - is in Iraq the possibility of a large amound of incidents not reaching western media is quite high.



Interesting event today: The British army chief has a go at Blair calling his Iraq policy naive and suggesting to pull out. That doesn't sound very optimistic coming from the very head of the British military...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1921450,00.html

[cegorach]

Linky

Welcome to the world of freedom and liberation Iraqis.

Now that is rubbish. I remember the guys who are doing it - the idea is to add every single possible, probable fatality and double or tripple it. At such rate in 10 years the number will exceed the death toll of the 2nd WW... The guys are pathetic.

[PacSubCom]

The real death toll is much, much higher in fact. History won't judge us kindly.

[danzig]

The real death toll is much, much higher in fact. History won't judge us kindly.

With such solid evidence you have provided how could anyone disagree!

[PacSubCom]

With such solid evidence you have provided how could anyone disagree!

Evidence is all over the place. We are involved in the Iraq genocide since the 80s at least. The death toll since 2003 is but a small part of the true toll. It takes a very disciplined mind to stay in line and to overlook and deny that, congratulations.

[danzig]

Evidence is all over the place. We are involved in the Iraq genocide since the 80s at least. The death toll since 2003 is but a small part of the true toll. It takes a very disciplined mind to stay in line and to overlook and deny that, congratulations.

That's nice but has nothing to do with the original article which is counting deaths from the start 'war' to remove Saddam, regardless you have provided no proof to back up your assertion that the toll is even as high as this survey claims let alone "much higher". So if you want to retain any credibility either back up your claim or stop repeating it...not much of a stretch to guess which one you'll do.. Nice clever attempt at a flame btw, reported of course.

[PacSubCom]

That's nice but has nothing to do with the original article which is counting deaths from the start 'war' to remove Saddam, regardless you have provided no proof to back up your assertion that the toll is even as high as this survey claims let alone "much higher". So if you want to retain any credibility either back up your claim or stop repeating it...not much of a stretch to guess which one you'll do.. Nice clever attempt at a flame btw, reported of course.

I try to see the whole picture, and our involvement in Iraq did not begin in 2003. I don't need to give any evidence, this is known history. If you like your horizon to end at the tip of your nose, I can't stop you.

(Don't forget to report that too. Please, by all means, report anything I say. Don't forget the lowliest syllable, the smallest letter; no comma, no smiley shall go unreported. Maybe, danzig, this is the time to think about a new career after all: http://www.rsf.org/)

[Aristophanes]

Evidence is all over the place. We are involved in the Iraq genocide since the 80s at least. The death toll since 2003 is but a small part of the true toll. It takes a very disciplined mind to stay in line and to overlook and deny that, congratulations.

You keep referencing history, but I think, here, our interpretations of 'history' might diverge.

It takes a very undisciplined mind to manufacture a new reality out of insignificant factoids. How do you define "involvement"?

[PacSubCom]

You keep referencing history, but I think, here, our interpretations of 'history' might diverge.

It takes a very undisciplined mind to manufacture a new reality out of insignificant factoids. How do you define "involvement"?

Find out for yourself.