Americans underestimate Iraqi death toll

[Sidus Preclarum]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070224/...n_iraq_ap_poll

When the poll was conducted earlier this month, a little more than 3,100 U.S. troops had been killed. The midpoint estimate among those polled was right on target, at about 3,000.
[...]
Among those polled for the AP survey, however, the median estimate of Iraqi deaths was 9,890. The median is the point at which half the estimates were higher and half lower.

Now, what the ****. Where do some Americans get their information from ?! Or, rather, do they even bother to get any ? I mean, even the Iraqbodycount gives an absolute minimal number of 56k, and we all know the real figure is way higher...Merely casually watching TV or listening to the radio now and then should make you realize how ridiculous such a figure is. Hell, even *Bush* declared that *30k* had died in dec 2005, pulling this grossly deflated number out of the air!

Whatever their understanding of the respective death tolls, three-quarters of those polled said the numbers of both Americans and Iraqis who have been killed are "unacceptable."

Grand. Considering there's a good chance that the most of those 75% have an estimation of dead iraqi which is about 10 times to low, I wonder what word would they have used if they knew it...

[NaptownKnight]

We all lnow that any armed force in the world is vastly inferior to our own, and that whoever we are fighting will definently have a higher casualty rate. I will get to experience this first hand, I'm joining the Marine Corps, the finest fighting force in the world.

[Erik]

We all lnow that any armed force in the world is vastly inferior to our own, and that whoever we are fighting will definently have a higher casualty rate.

It's about CIVILIAN casualty rate.
And not just inflicted by US forces, but also by terrorists and insurgents.

I'm not surprised the "average Joe" doesn't know the exact estimates, but it is surprising (and worrying) than most Americans think less than 10.000 civilians died in the Iraq war.
I wonder if people in other countries are better informed than that.

[Last Roman]

I knew it was over 10,000, though I don't know the exact toll (I was figuring around 50-60,000?)

[Sidus Preclarum]

nobody really knows the *exact* toll.
What we know, however, is that 55k is an *absolute* minimum, and that the figure is certainly quite higher. (passive surveillance, like the IBC's, usually reporting less than 20% of real deaths...)

[danzig]

nobody really knows the *exact* toll.
What we know, however, is that 55k is an *absolute* minimum, and that the figure is certainly quite higher. (passive surveillance, like the IBC's, usually reporting less than 20% of real deaths...)

"no one really knows" but yet you are upset when someone guesses at a number you think should be higher? Were you this upset with that 'study' that claimed close to 700,000 dead for being too high? I really love polls, people put too much into them. Last Roman is an American and put his guess at 50,000, Im an American and I figure around 50k as well...guess too bad we werent 2 of the 1000 asked in a country of 300million.

[Erik]

"no one really knows" but yet you are upset when someone guesses at a number you think should be higher?

Nobody known the EXACT figure, but we do know it's AT LEAST 55.000

It's like asking somebody how many stars there are and he says "10".
Well, I don't know how many stars there are, but I do know there are at least hundreds or thousands because that's what I can see at night.

[danzig]

Nobody known the EXACT figure, but we do know it's AT LEAST 55.000

It's like asking somebody how many stars there are and he says "10".
Well, I don't know how many stars there are, but I do know there are at least hundreds or thousands because that's what I can see at night.

My point (which you ignored) was in relation to 'studies' that claim insanely high figures. If he is upset at very few Americans (1000 in a poll) putting it too low is he also upset when people put the figure at extremely high levels. 1,000 Americans in a poll put the figure at a number lower then *most* people accept as more accurate (50,000-100,000) so where is the news in this to get upset over it? What is worse simply not knowing and making a best guess (even if its wrong) or pretending one knows and stating 600k-1million dead as a fact? 1,000 Americans dont know but atleast they arent running around using numbers out of the air for propaganda purposes. I too would be interested in seeing polls from other countries and how many people in those countries would cite the 600k-1million number

Polls are at best poor representations (though in some situations they can be highly accurate). Take them with a pinch of salt; personally, I have no idea whether to believe this one, not being American, but based on those here I wouldn't.

Yep while they can be helpful they should be taken with a grain of salt. The sampling is just too small, this entire poll would have a different take on things if for example the Americans they asked were ones who posted here. Ill trust polls on who is going to win the World Series or whether Man Utd or Chelsea is going to take the title but beyond that not much

[Sidus Preclarum]

"no one really knows" but yet you are upset when someone guesses at a number you think should be higher?

read better:
"no one really knows the *exact* toll"
So, yes, putting it at 10k or less is preposterous.

Were you this upset with that 'study' that claimed close to 700,000 dead for being too high?

The lancet's figure, though obtained through a well tried and tested methodology, may be too high. However, what they *really* claimed was that the figure was with a 95% probablilty between 390k and 900k. Besides, this figure doesn't only cover people killd either because of direct Coalition and Insurgents actions, but also those dying because of consequent lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, &c, ie "excess death"

The iraqi goverments, based on extrapolation of *morgue* numbers of march 2006 , gives a 100k to 150k figure. The UN, using similar data, reported 35K for 2006 alone. And it is notorious that not all victims end up in morgue or hospitals far from it.

So consider a figure of 200k, possible and even consistent with IBC's passive count of about 60K . THe lancet's figure is 3 times higher , *and* includes "indirect" deaths.
The poll figure is *20* time lower
So, tell me, which over/underestimation is the most upsetting (knowing that it remains to be proven that the LAncet's study isn't correct)

I really love polls, people put too much into them. Last Roman is an American and put his guess at 50,000, Im an American and I figure around 50k as well...guess too bad we werent 2 of the 1000 asked in a country of 300million.

Glad to see you're in a somewhat more elightened minority.

[quote]Yep while they can be helpful they should be taken with a grain of salt. The sampling is just too small, [/Qupte]


1000 is stadard.

this entire poll would have a different take on things if for example the Americans they asked were ones who posted here.

do you understand what a poll is ?

[danzig]

read better:
"no one really knows the *exact* toll"
So, yes, putting it at 10k or less is preposterous.

Thanks I did you simply didnt 'get' my post see my respond to Erik.

The lancet's figure, though obtained through a well tried and tested methodology, may be too high. However, what they *really* claimed was that the figure was with a 95% probablilty between 390k and 900k. Besides, this figure doesn't only cover people killd either because of direct Coalition and Insurgents actions, but also those dying because of consequent lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poorer healthcare, &c, ie "excess death"

Right, some guy trips in the shower and dies its tagged as a death due to the coalition being there...not exactly inspiring much confidence there.

Glad to see you're in a somewhat more elightened minority.

And you are basing that Im part of minority on what? This poll? As I said above, asking 1000 people out of country of 300million shouldnt be taken too seriously.

[Sidus Preclarum]

Right, some guy trips in the shower and dies its tagged as a death due to the coalition being there...not exactly inspiring much confidence there.

nice try at trying to pass sarcastic misrepresentation as a point here.
a more hopnest exemple would have been "some guy trips in the shower, and dies on the way to hospital because of lack of transport/hospital capacity caused by insurgent activities/invasion destruction, whereas he would have been saved prior to the invasions"

And you are basing that Im part of minority on what? This poll? As I said above, asking 1000 people out of country of 300million shouldnt be taken too seriously.

ok. You *DONT* understand what a poll is...

[Tom Paine]

Polls are at best poor representations (though in some situations they can be highly accurate). Take them with a pinch of salt; personally, I have no idea whether to believe this one, not being American, but based on those here I wouldn't.

[Last Roman]

danzig, I think it is safe to say the majority of Americans would underestimate the number of Iraqi causalities. Many don't pay attention to what's going on in Iraq.

[Farnan]

If they picked one thousand Americans by waiting outside of a Walmart and asked people as they walked out, that would be a random sampling. Would that be accurate to the thoughts of America? Nope, besides people like to **** with pollsters, and 1,000 is too small of a sample to negate those people. Also, many people would just say the number that came off the top of their head which will be the amount of Americans who died.

[Sétanta]

Meh, most Americans probably don't care. They are too focused on the number of Americans dying.

[Kretchfoop]

...

Grand. Considering there's a good chance that the most of those 75% have an estimation of dead iraqi which is about 10 times to low, I wonder what word would they have used if they knew it...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they would say unacceptable again. I would wager they were given the option of acceptable, unacceptable, or no opinion when asked that question. Or something very similar to that. For lecturing Danzig about the scientific method of polling I would think you would consider that.

I don't understand what the point of this thread is. So Americans have no idea what the actual death toll in Iraq is. However, like the poll said they still think the lowly 9k is unacceptable. Many Americans see the war as a complete failure that has only made the situation worse. If the poll had found them to estimate it at 70k do you think it would really change their overall opinion of the war? Would that make you feel better? Or do you just have an ax to grind?

If ridiculous low numbers are a reason to feign outrage than consider me outraged next time someone posts a "study" claiming 2.5 million deaths.

[Sidus Preclarum]

I don't understand what the point of this thread is. So Americans have no idea what the actual death toll in Iraq is. However, like the poll said they still think the lowly 9k is unacceptable. Many Americans see the war as a complete failure that has only made the situation worse. If the poll had found them to estimate it at 70k do you think it would really change their overall opinion of the war? Would that make you feel better? Or do you just have an ax to grind

It's not about their opinion of the war and the (I'm not even surprised , I don't buy into the view that US citizens are either not caring about civilians or worse)
it's about how little they know of the situation.
The US is the land of mass media par excellence , and yet I'm wondering wether they get or seek any piece of information about this conflict in which 150K of their fellow citizens are actively engaged.

[Kretchfoop]

It's not about their opinion of the war and the (I'm not even surprised , I don't buy into the view that US citizens are either not caring about civilians or worse)
it's about how little they know of the situation.
The US is the land of mass media par excellence , and yet I'm wondering wether they get or seek any piece of information about this conflict in which 150K of their fellow citizens are actively engaged.

Ahh OK. Thanks for clarifying that for me. A very reasonable question if I might say so. I think Hotspur and Sétanta answered that pretty well though. Our media reports civilian casualties during "incidents" but doesn't tally them up like they do US deaths and Americans generally don't really care that much what the actual numbers or their would be demand for it and the media would report it. You always want to increase your ratings. I still maintain though that this isn't that important. The poll tells me that people are unhappy about the war and they know that Iraqi casualties are too high. Which is good enough for me I guess. I would rather people know the truth but that seems too much of a stretch for many people, American or otherwise.

[Hotspur]

The problem isn't that Americans aren't paying attention - given that the poll subjects got the American casualties more or less right. The problem is that American news outlets don't report on aggregate civilian deaths. They report on individual attacks. By comparison, we get a near real-time update on total US casualties. Here's an example from CNN today. Both these excerpts were taken from the same article:

Four U.S. soldiers killed
Four U.S. soldiers died in separate incidents in Iraq, the U.S. military said Friday.

Three U.S. soldiers were killed during a combat mission in Anbar province on Thursday.

Another soldier died from when a roadside bomb struck a Humvee in Diwaniya, south of Baghdad.

The blast wounded three other soldiers who were taken to a military hospital in Baghdad for treatment.

This brings the number of U.S. military deaths in the Iraq war to 3,154.

compared to this:

Other developments

Groups and political parties planning meetings must tell the Iraqi Interior Ministry in advance so authorities can "to determine the basic objectives behind any gathering," Interior Minister Jawad Kadhim al-Bolani said Friday. The ministry said it will take "strict legal action" against groups that fail to do so. The move comes during renewed efforts by Iraqi and coalition forces to secure the capital.


The bodies of five slain people were found in Baghdad on Friday, police said. Corpses found daily in Baghdad are thought to be the victims of Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence. (Baghdad's sectarian divide)


A U.S. military commander Thursday said a raid outside Falluja two days ago discovered a home-grown factory for car bombs. Two deadly vehicle bombings this week and one last month used chlorine mixed with explosive devices, a new insurgent tactic. The chemical attacks left at least 12 dead and more than 200 hospitalized in the past week.


A U.S. soldier was sentenced to 100 years in prison Thursday after pleading guilty in the rape and murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the slaying of her parents and sister. (Full story)


Apparently emboldened by a Sunni Arab woman who accused Iraqi security forces of rape on Al-Jazeera, a Sunni Turkmen woman took to the air Wednesday night to declare that she, too, was sexually assaulted. The other rape allegation was made Monday when a Sunni Arab woman appeared on Al-Jazeera, saying three members of the Shiite-dominated security forces raped her. (Full story)

I can't tell you why exactly that US news outlets don't report Iraqi civilian deaths like they do US casualties. My best guess is that they don't want to open themselves up to attack for "emboldening the terrorists" or "weakening US resolve". Since there's no great outcry for the information, they don't include it. I think they should. I also think the banning of images of US servicemen coming home to be buried should be lifted. War is ugly, nasty and brutal and the American people should see it - all of it.

[Hotspur]

Meh, most Americans probably don't care.

Replace "Americans" with "Neo-cons" and you're probably right.