UN report finds Iraqi War dead to be 24,000 to 29,000

[Zuni]

http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/population.htm

that includes Iraqi soldiers, paramilitaries and all combatants as well as civilians

just FYI, I happened to find this linked in a galloway story. I just thought it should be made public here

[Radical Activist]

1. It doesn't look like this includes the entire war

from start to finish. That link is very vague.

[Zuni]

6. It doesn't include the whole UN survey

I just thought it should be noted. I have seen the Lancet study numbers over and over, and personally, did not think they were likely---

caught this UN report when I was looking for Galloway stuff (I am not going to argue about Galloway here-I think his anti-zionism/palestinian advocacy goes way beyond normal opposition to Israel's policies---I think he is an anti semite who promised to stand with Saddam Hussein until they marched into Jerusalem)


Just thought this UN report is worth looking at

[Radical Activist]

11. So your subject line simply isn't true.

The survey doesn't even claim that is the total number of war dead to date. Why not change it?

[Zuni]

19. I meant the link doesn't include all the data

[cestpaspossible]

31. This is about spin, not truth.

[stepnw1f]

2. Gee...I guess the War is Ok then

God Help America!

[Zuni]

9. that is not what I said

I am not looking to start a flamewar

If posting UN reports is now equivalent to being a Neo-Con, well, then God help DU!!!

[stepnw1f]

16. "being a Neo-Con"?

I didn't say that.

[Zuni]

18. sorry

I expect to be flamed for this. I have recently pissed off some DUers by my opinion that George Galloway is rather unsavory. I have been called a RWer and other insults, and I have been "on the defensive" quite a bit lately here.

All I wanted to do was post a UN report, in the hopes of getting to the truth, not to make Bush look good (although I cannot see how 24,000 needless Iraqi Deaths and nearly 2,000 needless coalition deaths possibly makes George Bush look anything near good)

Sorry, my apologies

[efhmc]

3. How can they know for sure?

[Zuni]

12. Why are people quoting a Lancet study

that is even vaguer?

I am sorry, but the Lancet number of 100,000 was rather pulled out of their ass considering if you read the actual study their numbers are anywhere from 15,000 to 100,000

the Iraq Body Count has a number between 15,000-20,000, as did the Pentagon's estimate released in the media (but not noted here)

The Pentagon put the low death toll at 15,000 and the high around 18,000 in all truth.

[G_j]

34. pulled out of their ass?

whatever numbers you think are closest to correct The Lancet did not pull the numbers "out of their ass"!


http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20352/

<snip>

But the estimate by the Hopkins team is sound in terms of how the data has been gathered and what it says about the casualty rate. A sample of 988 households with more than 7,800 people, in a country of 25 million, is a sizable sample. By comparison, pollsters in this country, using similar techniques of sampling (so the people interviewed in aggregate represent the demographics of the country as a whole), consider a sample of 1,500 people in a country of 280 million to be adequate for extrapolation and reliable results. Wherever possible, too, the researchers verified claims of fatalities with documents. A larger sample would be worthwhile, and as in any important empirical research, it would be useful to repeat the data collection to compare results. But the method is sound.

As a result, the estimates are likely to be quite a bit more accurate than the clumsy attempt to count through press reports, which is partial and not a representative sample. Indeed, the study directors believe the estimate of 100,000 deaths may be conservative. (Fallujah, for example, was not counted due to the extreme level of violence in that city.)

"There is a real necessity for accurate monitoring of civilian deaths during combat situations," study co-author Gilbert Burnham, MD, said in a statement. "Otherwise it is impossible to know the extent of the problems civilians may be facing or how to protect them."

<snip>

[merh]

4. This is a survey, this is not actual numbers.

Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004

(snip)

War-related Death

The number of deaths of civilians and military personnel in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion is another set of figures that has raised controversy. The Living Conditions Survey data indicates 24,000 deaths, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 18,000 to 29,000 deaths. According to the survey data, children aged below 18 years comprise 12% percent of the deaths due to warfare.

http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/population.htm

Survey is a process for gathering information, without detailed verification, on the activity being examined. ...
www.indiana.edu/~iuaudit/glossary.html

[Radical Activist]

5. Its a survey and it ended in Aug. of '04

So even if it were accurate, which we have no way of knowing, it wouldn't include deaths since August of last year. There have been a number of major military engagements since then.

[Zuni]

17. The 100,000 number so often quoted

here came from a much less complete survey


I think the UN probably spent alot more time and effort than a British medical journal

[merh]

20. I think not.

But opinions are like belly buttons, we all have them.

If I am not mistaken, the British medical journal has used figures from hospitals to compile its information. As I undertand it, one of the problems with obtaining adequate numbers is the lack of the records of the living, due to the war and OUR destruction of the facilities housing many of their public documents.

:hi:

[Zuni]

21. I think

The Lancet used figures from a poll on 750 random Iraqis about who in their family died
It was done like a Gallup poll

But, to each his own. I am just trying to put forward a UN report I happened to find earlier.

:hi:

[cestpaspossible]

7. Totally bogus methodology

It's hard to tell, but it looks like they came up with this figure by compiling answers from a survey they distributed.

Something tells me that a lot of the Iraqis who were killed were unable to complete the survey.

[Zuni]

13. The Lancet study had a good methodology?

They sent out a survey and compiled answers based on 750 repondents or something. It was a poll.
I think the UN is more reliable. When they publish reports they usually aren't known for pulling figures out of their ass.

The Iraq Body Count has a number between 15,000-20,000

The Pentagon (who did release a death toll several months ago---I never saw anything mentioned here on DU, oddly) put the figure between 15,000-18,000

The UN puts the figure around 24,000

[cestpaspossible]

23. Let's see: if I say "A is bad" does that imply that "B is good"?

No.

[Zuni]

25. what?

I am just trying to advance the debate. I want my info to be as accurate as possible.

If you woould rather use possibly erroneous or faulty data without looking at the other sources, feel free

I just posted it because I hadn't seen it yet and thought DU should see it.

Damn.

[cestpaspossible]

29. What is your question?

[fooj]

8. Was Fallujah included in thoses totals?

I am inclined to believe that if the numbers weren't close to 100,000 people (if not more) this administration would be screaming from the rooftops! It's hard to believe that they would have allowed those numbers to stick. Period.

peace.

[Zuni]

14. The Pentagon did release a death toll

and the admin did challenge those numbers (pentagon put the toll between 15000 and 18000)---as did MANY other experts. It is just that very few DUers seemed to read or notice or even attempt to share any of that information. I saw tons of articles challenging those figures, but NEVER on DU. I posted one, from Slate or Salon or something and was flamed to no end for even challenging the now HOLY 100,000 figure.

The Iraq Body Count is in essence, similar to the Pentagon's numbers.

The UN is higher than both, but far lower than what I consider the flawed Lancet study

[geek tragedy]

10. That's still 24000 cases of homicide that Bush should stand trial for.

[Zuni]

15. no argument here

24,000 deaths is 24,000 deaths-----a HUGE number.

I personally would kill myself If I knew I had 24,000 deaths on my conscience

I would love to see Bush tried for everything illegal he has done---from drunk driving to electoral fraud

[fooj]

22. And Fallujah? Did the mass killings in Fallujah ever get counted?

For goodness sakes...we destroyed an entire city! The people couldn't escape, remember? There were pictures of them being shot as they tried to cross the river. So where did all of those people VANISH to? BTW-there may be an array of numbers floating around out there but I take this DIRECTLY from Galloway's testimony (transcript from the US Senate hearings.)

"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths by a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies."

"100,000 people paid with their lives"

peace.

[Zuni]

28. and galloway is more accurate than the UN

and Fallujah was much more confusing than a picture can show.

A friend of mine was stationed at an airbase near Fallujah during the fighting, but wasn't in there. He said many of the guys that did go in there said many of the innocent civilians were armed combatants, even kids were firing AKs from bunkers

[geomon666]

24. We're fighting over numbers now?

Here's a number for you...1.

1 Iraqi death in this war is 1 too many.

[Zuni]

26. no argument here

I am merely trying to find an accurate source

I am fucking sorry for linking to a UN report

[cestpaspossible]

30. What are we supposed to make of your post?

I am fucking sorry for linking to a UN report


What is that supposed to mean to us? Are we supposed to feel guilt, because you are 'fucking sorry' ?? Or what?


Just what is the point of posting such a comment?

[stepnw1f]

33. Good Catch...

[lonestarnot]

27. More lies! Count much higher! STOP THE WAR OF LIES

NOW BASTARDS!

[Spazito]

32. I suspect that, as in the 100,000 number estimates first posited

as being killed by Saddam, we will have to wait for some factual data after the US leaves and the UN can go in and find the grave sites and any other evidence to calculate the true numbers of Iraqi dead due to the invasion of Iraq.

Factual numbers are always important when dealing with serious issues of this kind.

[Vladimir]

35. A few points, although I am not sure what the point is

1) This is about a year old

2) This is based on a survey of households. As with all such surveys, I wonder how exactly this was conducted : who escorted the interviewers around, were there areas which they avoided (1,100 per governorate leaves plenty of scope for avoiding particularly dangerous areas), etc.? Not that I would blame them for not going into certain neighbourhoods mind, but its one of the reasons why I don't pay much attention to opinion polls and surveys conducted in Iraq.

3) The figure is very strange, because the phrase "The number of deaths of civilians and military personnel in Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion" is very ambiguous. do they mean violent deaths, violent and nonviolent, what?