Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Iraq/ Civilian Death Tolls?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
yostsghost Donating Member (22 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-07-06 10:03 AM
Original message
Iraq/ Civilian Death Tolls?
Does anyone have a link with up to date civilian casualties? I know shrub said somewhere between 30 and 40K but for some reason I just don't believe him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-07-06 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. 100k according to a study in the Lancet (google is your friend)
That was months ago, you can add a few thousand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-07-06 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. its a real shame what is happening with this war, we have the media
in bed with the whitehouse. If i want to know something I have to come here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-07-06 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yup, the internet is the last "free" medium. Let's hope it stays that way.
Edited on Tue Mar-07-06 10:20 AM by BlueEyedSon
I highly recommend the documentary "Orwell rolls in his grave" if you are interested in what the heck happened to big media in the USA.

http://www.orwellrollsinhisgrave.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-07-06 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. thanks, i'll do that. without the free and honest press we have nothing
the very reason we are in the mess we are in today. the founding fathers depended on it, never thought it would be breached but it has
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-07-06 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
5. You're as likely to find accurate Katrina casualty numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-07-06 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Let's call him George "Four Digit" Bush
When he's in charge, death tolls never stay in the three digit range.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-07-06 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
6. Iraqbodycount.net says
Edited on Tue Mar-07-06 10:34 AM by Bucky
Iraq Body Count.net says it's between 28864 and 32506--and they've documented every one of them they can. It's the most respected source out there. The higher number of 100,000+, as I understand it, is based on increased mortality rates for other, non combat causes of death that have been going up since Saddam was driven from power. It's not a black-white answer. Do you count people who have had heart attacks as part of the war dead?

For each individual heart attack victim, the answer is going to be no. Cholesterol or old age or heart disease killed that person. But if in the country, overall, the incidents of heart attacks and other stress related illnesses go up after a war and violent occuptation/resistance, how can you not say that the increase is due to the war? Do you count deaths by kidney disease? Deaths by poorly treated diabetes? We're building a LOT of new buildings in Iraq. Do we count workers who die in accidents during new construction work (surely a result of the war), or just those killed when Baathist insurgents blow up the new building?

Putting a hard number--or even a soft guess--on mortality stats in something as gray-strewn as this occupation is impossible. Suffice it to say the war never should have been started. But saying that really doesn't offer a solution for what to do next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-07-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. How about a death due to no clean water?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I covered that.
Me said, "The higher number of 100,000+, as I understand it, is based on increased mortality rates for other, non combat causes of death that have been going up since Saddam was driven from power." It's appalling, of course, but there were water contamination deaths resulting from the sanctions that went on for 12 years--and which the war brought an end to. It's a very complicated story. We should be outraged at the nightmare in Iraq, no matter how we cut the numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-07-06 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. It's not just them having heart attacks.
With the breakdown of infrastructure, it's the EMS being unable to reach people having heart attacks; hospitals being unable to treat people having heart attacks; it's curfews preventing people from being rushed to the hospital while having heart attacks; it's people being in locked-down neighborhoods during terrorist sweeps not being able to leave while having heart attacks.

And multiply 'heart attacks' by any number of other medical crises. You will reach a number far beyond the 100,000 that Lancet came up with a year and a half ago.

But will we ever really know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-08-06 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Exactly my point.
As I said, "The higher number of 100,000+, as I understand it, is based on increased mortality rates for other, non combat causes of death that have been going up since Saddam was driven from power."

But no, we will never know. It's probably not a knowable thing. I think it's more important to work to reverse the conditional there, remove any irritants that are making the situation unfixable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-07-06 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. Hi yostsghost!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC