Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

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 (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 11:46 AM
Original message
UN report finds Iraqi War dead to be 24,000 to 29,000
Edited on Sun Jun-05-05 12:13 PM by 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



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
1. It doesn't look like this includes the entire war
from start to finish. That link is very vague.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #1
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. I meant the link doesn't include all the data
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cestpaspossible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #11
31. This is about spin, not truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. Gee...I guess the War is Ok then
God Help America!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
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!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. "being a Neo-Con"?
I didn't say that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #16
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
efhmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
3. How can they know for sure?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
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>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. This is a survey, this is not actual numbers.
Edited on Sun Jun-05-05 11:53 AM by merh


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







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
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:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cestpaspossible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cestpaspossible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. Let's see: if I say "A is bad" does that imply that "B is good"?
No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #23
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cestpaspossible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. What is your question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
10. That's still 24000 cases of homicide that Bush should stand trial for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #22
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geomon666 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
24. We're fighting over numbers now?
Here's a number for you...1.

1 Iraqi death in this war is 1 too many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zuni Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. no argument here
I am merely trying to find an accurate source

I am fucking sorry for linking to a UN report
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cestpaspossible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #26
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?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Good Catch...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
27. More lies! Count much higher! STOP THE WAR OF LIES
NOW BASTARDS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vladimir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-05-05 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
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?
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 Sat Oct 25th 2014, 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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