It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraq conflict has killed a MILLION people: Study

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pericle
USA will pay for eveything ultimately. It does not matter how many people died while Saddam was in power, what USA did is still imoral and illegal.

If this world was just and moral, USA would have beed excluded from UN, sanctioned and excluded from the international community. But this is already happening. New members will join UN with veto powers, the US dollar is collapsing, etc.

Slowly USA will feel what Iraqies feel today.






Unless they have a plan, are they in Iraq and Afghanistan for another reason, could there be a higher reason than what they tell us and why do they want to attack Iran too, could it be for more money and power, or even a new empire?
They must have already predicted what you just said, and they might have a plan. oh well.



[edit on 31-1-2008 by _Phoenix_]




posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 





Why do you think these Iraqis were helping us? Because they were glad that Saddam was gone.


You don't think it had anything to do with an overnight skyrocketing unemployment rate? Anyone know what the employment rate is now and has been after this free for all for free market capitalists brought in by the neo-conservatives???

What a disaster...



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   
U.S. out of Iraq now! We don't need no stinkin' oil. We can do without it. Uh, huh. If we leave now all will be nice primroses. No more killing. Yeah.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I would like to say something on this but fear I may Godwin the thread...oops, maybe I just did.
This, if accurate, is sad, and furthermore will lead to fallout like you would not be able to imagine.
This has set a precedent that quite frankly scares me to the bone.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by _Phoenix_
 


One theory that has been put forth is that just prior to the forging of documents that led up to the invasion, the Saudi economy was in shambles while oil prices were low (aprox $20.00 a Barrel)...we all know how the Bushies are in the back pockets of the Saudi's, and so we see pictures of Bandar Bush on Sept. the 13th (may have been the 12th, I can't be certain) out on the balcony of the White house enjoying a nice cigar and probably a brandy too...so the Oil executives er..excuse me, the Bush Administration launches the invasion and soon there after oil rises to nearly $50.00 a Barrel to today's nearly $100.00 per barrel, as oil was taken OFF the market in all the chaos there....Saudi's economy improves (that's putting it mildly), unemployment drops and the political pressure is taken off the Saudi Kingdom, while the rest of OPEC enjoys some of the best price increases to happen in a long while...Halliburton gets the contracts needed and Cheney secures a mammoth solid gold nest egg, the military industrial complex contributors make out well...everyone except the Iraqi citizens and the American people (Bush went into office with a $5 trillion dollar surplus, now it's a $5 trillion dollar deficit....his tax and spending policies and the really really expensive occupation is to partly blame for that)...anyway, long story short, it's the chaos in Iraq that prevents the oil from making it to market creating a shortage and thus the price increases....economics 101 +

Moreover (if you're not quite sure about this) Major General John Batiste testified that people who worked in the Pentagon were threatened with being fired if they were to so much as even ask about postwar planning. **

The really sad thing about all of this, is that following the inauguration in January, these people will ride off into the sunset getting away with the largest heist and fraud in American history... at the very least, even if one doesn't think these guys were in it for their own economic reasons, then one can't deny the massive and gross incompetence. Perhaps it's a little (or a lot) of both?

Our hearts go out to the families of the innocent victims of this.


*sources & recommended reading:

+ Armed Madhouse From Baghdad to New Orleans -- Sordid Secrets & Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild. (2007) Greg Palast. Plume, New York, New York

** The Assault on Reason. (2007) Al Gore. Penguin Press, New York, New York

State of Denial--Bush at War, Part III. (2006). Bob Woodward. Simon & Schuster. New York, New York.

[edit on 31-1-2008 by skyshow]

(I didn't want to post a whole new post for this so as to not take up more space, but for the next post below mine by Stellarx, offering a nice critique of the not so nice one...thanks for that wonderful post and taking the time out...I gave you a star for that!!!


[edit on 31-1-2008 by skyshow]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


The problem with surveys like that is that they don't account for a lot of variables.


In fact they are the VERY SAME surveys and survey methods that the US government frequently uses to justify it's interventions in other countries. Lancet studies were for instance good enough for the US to base it's terror campaign against Serbia on.


3 big problems these surveys can't reconcile are-
A- observed attacks creating mass casualties.


And how is anyone supposed to be able to observe that beside the Iraqi's who are in fact observed? Do you know how many journalist were assassinated by US forces for trying to ask the questions that would make such surveys unnecessary?


B- different areas of Iraq have had different levels of violence(or no violence since '03),


Sure there are different levels of violence but last i checked there were no provinces with no violence by or against the population.


so you can't extrapolate a figure for the entire country based upon what may be true in another.


Then you do not understand survey methodology and just how much trouble the authors have gone to increase the data pool to ensure that people like you not raise ignorant objections.


C- was their family member an insurgent?


So basically Iraqi's are just liars?

An October 11, 2006 Washington Post article[4] reports:


"The survey was conducted between May 20 and July 10 [2006] by eight Iraqi physicians organized through Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. They visited 1,849 randomly selected households that had an average of seven members each. One person in each household was asked about deaths in the 14 months before the invasion and in the period after. The interviewers asked for death certificates 87 percent of the time; when they did, more than 90 percent of households produced certificates."

en.wikipedia.org...


So we can with great confidence say that the sample group was not 'lying' and that any fault would have to be based on either extrapolation or where they were not able to visit. As more dangerous areas would make for a smaller sample i don't see how that would do much but raise the figure...


Originally posted by BlueRaja
I am saying I don't believe those numbers are accurate. I think they are a gross exaggeration.


Personally i don't care what you think when you are objecting to a study compiled by all the normal methods by people who were 'formerly' quite reliable...


Am I saying a lot of folks haven't suffered? No.


Actually a lot of folks suffered and more than a million died during the decade of US led sanctions against Iraq. Why you find it so impossible to believe that a million might die in a war and a four year occupation i do not know.


Whatever the real number of Iraqi casualties, 90% or more are as a result of insurgent/terror attacks, so trying to put the sole blame on the US is bogus too.


And your evidence for that claim is based on what? Didn't the survey make it clear that the majority of violent deaths were due to air attacks? Are the Iranians bombing the Iraqi's or what is happening?


As for progress- the Iraqis had free elections, and have a non-tyrannical government.


Iraq and Iraq's did not have a free elections as the vast majority of candidates were excluded with the man elected being selected by the US authorities; there is good reason why he rarely, if ever, leaves the Green zone. As to the tyrannical that might describe SH and any number of governments the US national security state still sponsors. Why do you think the invasion had anything to do with Hussein's human rights record given how the US supported him with arms and money at the height of his crimes against Iraqi's?


Violence is down 60-90%, 15 or more of the 18 provinces are stable, etc... for starters.


Lets see some of your proof for that before i show you that it just aint so.


Originally posted by BlueRaja
A-It does make a difference if the number is significantly different, which I believe it to be.


Do you believe that it could really be as low as the Iraq body count/Pentagon/Iraqi authorities have claimed it to be?


Numbers like these would require many events where very large casualty rates occurred(much larger than have been observed).


Who would have observed it but the US pilots who do the bombing and the people that got bombed? Why not ask the Pentagon to release a target list and attempt to correlate that to how often it took place in regular housing districts?

[quote[ They'd have to occur in areas of large population densities, as your not gonna have 1 million killed, one at a time.

Why are you not going to kill 1 million 20- 50 at a time with air strikes and cluster munitions or one at a time by hospitals that are closed for lack of electricity and supplies and absence of transport?


B- I'm talking about Iraq. Iraq has 18 provinces, numerous ethnic groups, rural, urban, nomadic peoples, etc.. even in the most violent period, 14 of the 18 provinces were stable.


Nonsense. Why always drag the tribal nonsense into this when the people in Iraq have clearly blamed the US actions for the deaths and general mayhem? What do you mean by 'stable' provinces?


My point is you can't go into an area that has a lot of attacks, take a survey, and then extrapolate figures, when the other 14 provinces don't have violence(or any statistically significant amounts of violence).


Your just not reading.


Lancet:[2] "Only 47 of the sought 50 clusters were included in this analysis. On two occasions, miscommunication resulted in clusters not being visited in Muthanna and Dahuk, and instead being included in other Governorates. In Wassit, insecurity caused the team to choose the next nearest population area, in accordance with the study protocol. Later it was discovered that this second site was actually across the boundary in Baghdad Governorate. These three misattributed clusters were therefore excluded, leaving a final sample of 1849 households in 47 randomly selected clusters."

en.wikipedia.org...



It will throw off your survey accuracy. It would be like taking a survey in the early 80s among male homosexuals and intravenous drug users, about the frequency of HIV/AIDS, and then extrapolating the figures into the entire population. That would've resulted in a statistic saying that 250 million Americans had HIV/AIDS.


But they are not doing that so what are you on about?


Of 629 deaths verified and recorded among a sample of 1,849 households incorporating some 12,801 people at the time of the survey, 13% took place in the 14 months before the invasion and 87% in the 40 months afterwards. "The study population at the beginning of the recall period (January 1, 2002) was calculated to be 11 956, and a total of 1474 births and 629 deaths were reported during the study period."

en.wikipedia.org...



C- it does make a difference if their loved one was an insurgent, as that would increase the likelihood of them having a violent death vs. John Q Public walking down the street minding their business.


So basically they somehow randomly selected the family members of known insurgents? Why would you wish to presume such a ridiculous coincidence?


It's known as a high risk behavior. The only way this statistic would be useful, is each of the 4+ million households had at least one insurgent in their family.


And that's why intelligent statisticians disregard such nonsensical thinking. You have not yet addressed ANY of the specific claims made in either the studies or the polls and you have most certainly not quoted and pointed out any flaw in the methodology. Maybe it would help to compare the cluster sizes and samples to other polls and studies?


Gilbert Burnham replied on October 20, 2006:

"Mr. Moore did not question our methodology, but rather the number of clusters we used to develop a representative sample. Our study used 47 randomly selected clusters of 40 households each. In his critique, Mr. Moore did not note that our survey sample included 12,801 people living in 47 clusters, which is the equivalent to a survey of 3,700 randomly selected individuals. As a comparison, a 3,700-person survey is nearly 3 times larger than the average U.S. political survey that reports a margin of error of +/-3%

en.wikipedia.org...


If you are going to attempt to discredit this data further you should in fact attempt to undermine of statistics as anything else is probably going to fall well short of a credible argument.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Great post Stellar!



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   
I posted this thread a while back which gave much the same indication.
This thread may give some indicators as to why the count is high.

There seems to be two attitudes towards this - the first one is the ostrich approach, and the second is to deny, discredit, question sources and methodology and generally try to muddy the waters.

The denial and attempts to justify deaths by calling them collateral damage sickens me - there is NO justification even for the lowest estimate of the number of deaths.

[edit on 31/1/2008 by budski]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 



I only ment the war mentality. Nothing more, nothing less. Sorry if I have offended you.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by lunchboxjunkie






Thats a joke right? I really really hope it's a joke or some sort of troll.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by lunchboxjunkie
 


Nice. We're not supposed to be fighting them remember, we're there to liberate and protect them. sigh...



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ergoli
 


Even France believed it. Watch the personal attacks hoss.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
My point was that if their loved one was an insurgent, they'd have a much higher likelihood of a violent death, than the average Iraqi.


There has never been a insurgency where the vast majority of the casualties were not suffered by average civilians as the occupiers means of reprisals against a enemy he can not find. To suggest otherwise is to admit that you have no understanding of either history or war.


What about all the Iraqis that didn't view us the way you're trying to portray the insurgents.


I think most recent polls ( and even older one's ) indicates that 90% of Iraiq's blame the violence and problems on the US occupation forces; without the occupation there would be far far fewer deaths.


What about the ones that were killed by their fellow man, or that are helping the US rid their country of these folks because they're tired of the violence?


Iraqi's were tired of violence that was the Iran- Iraq war instigated by the USA, the terror bombing against civilian infrastructure in the first gulf war, the sanctions including a ten year bombing campaign carried out by the USA and the the 2003 invasion and occupation. Sure they are tired of the violence and they know EXACTLY who is responsible for it.


Originally posted by BlueRaja
Just one example that comes to mind is the interpretors we used. Their families couldn't even know that they were helping us, because the insurgents would kill them as well as the interpretor if they found out.


So there is so little security in Iraq that no one is safe, anywhere? You really can not have it both ways so do you believe in the 'stable' 14 provinces or don't you. How can two thousand families be visited without 'insurgents' knowing what they were doing and if so why did they take a chance on the result being 'favourable' to their cause?


Other examples would be neighborhood watches where locals let insurgents know in no uncertain terms that they'd be killed on sight, and in many cases were.


Only because the US responds with artillery and air attacks that is completely indiscriminate and meant to terrorize the public into picking the side of the occupiers for fear of supporting those who resists the people they would also like to see gone.


Insurgents would use their neighborhoods to fire mortars and rockets against US forces, which would result in counterbattery fire(which as you can imagine isn't pleasant if it's your neighborhood). The residents got tired of it, and started killing insurgents whenever they saw them trying to stage attacks.


So terror bombing is good as long as it forces people to turn on their neighbours? I thought the Iraq 'tribes' were fighting each other because they just hate each others guts? What's your story and which one is it? Where have the US located it's bases and would it be possible to properly attack them from anything but residential areas? Why do they site them near build up areas where attackers might be hard to observe?


Another example is the tips lines which have been very effective. Locals would report locations of arms caches, who the insurgents were, their bases of operations/safe houses, etc...


So where is the evidence that it's effective? How much weaponry have been recovered?


Yet another example is the droves of Iraqis who joined the Army and Police forces, even when many of them were being murdered by insurgents, because they wanted a better Iraq for their families.


Knowing how reluctant wealthy people anywhere in the world is to join the armed or police forces when they are putting their life in direct danger it's hard to believe that many Iraq's joined their armed and police forces for any but basic economic one. If you can provide a poll that shows that the Iraqi's in those units would not rather do something less dangerous let's see it.


Al Anbar province today is a prime example. Prior to the surge, it was by far the absolute worst area of Iraq, and had all but been written off by the US and the Iraqis. Now it's one of the safest areas in Iraq.


Well it's also the LARGEST province in Iraq and if they only 'succeeded' in pacifying it towards the end of last year what am i to make of the so called successful occupation?

en.wikipedia.org...

Why was that province called a 'lost cause' as recently as September 2006? Why were only 8% of Baghdad 'secure' a year ago and why is it still only at 75%? If you are still using air strikes against targets in the capitol what kind of control are you really exercising?


January 2008

About 75% of Baghdad's neighborhoods are now secure, a dramatic increase from 8% a year ago when President Bush ordered more troops to the capital, U.S. military figures show.

In February 2007, when additional U.S. forces began arriving, only 37 Baghdad neighborhoods were in the "control" and "retain" categories

www.usatoday.com...


Why has 2007 been the most deadly year for US servicemen and do we really have reliable evidence that violence were receding at the end of the year?

www.washingtonpost.com...

More importantly why are the PTSD rates increasing when things are supposedly getting better? Remember that in a full fledged war it's supposed to range from 12-20 % ( according to standards i have not investigated) yet it's 12% in Iraq? So much for stability?


The PTSD cases often surface long after troops leave combat. The total of mental health cases among war veterans grew by 58%, from 63,767 on June 30, 2006, to 100,580 on June 30, 2007, according to VA records. The mental health issues include PTSD, drug and alcohol dependency, and depression. They involve troops who left the military and sought health care from the VA. Mental health is the second-largest area of illness for which Iraq and Afghanistan veterans seek treatment at VA hospitals and clinics. It follows orthopedic problems and is increasing at a faster rate. The department began responding in 2005 by gradually increasing from 7000 to nearly 11,000 the number of mental health specialists.

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...


www.washingtonpost.com...

What about the fact that Afghanistan seems to be spinning out of control with the highest number of US servicemen killed so far?


US military deaths, suicide bombings and opium production hit record highs in 2007. Taliban militants killed more than 925 Afghan police. But US officials insist things are looking up.

Afghanistan in 2007 saw a record level of violence that killed more than 6,500 people, including 110 US troops the highest ever in Afghanistan and almost 4,500 militants, according to an Associated Press count. Britain lost 41 soldiers, while Canada lost 30. Other nations lost a total of 40.

www.independent.co.uk...



Originally posted by BlueRaja
No-it'd just be Saddam doing it if we weren't there.


If he had US backing he would be able to continue his atrocities against the Iraqi people but at the very least you had a chance to avoid retribution by not being a agitator for change; today it doesn't matter who you as bombs are rather indiscriminate. Fact is Iraq's seem to agree that things are worse now than they were during the bombing and sanctions of the 90's and, as i remember, far worse than they were even during the Iran-Iraq war. .


Once the insurgency is defeated, then Iraqis will have an opportunity they've never had before, to live in peace, without fear of being brutalized by a tryannical government.


The insurgency might be suppressed if sufficient troops can be deployed but it will never be deafeated while the effort continues to drain and further bankrupt the US 'economy'. Iraqi's had the opportunity for more peace and western type prosperity before the US backed SH into power and then allowing him to assassinate the even more progressive ( as by ME standards SH where very progressive when it comes to providing social services) sections of the Baath party. Fact is the US have screwed over Iraqi's since day one and it just happens to have gotten far worse recently. Another question i have is why you think that Iraqi's will be better treated than any of the other native people's of the America's or those of the various US territories ( colonies in normal English)? Will they be lucky enough to end up like the African American residents of the US that has been made political prisoners by the millions? If you want to get right down to it the US regime is screwing over ALL it's people and by looking at current conditions Iraqi's will be lucky to enjoy such relative luxury any year soon.

Stellar


[edit on 31-1-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by noangels
 


Perhaps if you toned down the rhetoric, we might be able to have a reasonable discussion. No meaningful interaction can occur if everyone you disagree with is demonized, with some outrageous hyperbole.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


We don't bomb Iraqi cities, if you're trying to paint a picture of WWII where formations of bombers carpeted urban areas. When you're trying to pull at heart strings with emotional pleas, you really should add context.

As for letting the Iraqi people decide their future- which group of Iraqis are you referring to- the millions that voted in elections, or the thousands with guns trying to impose their will on the rest?



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

I think in 5-20 years time, you wont support the war, and you will see the truth of what is REALLY happening, and why you were there in the first place, your being used, and you don't even know what for.


Nope. I know what I did over there, and I don't have any guilt about it. And I wasn't being used as a tool of Bush, either.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


So only people with whom you disagree would ever give inaccurate numbers to advance their agenda?

I thought we'd already agreed in another thread that there was a distinction between homocide and murder.

As for the value of the life of someone that indescriminately kills their fellow countrymen, Americans, and anyone else that doesn't kowtow to their thuggery- I'm sorry but I have no pity for their demise. They've consciously chosen to be in the liability column of life. I don't view them equally with someone going about their business, causing no harm to others.



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 



Blue:

We get into this conversation weekly here, did you realize that? And with the same people, too. I'd love to do a search and find out how many times I've told these same people that we don't actually go out and target civilian homes and that we aren't carpet bombing cities like WW2.

Too bad they just seem to keep quoting the same websites that skew the facts. This one interview



posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Double post.... on next page.......


[edit on 1/31/2008 by Rockpuck]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join