Die Die Die My Darlin...

As of October 6th 2006 a report says over 655,000 Iraqis have died due to war...

"Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq." (Watch as the study's startling results are revealed -- 1:55 )

The survey, being published online by British medical journal The Lancet, gives a far higher number of deaths in Iraq than other organizations. (Read the full report -- pdf)

The report's release came as nearly four dozen Baghdad civilians became casualties in another day of bombs and gunfire. (Full story)

President Bush slammed the report Wednesday during a news conference in the White House Rose Garden. "I don't consider it a credible report. Neither does Gen. (George) Casey," he said, referring to the top ranking U.S. military official in Iraq, "and neither do Iraqi officials."

cnn.com

what number dead is acceptable?

[edit on 11-11-2008 by open_eyeballs]

reply to post by open_eyeballs



Why are you posting an article that was from 2006? If you wanted an answer to your question, maybe you should have posted some fresh numbers. And what kind of question is "what number dead acceptable"? The correct answer to this of course would be ZERO DEAD, but I realize that we are in an imperfect world, and deaths from war are inevitable. If you are going to post a question like this, at least get the right numbers, and current information.....

Why are you posting an article that was from 2006?

i actually was looking for an estimated number on deaths because of war since 1900 and this was the first article that came up on google.

I was kind of shocked at the toll.

If you wanted an answer to your question, maybe you should have posted some fresh numbers

jumping to conclusions are we? I smell insecurity... hmmm

The question was rhetorical. Do you understand what rhetorical means?

And what kind of question is "what number dead acceptable"?

A good one actually.

at least get the right numbers, and current information.....

first. do you ave the exact right numbers? have you counted every dead body?

or..maybe, just maybe...

it is not the point of the exact number or what year it came from...maybe the point is: it is just too much.

And maybe I posted it to give some people a clue as to how many dead people have resulted from this conflict.

Is this acceptable to you or should I consult with your greatness first?

Fresh numbers means just that......searching out the most recent information that one can find.

What conclusion did I jump to?......the one where you made some half baked amateur attempt at some historical data?

No, I do not have the exact numbers.......you, being the one asking the question should be concerned with that

If you wanted to give people a clue as to how many people have died from this conflict, you could have cited some sources, so maybe they could go and look for themselves.

To be honest with you, the war and it's numbers of casualties have just become second rate news these days, so I can see you wanting to bring it back to the forefront, but your methods and lack of research (say some backing material) are second rate. If one is to pose a rhetorical question such as what you did, one should provide up to date data links for the person answering to be able to educate or bring themselves up to speed on the subject prior to answering said question.

Yes, at the end you did pose a rhetorical question, and I answered.......zero dead.

Anyway, no......I would not have you consult with me, thanks anyway.......