an agency is reporting that the war is responsible for 655,000 Iraqi deaths. Is this accurate or astronomically incorrect?
2006-10-11 10:39:58 · 22 answers · asked by Eric 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
here is the source, i think it is wildly inflated too. and of course it is coming from a liberal anitwar, bush bashing "news" agency. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/index.html
2006-10-11 10:48:39 · update #1
just before the last presidential election there was another such scam- reporting 100 000 dead iraqui civilians in the war. That one was exposed as a total fraud- although it was a piece of research done by some scientists it was so biased and twisted that it was completely fake.
If I remember correctly, they took some hearsay data from the most "hot" areas and multiplied it by the whole territory.
Sources of error, assuming no one was lying:
one casualty is reported several times
the data is extrapolated into areas which saw no combat whatsoever.
I think this "news" will be exposed as a total fake in a few days. IMO this is another attempt to influence the election. Although IMO they jumped the gun- too early.
As a comparison. The Iraq-Iran war lasted 9 years of extremely heavy fighting, with the use of poison gas on everyday basis. The casualty toll was 1 milion.
2006-10-11 10:48:52 · answer #1 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Below is the link to a NY Times article that also reports a similar number of deaths. But the article does point out that the figure is an estimate and the actual deaths that have occurred are between a little over 400,000 to almost 800,000. The US government of course is disputing those figures, but since the military won't release any figures of their own, then we can only go by the studies that are done. Whatever the truth is about the actual number of deaths, they're still a tragedy, and are a result of our failed mission in that country. The world might be a better place with Saddam's regime now history, but what have we replaced in his absence? A terrorist state, a civil war with no end in sight? Those innocent people, and the country of Iraq didn't deserve this, and history isn't going to judge our actions well.
2006-10-11 18:55:27 · answer #2 · answered by blueangel 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It may well be accurate. You recall that thousands were killed in the first days of this illegal war. I'm not too concerned about what Bush thinks or doesn't think about the figure, because he doesn't care one way or another. He is also a master at conjuring up crocodile tears.I
If you go to Google, you can type in: "Find number of Iraqis killed in Fallujah" and you will find numerous estimates for example (but just for that province) . Actually I don't believe anyone really knows. They bury their dead almost immediately.Many don't trust the US and don't report the deaths because they don't want to fill out the paperwork. There's no forensic work being done. People are just killed. And they are just buried; that is if they haven't been blown apart by some bomb. And we know US troops aren't that concerned about putting bodies back together.
We recall Over 100,00 killed during Gulf War. There were probably many more.
So yes, I believe the figure.The US has a habit of skewing figures to suit whatever is expedient.
So yes, I believe
2006-10-11 18:18:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It isn't some news agency reporting this, it was a study by a joint Oxford University - Lancent Journal team, that came up with an estimated number of lives lost raging between 300,000 to 600,000.
Personally, i trust Oxford and the Lancent over some idiot President and Fox News
2006-10-11 17:53:47 · answer #4 · answered by thomas p 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Greetings!
Many people will believe this number to be false given the information on casualties released by our government.
Sorry, I must have been visiting Mars that day our government decided to start being honest.
Good Luck
2006-10-11 17:44:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm suspicious. You can't do that kind of count based on interviews.
All they did was go door to door, ask how many had perished, and extrapolated that data to all of Iraq.
If their sampling technique wasn't well thought out, there is no way that is an accurate count. If the sampling was done perfectly...I'm scared!
2006-10-11 17:42:37 · answer #6 · answered by powhound 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The number is b s. They say they went door-to-door to get the number. How accurate is it really going to be. I can pull a number out of my butt too. They also say that 70% of that number was by terrorists.
2006-10-11 21:25:52 · answer #7 · answered by Jeff F 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Remember pre government days when most of one city got bombed to prevent one group from voting.
2006-10-11 18:01:59 · answer #8 · answered by Mister2-15-2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I was shocked to read this. It would seem to me that bad as it was under the old regime, at least more people would have been alive today, had American troops staid at home!
2006-10-11 17:43:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's bull.
Most Iraqis killed in Iraq have been killed by terrorists from Iran & Syria.
Americans have died from being careful not to injure Iraq civilians. (That's what makes this lie so dispictable.)
2006-10-11 17:45:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋