Do you believe the recent estimate that 650,000 Iraqis have been killed in President Bush's War?

Question

The estimate was released yesterday that 650,000 Iraqis have been killed in the war President Bush started to save them. Do you believe that estimate, do you think its high or perhaps even low? And those who voted for President Bush, how do you cope with the guilt and moral responsibility for so much death?

Answer 1

I believe the study is somewhat accurate. It was performed just how all mortality studies are performed in third world nations and it gave a result. In 92% of cases Iraqis were even able to produce death certificates in the study.

The authors didn't have control of when it was published. The authors submitted this to lancet months ago and it was Lancet's idea to publish it just before elections.

The study defined a range 400,000 to 950,000 people died based on worse and best case of their data. The 650,000 is the most likely number based on their data.

This is a real study, and should be taken seriously.

Answer 2

Read the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061011/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_death_toll

The key is:

"The September numbers come as a controversial new study contends that nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died in the three-year-old conflict in Iraq — more than 10 times higher than other independent estimates of the toll.

The study, published Thursday on the Web site of The Lancet, a medical journal, was based on a survey of households in Iraq, not a body count, and quickly raised skepticism among some Iraq experts."

So the people who are quoted in the Lancet talked to people rather then actually count the bodies. If so many people are dead where did the bodies go? Why can't the Iraqi government account for the corpses. In tribal societies people tend to live near family. So they go to every house and hear 100 families say they lost an uncle. The Lancet counts that as 100 deaths, but they are all related, it could be 10 deaths, or less. It is a faulty study, hence the reason it is "controversial".

Answer 3

How can it be accurate when all they did was interview a few thousand Iraqis and multiply their results by a number picked out of thin air? The actual body count, plus other LEGITIMATE data puts the death toll at 50,000. If given the choice which data should be believed? Why should a 'Bush voter' have any guilt if the Iraqis are being killed by other Iraqis or imported suicidal terrorists? It's a sad day when Americans are more on the side of evil than their own country just because they happen to be anti-Bush.

Answer 4

Yes. Maybe even more, if you count in the indirect causes of deaths that generated from the war. And what the hell is the point of the re-construction Bush is claiming to be doing? Isn't that a little bit like murder the innocent suspects, then planting flowers on their graves as a kind act after you found out that, oh dear, you didn't manage to catch The One?! I thought the president of the United States should have better things to do, better propagandas to promote other than killing thousands of Iraqis (innocent women and babies too mind you) in an attempt to affirm their accusation of Iraq hiding a poison bomb?

Answer 5

The survey was conducted between May 20 and July 10 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.

Now, you tell me exactly how accurate this number is..

Answer 6

I think the number seems kind of high. There should be no guilt, for the Iraqi's are responsible for the majority of that death. Americans gave the country a chance to be free, and many idiots there do not want that and are willing to kill innocent people for that end. This should tell you the kind of people Bush had to contend with when making the decision to attack. He did the right thing. It is too bad anybody had to die to rid the world of Saddam and his henchmen. It is equally bad that ignorant people in America are using these Iraqi's deaths as political propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself!

Answer 7

If an opportunist coward like Kerry have been elected or if Gore develop into waiting to thieve the election, those spineless socialist could have talked enormous and then extra "hard communicate yet on the tip of the day, could by no potential, ever have defended america of a. we'd have had yet another 911 attack on US soil, maximum possibly plenty worse than 911, in the experience that your ideology have been in capacity (corrupt socialists); why does no longer terrorists attack back, they, all of us comprehend you may defer to the UN, your one-international-order moist dream. we are meant to have faith you and your socialist anarchists, are genius's given which you detrimental something Bush did or stood for (proper or incorrect) & you hit the lottery because of the fact Iraq has been complicated? You stood in horror while united statesa. pulled jointly after 911 & you have been in marvel while the US took down the Taliban; because of the fact the only concern you will desire to furnish is corrupt government and socialism, going detrimental and hoping for undesirable issues to take place to america of a, is your in easy terms characteristic. the respond to the main suitable killer of humanity is your chief Papa Stalin, who murdered extra effective than Hitler. Saddam murdered Iraqi little ones, Bush has no longer murdered little ones. playstation no one thinks you like Suddam back yet all of us comprehend you section with each enemy of america of a.

Answer 8

Well... to answer you last question first, my vote for Bush does not some how cause guilt or remorse over the deaths of Iraqis, to make that assumption simply points out the idiocy and true intent behind your question.

The estimate of Iraqi deaths included all deaths over the period of the war whether they were related to combat or not... so uncle Joe Iraqi who had a heart attack last week was included in the estimate, as well as all deaths by natural causes. So the estimate, offered by a liberally biased company, is high. Actual combat or war related deaths or deaths that would not have occurred if it were not for hostile actions is actually in the low 40,000 range.

As a military officer I have been in a position to see it first hand so don't give me any bull about some egghead report designed solely to detract from the truth.

Also the data was derived from a poll, not a count so three people telling the polster of the same death of one person would be counted as three deaths. Nice "study".

Same liberal crap, different day.

Answer 9

i am an avowed liberal.but i am also fair.there must be a reason why the government has refused to give us these figures year after year.it is hard to swallow.i would accept these figures purely based on the fact that the government has been evasive.now we have 650,000 reasons to pull out .think about this-that 9 year old kid we are throwing candy to today.has a relative amongst the dead.by tradition,he has to avenge their death.what a way to win hearts and minds

Answer 10

There is no reason to believe that the number is NOT correct, plus or minus a few thousand. The Bush Administration would like us to believe we have made a huge difference, and we have...all for the worse. We have all but bankrupted this nation for what?...to watch Muslim kill Muslim. If we had left them alone, they would have done it anyway, but we now add our own precious lives to the pot..very smart thinking. We have mangaged to destablize a countries ability to govern, opened the oil fields up to terrorists and their support. We are in so deep we cannot get out...brilliant move on our part, don't you think?