Given the estimated 665,000 excess Iraqi deaths since the invasion, ARE THE IRAQI PEOPLE BETTER OFF?

Question

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

President Bush and his administration claimed that Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat to the United States. The country had weapons of mass destruction and could use them against America or give them to terrorist groups. The White House talked about mushroom clouds. As we know now, neither nuclear weapons nor poison gas nor germ weapons existed or were being built. There was no immediate threat. Rather than admit they made a mistake, the Administration has argued that Saddam was a brutal dictator and that the Iraqi people are better off without him.

Given an estimated 665,000 Iraqi deaths since the invasion, ARE THE IRAQI PEOPLE BETTER OFF?

Answer 1

Remember Saddam killed over a million

Plus you fail to mention that the number is very loose with only 50,000 to file in the "war deaths"

Vast majority of car bombs and such

Good try at spinning but you failed

I'm amazed you fail to realize that Britian, France, Russia and our intelligence all said they had weapons. Much speuclation that they were moved to Syria. Who is tied in to Iran who is close friends with North Korea. Brain surgery? No pretty much common sense. But I know thats asking a lot from a liberal.

Also more common sense says that Saddam would want to keep pace with North Korea and Iran in the "who has more weapons" race. Common sense again though I apolagize

Answer 2

This number is wild speculation at best. Probably off by a factor of 10. Most Iraqi civillian deaths have been inflicted by other Arabs. I don't know (or much care) about the Iraqis, but I have no doubt that WE are better off.

Answer 3

They used a methodology known as "cluster sampling," which can be valid if using real data and not anecdotal reporting. Most of the original Lancet clusters reported no deaths at all, with the journal admitting, "two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Fallujah." Fallujah? Hello?

Fallujah at the time just happened to be a major concentration of pro-Saddam and anti-American sentiment, the home base for the homicide bombers and terrorist "resistance" before the U.S. Army and Marines cleared out that nest of thugs.

"They're almost certainly way too high," Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said of the new numbers, noting the results were released just before another U.S. election. "This is not analysis, this is politics."
-- From the editorial page of Investor's Business Daily: Body Count Or October Surprise?


In this FoxNews video report the author of the Lancet report freely admits that its release was timed to affect the elections, "out of concern for the humanitarian issues."

And what might that mean? In this video, Lancet editor Richard Horton appears at an "antiwar" rally railing against the "lying" "axis of Anglo-American imperialists" who have created a "mountain of violence and torture" preferring "global death" and the "killing of children instead of building hospitals," all of which has "shattered the human family." Yeah, no political agenda there. (via Little Green Footballs).

More in this BBC analysis by Paul Reynolds: Huge gaps in Iraq death estimates. And at Pajamas Media: J'accuse: Iraq the Model responds to the Lancet Lies.

Answer 4

Given the fact that this number is at best a fairy tale lib-tards tell each other so as to feel good about their abysmally pathetic lives what does it matter what the Iraqi people think?

BUT if you really want to know, consider the following:

Attacks on Iraqi Civilians for Oct. so far: http://icasualties.org/oif/Iraqi.aspx

"Responding to the Lancet lies..."

Among the things I cannot accept is exploiting the suffering of people to make gains that are not the least related to easing the suffering of those people. I’m talking here about those researchers who used the transparency and open doors of the new Iraq to come and count the drops of blood we shed.

Human flesh is abundant and all they have to do is call this hospital or that office to get the count of casualties, even more they can knock on doors and ask us one by one and we would answer because we’ve got nothing to be ashamed of.

We believe in what we’re struggling for and we are proud of our sacrifices.

I wonder if that research team was willing to go to North Korea or Libya and I think they wouldn’t have the guts to dare ask Saddam to let them in and investigate deaths under his regime. (there is more): http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2006/10/responding-to-lancet-lies.html

Answer 5

If they died free, then yes. What does freedom mean to you?

By the way, I do not acknowledge that report as being credible, just available. Scientists hurt the dairy industry by saying eggs were high in cholesterol for years then reversed their decision. The same food pyramid medical researchers used for prescribing the American diet was also the same pyramid farmers used for fattening animals for slaughter- only recently did that information change. Educated people make mistakes too.

Answer 6

They have the power to stablize their government and be free. Under Saddam they had no future and very little to look forward to. The loss of lives comes mostly from sectarian violence which was there before but not reported. Those loyal to Saddam were given a free hand to abuse and murder at will with the support of the government. Once again a closet liberal is trying to post twisted facts. Well guess what most people are smart enought to know facts from your version of fiction.

Answer 7

655,000 is the discern using the comparable standards used via the U. S. government to choose the dying toll in Darfur. it quite is for Iraq on my own, and 601,000 of those deaths are termed 'violent deaths', something being from disease, loss of sparkling water, and so on. Saddam basically killed 250,000. whilst will the marines invade Washington, and arrest Bush.

Answer 8

You are aware of the sample size used to extrapolate that huge number? 180

You are also aware that the professor is widely known as a pacifist, antiwar activist?

You are also aware that he put the report out now for its greatest impact on the election?

You also are aware that apparently you are as full of it as the kindly lying professor.

Answer 9

You've already answered your question. Clearly, the Iraqi people are not better off, and 16 US government agencies recently agreed that our actions in Iraq have increased the number and ferver of those who wish to commit terrorist actions towards the US.

The 665K number is very likely higher than reality- but it's still a disgustingly large number.

Quite the blunder, huh? Most of the neoCons who thought that bringing 'freedom' to Iraq have recanted their opinions

Answer 10

No it does not seem that they are better off at the moment. They have a lot more visitors (terrorists) flocking to their country now though.