I think its like over 300,000
2006-11-06 01:26:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by . 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Depending on your view point of the conflict, the number is ever changing.
Those that want to downplay the significance of the deaths put the figure lower than those in the opposite camp.
With a conflict of this scale how can you put definate numbers on it?
I have seen figures relating to 650,00 quoted but these where done by interviewing a sample and then extrapolating the number. Not the most accurate way to measure human death and suffering.
In time when hopefully the military are withdrawn and the country can recover the true figure will be seen.
2006-11-06 09:38:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If it were only one, that would have been one too many. No one knows but all have their totals spun to support their claims. Anyone that thinks there can be an armed conflict,especially where one side HIDES AMONGST THE CIVILIANS, and there not be any civilian deaths, is sadly lacking in grey matter.
2006-11-06 09:48:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by just the facts 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
The true answer to this question is:
"Nobody knows."
For example one of the problems you will have in determining 'civilian' deaths is that all enemy dead are included in the 'civilian' total. (This even includes dead Al Quaeda.)
One of the best analysis I have seen looked at the Iraq Body Count website and noted the statistical impossibilities. (For example - if the numbers were accurate then the male/female/child deaths should roughly equal Iraqi demographics.)
The numbers that people select as 'accurate' tend to be those that favor their agenda.
2006-11-06 09:45:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by MikeGolf 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
All chose to go there, civilian or government contactors..... for experience and big money. It wasn't compulsory like the military. If they died they chose to be there.
2006-11-06 09:32:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by jackson 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush claims 80,000. The Un claims between 450,000 and 650,000. No one knows how many were in fact Terrorist, no one.
2006-11-06 09:28:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by jl_jack09 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
0, because there is no such place as Irak. You are retarded.
2006-11-06 09:27:20
·
answer #7
·
answered by rusty shackleford 3
·
0⤊
4⤋
Do you mean Iraq?
2006-11-06 09:38:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by Nicholas 1
·
1⤊
0⤋