It was published in the Lancet, one of the world's most respected scientific journals, and the British government's chief science adviser called it "robust".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6495753.stm
2007-03-26 14:41:41 · 19 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Your icon tells me alot about you.
You seem to forget that Saddam was killing his own people for no good reason.
Now, put the pot pipe down and stop listening to the filthy rotten lies spewed by John Kerry.
2007-03-26 14:45:16 · answer #1 · answered by wishiwas 4 · 5⤊ 3⤋
The article you that you gave as evidence does not wholly support that claim.
Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet.
Some scientists have subsequently challenged the validity of the Lancet study. Questions have been asked about the survey techniques and the possibility of "mainstreet bias".
Dr Michael Spagat of Royal Holloway London University says that most of those questioned lived on streets more likely than average to witness attacks: "It would appear they were only able to sample a small sliver of the country," he said.
Dr Spagat has previously conducted research with Iraq Body Count, an NGO that counts deaths on the basis of media reports and which has produced estimates far lower than those published in the Lancet.
You should not pick and choose what you like, represent all of the facts, or you appear to be un-creditable and biased.
2007-03-26 21:57:51 · answer #2 · answered by Dina W 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bushes war? in 2002 when the war was popular it was the demmocrats war, Hilary, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, they were all standing and shouting that we must go to war for our countries sake. If you mean that Bush is the only one that has not changed his veiw because it has become unpopular then yes its bushes war. You do know that American soldiers are not responsible for the majority of those deaths. Iranians, Syrians, Libians and the like are killing Iraqis and americans wholesale. I am sure that the liberals will somehow link Bush to them also.
2007-03-26 23:36:35 · answer #3 · answered by Papa Joe 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are many disputes about how many Iraqis have died in the war. It's so hard because many deaths are not accounted for. I also have heard that 655,000 have died, although more accurate estimates say that anywhere from 30,000 to 50,000+ have died. So 655,000 is kind of exaggerating.
2007-03-26 21:48:51 · answer #4 · answered by juliEmAnia 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
obviously cos they started an illegal war and are now trying to do some MORE cover ups to make themselves look less guilty.
lets not forget it's supposedly left wing labour that led England into Iraq....
Dr Kelly, Britain's chief weapons expert and inspector was mysteriously found dead when it emerged the info that lead us to war was fabricated and untrue...
so of course they will dispute figures....over 60 people a day are dying in Iraq, maybe not from USA/ UK troops, but as a direst result of the troops being there....
in UK, the biggest protest ever seen in our country, over a million people took to the streets to p[rotest against the war....yet Blair still lead our country to war, making us the second most hated place in the world! and he did it to "enforce democracy" in Iraq...but where's the democracy in thew UK? 1/60 of out nation took to the streets to protest, and they were just the ones that managed to get to London...millions more spoke out against it...
2007-03-27 08:43:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That number includes all the Iraqi deaths since the end of the Gulf war. From the moment that The U.N. imposed sanctions on Saddam's government. That number also includes hundreds of thousands of people that Saddam had killed.
2007-03-26 21:50:47 · answer #6 · answered by Mother 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Generally the point of dispute is "who killed them."
We "cons" generally contend that the terrorist jihadists did most of it, and some of it was being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that while having bombs go off in markets in Baghdad is a Very Bad Thing, it would be infinitely worse for our own national interest to have them going off in Safeway in Boston, and that if we give the terrorist jihadists a break in Baghdad and bring the "boys" home, we WILL have bombs in Boston, Boise, Billings, and Bakersfield.
2007-03-26 21:47:48 · answer #7 · answered by dBalcer 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They don't believe in the facts about 9/11.
They don't believe in global warning even though proven.
They don't believe in the Constitution...just a piece of paper.
So why should they believe that. Even if proven by a thousand statistitions they will believe only what fearless leader and his lying snakes tell them to believe.
2007-03-26 22:07:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Same reason the Jews made it illegal to question the holocaust. If the true answers were discovered The cons would be exposed as liars as the Jews would be. Suppression of the truth is the only way to keep a lie alive.
2007-03-26 21:47:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
Cons cannot handle the truth.
2007-03-26 21:54:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋