Her number appears to come from a tally taken from a publication known as THE LANCET, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Worsening_humanitarian_crisis
However this is counting what appears to be ALL Iraqi deaths from lawlessness, healthcare, including insurgents, military, and civilians. So it can be argued how much of this would have occured anyway given a war in theatre or not.
I believe a better total comes from the site here
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
This lists the civilian death toll due to military intervention in Iraq. Granted that number is also unacceptable, but compared to Rosies propaganda of inflating the numbers, its not as bad.
2007-05-31 03:03:42 · 11 answers · asked by Dylan m 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
It's the Lancet study. If one does the math, it would require 743 deaths per day to achieve that total during the timeframe of the study. That is 743 deaths over and above "normal" deaths that are attributable to the war in Iraq.
I have never seen a single report of that many deaths in one day since the actual war ended. It would seem that realistic thinking would lead one to believe that the number is highly suspect, at best.
2007-05-31 03:26:52 · answer #1 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The number indeed comes from the Lancet study and represents the "excess" deaths that could be attributed to the war, over and above those who likely would have died had the invasion not occurred. Of the 655,000, approximately 600,000 are the result of violent death, with the rest being the result of disease and other causes. Based on the 45 months of the study, from March, 2003, through September, 2006, that translates to slightly less than 500 violent deaths per day, not the 743 figure mentioned by another answerer.
The Iraq Body Count number is considerably lower, but is based only on reported deaths. The Lancet's number is based on standard epidemiological techniques for assessing death tolls, the same techniques that have been used in previous conflicts where no one questioned the numbers.
The number Rosie quotes is not "her" number, but those of a prestigious British medical journal. I find it interesting that you question not only the Lancet's number, but also that of Iraq Body Count. Unwilling to accept the havoc that has been unleashed on Iraq, are we?
2007-06-01 11:58:55 · answer #2 · answered by Jeffrey S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Remember, Rosie is part of the and being used a a pawn of the ANTI-AMERICAN George Soros Hate America Machine. Maybe if she did some research and stopped listening to the B.S. That Moveon.org, NY TIMES, CNN, Bill Maher, to name a few speew, she would regain her patroitism.
2007-05-31 04:25:35 · answer #3 · answered by dez604 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it wasn't this Rosie. I haven't posted or answered any questions about the Iraqi death toll.
2007-05-31 03:39:27 · answer #4 · answered by Beau Brummell 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
today's no longer a stable day to ask this question, it truly is disrespectful. Im no longer grieving for all and sundry who dances in the streets after their chief Bin encumbered and his cult murdered 3000 human beings on on the present time, precisely 10 years in the past. enable them to grieve their own deaths.
2016-10-09 04:43:48 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rosie, like all the other super liberal Democrats always use the PFA system for their facts and figures....
PFA, by the way, means PULL FROM AIR............
2007-05-31 03:59:22 · answer #6 · answered by donrentf 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She got the number confused with her daily Twinkie intake.
2007-05-31 03:07:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
i wonder if they number include the 6 i wacked when i was there?
2007-05-31 03:34:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
She got it from the lost brain cells that she use to have.
2007-05-31 03:10:26 · answer #9 · answered by Lynn M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
She got it from the tooth fairy
2007-05-31 03:08:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋