What's this say about the Iraq War?

Question

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

Almost 10% of deaths caused by aerial bombardment--unequivocally killed by US bombardment. Many of the rest are certainly caused by our forces. Almost all of them, even those killed by insurgents and criminals, would still be alive if we had never invaded.

Time to try Bush for war crimes yet?

Wendy--

I love that the right is still fighting Bill Clinton, seven years after his presidency...

And I disagreed with the sanctions too. They were inhumane beyond belief.

Yo, Andy. Nice knee-jerk without reading the article. It's on an opinion website, it doesn't mean the analysis itself is wrong. You could disagree with the methodology of the study, but to just make a dumb post like that is ignorant.

Yo, Andy. Nice knee-jerk without reading the article. It's on an opinion website, it doesn't mean the analysis itself is wrong. You could disagree with the methodology of the study, but to just make a dumb post like that is ignorant.

I'm not sold on the methodology myself...

But it amuses me that all the neo-cons out here think it's just fine if only, say 150,000 are dead (it's certainly higher than that, BTW).

Daniel--

I'm not a fan of Al Qaeda, and I wouldn't want to live in any society that they governed.

But the Bush administration has killed far more people than Al Qaeda could ever dream of.

It's not a question of either George Bush or Osama bin Laden. I despise them both.

Jon-

I don't think this poll is UTTER nonsense, as you imply--I doubt its full authenticity, but I also doubt that it overestimated the death toll by 1000%.

As regards the Lancet study, this is an interesting tidbit from wikipedia:
Although the British Government initially tried to dispute the accuracy of the Lancet survey, the UK Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser later said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust"[43]. The Lancet survey figure is the only statistically accurate casualty figure which is intended to show the total excess deaths (rather than lower limits, provided by surveys of only those deaths reported to authorities or media agencies).

The death tolls that the Bushies have reported are underreported, based only upon formally reported deaths, that a country in chaos like Iraq does not do a good job of reporting.

Also, Jon-

The Iraqi health minister himself is saying 150,000, nearly a year ago other Iraqis say more:

n November 2006 Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari said that since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion between 100,000 and 150,000 people have been killed.[36][37][38][39] The Taipei Times reported: "Al-Shemari said on Thursday [Nov. 9, 2007] that he based his figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals -- though such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total."[36] The Washington Post reported: "As al-Shemari issued the startling new estimate, the head of the Baghdad central morgue said Thursday he was receiving as many as 60 violent death victims each day at his facility alone. Dr. Abdul-Razzaq al-Obaidi said those deaths did not include victims of violence whose bodies were taken to the city's many hospital morgues or those who were removed from attack scenes by relatives and quickly buried according to Muslim custom.

Source: wiki

Kilroy:

You could make the same source comment about EVERY SINGLE WEBSITE IN THE WORLD. Why wikipedia gets hit so hard is beyond me. It's alterable, that doesn't make it worthless. It's great strength is also that its compendous, because it's written by enthusiasts and interesting people.

And Kilroy--I can't stand the "no one predicted the aftermath" argument. Everyone who knew ANYTHING about the Middle East predicted it. It's just that the corporate media and the Bush administration silenced those people before the invasion.

Oh, Kilroy--and finally, he who questions the sources and methodology of others--show me the source for your "Saddam killed 3 million" claim. I'm betting anything you can come up with came out of a propaganda mill somewhere.

Answer 1

The results of the poll "are based on face-to-face interviews amongst a nationally representative sample".

What does a nationally representative sample mean in Iraq? During a civil war?

I don't know if I'd trust the sample.

Answer 2

"Almost all of them, even those killed by insurgents and criminals, would still be alive if we had never invaded."

You do not know this for certain. It is estimated that Saddam murdered nearly 3,000,000 between the Kurdish genocide, the systematic starvation of the southern Shiites, the intentional flooding of the Bedouin plains, and regular raids and assassinations of non-allied citizens. All this happened between 1994 and 2003. So, what else would he had done from 2003 to present?

Trying to say what would or would not have happened if the US had acted differently is a fools argument as no one can predict the future. Few people anticipated the Muslim-radical response we have seen of repeated attacks on markets, shops, resteraunts, schools, funerals, weddings and so on.

Also keep in mind that "aerial bombardment" is a very vague term. One of the insurgencies primary attack methods is the launch of mortar rounds which are propelled into the sky and land miles from their launching point. Is this an aerial bombardment?

My point is that statistics can be bent to imply almost anything. The "gunshot wound" category alone doesn't imply who fired the guns.

I'm not a Bushie, but I think blaming him for everything that goes wrong in the middle east is not sound thinking. Oubviously those who intentionally kill the innocent need to be brought to justice and without a stable governement it is hard for a country to do this. Yes, there were mistakes and oversights and mismanagments from the get go, but we now have a responability to leave Iraq better off.

If you actually walk down a street in Baghdad and talk to the citizens as I have (2004-05) you would be surprised to find out how many still say they are much better off than 4 years ago.

Lastly, this was a poll of 1400 people. 1400 people!? How is this any way representative of anything. That's like walking through San Fransisco, polling everyone you meet and deciding that 98% of Americans are 49er fans.

I can't beleive I wasted this much time on this stupid article.

Also, try to avoid citing Wikipedia as a source (it makes you look ignorant for one); if anyone can add or remove info at will, how can it be trusted as accurate?

Answer 3

Dear friend
The poll you have is unscientific at best and as far as I can find not supported by any legitimate polling sources. Furthermore the Lancet report of 06 was rubbish as well.

Are you to tell me that you blame America for the insurgents blowing up Iraqi citizens? They're only doing it because they know silly Americans will sit in their cyber-cafe sipping a half-calf soy latte flip on their computer and read the "news" and feel like they know something.

Ever been to Kurdish Iraq? They don't get reported on enough by the media, but they love America. I guess after we got rid of the man that slaughtered hundreds of thousands of their people they think we did the right thing.
Hope this was helpful

EDIT: You say it's higher than 150,000. State your sources, all the ones you've given are utter non-sense. Also, I believe that this war was a bad one to get into, but now that we're in we're in for the long-haul. What's your suggestion on what direction we should take with Iraq?

Answer 4

What does this say about the Iraq war? That that British newspaper could do a much better job of polling Iraqi's. As for the war crimes thing, um, maybe we should be trying Al Qaeda and insurgents for war crimes, not the President of the nation trying to stop them from killing innocents. Why such hatred for Bush, when Al Qaeda is the one that's acutally committing murders? That's a pretty lousy side to root for.

Answer 5

It says that you readily accept opinion as fact, and that you are vastly unfamiliar with the concept of data collection.

The 650,000 figure that report cites was discredited by the agency that created it.

Furthermore, they polled 1,499 people. That cannot come close to representing the opinions of millions of Iraqis. You must also ask yourself where they polled these people. I'm willing to bet they polled them in a big city that's seen a lot of fighting, as opposed to within the borders of Kurdistan, which is peaceful.

So, nice try, but you're going to have to do much better than that. Look at the URL, and you'll see very quickly that you're getting an opinion, not facts.

Answer 6

You'll have to try Clinton too.

When asked on US television if she "[Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”"

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/Sanctions.asp

Well,you're giving the dems a free pass.

Answer 7

the link is an opinion Nice proof once again from the left

Answer 8

Nice try

Answer 9

A boloney sandwich is all you get clown! Now beg!

Answer 10

1.2 million dead, these armchair Neocon soldiers could'nt give a f*ck as long as they're at a comfortable distance. It's a disgrace to humanity.