DSLRUsers.com

50,000 as reported by a high up General DEAD ! in Iraq.
Or
650,000 reported by a so called reputable Professor schooled at John Hopkins Uni

??????

George & John don't believe in the 2nd

What is to become of us all I wonder

Mic

Iraq will (or is) becoming another Vietnam. The Americans had over 50,000 dead in that conflict and they are well on the way is this latest debacle - when will they wake up, but more importantly, when will

I have trouble with the higher number ... I don't know, but what sort of numbers were being claimed as the count of the victims of Sadam's reign? Maybe that can give us a frame of reference.

Either figure is unacceptable. I am astonished that political leaders make such a mess of stuff, with such massive cost in terms of human suffering.


Edit - Oh yeah, who do we believe? No-one.

I think the second figure is crap. They interviewed 'X' number of Iraqi families to find out how many members of their family had been died (as a result of violence) then interpolated that number to the whole Iraqi population and came up with 'Z'. Hardly good science.

As for pulling out of Iraq, it you want bigger troubles to occur in the MIddle East, then pulling out will do just that. It would be leaving Iraq a vaccuum of a country to be filled by Extremists from Iran, making a huge Iranian State, which would cause a LOT pf problems.

Also, leaving Iraq would be seen as the West (not just the USA) as failing to have the determination to carry out it's will in the MIddle East. There is already a feeling of this following Beirut, Iranian Hostage Crisis and the 1990's Gulf war. So pulling out would further compound the feeling that the West is impotent and unwilling to do anything that costs lifes. This will lead to further troubles.

Theres an awful lot of behind the scenes politics involved, and I think the US has determined this, and is willing to stay in Iraq until the job is done. That is why G Dubbya Bush is already heading down the 'diplomatic' path with Korea. The US should be able to fight 2 major global conflicts as well as several minor 'bush' wars at the one time, but they are majorly over extended in the Middle East.

Like the comment goes; 'May you live in interesting times'.

Raskill wrote:I think the second figure is crap. They interviewed 'X' number of Iraqi families to find out how many members of their family had been died (as a result of violence) then interpolated that number to the whole Iraqi population and came up with 'Z'. Hardly good science.

Actually it is standard practice in statistics.

The lower figure relies on actual reported deaths. How many bodies are there in the morgues - or as the general said "those killed with rifles and car bombs".

The number from Johns Hopkins come from interviewing a sample of the population, and scaling the numbers up to the general population. This is simply basic statistics, used everywhere including polling for political parties and market research.

It is likely to be more accurate than the military figures as you catch all deaths. It is more systematic when you go out on the ground and ask how many people have died, rather than waiting at military HQ for people to come and report the number of dead.

The deaths also include those who died because the normal health services that were functioning under Saddam have been significantly disturbed.

Mitchell wrote:Actually it is standard practice in statistics.

There in lies the problem.

I'd be interested to read their methodology. If you ask people in Baghdad they will have suffered greater loss that than someone from Kifri, Babylon or any other smaller city.

Statistics are easily skewed by an inappropriate population.

Raskill wrote:

Mitchell wrote:Actually it is standard practice in statistics.

There in lies the problem.

I actually think that there in lies the strength. This is a study that follows standard epidemiological practice and it comes up with worryingly high numbers. It has been peer reviewed and published in a reputable medical journal.

Raskill wrote:I'd be interested to read their methodology. If you ask people in Baghdad they will have suffered greater loss that than someone from Kifri, Babylon or any other smaller city.

And the methodology takes these factors into account. You can read it at http://www.thelancet.com/. You have to register but it is free.

The worst response is that of Howard and Bush - to immediately not believe it because the numbers are too high. It is fine to be critical, but they need to attack the methods, not the results.

Raskill wrote:Like the comment goes; 'May you live in interesting times'.

It isn't actually a comment, it is a Chinese curse. And a pretty damn scary one at that.

gstark wrote:I have trouble with the higher number ... I don't know, but what sort of numbers were being claimed as the count of the victims of Sadam's reign? Maybe that can give us a frame of reference.

Gary, unfortunately, I couldn't find a reference, but I do recall reading that something like 500,000 died as a result of the US's use of cluster bombs and warheads with depleted uranium. Doesn't answer your question directly, but perhaps gives an idea that numbers can get very high (unfortunately).

P

I would like to read: 0 death for war!
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

HAs anyone been recently to Iraq or Afghanistan? (or Lebanon?)
If yes, what was or what is your feeling?
I worked for the Red Cross and for Emergency http://www.emergency.it/index2.php?ln=En

Did anyone care of what was going on in Iraq (human rights) before the war?
Now instead we are all Mother Teresa! And we are saying: Saddam was a bloody cruel man!
C'mon, be onest and no more lies! Untill yesterday Saddam was so far for anyone.

They claimed they had documents that "proved" Saddam Hussein was about to develop nuclear weapons.
Still waiting, I'm still f@#%ing waiting.

They said it was absolutely certain that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger.
UN inspectors......but that's History and no one now recall or remember.

On March 20, 2003, "The Aviation" (in spite of negative feedback from the United Nations and world opinion) began extensive bombing of Iraq, declaring the objective of toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime and the dictator’s capture. Hussein was accused of producing and stockpiling arms of mass destruction and maintaining ties with terrorist organizations.
Moreover, the international coalition’s use of bullets with depleted uranium during the Gulf War exponentially increased the occurrence of tumours.
How do call this, part of the Human Rights? Anti Arms of Mass destruction?

Do you really belive thay do for freedom or for " Anti Terrorism"?
I don't.
Death Does Not Justify Death!

They justify petrol rising price in different way, pipe broken etc etc etc but they are lying we are paying back just the cost of a Silly War!

Fab

As well as you know in any war, any war, 90% of the victims are Civilians and not soldiers!

If you want have a look of this documentary http://www.emergency.it/menu.php?A=003&SA=016&P=042&ln=En

Edit:
And don't think I'm a "Peace and Love" one, I used to be a soldier (Parachute Brigade) and I've been to Kosovo.

The question is if 1 o 100.000 people are dead, just as a number or statistics, or as death?
Because if you are thinking just about numbers I'll suggest you a good Psych and a good heart surgeon because you heart is became as Hard as a Stone and insesitive!

Any number more than 0 is a Murder!

Regards
Fabrizio

Fab
When the president of the USA gave the go ahead for the invasion of Iraq then he doomed many thousands of people to death. How the hell does he sleep with that?

Jecko, so many people try to explain their point of view using soft, democratic language. You have summed up what, at least I have thought, in straight, unambiguous words. This is not part of the war on terror, this is not about WMDs, this is about something much bigger than that.

P

Matt. K wrote:Fab
When the president of the USA gave the go ahead for the invasion of Iraq then he doomed many thousands of people to death. How the hell does he sleep with that?

I don't know!
Really don't know.
I would like to be a Neuron in is brain!
He doomed a lot of people, his own blood, our people!

.....I've seen things you people wouldn't believe..... Blade Runner

Reschsmooth wrote:Jecko, so many people try to explain their point of view using soft, democratic language. You have summed up what, at least I have thought, in straight, unambiguous words. This is not part of the war on terror, this is not about WMDs, this is about something much bigger than that.

P

(Unfortunately) This is something much bigger than me!

Mate, unfortunately, we can only see, feel and read about the repurcussions of this all. It seems that nothing we can do will change a thing.

The sad thing is, I make my living out of basically exploiting capitalism which is fundamentally behind this whole war.

P

Reschsmooth wrote:Mate, unfortunately, we can only see, feel and read about the repurcussions of this all. It seems that nothing we can do will change a thing.

The sad thing is, I make my living out of basically exploiting capitalism which is fundamentally behind this whole war.

P

Thank you very much, to share your opinion with us!

I got positive thinking and I think (hope) one day something will change.
But that day will be always too late, how many people (dead) they want on the field to think ....ok, now is enough?
It is inside and through us..... we can make the difference!

The thinking brain is a working brain but doesn't mean that a working brain is a thinkin one.