 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Son of a VET
Master Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 791
Location: TN
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:48 pm Post subject: Study puts civilian toll in Iraq at over 100,000 |
 |
|
Lets don't talk about all the GOOD. 
| Quote: | PARIS More than 100,000 civilians have probably died as direct or indirect consequences of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to a study by a research team at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
.
The report was published on the Internet by The Lancet, the British medical journal. The figure is far higher than previous mortality estimates. Editors of the journal decided not to wait for The Lancet's normal publication date next week, but instead to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the U.S. presidential election.
.
The finding is certain to generate intense controversy, since the Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the conflict, and independent groups have put the number at most in the tens of thousands.
.
In the study, teams of researchers fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 previously selected locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion.
.
Although the paper's authors acknowledge that thorough data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect are extensive: Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it. Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and chronic diseases. Afterward, violent death was far ahead of all other causes.
.
"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins study team. He said the team had excluded deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, since that city was the site of unusually intense violence.
.
In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in the family since the conflict started in March 2003. They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by coalition forces - mostly airstrikes - and most of the reported deaths were of women and children.
.
The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers found.
.
"The fact that more than half of the deaths caused by the occupation forces were women and children is a cause for concern," the authors wrote.
.
The team included researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies as well as doctors from Al Mustansiriya University Medical School in Baghdad.
.
There is bound to be skepticism about the estimate of 100,000 excess deaths, which translates into an average of 166 excess deaths a day since the invasion. But some were not surprised.
.
"I am emotionally shocked, but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," said Scott Lipscomb, an associate professor at Northwestern University.
.
Lipscomb works on a Web site called www.iraqbodycount.net. That project, which collates only media-reported deaths, currently puts the death toll at just under 17,000. "We've always maintained that the actual count must be much higher," Lipscomb said.
.
The researchers were highly technical in their selection of interview sites and data analysis, although interview locations were limited somewhat by the researchers' decision to cut down driving time when statistically possible to minimize risk to the interviewers.
.
Although the teams relied primarily on interviews with local residents, they also asked to see at least two death certificates at the end of interviews in each area, to try to ensure that people had remembered and responded honestly. The research team decided that asking for death certificates in each case, during the interviews, might cause hostility and could put the research team in danger.
.
Some of those killed may have been insurgents rather than civilians, the authors noted. Also, the rise in mortality included a rise in murders and some deaths attributable to the deterioration of medical care.
.
"But the majority of excess mortality is clearly due to violence," Burnham said.
.
The paper is studied and scientific, reserving judgment on the politics of the Iraq conflict. But in an accompanying editorial, Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, is acerbic and to the point about its message.
.
"From a purely public health perspective it is clear that whatever planning did take place was grievously in error," Horton wrote. "The invasion of Iraq, the displacement of a cruel dictator and the attempt to impose a liberal democracy by force have, by themselves, been insufficient to bring peace and security to the civilian population. Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths, not fewer."
.
.
Britain to examine study
.
The British foreign secretary, Jack Straw said Friday that his government would study the Lancet report "in a very serious way," Agence France-Presse reported from London.
.
"This is a very high estimate, indeed," Straw said on BBC radio. "Because it's in The Lancet, it is obviously something we have to look at in a very serious way," he said.
.
Straw was speaking from Rome, where Prime Minister Tony Blair was among European Union leaders there to sign the proposed EU constitution.
.
See more of the world that matters - click here for home delivery of the International Herald Tribune.
< < Back to Start of Article PARIS More than 100,000 civilians have probably died as direct or indirect consequences of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to a study by a research team at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
.
The report was published on the Internet by The Lancet, the British medical journal. The figure is far higher than previous mortality estimates. Editors of the journal decided not to wait for The Lancet's normal publication date next week, but instead to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the U.S. presidential election.
.
The finding is certain to generate intense controversy, since the Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the conflict, and independent groups have put the number at most in the tens of thousands.
.
In the study, teams of researchers fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 previously selected locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion.
.
Although the paper's authors acknowledge that thorough data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect are extensive: Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it. Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and chronic diseases. Afterward, violent death was far ahead of all other causes.
.
"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins study team. He said the team had excluded deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, since that city was the site of unusually intense violence.
.
In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in the family since the conflict started in March 2003. They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by coalition forces - mostly airstrikes - and most of the reported deaths were of women and children.
.
The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers found.
.
"The fact that more than half of the deaths caused by the occupation forces were women and children is a cause for concern," the authors wrote.
.
The team included researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies as well as doctors from Al Mustansiriya University Medical School in Baghdad.
.
There is bound to be skepticism about the estimate of 100,000 excess deaths, which translates into an average of 166 excess deaths a day since the invasion. But some were not surprised.
.
"I am emotionally shocked, but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," said Scott Lipscomb, an associate professor at Northwestern University.
.
Lipscomb works on a Web site called www.iraqbodycount.net. That project, which collates only media-reported deaths, currently puts the death toll at just under 17,000. "We've always maintained that the actual count must be much higher," Lipscomb said.
.
The researchers were highly technical in their selection of interview sites and data analysis, although interview locations were limited somewhat by the researchers' decision to cut down driving time when statistically possible to minimize risk to the interviewers.
.
Although the teams relied primarily on interviews with local residents, they also asked to see at least two death certificates at the end of interviews in each area, to try to ensure that people had remembered and responded honestly. The research team decided that asking for death certificates in each case, during the interviews, might cause hostility and could put the research team in danger.
.
Some of those killed may have been insurgents rather than civilians, the authors noted. Also, the rise in mortality included a rise in murders and some deaths attributable to the deterioration of medical care.
.
"But the majority of excess mortality is clearly due to violence," Burnham said.
.
The paper is studied and scientific, reserving judgment on the politics of the Iraq conflict. But in an accompanying editorial, Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, is acerbic and to the point about its message.
.
"From a purely public health perspective it is clear that whatever planning did take place was grievously in error," Horton wrote. "The invasion of Iraq, the displacement of a cruel dictator and the attempt to impose a liberal democracy by force have, by themselves, been insufficient to bring peace and security to the civilian population. Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths, not fewer."
.
.
Britain to examine study
.
The British foreign secretary, Jack Straw said Friday that his government would study the Lancet report "in a very serious way," Agence France-Presse reported from London.
.
"This is a very high estimate, indeed," Straw said on BBC radio. "Because it's in The Lancet, it is obviously something we have to look at in a very serious way," he said.
.
Straw was speaking from Rome, where Prime Minister Tony Blair was among European Union leaders there to sign the proposed EU constitution.
.PARIS More than 100,000 civilians have probably died as direct or indirect consequences of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to a study by a research team at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
.
The report was published on the Internet by The Lancet, the British medical journal. The figure is far higher than previous mortality estimates. Editors of the journal decided not to wait for The Lancet's normal publication date next week, but instead to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the U.S. presidential election.
.
The finding is certain to generate intense controversy, since the Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the conflict, and independent groups have put the number at most in the tens of thousands.
.
In the study, teams of researchers fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 previously selected locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion.
.
Although the paper's authors acknowledge that thorough data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect are extensive: Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it. Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and chronic diseases. Afterward, violent death was far ahead of all other causes.
.
"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins study team. He said the team had excluded deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, since that city was the site of unusually intense violence.
.
In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in the family since the conflict started in March 2003. They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by coalition forces - mostly airstrikes - and most of the reported deaths were of women and children.
.
The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers found.
.
"The fact that more than half of the deaths caused by the occupation forces were women and children is a cause for concern," the authors wrote.
.
The team included researchers from the Johns Hopkins Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies as well as doctors from Al Mustansiriya University Medical School in Baghdad.
.
There is bound to be skepticism about the estimate of 100,000 excess deaths, which translates into an average of 166 excess deaths a day since the invasion. But some were not surprised.
.
"I am emotionally shocked, but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," said Scott Lipscomb, an associate professor at Northwestern University.
.
Lipscomb works on a Web site called www.iraqbodycount.net. That project, which collates only media-reported deaths, currently puts the death toll at just under 17,000. "We've always maintained that the actual count must be much higher," Lipscomb said.
.
The researchers were highly technical in their selection of interview sites and data analysis, although interview locations were limited somewhat by the researchers' decision to cut down driving time when statistically possible to minimize risk to the interviewers.
.
Although the teams relied primarily on interviews with local residents, they also asked to see at least two death certificates at the end of interviews in each area, to try to ensure that people had remembered and responded honestly. The research team decided that asking for death certificates in each case, during the interviews, might cause hostility and could put the research team in danger.
.
Some of those killed may have been insurgents rather than civilians, the authors noted. Also, the rise in mortality included a rise in murders and some deaths attributable to the deterioration of medical care.
.
"But the majority of excess mortality is clearly due to violence," Burnham said.
.
The paper is studied and scientific, reserving judgment on the politics of the Iraq conflict. But in an accompanying editorial, Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, is acerbic and to the point about its message.
.
"From a purely public health perspective it is clear that whatever planning did take place was grievously in error," Horton wrote. "The invasion of Iraq, the displacement of a cruel dictator and the attempt to impose a liberal democracy by force have, by themselves, been insufficient to bring peace and security to the civilian population. Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths, not fewer."
.
.
Britain to examine study
.
The British foreign secretary, Jack Straw said Friday that his government would study the Lancet report "in a very serious way," Agence France-Presse reported from London.
.
"This is a very high estimate, indeed," Straw said on BBC radio. "Because it's in The Lancet, it is obviously something we have to look at in a very serious way," he said.
.
Straw was speaking from Rome, where Prime Minister Tony Blair was among European Union leaders there to sign the proposed EU constitution.
.PARIS More than 100,000 civilians have probably died as direct or indirect consequences of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to a study by a research team at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
.
The report was published on the Internet by The Lancet, the British medical journal. The figure is far higher than previous mortality estimates. Editors of the journal decided not to wait for The Lancet's normal publication date next week, but instead to place the research online Friday, apparently so it could circulate before the U.S. presidential election.
.
The finding is certain to generate intense controversy, since the Bush administration has not estimated civilian casualties from the conflict, and independent groups have put the number at most in the tens of thousands.
.
In the study, teams of researchers fanned out across Iraq in mid-September to interview nearly 1,000 families in 33 previously selected locations. Families were interviewed about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion.
.
Although the paper's authors acknowledge that thorough data collection was difficult in what is effectively still a war zone, the data they managed to collect are extensive: Iraqis were 2.5 times more likely to die in the 17 months following the invasion than in the 14 months before it. Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and chronic diseases. Afterward, violent death was far ahead of all other causes.
.
"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins study team. He said the team had excluded deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, since that city was the site of unusually intense violence.
.
In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in the |
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/29/news/toll.html
_________________
Stolen Honor |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GiveMeFreedom
PO3
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 279
Location: Wisconsin
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is propaganda..... also, what they are not telling you is these 'body counts' ALSO INCLUDE the combatants killed in combat.
my response to these people touting this:
For those of you touting the number of Iraqis killed during the war - - do any of you or were any of you also a part of the "anti-sanction" crowd? For those of you that support Kerry's line of "We could have contained Saddam with sanctions", well, that must leave you in quite a quandry, huh?
I seem to remember a LOT of people clamoring about how many Iraqis were being killed by the sanctions. Here are some links to remind you:
"Sanctions kill up to 6,000 a month in Iraq"-
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/990128-halliday.htm"
"The World Health Organisation (WHO) confirmed to me only ten days ago that the monthly rate of sanctions-related child mortality for children under five years of age is from five to six thousand per month."
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1601/16010180.htm
"The current increase in the death rate directly caused by the sanctions is 10,000 per month."
http://www.iacenter.org/ekeus.htm
and there are many more.
Yet, Kerry is saying "we should have continued the sanctions." The people of Iraq were dying, while the thugs at the U.N., France & Saddam Hussein were getting rich off the Oil for Food program. So don't use the # of Iraqis killed in your 'cost of war' arguments - it shows that you choose to ignore the glaring truth. The # of Iraqis killed as a result of the sanctions was even higher.
_________________
-------------------
GiveMeFreedom
http://www.anysoldier.com
http://www.operationac.com
Support our Soldiers!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Inatizzy
Former Member
Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 439
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Were these same people whining while Saddam was SLAUGHTERING his own people by the thousands?? DId they say a word while he used chemical weapons against his own people?
Seems at that time they didn't give a tinkers damn about the Iraqi people...but now suddenly they care ever so much 
HYPOCRITES!!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
momofthreegirls
Seaman
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 174
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Inatizzy wrote: | Were these same people whining while Saddam was SLAUGHTERING his own people by the thousands?? DId they say a word while he used chemical weapons against his own people?
Seems at that time they didn't give a tinkers damn about the Iraqi people...but now suddenly they care ever so much
HYPOCRITES!!! |
Can I have an amen!!! The body count under Sadaam was scores higher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shooter
Seaman
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 180
Location: New Mexico
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wanna make an omlette? Then you gotta break a few eggs!!!
WHO CARES what these crybabies think? It's WAR people.... If it wasn't for our technology ie. precision air strikes, then they'd really have something to scream about.
Our Military goes ABOVE and BEYOND to limit the collateral damage casualties. I wonder how many of these "deaths" can really be attributed to Saddam loyalists ect.? They say some are attributed to loss of healthcare. WHAT HEALTHCARE? That country didn't have any reasonable healthcare until we kicked his tyranical a** outta there!!!
This is all cooked up by a bunch of crybaby leftist doctors to make the US look bad. UUUGGGGHHHH
_________________
ADC USN Ret.
For those that fought for it, Freedom has a flavor the protected will never know !!
Harley Davidson - If you have to ask, you don't understand !
Gun Control = Double tap - center mass |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CTW
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 691
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| momofthreegirls wrote: | | Inatizzy wrote: | Were these same people whining while Saddam was SLAUGHTERING his own people by the thousands?? DId they say a word while he used chemical weapons against his own people?
Seems at that time they didn't give a tinkers damn about the Iraqi people...but now suddenly they care ever so much
HYPOCRITES!!! |
Can I have an amen!!! The body count under Sadaam was scores higher. |
AMEN! CTW
Never Ever Kerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rparrott21
Master Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 760
Location: Mckinney, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Them Dems are pulling out all the stops...Run on your RECORD Kerry... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Truegrit
Lieutenant
Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 246
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:53 pm Post subject: This is propaganda |
|
|
This report from Europe is pure propaganda, intended to derail George Bush's re-election chances.
However, unless Kerry is truly stupid, he is unlikely to run this propaganda claim up his campaign flagpole -- for obvious reasons. Even if the number of civilian casualties is true (it isn't), Kerry would be criticizing our military.
In the U.S. campaign to liberate Manila, in the Philippines in '44-'45 it is estimated that 100,000 civilians were casualties. They were friendlies obviously but to root out the Japanese defenders who well entrenched, the U.S. used a lot of artillery. Of course, CNN wasn't around at the time, nor was any other real-time satellite broadcast network. Unfortunately, a lot of innocent people die during wars.
Still, this claim is surely an inflated propaganda-motivated broadside.
_________________
Ted Harwood, Ph.D.
Enlisted, U.S. Army ('57-'60) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CTW
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 691
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is from the Viet Nam Against the War playbook. and that was prepared by the Communists. He has no other plan. So he is on the attack of the military. See now they are murderers! Why one single vet can vote for him is beyond my comprehension. CTW
Never Ever Kerry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Z
Rear Admiral
Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 687
Location: West Hartford CT
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:59 pm Post subject: Civilian deaths in Iraq |
|
|
First of all, if this study comes from France, that's one huge reason to be skeptical. "Ils mentent comme ils respirent" (they lie like they breathe)!
Then they compare people who died in hospitals before and during the war, and subtracted the former from the latter.
What if somebody added a proportionate share of the 500,000-odd people found in mass graves (plus others yet to be discovered) to the pre-war casualties, and subtracted THAT from the deaths during the war? We would most likely find that the war has SAVED civilian lives!!!
_________________
The traitor will crater! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveL
Commander
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 300
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Disgusting report! Our forces would report killing fighters, then the enemy would call them all woman and children. I wonder how the anti-war crowd would count those?! We know Iraqi forces shed their uniforms and hid amongst civilians, in hospitals, schools...our forces bent over backwards to avoid involving civilians, Iraqi fighters took the opposite approach with a goal to maximize civilian casualties for propaganda purposes!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joeshero
Commander
Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 321
Location: Midwest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Only Democrats who hate Bush believe this report. The same report which claimed that hundred thousands of Afghans died in the US attacks. It's simply a propaganda and just designed to influence the US election. Part of international network that supports the Democratic Party.
_________________
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msindependent
Vice Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 891
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh please, this is from France, enough said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
