BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Safe for Democracy

 
 
LVX23
21:40 / 28.10.04
Researchers suggest that the risk of death from violence in Iraq is up 58% after the invasion. The Archons are feasting on the blood of the fallen. Hopefully this will make it into the mainstream press and show people the huge amount of devastation we've brought to Iraq in our thinly-veiled attempt at "liberation".

Iraqi civilian deaths put at 100,000

Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in violence since the US-led invasion last year, according to public health experts who estimate there were 100,000 "excess deaths" in 18 months.

The US-based researchers found that the risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher than before the war.

The rise in the death rate was mainly due to violence and much of it was caused by US air strikes on towns and cities, they said.

"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," said Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal.

"The use of air power in areas with lots of civilians appears to be killing a lot of women and children," Mr Roberts said.

The report comes just days before the US presidential election in which the Iraq war has been a major issue.

Mortality was already high in Iraq before the war because of United Nations sanctions blocking food and medical imports.

But the researchers described their findings after the war as shocking.

Air strikes

The new figures are based on surveys done by the researchers in Iraq in September 2004.

They compared Iraqi deaths during 14.6 months before the invasion in March 2003 and the 17.8 months after it by conducting household surveys in randomly selected neighbourhoods.

Previous estimates based on think-tank and media sources put the Iraqi civilian death toll at up to 16,053 and military fatalities as high as 6,370.

By comparison, about 849 US military personnel were killed in combat or attacks and another 258 died in accidents or incidents not related to fighting, according to the Pentagon.

The researchers blamed air strikes for many of the civilian deaths.

"What we have evidence of is the use of air power in populated urban areas and the bad consequences of it," Roberts said.

Gilbert Burnham, who collaborated on the research, says US military action in Iraq was "very bad for Iraqi civilians".

"We were not expecting the level of deaths from violence that we found in this study and we hope this will lead to some serious discussions of how military and political aims can be achieved in a way that is not so detrimental to civilians populations," he told Reuters.

The researchers did 33 cluster surveys of 30 households each, recording the date, circumstances and cause of deaths.

Before the war the major causes of death were heart attacks, chronic disorders and accidents. That changed after the war.

Two-thirds of violent deaths in the study were reported in Fallujah, the insurgent held city 50 kilometres west of Baghdad which has been repeatedly hit by US air strikes.

"Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes," Mr Roberts added in the study.

Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, said the research which was submitted to the journal this month had been peer-reviewed, edited and fast-tracked for publication because of its importance in the evolving security situation in Iraq.

"But these findings also raise questions for those far removed from Iraq - in the governments of the countries responsible for launching a pre-emptive war," Mr Horton said in an editorial.

-- Reuters
 
 
Atyeo
08:16 / 29.10.04
Not to be pedantic, more to emphasise the point - it's up 5800%
 
 
rizla mission
08:30 / 29.10.04
100,000.

Well hopefully this will help kill the belief a lot of people still seem to have that the US/UK are undertaking some kind of nice, polite liberal fucking unprovoked invasion and carefully observing the human rights of all the people that the fucking army has been sent over to carpet bomb and machine gun.
 
 
alas
10:08 / 29.10.04
The sad thing is that I think there's a tacit kind of war math that goes on in a lot of US minds, that 1 American dead person is equivalent to about 1,000 dead anywhere else. So to those minds this is all about equal. Rumsfeld says "Freedom is messy." 100,000=very messy, but . . . These deaths need to be humanized for the average American in order for them to mean.

What does it mean that 100,000 families in this land we want to see "democratized" are in deep mourning? What does the smashing of 100,000 dreams mean?
 
 
sleazenation
11:30 / 29.10.04
It's easy to sacrifice 100,000 foreigners in the name of (an imposed) democracy - after all - it's not like they are going to be able to vote the president responsible for those deaths out of office.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
12:24 / 29.10.04
And some of the gung-ho websites I've seen in passing do seem to promote a 'better to die free...' attitude, as long as it's not the guy writing the bullshit that's asked to die or suffer in any way...
 
 
Helmschmied
12:44 / 29.10.04
"The sad thing is that I think there's a tacit kind of war math that goes on in a lot of US minds, that 1 American dead person is equivalent to about 1,000 dead anywhere else."

When general Romeo Dallaire was pleading with the US to help in Rwanda, he posed a question to someone in the pentagon not actually expecting a response. He asked "how many Rwandans have to die for you to risk the life of one American" The man thought for a second and said "about 80,000".
 
 
ibis the being
14:16 / 29.10.04
The sad thing is that I think there's a tacit kind of war math that goes on in a lot of US minds, that 1 American dead person is equivalent to about 1,000 dead anywhere else.

I think what you're talking about is the famous 'slide rule' formulated by Middle East Studies Professor Juan Cole of UMich. Though I can't seem to find it now, I believe he calculated how many deaths from each country equal out to one American death - although I don't know whether that was based on policy, polling, some combination....?

According to Daily Kos, 100,000 Iraqi deaths 'equals' 1.1 million American deaths by Cole's slide rule.
 
 
BrianFitzgerald
16:08 / 29.10.04
What does it mean that 100,000 families in this land we want to see "democratized" are in deep mourning? What does the smashing of 100,000 dreams mean?
This is what I just can't wrap my head around. How does anyone truly believe that giving so many people such a very good reason to hate America makes the citizens of the US safer? I keep reading about all of these undecided voters who are leaning toward Bush because he's the one who can keep America safe. Yet all he seems to have done since 9/11 (and it also makes me crazy that the guy who was in charge when the worst act of terrorism ever to occur in the United States is selling himself as the safety President) is give people more and more reasons to want to eradicate the source of destruction and death (and sure, go ahead and throw famine and pestilence in there, if you're so inclined) that this nation has become.
100,000 men and women and boys and girls. Dead. How many thousands more disfigured and maimed? Why? How does this make the world a better place for anybody or anything?
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
17:12 / 29.10.04
100,000, christ. One in every 200 or so. And that's just the 'excess' deaths. I'm still trying to absorb the scope of it.

If the Bush team can spin this one away, there really is no hope for the election.
 
 
unheimlich manoeuvre
17:29 / 29.10.04
of course this is not taking into account the long term effects of Depleted Uranium.

July 10, 2003. The Guardian

Our gift to Iraq by AL Kennedy

That it is left all over Iraq just shows how much we care, because DU is gorgeous stuff - gorgeous uranium-238 with a dash of gorgeous uranium-235. It's cheap, if you're subsidising nuclear power to the hilt, and frankly we have whole slag heaps of it to dump. It's almost twice as heavy as lead, so it's great for armour plating, radiation shielding, ballast in missiles and aircraft counterweights.

The Guardian. various uranium links.
 
 
diz
19:35 / 29.10.04
of course this is not taking into account the long term effects of Depleted Uranium.

i wonder if it will be anything like the half a million or so Vietnamese kids born with birth defects in Vietnam as a result of Agent Orange. my guess? probably.
 
 
charrellz
19:47 / 29.10.04
Wow. It just hit me how messed up some conservatives can be. I told my republican roommate some of the figures in this thread, and his reply "That's probably counting all the paramilitary troops, the ones just basically shooting at our troops." First off, I believe civilian casualties is counting civilians, and second, what the hell does 'basically shooting' mean?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:09 / 29.10.04
That's 30-odd 911s. That plus Afghanistan... even counted as revenge, that's just obscene.
 
 
ibis the being
01:31 / 30.10.04
I'm watching CNN and they're busy spinning, spinning, spinning this story. Quoting sources who insist that the count is more like 10,000 to 30,000. And, repulsively enough, claiming that "the actual number does not matter." Sure, we counted everyone who died in the Towers one by one, but as long as we're making some kind of lame effort to count dead Iraqis, getting it right doesn't matter.

Disgusting. CNN these days stands for Conservative News Network.
 
  
Add Your Reply