655,000 Iraqi Deaths - Glad we're there to help
 

It's a good thing we showed up over there to liberate them from the death, torture and tyranny of Saddam's regime:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ths/index.html

Viewpoints? Dicsuss...

That's fucked up.... Who are the real tyrans now?

:(

not good :(

Oh my god, it's one of those threads in which simple minded people say 'America is a tyrant'.

Can I just point out that the Coalition has not killed 655,000 people.

There are some countries where it's better to pass on than have to live your whole life in a totally fucked up country. Iraq is sadly that. Before Saddam and post Saddam, nothing good.

:(

Absolutely...only an estimated 31% of the deaths. Much of the rest come from car bombs and declining access to neccessary health care, as I gathered from the news story.

Where did that was said ... or is it YOUR opinion that the USA is a TYRANT ????

You can spin as much as you want, but without the invasion triggered by the US, those deaths would not have happened.

And please, stop using " coalition " in this war .. that was and is a joke ... use " mercenaries " instead...

so is Haiti ... sad situation.

Show up to liberete them?HAHAHA this was damn funny:)

i noticed that too. a coaliion? :1orglaugh okay!

A people need to want liberation first.

All of the Americas told their european kings "GFY!" and formed revolutions. Europeans that were under Nazi control in WWII had underground movements and supplied the Allies with valuable intelligence.

The desire for change in Iraq by Iraqis is half hearted, and so are the true efforts in "liberating" it by American forces. I'm not knocking the soldiers, they do their job well, but there isn't enough of them, and all of the other humanitarian and political efforts needed to liberate the country aren't happening at all. I'm sure the oil business couldn't be happier, though.

I believe that Tranza mentioned the word 'tyrant' although he misspelt it.

And if Saddam never existed there would be no need to remove him. And if the Earth never existed then none of thise would have happened. Etc.

I call it a coalition because that's it's name.

It says this is 2.5% more than would have died had we not invaded. We did not go in to liberate the people of Iraq. We went in to get rid or Saddam, our sworn enemy. liberation is a side effect. Just think, If Saddam had just let our inspectors have unfettered access, not continues to shoot at our planes in the no-fly zone, not defied all those UN resolutions, he could still be there killing the people himself with his evil sons at his side.

They interviewed people and asked them about deaths. Theyre all haters. That number isnt anywhere near the actual death toll

655k Iraqi deaths is based from interviews with 1849 households. Sounds a little like politics since there is an election coming up huh?

scardog & bl4h : :1orglaugh

I am sure the death toll is high, but if that is how they truly got the figure it is obviously a load of shit. Of course at every instance they claim 10 of their relatives died in the latest bomb attack, and in most instances the numbers are a load of shit. Happens in every conflict.

ok as a former US Marine, I got one thing to say. There are over 655k Iraqi's dead, are we trying to start another holucost, Hitler killed jews cause he didnt like him, whats different about what the US is doing?

Great comeback!!! I'll one up you.

Directfiesta :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

A war happens in the country and the death toll goes up 2.5%. Amazing.

sworn enemy, maybe, but the US gov is the reason he was in power in Iraq..

Yep. Sometimes your friends become your enemies. Happens all the time.

Do you work for Fox News? :1orglaugh

What it says is 2.5% of the population has been killed. That's nearly 655,000 people more than their normal mortality rate prior to the war.

:2 cents:

If they are brown, shoot em down

"Researchers randomly selected 1,849 households across Iraq and asked questions about births and deaths and migration"

"Researchers randomly selected 1,849 households across Iraq and asked questions about births and deaths and migration"

"Researchers randomly selected 1,849 households across Iraq and asked questions about births and deaths and migration"

"Researchers randomly selected 1,849 households across Iraq and asked questions about births and deaths and migration"

Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict,"

Maybe I read it wrong. What does that say to you?

Kind of an extreme view at this point, though I certainly see where you're coming from. We're not killing Iraqi's in huge numbers because we don't like them...though plenty are dying. As it says in the news story, the overwhelming majority are dying from car bombs and lack of access to needed health care. I agree from reading the article that this is beacause of the war but to say it's at the hands of the troops fighting the war is misguided, IMO.

I, too, see the comparisons between Bush and Hitler and it is alarming.

It is really sad to see how stupid you can be ...

Here is the quote of the article :

So, what a clueless tatooed punk understands is that the death toll rose 2.5 % ... In other words if 205 people died, it would be 200 without the war...

Let me hold your hand and help you comprehend what is written :

" 2.5% of Iraq population "

Any idea of the number of Iraqis ? Here is how they should have tought you in school :

"insert number of Iraqi population " x 2.5 % ....

so:

26,074,906 x 2.5 % = 651 872

Amazing how that comes to the number of the article... And if you feel like debating the number for the Iraqi population, this comes from the CIA site...

So let me add:

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

From the start of WWII, it took *50 years* to free Eastern Europe from the fascism of the Nazis and the Communists.

Why do you presume it should only take a few years to change things in the Middle East?

You left out: above what would have occurred without conflict

It's a lot of people, we went to war. What part of that don't you get? I didn't say it wasn't 650,000 people, I said we went to war, and lots of people die when that happens. Saddam could have averted it all. I guess your point is the US is evil, and we kill for fun. Wrong. War happens, shit breaks, people die. You think Saddam would have felt all guilty for killing 10 million americans?

"They did not ask families whether their dead were civilians or fighters"

Wonder why they wouldn't ask that question? You think they maybe wanted it to look like innocent civillians are being killed by the evil US?

don't you own a calculator ... What part of mathematic you don't understand ?
I demonstrated the number of deads created by the war ( 2.5% of population ).
The rest of your post is pure dementia ..
Obviously, you are not very bright.

PS: in every country , people die : old age, accidents, murders.. and so on ... the numbers here are ABOVE ...

Get an education while it is still maybe time :2 cents:

directfiesta, 655,000 is fine. I did not argue that number. What is your point? We are evil and should not kill the innocent iraqi's on purpose? Let me try this again. We Went To War. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

"They did not ask families whether their dead were civilians or fighters" Keep this in mind

wait wait i dont believe these numbers, i mean the majority of Iraqis belong to the "religion of peace" we have nothing to worry about.

sure ... the US gov givres the real number ... after all, up to now, they always have been thruthfull and accurate :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh



so this method is not good for you ....

Now, go wave your flag.

Damn, that's a shitload of people :(

Same type of surprise than the Holocaust ...

Most people were shocked at the numbers of jews killed ... It took a while to accept that, because the numbers were so unbelievable.... Nazis always denied those numbers .....

Directfiesta, you are still trying to argue the number I am agreeing with. Is your point that America is evil, and kills innocent people on purpose? Why are you still talking about math?

First of all, you did try ( without success ) to claim that without the war, the DEATH TOLL would have been lower of 2.5 % ...
The rest is you always coming back with " evil " and so on ...

I am not a born again christian, and don't use " evil ' in my phrases ... Obviously, you do and use it often... I wonder from where you got that ... :1orglaugh
Now, if you come back with that so often. is it because YOU actualy are afraid that it is the case .... :winkwink:

I read the article to say 2.5% more of the population died than would have if we had not invaded. If that number is 655,000, then fine. Nobody said anything about christians.

What is your point? A bunch of Iraqis died in the iraq war. A bunch more will continue to die until we are done there. I want us to crush our enemies. I am not afraid that is the case, I am trying to get you to admit that is your point. Are you afraid to admit it?

read post # 7

I wasn't aware that civilian iraqis were your ennemies ... Is this a new motive, to replace all the previous ones ????? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I think it would be safe to say at this point, that this is a horrible blunder!:disgust

I can certainly be wrong on this issue...but Iraq is not and has never been our enemy. Even in Gulf War I Iraq wasn't our enemy. The purpose of that war was to liberate Kuwait. We did, blew some shit up in Iraq, paid a brief visit and left.

Bush didn't like Saddam but even Saddam wasn't our "enemy." Has everyone lost site of the enemy? The stated enemy are the "terrorists." And, yes...there are plenty of them in Iraq. But it's an allusion to believe Iraq is or even was an enemy of the United States. Though now I would venture to say the majority of Iraqi's view the US as the enemy.

Since we don't know who the civillians were and weren't since they didn't ask during their poll (for some unknown reason), then I guess we won't know which ones were enemies and which weren't.:1orglaugh

Innocent civillians get killed in war, and it is terrible. So maybe we agree on that.

If you think the United States is killing civillians as a policy, then we disagree.
If you think we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq, then we disagree. I wish Saddam had complied and averted this war. Believe me, whatever the number of dead iraqis and americans is, the number will only get bigger, so you might as well get used to it for awhile.

You are kidding right? Saddam was not our enemy? You would consider him an ally in the first and second gulf war? Would you consider North Korea an ally too?

Laughable.

One does not have to be an ally if they are not an enemy.

Please define the relationship between the US and Saddam regime, if not defined as an enemy.

Enemy:
a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.

a hostile nation or state.

i love how some of you can read an entire article and get stuck on 1 line. ill pick this one:

"Deaths attributed to coalition forces accounted for 31 percent of the dead"

who killed the other 69%?

And over the past 60 years the numbers have continued to drop. Believe me, the Holocaust numbers were huge, but certainly if it wasn't such a taboo issue the numbers would of dropped even more. Something like 12 Million people gassed to death was the original claim. Noone, and I mean noone believes that number today. 4 Million in Auschwitz is now 1 million, and plenty of respectable people believe that is exaggerated also. There is always propoganda in war, and after war on both sides.

Are these numbers real? Maybe not. If they went around and asked people I'd say the number is highly inflated as most of them hate the US and them being in country, but still, I am sure alot more have died than would of under Saddam in the same time period. Originally I liked your posts, but the more and more I see of you I think you are just a tool in the same way neo-Con's are tools. Jumping on every bit of bullshit politicised piece of garbage and spewing out some bullshit from it. I guess it is the way of the world, but try to step above it once in a while, it makes for a better world when people don't think one point of view (whether it is socialist, neo-conservative, republican, democrat, or whatever) is always right.

Please feel free o quote the bs I posted here ...

My original post, till " id hit it " jerks came in, was that those people would not be dead if that invasion hadn't taken place ...

So please point out and quote.

Somehow that 655,000 seems *much* higher than than those being monitored elsewhere where the casualty figure is approx circa 50,000 with a possible three or four times more being injured.

Considering this data is originating in the US and at a time leading to midterm elections, there is a reasonable cause for suspicion. But who knows - the report prob needs to be checked out further.

Meanwhile, of course Bush had his predictable views:
That's ironic, considering neither Bush nor George Casey "do body counts" - why are they offering an opinion now?

The total truth on casualties of this war are yet unknown - and prob far higher than 665,000 and into the millions over the next decade in deaths resulting from diseases caused by depleted uranium.

Why is the US in Iraq? I forgot the latest reason :)