An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003

[RSM]

An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university.

The research compares mortality rates before and after the invasion from 47 randomly chosen areas in Iraq.

The figure is considerably higher than estimates by official sources or the number of deaths reported in the media.

It is vigorously disputed by supporters of the war in Iraq, including US President George W Bush.

John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (JHBSPH) estimate that the mortality rates have more than doubled since the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein, causing an average of 500 deaths a day.


In the past, Mr Bush has put the civilian death toll in Iraq at 30,000, and hours after details of the latest research were published he dismissed JHBSPH's methodology as "pretty well discredited".

The John Hopkins researchers argue their statistical approach is more reliable than counting dead bodies, given the obstacles preventing more comprehensive fieldwork in the violent and insecure conditions of Iraq.

"I stand by the figure that a lot of innocent people have lost their life... and that troubles me, and it grieves me," Mr Bush told reporters at the White House.

"Six-hundred thousand or whatever they guessed at is just... it's not credible," Mr Bush said.

Sharp rise

The researchers spoke to nearly 1,850 families, comprising more than 12,800 people in dozens of 40-household clusters around the country.

Anti-US insurgents launch daily attacks with civilian casualties
Of the 629 deaths they recorded among these families since early 2002, 13% took place in the 14 months before the invasion and 87% in the 40 months afterwards.

Such a trend repeated nationwide would indicate a rise in annual death rates from 5.5 per 1,000 to 13.3 per 1,000 - meaning the deaths of some 2.5% of Iraq's 25 million citizens in the last three-and-a-half years.

The researchers say that in nearly 80% of the individual cases, family members produced death certificates to support their answers.

Reliable data is very hard to obtain in Iraq, where anti-US insurgents and sectarian death squads pose a grave danger to civilian researchers.

The survey updates earlier research using the same "cluster" technique which indicated that 100,000 Iraqis had died between the invasion and April 2004 - a figure that was also dismissed by many supporters of the US-led coalition.

'Survivor bias'

While critics point to the discrepancy between this and other independent surveys (such as Iraq Body Count's figure of 44-49,000 civilian deaths, based on media reports), the Bloomberg School team says its method may actually underestimate the true figure.

"Families, especially in households with combatants killed, could have hidden deaths. Under-reporting of infant deaths is a widespread concern in surveys of this type," the authors say.

"Entire households could have been killed, leading to survivor bias."

The survey suggests that most of the extra deaths - 601,000 - would have been the result of violence, mostly gunfire, and suggests that 31% could be attributable to action by US-led coalition forces.

The survey is to be published in a UK medical journal, the Lancet, on Thursday.

In an accompanying comment, the Lancet's Richard Horton acknowledges that the 2004 survey provoked controversy, but emphasises that the 2006 follow-up has been recommended by "four expert peers... with relatively minor revisions".

[Da Bitch]

Who gives a fuck Blair ( if he can get his balls out of that slags handbag) sould pull our boyz out & let the Iraqis & yanks get on with it!!

[Cardie]

More people die during war shocker.

[cochcaer]

Puts the 9/11 toll into perspective.

[Cardie]

Does it?

[cochcaer]

Originally Posted by Cardie

Does it?

Slightly, 3/4 million die in revenge for a few thousand - and the figure will rise daily.

Should have just hired a sniper and capped Saddam.

[Cardie]

It's a bit death toll top trumps though isn't it?

9/11 loses to Iraq which loses to Rwanda which loses to the Holocaust etc etc.

[drewy]

How many died at the hands of Saddam (fellow muslims) from his inception as a dictator till the allies ousted him in 2003?

How many Iraqi's and Iranian's died due to the war instigated and started by Saddam?

That report is a fuckin joke!


Edit, Lets not forget his raping of Kuwait an innocent and peaceful fellow muslim nation. How many died in this case?

[molbyscorchio]

Originally Posted by drewy

How many died at the hands of Saddam (fellow muslims) from his inception as a dictator till the allies ousted him in 2003?

How many Iraqi's and Iranian's died due to the war instigated and started by Saddam?

That report is a fuckin joke!

Even Saddam couldn't have kept this average up. It's not good Drewy, even you must see that.

[aws]

The report (even if true) suggests that about 450,000 of the total are Muslims killing Muslims which I expect would have happened sooner or later after Saddam's death even without an invasion.

[molbyscorchio]

Originally Posted by aws

The report (even if true) suggests that about 450,000 of the total are Muslims killing Muslims which I expect would have happened sooner or later after Saddam's death even without an invasion.

I knew that Saddam was a moderating influence. Thank heavens we've only wiped out 200K of them, otherwise I might start to feel bad that we were kidded into supporting it.

[Brownie]

Originally Posted by aws

The report (even if true) suggests that about 450,000 of the total are Muslims killing Muslims which I expect would have happened sooner or later after Saddam's death even without an invasion.

And that's the triple truth.

We should just fucking nuke the middle east totally and end all of this shite - a boil on the arse of the planet that region is.

[Neil G]

Originally Posted by drewy

How many died at the hands of Saddam (fellow muslims) from his inception as a dictator till the allies ousted him in 2003?

How many Iraqi's and Iranian's died due to the war instigated and started by Saddam?

That report is a fuckin joke!


Edit, Lets not forget his raping of Kuwait an innocent and peaceful fellow muslim nation. How many died in this case?

Why is it a joke? It's not making any value judgment about the decision to invade, or whether Iraq would have been better off under Saddam.

It's perfectly possible to be pro-war, in other words to think that it was the right decision to invade, but at the same time to regret the huge number of deaths caused by the complete lack of post-war planning by the US.


Edit - by the way I take the report with a big bucketful of salt. The actual number of deaths is less important than the fact that thousands of people have died who wouldn't have if there had been better planning for the occupation.

[Red Mist]

This invasion is a disaster and no lame excuses like "Saddam was worse" will justify this enormous cock up. The biggest shame in all of this is that the dead are mostly innocent Iraqi's and not the occupying yankee troops.

[Neil G]

Originally Posted by Red Mist

This invasion is a disaster and no lame excuses like "Saddam was worse" will justify this enormous cock up. The biggest shame in all of this is that the dead are mostly innocent Iraqi's and not the occupying yankee troops.

Going by that comment and the one you made on the North Korea thread, you must be disappointed Saddam never got nukes.

[Red Mist]

I don't care who gets nukes as long as it's not terrorists. We have the biggest rogue state on the planet, the USA, armed with more nukes than any other country on earth yet we're supposed to be comforted by the fact that THEY have these weapons while they aggressively prevent other nations from developing them.

Hell, you don't even need to have such destructive weapons to be a target of Bush's military. Saddam didn't possess bio/chem weapons yet his country was bombed back into the dark ages. Maybe other nations SHOULD be looking to actively acquire nuclear bombs, if only to deter an attack by the Americans?

[Neil G]

Originally Posted by Red Mist

I don't care who gets nukes as long as it's not terrorists. We have the biggest rogue state on the planet, the USA, armed with more nukes than any other country on earth yet we're supposed to be comforted by the fact that THEY have these weapons while they aggressively prevent other nations from developing them.

Hell, you don't even need to have such destructive weapons to be a target of Bush's military. Saddam didn't possess bio/chem weapons yet his country was bombed back into the dark ages. Maybe other nations SHOULD be looking to actively acquire nuclear bombs, if only to deter an attack by the Americans?

I'm not comforted by the fact that the US has so many nukes, and I think the country is very dangerous under its current leadership, but still I don't want other rogue states to get nuclear weapons.

If you're worried about terrorists getting them, then I posted on the other thread that the more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that terrorists will eventually get hold of one. So for me your first sentence makes no sense.

[Rashid]

What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? There is no link whatsoever... Cardie you're begining to become the forum prick - like 4pool was on RAWK.

The point someone made was that 650,000 odd die in Iraq - you come out with "more people die in war shocker" - well the point is that it was a needless war. Not wishing any harm on anyone but innocent people who ha