Comments on: Report: 100,000 Iraqi Civilians Dead Since Invasion

By: zz

zz — Sat, 30 Oct 2004 07:47:33 +0000

I find this unlikely. Such a large number of deaths due to airstrikes seems unlikely. To produce this many deaths would require a much larger amount of ordance dropped exclusively into populated areas. The number of people who died. Given that precision use of less ordance was involved, it seems unlikely that airstrikes killed that many civilians.

By: Foobarista

Foobarista — Sat, 30 Oct 2004 04:19:33 +0000

This silly report has been getting fisked across the blogosphere.

By: The Jawa Report

The Jawa Report — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:25:38 +0000

Lancet Report Claims 100,000 Dead as Result of Iraq War
A bogus report published in the British Medical Journal The Lancet claims that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians, mostly women and children, have died in Iraq as a result of the US led occupation. The bogus report concluded that death...

By: Anjin-San

Anjin-San — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:26:17 +0000

Ahh so we have re-branded the war again. Now its about stopping Saddams attrocities. Funny Bush told the American people it was about WMD;s. Does that mean he was..... lying?

By: IR

IR — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:02:13 +0000

Compare this study to the one Dr. Roberts did in the Congo. You will note that the Congo study is much, much more thorough...

Conclusion...Dr. Roberts is not done (by any stretch of the imagination) with this particular study. But, damn if he didn't need to get it in the papers 4 days prior to the General Election...Uh huh...

By: LJD

LJD — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:25:08 +0000

Who says these are "innocent" men, women, and children (other than this obviously flawed interview)? If you read the papers, it seems every live "citizen" in Iraq is an insurgent fighting to defend their country. When they die as a result of their action, they automatically become an "innocent". I'm not denying any non-combatant deaths, but if you add them up like bodycount web does, there are serious flaws inthe numbers.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:38:44 +0000

Historically the only way to hold Iraq together has been through force of arms. It is quite possible that our puppet will stage sham elections followed by a strongman rule.

Our interests are not served by a Shite majority rule which is what would happen if it was one man one vote. That would be like turning the country over to Iran.
Since it won't be one man one vote, (and that is what makes the vote a sham) we have to figure a way it won't be majority rule. Kind of like Israel if they would ever let the Palestinians return.
Turkey will invade the Kurds if they create their own state. We have no choice but to keep Iraq whole.

Saddam's excesses have been well documented. What if that's the only way to hold this country together? What if the new boss is the same as the old boss? After all Saddam was a big ally for many years. What we have done is to have seen the enemy and he is us.

By: vdibart

vdibart — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:29:02 +0000

"I also simply do not believe that the greatest cause of death to civilians has been Coalition air strikes, given their incredible precision and the indiscriminate violence of the terrorist elements." The number does seem exorbidant, I'll admit, and the process wasn't exactly the most fool-proof I've ever heard. But even 10K lives lost is a disgrace, and here's why the "precision" you mention above is really not the issue. There was a story reported before Saddam was caught about a car that was fleeing to the Syrian border, and it was fired upon because intelligence indicated that Saddam might be in it. Obviously he wasn't, but the point is that there were people in that car that were killed seemingly without cause. All those times when we fire on a "suspected" safehouse might not be that different for all we know. So all the precision in the world doesn't matter if your intelligence is weak. And by the way, I'm utterly appalled that *any* American would consider 100K lives lost a price "well paid". It's almost too absurd to comment on. These are innocent men, women, and children. In a country that prides ourselves on our moral clarity, how can you so easily justify the deaths of so many people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

By: Bithead

Bithead — Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:10:21 +0000

Your points are well taken. But given the number of mass graves we're finding, I would suggest that the price is well paid.

The Iraqi people would seem to agree, if we take the polling their with any seriousness.

And your final question is the biggest, and one the anti-war types dare not answer, lest they be called to follow JFK's lead on paying any price, carry any burden'.