Skip to main content

View Diary: LA Times: 1 million dead civilians in Iraq since 2003 (26 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually, Iraq WAS a humanatarian (3+ / 0-)

    disaster before we invaded.  Remember those 500,000 kids Clinton's sanctions killed?

    It's just more so now.  And who'd have thunk it was possible?

    (but thank god it was worth the price!)

    •  The Lancet study (4+ / 0-)

      The Lancet study used a baseline of mortality during the Saddam years and tried to determine how many excess deaths occured during the US occupation.

      If you are going to support humanitarian military intervention as many candidates do it only makes sense if the humanitarian missions actually save lives.

      More people are dying under the US occupation that Saddam's rule. There is no humanatarian justification for the US occupation. It killed more people than doing nothing and cost half a trillion dollars, money that could have saved millions of lives if used on a justifiable humanitarian endeavor like providing potable water, immunizations or mosquito nets.

      I'm not disputing or endorsing your characterization of the costs of sanctions. I am saying those costs were factored in to the baseline of mortality pre-US occupation.

      Get the U.S. Americans out of the Iraq.

      by joejoejoe on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 01:30:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What's interesting is if you look at the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joejoejoe, overturned turtle

        2007 estimated death rates provided by the CIA

        Iraq is listed at 5.26 per 1000 and the US (for comparison) is at 8.26.  

        Which means one of two things:

        Iraqi's are dying at the same rate now as before 2003 (factoring the ~200,000/year dying in the Lancet-type studies would push the rate to about 13 per 1000).


        The CIA's intellegence gathering on Iraq remains piss poor.

        I think we'd all agree that the second option is more likely!! (and probably not just about death rates!!!)

        •  That's amazing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          overturned turtle

          Thanks for the link. I'm going to pass that along on Tim Lambert's blog because it shows the massive disconnect between what the U.S. is saying and logic.

          Bring the troops home - they are urgently needed in the U.S. to fight some kind of emergency that is causing Americans to have a 50% higher mortality rate than Iraq!

          Get the U.S. Americans out of the Iraq.

          by joejoejoe on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 02:43:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just to be clear (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            overturned turtle

            under peacetime conditions the higher death rate in the USA is entirely explained by the much larger proportion of elderly in our society (Iraq by contrast has a much younger population who would not be expected to die at a high rate).

            However, like you say, it is worth emphasizing how out of touch the CIA is to post Iraq as having one of the lower death rates in the world, contrary to all common sense and the figures from the Lancet study - which by themselves would give a higher death rate than reported by the CIA.

            Tell me again why we're paying 2x the NIH budget each to keep this bunch of jokesters in business?

            •  You lost me (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Canadian Reader

              Wouldn't the death rate have to account for all causes and all ages? The US has it's problems but we still have a good health care system and stable society relative to other countries in the world.

              If there are few old people in a given society wouldn't that mean there had to be a high death rate among the young to prevent people from getting old?

              Get the U.S. Americans out of the Iraq.

              by joejoejoe on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:24:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Looking at that list... (0+ / 0-)

          I think they have to be quoting official death rates from national governments. Different reporting systems -- and in some cases, lying to look good. I mean, does anyone believe that the United Arab Emirate has a death rate of 2.16? When Monaco is 12.92?

          They really can't be comparing apples to apples. Otherwise, why would the Netherlands be 8.69, and Belgium right next door, 10.32?

          The numbers make very little sense. I wouldn't base any deductions about the real world on them.

          Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

          by Canadian Reader on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 03:39:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site