Iraqi Civilian Deaths In Perspective. Tragedy In World Trade Center Units

[DistressedAmerican]

Roughly 3,000 people lost their lives on 9/11. That attack was blamed in part on Saddam Hussein. Such allegations have since been proven completely false.

Yet, these are the people continue to pay the price for the national insanity that took hold after 9/11.

For some perspective think of this image representing 3,000 innocents lost:


The British Medical Journal, The Lancet found that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives since the start of the invasion.

Keeping in mind that 100,000 is a rather old estimate, look at that number in World trade Center Units and ask yourself, "Is This Justice?":



The scale of the losses is extremely difficult to imagine. In reality, there are probably closer to twice that number now dead.

How much longer until Bush has killed More Iraqis than Saddam?

[mike_c]

1. "How much longer until Bush has killed more Iraqis than Saddam?"

I see an awesome bumper sticker in your future....:toast:

on edit-- nominated!

[DistressedAmerican]

2. You Are Right That Would Make A Good One!!!

Mayhave to do the design!

[applegrove]

8. It will be a long, long time before Bush can catch up! n/t

[DistressedAmerican]

11. Don't Be Fooled! More Recent Estimates Put The Number At Closer To

200,000.

The administration always cites 300,000 killed by Saddam.

At the rate we are moving Bush should pass him up in a year or so. If things do not get worse!

His pace of killing is far greater than Saddam's. He took decades to kill that many!

[applegrove]

9. Triple Post Sorry n/t

[applegrove]

10. Triple Post n/t

[rainy]

17. hey, I want one and make a bumber sticker that says:

Iraq: the lie that keeps on killing!
I'll buy lots of both!

[LynnTheDem]

3. Now do the number of 911s we've perpetrated on Iraq on a per capita scale.

Iraq = 25 million population.

USA = 290 million.

But hey, Iraqis don't count. They're not Americans.

:sarcasm:

[DistressedAmerican]

4. So Sad. That Is Roughly 12 Times The Number!

For them this must feel like a Holocaust!

[LynnTheDem]

5. Going the other way round, the equivalent of 1 million Americans dead.

And I'm pretty sure 1,000,000 dead Americans and the US would be calling that a holocaust and throwing nukes around.

But then, only Americans (white, preferably male "christian") count.

[spanone]

6. In Vietnam we lost 42,000 folks before we said enough...

who the fuck knows. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians......

[DistressedAmerican]

7. Sadly, I'm Not Sure If I Have Ever Seen An Estimate!

[oxbow]

12. I think the number is closer to 20,000 than 200,000

There are significant methodological errors with the study in The Lancet that you are citing.

This is a fair review of why the number is skewed:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/#ContinueArticle

excerpt:

The problem is, ultimately, not with the scholars who conducted the study; they did the best they could under the circumstances. The problem is the circumstances. It's hard to conduct reliable, random surveys—and to extrapolate meaningful data from the results of those surveys—in the chaotic, restrictive environment of war.

However, these scholars are responsible for the hype surrounding the study. Gilbert Burnham, one of the co-authors, told the International Herald Tribune (for a story reprinted in today's New York Times), "We're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate." Yet the text of the study reveals this is simply untrue. Burnham should have said, "We're not quite sure what our estimate means. Assuming our model is accurate, the actual death toll might be 100,000, or it might be somewhere between 92,000 lower and 94,000 higher than that number."


Our message is more powerful when people can't pick out one thing that is untrue and use it to ignore everything else that we're saying. Besides, the pursuit of truth in itself is a commendable goal!

[DistressedAmerican]

15. hat May Well Be. No one Claims It Is Easy To Get An Accurate Count.

The basic point remains the same whether it is tens or hundreds of thousnds. These people are DYING FOR NOTHING. The war MUST BE STOPPED!

[oxbow]

22. I totally agree

100 deaths is too much for a lie, much less 20,000. I just hate it when people blow us off because one of our facts is not right.

[EFerrari]

13. We don't know how many people were killed by Saddam

because the reports about him have been shown to be seriously wrong, like the report that he "gassed his own people" when in fact he didn't possess the agent that decimated those poor Kurds but Iran did.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the pResident has alreayd outdone him.

And I wouldn't be surprised if he turns up on the payroll, down the road.

:(

[DistressedAmerican]

14. Kick!

[ananda]

16. also keep in mind

Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

[zippy890]

18. All those Iraqi civilians and innocents

would be alive today if our country had not invaded their country.

All 'on a pack of lies'

Bush OUT of the White House. IMPEACH him

[spanone]

19. But thank God bush* is protecting frozen embryos.

[zippy890]

20. it would be funny if it wasn't so

horribly unconscionable

[DistressedAmerican]

21. Kick.

[DistressedAmerican]

23. ...

[DistressedAmerican]

24. Weekday Kick