Coalition Forces in Iraq have killed 150,000 to 200,000 Iraqis - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 8 Old 08-14-2006, 12:47 AM - Thread Starter
 
Aquaduct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
According to the best survey done, about 100,000 Iraqis were (directly or indirectly ) killed by the the invasion and occupation by US and British troops.

Since then a whole lot more people have been killed, so factoring another year and a half of casualities we may conservatively estimate the US led invasion of Iraq has killed many more tens of thousands of Iraqis than govt. sources are letting on.

The figure of 30,000 deaths carried by most news media is clearly a gross underestimate, as pointed out by British journalist George Monbiot writing in the Guardian: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005...-out-the-dead/

Now I know 2,500 US soldiers have died....in fact nearly every American knows that. But how many know about the Iraqi deathtoll? An Iraqi death is just as important as an American death.
Aquaduct is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 8 Old 08-14-2006, 12:52 AM
 
tinuviel_k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,290
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Absolutey horrifying. I can hardly wrap my mind around that much death and destruction.
tinuviel_k is offline  
#3 of 8 Old 08-14-2006, 07:12 AM
 
Gitti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ready to move on...
Posts: 14,492
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
..and all this for the last few drops of oil.
Gitti is offline  
#4 of 8 Old 08-14-2006, 07:16 AM
 
eightyferrettoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Horrible beyond belief. No, I don't think most Americans have any idea how high the Iraqi death toll is, nor do they really care.

There's something about that "1/4 of a million" figure that might wake a few more people up. Not soon enough, though.
eightyferrettoes is offline  
#5 of 8 Old 08-14-2006, 09:24 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquaduct
According to the best survey done, about 100,000 Iraqis were killed by the violence of mainly US and British troops. They left out of their figures the estimated 30,000 to 50,000 people massacred in Fallujah.

Since then a whole lot more people have been killed, so factoring another year and a half of casualities plus the Fallujah figures we may conservatively estimate the US led invasion of Iraq has killed nearly 1/4 million people.

The figure of 30,000 deaths carried by most news media is clearly a gross underestimate, as pointed out by British journalist George Monbiot writing in the Guardian: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005...-out-the-dead/

Now I know 2,500 US soldiers have died....in fact nearly every American knows that. But how many know about the Iraqi deathtoll?
Just curious, where are you getting your 100,000 killed by US and British troops statement from? The only thing I could find even close in the article was one statement that 50,000 "insurgents" had been killed by troops. Every other stat I saw just said the "death rate" went up and even claimed "only half the deaths" were caused by violence.
Quote:
It was a household survey – of 988 homes in 33 randomly selected districts – and it suggested, on the basis of the mortality those households reported before and after the invasion, that the risk of death in Iraq had risen by a factor of 1.5. Somewhere between 8000 and 194,000 extra people had died, with the most probable figure being 98,000(6). Around half the deaths, if Falluja was included, or 15% if it was not, were caused by violence, and the great majority of those by attacks on the part of US forces.
I am not trying to minimize anything, just confused where your statement came from.
pumpkinsmama is offline  
#6 of 8 Old 08-14-2006, 10:52 PM - Thread Starter
 
Aquaduct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,028
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Good point. I was reading that too fast, and clearly about 100,000 may have died after the first 1.75 years (This is unclear, but since the report came out end of 2004, I am assuming it was done over March 2003 to November (date of the Fallujah action) 2004) of occupation by coalition forces, but not all of them directly from UK or US firepower. And the Fallujah figures must be included in that figure so I made a mistake in adding them on again.

However, I think it is clear that the official tally is a gross underestimate. That there is deliberate covering up by the US and UK governments of the death tally, as Monbiot details.

And we can still safely say that as a result of the invasion that was meant to make Iraq a nice safe country for it's people, an extra 150,000 to 200,000 plus deaths have been caused, either directly or indirectly by the actions of the US and UK military. I am obviously extrapolating from that 98,000 figure quoted by Monbiot for the first 1.75 years of occupation. You could say that the first year of occupation would be having the higher death tally since it included the actual invasion, but there is a lot of evidence that the last year (mid 2005 to mid2006) might be higher, since there is much more sectarian violence, and much more resistence to the occupation.

Monbiot makes the case that about 2/3s of the extra deaths are probably caused by coalition troops direct actions, as opposed to the surveys idea that about half is, and the rest by sectarian violence or lack of services. Probably the coalition forces would say most of the deaths can be attributed to "insurgents". I tend to take with a grain of salt what governments that have invaded other countries say, so I would go with Monbiots words over their words.
Aquaduct is offline  
#7 of 8 Old 08-14-2006, 10:59 PM
 
Ekatherina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lebanon
Posts: 800
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
my freind went to Iraq before US invasion....she adores baghdad and all. but i decided to go too late. you simply can't go there now.

Katie, farmer's wife belly.gifmom to ds (9y) modifiedartist.gifand dd (6y)dust.gif and ds (3y) jog.gif   we goorganic.jpg    saynovax.gifhomebirth.jpghomeschool.gif 
Ekatherina is offline  
#8 of 8 Old 08-15-2006, 01:18 AM
 
MountainLaurel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Crescent City
Posts: 1,246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pumpkinsmama

I am not trying to minimize anything, just confused where your statement came from.
The medical journal Lancet (the Brit version of JAMA) published an article in 2004 with the 100K figure.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct28.html

We'll never know the true toll, however. Coalition (i.e., American) military leaders made it clear through public statements at the outset of the invasion that they did not care about civilian casualties and would not be trying to keep any count.
MountainLaurel is offline  
Reply

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off