Absolutey horrifying. I can hardly wrap my mind around that much death and destruction.
Coalition Forces in Iraq have killed 150,000 to 200,000 Iraqis
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.
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.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
..and all this for the last few drops of oil.
Quote:
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:
I am not trying to minimize anything, just confused where your statement came from.
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? |
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. |
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
Originally Posted by pumpkinsmama I am not trying to minimize anything, just confused where your statement came from. |
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.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Mothering Forum
A forum community dedicated to all mothers and inclusive family living enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about nurturing, health, behavior, housing, adopting, care, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
