Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

478 comments

Yes, and don't forget (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663505)

How many of his own people Saddam killed. And how many of those deaths are due to terrorists trying to recapture his legacy.

Typical Republican response (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663578)

Sure, I'm a fuck-up, but so and so is too!

Re:Yes, and don't forget (4, Informative)

theghost (156240) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663603)

RTFA
The most common cause of death is as a direct result of violence, mostly caused by coalition air strikes...

Re:Yes, and don't forget (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663623)

And why are they still doing air strikes? It's not for fun, it's not just to kill people. If the intent was to kill civillians, they'd pretty much all be dead. They're trying to get at the terrorists.

Re:Yes, and don't forget (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663652)

And why are they still doing air strikes? It's not for fun, it's not just to kill people. If the intent was to kill civillians, they'd pretty much all be dead. They're trying to get at the terrorists.

And by hell they'll get the terrorists if they have to kill everyone in the place.

Darn terrorists, speading terror and scaring and killing folk.

Re:Yes, and don't forget (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663711)

So once again, the defense is "They're not evil, they're just incompetent."

I'm sure all those families are much happier knowing that their relatives were killed on accident.

Re: Yes, and don't forget (4, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663815)


> And why are they still doing air strikes? It's not for fun, it's not just to kill people. If the intent was to kill civillians, they'd pretty much all be dead. They're trying to get at the terrorists.

And you can see how well bombing suspected terrorists in civilian neighborhoods has worked for Israel against the Intifada.

Moreover, the air strikes in Fallujah seem to be hitting primarily citizens. Either they're bombing the city on bad intelligence, or else just bombing it to cow the population.

Re: Yes, and don't forget (2, Insightful)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663887)

... or they're actually hitting insurgents, but because insurgents don't wear uniforms or dog tags, it's really hard to tell them apart from civilians.

Re: Yes, and don't forget (4, Insightful)

thedocdm (823359) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663906)

Yes, because the media is always right and always reports accurately especially when they have reliable Iraqi civilians feeding them information. And the media is unbiased of course. I understand what the Israeli's go through with the media reports having now heard how ours and the world's reports what happens here. It's a lot different from reality.

You try it. (1)

theghost (156240) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663892)

September 12 [newsgaming.com]

The study is a lie and an extrapolation tsarkon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663812)

This is a well times lie to fuck Bush. This is an extrapolation. The only evidence of death are mass graves made by Saddam's secret police and troops and we find them and unearth them. Yet Sean Penn says Iraq was a wonderland before the war. We chose to believe Sean Penn and not mass graves?

There are no bodies that have been counted in the study. Like Kerry's no cell phone calling lying pollsters, they surveys 1000 homes and then extrapolated this false outrageous lie.

This whole thing was done at Kerry's behest. This is a Kerry and Soros attempt to subject us to the will of the UN.

If you believe the lies and propaganda, especially timed news releases right before an election, you are a fool.

Rock the vote morons, and lose your rights. You think patriot was bad, wait until Kofi Annan takes your guns away.

Re:The study is a lie and an extrapolation tsarkon (1)

theghost (156240) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663943)

I don't think their count is accurate either, but at least they trying to back up their claims. Where's your source?

Re:The study is a lie and an extrapolation tsarkon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663989)

Pictures on the news and on the Internet of mass graves with body counts.

Re: Yes, and don't forget (3, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663631)


> How many of his own people Saddam killed.

At least three times that many, plus about 900,000,000 Iranian soldiers in the gratuitous war he started.

But the question is, how come we're invoking that as an retcon [wikipedia.org] justification after failing to discover WMD, when we didn't lift a finger to stop him while he was actually doing it.

> And how many of those deaths are due to terrorists trying to recapture his legacy.

I would guess that most of the terrorists are trying to set up another radical Islamic state rather than bring Saddam back.

Some of the resistance fighters may be Saddamists (Saddamites?) though.



Re: Yes, and don't forget (1)

otuz (85014) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663699)

Ummm.. that's almost a billion, I don't think so.

Re: Yes, and don't forget (1)

theghost (156240) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663833)

Yeah, there's a few extra zeros there and a multiplier. Iraq claimed to have killed 800,000 Iranians, Iran claimed to have lost 200,000. Experts put the number at around 300,000 give or take 100,000.

Thanks to their superior military and intelligence (courtesy of US backing) Iraq's body count was estimated at 1/2 of Iran's.

Re: Yes, and don't forget (3, Informative)

isotope23 (210590) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663719)

"At least three times that many, plus about 900,000,000 Iranian soldiers in the gratuitous war he started."

Don't forget that we provided intelligence TO
Saddam during that war [gwu.edu]

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss (1)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663507)

I won't get fooled again.

Re:Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss (1)

presearch (214913) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663861)

Sure you will.

different stats (4, Informative)

cheeseSource (605209) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663525)

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Different sites have different stats, but one civilian death is one too many.

Re:different stats (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663554)

Oh please. Civillians die in every war. Perhaps you'd rather have slavery still legal, or Hitler ruling the world? If I died as a result of a war that left the world in a better place in the future (removed a dictator, freed people, etc), I would be okay with that.

Re:different stats (5, Insightful)

Ieshan (409693) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663767)

Whatever man.

Lets get some things straight. There's never been a "good" war in the history of the world that didn't *first* start because of a power struggle or a politician's false pretense and was *later* justified by pointing to all the good it did.

Slavery and Saving Jews were all post-factum addendums to the Civil War and WW2. The allies FLEW OVER railways that they *knew* led to German Concentration Camps and SENT BACK refugees that had risked their lives to escape.

If you were dead, you wouldn't be glad about your noble sacrifice, you'd be dead.

Re: different stats (2, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663851)


> Lets get some things straight. There's never been a "good" war in the history of the world that didn't *first* start because of a power struggle or a politician's false pretense and was *later* justified by pointing to all the good it did.

As in this case, where the "liberation" angle is emergency spin to cover the lack of WMD in Iraq.

Also re your general point, it's not possible for both sides in a war to be right, but it is possible for both sides to be wrong.

Re:different stats (2, Interesting)

dubious9 (580994) | more than 8 years ago | (#10664061)

The allies FLEW OVER railways that they *knew* led to German Concentration Camps

It was a tactical desicion. Do you know how many flights it took to take out *one* location in WWII? An average of ten missions with multiple aircraft. Also bombs were wildly inaccurate. There are multiple accounts of bombs missing targets by upto a mile.

The concentration camp were, one a *burden* of money and manpower to the germans, two, you couldn't target individual buildings (ie crematoriums) without risking hitting prisioner barracks, three the force required to take out such targets outweighed their strategic advantage, and four few people knew the whole extent of what was going on there. Yes it's a cold calculated descision but one that was militarily and morally sound.

SENT BACK refugees that had risked their lives to escape

I'm guessing you're refering to the immigration limits of the 30's and early 40's. The US was in a drepression at the time (I think they called it the GREAT depression) and the influx was further destablizing the economy. Furthermore no one in the US knew (at that time) of the resultant outcome of those policies. Cold? Yes. Immoral? They certainly didn't think so.

So no, there's no such thing as a "good" war, but WWII was a "just" war. IBM, Ford and the Catholic Church had more to do with the Holocaust than the US government did. I could offer a refute of your analysis of the civil war also, but no one wants to read a novel on /.

Re:different stats (2, Interesting)

timothv (730957) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663572)

The stats at iraqbodycount are only the ones reported by the media.

Re:different stats (2, Insightful)

tha_mink (518151) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663580)

Don't forget that the body count of civilians is not entirely due to American force. It's just a body count. Lot's have died due to their countrymen's efforts.

Re:different stats (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663691)

Actually the body count is since the american's invaded Iraq. So although some deaths won't be directly from US (or coalition of the willing) military personnel it is still due to the invasion.

Re:different stats (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663651)

One civilian death is too many? Man, I guess that World War II was a mistake.

Re:different stats (4, Informative)

Leftist Troll (825839) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663675)

Iraq Body Count only includes verified deaths reported by credible media outlets. The 100,000 stat is an estimate based on door-to-door surveys, which should be more accurate. That's why I made it my sig yesterday. Also, note this excerpt from the VOA article my sig links to:
The researchers did not include deaths in the volatile city of Fallujah in their final analysis, saying that would have skewed the death toll much higher.

Re: RTFA (1)

DongleFondle (655040) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663919)

"One major project, www.iraqbodycount.net, estimates up to 16,300 deaths in Iraq due to coalition forces. But this collects data on deaths reported in the press only. "We've always maintained that the actual count must be much higher," says Scott Lipscomb, at Northwestern University, Illinois, US, who works on the project. "I am emotionally shocked but I have no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed," he told The New York Times."

There's an entire paragraph right in the article explaining why the people who came up with iraqbodycount.net readily admit their figure is woefully low.

WTF does "The Lancet" have to do with this? (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663565)

Is this the same "The Lancet" that's a journal for medical laboratory scientists, sort of like "Communications of the ACM" is a journal for computer scientists? Or is this some new "The Lancet" upstart that claims expertise in geopolitical arts?

In other news, The Economist is running a story on whether Koch's postulates apply to modern illnesses.

Re:WTF does "The Lancet" have to do with this? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663910)

Medical statistics have been intimately tied to war, at least since Florence Nightingale. There are obvious reasons for this. In regions of political dispute, one can arguably get the most accurate description of what is happening vis-a-vis life & death from doctors who are, after all, charged with this responsibility. I'd imagine that it's not uncommon for lab scientists to get statistics and evidence about piles of bodies and injury reports, to try to explain what the most likely cause is.

Your analogy is a bit shitty. It's more like Comm. ACM talking about elections; a bit off-topic, but you're fooling yourself if the technical issues and political issues don't overlap.

Re:WTF does "The Lancet" have to do with this? (1)

PrvtBurrito (557287) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663915)

Hmm, I think doctors/physicians are probably pretty good (and appropriate) at estimating body counts.

do you mean that a war actually kills people? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663571)

I could swear the president's right hand man said that they would minimize civilian casualties?

Re: do you mean that a war actually kills people? (3, Interesting)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663733)


> I could swear the president's right hand man said that they would minimize civilian casualties?

Here's another good one:

We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.

- Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before Congress

The neocons are trying to sell imperialism by portraying it as cheap and painless. Reality hasn't conformed to the plan yet.

Re:do you mean that a war actually kills people? (2, Funny)

10100 (767421) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663866)

They did minimize civilian casualties...the original target was 200,000

Kerry now says he'd have gone to war too... (-1, Flamebait)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663591)

See the link [drudgereport.com] So the casualty count would probably have been the same. Remember to vote!

Re:Kerry now says he'd have gone to war too... (4, Insightful)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663666)

Uh- Kerry always said he would have gone to war too, that's why I voted for Kucinich in the primary. The difference is he would have gone with more troops- even if it meant a draft- and more planning- even if it meant giving the inspectors a few more weeks- and better intelligence- even if it meant confirming every detail- and probably would have actually *bothered* to guard or destroy munitions depots as we went. Plus, as a Democrat, he wouldn't have given in to the Iraqi NRA- he would have disarmed civilians as we invaded as well (how stupid do you have to be to invade a country, destroy it's entire civil government, and NOT disarm the people?). I think all of that would have ended up with fewer battle casualties- and more friendly fire incidents.

Re:Kerry now says he'd have gone to war too... (1)

thedocdm (823359) | more than 8 years ago | (#10664032)

Alright smart guy, you come up with a plan to disarm the people. I disagree with a lot of things about this war, and I think it could have been planned better. But you are welcome to come over here and disarm the people so they can be killed by the bad guys who still have weapons. AK-47s do not represent a significant threat to our forces! It is far more valuable to have lightly armed civilians capable of defending their homes and neighborhoods from the bad guys(TM) (which they are starting to do now) than it would be to have spent months or years trying to disarm the entire population!

Yeah, it's so obvious (1)

the_skywise (189793) | more than 8 years ago | (#10664044)

That Kerry has "always" sais he'd have gone to war to that Brokaw is suprised at Kerry's response to the question "If you were President, Hussein would still be in power"

Oh and Kerry is for the draft too... hmmmm...

Re:Kerry now says he'd have gone to war too... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663690)

Just so we're clear, this is what that guy who think's he's a reporter(drudge) has on his site:

NBCNEWS Brokaw interviewed John Kerry Thursday evening.

Brokaw: "If you had been President, Saddam Hussein would be in power."

Kerry: "Not necessarily."

Brokaw: "You said you wouldn't go to war against him."

Kerry: "That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons."

Brokaw: "But he wasn't destroying them."

Kerry: "That's what you have inspectors for. That's why I voted for the threat of force, because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's irresponsible to suggest that if I were President, he wouldn't be gone. He might be gone, because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war, but if we did, we would have gone with allies, so the American people weren't carrying the entire burden. And the entire world would understand why we did it."


Hmmm...Where did Kerry say he would have gone to war to? He was responding to the statement that Saddam would still be in power and he said "not necessarily". Then he stated about how we "may" have gone to war with all our allies if Saddam hadn't backed down and stopped farting around with the weapons inspectors.

But to take what he said and just thrown out flippantly "would probably have been the same" is kind of not true.

But isn't America safer now? (1, Troll)

sgant (178166) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663600)

With those 100,000 dead....200,000 if you include Falluja according to the article, don't you sleep better at night here in the US, knowing that we're safer now?

Bush says it's a success in Iraq! We got rid of the dictator...so the Iraqi people should just bow down to us and totally accept democracy and throw roses and chocolates to our soldiers who are helping to make their country safe!

So if by "success" Bush means "total fucking fiasco" then yes...it was a success.

Doubtful survey (1)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663695)

This is quite an unlikely article -- even moreso than the double-counting IraqBodyCount.net

I suspect this is a hackneyed attempt at an "October Surprise".

Re:Doubtful survey (1)

Edax Rarem (187218) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663914)

Even if it is only 10,000, that is too many. Far too many.
It means there are 10,000 relatives of those people that hate America because this President had a hard-on for Saddam and his partner had his sights on Oil.

This war is an atrocity and those responsible should be "brought to justice."

Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong President (5, Insightful)

node 3 (115640) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663618)

I was going to make a +5 Funny post about how George W. Bush is keeping us safe, but the subject is just too horrible.

The war on terror is not meant to be won, it's meant to be an excuse for any atrocity.

How can anyone think this is justified? It's sick.

It should have been... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663712)

I was going to make a +5 Funny post about how George W. Bush is keeping us safe, but the subject is just too horrible.

It should have been:

I was going to make a post about how George W. Bush is keeping us safe that I thought would be moded +5 Funny.

I think you were thinking a bit optimistically.

Re:Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong President (1, Insightful)

Edax Rarem (187218) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663878)

What dumbass modded this as funny?
You should have your mod rights stripped.

Re:Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong President (1)

pr0c (604875) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663913)

You're right, casualties during a time of war is much worse than what Saddam did... I'm sure the Iraqis would much rather be threatened, beat, tortured, gassed, thrown out of tall buildings, have their children molested in front of them... blah blah blah...

Was the war for the wrong reason? It appears so.. Was the war at the wrong time? Is there ever a more right time? Wrong President?... We'll see the wrong president for the next 4 years if you have your way.

I can't believe what slashdot has done with the political section, it is truly disgusting... michael shouldn't be posting shit in this section, he is obviously extremely biased, this is hardly even a story...

What the hell? (0, Flamebait)

OptimoosePrime (612749) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663626)

Due to "America's war"? Make sure you vote? Maybe /. should take their American flag off of the politics topic banner and replace it with a flower or something. Iraq had problems and we went to help. How many of those 100,000 civilians were involved in attempts to attack American troops? How about the hundreds of thousands of people who are now free from tyranny in Iraq under Sadam's regime?

Re: What the hell? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663788)


> Maybe /. should take their American flag off of the politics topic banner and replace it with a flower or something.

How about an inverted flag, the traditional signal of distress.

(FWIW, I've been sticking the "flag" postage stamps on my mail upside down.)

> How about the hundreds of thousands of people who are now free from tyranny in Iraq under Sadam's regime?

It's not clear that they're free from tyranny yet, what with the security sweeps, mass arrests, prison abuse, media shutdowns, and the US bombing barber shops to terrorize the residents of Fallujah into submission.

Re:What the hell? (4, Insightful)

sgant (178166) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663818)

How many of those 100,000 civilians were involved in attempts to attack American troops? How about the hundreds of thousands of people who are now free from tyranny in Iraq under Sadam's regime?

Interesting...so we were there to help.

Ah, so if another country...say China for instance...were to send troops to America to "help" us we would just lay down our arms, and welcome them with open arms? I mean, they're just trying to help right?

And if by "free from tyranny" you mean "all out civil war" then yeah, that's really something!

Re:What the hell? (1)

Leftist Troll (825839) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663821)

Iraq had problems and we went to help
Are you joking? Why didn't we help the people of North Korea or China? Oh right, they actually have weapons of mass destruction.

If by "help" you meant "kill" then you're right.

How many of those 100,000 civilians were involved in attempts to attack American troops?
None, that's why this is a count of civillians.

How about the hundreds of thousands of people who are now free from tyranny in Iraq under Sadam's regime?
And are now under the tryranny of American occupation. Your exercise in moral relativism does not make a meaningful point.

Maybe /. should take their American flag off of the politics topic banner and replace it with a flower or something.
Right, 'cause you're not a good American if you have a problem with invading a sovereign nation that DID NOT THREATEN US, and while occupying it killing loads of civillians.

Re:What the hell? (1)

eqdar (820698) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663829)

Insightful ???? > take their American flag off of the politics topic > banner and replace it with a flower or something Why take the American flag off ? Are americans unable to behave peacefully ? Do you want to imply that non-"pro-war" citizens are not Americans, or don't deserve the US flag ? Because war is sooo cool and flower-power is soooo lame ? I don't know any of your soldiers, but what are *they* saying ? You know, the people that *actually* fight... what are they thinking about this ?

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663984)

Yeah, we sure helped the hell out of those motherfuckers.

This sort of thing'd make me want to vote against Bush, except I heard on FOX! News! that Kerry is against the United States, our troops, our families and innocent little puppies.

600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (2, Insightful)

waynegoode (758645) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663628)

The story forgot to mention the other side. According to the Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq, 600,000 civilians were executed during Sadaam Hussein's regime.

From The Age [66.102.7.104] (Google cache to skip registration): We have records of 600,000 executions and we estimate that 180,000 died in the uprising including the Marsh Arabs. The bombing of Halabja left 5000 dead," Mr al-Huoseyni said.

Like the posting said, make sure you vote--just like the people in Iraq finally had a chance to.

Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (5, Insightful)

Leftist Troll (825839) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663728)

According to the Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq, 600,000 civilians were executed during Sadaam Hussein's regime.

Two wrongs don't make a right. We shouldn't be in a position where we are comparing ourselves to Saddam Hussein.

Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (1)

SyncNine (532248) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663876)

You're correct -- two wrongs don't make a right.

Unfortunately, the letter we sent to Saddam that read "Dear Saddam, We'd like it if you were nicer. We don't agree with you killing dissidents in your country. Please stop. Warm Regards, George W. Bush" wasn't so well received. Two wrongs may not make a right, but it would be the same if not worse if Saddam was still in power. We'd just be talking about how many civilians Saddam had killed instead of trying to blame every death in Iraq on America. I may not agree with the war, but that doesn't mean Iraq is in a worse place now because of America's interference.

Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (1)

otuz (85014) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663743)

Well, Saddam had quite many years to accomplish that.

Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663748)

Saddam Hussein was President of Iraq from 1979 to 2003. He was a prick, no doubting that, and in 24 years he killed 600,000 civilians.

The american coalition of the willing has killed 100,000 in just over a year. Wow. Bigger pricks.

Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (2, Insightful)

Reducer2001 (197985) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663763)

Iraqs were able to vote with Saddam in power. Sorta. [bbc.co.uk]

I wouldn't call having armed forces at the voting booths conducive to a fair election though. Of course, elections haven't been fair in America for quite some time [pfaw.org] .

I'm not saying removing Saddam from power is a bad thing, just that it might have been more efficient to support an armed uprising than to commit our troops to 5 years of combat.

Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (2, Insightful)

sgant (178166) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663781)

Over how long a period? This 100,000 number, if true, was only over a year and a half.

But what do numbers mean? We didn't go to war with Iraq because Saddam was killing his own people...hell, we're kinda cool with that really. Look at Stalin, Cambodia, North Korea....the only thing really thrown at them was harsh language and "you guys cut it out"...but we didn't do anything with the millions...yes, the number with the 7 digits in it...of people murdered. Even up to 1979 in the killing fields of Cambodia under Pol Pot. So please, Saddam is an amatuer when it comes to killing his own people.

Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663786)

Right, so we're much better than Saddam because we "only" killed 100,000 people...

Not the sharpest knife, are you?

Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663826)

Yes, one sixth of Hussein's murders in less than one tenth of the time is certainly more effective, isn't it?

Sources (1)

Pentagram (40862) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663837)

The story forgot to mention the other side. According to the Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq, 600,000 civilians were executed during Sadaam Hussein's regime.

What is the "Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq"? Is it this [iraqcenter.com] ? It doesn't look very scientific.

Saddam was undoubtedly very keen on executions, but 600,000 seems like a huge over-estimate. Of course it depends on how you define an "execution" -- for example if you count the gassing of the Kurds with the chemical weapons the West sold him.

Like the posting said, make sure you vote--just like the people in Iraq finally had a chance to.

When did Iraq have elections?

Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (1)

socrates32 (650558) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663880)

Ahem... Saddam's regime lasted several decades. W's little war "ended" a year and a half ago, with no real end in sight. How is this better? At this rate, Junior will catch up by the time Longhorn goes gold.

Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (1)

sgeye (757198) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663907)

Don't forget about the 500,000 CHILDREN that died because of the UN Sanction fiasco.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/418 59 7.stm

"Unicef estimates that over the last 10 years at least 500,000 child deaths could have been prevented."

Re: 600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#10664011)


> Don't forget about the 500,000 CHILDREN that died because of the UN Sanction fiasco.

The thing about sanctions is that in the crippled economy the ruling class still skims their share off the top, with the undesirable effect that the pain "trickles down" to ordinary citizens and oppressed groups.

Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663969)

yes, tell me, what would jesus bomb?

The purpose of my post (1)

waynegoode (758645) | more than 8 years ago | (#10664016)

My, but everyone certainly has a lot to say...

The purpose of my post was not to say the numbers are accurate or inaccurate, whether 100,000 dead was acceptable, or whether one action justifies another. That sort of thing cannot be discussed intelligently in a few sentences.

The purpose of my post was to place the story in context and give additional facts not mentioned. An informed discussion needs all of the facts.

Only 50% higher death rate (4, Informative)

slughead (592713) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663630)

The overall risk of death was 1.5 times more after the invasion than before.

That also includes the invasion itself. At this rate, eventually it may go down.

Death (0, Offtopic)

jpsowin (325530) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663657)

Sure, we Americans love to complain about war deaths that save many more lives, but what about the 44,670,812 [nrlc.org] innocent children we've killed since 1973?

Re:Death (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663722)

Get out of here you fucking tree hugging hippy.

Re:Death (2, Funny)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663857)

Hu? No hippies want us to kill our babies, didn't you know that??? :)

Re:Death (2, Insightful)

presearch (214913) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663780)

- They weren't children at that point.

- It wasn't "we", the decision was that of the parents.

- The term "innocent" means nothing except that it exposes the hypocrisy
of the "sanctity of life" that's espoused by pro-lifers only goes so far:
if they are judged guilty of something, kill 'em.

It's easy to defend cute little babies and puppies and kittens
but the real test of faith is when you have to love thy enemy.

The abortion fight is all bullshit, and none of your business.

Re:Death (1)

Saganaga (167162) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663889)

They weren't children at that point.

Says you, but that's your opinion only. Many people say that they are children.

It wasn't "we", the decision was that of the parents.

Yes, but "we" allowed that decision to be legal.

The term "innocent" means nothing except that it exposes the hypocrisy of the "sanctity of life" that's espoused by pro-lifers only goes so far:
if they are judged guilty of something, kill 'em.


Let me get this straight: in your ideal world, the innocent should be killed and the guilty should go free? Nice.

It's easy to defend cute little babies and puppies and kittens
but the real test of faith is when you have to love thy enemy.


Non sequitur.

The abortion fight is all bullshit, and none of your business.

It's not bullshit. It's anybody's business who thinks that killing for perceived convenience has no place in a civilized society.

Re:Death (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10664049)

Let's see how you feel after your sister is brutally raped by three guys, only to find out a month later that she's carrying one of their babies. My family went through it, and the first thing she said after finding out was "can I get an abortion?".

The skeptic's opinion: Number hard to calculate (4, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663670)

It would be nice to have a link to the real article, rather than an oversimplistic summary. This number is _extremely_ difficult to calculate. Some estimates say tens of thousands. Some say hundreds of thousands. With wild variations like that no one should believe any of these numbers at all. When they are within a factor of 2 then we have a reasonable range. But it will be 10 years before we really have a good idea. The same thing happened with WWI, WWII, Hiroshima, etc.
For this report, the sample numbers were EXTREMELY EXTREMELY low: 988 housholds. The potential for error here is astounding.
Confirmation was sought to ensure that a large fraction of the reported deaths were not fabrications...but only in two cases for each cluster of [30] houses.
So they had confirmation of 6%.
But the team believes that lying about deaths is unlikely
That's silly. The death count is constantly overreported. Every article about military firefights ends with a quote from some official saying how the Americans attacked mostly women, children, and the elderly. It's the standard line and it gets old and less believable each time. I would really like to see statistics on who was killed and how the deaths occurred. Firefights with US troops? Bombings? Deaths during reconstruction? Who is called a "civilian?"

Re:The skeptic's opinion: Number hard to calculate (2, Insightful)

galaxyboy (825541) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663936)

That's silly. The death count is constantly overreported. Every article about military firefights ends with a quote from some official saying how the Americans attacked mostly women, children, and the elderly

Exactly! I read a story yesterday about this report and they actually said that the vast majority of the deaths were women and children. That is what tipped me off to conclude that the story was a load of crap. Does anyone honestly think that we would deliberatly attack women and children ONLY? If we were not attacking them deliberately, then why the hell would the vast majority of deaths be women and children? The polls in Iraq clearly show that Iraqis don't want Americans over there. What better way to get them to leave then to undermine their efforts by claiming that they are targeting civilians.

The problem with liberals is that they are much more inclined to believe the enemies of the USA than they are to believe the leaders of the country or even the soldiers that are over there fighting. This is like Howard Dean taking the terrorists commnets after the attack in Spain and saying it is the Presidents fault of the war in Iraq. Spain backing out of Iraq was absolutely the WORST thing that could have happened. All it did was give these morons more reason to hold people hostage, threaten beheadings, and ochestrate more attacks.

If the President wasn't a war-mongerer like you all say he is, then the extremists-to-be in the middle east would still be seething waiting for an opportunity. Bush has forced them to take a side....a side that they probably would eventually take if left alone anyway. The only reason there is more terrorism in the world now is because somebody is standing up and saying we are not going to sit here and take this crap anymore.

Flame away!

Re:The skeptic's opinion: Number hard to calculate (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663956)


> This number is _extremely_ difficult to calculate. Some estimates say tens of thousands. Some say hundreds of thousands.

Yes, take it with a grain of salt until more information becomes available, especially since it is so different from the other estimates.

> For this report, the sample numbers were EXTREMELY EXTREMELY low: 988 housholds. The potential for error here is astounding.

That's not a particularly small sample size for the kinds of polls and surveys that we see all the time. You don't need a particularly big sample to get reasonable confidence values.

Of course, if you're deliberately fudging the sample to get the results you want, then all bets are off.

> Every article about military firefights ends with a quote from some official saying how the Americans attacked mostly women, children, and the elderly. It's the standard line and it gets old and less believable each time.

So you think Iraqi doctors are categorically lying about what they see coming in their hospitals? I suppose it's possible, but ISTM that they have less reason to lie than, say, the US military and the Bush Administration.

Re:The skeptic's opinion: Number hard to calculate (1)

Keebler71 (520908) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663962)

Try this article [techcentralstation.com] for a way more comprehensive "meta-analysis" of the Lancet story than I could ever muster.

Not knowing much about either source, I don't know their motivations (although "rushing" to release this days before the election is suspicious)... but I thought someone might want to read a coherent rebutal.

And the Undead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663671)


Given Iraq's ancient history, I bet that hundreds of millions are currently dead there.

Whoops, missed the anti-Bush (I won't be voting for him either) jab at the end of the submission.

AP's story on this is troublesome (4, Informative)

scupper (687418) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663684)

AP is running a story on this which goes into a little more detail,

Household Survey Sees 100,000 Iraqi Deaths [go.com]

And there are some troblesome excerpts:
  • There is no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began
  • some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000.
  • concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision,"
  • quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study
  • report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher said he wanted it that way.
  • possible that they may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq
  • more household clusters would have improved the precision of the report

and? (3, Insightful)

Pentagram (40862) | more than 8 years ago | (#10664006)

None of your quotations are attacking any actual part of the method used in the study, they're just generalisations.

There is no official figure for the number of
Iraqis killed since the conflict began


Well of course there's no fucking official figure. Who could possibly give an "official" figure? God?

some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000.

As time goes on, more people are killed, and it is possible to establish that more people have been killed.

concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision,"

As opposed to most studies which are of infinite precision?

quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study

Well yes.

report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher said he wanted it that way.

And why not? Isn't this the most vital time that people hear this information?

possible that they may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq

However, this information could be biased in either direction. Some areas of Iraq were excluded because they were too dangerous for the investigators; weren't they likely to have suffered more deaths?

more household clusters would have improved the precision of the report

Well obviously. This is true for any study or poll ever published.

Bull$hit (4, Informative)

thedocdm (823359) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663731)

I'm calling BS on this article. They conducted a sampling survey to generate these numbers? Come on now. I'm more inclined to believe iraqbodycount.org and the media always gets it wrong (and never corrects themselves.) And to blame most of the deaths on the US bombing? Total horse $hit. Have innocent people died in Iraq? Hell yes. Have many of them been our fault? Yes. Have any of them been deliberate? No. Half of the innocent lives lost over here, by estimation and observation for the past eight months I've been in Baghdad (being a little involved in intelligence reports), come from the insurgents/terrorists. Their road-side bombs and car bombs as often target civilians and Iraqi security forces (the ones who take huge personal risk upon themselves and their families to try to make a difference in the future of their country) as they target Coalition Forces. This article is BS BS BS BS!

My favorite quote (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663738)

Robert Horton - "The research was completed under the most testing of circumstances - an ongoing war. And therefore certain limitations were inevitable and need to be acknowledged right away"

Why would you publish a study that is by it's very nature inconclusive and impossible to verify? Why would you publish one in the week before a major election? I think you can answer these questions for yourselves.

I have no doubts that many civilians have died. Every other night I see a report about a car bomb going off in some crowded area killing ten or more and injuring 20-30 people, many of them women and children who later die from their wounds... rarely there is a report that a US soldier is killed or injured by these attacks.

I'm also certain that there have been civilian deaths as a result of Coalition Airstrikes. The insurgent forces and foreign terror groups both choose to hide among the civilian population... taking them hostage while claiming to be their protectors.

Stats (2)

Associate (317603) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663739)

The interviewers did ask for death certificates, but only in two cases for each cluster of houses.
So the rest of the reported deaths were taken at face value?
Horton acknowledges the potential for recall bias among those interviewed and also the relatively small sample size.
Article also says the study is based on about 1000 households scattered across Iraq. That's out of 22.6 million in 2000.

I think I could have done this study with three chimps, a dart board and some peanut butter and still come up with more believable data.

The important question... (4, Insightful)

Saganaga (167162) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663755)

...is what would the cost in lives have been if the U.S. had done nothing? In the short term I'm guessing more lives have been lost because of the war, but in the long term, will it have been worth it?

My guess is that history will prove that the war was worth it, not only for Iraqis but for the world as a whole.

I'm interested in seeing the new movie "Voices of Iraq" that just came out. From the reviews [reuters.com] I've read, including one on NPR last night, it sounds like it provides evidence that the average ordinary Iraqi is grateful for what the U.S. has done (even though they want us to leave as soon as possible).

Re:The important question... (0, Troll)

presearch (214913) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663804)

Somebody always steps up to rationalize genocide. I guess it's your turn.

Re:The important question... (3, Informative)

Saganaga (167162) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663849)

Somebody always steps up to rationalize genocide. I guess it's your turn.

You keep using that word [reference.com] . I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:The important question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10664036)

I think you best look up genocide and realize you're a fucknut for using it.

Re: The important question... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 8 years ago | (#10664046)


> My guess is that history will prove that the war was worth it, not only for Iraqis but for the world as a whole.

It's far from a sure thing that their next government won't be another dictator or a radical theocracy. With the added advantage of knowing that once the US withdraws, they won't likely come back again.

The history of Iraq's governments does not make me optimistic that they'll end up with a Utopia.

He's right, be sure to VOTE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663756)

And VOTE BUSH [georgewbush.com] !

Huge Political TROLL (-1, Troll)

scumbucket (680352) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663770)

I've seen the entire politics section here on /. get more and more cluttered with troll stories, but this one takes the cake. How in the world can the editors actually allow this trip to get posted?

Re:Huge Political TROLL (1)

scumbucket (680352) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663797)

correction: 'Tripe to get posted?'

Depends what type of war it is (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663800)

If it's a war to free the people of Iraq and reduce terrorism, it's a miserable failure.

If it's a war to get cheaper oil, boost the profits of USA construction companies and demonstrate how dangerous the USA can be, it's an astounding success.

If you believe what Bush says, then he's a miserable failure. If you don't believe what Bush says, he's an aggressive, greedy zealot. Either way, nobody should be voting for him.

RTFA - Heavy Extrapolation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#10663805)

1,000 households taken and compared to the entire population. This is just the case of another academic wanting to damage the administration right before the election. Not to mention the article does not go into much detail. Plus, the deaths are not just from coalition forces, but disease and natural causes.
"It is, however, an estimate that is based on very different methodology from standard methodology for assessing causalities, namely on the number of people reported to have been killed at the time," he told the BBC.
Interesting?
But the team believes that lying about deaths is unlikely and, if anything, "it is possible that deaths were not reported" because families might want to conceal them.
Considering every coalition related death seems to turn into a wedding in Iraq, I don't see this one as a believable statement.

Also, this story was not done by the NewScientist team, but rather a report from elsewhere.

Comparing 1,000 households to the entire population is rediculous. So are polls in the U.S., but at least they are done on a regular basis and hopefully not with the same people (resulting in a much wider perspective). -1 Flamebait hippies.

the obligatory orwell quote (1)

joe094287523459087 (564414) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663822)

"it does not matter if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous.'"

"A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance, this new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. the war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or east Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact"

Jesus (4, Insightful)

(trb001) (224998) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663848)

Can I mod the article as -1:Troll? "Make sure you vote next week?" Let's skip all the rigamaroll...just post at the end of every politics article "And remember...we don't like Bush, we like Kerry!".

I'm pissed when I get modded down for any of my pro-Bush comments, but this is just blatant bias in the text of an article. A little more objectivity wouldn't hurt here.

--trb

Peace is breaking out. (0, Troll)

sybert (192766) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663877)

The World is now more peaceful than ever. [agonist.org] Both the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and Project Ploughshares report that the number of conflicts and the total bloodshed declined to new lows in 2003. Bush has ended the 25 years of war in Afghanistan. The Administration has also negotiated a cease-fire in southern Sudan, ending a civil war that killed over two million people, and the Administration has kept Darfur from turning into another Rwanda. Bloodshed has also decreased in Palestine, Kashmir, and Africa. Now Iraq is about to become an model of peace, democracy, and freedom.

While Clinton was busy negotiating "peace" with Arafat, 800,000 people were slaughtered in Rwanda, 1 million died in war in Sudan, hundreds of thousands died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world did not seem to care. With Bush as president, the rest of the world actually seems to care about innocent bloodshed. The more that war leads the news, the faster peace breaks out.

Civilians (4, Insightful)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 8 years ago | (#10663971)

Terrorists are considered Civilians according to international reports. Insurgents are considered Civilians according to most international reports.

So what % of those civilians are terrorists and insurgents?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...