• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

New Iraq study. More than 1.2 million deaths since 2003


Akrasia

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
1,128
According to a new poll by British company, ORB, more than 1.2 million Iraqis have been murdered since the 2003 Iraq invasion. This about half the previous highest estimate produced by the Lancet in 2006 (although the authors of that report insist that their figure was highly conservative and that it was likely the death toll was higher than their headline figure)

This is a figure higher than the death toll of the Rwandan genocide and is almost as many as were killed in the Killing fields of Pol Pots Cambodia.

They also report that more than a million Iraqis have been injured and about 50% of the population have been displaced

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_detai ... ?NewsId=78
 

Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,702
But of course the invasion was carried out to "free" the Iraqi people wasn't it George?
 

st333ve

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
2,104
Disgusting, now theyre talking about invading Iran because they might make a bomb sometime in the disatant future.

Id trust Iran with a bomb before i would trust the ones dropping thousands of the things all over the east, and commiting horrorific genocide.
 

gosimeon

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
20
Don't blame insurgents for the majority of deaths whatever you do; that would be like factually based and not the result of biased opinion. God forbid.

Iraq is a mess. But if you guys think that it's America killing thousands of innocent people on purpose you are in a world of your own.
 

The Earl of Desmond

Active member
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
232
How can you quantify how many deaths are the cause of US bombs? I mean when Yugoslavia broke up no one predicted the bloodbath there so who was to know that Iraq qould turn into a blood bath and is that cos the US invaded or cos Saddam went and there was no one to stop each side going mental.

How many people have died as a result of market place bombs etc.

So it'sn ot as simple to imply if the US never invaded that Iraq would be some beckon of hope and light and wonderfulness.

By all means the US has utterly failed to achieve what it claims were its goals in invaded. But as long as Mr Average Joe American still gets cheap gas for the car that's really all that matters.

We get that but it still doesn't explain why there was a bloodbath?

Did the Americans make Iraqis turn on each other?
 

madura

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
266
Nope. Everyone is agreed that those doing the killing are a combination of Baathists, al-Qaeda in Iraq, and some old-fashioned nationalists. The true moral culpability of the invaders lies in having given ordinary Iraqis the expectation that the coalition forces could protect them after the ouster of Saddam. They have failed in that.
 

L'Chaim

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
18,967
There's a lot of US foreign policy that I totally and 100% agree with, but this war is not one of them. And not because it's about control of oil; I agree with them wanting to take control of that. For too many years OPEC and the Arab oil countries raised and lowered prices at will and f**ked up western economies, for no other reason than they could. They weren't content to just sell it. They were practically using oil as a weapon. I disagree with this war because it's about America acting like an empire. This is America deciding what they want and what the Empire wants the empire gets. And as a result over one million people are now dead.

What's amazing is this US empire has happened so quickly. Up until the late 80s America was seen as the protector of the free world. We were happy to have them come to the world's aid when tyrants were running amok or when the Eastern bloc were flexing their muscles. And I'm glad that Sadam is gone and the world is better off without him. But since the Soviet bloc fell apart and the Berlin wall came down the US seems to have gone from leading and protecting to trying to control. In the case of the Iraq war that doesn't sit right with me. The Iraq war is one piece (probably the only piece) of US foreign policy that I don't agree with
 

Eddie Collins

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2005
Messages
1,917
Akrasia said:
According to a new poll by British company, ORB, more than 1.2 million Iraqis have been murdered since the 2003 Iraq invasion. This about half the previous highest estimate produced by the Lancet in 2006 (although the authors of that report insist that their figure was highly conservative and that it was likely the death toll was higher than their headline figure)

This is a figure higher than the death toll of the Rwandan genocide and is almost as many as were killed in the Killing fields of Pol Pots Cambodia.

They also report that more than a million Iraqis have been injured and about 50% of the population have been displaced

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_detai ... ?NewsId=78
That figure was based purely on a sample opinion poll of 1499 people.

If the same opinion poll had been allowed to be carried out under Saddam, the result would have indicated 0.0 million deaths - and be just as valid.
 

The Earl of Desmond

Active member
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
232
But is it the same as European countries taking land and controlling people. I don't doubt the US will stay in Iraq a second longer than it needs to - it's only goal is to ensure when it leaves US commercial interests are secure.

The thing though is that the only other 'super' powers are Russia and China nad neither have any respect for human rights so we can bitch and moan about the USA but will rue the day when China or Russia are calling the shots.

I'm glad Saddam is gone and I'm glad he was hanged. I hope Mugabe and a few other African leaders are hanged too and the odd eastern European war criminal. I don't mourn for their likes in any way and I'd rather the money wasted on trials and keeping them in jail is spent on helping those who survived their rule have better lives.

However, I'm not sure it is entirely the US's fault Iraq is such a mess. Saddam would ahve died at some point and we can only wonder if someone else would have tried to take over or if one of his sons and which one? They were all freaks.

Is the bloodshed some sort of instinct humans have to sort out the pack - I mean for all our modern ways we are still animals and doesn't every animal revert to violence at some point if they feel threatened enough? So why are humans any different.

I guess I'm daring to say should we not let them at each other to get it out of their system once and for all?

I mean most western countries have had civil wars and massive upheavel with massive bloodshed and afterwards great advances ........
 

TheBear

Active member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
234
<Mod>Moved to Foreign Affairs.</Mod>
 

Breadan O'Connor

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
1,242
L'Chaim said:
There's a lot of US foreign policy that I totally and 100% agree with, but this war is not one of them. And not because it's about control of oil; I agree with them wanting to take control of that. For too many years OPEC and the Arab oil countries raised and lowered prices at will and f**ked up western economies, for no other reason than they could. They weren't content to just sell it. They were practically using oil as a weapon. I disagree with this war because it's about America acting like an empire. This is America deciding what they want and what the Empire wants the empire gets. And as a result over one million people are now dead.

What's amazing is this US empire has happened so quickly. Up until the late 80s America was seen as the protector of the free world. We were happy to have them come to the world's aid when tyrants were running amok or when the Eastern bloc were flexing their muscles. And I'm glad that Sadam is gone and the world is better off without him. But since the Soviet bloc fell apart and the Berlin wall came down the US seems to have gone from leading and protecting to trying to control. In the case of the Iraq war that doesn't sit right with me. The Iraq war is one piece (probably the only piece) of US foreign policy that I don't agree with
L'chaim I would urge you to read this article carefully http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HJ25Ag01.html

It explained most developments in the Middle East and Asia/Russia in recent years, especilly why Putin has adopted a hostile stand towards the US. In view of the disastrous experiences of ordinary Russians under Yeltsin ,I think he's justified

People are too naive in their attitude towards America
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
Breadan O'Connor said:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HJ25Ag01.html[/url]

It explained most developments in the Middle East and Asia/Russia in recent years, especilly why Putin has adopted a hostile stand towards the US. In view of the disastrous experiences of ordinary Russians under Yeltsin ,I think he's justified

People are too naive in their attitude towards America[/quote:925dulg4]

Hmm. If you liked that article, you may also find this one worth a read. It's very strategy-wonkish, mind you.
 

Breadan O'Connor

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
1,242
iraq

ibis said:
]

Hmm. If you liked that article, you may also find this one worth a read. It's very strategy-wonkish, mind you.
Ibis, I didn't know Putin was going to visit Iran, as the article says, the next month will see a lot of diplomatic activity.

Clearly a war could be protracted and very vicious, if Putin supplies Iran with weapons. The Revolutionary Guard would make suicide attacks against oilTankers.

West Europe might be on their knees begging for oil and gas, Putin could name his price.
 

Michael G

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
8
We need their oil. If the opponents of the war want to live on grass, rabbits and wild mushrooms, and walk their children (because there is no petrol for their cars) to unheated schools where the lavatories don't work because there is no diesel to run the sewerage works, then fair play to them. But our society needs a reliable cheap supply of their oil. In return, they get money to make their lives better, if they have the sense to use it properly.

Our supply of oil was probably safer when Saddam Hussein was in power, because by killing and torturing a fair number of people he suppressed any expression of the violent hatred between the two main Muslim sects and between them and the Kurds, and kept Iraq stable as a source of oil. (Similarly, the world was a safer place when the Soviet Union kept the Chechens and the Georgians and other fairly pushy races in their boxes.) Our own interests would suggest that we should have left Saddam there, and supported the coup that tried to depose Gorbachev.

May I suggest that we should not be ashamed of intervening in these countries in our own interests? We could of course try to do good as well.
 

Twin Towers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
5,885
Akrasia said:
According to a new poll by British company, ORB, more than 1.2 million Iraqis have been murdered since the 2003 Iraq invasion. This about half the previous highest estimate produced by the Lancet in 2006 (although the authors of that report insist that their figure was highly conservative and that it was likely the death toll was higher than their headline figure)

This is a figure higher than the death toll of the Rwandan genocide and is almost as many as were killed in the Killing fields of Pol Pots Cambodia.
Still a bit to go to catch up on Saddams personal tally then :cry:

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html
 

Kf

Active member
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
274
Michael G said:
We need their oil. If the opponents of the war want to live on grass, rabbits and wild mushrooms, and walk their children (because there is no petrol for their cars) to unheated schools where the lavatories don't work because there is no diesel to run the sewerage works, then fair play to them. But our society needs a reliable cheap supply of their oil. In return, they get money to make their lives better, if they have the sense to use it properly.

Our supply of oil was probably safer when Saddam Hussein was in power, because by killing and torturing a fair number of people he suppressed any expression of the violent hatred between the two main Muslim sects and between them and the Kurds, and kept Iraq stable as a source of oil. (Similarly, the world was a safer place when the Soviet Union kept the Chechens and the Georgians and other fairly pushy races in their boxes.) Our own interests would suggest that we should have left Saddam there, and supported the coup that tried to depose Gorbachev.

May I suggest that we should not be ashamed of intervening in these countries in our own interests? We could of course try to do good as well.
At last an honest post on Iraq. Micheal G, I disagree with you but appreciate your decency to actually call it as it is.
 

Riadach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
12,847
Twin Towers said:
Akrasia said:
According to a new poll by British company, ORB, more than 1.2 million Iraqis have been murdered since the 2003 Iraq invasion. This about half the previous highest estimate produced by the Lancet in 2006 (although the authors of that report insist that their figure was highly conservative and that it was likely the death toll was higher than their headline figure)

This is a figure higher than the death toll of the Rwandan genocide and is almost as many as were killed in the Killing fields of Pol Pots Cambodia.
Still a bit to go to catch up on Saddams personal tally then :cry:

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

Well he did have 36 years, and still this total is biting at his heels. So much for invading Iraq to save lives.
 

Thac0man

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Messages
6,482
Twitter
twit taa woo
Yet another smoke and mirrors report. I doubt anyone has accurate population statistics for Iraq today upon which to base the equation to multiply sample data by - and multiplying sample data is what this limited survay does. The company involved no doubt will benefit from the publicity and profit from it - which is the bottom line about this sort of excercise, not concern for human life.
 
Top