Re: 100,000 civilian deaths, Iraq Body Count, etc.
You obviously have internet access, so could easily find sources if you wanted to. Then you would also quickly find out that your views on Iraq Body Count are not correct. Anyway, I will do it for you this time...
The study is done by a research team at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, who interviewed about 1,000 families around Iraq about births and deaths in the household before and after the invasion.
Falluja was not included in the study because it was the stage of unusually high violence and death.
More than 100,000 civilians have probably died as direct or indirect consequences of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to a study by a research team at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
Before the invasion, the most common causes of death in Iraq were heart attacks, strokes and chronic diseases. Afterward, violent death was far ahead of all other causes.
.
"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins study team. He said the team had excluded deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, since that city was the site of unusually intense violence.
.
In 15 of the 33 communities visited, residents reported violent deaths in the family since the conflict started in March 2003. They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by coalition forces - mostly airstrikes - and most of the reported deaths were of women and children.
.
The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers found.
.
"The fact that more than half of the deaths caused by the occupation forces were women and children is a cause for concern," the authors wrote.
iht.com
news.bbc.co.uk
Iraq Body Count, which you refer to, has a much lower number of civilian casualties of about 17,000. This is because they only count number of dead reported in the media.
Re. the imposition of democracy on Iraq, there is a UNSC res. (1546) universally passed, which explicitly calls for this - so it is not just some kooky American ideal
Oh gee. Is that respect for the UN I see before me, its handle towards those of us who were horrified by US' ridiculing of this entity that refused to legitimize its invasion of Iraq? Or is it just respect of the mind, a false creation? LOL.
Your "argument" is ridiculous. It was the US who invaded Iraq. UN said "No", if you recall. After the place is invaded, under US occupation, you say it was UN's idea to make Iraq democratic because they passed resolution 1546??? Just who do you think you are kidding???
I don't know about blowing themselves up, but a few hundred thousand Iraqis did give up their lives over the last couple decades trying to bring Saddam down.
Really? Who? Do you have names and places for this mighty resistance? How many thousands of Iraqis were in this noble resistance against Saddam? How many of Saddam's soldiers did they kill? When and where did they plant their bombs?
As the situation in Iraq gets worse, your defense of Bush's Iraq adventure is getting more ridiculous.
The obvious fact is that Iraqis are currently staging a resistance to US/UK occupation of their country that they never felt like doing against Saddam. The mighty US army is barely holding them down. Saddam would have no chance if they had revolted in such numbers and with such ferocity against him. |
