But, but, but, but...Axis and Ash and the rest of the Marxist hit squad have been saying the last few weeks that 100,000 civilians have been killed...oh wait, then it was 200,000 were killed...oh wait, then last night Axis went back to 120,000 were killed.

It's all so confusing when they pull numbers out of their cornhole whenever is pleases their agenda.

The next thing you know Axis will say something really stupid like more journalists have been killed in this conflict than in WWII when there were hardly any journalists.

Nah, he wouldn't be that stupid. LOL

This example cannot stand critical analysis.
Why not compare the violent-death rate in Baghdad with an American city -- I'm sure that you will find the numbers a litle different.
If 1,000 bodies turned up on the streets of Detroit each month, they'd call in the National Guard.
I think everybody is aware that some areas of Iraq are not particularly violent -- maybe the Representative should compare rural Iowa with Baghdad -- that would be very interesting.
This crap has been out for a while now -- I'm surprised that it just found its way to this site.
Oh well, we all know that: "figures can lie and liars can figure."

Why would someone compare a rural area of Iowa with a major city of Baghdad?

To be fair, you can't compare one country's violent death rate to that of major metropolitan cities in the United States.

Will the Democrats promise to withdraw immediately from each of these quagmires?

Time and time again, you try to counter claims of real journalists with claims from conservative think tanks and opinion pundits who are sitting safe in their offices here in the states. I guess that's appropriate from a movement who's leader never left the country before he was elected. Why don't you instead cite reports from journalists who are actually on the ground in Iraq, outside the green zone? Don't they have any conservative journalists over there, or are they too afraid to go in the field? Of course - that can't be, because the violence is just made up by liberal journalists!

if you are looking at death rates for an entire country, perhaps a more apt comparison would be the annualized death of all of iraq compared to the annualized death rate of all of the US..

anyone have that stat off-hand?

Time and time again, you try to counter claims of real journalists with claims from conservative think tanks and opinion pundits who are sitting safe in their offices here in the states.

Kind of funny, most of the guys I know that are in the Green Zone patrolling say the journalists there are sitting in their hotels 24/7 and incubated in their rooms. So exactly what is it that they are doing?

The 2004 murder rate in the US was 5.6 per 100,000. Roughly 16,000 murders and 290M in population.

I guess they are interviewing Iraqis in their hotel rooms. And asking them to bring their own pictures of their neighborhoods. Give me a break!

it would appear from Dept of Justice data tables, the last reported full year of statistics (2004) showed a "murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate" of 5.5 per 100,000.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_01-01a.html

We need to redeploy our troops out of Washington D.C. Then they'll be ready to go back in if unrest continues.

We need a multinational force headed by Kofi Anan to solve this quagmire in Washington D.C.

What are we to do about the sectarian violence in Washington D.C.? I say we've lost the peace.

Matt,

It's a good thing you have a blog and don't need to depend on your math skills to make a living. You don't see a problem with comparing the stats of a city to those of an entire country do you?
You right wing morons make it too easy....

Matt

I cannot fathom why anyone would want to advertise the fact that U.S. cities are more violent than a war-torn country. What is your motive?

“…say the journalists there are sitting in their hotels 24/7 and incubated in their rooms. So exactly what is it that they are doing?” Posted by: Warriornation at May 31, 2006 01:29 PM

If you are CBS reporter Kimberly Dozier, you are fighting for your life in a German hospital. Is that good enough for you War?

His motive is attempting to quiet the little guy in their ear when he starts telling them, "Maybe killing and maiming 200,000 iraqis for no good reason was a bad idea"

maybe if we weren't outspending the rest of the entire world militarily we could hire more cops to protect our dangerous cities, or here is a novel idea, perhaps provide a living wage for the single mothers who are producing kids who are raised in cess-pools of society, so they can actually spend more time with their spawn, instead of working 3 jobs to make ends meet...or is that just too much bleeding heart liberal for ya?

His calculations are a little off. Follow my math, if you will:

38,059 dead Iraqi civilians since the start of the war. (Iraqibodycount.net source.) Divided by 3.25 years of war. Yields 11,710 dead Iraqi civilians per year. 26.07 million Iraq population, yields 44.9 dead Iraqis per 100,000. So his math is a little off (he is a congressman, you can't expect much more than that, after all.)

Of course, he goes on to compare the entire country of Iraq to concentrated urban centers, which would leave any statistician rolling on the floor laughing. As bloviator pointed out, the more accurate comparison would be 44.9 per 100k in Iraq versus 5.5 per 100k in USA.

Any questions?

Hey warriornation, you can check out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

you can see for yourself the death-toll, while not at all near solid, can be estimated at around 100,000 since the invasion began, thats our buddies in Britain's numbers by the way. This doesnt account for all the amputations and massive injuries, so excuse us for not getting our numbers together, but all the bombed out buildings, and entire families killed makes it hard to nail it all down...if you check out my numbers, I always include dead AND wounded in my statements, so would you like to make any other statements about the validity of numbers here?

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. forces killed two Iraqi women — one of them about to give birth — when the troops shot at a car that failed to stop at an observation post in a city north of Baghdad, Iraqi officials and relatives said Wednesday.

Extra

No, in fact they have runners to interview for them. That's the entire point. Why don't you do some investigating yourself before you spout off at the mouth. I can give you several military blogs including one in which my cousin is part of where they address this all of the time.

Or are you calling the men and women that serve over there LIARS?

3rd Eye partially closed....I checked out the link...of course it's not sourced, it's based on estimates, etc, etc.

It was already debunked many times...this is the 2004 article that was shredded because it's so incredibly wrong. Why does it surprise me that you reference it.

8000, dead not 100,000

http://www.slate.com/id/2108887/

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/005867.php

http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/archives/003999.html

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2005/06/debunking_the_1.html

http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html

There are about 80,000 other listings that debunk if it you wish.

NEXT

Warriornation

Look at Blarney, he takes such glee in the failures of our military. Could you imagine having such a seething hatred of our men and women in uniform that you would be happy about them killing a pregnant woman?

So - the 71 journalists that have been killed over there were all killed while hiding in their hotel rooms, including the 2 CBS staffers killed last week by a car bomb? Is that what your military blogs say?

Is that what you would tell the grieving families or these brave journalists?

The next thing you know Axis will say something really stupid like more journalists have been killed in this conflict than in WWII when there were hardly any journalists.- War Lover

I can't speak for Axis, but I will say it has now tied the journalists death toll in Viet Nam.

And one of the best war reporters of all time might be offended by your statement. Ernie Pyle. I consider the army specialists that made propaganda films (Loose lips sink ships, et al) as journalists (if shills). So in fact there were many, many reporters that covered WWII.

These guys are mostly Canadian hacks or teenagers without jobs.

The Canadian contingent yesterday called all of us here as Americans as Murderous dogs. Yet we provide security for that nation every damn day they live. When the crap hits the fan and the world wants a bailout, its' the USA that provides it. When the crap hits the fan and the world won't do what is militarily needed, it again is the USA that does it.

That causes some people to love us, some to hate us and others just be plain envious of. Fine.

But these mounties are what they are. Living in a country that no one gives two squirts about and no one is immigrating too because no one wants to live there sans Terrorists and left wing lunatics.

I didn't say all journalists, did I Extra? There are many that sit in their hotel rooms in the green zone, they contract out to runners to push "their" stories.

Of course some journalists have been killed and some will continue to be killed. And then there are those that sit in their air conditioned rooms and file a "story" that they didn't get in the same vain you just ripped on think tanks doing the same thing. Just as you don't give any credit for the many think tankers that DO go to Iraq and live it first hand.

Hypocrite.

Why aren't you calling Ted Kennedy a hypocrite. He has NEVER been to Iraq yet it is he who calls this a "quagmire". Please tell me how your cozy definition doesn't apply to him.

War Boy retorts:

I checked out the link...of course it's not sourced, it's based on estimates, etc, etc.

And he can do so with solid info like this:

most of the guys I know that are in the Green Zone patrolling say

Heck with sources like that, who are we to argue? The guys! Ha!

How many troops have died in WWII vs Vietnam.

Or is this just a "journalist" tragedy and quagmire.

LOL

Warriornation

As far as "journalists" that have been killed I'd like to see a breakdown. How many were working for the terrorists...........er.......I mean al Jazeera and how many worked for the insurgency.........er........I mean al Reuters?

War Lover queries:

are are you calling the men and women that serve over there LIARS?

Either they have selective vision, are being lied to, or yes they are liars.

Ash...I gave you many links debunking that 100,000 claim. Yet you didn't have the courtesy to check on them when I did have the courtesy to check on that flawed story.

Also, my sources are the military men and women on the ground. Would you like the links to their blogs where they make these statements? I'm happy to provide.

Now, again about that 100,000 ....erh 8,000 number

Ash calls them liars. You're calling my own blood liars Ash and since my guys are over there and you're not, I'm going to call you what you are.

Fortunately your name Ash already starts it out nicely. Just put in another 's' and go from there.

You have no clue what you are talking about and if they were here in the same room talking to you about what they see and do every day you still wouldn't believe them because of your blind hatred for the military and all that they do for you and your pathetic ilk.

Well - now I have a chance to educate myself! Please Warrior - point me to a think tanker who has been on the street in or around Bagdad in the last six months and has published a report that says the violence really isn't that bad - maybe even that it's better than in Washington D.C..

“Conservative supporters of the war, such as bloggers found at blogsforbush.com, argue the military is taking the correct approach, that the "liberal media" only want to report the "bad news" of dead U.S. soldiers, but ignore the "good news" about killed Iraqi insurgents.

What those arguments overlook is how difficult it is to actually find out how many Iraqis have been killed, be they fighters or civilians……That's in contrast to the numbers contained in a study released in fall 2004 by the British medical journal The Lancet. That study surveyed Iraqi households and compared death rates before the invasion to those after, and concluded about 100,000 civilians are likely dead because of the coalition military action.

That number is an estimate extrapolated from a survey. While it might reflect the reality in Iraq, it might not.” http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/casualties.html

Warriornation,

Perhaps you should read your own links. The first one states the estimate at 8000 - 194,000, 95% confidence so 100k is about the middle. While 8000 is possible, so is 194k. It ends up concluding numbers like 30k are perhaps more accurate but no one really knows. Even you my friend. So, 30k is good huh? Please provide some more debunking of your own statements. It's entertaining. This topic was also discussed at here, http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/05/getting_the_war_1.html, with a rather interesting email response quoted below:

I would ask your erstwhile military reader that if a car bomb in Detroit today killed five policemen, as happened today in Mosul; if the president was forced to declare a state of emergency in Dallas because 140 people were kidnapped and killed this month, as was the case in Basra; if a priest was gunned down in Washington D.C., as was the case today in Baghdad where a Shiite muazzin was killed; if the major of a Westminster, Md., was killed by a bomb hidden in his air conditioner, as was the case in a city 60 miles north of Baghdad today; if jittery police forces fired upon and killed two women, one of them pregnant, north of the capital - if all of these related events happened in the United States this day, May 31 - a day after another 54 were killed by a car bomb in Washington - do you think the news media would, or should, report that despite the violence, all was well in most of America?

Cheers

So, using your own logic, how can you claim 8,000 casualties does this take into account the people where entire families were killed, or the obliterated, it took us years to parse out who exactly was killed in 9/11, and we had the best investigators in the world working on it. So tell me exactly how you came up with your numbers, you're referencing the low end of the possibilities...so we have a number, somewhere between 8,000 and 200,000...but who cares if the numbers can't be concrete, who cares if it was 9,000 dead or 100,000. So how much is an Iraqi life worth to you, does it take 8,000 to make you question reasons for war...100,000... a million, do we have to cleanse the earth of brown people before its enough?

3Moreyears

I'm not the idiot that comes on here every day INSISTING it's 100,000, 200,000 and beyond.

I have said consistently that NO ONE KNOWS the answer so why you guys automatically go to that number is beyond me except for your blind hatred of Bush and of the military...just those small details.

3rd Eye Open...8000 lives or 50,000 lives is tragic. No one is saying it isn't. However, if you were to tell me that 61,000,000 died in WWII and as a result Nazism would end as would Japan's imperialism...would that be worth it?

Let's get our heads in the game here fellas. 8000 sucks, but in the grand scheme of things of war it's a price worth paying.

Extra...read the authors of the think tank reports and where they went to conduct their studies. Can't be much clearer than that.

Warriornation

You have to understand the liberals on this board hate our military because the soldiers are everything that they're not. Strong, moral, courageous, etc...They are nothing but spineless cowards.

Hey War, maybe you can get a cabinet post like this A-hole (since you both think a like):

Karl Zinsmeister, Bush’s new domestic policy adviser, 3/28/03:
Alas, many of the journalists observable in this war theater are bursting with knee-jerk suspicions and antagonisms for the warriors all around them. A significant number are whiny and appallingly soft. […] I almost wished there would be a very loud explosion very nearby just to shut up their rattling.

Reuters, today:
With the deaths of two CBS television crew members from a car bomb in Baghdad, the number of journalists who have died in hostile incidents in Iraq has risen to 71 - the same number killed or presumed dead during the Vietnam War. From Think Progress

War Lover,

I was refering to the statement about all journalists sitting hunkered down in their hotel rooms. I did not call your soldiers liars if you accept option 1 (they have selective vision) or option 2 (they are being lied to). There are some real loose cannons out there being gung ho journalists. (Take a look at My War Gone By by Anthony Loyd. He compares his addiction to war to his addiction to heroin and cocaine when he is away from the battlefield).

No one really knows how many Iraqis have been killed since the start of this war. There are at least 13 in Haditha that we know of for sure. Murdered in cold blood. Hope none of your brothers were involved.

This is what happened in Viet Nam. The soldiers- good men- reached a snapping point, and snapped. It is time to bring them home.

Warriornation,

even you have to admit 8000 is unrealistic and more than likely very much higher. The only reason I said anything is that you continuously discount these figures and put forth 8k as the real number. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised at 100k. Bush gave the estimate as 30k last year. If that's the "official" number, the real one is probably higher. Regarding whether the price is/was worth it, if we end up blowing this due to disastrous planning and wishful thinking, then I would say no. If we end up with another Iran, I would say no. Unfortunately, for me to answer yes, it was worth it, the resulting Iraq would have to look much different than what we see it becoming today. Our leadership, if you can call it that, was more than a bit naive in thinking that it would end up as a western style democracy and we will pay the price of this for years to come.

The topic of this post is also severely flawed by comparing country wide statistics of Iraq to that of DC. Maybe US to Iraq or Bagdad(capital city) to DC but not Iraq to DC.

Warrior - I'm sorry, are you referring to the blogs you posted above regarding civilian casualties as "think tanks" or did I miss another posting? I thought you were referring to something more like the Heritage Foundation or perhaps even a congressman's staff like that cited in Matt's post.

Strong, moral, courageous, etc...They are nothing but spineless cowards.

CJ, thats a crock of crap and something you'd really, really like to believe. If I felt threatened or felt my loved ones were threatened I'd be the first in line to bang some heads. But I am not going to die or ask anyone to die for the rich a holes that see the spread of the "American Ideal" and way of life as a way to get richer and richer.

And immediately the Arabs living under a dictator would garner no more attention than the poor Africans in Darfur.

What you guys are is either naive or stupid to die for them. Take oil out of the equations and immediately these middle eastern countries go back to where they have been for eons: poor and inconsequential.

No, those blogs are not think tanks. I consider think tanks to be organizations like the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation etc, etc

Warriornation,

Get the heck off your high horse, i'm sure the big girls and boys over there can stand up for themselves.
How do you expect men and women who are too busy making sure they don't get shot to keep up on casualty numbers that their own government can't nail down...you want me to source a couple guy's opinion...get real...we are killing people over there wholesale, you can call it collateral damage, but that doesn't make them any less dead

We are killing people over there wholesale?

Yeah, and I need to get off my high horse? Please. If we wanted to kill people wholesale we would carpet bomb the entire place.

Talk to any military man that is over there now that served in multiple conflicts and we do more now to be precise in engagement then any war EVER FOUGHT.

So get off your 32 year old high horse or whatever inexperienced number is next to it because you know now what the hell you are talking about.

"If I felt threatened or felt my loved ones were threatened I'd be the first in line to bang some heads."

Bwahahahaha!!! You'd fall into the fetal position and insert your thumb into your mouth.

Ash, you are partly correct. If it wasn't for oil then it wouldn't be as important to us. On this we can agree.

However, it is inappropriate to compare it to Darfur or any other African backwards nation. One reason....ISRAEL and her proximity in the Middle East.

So yes, oil has a big part of it but so does Israel which is why the Middle East and her countries will be part of our scope of interest even if we were to convert tomorrow to a totally oil independent nation.

Youre asking me if there is ever an acceptable number of dead for an ideal to be "worth it"?

I prescribe to the ideal that if they aren't a threat, you don't go killing people, Iraq is an illegal war and occupation, we have no right over there, just responsibilities to clean up our mess, and get out as soon as possible. The moment we have our sights set on staying, we have relegated our children to deal with this issue, and the fallout (read: terrorism) for decades to come. Where is all this personal responsibility you guys squawk about? leaving our kids to pay our debts and assume our wars, pretty cowardly, even for leg pissers up the chian of command

Blarney....Joceyln Elders ring a bell? Mike Espy ring a bell? Ron Brown ring a bell? And the list goes on and on and on

i'd swear to god, if i were not at my desk right now, i'd guess i was watching A FEW GOOD MEN, about to hear the 'you can't handle the truth' monologue from our armchair warrior - pure nicholson moment....

I love you arm-chair generals, when you wanna feel manly, just remind everyone we can carpet bomb anyone we want, must make you feel nice and safe behind your computer screen arguing in abstract numbers when people are asking God why their house just got bombed, im sure they are very happy that we are more precise than ever in this killing-zone.

I don't need you to tell me im inexperienced, I know that im not the smartest guy in the room, and I never claimed to be a genius, but I know that killing is wrong, so are unprovoked vendettas that kill innocent people, you cant spin out of that truth!

And I prescribe to the ideal that by the time you let them become a threat, it's too late. Please see EUROPEAN APPEASEMENT circa 1937.

61,000,000 dead....what if Europe had acted ahead of time...I'll bet a number far less than 61,000,000 would have died if they hadn't waited.

Killing is wrong....unless it's a choice with abortion right 3rd Eye?

Oh sorry...that causes a reversal of fortunes, can't go there.

Killing is wrong generally and war should be avoided. No one likes war. But if we are going to be in one, I damn well am going to get behind those that are fighting it and SUPPORTING their mission. Especially one that frees people from oppression, etc.

War is always wrong....unless to end slavery, end nazism, end fascism, etc, etc.

and if we had mustard gassed all the japanese in 1917, we could have avoided all this death...what a stupid comment, yeah, sure, a lot of things could have been different now that we look back on them, it doesnt justify doing stupid things right now, we have the luxury of history to look back upon to temper our agressions against...

shooting a praying woman and her child is wrong...any more silly abortion comments?

I am fully supportive of the men and women who do a job I am not, but when their leaders make stupid decisions and send them into harms way, I will raise my voice everytime against that.

I'm sure the Iraqis love the freedoms they have been given, yknow lack of water, constant electricity, hospital service, the constant fear of getting blown up, shot, having their houses raided and murdered in cold blood by the men that are supposed to be protecting them...long live freedom.

the war to end opression should start with the people we coddle, how about Saudi Arabia or China, anymore silly talking points you wanna make invoking the ghosts of WWII, we werent lied into that war, I can't say that about this one

“Blarney....Joceyln Elders ring a bell?” Warr

Sure, but I don’t recall anyone dying from a blow-job.

So, War, when those brave soldiers killed that pregnant women, is that one or two fatalities?

Third Eye Blind,

So, now its the Federal Government's responsibility to hire police officers? I thought that it was local government's responsibility. Cutting defense spending will not increase local police and sheriff's departments budgets. Do you live in the same virtual reality as "Axis"?

And it's also the Federal Government's responsibility to "provide a living wage for the single mothers who are producing kids who are raised in cess-pools of society, so they can actually spend more time with their spawn, instead of working 3 jobs to make ends meet"? So you're advocating additional handouts to people who are acting irresponsible. When will the single mothers have to take responsibility for their actions?

Bwahahahaha!!! You'd fall into the fetal position and insert your thumb into your mouth.

Is this a position you are personally familiar with?

I live in Washington D.C. and I thank you for letting me know what I knew already. I've been trying to get my whole extended family to move to the much safer country of Iraq.

My family just doesn't understand that for safety purposes we must move to Iraq.

Thanks for spreading the word guys!

"Quagmire In Washington D.C.?"

ROFLMAO!!!
:)

The Canadian contingent yesterday called all of us here as Americans as Murderous dogs. Yet we provide security for that nation every damn day they live. When the crap hits the fan and the world wants a bailout, its' the USA that provides it. When the crap hits the fan and the world won't do what is militarily needed, it again is the USA that does it.

Get a job! You don't provide diddly to security for us. Mind you, as you say in your own words, we are not murderous dogs here, so we need far less than you do.

As for this silly article, you right wingers are always desperately trying to dig up some angle to make things look better than they really are... Such as this article that compares a city to a country.

But these never hold water under scrutiny.

Why not just be men and admit that you screwed up, you made a hell of a mess and you have no idea how to fix it?

I guess that goes against you principles of conservative being above the ability to make a mistake.

You biggest mistake , far bigger than Iraq, was putting that chimp inm the white house. I mean really, a sociopathic, ex-drunk, ex-cocaine addict with a 91 IQ is the BEST you could come up with in 2000? Pretty sad state of affairs when bush is your cream of the crop...

Warrior,

Debunked!@!!!!!

8000, dead not 100,000

-- Yeah, that number is real likely considering the US droped 40000-50000 bombs on Iraqi cities and by the grace of god, only 3.5 times the number of troops killed by IED's perished.

Even the Red Cross's official estimates have it 100 000 - 1 million.

So allow me to pull back and look at "the point" the theme this post is trying to get across. In comparing the CIVILIAN deaths in Iraq to those in a American metropolis you are:

1. Saying in effect, hey man-- STUFF HAPPENS. By comparing a disgusting number of deaths (what's it with you guys and death anyway?) its justified. War is hell. They should be HAPPY we're over there free'in em and all.

2 Saying in effect, that your disgusted with the number of deaths in D.C.--comparing it to a nation under siege where death and destruction have become so everyday and acceptable that numbers now is just numbers.

My goodness Warrior, your such a tough man. I bet if you could, you would be right over there, spreading freedom at the muzzle end of your AR. I could just envision you screaming "Freedom, I'll give you some freedom all right! Come and get some...you want some of this, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you. Yeah buddy, I'll give you some freedom alright. Take this!"

I just get the shivers...a manly man alright!

Raker....you and axis and ash and others have obviously spent not one day of their lives in the military.

And we can all tell. It takes a special person. Your constant bashing of our services and the people in them is what is DISGUSTING.

Third Eye....can we wait until the evidence is in before we know what really happened in Haditha or have you already convicted? Sounds like you already have...how tolerant of you.

Axis..."official estimates"...is that like "awfully pretty" or "final version" or "victimless crime".

"official estimates"...that's a good one.

Finally, I love it when the left takes on people that actually support the troops and their mission. They always start with the same premise...."well why don't you go over there and fight tough guy" or the one that's even better "Bush never served so he shouldn't send troops into XXX". Of course, Clinton never served either and not a peep from these idiots. Hillary never served and it will not in one way hold these idiots back from supporting her, etc, etc.

The hypocrisy is so thick and so continuous.

3rd eye

So you don't believe in taking out someone that is an imminent threat or can be? You believe we should just let them become that threat? Correct?

This Rep's stats are purposely misleading. Several points:

First of all, nobody knows for sure how many civilians have been killed in Iraq these past 3 years. The Pentagon has said it doesn't keep a tally of Iraqi civilians killed, so I don't know where this Steve King character is getting his stats. Estimates from various organizations however range from 30,000 to 100,000 civilians killed thus far. In December of last year, President Bush said he figured that approximately 30,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed. So for the sake of argument, lets take the President's estimate as of Dec 2005.

Secondly, it is totally disingenous to compare violent death rates in an urban area to a country as a whole. You need to compare apples to apples. Obviously, violent deaths are concentrated in urban areas. If you want to talk about the rate in DC, then you must compare it to the rate in Baghdad or Basra, not to the country of Iraq as a whole.

Thirdly, we have to define the idea of "violent death". In the US, that stat includes deaths by accidents, including automobiles. When President Bush says that 30,000 Iraqis have been killed, he is obviously referring to 30,000 killed by weapons, not in accidents. So the apples to apples stat for comparison would be to US homicide rates, not "violent death" rates.

So, taking these three things into account, lets do some simple math. If, according to President Bush, at least 30,000 Iraqi civilians were killed over 2 1/2 years (Apr 03 to Dec 05), we come up with approxmately 12,000/year. Total population of Iraq is approximately 22 million. Dividing 12,000 by 22 gives us 545 killed per 1 million, or about 54 per 100,000. You all with me so far?

Now, lets compare that rate for the country of Iraq with the homicide rate for the country of the US. In the US, the homicide rate is around 4.2 per 100,000, which is the highest rate among industrialzed nations. So, Iraqis are more than 10 times likely to be killed than Americans. Moreover, that rate of 54 per 100,000 makes Iraq the 2nd most dangerous country in the world, just behind Colombia at 61 per 100,000. And that's taking President Bush's own lower-end estimates!

I haven't seen stats that just look at the rate for civilians in Baghdad, but for sure it is many times higher than the rate for the overall country (as any urban area is always much higher than the country as a whole). Anyone care to guess? 200 per 100,000 residents? 300? 400? Lord only knows. However, just the fact that few people are able to move around in Baghdad pretty much says it all. Journalists can't leave the Green Zone without getting killed, and neither can visiting US politicians, nor Iraqi leaders for that matter. Few Baghdad residents dare let their kids go to school because the security situation is so bad.

Before mindlessly regurgitating misleading stats cooked up by congressmen who are obviously trying to spin the situation, and desperately trying to find ways to hide from their monumental failure in Iraq, you might want to do some thinking for yourselves.

Armchair Warrior, if you think the kid across the street is going to tp your house do you tp his first?

The whole idea of pre-emption is extreme paranoia at it's worst.

The U.S. nor any other country has no right to attack another because they *think* they pose a threat.

If all countries practiced this Schizo form of foreign policy it would be the end of the world.

How typical! lefties can't deal with this information so they try to fudge the information by disputing the numbers and then going to some website that ridiculously overestimates the civilian casualty so they can still sleep at night.

If it doesn't fit the mold for the liberal agenda than they have to do everything they can to try to dispute it. I think it's clear from this comment board that they are more trying to convince themselves then others...

Hey Warrior, Rush had a special call from an LT. Colonel/fighter pilot over in Iraq as we speak! He made a profound statement(gave me chills)!!!

He said " This is not the land of the free & the home of the brave, it is however land of the free because of the brave". Guys like ash, axis, blind eye, barney, etc. reap the benefits without having to lift a finger! Why should they have any respect for our military or their leaders. Thank God most people don't take their freedom for granted...........or do they!!!

As for the damned statistics, they don't speak half as loud as the men(American & Iraqi) being ignored on the ground and their daily struggle side by side with the Iraqi people, who are so disgusted and angry that the whole country turned on us three years ago when the MSM started to PREACH the "TRUTH". Sarcasm off!!!!

Get a clue ash & company, the only ones that don't want us in Iraq are extreme islamofascist and liberal democrats.....Oh yeah, and the rest of the sheep that still think Bush lied and everything is his fault! What a bunch of dumbash losers, go join Gore in his fight to save the world from itself!!!! Bwahahahahaaaaahahaaaaaahaaaaaa!!!

To address the article:
It is inappropriate to compare the death rate of a country, such as Iraq, to a city, such as Detroit. It would be better to compare Iraq to the U.S., or Baghdad to Detroit (Both of which are bad comparisons anyway because there is a war in a third-world country, causing a massive amount of deaths that wouldn't even be issues in developed countries.)

To address the "100,000 deaths" study:
The study can be accessed at
http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf
The issues that were brought up by your links, Warriornation, were

A:It's bad statistics to do a "grouping" method.

B:It's just as likely that 8000 Iraqis died as 200000 Iraqis died.

C:The families didn't ask for certification for the deaths, and the families could have made-up numbers.

D:Dr. Les Roberts chose random spots, (based on pop. of course) but then chose new spots so that he wouldn't endanger his interviewers, but turns around and goes into Falluja.

E:The Falluja data skewed the study by creating higher-then-average deaths in a area.

G: If we killed 100000 people then where are the funerals and reports on them?

To address A:
It's very good statistics and in fact, this is the same method that is used to determine the results for almost any poll that you will ever see and is also the most accurate.

To address B:
No, It's done on a bell-curve with 98000 at the top, and 200000 and 8000 at the bottom.
(Source:http://www.thislife.org/pages/descriptions/05/300.html)

To address C:
Well, if you look at the study, you'll see "We believe it unlikely that recall bias existed in the reporting of non-infant deaths, because of the certainty and precision with which these deaths were reported, and the importance of burial ceremonies in the Iraqi culture. The under-reporting of adult deaths recently or since the invasion to hide combatant deaths would lead us to underestimate the death toll associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq."
If you still have questions about this I would refer you to paragraph 2-4 in the discussion section of the survey.
(http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf)

To address D: Dr. Les Roberts himself went to Falluja with his interviewers. It wasn't as if he was trying to skew the data, but instead felt that he needed to get this information and it outweighed his personal safety. He also only went with volunteers and, at first, was reluctant to let anyone go in.
(Source:http://www.thislife.org/pages/descriptions/05/300.html)

To address E: The Falluja data was kept out of the final study because it was a huge outlier.

To address G: In your own words "Journalists there [The "Green Zone"] are sitting in their hotels 24/7." While I don't agree with this, we can assume that no journalist could be outside long enough to find the funerals. Of course the funerals don't exist because in most cases people were killed by air strikes, wiping out most, if not all of the family. This aside how would you explain the morgues that are full of people 24/7?
(Source:http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/14/154251)

If I have not addressed any specific concerns I would be happy to do so. I highly recommend reading the study and listening to the "This American Life" interview. For further reading I recommend http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/?p=306

Raker....you and axis and ash and others have obviously spent not one day of their lives in the military.

Wrong war lover. Was entered in the first draft lottery in 1970 and pulled a pretty high number (9 to be exact), so rushed to find an Air Force unit to get into. Spent time at Lackland, Lowry, Richards-Gebaur, and Scot Air Force Base. Hated every minute of it but figured it was better than dying in a rice patty for ? Or leaving my home and going to Canada or Mexico.

Was told repeatedly I had absolutely zero military bearings, a comment I still take pride in. I was an inventory management specialist and the closest I came to combat was when I took the wrong part to a mechanic on the flight line. So I saw a stupid war in a country far far away ruin many of my generation. Which is why I constantly criticize the military.

Yet Bush's IQ was higher than John Kerry's. Talk about a party that cannot come up with anyone decent at all.

OK, so I've done some more research looking at the numbers just for Baghdad.

For the first 3 months of this year, more civilians were killed in Baghdad than during any time since the invasion (so much for things getting better!). In all, 3,472 civilians have been killed in Baghdad in just the first 3 months of 2006. If the current death rate continues at this pace, then 13,888 civilians will be killed in Baghdad alone this year.

13,888 civilians projected to be killed in Baghdad this year. hmmm, in Detroit in 2004, which has one of the highest homicide rates in the US, (or in the world, for that matter) a mere 384 were killed. DC in 2002 saw 264 killed, and New York saw a total of 596 in 2003.

If we take those 13,888 proected civilians killed in Baghdad and divide by 7 million total residents, we get an annual rate of approximately 200 killed per 100,000. So my question to you all is: Does Steve King and the wing-nut blowhards peddling his misleading stats think you conservatives are complete idiots? Surely they knew you guys would crunch the numbers for yourselves.

So, Baghdad is as safe as any US city huh? What a self-serving load of propaganda! Any of you wing-nuts going to take a vacation in Baghdad anytime soon? How about Steve King? You think he might like to live in Baghdad?

I love it! some liberal troll says he is the one to determine which stats are the accurate ones...

I think I just read on here where someone actually equated someone "tping my house" and what I would do about it. I hope to God that wasn't supposed to be an analogy that is somehow related to a state known to sponsor terrorism, that has committed terrorist acts itself and is trying to obtain WMD....I hope you weren't saying that those were some kind of parallel on how I would act.

No, that would be really stupid.

How about this. Suppose I had some information that was considered "Slam Dunk" (to use George Tenet's phrase) that a KNOWN rapist in my community had pictures of my daughter all over his bedroom and was planning on raping my daughter tomorrow night.

Would you wait until the rape happened? I feel a pussy Michael Dukakis answer coming up, but I'll let you chime in just the same.

Ash, it doesn't surprise me that you failed miserably then.

Despite your failures, do not take it out on the fine men and women that believe they are doing something you weren't capable of. Do not disparage the fact that these fine people believe with all of their heart they are doing something important and are helping (I repeat, HELPING) the vast majority of people in Iraq and elsewhere.

Remember when liberals used to HELP people and CARED about other people that were being oppressed....do you remember? Well these people are actually doing something about it. I'm sorry you failed, oh so many haven't failed and yet you crap on them every day.

You are disgusting. If I was the moderator here I would ban you for the disgusting human being you are.

KJC -

"I love it! some liberal troll says he is the one to determine which stats are the accurate ones..."

Are you referring to the 30,000 Iraqi civilians that President Bush says have been killed in Iraq? Do you mean that liberal troll?

Or are you calling President Bush a liar?

"I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis."
- President George W Bush, Dec 12, 2005

Warriornation -

"Would you wait until the rape happened? I feel a pussy Michael Dukakis answer coming up, but I'll let you chime in just the same....You are disgusting. If I was the moderator here I would ban you for the disgusting human being you are."

I love watching Bush cult worshippers have a melt-down when they are losing an argument. It's just like the smell of napalm in the morning...it smells like victory!

Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. There is no denying that. We invaded & continue to occupy that country under fales pretenses (read: WMD) & Iraq will be THE defining failure (in a loooooooong line) of the Doofus Bush Abomination .. I mean, Administration.

How amusing it is to watch Warmongernation try to rationalize the THOUSDANDS of INNOCENT people that have been slaughtered in this war. It truly, truly is "collateral damage" to him and people of his sad & disgusting ilk. The Iraq Debacle is like their little pet-project that they just can't stand to see criticized. It's like watching one of their own children really suck it up in Little League but failing to admit how bad he really is. Oh that blind loyalty will get you everytime.

And oh how they love to thump their chests so proudly at the might of the American military (carpet bomb the whole country, etc). Well, if there are soldiers there who actually think that they belong, then they are no better than Bush himself - in fact, they are worse. I feel sorry for the ones who were duped into this war - the ones who saw it was all a big lie. I do feel sorry for them. But not for the ones who think they deserve & have every right to be there. Not at all.

Aarontime, I'll take that as an inability to answer the question. Just as Michael Dukakis couldn't and he got smoked in the election. The American people want someone that can make strong decisions which is why the limp wristed liberals always lose.

By the way, 30,000 might be the right answer...that's a long long long way from the insistent 100,000 or 120,000 or 200,000 that your brethren keep spewing here.

Did anyone here advocate carpet bombing the whole country? In fact we said if we wanted to massacre people we could, instead we take great pains to be careful yet regardless you call us murderers, spit on us when we come home, etc.

And you wonder why so many people absolutely hate you people.

Since you are not in the military Maf (obvious by your inability to spell) don't speak for them and why they are there. It only makes you look like the idiot you are.

Seriously, you need help.

Yet Bush's IQ was higher than John Kerry's. Talk about a party that cannot come up with anyone decent at all.

-- Actually, they are pretty close in IQ, within 3-4 points of one another. Kerry didn't liquify his brain with cocaine and booze though either.

Also, Kerry was able to put together elequent speeches without Rove whispering it into his ear like Bush needed to.

pound for pound, kerry ran circles around bush in terms of intelligent.

Well the American people feel otherwise Canadian mounty. Kerry ran circles right into the ground and LOST. Deal with it. Oh, and has he released his medical records yet? As he disparaged Cheney's daughter again? Did he vote for it before he voted against it? Did he salute us all on the stage?

As the anti-military jagoff you are, I can't believe you didn't scream for Howard Dean the second he saluted everyone.

"Reporting for duty...." oh my God was that pathetic.

Took me all night to get back to this little rhetorical circle-jerk, but boy am I glad I did, not only did some of the other fine folks go farther in explaining how statistics work, since I am by no means a statitician, but I got to see just how flimsy you chickenhawk, GI Joe wannabes arguments really are, You tell the Iraqis we are fighting for their freedom, and as soon as they stop shooting at you, maybe they will explain they don't want us there, anymore than we wanna be there, infact I would bet dollars to depleted uranium that they wish we would get on our little way so they can begin cleaning up their own country...I mean flip the script for one second, and you tell me if Iraq was on our soil, "spreading freedom", we would be picking off every last one of them we could find, telling them to go home and let us do our own fighting, but no, this is just another example of guys who need to get their blood pressure up thinking about the good ole days in the military chasin skirts and drinkin too much beer, if you need a boys club, go build a treehouse, stop killing innocent civilians with your help

You are disgusting. If I was the moderator here I would ban you for the disgusting human being you are.

Aw now War Boy, not everyone measures success by how many brown people they can kill. I take great pride in being a thorn in Sgt. Clarkes side the entire time, continually making the point that it is better to make love, not war. It is you my enemy that is disgusting. If we could only lock you and your "brothers" up on Long Island and let the best man survive.

It takes great stupidity to die for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

It takes a bigger man to turn the other cheek. Only a small mind settles his differences with weapons. So I assume you are a small man.

BTW Are you just a Chickenhawk? Why aren't you posting from Iraq?

Third Eye, maybe you should read what many Iraqis are saying about our troops...you know the 24,000,000 that aren't shooting at us.

Why does it not surprise me that you side with the thousands that are.

When did you guys stop caring about people? Seriously? When did this happen?

Lastly, your analogy is really lame. First off, we have freedom here. Second, we haven't lived for 30+ years in fear of a dictator that would kill us, had killed close to a million people, etc. So how on earth do you know how American people would react if we had lived in that situation?

If anything, the people that are shooting us are Saddam loyalists and people that want it the way it was....and yet you guys SUPPORT THESE people. You don't support the MILLIONS that go to the polls to vote (risking their lives) and want this change.

Gee, how shocking is that ...you're on the wrong team..again! I'm sure your girlfriend has told you that on occasion as well.

I'm too old to be in the service there Ashwipe.

You would make Neville Chamberlain proud and his stupid actions led to MILLIONS more innocents dying because he didn't stand up to them. That's why you liberals never learn and conservatives have to clean up your messes.

How right you are 3 I's. I think ole Warboy is about to blow a gasket. He doesn't have much imagination in defining courage or compassion.

Well Warboy if things are as dire as you like to paint them, you'd go regardless of your age. Guess you are just an old chickenhawk.

let me just respond to A-10 here,

no its not the feds job to respond to police shortages, but if we werent being forced to pay for an illegal war in Bush's own personal sandbox, then perhaps we wouldnt have to ship our tax revenues to Haliburton or Bechtel or Boeing etc. Please tell me you aren't really that obtuse to realize the more money we waste fighting a neverending war, the more we can use for other things...

and if you wanna belittle single mothers, then fine, but I dont think a woman who has a kid, and a husband/boyfriend/sperm donar can really affect when that guy up and leaves...quit thinking that all women who are single mothers are welfare mothers, mine raised me just fine, without a single dollar of your handouts, that doesnt mean they are treated any better, or looked upon like the commodity they are, maybe if you spent less time getting a hard-on over war footage and realized people actually suffer in this world, we would havea bit more respect for your kind, but since you dont, ill just pity you

As far as you statement about Neville Chamberland, there is a world of difference between pre WW2 Europe and 1970's Southeast Asia and 2000's Middle East. I promise you I would have gone in WW2 as surely as I avoided Viet Nam. By 1970 the stupidity of the war was well recognized and no one wanted to be the last one to die in 'Nam. And we are at that point in Iraq.

Well Commander in Chief is back on. I love seeing a woman president kick Donald Sutherland's rump. See ya

OK Ash, I guess that's why we have soldiers re-enlisting constantly and there is no draft.

To even equate Iraq and Vietnam in the same sentence shows how much the left wants us to fail in this.

It really is sad. No other way to explain it.

If you think its sadaam loyalists youre sadly mistaken, these are regular guys with guns who dont see much difference between us or sunnis or shia, we are just another militia there.

First off, when i asked you to imagine us being occupied, that required you to think, but since thats a problem at the moment, ill make it easier, what if you were an iraqi, you dont understand english, all you know is that america keeps killing your people, the other group keeps killing your people, and youve got a gun, arent you gonna wanna shoot anyone you dont know, coming into your neighborhood...apparently you dont realize how disrespectful it is to a mulim for a white guy to come into his house, put him on his stomach, make him look impotent infront of his mother and sisters, then cart him off just because someone else from a different minority fingered you for being an insurgent...id shoot someone too, i wouldnt care what kind of freedom they were trying to shove down my throat at the barrel of a gun

we don't want to see the US fail man, c'mon, we just dont want to buy into this, "Its a disrepect to the dead if we dont keep fighting" thats lemming talk man!

either way, it was good to talk to someone with some gumption, im sorry we cant see eye to eye here, but i wish you the best of dreams, im gonna hit the hay, and ill send a prayers to the boys and girls in the sandbox, from all us heathen liberals, g'night ladies and gents

xoxoxo

Heres an example of whats going on over there, from CNN today:

----------

U.S. probes killing of pregnant Iraqi

Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military is investigating reports its soldiers killed two women, one of whom was pregnant, in Samarra, according to the U.S. military and an official with the Joint Coordination Center in Salaheddin province.

Elsewhere Wednesday, insurgent attacks across Iraq killed 22 people, including an Iraqi journalist and a mayor, according to police reports. Another 52 people were injured.

Witnesses of the Samarra shooting said the women were killed when their vehicle drove through a checkpoint around 3 p.m., but that information has not yet been verified, the Joint Coordination Center official said.

The official said 35-year-old Nahiba Husayif Jassim and Faliha Mohammed Hassan, 55, were headed for the hospital Tuesday for the delivery of Nahiba's baby.

The Associated Press identified the driver as Jassim's brother, Khalid Nisaif Jassim, who is quoted as saying he drove "at full speed because I did not see any sign or warning from the Americans."

"It was not until they shot the two bullets that killed my sister and cousin that I stopped," the AP quoted him as saying. "God take revenge on the Americans and those who brought them here. They have no regard for our lives."

He said that the baby also died, according to the AP.

The U.S. military said the vehicle had entered a "clearly marked prohibited area near coalition troops at an obser