Oooh this will be fun. I can't believe you can't even deal with the numbers people throw out there when they do RESEARCH. Yea, MIT sponsored the study, damn those educated smart people! They must all be lefties! Look at them with their evidence and "data", poor bastards. If they only knew that Dubya was telling the truth, then they could just not pay attention like me.

Look, what exactly is your arguement here? That "only "150" thousand are dead? Go to drudge and read the report that he is grasping on to from breibart. It is littered with give aways like "at least one scientist" and "probably". Lots of "I think". Can't wait until Colin Powell's book comes out, it will be nice to take away one of your token blacks, then we will have a black respected former republican general in our ranks, and thats GOTTA hurt.

Mark, I was thinking the same thing. I busted out laughing when I read that number. Any clear thinking individual would have to at least chuckle. I thought why not claim 1,000,000? That could have been a great ("grim") milestone.

How cavalier you are, Mark, with the loss of Iraqi lives. Why quibble over the number of deaths due to a mistaken invasion and occupation of a country by American forces? Since you seem to be willing to accept 50,000 civilian deaths, why stop there?

Yes, it DOES seem high. But, why would the Iraqi physicians and John Hopkins Hospital 'make up a number'? Why do doctors hate America?

"I busted out laughing when I read that number."

Yeah, nothing FUNNIER than war casualties! LOL!

Mark says,

-"Real estimates are for a total of 50,000 civil deaths"

I don't know what you mean by "real". The 50,000 number was popularized by a group named Iraqi Body Count, and they specifically state that this estimate is LOW. Here's what it says on their website:

"Our maximum [estimate] therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."

The lies come frm CO and Coulterfan...

The fact that a HUGE portion of that number are insurgents who are DIRECTLY responsible for driving that number UP.

Be honest with yourselves guys... The United States Armed Forces aren't roving the streets looking for innocent little kids to shoot at.

The people who are causing the violence in that country are people who have a stake in keeping Iraq down; namely the Iranian government and extremely radical islamists who see the people of Iraq rising as them standing AGAINST their radical agenda.

You can HATE that we invaded and you can hate that we're still there, but an honest person recognizes who's currently causing this violence.

As a matter of fact, I was watching the History International Channel last not on the history of Baghdad, and about 20 minutes of the hour long program was based on the future (well the show could have been longer, but I caught it for at least the last hour).

with the exception of traveling at night not being safe, the majority of the people in Baghdad seem to be working hard to rebuild the city and return it to what it was from between the end of WWII and the fall of the King.

The one comment made on the show was to the effect "for whatever reason some leader faraway gave; Iraq is free of a brutal killer. And that can't be anything but a good thing."

650,000 would require about 1000 bodies a day every day the last two years.

The crack squad media sure is missing a lot of bodies then if they are only reporting on a bad day about 50 or 60 and that is only of late.

For you libs, no its not funny and no one is saying it is. This is WORLD WAR III. In World War II, after you libs in the world appeased Hitler I might add, over 50,000,000 people died.

So the numbers are IMPORTANT Canadian Observer, just for context if nothing more.

Warrior,

The 50-60/day you cite is usually Bagdad only. I think before you guys condemn the report as fake, you should look at their study and try to come up with errors, you know - do the math. This was peer reviewed by people who understand the methodology as opposed to you or me. Juan Cole has a pretty good analysis of the report,
http://www.juancole.com/

that questions the numbers but then comes away with the realization that they're probably right.

By the way, the report doesn't say all these folks were killed by the US, it says that as a result of the occupation, this many more people have died than would have.

If you believe they're wrong, why don't you just ask Bush to release the military's estimate, oh, that's right, it's secret.

"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."

Leo Tolstoy

P.S. if almost 30,000 US troops have been killed and/or wounded, how many Iraqis do you suppose have been killed and/or wounded? Now couple that with the inadequate medical treatment most of the wounded get and I think you could reach a few hundred thousand very easily. Then add the ones who die from poor medical, water, sanitation etc and you know, the numbers don't look so unreasonable do they?

In a population of 25 million, how many deaths from natural causes can be expected during this time frame? Depending on the average age of the population it could be 600,000 to 750,000. These numbers are being included to inflame passions aout the war.

Its completely bogus.

Leo,

Here is a more interesting question, how many lives were extinguished during lets say the last two decades while Sadaam Hussein and his regime were in power in Iraq?

"In World War II, after you libs in the world appeased Hitler I might add, over 50,000,000 people died."

Now THAT'S funny, because it was the Conservative Isolationists who didn't want to get involved in WWII. Who was President during the war? FDR was about as 'liberal' as you get and he WON the war! Prescott Bush, as you recall, was actively invested in companies which PROFITED from the Nazis. Prescott Bush's companies assets were seized in 1942 under the "Trading with the Enemies Act".

WHO appeased Hitler?!?!?!?

I don't need to do the math, people with higher intellect then you or me and most on this board are already calling this report a complete fraud.

And your 30,000 statistic is a complete joke. We aren't talking WOUNDED here, the report says DEAD! The US has lost under 3,000 troops. Al Queda is saying they have lost under 5,000 "freedome fighters".

That's 8,0000 DEAD. Where are the other 642,000 dead? There would be mass graves everywhere and the news would be showing bodies piling so high it would make everyone's head spin.

This report is utter tripe, released just before an election so the moonbats can lap it up. Where's the EVIDENCE?

Fred Kaplan, a major league lib, had THIS to say at The Slate...

(from the Lancet article) We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period.

(from Kaplan): Readers who are accustomed to perusing statistical documents know what the set of numbers in the parentheses means. For the other 99.9 percent of you, I'll spell it out in plain English—which, disturbingly, the study never does. It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language—98,000—is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board.

More

An independent group of researchers and biostatisticians based in England produces the Iraq Body Count. It estimates that there have been 44,000 to 49,000 civilian deaths since the invasion.

Wouldn't it be great if the Democrats today had a pair of balls like FDR, Truman or Kennedy?

Unfortunately those Democrats don't exist. That was a time in history where Democrats GOT IT!

When Democrats weren't liberal pussies like they are now. Democrats were men, but not today.

It was still the LIBERALS in the world that appeased Hitler (note I didn't say Democrats, I said LIBERALS) under Neville Chamberlain.

If you took a minute and read the article about the "estimated" death total (published in the NYT, that pillar of truth and accuracy), you would discover that the study surveyed 1,849 Iraqi families in 47 different neighborhoods across Iraq. They then extrapolated the deaths to represent the entire country. That sounds real scientific to me. I'm sure that there was no chance that they might have sampled families in areas hardest hit by violence, or families that had experienced deaths in the past 3 1/2 years.

They survey also included deaths by natural causes in the totals. The mortality rate before the American invasion was about 5.5 people per 1,000 per year (The US mortality rate for 2004 was 8.01 per 1,000). So, at that rate, and a population of approximately 25,000,000, we should expect to see about 137,500 deaths per year. 137,500 times 3.5 years equals 481,250. A number that is within the margin of error cited in the study.

So, not only is the methodology of the study flawed (surveying 1,849 families and trying to extrapolate the results over a population of 25,000,000), the total number of deaths we should expect, based on the mortality rate prior to 2003, is within the margin of error cited in the study.

Bottom line, there is absolutely no proof that the "Iraqi Dead May Total 600,000, Study Says" is a result of our intervention, as the NYT and the left would like you to believe. There should have been approximately 480,000 deaths with or without our intervention.

Even if you "blame" the US intervention with the difference - 120,000 - only about 30% are attributed to US action, about 36,000. The rest are a result of terrorist activities.

I know, "If we weren't over there, the terrorists wouldn't be killing innocent civilians". Us being over there doesn't excuse the terrorists actions. The the democratically elected Iraqi Government wants us there. The terrorists (and liberals) do not.

From Iraq Body Count:

"Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. "

A-10,

This is a well established method of counting deaths from WHO and others when accurate records cannot be had. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong. Also, it's likely that most of the deaths are sectarian and tribal not from terrorists as you claim.

3moreyears,

"Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong."

I completely understand it. I have taken several graduate level courses related to conducting surveys and am very familiar with the methodology of creating polls and surveys to get the results you want.

I also didn't say that it is wrong. I pointed out that we could expect about 480,000 deaths with or without our intervention. The 600,000 number that the NYT is using to scare people into believing we caused all these deaths is what is dishonest. They are making it sound that we have been responsible for the 600,000 deaths, when about 480,000 could be expected to die from natural causes during the same period.

I would agree that of the approximately 84,000 Iraqi deaths not attributed to US actions, many are sectarian and tribal. But they are also not our fault.

Further, of the 36,000 Iraqi deaths attributed to US forces, most are terrorist, members of tribal milita, or others trying to stop the spread of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

Finally, some food for thought (that is, it you are capable of thought): in the past 3 1/2 years, approximately 8,400,000 Americans have died. Our mortality rate is higher than the Iraqis.

A-10

Is it at all surprising that a liberal here gravitates toward the WORST number possible, toward the gloom and doom scenario?

Whether it's taxes, global warming, the deficit, war, or anything these guys are like flys on crap...24/7 the sky is falling.

No wonder why people don't like the Dems. They stand for losing and have no optimism about anything.

Warrior -"650,000 would require about 1000 bodies a day every day the last two years."

But this announcement was for CIVILLIAN deaths only! Not total deaths. Many Many Many of the people killed have been uniformed Iraquis (at first) and later insurgents or militia members.

coulterfan and others - the reason we seem "cavalier" is that you make these absurd claims and expect us to take them (and you) seriously.

Harry Reid just got exposed on Democrats Culture of Corruption. $1 million for a home he hasn't owned in 3 years. OUCH

well, if warrior wants to go off topic, i'll take the liberty as well:

so for all you whiners who complained about kerry's comment the other day and who have been complaining about how mean and hateful the dems are, let me just remind you of the kind of comments we can expect on a daily basis from one of your posterboys:

On the October 9 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage declared that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is a "traitor" who "should be tried for treason, and when she's found guilty, she should be hung." Savage called Albright a "traitor" because he said she "went to North Korea" and "came back like [former British Prime Minister Neville] Chamberlain came back and said, 'Chancellor [Adolf] Hitler has told me he simply wants to take a little piece of territory.' " Savage, who also branded former Clinton national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger a "traitor" and referred to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (CA) as "Nancy Paleolosi, because … [she] is living in the Paleolithic," added of Albright: "[W]hen she is hung, maybe the other quislings in our government will get the message that we're going to crack down on them."

here is the link with the audio: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Olbermann-WW-Savage.mov

i've got some ideas for michael savage....

SAVE ME - VOTE DEMOCRAT

OA - Senator, Presidential candidate vs. radio talk show guy. In the Democratic party thats the same?

OK, then Al Franken represents your platform and positions, Thanks for clearing that up.

OA, standing in defense of Madelline Albright might get you a date with old strong legs. Since she recently claimed that even in her old age she can bench 450 lbs with her legs...while still lamenting that she intimidates men. ha ha ha Sounds like your trying to get good graces of her thighness. She once toasted fearless leader and hoped the little man would be smitten...and later lamented that he tricked her. Now I'm wondering what kind of 'trick' she was talking about after I noticed the irregular shape of his head.

Steve,

It is bogus - as soon as I heard the number, I knew it was bogus: I didn't have to do any research because it is, plain and simple, impossible for there to have been anything remotely like that number of deaths of civilians in Iraq due to war.

Now, since I've posted this, plenty of people are already pointing out, after analysis, what a bogus study is - confirming what I know right from the start because I'm not an anti-American, Bush-hating, leftwing fanatic.

This is just another bogus, hate-America polemic perfectly timed for the upcoming US mid-term elections.

You're so full of s**t. Do you even give a damn that thanks to our Idiot President's decision to invade Iraq, a country that was no threat to America, that now thousands are dead in the process?

Typical Bush neocon.............make Chimpy McFlightsuit look good, to hell with the lives destroyed because of the result in Iraq.

Mark, you're no Christian.
You're a shameless fraud who places the GOP over common sense and Jesus's teachings of love and tolerance, and you're a political hack to boot.

You're pathetic.

Wouldn't it be great if the Democrats today had a pair of balls like FDR, Truman or Kennedy?

And what are you basing that on exactly? Clinton did pretty well in Kosovo, as I recall, EVEN WHILE the conservatives (or the 'hate America' crowd) gave aid and comfort to the enemy by questioning his "moral authority".

And, just for the sake of argument, let's say the Dems are now seen as less focused on military solutions. But at least the Dems are NOW the fiscally responsible ones! Compared to Clinton, Bush is a BIG GOVERNMENT 'conservative'. In fact, non-military expenditures under this Republican Congress and Republican President IS A LARGER PERCENTAGE OF OUR GDP THAN UNDER LBJ!!! Look who's for small, efficient, 'stay out of our personal lives' government NOW!!!

No threat to America? Oh please. Neither was N. Korea according to Clinton and Carter and look what happens when you ignore crazy dictators.

Bush did the right thing with Iraq and one simply needs to look at N. Korea and that outcome to know that appeasing crazy dictators isn't the way to go.

Even http://www.iraqbodycount.org/, by no means, a pro-Bush site, doesn't come anywhere near this number. I suspect something's up.

warrior,

you *have* to be kidding me. bush did the right thing with iraq? by starting a pre-emptive war (that is, btw, illegal) that left us at a loss to deal with a real threat like n. korea? blame clinton, blame carter, heck blame george washington if it makes you feel better. the cold, hard, sober truth is the iraq war has made us less safe. period. increased tensions in the middle east. more terrorists (surprise guys!). more nuclear weapons in the hand of really crazy people, and we do not have the gas (pardon the pun) to do anything about it.

what'cha gonna do?

Another bogus body count from those who brought us the last bogus body count!

You're an idiot sheep Warrior, just like the rest of the con sheep
Bush ignored N. Korea and you know it...it wasn’t until 2002 that they stepped up the nuc production because they know bush wouldn't do anything. and did he? after the crossed Clinton's 'red line' where were the sanctions? where were the threats of any action? where was anything besides hoping they would go away? Iran we negotiate w/ but NK we just hope will go away? The only thing that will make you realize how ignorant you are is a mushroom cloud in you back yard

now you blame N. Korea on Clinton while squabbling over how many Iraqis have been killed since we've liberated them and made their lives better?
You and the rest of the con's aren't Americans, hell you aren't ever human, you're Sheep, blindly loyal sheep who would rather see this nation go down in flames than listen to reason.

-on the other hand, for farm animals you're good for a laugh every once in a while

teenage liberal:
If you are indeed a teenager... you've got a LONG life full of hate ahead. You clearly didn't learn this hate all on your own...

So you call someone who has at least 20 years on you pathetic, "full of "sh*t" and you think that elevates the dialogue.

Well here's something that your vitrol will probably understand... and since I'm pro-choice all I can say is too bad your mom didn't give that one choice she had with you a little bit more thought.

Does that raise the level of debate? Absolutely not. Calling people names because you disagree with them just shows you're not ready for prime time. And take it from an expert, neither am I.

Can't wait until Colin Powell's book comes out, it will be nice to take away one of your token blacks, then we will have a black respected former republican general in our ranks, and thats GOTTA hurt.

"Our ranks?" What "ranks?"

Are you from another country? Or are you the enemy hellbent on destroying us from within, during wartime, in a blind lust for power?

Just what is it that you are after, Steven?

Just whose war are you fighting?

Isn't it typical of the left that once we shoot holes in their latest meme, they quickly forget all about the subject at hand and revert to their talking points: Bush's illegal war in Iraq, Bush ignored North Korea, Bush in a flight-suit, Bush is worse than Hitler, Bush allowed the North Koreans to develop nukes, Bush is a evil genius, or is it a moron. I keep forgetting which it is this week.

Yo, Opus, both the North Koreans and our intelligence agencies have confirmed that before the ink on the agreement Clinton, Carter, and Albright negotiated was dry they were cheating. By 2000, they had built their nuclear reactors (which we provided to them), developed their nuclear technology (with our help), and had processed enough uranium to produce 1-2 nukes. Once the nuclear genie was out of the bottle (by 2000), you can never put him back. Once they had the reactors and technology and were cheating on the agreement, it didn't matter what Bush did, save try to get the North Koreans to abandon their nuke program (which was created under the Clinton Administration).

It doesn't really matter if they have one nuke or a dozen. If they detonate a nuke in Seoul, or Tokyo, or if they give a nuke to a terrorist orgainzation and it detonates a nuke in New York City, Washington, or LA, the results would be devastating. Sure we can turn North Korea, Iran, or just about any other country to a glowing mass of molten glass, but the damage has been done. It would take decades for the world's economy to recover.

So we are at a crossroads. North Korea may or may not have a workable nuke. Their recent test would tend to make one believe that they don't. We need to use whatever pressures we can (China, Russia, sanctions, etc) to get them to dismantle their nuke programs and to account for every ounce of processed uranium/plutonium, less it fall into terrorists who would use it in a dirty bomb.

We also need the Clinton apologists (Albright, Senator Clinton, Perry, etc) to STFU and stop trying to create a legacy for WJC (his only legacy will be that of getting BJ's while North Korea developed nukes and Al Qaeda planned their string of attacks).

Opus, apparently you missed the timeline so here it is again for you.

Stay at a Holiday Inn Express and gain some intelligence, or at least have the decency to come back and apologize for being wrong.

1996 ~ North Korea announces it will withhold from the IAEA any new nuclear information until the light-water reactors are finished and operating, a period of 10 years or more.

July 1998: The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that North Korea is refusing to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors full access to its nuclear sites.

March 1999: A U.S. Department of Energy intelligence report allegedly claims that North Korea is working on uranium enrichment techniques.

October 2000: The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assesses that North Korea has processed enough plutonium for at least one, and possibly two, nuclear weapons.

May 2001: North Korea threatens to pull out of a 1994 Agreed Framework, saying the United States has failed to live up to its obligations under the agreement.

March 2002: President Bush decides not to certify North Korea's compliance with the 1994 Agreed Framework nuclear agreement before sending fuel oil to Pyongyang, indicating the United States does not have enough information to determine whether North Korea is complying with the agreement. He decides, however, to grant a waiver, allowing the fuel oil shipments to continue.

October 2002: The United States claims that North Korea acknowledged to a U.S. delegation headed by Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly that North Korea has been secretly enriching uranium. The admission was prompted by U.S. intelligence indicating North Korea was trying to acquire large amounts of high-strength aluminum, which can be used in equipment to enrich uranium.

November 2002: KEDO decides to suspend heavy fuel oil shipments to North Korea until North Korea takes steps to dismantle its nuclear program.

TL,

And you have yet to learn any manners...don't liberal parents teach those anymore?

Funnyguy you wouldn't be related to this guy would you? You sound just like him....liberals always do throughout the course of history. And history has shown them to be wrong time and time again.

Of course the rankest abuse came from the copperheads, among whom none was more inventive in his vituperation than a Wisconsin editor, Marcus M. Pomeroy. Lincoln, he wrote, was "but the fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism"—indeed a "worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero." As the election of 1864 approached, Pomeroy editorialized: "The man who votes for Lincoln now is a traitor and murderer.... And if he is elected to misgovern for another four years, we trust some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good."

Harry Reid just got exposed on Democrats Culture of Corruption. $1 million for a home he hasn't owned in 3 years. OUCH

Posted by: Warriornation at October 11, 2006 03:08 PM

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

Wake up 'Pugs, NO BODY CARES !!

There's one and only ONE issue on the minds of American voters...

"It's the IRAQ WAR stupid !"

ouch.

Since none of you took any time to research the methodolgy of the study, let me help you. While the numbers ARE sound, the study IS a little MISLEADING. Basically, the study examines the overall death rates pre and post war. The death rate was about 5.5 (per 1000) and now it's 13.3. Since the only variable changed is the WAR, the science is sound.

The reason this study is so controversial, however, is that THE VAST MAJORITY of these additional deaths are not DIRECTLY caused by the war. They are INDIRECT deaths (ie. in a war-torn nation, more people die of heart disease, cancer, traffic accidents, lack of nutrition and clean water, etc. When power goes out in a hospital and there is no fuel for the backup generator, people who would have lived on life support are now very vulnerable.) This study would also take into account all the additional toxins in the air, water, etc which undoubtedly raise mortality levels. In a very real sense, this is a measure of the total cost of war. Despite the US paying for UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE for ALL IRAQIS, the streets are too dangerous for people to get preventative health care.

I think people ON BOTH SIDES are not understanding really what the study measures. They assume it means 655,000 died from combat, "collateral damage", etc. BUT THIS IS ON ITS FACE FALSE. This is a study which purely examines the death rates both pre and post war.

The methodology of the study is sound and was done by the Iraq Health Dept and John Hopkins University, but the way the numbers are being used is PARTISAN and DECEPTIVE. Still, it DOES demonstrate the old adage, "War is HELL!"

One last thing:

These numbers were arrived at in VERY similar manner to the numbers of Iraqi civilians who were believed to have died as a result of sanctions on Iraq. Because Saddam was hoarding all the country's food and wealth, Iraqi citizens were suffering. While this wasn't DIRECTLY caused by sanctions or Saddam, it was indirectly caused by the fact that Saddam didn't care enough about the Iraqi citizens to provide them adequate food, nutrition, and medical attention.

If someone disputing this study can point to a reputable study indicating a lower death rate than 13.3 per 1000 POST-WAR, I would be very interested as that would DISPROVE the study. Otherwise, the study appears to be sound. . .

coulterfan,

I don't necessarily dispute the fact that the Post-War mortality rate is 13.3. Actually, with a population of 25,000,000 and a 13.3 per 1,000 mortality rate, 1,163,750 should have died in the past 3 1/2 years, not the 655,000 quoted. So something is amiss.

I do question how they came up with the total of up to 655,000 deaths since March 2003. A survey of 1,849 Iraqi families in 47 different neighborhoods across Iraq doesn't not sound like the most scientific and accurate way to determine a mortality rate or come up with a total number of deaths. There is the possibility that, with the size of extended families in the Arab world, one person could be counted by more than one "family". It also seems that they were assuming that the death rate was identical between the surveyed neighborhoods and all those not surveyed.

I also understand that it is the Muslim custom to bury the dead within days and that not all make it to a hospital prior to death or a morgue after death. But doing a survey of 1800+ families and extrapolating it for an entire nation of 25,000,000 people opens the exercise up to be questioned.

My biggest concern is the effort by the NYT to make it sound like all 655,000 alleged deaths were a result of US intervention in Iraq. If you read my post above, at a 5.5 per 1,000 death rate, we would expect 480,000 deaths in the 3 1/2 years, not far from the total quoted and within the margin of error. It was an obvious attempt by the NYT to turn Americans against defeating global terrorism and promoting freedom.

"Actually, with a population of 25,000,000 and a 13.3 per 1,000 mortality rate, 1,163,750 should have died in the past 3 1/2 years, not the 655,000 quoted. So something is amiss."

Well, considering that the mortality rate WAS 5.5 per 1000, that means 481,250 would have died. So 1,163,750-481,250=682,500. That's pretty close to what the study found.

I don't think it's the NYT which is to blame, nor are they trying to "turn Americans against defeating global terrorism and promoting freedom". I do, however, think that the study is being released NOW for partisan reasons. Scientists should know by now how easily misinterpreted statistics are and should be very careful as to how these reports are worded. The study, however, is valid but misleading, as I said before.

Now, I was ALWAYS personally against this war, for THIS VERY REASON- that it would provoke MORE terrorism rather than make us safer. I thought all the "happy talk" of being greeted as "liberators" was ASININE and FAIRY-TALE-LIKE! I would have preferred we used all the resources on securing our ports, checking ALL airline cargo, securing our nuclear material and chemical facilities, etc. We could also have REALLY PISSED OFF the terrorists by GETTING OFF OF MID-EAST OIL!!!! That's what really funds terrorism, the Middle East Oil Industry!

BTW, the New York Sun (a conservative publication) is now reporting on Baker's report:

"Baker's Panel Rules Out Iraq Victory"

http://www.nysun.com/article/41371

I DO think we need a SERIOUS discussion about what our goal is NOW in Iraq and how we go about accomplishing that. All this "cut and run" talk and "655,000 Iraqis killed" talk is for partisan purposes and doesn't allow for a REAL discussion. The war hasn't gone well, period. What do we do now? John Warner, James Baker, John Murtha (would Republicans call Baker and Warner "cut and run Repubicans"?)- they all basically AGREE, but the partisan politics of this election year is standing in the way of anything bi-partisan getting done!!!

coulterfan,

"Well, considering that the mortality rate WAS 5.5 per 1000, that means 481,250 would have died. So 1,163,750-481,250=682,500. That's pretty close to what the study found."

WHAT? According to the NYT, the study was the total number of Iraqi deaths, from all causes, for the last 3 1/2 year. Not the increase in the number of deaths from war-related causes. That's why the numbers are questionable.

"According to the NYT, the study was the total number of Iraqi deaths, from all causes, for the last 3 1/2 year. Not the increase in the number of deaths from war-related causes. That's why the numbers are questionable."

Link, please? If that is REALLY what the NYT says, count it as another instance of shoddy reporting by the Times! The study indicated 655,000 more deaths as a result of the war. In other words, an increase in mortality rate from 5.5 to 13.3, as we discussed.

From the NYT Article "The American military has disputed the Iraqi figures, saying that they are far higher than the actual number of deaths from the insurgency and sectarian violence, in part because they include natural deaths and deaths from ordinary crime, like domestic violence. "

A-10, that's entirely consistent with an increase in death rate. They are assuming that everything else has remained the same except that NOW there's a war. The death rate has increased from 5.5 to 13.3, leading to an addition 655,000 deaths. As I stated, these are not DIRECTLY caused by the war, but it's hard getting good medical attention for otherwise non-fatal illnesses and injuries in a WAR ZONE! I would also assume homocides and suicides increase because of exposure to war, related mental illness, and general feelings that "there's nothing left to live for" (ie SEVERE situational depression).

As I stated, people are taking the 655,000 number and are using it for political ends. People don't understand the methodology and thesis and are either dismissing it out of hand or using it to claim that the US and Iraqi forces are DIRECTLY responsible for this huge increase in death rate. The fact is that this report SHOULD BE taken seriously, because it shows what the Iraqis deal with on a daily basis! Just on a basic level, would YOU leave the house with insurgents roaming the streets, daily car bombs, intermittant electricity, NO control over the city's crime, etc? You can't even take for granted that the stoplights will be working, and even if they are that someone won't plow into your vehicle (driving WAY over the speed limit)- an INDIRECT war casualty. . . How quickly do you think you'd get to the hospital if you had a heart attack in Iraq? Would you put yourself in harm's way to have yearly "check-ups" when the hospitals are CLOGGED with war injuries?

You get the idea. . .

One final point, A-10. Since you brought it up, it is a well established fact (several sociology studies have shown) that suicides and homocides DOUBLE during wartime. Therefore, this increase in domestic violence, etc could be seen as an INDIRECT cause of war, as well. . . Not to mention all the criminals who now think they can get away with armed robbery, etc BECAUSE there's no police security, not enough prisons and they take advantage of the anarchy- this is also INDIRECTLY caused by the war.

Again, this report should be taken seriously and not politicized. By all means, other researchers should conduct studies to find the true death rate (or to confirm the results), so that we can have a REAL understanding of how this war is affecting the Iraqi people.

And, of course, with 44,000 injured US soldiers and 2700 dead, we will have to measure the effects on our own VA system, mental illness, homelessness, post-traumatic stress disorder, etc, as well.

Why are you all arguing over how many died? The point is too many are dying needlessly. It doesn't matter wheteher from starvation, enemy fire, bombs it's still someones life gone. These figures could well be accurate a day doesn't pass without more death, Iraq is just one big mess and sadly there is very little anyone can do about it.

Geez guys. Wake up. Its a mess over there. Friends in the military confirm this. Colin Powell was right- we broke it. Sadly, though, Iraqi families are really the ones paying. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for your lack of compassion and clarity about the reality of Iraq.