April 10, 2006
Iraqi Civilian Death Toll
Rob at Left Wing Lies has created this graphic way to keep track of the number of lives saved by the Coalition invasion of Iraq. Using figures from The Weekly Standard and Iraqibodycount.net, Rob calculates that 174 fewer Iraqis die every day since Saddam was toppled.
27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,19,0" width="150" height="300" title="Lives_Saved">
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=7,0,19,0" width="150" height="300" title="Lives_Saved">
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.
Posted by: Bluto at
03:48 PM
| Comments (44)
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Nice try, but that's comparing apples and oranges. The civilian death count is not about deaths that result from lack of medicines, food, infrastructure--it is only an estimate of violent deaths. By contrast, the UN number on those killed by sanctions was supposed to include all those who died prematurely for lack of infant formula, medical care, etc, that could be logically attributed to the sanctions. So...if you can find some outfit that is estimating the number of Iraqis dying TODAY because of lack of medical care, etc, who would be alive under Saddam's regime, then you would have apples and apples. I don't know what the answer would be. Perhaps the decline in infrastructure would lead to higher deaths, or perhaps the freeing of markets, even amid chaos, would lead to better provisioning. But I do know this comparison is bogus in the extreme.
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 06:05 PM (aqTJB)
2
If you assume that the people who died under UN sanctions died due to the sanctions, then your statements are correct. However, even under sanctions, the Iraqis were allowed to sell enough oil to provide for the health and welfare of their citizens. Saddam simply chose to spend the money on shoring up his personal position as dictator instead. Those deaths are squarely on the head of the Hussein regime.
Posted by: Rob at April 10, 2006 06:11 PM (uqgVn)
3
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. Of course, the deaths under sanctions were Saddam's responsibility. He could have ended them by complying with UN resolutions, for one thing, or not building palaces with money intended for food and medicine. I wasn't saying that Saddam wasn't to blame for those deaths.
What I'm saying is that the comparison is off. The current civilian death tally only counts violent deaths. The pre-war death toll counts those killed violently by Saddam AND those killed non-violently due to absence or shortage of medical supplies, food, etc. So, to be fair, you should compare deaths attributable to sanctions and Saddam violence to those attributable to the current shortages and sectarian violence.
Also, one might want to look at the trendlines. Iraq is on the precipice of a civil war, according to our government. Civilian death tolls are not a constant, but a moving trendline. And the trend is bad. For example: Very few people died over slavery from 1855-60, but the trendline was bad from Harper's Ferry on. And we may be looking at Iraq right about the Battle of First Manassas. At first, these things don't look that bad...
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 06:25 PM (aqTJB)
4
In fact, the Iraqibodycount is of "war-related deaths". They count non-violent deaths as well as violent ones.
It was chosen because it is the most liberal count. For contrast, The Lancet's count only tallies violent deaths that are reported by at least two English-speaking agencies.
Nice try.
195,113 lives saved by US intervention...and counting.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 10, 2006 06:46 PM (RHG+K)
5
Bluto nails it again.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 10, 2006 07:25 PM (8e/V4)
6
Bluto--The iraqibodycount only counts violent deaths:
If you want to submit news stories that could help us confirm an incident involving civilian deaths please email news item weblinks to news@iraqbodycount.org (the more specific and detailed, the better).
If an infant dies of diarrhea in Ramadi because they didn't get medicine, they don't get counted in that tally. By contrast, the same infant death WOULD be counted in the UN count that is referenced prewar. That's why it isn't comparing apples and apples.
Do you get that?
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 07:53 PM (uT71O)
7
Here is proof positive, Bluto, that the Iraqibodycount ONLY counts violent deaths:
This is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the worldÂ’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies. The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks).
It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion.
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 08:22 PM (uT71O)
8
We also won't get into the issue of the absence of sanctions against Iraq today, so that the humanitarian assistance shanghaied by Saddam and the UN gets used for its intended purpose.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 10, 2006 08:24 PM (RHG+K)
9
And we also won't discuss your motives for wanting so very much for Americans to be seen as evil and Saddam as good. Lots of deep soul guilt there, eh, jd?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 10, 2006 08:26 PM (RHG+K)
10
But, for the sake of argument, let's add another fifty per day to Iraqibodycount's already bloated tally. I think that's probably too high by at least 200 per cent, but it makes the math easier. After adding the extra fifty, America is still saving 124 people per day - all because President George W. Bush decided to act.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 10, 2006 08:28 PM (RHG+K)
11
Think about it, jd, that's 124 individual souls every day (by your own biased count) who are walking around breathing...all because the administration didn't listen to people like you.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 10, 2006 08:30 PM (RHG+K)
12
So why did you say they counted non-violent deaths when they manifestly do not?
It is entirely possible that Saddam caused more deaths per annum than the invasion and all repercussions, properly counted. I was just saying that THIS metric doesn't prove it, not even close.
Moreover, the number dead in a given three year period after the invasion isn't the best measure for the success of the mission. If the invasion DOUBLED the number of dead, but resulted in a peaceful, free Iraq, it would have been worth it. The question is--will it? If the invasion replaces Saddam with bloody anarchy in rising numbers, with thousands of US casualties and hundreds of billions of wasted taxdollars, and a destroyed US reputation--then it wasn't worth it even if it resulted in as many "saved" iraqis as you post here. You are falling into the same trap of the radical left you criticize--using a single measure of public policy outcome as the sole measure of success. Deaths per annum is one indicator, and a vital one, but far from the only one.
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 08:50 PM (uT71O)
13
[Sigh] I just knew I'd have to break it down for you. "Criminal action" includes both violent and non-violent events. An illegal immigrant in the US is a criminal, but not necessarily a violent one.
That's extremely basic stuff. I'm appalled at your pathetic reasoning abilities. I though George Mason was supposed to be a decent school. Were you a legacy freshman?
And when are you going to address the other issues I raised?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 10, 2006 09:00 PM (RHG+K)
14
What's your opinion of having the extra 174 people walking around alive every day? Do you wish they were all dead because that would be more politically expedient for your Party?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 10, 2006 09:02 PM (RHG+K)
15
Even if it's only 124 extra humans every day, would you still want them dead?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 10, 2006 09:03 PM (RHG+K)
16
So "criminal action" involves people killed by embezzling, jaywalking, and mail fraud. Let's just assume that's a small number, and leave it at that?
Jeez, do you find it IMPOSSIBLE to admit when you get something wrong? The prewar count includes kids and adults dying of diseases and lack of medicine, the postwar DOES NOT. That's why it is not a fair comparison. Is a disease a crime?
As for the other issues you raised--uh, they were offtopic? An attempt to change the subject when you got nailed in a misstatement? Moreover, I think I DID respond--I said that the death count is just one way to measure the success of the invasion. If we invaded Sudan tomorrow, we could cut the death rate in Darfur. Does that AUTOMATICALLY make it a good idea? I think foreign policy is a little more complicated than that. Don't you?
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 09:06 PM (uT71O)
17
No, you didn't respond at all. But I appreciate the projection. And I even gave you an extra fifty deaths per day for no good reason other than that you just seemed so frustrated at being wrong.
So tell me, I've co-opted your technique of making multiple posts without waiting for responses. What do you think of it as a forensic tactic?
And you still haven't said why you want the extra 124 (actually 174) Iraqis dead.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 10, 2006 09:22 PM (RHG+K)
18
I don't want them to die. I don't know where you got the 50 number, you pulled it out of your ass, I think.
You have no idea how many Iraqis are dying from non-violent causes. It seems possible that if 60k a year were dying from sanctions, when electricity and sewage and clean water services were much more available, than an equivalent number might be dying now. I dunno.
But you do concede that the comparison is not accurate because one count includes non-violent deaths, and the other does not? I'm not frustrated at being wrong--I'm mystified that you can't admit that you made a mistake. Relax--most people make lots of them. You remind me of Rummy, Bush, and Cheney--they can't ever admit a mistake, and so they make more of them. Learn from their mistakes!
As for multiple posts, it doesn't bother me. Sometimes it takes more than one paragraph to make a point. Truth is not typically tidy.
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 09:27 PM (uT71O)
19
jd,
I don't see people getting thrown into mass graves anymore like under Saddam. Guess what that means-- innocent lives have been saved. Enough said.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 10, 2006 09:35 PM (8e/V4)
20
That's a common myth, jd.
Restoring and improving Iraq’s electricity supply has been USAID’s biggest and most costly challenge. In April 2003, Iraq’s usable electrical generation capacity was 2,500 MW — 58 percent of the pre-conflict level. Before the conflict, access to power was unreliable and varied greatly throughout the country. USAID is restoring electricity to homes, public facilities, and business throughout Iraq.
USAID has helped increase electrical generation to an average daily peak of approximately 4,500 MW. However, estimated total demand in Iraq is 8,500 MW and the looting of cables, destruction of hightension towers, and sabotage of fuel lines persist. Decades of operation without regular maintenance have resulted in increased breakdown and a need for significant rehabilitation.I know you hate to admit to being sucked in by anti-American propaganda; most youngsters hate to admit mistakes, especially foolish ones like the ones you've made here, but that's how you learn.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 10, 2006 09:41 PM (RHG+K)
21
And yes, I picked 50 less than the actual number because even though it was ridiculously high, it STILL meant that 124 people per day were NOT DEAD because of the American liberation.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 10, 2006 09:44 PM (RHG+K)
22
As for who made a mistake, well, who keeps insisting that all criminal activity is violent? Why won't you just admit that you're wrong?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 10, 2006 09:46 PM (RHG+K)
23
OK, looks like I was wrong on electrical production. Or maybe you are: because a more recent report than the one you cite says this (and please remember that GAO is under Republican management)
On July 28, 2005, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office issued a report entitled Rebuilding Iraq: Status of Funding and Reconstruction Efforts...Electricity: The Administration has obligated over $4.4 billion in U.S. and Iraqi funds to increase IraqÂ’s electricity production. GAO reports, however, that electricity production was lower in May 2005 than in March 2003. In March 2003, Iraq generated about 100,000 megawatt hours of electricity per day. By May 2005, electricity production levels were as low as 51,000 megawatt hours per day and never exceeded 99,800 megawatt hours per day.
So...I dunno. seems to me that there is a lot of evidence that electricity production is down. Granted, some of this is because under Saddam, Baghdad was favored, and much of the rest of the country got screwed in electricity distribution, post 1991. So, for some areas, it is BETTER, even when overall national production is down.
And to the guy who says there aren't mass graves--that seems to be true. But almost every day in Baghdad, death squads are killing men, and leaving them around. No one group has the monopoly on force that Saddam did, so they don't bury them in public and arrogant ways. They just shoot them and leave them in alleys, etc. I'm not sure this is a great improvement.
Look--if this ends well, it will all be worth it. Going from tyranny to democracy is never easy, and seldom bloodless. Even if twice as many are dying in the occupation as under Saddam, if it ends well, it will be worth it. But my only reason for pointing this out is that the comparison isn't fair. I think anyone reading this realizes that DPB said that it included non-violent deaths, and that it DOES NOT. It is hard for you to say that you got it wrong, but it isn't necessary for you to say it. Everyone can read it for themselves.
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 09:55 PM (uT71O)
24
If we assume that 60K a year were killed by sanctions because of lack of medicine and food (and these casualties were primarily among infants, toddlers, and the elderly) do you really think that subtracting 50 a day is at all equivalent? 50 a day is barely 15000 a year. But right now in Iraq, it is VERY hard for medicine to get from town to town. Unemployment is astronomical. Money is not easily available. Many hospitals lack even basic drugs. I don't have the foggiest if 15000 is a good guess. How do you figure it?
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 09:58 PM (uT71O)
25
I never said all criminal activity was violent. My only point is that the postwar count you are using counts only violent deaths, while the prewar one counts violent and nonviolent ones. The postwar ones includes people who die from criminal acts of violence, true. You say that includes non-violent crimes. You're wrong. Read the website. And--please tell me how many people you think die in Iraq from non-violent crimes. Again, jaywalking and embezzling seldom result in a high body count!
Posted by: jd at April 10, 2006 10:07 PM (uT71O)
26
I did read the website, jd. In fact, I copied and pasted the phrase "criminal activity" directly from it. Why do you think they didn't add the modifier "violent" to that phrase? I think it's because, if you read the webiste in depth, as I did, you know that it was created by self-described "peace activists" who want the "Iraqi body count" post invasion to be as high as possible.
And I think that people can die when the "criminal activity" is, say, misappropriating a shipment of medicine for sale on the black market, though I doubt very much that the deaths from this sort of thing are higher than during Saddam's rule, when such crimes were carried out in a systematic fashion.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 10, 2006 10:51 PM (RHG+K)
27
The real genius of Rob's graphic is in using Iraqibodycount's own figures to prove how vapid and clueless they are.
Don't you agree, jd?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 10, 2006 10:52 PM (RHG+K)
28
Sorry, I missed out on most of this argument. I feel like I'm letting Bluto fight in the ring for me (and he's doing a fine job!)
Point 1:
"It is entirely possible that Saddam caused more deaths per annum than the invasion and all repercussions, properly counted. I was just saying that THIS metric doesn't prove it, not even close."
Entirely possible? I'd say it's an established fact, beyond argument, unless you know where about 198,000 extra casualties from the war are hidden.
That is to say, "so far". No, I can't tell you what the final tally is going to be, 10 years from now, or whenever this all shakes out. But I can tell you, with the best authority I can muster using established, reliable figures, that almost 200,000 more people are alive today in Iraq than would be if we had not invaded.
Point 2:
"The prewar count includes kids and adults dying of diseases and lack of medicine, the postwar DOES NOT. That's why it is not a fair comparison. Is a disease a crime?"
When the disease is due to a willful neglect of public health, I'd say it is a crime. Is genocide a crime? If I starve people to death (as the Soviets did in the Ukraine), is that not a crime, while if I shot them, it would be a crime? I can't believe you would argue that position.
Point 3:
"It seems possible that if 60k a year were dying from sanctions, when electricity and sewage and clean water services were much more available, than an equivalent number might be dying now. I dunno."
You "dunno"? Iraq is crawling with journalists from such anti-American organs as Al-Jazeera and CNN, they haven't found this big humanitarian catastrophe. Your argument, that people were healthier and better cared for under Hussein, is ludicrous.
Posted by: Rob at April 10, 2006 11:29 PM (16HKz)
29
JD, you're trying too hard by arguing semantics. Fewer are dead. Period.
If one really wants to look at the big picture - forgive me for being general - but considering the direction things were going in regards to Iraq with those nations who hold veto power in the UN rallying on their behalf, once santions were eased or lifted who knows how many more may have been saved in or out of Iraq?
Posted by: Oyster at April 11, 2006 06:28 AM (YudAC)
30
Lots of interesting points. First, Rob's point about stealing medical supplies nonviolently could result in deaths--we agree. But those deaths would NOT be counted in the post war period. They would be in the prewar. that's why the comparison is not accurate.
It would be like saying--Baltimore has a higher murder rate than New Orleans, but not counting deaths from gang violence in one city while counting them in the other.
As for Oyster's point: I am concentrating on the comparison, and thus missing the larger point. Conceded. I was trying to make a very small, factual point that this comparison was wrong. I know no one would want to put a comparison up on their web page that was in error.
And finally--there are NOT journalists crawling all over Iraq. It's too dangerous. A higher percentage of journalists have been killed than have soldiers. Unless they get an escort, they can't report much. despite this, numerous reports about unsanitary hospitals, etc, have appeared. It wouldn't be a massive humanitarian crisis. Under sanctions, the deaths were distributed throughout the population (except in Saddam's favored populations). 60,000 premature deaths in a population os over 20 million would not stand out immediately to the casual observer. This is one reason why we DON'T have a comparison number--there isn't even enough infrastructure to keep track of such deaths. It is barely possible to estimate the violent deaths. This is one time when statistics are almost worthless.
I agree that the website is antiwar, produced by people who want the death count as high as possible. But they AREN'T COUNTING PEOPLE WHO DIE FROM DISEASES AS A RESULT OF THE CONFLICT. Period, as Oyster would say. The prewar count did. Do you concede that, DPB? If you read their website indepth, you can't come to any other conclusion.
Is it that hard to acknowledge one simple factual correction? Do you have to insult my intelligence (and question GMU) on the way to simply saying--this comparison isn't accurate?
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 12:15 PM (aqTJB)
31
Finally, the point of my small point is this: you do your side of the argument no favors by using an obviously flawed comparison metric. Rob's counter is counting two different things--a high count prewar, and a low count post war. I don't know how a fair comparison would turn out, but anyone taking a cursory look at the way deaths are being counted realizes that this is a very biased measurement. Your side doesn't have to do that. If you are right, and Iraq will turn out to be more stable and democratic in five years, the body count doesn't matter. If you are wrong, and Iraq spirals into genocide, civil war, and a broader mideast conflict, then this comparatively small body count also doesn't matter.
I think the fairest possible comparison at this point would be to take "Iraqi deaths caused directly by Saddam" and compare it to "Iraqi deaths caused by civic conflict since the first moment of the invasion". Included in that latter death count should be all those killed by our forces, collaterally or otherwise, those killed by Zarqawi and the insurgents, those killed by death squads and militias and those killed by criminals (there was almost no violent crime under Saddam, but to be fair, you should throw those deaths in to the prewar count, if you can get the data). The reason to leave out the UN numbers is because there is no estimate that I've seen of non-violent civilian deaths resulting from the current conflict. Yet we can guess that number is non-trivial.
I didn't check out your sources on the prewar count as carefully, but one should probably also include those killed in saddam's wars against Iran and Kuwait and the US, averaged and annualized, since each of those was a war of choice waged by a dictator.
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 12:25 PM (aqTJB)
32
Yes, jd, those deaths ARE counted, according to Iraqbodycount's own words. Here they are, for the third time:
"It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion."
There is no reason to believe, either from the copy on their website, or their admitted Leftist ideology, that Iraqibodycount would knowingly exclude any deaths that could possibly be attributed to the occupation of Iraq.
It's always exasperating dealing with the willfully stupid and prevaricating Left. And yes, jd, everyone understands why discrediting the Lives Saved count is so important to you that you feel compelled to lie.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 11, 2006 12:54 PM (RHG+K)
33
OK, let me ask you a question that should decide the issue: if I send an email to the iraq body count people, and ask them if a kid dies in Ramadi of diarrhea for lack of medicine would be counted in their tally, and they say no, would you concede the point? My strong belief is that a fair interpretation of what you have clipped above is that they are talking about people killed in robberies, revenge killings, non-political kidnappings, etc. NOT the type of deaths that were counted in the prewar sanctions count. But I'm willing to find out that I'm wrong on this point. Are you? Would you accept as proof that you are wrong an email from them saying "Hey, no, in fact, we don't count a death like that." Would that be enough for you?
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 02:25 PM (aqTJB)
34
Actually, Bluto, would you admit being wrong if the website flat out contradicted you? IE, if your contention that they are counting the deaths caused by non-violent crimes were disproved by their own detailed methodological explanations? Read this, and then admit you are wrong:
It is accepted that war causes many dire consequences for the civilian population even if they are not directly killed or injured in military strikes. They may suffer long-term injury or illness (as a result, for instance of radiation, post-conflict contact with unexploded munitions, pollution due to spillage of toxic materials). People may suffer deep psychological trauma, miscarriage, bereavement, dislocation, and loss of home and property. Destruction of civil infrastructure and economic systems can have effects which last for generations. These factors undoubtedly cause many further deaths. However, documenting and assigning responsibility for such effects requires long-term “on the ground” resources. Immediate deaths and injuries through the use of weaponry can be pinpointed in place and time, and responsibility straightforwardly attributed to the weapon that caused the death or injury.
THEY ONLY COUNT DEATHS CAUSED BY WEAPONRY. ARE WE CLEAR NOW?
Go on, big guy. It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong.
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 02:44 PM (aqTJB)
35
If you have any further doubts about this question, the website actually lists, in order, EVERY SINGLE incident in which they count an iraqi civilian death. There are NONE resulting from non-violent crimes. That number again is NONE, NADA, NIL, NULL, NEGATORY, ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO, GOOSE EGG, THE BIG ABSENCE, THE GREAT DESIDERATA....You get the picture.
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 02:50 PM (aqTJB)
36
Hahaha...yes, I'm VERY CLEAR that you have JUST ADMITTED that there is no way to document the hypothetical "extra" deaths that you used as the basis of your lame attack on Rob's work.
I was beginning to think I couldn't lead you to that conclusion, the text was just waiting there for you to discover... You had me worried, jd, I thought I was going to have to point that out myself. It was much more satisfying to goad you into demolishing your original argument by yourself.
Thanks for coming through, AND TACITLY ADMITTING THAT YOUR ARGUMENT ABOUT DEATHS SIMILAR TO THOSE CAUSED BY SANCTIONS IS A COMPLETE RED HERRING!
Oh, and jd? PWNED!
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 11, 2006 02:59 PM (RHG+K)
37
I admitted there was no way to document those extra deaths the first time I posted on it. That's why I think if you can't count them POST war, you shouldn't count them prewar if you are trying to make a fair comparison. That is the goal, right?
Just a simple question, DPB, yes or no--were you correct when you said that the IraqBodyCount included non-violent civilian deaths from disease and malnutrition resulting from the conflict?
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 03:05 PM (aqTJB)
38
The correct response, jd, is, "ya got me", in which case, as a gentleman, I would refrain from rubbing your nose in it.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at April 11, 2006 03:35 PM (RHG+K)
39
Your whole case seems to be based on the minor tangent that we are not counting deaths from "diseases directly related to the conflict." I guess it depends on how far you are willing to go. We're not counting deaths from "mosquito bites directly related to the conflict" either, because the number is insignificant, and/or impossible to know.
Are there a significant number of deaths from "diseases directly related to the conflict"? That is, do you have some metric that you can refer me to, that shows how many are dying from these supposed war-related diseases? I'd like to see the sourcing on that, if you are. Otherwise, you're just arguing an unprovable point, which is meaningless.
Posted by: Rob at April 11, 2006 03:49 PM (uqgVn)
40
Actually, I'm embarrassed to admit, we are BOTH at least partially wrong. They say, WAY down on their methodology, that they are beginning to count deaths that are indirectly caused by our weaponry. So if a bomb takes out a water treatment plant, and 30 kids die of dysentery, they WANT to count it. The catch is, they say they don't have the ability to count it well, so they only count it when it is reported in the media (this is true of all their death figures, incidentally). I've taken a spin through a substantial portion of their website, and find no such deaths reported, and one incident of 201 deaths at a hospital in which the fact that the electricity was knocked out by our bombs is counted in a few of the deaths (because the media counted them). So, while it is still the wrong comparison, they are attempting to broaden it, in ways that would make your initial statement much closer to true.
Incidentally, though, it is far more off a comparison than I first realized in another way. They are NOT counting violence done by Iraqis against Iraqis. They are ONLY counting deaths caused by Coalition troops. I think the invasion has touched off a vast round of sectarian violence, which is trending upwards. But when Shi'ite death squads dressed in uniforms we sent them using ammo we provided in cars we gave them, round up Sunni men, torture them and shoot them, that isn't counted. It should be, if we are going to make the comparison you want to make.
Now, as to being a gentleman--as you point out, a gentleman doesn't write seven synonyms for zero in crowing about a victory in a battle of facts. Particularly as in the end, the truth turns out, as it so often does, to be pretty complicated. Mea culpa. Sorry.
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 04:02 PM (aqTJB)
41
Rob--the reason that I think you should NOT count the UN sanctions death in your calculus is because you are not counting comparable deaths postwar. I'm not saying it is possible to count the postwar deaths--we just know they are there, in a sizable number. The reason we can count them prewar is that there was still an operating national government prewar. There isn't now. So they don't really have the ability to count the non-violent deaths, let alone many of the violent ones.
Also, as you see above, Iraqbodycount does NOT count those killed by Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomens, or even violent criminals. Because they are a bunch of guilt-ridden lefties, they are ONLY counting deaths that can be blamed on us. Yet I think many of the deaths by death squads, etc, are a result of our invasion (they certainly weren't happening before, and they often use equipment we gave them). So, really, there are at least two fundamental flaws in your comparison, which make it unworkable currently.
You might enjoy a book called "Damned Lies and Statistics" which explains a number of ways in which apples/oranges comparisons are done by the media, interest groups, and politicians to advocate one side or the other. It is one of the FAIREST books on the subject I've ever read. It shoots down claims by feminists, gays, conservatives--everyone who abuses numbers. Although it is written by a sociologist--it is damned fun reading.
Posted by: jd at April 11, 2006 05:35 PM (aqTJB)
42
I win!
Posted by: Oyster at April 12, 2006 04:28 AM (YudAC)
43
JD, if the number of "disease deaths caused by the invasion/occupation" is real, then this statistic must exist somewhere, right? Someone must have this number. Find it and tell us about it. If you can't do that, then your argument is specious and pointless.
Posted by: Rob at April 13, 2006 10:36 AM (16HKz)
44
Not really, Rob--the number could be important, and not "exist" at all. Many important numbers don't exist. Like the budget number for Iran's nuclear program. Face facts--your comparison isn't apples to apples, it is apples to oranges, and it is tilted to the side you want to win. It's misusing statistics, and has very little intellectual legitimacy.
Posted by: jd at April 14, 2006 03:59 PM (aqTJB)
54kb generated in CPU 0.0317, elapsed 0.1856 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.164 seconds, 293 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.164 seconds, 293 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
