Iraq says nearly 70,000 killed in violence from 2004 to 2011

i thought the number was much higher. i wonder how many more died from starvation and disease. i cant believe in japan that number matches the bianual figure of suicides. something doesnt seem right.

yup, i was right. prime example of propaganda. quick search will give u a figure of 600,000+ in the first 2 years alone!! the power of the media. does anyone smell a war coming? heres the link.<>

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties<>

NATO, the UN and the ICC don't seem to be shedding many tears for all the needless death of Iraqi civilians.

Interesting that Hillary Clinton can't sleep at night because she's so worried about Syrian civilians being killed but the huge death toll in Iraq doesn't seem to bother her.

At this point, this information is "too little, too late." I think most people bought the lies about civilian casualties and won't be changing their minds anytime soon.

NeverSubmit: NATO, the UN and the ICC don't seem to be shedding many tears for all the needless death of Iraqi civilians.

Did you expect to see the opinions of NATO, the UN, and the ICC in a statement released by Iraqi officials?

Interesting that Hillary Clinton can't sleep at night because she's so worried about Syrian civilians being killed but the huge death toll in Iraq doesn't seem to bother her.

I've seen your posts about Syria. Are you sure that you're the best one to comment about grieving over civilian deaths in Syria? Just about all of your posts do your best to bury the civilian death angle.

yup, i was right. prime example of propaganda. quick search will give u a figure of 600,000+ in the first 2 years alone!! the power of the media. does anyone smell a war coming? heres the link.<> >

The Lancet figures are accepted by almost no-one, Naruhodo. They are counterpropaganda. They also count "excess deaths" rather than deaths from violence, so you can't compare them to the figures given in this article.

From wiki

The studies estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.).

So you'll be happy to hear that no war is coming, at least not in Iraq. Unless, you're a scaremonger, in which case you'll be disappointed and unhappy. But you're not a scaremonger, are you?

People used to ask me "So would you rather Saddam Hussein was still controlling Iraq?"

To them I say - "Yes - far fewer people died unnecessarily"

Nessie, really?? Now you got me to do another quick search on Iraqi widows. Here's a link from the New York Times, BUT I'm sure you could find more info. <>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/world/middleeast/iraqi-widows-numbers-have-grown-but-aid-lags.html The figure is about 900,000 with many more saying 2,000,000. I was just being nice with the 600,000 figure. I really wanted to say millions, but I gave the lowest figure I could find just for people like you.

Terrible.

USA will take responsibility? Will go to international tribunal in Hague?

Mission Accomplished?

Sorry, I'm not trying to be funny. I Just wonder how George W and his friends sleep at night.

@NeverSubmit

What was Hilary Clinton's opinion on invading Iraq?

So you'll be happy to hear that no war is coming, at least not in Iraq. Unless, you're a scaremonger, in which case you'll be disappointed and unhappy. But you're not a scaremonger, are you?

But of course 'war is not coming' to Iraq, American has already laid seige to that country. It withdraws and leaves behind chaos and destruction in its wake.

Where the US goes death follows !

Would it be wrong to say that no other country in the world has killed as many people as the US?

Would it be wrong to say that no other country in the world has killed as many people as the US?

Yes, the Chinese and Russians still hold the title.

The world's largest exporter of weapons= the US

The US has been involved in around 200 logged conflicts since its formation.

The baying for blood by US politicians in the 21st century has never been greater-no other country can compare.

Back on topic please.

Yanks, just come home, just come home.

"69,263 martyrs"

And that number includes quite a few militants/terrorists.

"www.iraqbodycount.org says at least 114,584 civilians were killed"

Must be the Iraqi government officials missed quite a few martyrs. Or maybe www.iraqbodycount.org made up that figure.

I much prefer higher death totals that aren't reported in the newspapers. Then I can pretend they never happened.

Figures that make me sad (including this one)

nearly 70,000 people died in violence from 2004 to 2011 in Iraq around 30,000 people committing suicide in Japan every year 6 million Jews killed during WWII 20 million Russian who died during WWII and most of all.............around 40/50% of the 15 million Africans (this is the smallest estimate) who were taken to the US over the years in slave ships who died on the way (some estimates are much higher, going as high as 100 million in total). Anyway you do the maths. That's a staggering 7 million people.

When will mankind learn? More importantly, WILL we ever learn?

Do not listen to the 'just war' arguments of politicans and war apologists. There is rarely such a thing. Going to war to stop Hitler could be argued as a 'just war' but being responsible for 70,000 deaths or more just to take down a tyrant and steal his oil hardly seems 'just' to the average Iraqi citizen, no matter how awful Saddham was.

"being responsible for 70,000 deaths or more just to take down a tyrant"

Um, Islamic militants/terrorists are responsible for most of those 70,000 deaths.

"and steal his oil"

Did someone steal Iraqi oil?

"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." 9/9/2008, Alan Greenspan

"the Iraq war is largely about oil"

Did someone steal Iraqi oil?

Did someone steal Iraqi oil?

No. There is one thing which unite all Iraqis. They are against the Iraq oil law and therefore it isn't passed.

Superlib,

" I think most people bought the lies about civilian casualties and won't be changing their minds anytime soon."

I think the same can be said for those not wanting to acknowledge a higher bodycount. The most credible source remains Iraqbodycount, which is double.

Either way we're back to arguing of a freaking huge pile of bodies, whatever the number.

"Did someone steal Iraqi oil?"

Claiming this conflict was about anything other than a conflict about oil is up there with the Flat Earth Society.

The instant booty went to US companies associated to the instigators of the invasion, and the US taxpayer got shafted.

Wonder how this compares with Syria so far.............

"Wonder how this compares with Syria so far............."

Aren't the two pretty much uncomparable? One is an ariel bombardment followed by foreign invasion, the other is a popular uprising.

Considering the estimates of 10,000 civillian deaths on the first night of "Shock and Awe", I'm not surprised the Iraqi governments figures start in 2004. They must have excluded the "pacification" of Fallujha.

In fact, todays figure up for today seems as far-fetched as the Lancet was.

Up for discussion today, sorry.

The two sets of figures - those in the Lancet and these - are looking at two different things. These figures are estimates of people directly killed in violence; shot, blown up, etc. The Lancet studies, which so far as I know have never been refuted by a recognized statistician, is of excess deaths: ie, people who died earlier than they might have because they couldn't get medical treatment, or food, or other supplies, due to an ongoing war around them. Crudely, the figure is arrived at by estimating how many people should have died and estimating how many people did die in a given period. It's not exact, but it is the method used in other natural disasters where exact figures and causes of death are going to be difficult to ascertain, such as the Haiti earthquake and its aftermath. If one accepts that these figures are valid, of many tens of thousands killed directly in violence, then it seems likely that a lot more people died through the general chaos, especially of the 2003-6 period.

70,000 in 7 years WOW thats nearly as many Japanese suicides in the last 2 1/2 years.

What's the estimate for the number of people killed during the 24 years of Saddam Hussein's regime?

"What's the estimate for the number of people killed during the 24 years of Saddam Hussein's regime?"

You don't intend to compare your bodycount to that of a brutal dictator do you 'lil buddy?

You don't intend to compare the current government with Saddam's government, do you? Iraq was going to have a body count any way you slice it. The question is whether those deaths would be business as usual for a dictator or part of a transformation to democracy.

And if you think you are nervous about Iran and nukes, multiply that by about a billion for Saddam. He was paranoid about Iran. It's difficult to imagine what the situation would be like if he were alive today watching Iran get away with nuclear production.

"70,000 killed in violence... from the U.S.-led invasion"

Let's not forget the number of Iraqis killed in violence/torture before the U.S.-led liberation:

Iran-Iraq war - 500,000

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - 100,000

Iraq's gulags - 200,000

Serrano, those deaths weren't on the front page of newspapers so they never happened.

Yanks, come home now1 We miss all of you who have not returned because W wanted to change the world.

"You don't intend to compare the current government with Saddam's government, do you?"

Er, no.

"The question is whether those deaths would be business as usual for a dictator or part of a transformation to democracy."

I would call it a civil and a secretarian war happening simaltaneously. And it is happening because a US president who happened to be a whore for corperate greed, basically lied and freaked out Americans to pull it off. (Well those that weren't shrieked down as terrorists for dissenting)

It's kind of intellectually insulting your haste to brush over that ugly part of recent American history as if any of us will ever forget.

References to a nuclear armed Saddam have no place other than in fantasy land, as do the case for war. Bush didn't attack Iran because they are dangerous, which goes to show a lot of what they really knew about Saddam's "WMD".

Sure there was a bodycount either way, but since you've had your way, it's an American bodycount. I'm surprised to see someone who actually does care about the issue defend the indefensible.

We've seen peaceful-ish transitions from some of the Arab Spring, some I concur more bloody, but none on the scale of the carnage US intervention in Iraq has caused.

If the US bodycount is a mere passage to democracy as you claim, I'm just wondering when it's going to stop. The suicide bomber should be renamed the Iraq Bomb.

They do, afterall, own it.

serrano, the US funded and co-erced the Iran Iraq war. That kinda negates using it to hide your own pile of cadavers.

Torture is widespread in the "liberated" Iraq gulags. I'll bet those numbers aren't being clocked by the gov.

"those deaths weren't on the front page of newspapers so they never happened."

But they were reported?

The scale of the hypocrisy on US and Iraq from the seventies up to this day is staggering to me.

I'll defend you guys to the hilt when you're being screamed at unjustly, but you're on you're own on this one.

"the US funded and co-erced the Iran-Iraq war"

Oh, I forgot, the Iran-Iraq war was also the U.S.'s fault, lol.

"Torture is widespread in the "liberated" Iraq gulags"

What do you want the U.S. to do, Madverts? It's a sovereign country with a freely elected government that doesn't seek weapons of mass destruction or threaten its neighbors like before the liberation.

The figure is about 900,000 with many more saying 2,000,000. I was just being nice with the 600,000 figure. I really wanted to say millions, but I gave the lowest figure I could find just for people like you

Did you even read your own link? The 900,000 figure is the number of widows. That is not a figure for war deaths or war widows. It's total widows. There are lots more widows than that in Japan, which has not fought a war since 1945.

According to your link

United Nations report estimated that at the peak of the sectarian violence in 2006, nearly 100 women were widowed each day. The Ministry of Social Affairs pays widow’s benefits to 86,000 women, most of whom, it says, lost their husbands in the latest war.

This figure corresponds with conservative estimates of 103,000 to 113,000 Iraqi deaths in the war, according to a nonprofit group that tallies casualties, Iraq Body Count. The count includes the estimated 10,000 Iraqi soldiers who died in the initial American-led invasion and 10,125 police officers and soldiers who died afterward in fighting with insurgents, along with those killed in sectarian violence.

I know 900,000 is bigger than 113,000, but how about we quote figures for relevant deaths?