One million killed in Iraq?

	Duration: 280 seconds Upload Time: 07-08-10 10:37:26 User: TheRealNews :::: Favorites
Description: Independent group uses Lancet study to project Iraq death toll 2007-08-10 Last year, the medical journal The Lancet published an estimate of 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq based on a demographic study conducted by field workers questioning people in clusters throughout Iraq. The group Just Foreign Policy has taken that number and projected it using Iraq Body Count, which tallies deaths reported by Western media sources. This leads to a rough estimate that one million Iraqis have now been killed in the conflict since the U.S.'s 2003 invasion and occupation. When The Lancet published the 650,000 estimate, President George W. Bush said: "600,000 or whatever they guessed at is just, it's not credible." We speak to Les Roberts, now at Columbia University, who is co-author of The Lancet piece "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey." Roberts has studied other conflicts, including in Congo, where his estimates have been widely accepted. We also speak with Robert Naiman of the group Just Foreign Policy. Why the disparity between the Iraq Body Count numbers and The Lancet study? Patrick Ball of the group Benetech has noted: "Methods such as media reports typically capture violence well when it is moderate, but when it really increases, they miss a great deal." (Ball is a co-author of the book State Violence in Guatemala, 1960-1996, and wrote the chapter "On the Quantification of Horror: Field Notes on Statistical Analysis of Human Rights Violations" in the book Repression and Mobilization.)
Comments
Artaudin2 ::: Favorites More to the point, "Who benefits?" is a good question, but one that needs to be modified to "who thinks they can benefit?" and cannot usually be answered with limited and outside information. I apply that here, though I can actually think of a lot of people who might benefit from fake numbers in either direction when the issue is this critical. That's why I think it best to use the same methods to look at everybody's numbers. In this case, epidemiological methods. 07-08-10 22:11:21 _____________________________________________________
witbred ::: Favorites hahaha joke....someone is high, drunk or just on crack. why dont we just you the internet like the american inventors intended? iraqbodycount . org view database and see every single death accounted for. no more than 80,000 deaths. less than 4,000 by american fire. if you have a better site let me know 07-08-10 22:13:30 _____________________________________________________
Artaudin2 ::: Favorites Witbred, Looked at it. It's a count of reported deaths. Totally different from an excess mortality measure. But the idea of 900,000 or so extra deaths, "mostly" due to violence, implies at least 450,001 unreported violent deaths in the most heavily reported conflict on earth, ever. Not bloody likely. 07-08-10 22:32:46 _____________________________________________________
midwestcharm ::: Favorites If we send the illegals home, we could bring over the Iraqis who want to come legally. 07-08-11 08:33:31 _____________________________________________________
SamHusseini ::: Favorites I'm Sam Husseini, was the main producer for this piece. As indicated on the writeup for this piece (just click on "more"), method used by the Lancet authors is accepted when other conflicts are in question, like Congo. Tallies that depend on Western media reports like Iraq Body Count are highly flawed, we quote Patrick Ball who has studied periods of intense violence including in Guatemala, Kosovo, East Timor -- char limit -- take a look.... 07-08-11 11:22:09 _____________________________________________________
SamHusseini ::: Favorites Why the disparity between the Iraq Body Count numbers and The Lancet study? Patrick Ball of the group Benetech has noted: "Methods such as media reports typically capture violence well when it is moderate, but when it really increases, they miss a great deal." (Ball is a co-author of the book State Violence in Guatemala, 1960-1996, and wrote the chapter "On the Quantification of Horror: Field Notes on Statistical Analysis of Human Rights Violations" in the book Repression and Mobilization.) 07-08-11 11:27:03 _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
flyingphtm ::: Favorites Thankyou Sam, and Real News. I did some research after Watching this Piece abs lancet is right on the money there Reports has been accepted without any opposition in the past. Good report thankyou!! 07-08-11 14:56:52 _____________________________________________________
Ender1zero1 ::: Favorites and the Palestinians too for that matter as long as we can chip them first. 07-08-11 19:14:37 _____________________________________________________
SparklestheClown ::: Favorites Whatever thenumber, you can bet we are compassionate and do care, as does the President. No one standardizes any of this. Why don't you standardize the number of terrorists who keep blowing up themselves and so many innocents worldwide. You almost sound like part of the wrong side. Whatever the propaganda, whose side are we on. Life and Freedom. Quit trying to put the US in the negative light. 07-08-12 16:41:05 _____________________________________________________
nlightnd07 ::: Favorites Sparkles misses one thing - WE invaded their nation. News is news, not an editorial like on Fox or CNN or ABC or NBC. 07-08-12 19:32:15 _____________________________________________________