FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


More and more people die in Middle East





nivre
Quote:
New study says 151,000 Iraqi dead

The ongoing unrest makes gathering information difficult
One of the biggest surveys so far of Iraqis who have died violently since the US-led invasion of 2003 has put the figure at about 151,000.
This is about a quarter of the figure given in a disputed Lancet article, but nearly three times higher than that of the Iraq Body Count campaigning group.

The result is based on interviews with over 9,000 families across Iraq carried out by the health ministry for the WHO.

The survey says more than half of all violent deaths were in Baghdad.

The World Health Organization study looks only at the period from March 2003 until June 2006.

Researchers interviewed households right across Iraq, in towns and the countryside, and asked the head of each one for details of all deaths in the group.

They say violence became a leading cause of death of Iraqi adults; among men between 15 and 59 it was the main cause of death.

Note of caution

The survey authors say they are confident in the general level of accuracy of the answers they received because they had a high response rate, and because the answers from other questions in their survey were consistent with information they already had.

Despite the large number of families interviewed, the authors do not say 151,000 is a precise figure.


The kind of scene that is played out many times a day in Iraq

Instead, they offer a range of between 104,000 and 223,000.

"Assessment of the death toll in conflict situations is extremely difficult and household survey results have to be interpreted with caution," said study co-author Mohamed Ali, a WHO statistician.

"However, in the absence of comprehensive death registration and hospital reporting, household surveys are the best we can do."

Difficulties facing those leading the survey included:


no central records are kept
some areas are too dangerous to visit
more people leave their homes in times of conflict
many people have left Iraq altogether
"The survey results indicate a massive death toll since the beginning of the conflict," said Iraqi health minister Salih Motlab al-Hasanawi.

The level of civilian casualties in Iraq has been a controversial issue ever since the US-led invasion of 2003.

US criticism

The US does not give estimates of civilian deaths, although President George W Bush once gave a figure of 30,000.

In October 2006, the Lancet published a study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It suggested that between about 655,000 more Iraqis had died since the invasion than would normally have been expected.

Its researchers spoke to more than 1,800 families comprising 12,800 people, comparing mortality rates in selected areas before and after the invasion.


It covered a similar period to the latest survey, but was undermined by allegations that the number of people surveyed was too small and that the authors may have inflated the figures for political reasons.

Mr Bush himself criticised its methodology as "pretty well discredited", and its figure as "not credible".

The best-known casualty tracker is the independent Iraq Body Count. It says it prefers to err on the side of caution, counting only confirmed deaths. The toll it gave for up to June 2006 was under 50,000.

It now gives a range of 80,381 - 87,792.

The BBC's Humphrey Hawkesley, reporting from Baghdad, says violence has fallen in recent months, put down to the success of the US's injection of extra troops.

But he says Iraq remains a very dangerous place.

The latest study's findings are published on the website of the New England Journal of Medicine.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7180055.stm


Too much conflicts in the middle east claims a lot of life already. Most are of innocent people. Is human right not practice in this countries? United Nations can act the most of it...
ocalhoun
nivre wrote:


The BBC's Humphrey Hawkesley, reporting from Baghdad, says violence has fallen in recent months, put down to the success of the US's injection of extra troops.


I'm just happy to see that!

I've been reading a book that puts conflicts like Iraq in a larger, strategic concept of globalization, and the war there makes a lot more sense in those terms.

Some Iraqis have died, but the ones that live have unprecedented freedom and access to global communication and the global economy. This freedom and access is what can prevent and reverse the spread of terrorism much better than guards and M-16's can.
Billy Hill
nivre wrote:
Quote:

One of the biggest surveys so far of Iraqis who have died violently since the US-led invasion of 2003 has put the figure at about 151,000.


No mention about how many died in the 4 years before. Or the 4 years before years before that. Or the 4 years before that. Or the 4 years before years before that. Or the 4 years before that. Or the 4 years before that. Or the 4 years before that.

Rolling Eyes
MrBlueSky
Billy Hill wrote:
nivre wrote:
Quote:

One of the biggest surveys so far of Iraqis who have died violently since the US-led invasion of 2003 has put the figure at about 151,000.


No mention about how many died in the 4 years before. Or the 4 years before years before that. Or the 4 years before that. Or the 4 years before years before that. Or the 4 years before that. Or the 4 years before that. Or the 4 years before that.

Rolling Eyes


Quote:

In October 2006, the Lancet published a study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It suggested that between about 655,000 more Iraqis had died since the invasion than would normally have been expected.


Probably the answer to your question (as far as it is a question) is: not as much.
Billy Hill
MrBlueSky wrote:

Quote:

In October 2006, the Lancet published a study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It suggested that between about 655,000 more Iraqis had died since the invasion than would normally have been expected.


Probably the answer to your question (as far as it is a question) is: not as much.


So 150,000 to 225,000 died since the invasion, which is about 655,000 MORE than they expected?

So they were expecting NEGATIVE deaths??

Must be the new math... Shocked
Bikerman
Tha Lancet study shows that 655,000 people have died* as a result of the invasion.
http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

When the study says 'more than expected' it means more than would have died otherwise (ie without the invasion/war). The previous figure of 100,000-150,000 was from a previous Lancet study which is three or four years old. The new study updates that study and uses new data sampling to arrive at the new estimate.

* The potential error-range of the survey is 392979942636. ie the least figure that could have died as a result of the invasion is just under 400,000 and the most is around 942,000.
liljp617
Um they're living in the middle of a national war and a civil war...it's not all that unexpected or surprising.
paul_indo
Uuhh?

I think they mean more than expected if there had not been a war. ie; under normal circumstances.
galiran
there was a war in israel a few years ago... they shot the hizballla shot rockets on innocent people
HalfBloodPrince
galiran wrote:
there was a war in israel a few years ago... they shot the hizballla shot rockets on innocent people


Did it occur to you that Israel attacked Lebanon, which is where Hizballah come from, first? And they caused tenfold damage in Lebanon as compared to what was done in Israel?

And as for Iraq, would the US get their asses out of their, everything would be a bit more peaceful. Don't say I know nothing about the world, as I live in Saudi Arabia, which borders Iraq.
Billy Hill
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
And as for Iraq, would the US get their asses out of their, everything would be a bit more peaceful. Don't say I know nothing about the world, as I live in Saudi Arabia, which borders Iraq.


Yeah, it was so peaceful before we went there, wasn't it? Rolling Eyes

Hell, it's been peaceful there for centuries hasn't it? Bunch of un-educated thugs running around killing each other for no good reason other than power and religion.
ThePolemistis
Billy Hill wrote:
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
And as for Iraq, would the US get their asses out of their, everything would be a bit more peaceful. Don't say I know nothing about the world, as I live in Saudi Arabia, which borders Iraq.


Yeah, it was so peaceful before we went there, wasn't it? Rolling Eyes

Hell, it's been peaceful there for centuries hasn't it? Bunch of un-educated thugs running around killing each other for no good reason other than power and religion.


Well, one thing that all historians can agree,,, before 1918, when palestine was under Muslim occupation Muslims and Jews lived in peace. There was hardly ever a case of conflict against each other, and the hate amongst each other was drastically less than that seen in Europe.

Thanks to Britain making a shit out of the middleEast, we are left with the situation today. The Zionist state in its apertheid form like it is today, has NO RIGHT to exist.
Related topics
The Middle East Conflict
Your opinion on the war in middle-east.
1 thread for the middle east conflict?
Best Continents to Travel
New Lifestyle & News Sub-Forum: Middle East News
George Bush
Strange weather in the Middle East!
Toyota in trouble?
Egyptian paper doctors Middle East peace photo
Yemeni's and Egyptians follow Tunisian uprising ....
Another Middle East War ..... !
US Foreign Policy - Middle East - Quo Vadis?
10 Greatest inventions...
"terrorist" my thoughts
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.