Iraqi Government Releases Civilian Death Toll From War: 85,000

A big, ugly number that’s nowhere near that 600,000 estimated by Lancet or the 1,000,000 estimated by Ron Paul.

At least 85,000 Iraqis lost their lives from 2004-2008 in violence, the government said in its first comprehensive tally released since the war began.
The report by the Human Rights Ministry said 85,694 people were killed in the four-year period and 147,195 were wounded. It counted Iraqi civilians, military and police but did not cover U.S. military deaths, insurgents, or foreigners, including contractors or U.S. forces. And it did not include the first months of the war after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
The Associated Press reported in April that the government had recorded 87,215 Iraqi deaths from 2005 to February 2009, a toll very similar to the latest release. It was based on government statistics obtained by the AP and covered violence ranging from catastrophic bombings to execution-style slayings.
Until the AP report, the government’s toll of Iraqi deaths had been one of the most closely guarded secrets of the war. It has been hotly disputed because of the high political stakes in a war opposed by many countries and by a large portion of the American public. Critics on each side accuse the other of manipulating the toll to sway public opinion.

That’s 85,694 deaths over the course of 60 months. That works out to be 1,428 deaths per month. Again, a big ugly number.
But when you consider that more than double that number of Iraqis were dying under Saddam Hussein’s regime, the truth is that the invasion of Iraq waved lives.

From the 285 months of Saddam Hussein’s reign from 16 July 1979 to 9 April 2003, using just six of the war crime events listed by U.S. War Crimes Ambassador David J. Scheffer, a total of 865,000 Iraqis civilians died as the result of Saddam’s ethnic cleansing, political oppression and ‘arrests’. That is a rate of 3035.088 deaths per month

That monthly number is no doubt low as it takes into account just six specific events and doesn’t address the no doubt sizable body count created by Saddam through his casual, day-to-day cruelty.
Now, we can disagree as to whether or not the war in Iraq was sound US fiscal policy. We can debate about whether it’s made our nation more secure or less secure. But speaking strictly from a humanitarian standpoint, you cannot deny that the US invasion saved lives in Iraq and resulted in a much better political and social situation for the Iraqis.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array sayanything-2

    So, America is the source of Muslim terrorists who gleefully murder their fellow Muslims. Why do they do that? Because they are too cowardly to attack America. Instead they murder their fellow Muslims, and you support them in that murder.

  • sayanything-2

    sanni always defends terrorists who murder innocent women and children. Always.

  • http://scottthong.wordpress.com/ Scott

    Thank you for your link! i was just wondering when I could tell the papers that Bush saved even more Iraqi lives!

  • sayanything-1714

    Rob,

    Source your figures where you are counting how many Iraqis were dying in the years before we invaded Iraq.

    Let’s see what years you are referencing and if it is related to the reality before the invasion.

  • Morris

    Will someone please ask Madeleine Albright if she still thinks it was “worth it.”

  • sayanything-2

    Spin&twirl, sanni, spin&twirl.

  • http://scottthong.wordpress.com/ Scott

    My updated calculations – Bushalliburton has a 750,000 lives advantage over Saddam-Clinton.

    http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/bush-saved-750000-iraqi-lives/

  • sayanything-42

    Rob,

    You can lead the trolls to data, but you cannot make them think.

  • sayanything-1714

    Rob claims to have spelled out the hard to account for statistic that relies on bending the facts from Saddams wars in the 80s,…..but…..he didn’t. That’s what you call a lie.

    Further the source (if you can call it that) skews the numbers from sanctions and responses to uprisings to make it look like Saddam was killing people for no reason. That’s distorting the facts.

    Further, the deaths related to sanctions were attributed to Clinton not Bush I. What’s the deal with that? This is just more evidence that the blogger was playing with numbers, and not using official statistics that show the numbers differently, before the invasion.

  • TheTodd

    Kenny: No, the blogger he linked to did not source his claims either.

    If he did, provide that link for me, and I’ll apologize.

  • TheTodd

    Yes, you linked to a blogger who made the exact same unsourced comment you did.

  • sayanything-2

    Rob, danish is saying America killed all those Muslims. Why? Because danish supports terrorists murdering innocent people.

  • TheTodd

    We’re the people asking you to source some controversial figures.

    You’re the one dodging this by making childish insults.

  • sayanything-12

    Suite:

    Which tells you how little a liberal arts degree can be worth these days. Makes you kind of dubious on the future of mankind…

    I dinna. 95% of significant human accomplishments are achieved by fewer than 5% of the population.

    To paraphrase Dick Feynmann, it’s not what average person thinks that matters, it’s what the best people think.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    The nut jobs of this site are betting nothing happens after our troops leave.

    You referring to yourself in the third person again, Hannie? Or are you using tea leaves because your crystal ball is broken? No one that I know of has the expectation that sectarian violence will cease when our troops withdraw. That’s the reason for not withrawing them prematurely, moron!

    We would kill people who rose up to replace our president as well……although you kooks would probably call that patriotism.

    My! You are a hateful little troll, aren’t you? Comparing a murderous dictator to an American President? The only “kook” here is you, Wankertized!

    But were (sic) going to have to wait…but I we (sic) have to be honest about what is happening in Iraq…

    A semi-literate, apostrophobic kook as well!

    BTW, if you were “honest” about anything here, it would be the first time!

  • sayanything-12

    Rob:

    Hannitized is going to argue with whatever isn’t convenient with his politics.

    I disagree.

    Hanntized is going to argue, that’s true. He’s not smart enough what to figure out is “convenient with his politices”. He’s just a reflexive hate-spewer.

  • sayanything-2

    And who killed the vast majority of those people? Muslim Terrorists, thats who.

  • brenarlo

    I’m not saying it’s 1,000,000 dead people but the article does say that it doesn’t include the first months of the war. That’s when the most bombs and bullets were flying… and probably when the most civilians were killed.

  • sayanything-1714

    I didn’t say the data was lies, I said the data was skewed, in a manner that makes some of the claims untrue, and/or a lie.

    The Bush sanctions were attributed to Clinton, when the sanctions were in play 3 years before he was president. That’s just outright skewed data.

    The same goes for the fact that they were counting uprising deaths to determine how many people Saddam was killing. We would kill people who rose up to replace our president as well……although you kooks would probably call that patriotism.

    The nut jobs of this site are betting nothing happens after our troops leave. But were going to have to wait and see how the different fractions work with each other after we stop paying them to stop killing each other, let alone manage the introduction of masses of Al Qaida terrorists that resulted after our invasion.

    I am glad the deaths in Iraq are subsiding and that things have worked out, but I we have to be honest about what is happening in Iraq, and why…

  • sayanything-4808

    “using just six of the war crime events listed by U.S. War Crimes Ambassador David J. Scheffer”

    Your lack of reading comprehension or your pathetically bad attempt at deception brings serious doubt upon your claims of success with ladies and money. But you knew that, right?

    Though you shouldn’t need to have this explained… US War Crimes Ambassador is a government function. Taxpayer paid for. Therefore the paperwork and more the point public reports are public domain and freely available. Don’t even try to tell us that there’s any way those official documents are suspect as long as your man Obama is accepting them as are the entirety of the Democratic congressional members. If you do, it should be beyond obvious here, you’re claiming that your own vaunted Obama and his brownshirts are either liars or morons.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Hannitized is going to argue with whatever isn’t convenient with his politics.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Apparently.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    It’s easier for shallow thinkers like “TheTodd” (a/k/a Dave the guy who thinks BBQ’s are mass murder but smothering your children is just a legal, super-late term abortion) to try and muddy the waters instead of addressing the facts.

    But I don’t think Todd/Davey really care about debate so much as trying to show how smart he is by being a pedantic twit. Which is amusing to me in a kind of odd way.

    Probably for the same reason I always try to tune in to CSPAN when Barney Frank is giving a speech or running things in the House. Not so much because I want to hear what he says, but because listening to him talk makes me laugh.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    I’m not saying it’s 1,000,000 dead people but the article does say that it doesn’t include the first months of the war.

    A fair point, but consider that the insurgency (which targeted civilians as opposed to the war which was between two armies) didn’t heat up until several months after the invasion was completed.

    For you to say that “the most civilians were killed” during the few months of the post-invasion instead of the years of insurgency isn’t even remotely true.

    But even if we say that as many civilians died during the first months after the invasion as the years of insurgency after we’re talking 171,388 deaths. Or 2,856 per month.

    Still significantly less than Saddam’s monthly body count.

    Though, again, that’s a pretty massive inflation of the numbers.

    I think maybe it’s time to stop looking for reasons to disbelieve these numbers and just admit the obvious. We saved lives in Iraq.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Two clicks of the mouse brought me to the cited Wikipedia page about specific numbers of deaths under Saddam.

    Estimates from various government and humanitarian sources range from 500,000 to 1,500,000. The blogger, by his own admission, included deaths from six specific war crimes incidents identified by U.S. War Crimes Ambassador David J. Scheffer.

    Both the blogger and myself were clear that this was an estimate of a very hard to account for statistic. Given given that his estimate, while not totally inclusive, is in the middle of both the high and low extremes it’s a pretty safe bet.

    But even if we use the lowest estimate for civilian casualties under Saddam’s 285 month regime, which is 500,000, we’re talking 1754.39 civilian casualties per month.

    Still significantly more than the Iraqi government’s figures for civilian deaths during the invasion and subsequent insurgency.

    Now, is there any more thinking you’d like me to do for you guys? Because again, that took me two mouse clicks.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Thanks for doing the leg work on the data Scott. Good stuff.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Ok, hannitized, then leave the sanctions out. Even then Saddams monthly body count was higher.

    And look at you defending a tyrant rather than admitting that you’re wrong.

    Disgusting.

  • sayanything-1317

    The post is heavily sourced (though most of it to Wikipedia).

    The claim that none of the numbers are sourced is as bald faced of a lie as I’ve seen in some time.

  • sayanything-1317

    He did Hanni.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    A holocaust that, er, saved lives.

    An inconvenient truth, I know, but a truth none the less.

  • bikebubba

    Now TheTodd, if you actually look at the site, it does link the original sources. Just because the mainstream media won’t cover the story that Bush’s war actually appears to have saved hundreds of thousands of lives doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    Please, guys, learn.to.read.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FP3OVIPQYDGUNXTEH3DMTSALPQ yahoo-FP3OVIPQYDGUNXTEH3DMTSALPQ

    Yes, this is another holocaust by America after Hitler

  • sayanything-4808

    “Further the source (if you can call it that) skews the numbers from sanctions and responses to uprisings to make it look like Saddam was killing people for no reason. That’s distorting the facts.”

    You just implied that there is a reason for all the people he was killing.

    Not in the minds of sane rational modern human beings, but… maybe in the mind of a dictator or a sympathizer. Since you’re not a dictator, that sort of narrows things down.

    Do you ever think before you post?

    Okay, for the short bus kids like yourself, the figures are public knowledge and available in government reports. If you claim those figures are lies, then you have to include Obama and company in collusion as his administration has accepted and been working from those very reports and figures as did the Bush administration start with its predecessor’s work and so and so forth back to George F’n Washington.

    It reminds me of all your guff about WMDs. Your own liberal Democrats accepted the intelligence work done going back before Bush to Clinton and Bush Sr. They accepted all of it, every stack of reports, every dense book of analysis, and they got behind the invasion almost to a one.

    If they had actually lied and there had been any evidence of that, do you really think that your favorite liberal Democrats would have remained silent and not pressed the political attack, and not called for prosecution for lying under oath to congress and various classified congressional committees, all of which in toto comes damnably close to treason?

    Well? If you call Bush and company liars, you’re AUTOMATICALLY calling all the Democrats you support either liars or fools or both. Either they knew they were being lied to and violated their oaths of office, committed a raft of felonies, and betrayed the trust and confidence of their constituents, OR they were dumber than you who evidently were so smart you knew that Bush was lying but they didn’t. Either they were evil and conspiring or moronic dolts.

    You libs sound like 9/11 truthers and moon landing deniers and all the rest of the tinfoil hat people. Do you ever think before you bang out nonsense like that?

  • sayanything-4808

    I know, but the really spooky thing is, that his basic ignorance of the logic of implication is very widespread. When people with college degrees and thirty years of professional experience baldly state that Bush and Cheney lied, and did so across the board, what is implied by that is devastating to their claim from the word go. The same people want to claim these figures are made up and the situation is identical. If you call them fake, then you automatically imply either collusion or stupidity on the part of the Democrats.

    Hannah may be a nobody posting on the intarwebs and all, but he’s not alone. There’s actually educated people who are no different.

    Which tells you how little a liberal arts degree can be worth these days. Makes you kind of dubious on the future of mankind…

  • sayanything-1317

    That’s basically what it boils down to.

  • sayanything-2361

    “But when you consider that more than double that number of Iraqis were dying under Saddam Hussein’s regime, the truth is that the invasion of Iraq waved lives.”

    I blame Bush.

    It will take a while for this to soak in as a good thing. It’ll be easier now that Obama is president.

  • sayanything-3444

    That is a very large and tragic number. One of the unintended consequences of any war is the damage done to non-combatants. It is interesting that the Iraqi government numbers totally refute the wildly inflated statistics given by the war’s opposition though. I’m sure that they’ll say we paid the Iraqis to downplay the numbers so we wouldn’t look so bad. No matter how these people were killed it is tragic, but I wonder how many were collateral damage incurred by us and how many were killed by the terrorists.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Source your figures where you are counting how many Iraqis were dying in the years before we invaded Iraq.

    Let’s see what years you are referencing and if it is related to the reality before the invasion.

    I did you flipping ponce.

    Learn to read.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus