[Rictor]

By now most of you have probably heard the figure given by second Lancet study, which concludes that around 650,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion. I'm only posting it now because no other thread has discussed the same issue, and in my mind this sure as hell qualifies as news.

As for whether the figure is accurate, which seems to be the main point of arguement, without knowing anything at all about statistics or methodology who am I going to believe: a group of scientists who are experts in the field and are using what appears to be a reliable scientific method, or the denials of the Bush administration, simply dismissals given without any backing evidence for their skepticism, and coming from an obviously very subjective party?

The very reason which the US gave for invading, that Saddam was butchering his own people, was backed IIRC by the figure of around 300,000 people killed during the Hussein regime's 25 years in power. So if the Lancet figure is even remotely accurate, if the true number is even 1/2 or 1/4 of the 650,000 figure, what we've got can at this point only be called genocide, a war crime, crimes against humanity.

Not to mention that, quite aside from those killed, something like 1.3 million people have fled Iraq, and about 300,000 have been displaced within the country. At the very least that must qualify as a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions, and ethnic cleansing at worst. Next time you hear someone ranting about Western hipocracy and arrogance, keep in mind that if such a thing happened anywhere else, Iran or Venezuela,
or even the less well liked countries of Europe like Belarus, you'de have sanctions, international condemnation, calls for heads to roll and a Hague trial faster than you can say "what the ****". Where is the EU with it moral high horse now? Where are the legions of outraged politcians yelling "Oh, the humanity!", calling for an immediate indictment of Bush and Rumsfeld? Apparently, the deaths of more than half a million people simply do not exist, or don't count for much, when they are your allies' fault.

Here's a post by Baghdad Burning, probably the most respected Iraqi blog out there, discussing the Lancet study and its implications. From her own anecdotal evidence, the author reasons that the 650,000 figure is pretty accurate and that it's not even that surprising.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#116120448528625171

[Nuclear1]

1) Saddam Hussein's government killed 300,000 people; that's government-backed genocide.
2) Carbombs, terror groups, and militias are killing Iraqi civilians, not the US military.  That is a civil war.

[Unknown Target]

IMO, it's not genocide - why?

gen‧o‧cide  /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[jen-uh-sahyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

I'll say it again:

the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

The war with Iraq is what it is - a war. People die in wars. You know how many millions of German civilians were killed in the raids on their cities during WWII? But no one called it genocide then. Why? Because it was war.
It's not like the Coalition (and I'm saying the Coalition and not US because I don't want to turn this into a US is evil bash them forever thread) is deliberatly targeting mass quantitiies of civilians. It's not like they are rounding up hundreds of Iraqis and are shooting them because they're Iraqis. That would be genocide. Basically the reason they're getting killed now is because they're getting caught in the crossfire. When the US bombs a row of houses to take out a sniper, they're caught in the crossfire. When insurgents blow up a truck bomb in a marketplace, they're caught in the crossfire.

IMO this is just sensationalist media trying to make a buck, just like how they're trying to call this whole thing "World War 3".

[Freespace Freak]

While I think the war in Iraq is not justified, it is not genocide.  What that study fails to show is the numbers of Iraqi casualties caused by American military action.  It should also post how many of those are military casualties verses civilian ones.  As already mentioned, the Americans didn't kill all of those.  Most of those deaths are from civil war or factional terrorist fighting.

[Ford Prefect]

Who the hell is calling it World War 3?

[Unknown Target]

Various places;

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/archives/2006/07/gingrich_says_its_world_war_iii.html

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so.

Granted, that article is old and a bad example, but read around, you'll see it occassionaly being thrown out there. They're calling everything that's going on in the world (which I prefer to use my term; "Global Destabalization" - dibs! ) World War 3, or the lead up to World War 3.

[Nuclear1]

Who the hell is calling it World War 3?

People have used WW3 to describe any number of global conflicts, particularly the Cold War and now the War on Terror.  They're not world wars in the sense of the first two, as they're conflicts of idealogies rather than between organized armies and nation-states.  It's a bit of a stretch, IMO.

[Polpolion]

The reason the US invaded Iraq was because Bush thought they had nukes, not because we felt sorry for them. After Bush realized he was wrong about the nukes he turned the invasion into a crusade to remove Saddam from power. By the time that happened, Iraq had fallen apart. Bush tried to put it back together, but the Iraqis decided that they didn't like Americans anymore, so some of the started shooting at US soldiers and stuff. The US people decided that they weren't going to just let themselves be shot up by people just because people like you might call it genocide.


Or something like that.

[Bobboau]

A) not genocide, as we are not trying to kill every Iraqi.

B1) the study you mention was far higher than any othe study of it's nature because it was based not on actualy counting bodies but by asking people how many people died. and B2) it fails to mention that 70% of those killed in Iraq were from IEDs and sectarian violence, not US atacks.

[Janos]

A) not genocide, as we are not trying to kill every Iraqi.

Agreed. In wars people die and trying to scream wolf on this one is pretty stupid. It's nowhere near genocide.

B1) the study you mention was far higher than any othe study of it's nature because it was based not on actualy counting bodies but by asking people how many people died. and B2) it fails to mention that 70% of those killed in Iraq were from IEDs and sectarian violence, not US atacks.

Statistics!

' Methods: Between May and July 2006 a national cluster survey was conducted in Iraq to assess deaths occurring during the period from January 1, 2002, through the time of survey in 2006. Information on deaths from 1,849 households containing 12,801 persons was collected. This survey followed a similar but smaller survey conducted in Iraq in 2004. Both surveys used standard methods for estimating deaths in conflict situations, using population-based methods.

Key Findings: Death rates were 5.5/1000/year pre-invasion, and overall, 13.2/1000/year for the 40 months post-invasion. We estimate that through July 2006, there have been 654,965 “excess deaths”—fatalities above the pre-invasion death rate—in Iraq as a consequence of the war. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 were due to violent causes. Non-violent deaths rose above the pre-invasion level only in 2006. Since March 2003, an additional 2.5% of Iraq’s population have died above what would have occurred without conflict.
The proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006, though the actual numbers have increased each year. Gunfire remains the most common reason for death, though deaths from car bombing have increased from 2005. Those killed are predominantly males aged 15-44 years. '

It does not really matter who is killing whom - Iraqis are pretty good at killing each other now :3 - but hey, US went in guns blazing and created that entire pisspool of suffering and ****.

[Bobboau]

yeah, but that doesn't realy refute anything I said.

[Mefustae]

But the root cause of the civil war and needless deaths is without doubt the Coalition Invasion. Regardless of who is killing whom, the plain and simple fact is that the invasion directly and indirectly caused all these deaths, and thus those in charge should have to pay. Granted, that's never, ever going to happen what with the US being practically above all international law and soforth, but that fact won't stop us *****ing about it until we're all long dead and the invasion all but forgotten.

[Unknown Target]

But it's still not genocide.

[Mefustae]

Fine. Mass murder, but not genocide.

[Polpolion]

Before [the invasion], it was genocide. Now, it is more of a free for all, or at most a genocide in which the Coalition is not doing the actual killing of people (but I am not saying that the Coalition is the reason; the Coalition is more of a catalyst).

[Mefustae]

You act as if the genocide pre-invasion was worse than it is now. You had a reasonably stable nation with a despotic leader no different from countless others all around the world; secret murders, genocide, all that jazz. Now, you have an unstable and chaotic civil-war-waiting-to-happen, an inveritable breeding-ground for terrorists, and a general threat to the greater stability of the entire goddamn region. Yeah, that's ****ing progress right there.

[Bobboau]

The real root cause to the killing was the British empire and how they cut up the land after world war 1

[Flipside]

The West has been banging heads with that entire region since the fall of Constantinople to be honest, and before that Syria, Persia, Greece and Rome all divided things up as they saw fit. The whole area has spent most of history being redesigned, the British were really just the last to do it, at least, the latest to do it.

Doesn't make it right, just wanted people to be clear on the details

[Nuclear1]

The real root cause to the killing was the British empire and how they cut up the land after world war 1

Exactly.  The US invasion and uprooting of Saddam's regime just helped old hatreds explode into violence.  Saddam kept the country together, but the fact that the Brits messed up drawing the boundary lines in the first place is the real cause to the sectarian violence being seen today.  That said, Iraq may need to be divided up into smaller territories, as they originally existed pre-British Empire.  Yugoslavia, anyone?

[Flipside]

Whilst I'll agree that the British Empire shouldn't have divided up the land as it did, I think simply saying 'It's Britains fault our invasion went to ****e' is just a little far of the mark