655,000

#1
T

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,191
#1
Johns Hopkins has released yet another study, just weeks before another major election, with outrageous claims of the death tolls in Iraq: 655,000.

This is the same university that released the 100,000 number about this time 2 years ago, in hopes to sway the presidential election. The 100,000 number was based on a statistical analysis in which they found a 95% Confidence Interval that the civilian casualty toll fell somewhere between the following numbers: 8,000 and 194,000! So, basically they threw a dart at a dartboard.

They have not released their methods, nor the C.I., for this latest study, and I doubt they will release the specifics until after the election. This is absolutely absurd politicking posing as science at what used to be a respectable university.
 
#2
#2
Nothing like using a standard deviation the size of Oklahoma to produce an outcome.
 
#4
#4
MIT funded this study and they basically polled about 1800 households around Iraq to determine how many these households lost and then sample that proportionally to the entire nation.
 
#7
#7
CSpindizzy said:
MIT funded this study and they basically polled about 1800 households around Iraq to determine how many these households lost and then sample that proportionally to the entire nation.
Click to expand...
That is the method that Hopkins used for the 100,000 number too. I would love to see the actual statistical results for this. I am guessing it would look something like this:

95% CI(10,000-1,000,000)
 
#8
#8
CSpindizzy said:
How do you figure that amount?
Click to expand...
There have been actual media reports of around 44-49K civilian casualties. I would guess that the media has missed a significant amount, while at the same time has double reported a certain amount. I seriously doubt that the media has missed over 10,000 or more civilian casualties, certainly not over 600,000.
 
#9
#9
I have no idea what the number is, but 600,000+ seems incredible. That would mean that around 3% of the population of Iraq has been taken out. I can't believe that there wouldn't be more of an outcry if this were really true.
 
#10
#10
600,000 :shakehead: :think_not:

I cant back that up but IMO that number just seems way out of control.
 
#11
#11
GAVol said:
I have no idea what the number is, but 600,000+ seems incredible. That would mean that around 3% of the population of Iraq has been taken out. I can't believe that there wouldn't be more of an outcry if this were really true.
Click to expand...

I was going to post that - 3%. Also, considering that while Bagdad and the Sunni triangle certainly has a large population, it clearly only represents a portion of the country. Given the relative stability in other regions (South and North), the % killed in the ST would be higher 6 - 10% of the population!

To reach this number, about 700 civilians would have to be killed EVERYDAY since the conflict began.
 
#12
#12
volinbham said:
I was going to post that - 3%. Also, considering that while Bagdad and the Sunni triangle certainly has a large population, it clearly only represents a portion of the country. Given the relative stability in other regions (South and North), the % killed in the ST would be higher 6 - 10% of the population!

To reach this number, about 700 civilians would have to be killed EVERYDAY since the conflict began.
Click to expand...
You also would have to figure into your population estimates how many of the young men in the Sunni Triangle were uniformed military (especially Republican Guard.) Take them out of the population figure, and that 10% estimate most likely goes up to about 15% in the Sunni Triangle.

Further, 700 civilians would have to be killed everyday and these deaths would have to go completely unreported! Since everyone knows exactly how supportive of the cause the media has been, this seems completely feasible <--sarcasm.
 
#13
#13
Well the reports of 50K are only from what has actually been reported in the media. Considering that the media has not always been there to verify many deaths primarily at the onset of the war, I'd say 50K is about as unreliable as 600K.

Keep in mind this report while not accurate would take into account those who died in all of the aerial bombings back at the beginning of the war as well. We have no way of verifying that total unless you do what this study did and go sample the population themselves.
 
#14
#14
volinbham said:
To reach this number, about 700 civilians would have to be killed EVERYDAY since the conflict began.
Click to expand...

Why are you only including civilians? No where does this indicate only civilians. You are omitting the Iraqis who died at the beginning of the war as combat soldiers.
 
#16
#16
CSpindizzy said:
Well the reports of 50K are only from what has actually been reported in the media. Considering that the media has not always been there to verify many deaths primarily at the onset of the war, I'd say 50K is about as unreliable as 600K.

Keep in mind this report while not accurate would take into account those who died in all of the aerial bombings back at the beginning of the war as well. We have no way of verifying that total unless you do what this study did and go sample the population themselves.
Click to expand...
Right, this study verified something...

The 50K mark is incredibly more reliable than the 600K mark. Using actual body counts is always going to be more reliable than taking a stab in the dark. Also, this is the same group of researchers who came out 2 years ago, used the same method, and came to the following conclusion: 95% CI(8,000-194,000.) This means that, according to their own research methods, at least greater than 459,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq since the fall of 2004.
 
#17
#17
CSpindizzy said:
Keep in mind this report while not accurate would take into account those who died in all of the aerial bombings back at the beginning of the war as well. We have no way of verifying that total unless you do what this study did and go sample the population themselves.
Click to expand...

If 100,000 died in the bombings, you'd still have to see over 500 Iraqi's killed every day for 1000 straight days to hit this number.
 
#18
#18
Further, going off their (Hopkins per this thread) last estimate (100,000) - the death rate would have to be nearly 800 EVERYDAY for the last 2 years. This doesn't include any aerial bombing victims.

Where are the bodies?

The mass graves uncovered from Saddam were only a fraction of this number yet clearly required extensive mass burials to handle all the bodies.
 
#19
#19
volinbham said:
If 100,000 died in the bombings, you'd still have to see over 500 Iraqi's killed every day for 1000 straight days to hit this number.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending this number first of all. I am saying that the only thing that the 50K number goes by is what the media reported. Considering the media did not begin reporting this until after we had a firm grasp of the nation, it misses out on the actual combat portion of this conflict. I'm more inclined to estimate quite a few more than 50K that only the media reported after we were told "Mission Accomplished" died.
 
#21
#21
volinbham said:
Further, going off their (Hopkins per this thread) last estimate (100,000) - the death rate would have to be nearly 800 EVERYDAY for the last 2 years. This doesn't include any aerial bombing victims.

Where are the bodies?

The mass graves uncovered from Saddam were only a fraction of this number yet clearly required extensive mass burials to handle all the bodies.
Click to expand...
The bodies are quickly removed by our SFs and sent back to a secret underground bunker where Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld are planning the next terrorist attack on the United States and influencing intelligence agencies (foreign as well as domestic) to place critical WMD information in their briefs.
 
#22
#22
therealUT said:
Right, this study verified something...

The 50K mark is incredibly more reliable than the 600K mark. Using actual body counts is always going to be more reliable than taking a stab in the dark.
Click to expand...

Again, this only accounts for what was reported to the government and then reported to the media. This also includes only what could be reported once the media was in there to report in the first place. So basically 50-55K is the absolute lowest. And yet again, this does not account for the ones who died in the fiercest part of this whole operation.
 
#24
#24
CSpindizzy said:
Again, this only accounts for what was reported to the government and then reported to the media. This also includes only what could be reported once the media was in there to report in the first place. So basically 50-55K is the absolute lowest. And yet again, this does not account for the ones who died in the fiercest part of this whole operation.
Click to expand...
No, 44-49K would be on the low end. However, there are a lot of deaths that are re-reported. So, the actual low end would probably be around 40K. Also, unless you believe that the actual death toll is above 355,000, then the 55K mark is more reliable, as it is closer to the actual number.

Also, those that died in the fiercest part of the whole conflict where foreign Fedayeen...not Iraqi's. The so called "Shock and Awe" phase of the operation did not target actual personnel. It targeting likely avenues of retreat while our ground forces advanced. About the only units that stayed to fight were Republican Guard, numbering around 60,000 (the whole Iraqi Army only numbered 400,000). We did not exactly massacre 60,000 of them either. After short battles, these units surrendered. Most of the regular Army units left as our infantry began to close with them, after the air strikes, this is evidenced by the fact that boots were left behind along with chow that was still warm when our soldiers came to the abandoned positions.
 
#25
#25
I never said mass graves were not uncovered. And using "claims" and "roughly" sound about as inaccurate as the 600K method. Reading this I see no facts, methodology, etc. These claims look to be as extensive as the 600K claim but yet you tout these and discredit the others. I even note HRW and AI who are sympathizing with this 600K count also agree with the claims in this document you linked here.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top