655,000

[therealUT]

And, the confidence interval is out.

Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths

POSTED: 9:52 p.m. EDT, October 11, 2006


Burnham said the confidence interval of the data put the range of the number of deaths between 400,000 and 900,000. He suggested the media should not get too focused on the 655,000 number.

Deaths attributed to coalition forces accounted for 31 percent of the dead.

They did not ask families whether their dead were civilians or fighters.

Violence claimed about 601,000 people, the survey estimated -- the majority killed by gunfire, "though deaths from car bombing have increased from 2005,"

So, the US is actually responsible for only 124,000-279,000 total deaths, including Iraqi fighters. That actually seems reasonable, as one would suggest that if we killed 4 Iraqi fighters for every one civilian (still a high civilian casualty rate) and killed 50,000 civilians, we would have killed 250,000 Iraqis overall. That seems about right, as I would say that our civilian casualty rate is somewhere around 1-5%, however, only about 1 out of 20 combatants in Iraq right now are Iraqis.

 

[CSpindizzy]

however, only about 1 out of 20 combatants in Iraq right now are Iraqis.

Do you have something to back that up?

 

[therealUT]

Do you have something to back that up?

Personal experience.

 

[CSpindizzy]

You hanging out in the morgues?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Or have you been taking unscientific polls again?

 

[therealUT]

From the person's I fought and the PIR we took off of them, I will state that around 1 and 20 were Iraqi nationals.

 

[CSpindizzy]

So you're equating the entire insurgency with your own very small sample?

 

[therealUT]

So you're equating the entire insurgency with your own very small sample?

That and my dealings with many other officers who share very common experiences.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Sounds pretty unaccurate and unscientific. For someone who is so quick to discredit Johns Hopkins, you sure are quick to make an even more far-fetched claim on issues in Iraq.

 

[therealUT]

Sounds pretty unaccurate and unscientific. For someone who is so quick to discredit Johns Hopkins, you sure are quick to make an even more far-fetched claim on issues in Iraq.

You are right, my observations and experiences are just that, observations and experiences. However, if one claims that we have killed more than 50,000 Iraqi civilians, and only 203,050 Iraqi's in total, then we have a collateral damage rate of almost 25%, which is huge.

That is made more extreme by the fact that I am using a very low estimate in your own opinion of civilian casualties (50,000) and what I consider to be a very large number of total Iraqi deaths (655,000.) If we suppose that we are directly responsible for the violent deaths of 75,000 or more Iraqi civilians and that the total increase in Iraqi deaths since prior to OIF is 500,000 (still a large number in my opinion), then our collateral damage rate is above 48%.

If the case is that our military, and all of our advanced targeting methods, kills one civilian for every combatant, then I say we go ahead and, as a previous poster suggested, carpet bomb all of Iraq.

So, yes, my reasoning might lack scientific methods, however, it is chalk full of common sense.

 

[CSpindizzy]

So, yes, my reasoning might lack scientific methods, however, it is chalk full of common sense.

Common sense? How do you figure?