"Executioner: Uday fed 'love rivals' to lions
Pregnant woman among 36 decapitated in single afternoon"
Posted on 05/06/2006 8:31:30 PM PDT by dangus
As of May 2, 2006, the CIA has updated its World Fact Book data on Iraq's death rate. The new data shows a death rate of 5.37 per 1,000 per year. This is down from 6.4 per 1,000 per year in 2000.
Given a population of over 26,000, a decline of 1.03 fewer deaths per 1,000 people translates into 27.5 thousand people per year. Since Bush's election, the declining death rate indicates that over 100,000 people fewer died than would have died at the death rate in Iraq in 2000.
Death rates are declining around the world, but the sharp decrease in the death rate in Iraq is quite spectacular. \Nations with recent spikes in their death rates include Mozambique, Malawi, Burkina Faso, Equitorial Guinea, Trinidad,
Nations with sizeable declines include the Haiti, Ukraine, Cameroon, Burundi, Benin, Burma, Togo, Ghana, Eritrea, and Senegal.
The world's lowest death rate was Kuwait.
Oops three zeroes were removed from the population of Iraq. Its 26 million, not 26,000.
Repeat after me......Bush lied, fewer died.
< snore >
The MOST spectacular decline has to be Eritrea, from 13.53 to 9.6 in one year. And who knew that the Ukraine's death rate could drop sharply?h
I pointed out some time ago that Hussein was responsible for about 1.3 million deaths (according to Kurdish-American filmmaker Jano Rosebiani -- WMD: THE MURDEROUS REIGN OF SADDAM HUSSEIN). That is around 50,000 per year.
Yes, the increased political pressure over WMDs certainly stilled Hussein's genocidal hand in the late 90s. Get rid of the sanctions, and hundreds of thousands more woul have died. Of course, the left STILL blames the sanctions, even after we see that the oil money went to getting solid-gold toilet-paper dispensers. The famine of the Marsh Arabs was not due to the sanctions... Hussein turned their water supply off.
Why lookee here Lying RAT bump.
The Human Rights Organizations were claiming tha sanctions caused somewhere between 250,000 to 500,000 deaths during the 90's.
Can we get someone from the CIA to "leak" this? Then it will show up in the media.
Of course the left would spin this as the west interfering in the culture of Iraq. These poor souls wanted to die but Bush had to interfere with the war for oil. Their survival was needed to insure Iraqi slave labor for the war machine
Was this data gathered before or after the all-out Civil War erupted?
Well. Using a conservative number of 300,000 murdered during his reign (I think we have to follow the lead of the NYT and give him the benefit of the doubt) since he came to power in 1979 he butchered about 35 of his own people each and every day.
It has been a thousand days or so since he fell from power, multiply that by 35 and it is about 35,000 people above and beyond those the CIA refers to who died early with shorter life expectancies and so on. If we add on the fact that he got probably at least 300,000 -500,000 of his own people killed in the Iran Iraq war, which he started, in which I am guessing he lost 100 Iraqis a day that adds another 100,000 to 150,000 onto that total.
We could go on all day with this math. It just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
Some left-winger gave me this. (Forgive me. I posted this paraphrased on DU. And lived to tell the tale).
http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf
What does it mean? And is it correct?
"Executioner: Uday fed 'love rivals' to lions
Pregnant woman among 36 decapitated in single afternoon"
With the numeric typo fixed, this is a great post.
This must be where the left is getting that figure were we killed 100,000 people in Iraq which they reported 4 days before the presidential elections and now Roberts is running for congress.
''I was opposed to the war and I still think that the war was a bad idea, but I think that our science has transcended our perspectives,'' Roberts said. ''As an American, I am really, really sorry to be reporting this.'' - (yeah no bias here)
He states right in his report to shorten the time to make his report he allowed for sloppy ‘random selection’ of cluster areas. You can also tell he was afraid to travel in Iraq which makes me believe he fudged some numbers. Remember he had less then a month to do his report.
This new report proves Les Roberts Report was bad.
I can prove why... but that is kind of obvious.
I'd Rather not.
Note where it says that their actual figure is 8,000 to 194,000. (median of 101,000 with an accuracy of plus or minus 93,000). Also note the lack of any terrorist activity causing any deaths and it is obvious that the study is hosed.
You're missing one of these:
[/sarcasm]
Only he didn't lie. How about "Bush spied, fewer died?"
Please, somebody tell me where I can find that civil war. I've been looking for months and I just can't find it anywhere. I keep hearing about it from the media, and I've looked in corners and closets, under the bed, oh, and and especially out on the streets and I simply can't locate it.
;-)
That's because you are looking in the wrong place, my friend.
The "Iraq Civil War©" cannot be found in the "real world".
It only exists in articles by the MSM ... or whenever certain lefty politicians open their mouths.
I know. I've been looking mostly around Baghdad. I've even asked several Iraqis where it is, and they tend to just laugh. They don't know where it is either.
While I was looking, I did see a bunch of media people lounging around the pool at the Palestine Hotel working on their creative writing skills. ;-)
Congrats!! Your search is over ... you've found the Civil War!
I can't wait until they start writing the last chapter so they can tell us how badly we lost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.