Skip to comments.War's Iraqi Death Toll Tops 50,000
Posted on 06/25/2006 6:48:21 AM PDT by yoe
At least 50,000 Iraqis have died violently since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to statistics from the Baghdad morgue, the Iraqi Health Ministry and other agencies a toll 20,000 higher than previously acknowledged by the Bush administration.
Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since. The toll, which is mostly of civilians but probably also includes some security forces and insurgents, is daunting: Proportionately, it is equivalent to 570,000 Americans being killed nationwide in the last three years.
In the same period, at least 2,520 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq.
Iraqi officials involved in compiling the statistics say violent deaths in some regions have been grossly undercounted, notably in the troubled province of Al Anbar in the west. Health workers there are unable to compile the data because of violence, security crackdowns, electrical shortages and failing telephone networks.
The Health Ministry acknowledged the undercount. In addition, the ministry said its figures exclude the three northern provinces of the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan because Kurdish officials do not provide death toll figures to the government in Baghdad.
In the three years since Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled, the Bush administration has rarely offered civilian death tolls. Last year, President Bush said he believed that "30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
What, didn't they say 100,000 deaths about a week and a half before the 2004 election?
That's their choice, not ours.
They definitely did. They couldn't shout it loud enough. I guess some of them came back to life or something.
And the vast majority of that 50,000 "needed killin'".
hey.. during WWII with the atomic drops, 100,000 people were instantly turned into vapor..*gasp* in a few milliseconds! I wonder how MSM would portray that
Certainly a sad number but would the American media be reporting on the numbers of Iraqis killed and raped each year if Saddam were still in power.
As CNN showed, the answer is a resounding no. Having their "access" was more important than telling the truth about that fascist regime.
So what we know is that Sunni fascists are ruthless along with their Zarqawi pals, and will kill as many as necessary to get their hands back into power.
But of course, no matter what, America is to blame, be it Saddam's dirty work or the Baathists and Zark barbarians.
Gee .. could they be any more obvious?
> ... 50,000 Iraqis have died violently since ...
And how many would Saddam have killed during this
period, had he been left in power?
Let me guess, the LAT doesn't raise or answer that.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775
Back in 2002, George W. Bush and Colin Powell are sitting in a bar sharing drinks when GWB says:
"I'm gonna kill a million Iraqis, and one really hot blonde"
Colin wonders "Why the hot blonde?"
GWB quips: "See! Nobody cares about a million dead Iraqis"
I suspect that if a kid gets hit by a car while riding his bike, it will be the USA's fault.
Hmm ... the anti-sanctions folks were saying before the invasion that sanctions killed 50,000 people a year. So I figure Iraq is about 150,000 lives ahead in the ledger.
"according to statistics from the Baghdad morgue, the Iraqi Health Ministry and other agencies"
other agencies = LA Times
A word on D-Day casualties:
The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2499 casualties were from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing. However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2000 casualties at Omaha Beach.
To see the casulties you cite, I think you'd have to go back to WW1 at the Somme. I do concur with your sentiment that this is war, not a picnic.
The cost of FREEDOM????
How many died in America's fight for freedom? Bet if you look at the numbers 50,000 out of 20 million is way below our percentages.....
besides.....it makes no difference if they want it or not......we are there for bigger reasons.....rightly so.....
Remember Kosovo has a population of 2.1 million which is less than a tenth of that of Iraq.
Somehow the MSM had to get the number of dead up to Vietnam levels and our military was just not cooperating.
"a toll 20,000 higher than previously acknowledged by the Bush administration."
"LAST YEAR, President Bush said he believed that "30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis.""
They make it seem like President Bush was trying to under count, then further into the so called news piece they are forced to admit that was last year.
More made up BS. Notice how they CLAIM they have "Statistics" but do not give an clear indication of WHERE they got their statistics. How much you want to be their "Source" is one of the wacko Leftist groups like Answer or Act up?
.."all we all know how truthful Muslums, AL NYT and AL LA Times are..so it must be true"
40,000 non combatants, police and military trainees killed by terrorists or so-called insurgents by everything from car bombs and IEDs to targeted attacks; most of 10,000 terrorist insurgents killed by U.S. and coalition military and Iraqi security forces, and (regrettably) a few innocents caught up in the crossfire.
The numbers are a WAG (wild a$$ guess), but the concept is correct. The enemy kills WAY more civilians than we do, but the LAT suggests that Bush killed 'em all!
And many of those in the count killed are terrorists, who dress like civilians so our military can't easily spot them on sight until they pull a gun on you and start shooting. It's not like the terrorists have little badges they wear, or special turbins that say "Aim here, I'm a terrorist". Last time I checked they didn't have those at least.
maybe i missed the point of your post...what is your point?
No war...no deaths...no nothing until it is your a** on the line or in a twin tower 99+ story building...and you have done nothing wrong?
Funny how there no mention of many people have been murdered by Muslims and their car bombs, or how many thousands were founfd in Saddams mass graves!
it was 100k deaths (lancelot report pre-2004 election) in iraq before it was 50k deaths. So what happened to the other 50k deaths?
I suspect a goodly number of them were killed by the Jihadies. Didn't bother to mention that did they. It's all "Bush's fault" anyway, so I guess even if they had mentioned who killed them, the LAT would still blame Bush for their deaths.
Meat = Poison
I thought it was the rebelion war.
"It's that time of year when New Yorkers start making their summer vacation plans. Renting a place in the Hamptons? Nah, been there, done that. How about a Parisian jaunt? Noooo. Too many riots. Well, how about visiting a country that's ancient, historic, beautiful and exotic - Iraq? Sure, there's a little war going on there, but when you look at the violent death statistics in the world, [Iraq is] safer than a number of other popular travel destinations. Believe it or not. I happened to catch Rep. Steve King, a Republican of Iowa, on C-span last week and he rattled off some startling figures that demonstrate how off-base journalists are when it comes to reporting on the war in Iraq.
According to Mr. King, the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia 61.7" per 100,000 death rate, violent death rate. South Africa, has a higher violent death rate per 100,000: 49.6 per 100,000. Even Jamaica has a higher violent death rate than does Iraq: 32.4, and Venezuela comes in at 31.6 violent deaths per 100,000. "How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1," violent death rate per 100,000. "FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington" DC's violent death rate at 45.9 per 100,000; Baltimore at 37.7 per 100,000, and Atlanta at 34.9 per 100,000. The figure again from Iraq, 25.71 per 100,000, and that includes the war.
So Iraq, I mean, if you're just going to roll the dice and take your chances, Iraq's a much safer place to go than Washington or Jamaica or New Orleans pre-Katrina, or Venezuela! (Rush Limbaugh 5/16/06) http://www.goofigure.com/UserGoofigureDetail.asp?gooID=6420
Good! That's the right sized font, too.
In WWII we had a song that went "Accentuate the positive" sung by Bing Crosby. Apparently that's not the philosophy of the L.A. Times.
Who is doing most of the killing? Answer: AQ and the insurgents. The Iraqi police and military have lost almost 5,000 killed or about twice the American losses.
wars should not cause loss of life....
Yes they did. And that Lancet paper claimed that they were all civilians despite the curious fact that the overwhelming majority of them were males between the ages of 18-30...
Precisely the ages of all the Iraqi soldiers who (quite wisely) got rid of their uniforms and melted into the general population.
I'm assuming that the numbers are similar in this report.
...or put another way....The United States has saved 150,000 Iraqi lives since 2003.
And WHO killed them? By their silence, the liberal scum sucking bastards at the LAT point the finger at our troops when the vast majority were killed by the bad guys.
The LAT can only survive is the USA, a country it loathes. Any place that it protects, like Cuba or a terrorit ruled Iraq, they be dragged from their newsrooms and shot. Chavez has a law jailing journalists who insult the President or his office.
Send the LAT to the lands they protect and let them live there. It certainly doesn't look out for Americans anymore.
Cowboy sitting at a bar. An indian comes in and sits down next to him. Then a muslim enters and sits on the cowboy's other side.
The Indian announces, "My people...once we were many, now we are few." The cowboy sips his beer.
The muslim then announces, "My people...once we were few, now we are many."
The Cowboy sips his beer again and says, "That's 'cause we ain't played cowboys and muslims yet."