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?
Meme #234.
Good start.
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.
Source: http://www.ddaymuseum.co.uk/faq.htm
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????
PRICELESS....
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.....
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.