At least 87,215 Iraqis have been killed in violence since 2005, according to a previously undisclosed Iraqi government tally obtained by The Associated Press. Combined with tallies based on hospital sources and media reports since the beginning of the war and a review of available evidence by the AP, the figures show that more than 110,000 Iraqis have died in violence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
The Health Ministry death tally, provided by a government official on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the data, counts deaths from the beginning of 2005 until Feb. 28. It excludes thousands of people who are missing and civilians who were buried in the chaos of war without official notice.
The figure includes only violent deaths – people killed in attacks such as shootings, bombings, mortar attacks and beheadings. It excludes indirect factors such as damage to infrastructure, health care and stress that caused thousands more to die.
Cons think only white lives matter
We know where the WMDs are.
I used to think that Strowbridge was a Johnny one-note, but jr, you make him look like a Wagner symphony.
“The figure includes only violent deaths – people killed in attacks such as shootings, bombings, mortar attacks and beheadings.”
Hmm… US forces shoot and occasionally drop bombs. Mortars? Not so much. Beheadings? Definitely not.
So, the US is responsible not only for what we do, but for what those we’re fighting against do? That we’re responsible for what we’re trying to stop? Interesting theory.
“Interesting” in the “bat-shit crazy” mode, of course.
J.
JT, aren’t we supposed to have at least a custodial role over the country we defeat in war?
Jay Tea: So, the US is responsible not only for what we do, but for what those we’re fighting against do?
Nice taking someone to task for something that wasn’t said.
“At Least 110,000 Iraqis Dead Since The War Began” Now show me where in the it says the US is responsible for those deaths. The article talks about how many have died during a particular period. It doesn’t say anything about “and all of them are the US’s fault.”
Can’t find enough in what others say to comment on that you now have to make shit up?
So let’s see Oliver say I misunderstood his choice of picture and his past comments in this particular context.
For all my criticisms of him, Oliver is quite consistent, and doesn’t play coy games with his opinions.
J.
The deaths are our fault, due to our invasion of the country and our failure to secure the nation after.
The deaths are our fault, due to our invasion of the country and our failure to secure the nation after.
Oliver, don’t beat yourself up over it. The deaths are the cons’ fault. They got the war they wanted, and now have to deal with the blood on their hands. And as Lady Macbeth learned the hard way, blood doesn’t wash off so easily.
“you make him look like a Wagner symphony”
Wagner wrote operas, not symphonies.
Dumbass.
Actually Wagner wrote symphonies in addition to operas, but that does not alter the fact that JT is a dumbass.
It’s what Powell called the “Pottery Barn” rule…we broke it, we own it. The deaths not caused by US troopers are nonetheless a result of our destabilizing the country.
(Although, FWIW, Pottery Barn does not actually make you buy things you break unless it is clear that you did so maliciously.)
Cons think only white lives matter
Progressives think only whites have moral responsibility for their actions.
Three things about this body count:
1. It’s roughly in line with what a number of other sources have computed/reported over the last two or three years. In terms of magnitude, it’s neither an outlier nor a surprise.
2. It bears no resemblance whatever to the nitwit 500,000-to-1,000,000 numbers alleged in places like Lancet beginning as long as five or six years ago.
3. It includes all the insurgents killed by Coalition forces as well as all the internecine murder carried out by Iraqi Sunnis-upon-Shias and Shias-upon-Sunnis, etc., during the period in question. Given that there is till a bit of terrorist violence going on in Iraq, the obvious conclusion is that the Coalition has yet to kill quite enough “Iraqi civilians” of certain sorts. May the body count quickly rise just enough to include the last of the dead-enders.
SpiderJ: The deaths not caused by US troopers are nonetheless a result of our destabilizing the country.
Although, to be fair, you should subtract from the total the number of folks who would have been killed each year under Saddam’s continued leadership. The US responsibility would then be the incremental number.
Would Oliver’s logic also apply to blaming the Clinton administration for the deaths at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco? Or the Oklahoma City bombing? The Kennedy administration for the decades of oppression and suffering in Cuba for the Bay of Pigs? Jimmy Carter for the millions killed by the mullahs of Iran?
The principle seems the same…
J.
When did Carter call for an airstrike on Iran?
If you blame Bush for every single Iraqi death and the war continues for another 75 years, you STILL won’t reach the level of carnage that FDR left in his wake.
Hey, has anyone recently added up the cost and casualties of LBJ’s War On Poverty?
J.
Only a complete and utter fucking moron would blame FDR for World War Two. You should be ashamed of yourself, Farris, either for saying something so completely fucking stupid, or for actually being that fucking stupid.
SaveFerris: It’s not that you’re wrong in technical terms, it’s just that your point has no relevance to anything whatsoever. Unless you’re of the opinion that we shouldn’t have fought WW2, which as you should know at this point is the point of this post about Iraq.
Jay Tea: The principle isn’t the same. I mean, I’m not saying you can’t blame some of those presidents for some of those acts, but the only two that resemble this situation are the Bay of Pigs and Iran. Iran because we had spent years before propping up unpopular leadership until the extremists in that nation got strong enough to topple it. And Cuba because launching the Bay of Pigs attack was a poor, poor idea.
He is not to blame for “decades of oppression and suffering” though as Kennedy neither started the policies regarding Cuba nor was around long enough to have anything to do with what happened decades later.
On the other hand, the whole of the Iraq War happened under President Bush’s watch. So no, the principle is not the same.
On the other hand, the whole of the Iraq War happened under President Bush’s watch.
I guess we’re just ignoring the previous 17 years of UN violations and broken peace accords then. Does Saddam get *ANY* blame for the Iraq war?
I guess we’re just ignoring the previous 17 years of UN violations and broken peace accords then. Does Saddam get *ANY* blame for the Iraq war?
No, I’m sorry, he doesn’t. He gets all the blame for the first Iraq War, but he did nothing to provoke the second.
Before you get there: I’m well aware of his human rights violations and support of violent fringe groups. He is not alone in this behavior. As the majority of violent dictators are not only still in power but their countries have not been occupied for 6 years, this does not stand as motivation.
We chose to go to war with Iraq. Choice brings with it responsibility. The responsibility for that choice rests on those in charge when the decision was made. That goes especially for President Bush, but also to both houses of Congress and the American people, who went along without serious complaint for too long.
Eric Sipple: Before you get there: I’m well aware of his human rights violations and support of violent fringe groups. He is not alone in this behavior. As the majority of violent dictators are not only still in power but their countries have not been occupied for 6 years, this does not stand as motivation.
Or, if SaveFarris et al do want to say Saddam is responsible for bringing the invasion on himself (because we had to go in and save all those abused Iraqi citizens?) then by that standard the US carries blame for deaths in all the OTHER oppressed countries where we have chosen not to invade.
Well played, Sean.
Thankee.
Of course, those other countries haven’t been violating UN Resolutions and cease fire agreements for multiple decades. But other than those pesky little factoids, yeah: exactly the same!
SaveFarris, if that’s the case, then why didn’t they use that reason back in 2002, instead of the whole WMD schtick? Seems like backtracking to me.
Zython, nebulous and dubious legal violations of UN resolutions aren’t quite scary enough.
Eric said:
No, I’m sorry, he doesn’t. He gets all the blame for the first Iraq War, but he did nothing to provoke the second.
Before you get there: I’m well aware of his human rights violations and support of violent fringe groups. He is not alone in this behavior. As the majority of violent dictators are not only still in power but their countries have not been occupied for 6 years, this does not stand as motivation.
We chose to go to war with Iraq. Choice brings with it responsibility. The responsibility for that choice rests on those in charge when the decision was made. That goes especially for President Bush, but also to both houses of Congress and the American people, who went along without serious complaint for too long.
Zython added:
SaveFarris, if that’s the case, then why didn’t they use that reason back in 2002, instead of the whole WMD schtick? Seems like backtracking to me.
Gentlemen, might I invite you to read the actual Authorization passed by Congress? (frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107)
From the Wikipedia summary:
Passed with 215 Republicans and 82 Democrats in the House, 48 Republicans and 29 Democrats in the Senate all voting aye. Or, if you like, 297-133, 77-23.
The canard that the war was solely sold on saying that Saddam indisputably had WMDs is a lie, pushed by those who don’t want to admit that the arguments the Bush administration largely echoed those made by the Clinton administration to justify its attacks on Iraq over the years — and were even more valid in 2002 than they were in 1996 and 1998.
J.
Jay, if you’re going to quote me and someone else, could try and quote someone who’s saying the same thing I am and then actually responding to what I said?
I said nothing about WMD and I placed blame on both parties, and the American citizenry as well. Nothing you said even speaks to my point: we chose to go to war with Iraq. There was no clear and present threat, no immediate need. I believe strongly that the Iraq war is a disgrace to this country’s legacy, and we are all responsible for allowing it to happen. All of us (R), (D), (I) and whatever other parties you want to shove into parenthesis.
As for Clinton’s bombings of Iraq, it would be helpful if you used analogies that actually analogized. Clinton launched air strikes. The 2nd Iraq was involved invasion and occupation. They are not similar in any ways save the country was Iraq and the U.S. military was involved.
Eric, the reason I quoted you was the “He gets all the blame for the first Iraq War, but he did nothing to provoke the second” bit you said. The Resolution spells out precisely what he had done over the years to provoke it.
The Clinton bombings were justified, but all they did was convince Saddam to back off a little and work more subtly — not genuinely change his ways. He had almost bribed his way out of the sanctions when 9/11 happened, and he was nearly back to that point when we invaded.
You are absolutely right, there was no clear and present danger. I don’t recall that being tossed around at the time. On the contrary, the argument was to deal with him BEFORE he became a clear and present danger.
J.
You are absolutely right, there was no clear and present danger. I don’t recall that being tossed around at the time.
Really?
Condoleeza Rice (responding to Blix’s claim of no WMDs in Iraq):
“The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
Dick Cheney:
“And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons”
These were a patently ridiculous statements, meant to spread the idea that Iraq was a clear and present threat, but there were many others (my favorite was the claim that nuclear bombs on Iraqi aircraft drones could hit US soil, though I can’t remember who said it). Other violations by Saddam were clearly in all the legislation authorizing sanctions or war with Iraq, but in the court of public opinion, the major arguments were 1) WMDs (and specifically a nuke) and 2) Iraqi involvement in 9/11.
Damn, the aircraft drones was Colin Powell. Of course, he acknowledged their short range, but claimed Iraq would launch from elsewhere (how again?).
Crusty, Rice’s statement is clear that there wasn’t a “clear and present” — as in imminent, right-now, this-very-moment threat. And Cheney’s statement is clear — “we believe” is not a definitive “we have irrefutable proof that he has.”
The WMD argument was probably not the best one to highlight in the attempt to simplify and focus the debate. It was never a big one for me. But to pretend that it was the only argument, that it was presented as absolute and definitive, and that it was a lie that was the sole justification for an “illegal” war is just bullshit.
J.