Terrorists Kill One Million+ People.

EastcoastAR5

EastcoastAR5

Active member
Yup thats right, since the beginning of the Iraq war, The united states has killed ONE MILLION Iraqis...

Take this into perspective, atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed appx 220,000.

Terrible ordeal, a land mark in history.

9/11, the biggest deal in a LONG time, only 2,997 dead.

WWII 400k americans killed...

Im not here to attack anyones views, but please take into perspective how many people one million is and examine your stance...

 
Shit I didn't know it was that high. Thats alot higher than I thought. About time we pull out. Er....that time was a couple years ago. We made Iraq worse.

But this isnt comparable to WW2. Thats 400k american SOLDIERS. You can't forget the tens of millions of poeple killed in the war.
 
That is an absolute bullshit estimate. Honestly, I'm speaking as one who opposed our military action in that country, and that number is absurdly high. In 2002, the population of Iraq was about 24 million, give or take. What you are suggesting is that US soldiers or operatives are responsible for 4 out of every 24 Iraqi's deaths. Please take two seconds to check your fucking facts before vomiting them across forums.
 
Iraq is the fat ugly bitch that America fucked just so that we could sell the future infant on the blackmarket for mad cash. The criminals are making sure we stick around and protect the bitch till she gives birth so that we can make off with the loot. The bitch gave us all AIDS in the process.
 
Hey, you're calling the US military inhuman, look at how you said "only 2997 dead" and tell me you're any better.
 
there should be a "political gabber" or something. i'm so tired of threads like this....i come on newschoolers for fun, not to hear more people talk about politics and the current world situation.
 
It would have been better if I could actually have done simple math, which I should be able to do given my job title. I meant 4 out of every 100 Iraqi citizens, not 4 out of 24. My bad.

And make no mistake, Iraq was a fucking misinformed bad idea to top any presidential decision made in the last few decades. It was a bad idea, people needlessly died, but not the outrageous number you state.
 
Is a living human is a living human, no matter the country.

2997 compared to 1,000,000 warrants the use of only.

I am simply showing how 9/11, which was one of the biggest events of our millennium ONLY killed 2997 people. Is any loss of life shitty? Yes. I am not being inhumane, I am just trying to point out how small that number is compared to the million in iraq.
 
Jesus Christ, could some of you please take a basic stats class before you decide to shit all over NSG.
 
I have provided 3 links, but you can keep denying the facts. Just because the number is shockingly large doesn't mean it isn't reality.

"We now estimate that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007

is likely to have been in the order of 1,033,000," ORB said in a

statement."
 
YOUR STUDY:

"Respondents were asked how many members of their household, if any, had

died as a result of the violence in the country since 2003, and not

because of natural causes."

Including car crashes, mining disasters, gang fights, accidental flan bake catastrophes, mule kicks, food poisoning and investigative surgery.

MY FACTS:

NATIONAL CENSUS FOR IRAQ 2002:

Population (in tens of thousands): 24246

(http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/population-health/country-profile-88.html)

NATIONAL CENSUS FOR IRAQ 2007:



27,499,638 (July 2007 est.)

(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html)

COMMON SENSE:

Do you really believe our soldiers or operatives have killed ~4% of the entire Iraqi population?

"Studies" have flaws and biases. Look into them before trumping their results as absolute truth.
 
Im not sure if your criticizing me, but even with a 1.7% margin of error rate, you are still right around 1 million, give or take.
 
Because militants and the like are just waiting in line to take the census...

The idea is that we have essentially in one way or another influence and caused this number of deaths give or take by occupying iraq. Did soliders single handedly kill one million? No. But our occupation has lead to this number. There are 2.4 Million Refugees alone in Iraq.
 
I did not check your stats, but in any case, over the course of several years in a war it is not hard to kill 1 million people.

And don't pretend like there aren't indirect effects as well, and that every Iraqi casualty is from an American bullet to the dome.
 
Oh come on. You can't make and accurate calculation on a word-of-mouth survey of a tiny fraction of a percent of the population. And 1997 census data? Can you honestly tell me that is going to have any meaningful value? The data collection is so inherently flawed that I'm willing to bet that 1.7% is either completely misrepresented or total bullshit.
 
As I stated in the address "

Im not here to attack anyones views, but please take into perspective how many people one million is and examine your stance..."

I could give a shit what others political opinions are because that is their business, however, a war of this caliber begins to be more of a moral issue than a political wrong. That is all I am trying to point out. But coming from a seemingly "conservative" (assumption), I have news for you. Conservatives don't pump 3 billion a week into a endless war. So I guess that puts you on the retarded end of the political spectrum, not left, nor right...south.
 
All polls are bias to some degree.

But lets ignore them all and pretend that innocient people aren't dieing because the number might be 600,000 instead of 1,000,000.

....

Does it really change the argument that this war sucks the cock and killed way too many people?

You guys want to split ass hairs over this, but let me tell you

you have dingleberries
 
"The average American believes that 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been

killed since the US invasion in March 2003. The most commonly cited

figure in the media is 70,000. But the actual number of people who have

been killed is most likely more than one million.

This is five times more than the estimates of killings in Darfur and even more than the genocide in Rwanda 13 years ago.

The

estimate of more than one million violent deaths in Iraq was confirmed

again two months ago in a poll by the British polling firm Opinion

Research Business, which estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths since the

US invasion. This is consistent with the study conducted by doctors and

scientists from the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health

more than a year ago. . .

Amazingly, some journalists and

editors - and of course some politicians - dismiss such measurements

because they are based on random sampling of the population rather than

a complete count of the dead. While it would be wrong to blame anyone

for their lack of education, this disregard for scientific methods and

results is inexcusable. As one observer succinctly put it: if you don't

believe in random sampling, the next time your doctor orders a blood

test, tell him that he needs to take all of it."

Ok say random sampling is completely flawed(I am apt to trust members of johns hopkins uni and not someone on a ski website) quinny, you cannot deny that we have killed a shit ton of people. Say the measure was off by 200,000 which is a huge data flaw, that alone is still 800,000 people dead. Sickening.
 
I found another study, and its by the WHO

It is pertaining to only the first 3 years of the conflict, but it says that while other studies had an estimate of 600,000, the WHO has researched that time period and found a death count of 150,000. unless they started dying at a rate 6 times that in the last 2 years, I find your study hard to believe

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17970231

so consider your study bullshit
 
Believe me, I'm not at all arguing the number of Iraqi's killed is not disgustingly high, or that the 'death toll' should be for every confirmed 'kill' a US soldier claims. I know and understand that deaths from our invasion of such nation will be far reaching and involve parties that will never be collected by any census.

Heres what I've heard. Last year, a study spouted 655,000 iraqi's killed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

Next a study proclaimed this was too high and that the study before unfairly sampled towns and villages. They proclaimed it at 450,000.

And now no more than a month later, you claim that 1 million Iraqi's have died.

Please read this article. It fully encapsulates most of my views and what I would wish to impress on anyone involved in this discussion. I'm so serious I'm taking the time to hyperlink it.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/19/the_murky_toll_of_the_iraq_war/
 
first of all, there is a huge difference between 600,000 and 1,000,000. also between 600,000 and 151,000 if you read my last post. I agree completely with you, war sucks, what is it good for, absolutley nothing, say it again now. However, when we go throwing out insane stats, the anti war movement looses credibility. Also, you loose credibility when you end an argument with "you have dingleberries"
 
... Way to read my posts before. I DO believe this war is needless and that it has killed FAR to many innocent peace loving people. I see NO WAY that ANYONE could argue that it hasnt.
 
Just because we know that statistic is bullshit means I refute that nobody has died in this war? I've studied statistics extensively and I always carry and inherent distrust for "polls". But its so typical that we get people that want to polarize and argument my claiming the skeptics have the idea that nobody has died at all. It'd be funny to see the shoe on the other foot when it doesn't attempt to support your personal beliefs. The claim that poll makes is to outrageous, questionable, and vague to be taken very seriously.
 
I acknowledge that you individually seem very reasonable on this issue.

But many people still do try to argue that the deaths were worth the ..."rewards?"

(John McCain)
 
If you knew how they got these 'statistics' you would not be quoting them. They do a 'random' survey, (almost impossible to do in an area like iraq today). Then they plug it into a sample distrobution or whatever it is called. they use something like 99.9999999999% sure of acuracy (forgotnen what it is called, This then tells them that given the data they have they can be 99.999999999% positive that the true mean of the data falls between A and B. When they do this (same when they go 100,000 a few years back, The low value is around 400 people and the high value is just above the number that they go out and shout about (1 million in this case)

so they are saying that they are very sure that the true number of people killed is between 400 and 1,002,000 or something like that. There fore it could statistically be 1,000,000 so they go around shouting that number.
 
Ahhhh, the bipartisan machine has taken yet another victim, endlessly splitting the minds of young souls into an attitude of left and right and no middle, recklessly polarizing political ideals into two rigid classes of political ideologies to better demonize and alienate those that would not agree with you... Good thing you're here to provide perspective or fuck you to everyone. Isn't that the "liberal" ideal, eh?

How quaint that you should use the plight of the Iraqi people in terms of one million deaths being statistically greater than 2997 to put things into perspective for those of us who have no soul, unlike you, when you go and say "eeeeeeehhh, well, it's one million GIVE OR TAKE 1.7 %, that's close enough to one million to put things into rash generalizations..." Top notch. Oh, and my not liking your plug of the Iraq war being horrific, as if this were up for debate, based on this estimated statistic, means i'm retarded? (there you are being ever so sensitive to the plight of others again) You've just dehumanized me based on the dehumanized statistic of human deaths, a dehumanized notion of opposition in the political spectrum, and a dehumanized relationship through the internet. And you're the moral compass here...

You don't understand the concept of 1 million anything, it means nothing tangible to you beyond the fact that it's a huge ass number, you have no means to make 1 million corpse of people with wives, children and parents anywhere near real to you, let alone 2997 people, and you want to give the rest of us who have little to no clue as well, growing up where we have in our situation, perspective? Get off it, it's insulting.
 
The fact of the matter is that there is no other way or calculating the death toll aside from the random poll. (which is generally a ball park indicator) The pentagon does not keep track of the deaths. So realistically who the hell knows? But I will take the assumption through these polls (taken by brits and not americans) that a ton of people have died upwards of 750,000. This is the best type (random polling) of estimate we can get. Could it be flawed? Of course.
 
as sad as it is, the number is moot. it's a much higher number than saddam ever contributed.

honestly, how can anyone still believe that this administration had no ulterior motives?
 
Well, good thing one human death is just as tragic as any other, right, otherwise, your language here would be totally... what's the word, sickening?

And I'm also very certain that you, at this very instance in time, feel sick to your stomach, because of "800000" people that you don't know, have no connection to, and have no context for. I mean, to say you're sickened when you really aren't feeling any more than a simple notion of "shit, this is a bad thing, i'm angry" as opposed to a feeling of revulsion at the actual understanding of what human death in that magnitude means for you and all of humanity would be... inhuman, right?

Stop lecturing and claiming moral high ground when none of us here can even begin to comprehend the magnitude of the atrocity of war. I don't contend to know what it's like, why are you any better?
 
Estimates on death tolls can vary a great deal, even when its just a single event. How general or specific should we be on the exact cause of death, or what people or events forced it?

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm

You can't tell thats not vague. Ballpark estimates can be off by millions of heads.
 
"there should be a "political gabber" or something. i'm so tired of threads like this....i come on newschoolers for fun, not to hear more people talk about politics and the current world situation."

translation:

"I don't like to talk about issues that have global significance, so I'm going to click on this thread about politics and tell them that they annoy me."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top