655,000 Iraqis die because of war - CNN headline

This is the actual headline and first to graphs of the story:

Disputed study claims 655,000 Iraqi deaths

NEW YORK (AP) -- A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.

The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."

That doesn't sound very biased to me, and in fact, by ommiting the word "Disputed"  from the headline apparently to support his claim that CNN is biased, Mike is the one that sounds like he has an agenda.

How is CNN attempting to sway the election with this article?:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/10/mccain.clinton.ap/index.html

So what number would be more acceptable?  How about half?  Can we agree on half?  That would be a paltry 257 dead per day.  How about only 30% of the CNN number?  How does 154 murdered people sound?  Better?  How about just 50 a day?  We can all live with 50 murdered people per day, incited as a result of our actions.  Hell, 50 people isn't even a full NFL roster.  And 50 or 150 or 500 people murdered every day is but a small price to pay for the heightened level of safety and security that the US and the rest of the world now enjoys from terrorism; the decreasing level of terroist involvement and recruitment; the superior training and implementation of the free standing Iraqi army and the successful, power wielding Iraqi government.  Oh hell yes, it was all more than worth it!

Now who needs the sanity check?

655,000 Iraqis dead since invasion, study says

 Nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died since the war started, a new study says, a far higher death toll than other estimates. The timing of the survey's release, just weeks before the U.S. elections, led one expert to call it "politics."

This is the headline and summary that is currently running on CNN's website.  This is directed at the headline-scanners and carries a message.  If you don't see bias in this then I question your objectivity.  ;-)

~Mike

Numbers like that are tough to track in the U.S. with every advantage technology has to offer.  Coming up with accurate stats in a country stuggling to even keep the lights on... c'mon.

One of the biggest reasons I have trouble believing that number is because the total number of dead in 8 years of battle w/ Iran and Iraq where they were using chemical weapons in estimated at around 300K for both sides.  

Now if they were to have said 700K casualties I buy that.  Or maybe they're counting the mass graves that have been dug up from when SH was in power as part of that 655 count.

bts 

You missed the pont Mac.  The point is media bias and trying to influance public opinion insead of reporting the news.  The other day I had CNN on in the living room and my daugher heard Lou Dobbs railing against illegal alians and ask "Geesh, what is he running for!?"  I had to explain that he was supposed to be a NEWS MAN and was not running for office...although it sure didn't sound like it.

The actual numbers of dead in Iran is more like 45,000.  We lost 500,000 Ameicans in our civil war.  But I guess people think freedom is only for the elite.  But that's a different thread.

~Mike

Flowers and daisies, people.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2006/08/20/world/20060821_KURDS_SLIDESHOW_1.html

I second that.

People here (on BT and in America) can have whatever opinions they like about the President and our actions in the Middle East, but what matters are the people there. Yes many thousands have died but we live in a FREE country and will never know how miserable and scary their world was when SH was in control.

How many soliders have you talked to? Even those that don't agree with why we went to war there, put their lives on the line to give the Iraqi's a better way of life. Knowing several people that have been there first hand, they never met ONE person there that didn't thank them or try to help them out. They were invited into homes and were given meals and are thankful they live in a SH free country.

So, sit at your computer in your nice office and lets b*tch about how terrible their lives are and how wrong we are. I find it hard to criticize so harshly like you're all doing when we have no idea what its really like.

The only way that we can preserve our way of life and our security for our children and our grandchildren is to fundamentally change the middle east.  Yes it is a lofty goal to plant the seeds of freedom in Iraq but it beats putting out head in the sand or some dark smelly place and hope the radical islamics will learn love us.  This is what got us 9/11.

The biggest threat to the world and to America is a nuclear explosion going off in the heart of one of our major cities.   Consider this, had we not invaded Iraq and let the toothless tiger of the UN take charge, I'm quite certain we'd be looking at an Iraq armed with a NK nuke.  And I'm certain Iran's oil money would be financing NK's ambitions. 

Only history will tell if the idea of speading freedom works...but it sure beats doing NOTHING which is what I think many people wanted to do.

~Mike

Another view might be that our constant meddling in the region from the middle part of the last century has gone a long way towards fertilizing the seeds of hatred that are growing there as we try to sow the seeds of democracy.  And *that* is what got us 9/11, not inaction, but constant action and interference over 50+ years.

And I really have disagree that if we hadn't gone into Iraq 3 years ago, that SH would be in power with a new toy nuke from Kim.  That's just boogeyman-scare-the-children type of hyperbole. 

a- the op had politely pointed out that the point of this thread was media bias. You elected to continue with your hijack after that.

and

b- the back and forth had deteriorated into insults and wasn't going anywhere but down. This is a flame free zone.  Deal.

I respectfully disagree.  Moving on......

How do you arrive at the 45,000 number?  Before you discard the study as preposterous, you may want to actually read the study itself.  Don't read the news summaries, read the actual report.  It can be found here: 

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/11/human.cost.of.war.pdf 

The methods used are not some crackpot scheme, it's an accepted method, based on statistical sampling among population clusters.  The study was jointly conducted by MIT, Johns Hopkins, and Al Mustansiriya University ( Baghdad medical school ).

You say 500 dead / day isn't possible.  Here's news from the 10th:

Bomb in market in Baghdad kills 27.

Bomb at bakery kills 11.  60 bodies dumped in streets overnight. 

12 Killed in Baquba, 3 in Mosul, 4 in Tal Afar

Many many more incidents of 1-2 people found killed to post them all. 

Mike -  I gather these studies are not uncommon.  I haven't read anything that makes a case for discrediting the study or the formulae used in the computations. Other than your personal and incredulous feelings about the numbers, do you have any evidence that the study is flawed?

Found this tidbit too:

The mortality rate before the U.S. invasion was about 5.5 people per 1,000 per year, the study found. That rate rose to 19.8 deaths per 1,000 people in the year ending in June.

Here's my problem with the situation in Iraq:

If I thought there was any chance of success at all in Iraq--any chance--I'd say stick it out as long as it takes to have a functiong indiginant government, security force and infrastructure. But I just don't see it happening.

First of all, you have a culture and more importantly, a deeply-rooted history of government based on the Koran. A culture based on centuries of theocracy don't lend themselves to democracy just being dropped on them. Talk about your square pegs in round holes.

And second of all, you have such a deeply divided sectarian populace. You think the US is deeply divided? The differences between the Suunis and the Shiites, the Arabs and the Kurds and the 10-15 political parties that make up the nation make the differences between the US's left and right look like the difference between light blue and a little bit lighter blue.

What is going to happen is the second we pull out (and arguably before) the country is going to spiral into civil war and will be back to where it was before we invaded, with some Sadaam act-alike in power. The only possibility for the successful installation of a democratic government is if the US occupies the country permanently. And I don't think *anyone* is supportive of that.

So, IMO, it's better to go ahead and get out now and save ourselves billions (trillions?) of dollars and thousands of lives. But that's just me talking.

My thinking is simply that no matter what we do, short of a world domination type of thing, it's patently impossible to change the middle east in the manner we want to change it. So maybe it's better to, instead, ask the question as to why they are so p*ssed off at us in the first place. If we can answer that question, maybe we could do something tangible to help make the world a bit safer.

Well, everyone has a bias. The question(s) is:

Is the study flawed?

Are the formulae being used out of the norm or unsound?