Wednesday, August 22, 2007

By Way of Numbers

Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator
The number is shocking and sobering.

It is at least 10 times greater than most estimates cited in the US media, yet it is based on the only scientifically valid study of violent Iraqi deaths caused by the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003.

That study, published in prestigious medical journal The Lancet, estimated that over 600,000 Iraqis had been killed as a result of the invasion as of July 2006. Iraqis have continued to be killed since then. The graphic above provides a rough daily update of this number based on a rate of increase derived from the Iraq Body Count.

This devastating human toll demands greater recognition. It eclipses the Rwandan genocide and our leaders are directly responsible. Little wonder they do not publicly cite it.

-----I blogged a couple of years ago that BushCo would eventually catch up to the 1 million dead during the years between 1992 and 2003. But I did expect it to take a bit longer than 5 years. So I did some math. According to figures above between 2003 and 2006 the US was killing approximately 550 Iraqi per day. If the above toll is correct, in the one year and five months, March 2006 to August 2007, the US stepped up the pace – 825 Iraqi dead per day. The Iraq Body Count gives a number of 76,000 civilian deaths, which is where the "rate of increase" is derived from. Looks like fuzzy math somewhere.

I'm not going to bother to research the reliability of the higher figures, nor am I impressed with the name The Lancet publishing the study, which I have read for years and find it more often than not aiding and abetting the same agenda as the FDA and Big Pharma, i.e. pushing the same money making fears of AIDS, bird flu, etc.

But here's what irritates me, aside from whether or not to believe any of these numbers, past or present : when supposedly the same numbers of Iraqi were dying under 12 years of air strikes and sanctions, predominantly Clinton's watch, where was the outrage?

Where were the anti-war policy guys? Men like Murtha, Kucinich, Ron Paul, Joe Biden, Edwards, Gravel, Obama, or bigmouth conservatives like Limbaugh, Weiner, Coulter, Malkin, etc. - they weren't demanding Clinton remove the sanctions and stop the killing.

Bill Clinton's 1 million dead Iraqi received almost zero recognition. The infamous 1996 comment of Madeleine Albright regarding 500,000 dead Iraqi children – "we think the price is worth it" only received attention years later.

The numbers weren't "shocking and sobering" back then - folks were just too numbed and drunken in the Clintonian era of "peace and prosperity."


Anonymous said...

Some Ron Paul speeches in 1998 when he was saying that the Iraq invasion was eminent and that we should not be getting involved.

This is the same year Clinton passed the Iraqi Liberation Act, stating the official US policy goal in Iraq was regime change. Ron Paul has been speaking out against this war since gulf 1.

Kate-A said...

I am not questioning Paul's anti-Iraq War stance.

The question was "Where were the anti-war policy guys? ... they weren't demanding Clinton remove the sanctions and stop the killing."

Some just prefer the killing done differently. Slowly. Less public awareness and protest, less military involvement.

Paul voted for the war on Afghanistan. Is he calling for withdrawal from Kabul?

Anonymous said...

Well I know for a fact Ron Paul opposed the sanctions regime in Iraq and critisized it plenty. But he left congress for most of the 90's so I am having a hard time finding anything in his own words during that time. I will continue to look and you can look for yourself as well but like I said, I think your critisism of Ron Paul is misplaced. He did speak out against the sanctions. Sorry I cannot provide any evidence at this time but like i said I will continue looking and get back to you. Enough people must of critisized the harsher sanctions of food and medicine because we did get the oil for food program after 500,000 children where killed as a result of the sanctions. Of course to Clinton and Allbright this was "worth it".

Kate-A said...

Do post any links you find on such. I've said before I agree with Paul on some of his stands, he can appear reasonable on many issues. But so many pols can do that.

Paul stated a couple of weeks after 9/11 that we should handle the mess we're in by looking at how Kennedy handled the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Paul says it prompted him to enlist in the Air Force.

JFK threatened nuclear war with Russia and lucky for us proposals were reached to avoid nukes. I suppose he's referring to diplomacy but there was a very big stick behind the talking.

Paul was a supporter of Reagan, helped get Ronnie elected, and Reagan believed a "limited" nuclear war was completely reasonable option.

Not only are there those who prefer slow odious interventions by sanctions/embargoes, or diplomacy by economic starvation, etc. but there are also those who would prefer one big surgical strike to destroy the "threat" or get the conquest over with.

Paul knows he is not electable - but he's having a helluva good time playing along with the possible conspiracy of "another fake terrorist attack on the us" and the idea a US attack on Iran is imminent. Fear mongering. Pandering.

Also seldom mentioned is Paul began his career preaching term limits in congress, something I wholly support. Guess that idea petered out after Mr. Paul went to Washington.

If Paul was a genuine man of peace and goodwill he would have been terminated long ago.

Content © 2005-2020 by Kate/A.