Bad News!
Deaths are way down in Iraq.
As enraged crowds protested the hanging of Saddam Hussein across Iraq’s Sunni heartland Monday, government officials reported that 16,273 Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police died violent deaths in 2006, a figure larger than an independent Associated Press count for the year by more than 2,500.
… The Associated Press accounting, gleaned from daily news reports from Baghdad, arrived at a total of 13,738 deaths. The United Nations has said as many as 100 Iraqis die violently each day, which translates into 36,500 deaths annually.
What the enraged crowds of several hundred Sunnis in several different places and Saddam on a rope have to do with it, I’m not entirely sure, but it sure makes it look worse! Here’s the bad news for al-P and other defeat fans: Deaths are down in Iraq. With the Lancet poll estimate at 655,000 dead since the US-led invasion of 2003, that means the average of more than 200,000 a year has dropped virtually off the charts! Even if you look at the worst case scenario, that the October 2004 estimate of only 100,000 dead is correct, that means we’re down from an annual average of more than 65,000!
This is terrible news. It means there may actually be reason for hope in Iraq!
Related links:
Prairie Pundit wants to know: Who killed who?
Some jackass gets off on Hiroshima, which apparently is linked in his mind to Iraq.
An excellent hung-over New Year’s Day activity: screening Kinji Fukasaku’s brilliant Battles Without Honor & Humanity six-film epic about the Japanese mafia. Out of the atomic destruction of Hiroshima comes the nihilistic fury of social atomization. There’s no apology in Fukasaku — just lots of betrayal, paranoia and swords chopping off arms. Fitting stuff after the Iraq war murdered 16,273 Iraqis and nearly 1,000 Americans this year.
Totally fitting and worth a look for purposes of contemplating how moronic people actually can be. They dwell among us.
Gatewaypundit also invokes Hiroshima, offering some perspective.
Dan Riehl recounts a crass joke about how much Americans don’t care. Of course the real joke is that people who profess to care about real dead Iraqis are making up fake ones. They may want to try making up dead blondes instead.
Don Surber: War still beats ‘peace’ under Saddam.
Topics: Uncategorized
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:58 pm on Monday, January 1, 2007
25 Responses to “Bad News!”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:49 am
Not a single chickenhawk noted the steady climb in U.S. troops deaths after March…
When you engage you take some hits.
Why this would somehow be a to you is a mystery to me.
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:14 am
The mystery to me is why do people who only report things that support their personal biases expect to be taken seriously.
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:10 am
“Some jackass”? Jules, Spencer Ackerman is what is known in the biz as a reporter. Perhaps you’re familiar with that profession, you pompous windbag?
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:25 am
Spencer Ackerman may be a reporter, but his attempt to connect “Battles Without Honor & Humanity” (a great film, by the way) to the Iraq war is a pitiful reach. The quoted non sequitur is limp film criticism and even limper foreign policy analysis.
Also, who got to decide that “reporter” and “jackass” are mutually exclusive? The National Press Club?
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:31 am
16,273 Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police died violent deaths in 2006,
The point you miss (deliberately? Clueless? I have no idea) is that the Lancet study looks at the overall death rate, that is deaths from just living life in Iraq. That would be the Iraq with the crumbling infrastructure, the overwhelmed hospitals and other problems thanks to the invasion.
Have ya noticed the stories about the overflowing morgues in Iraq? Have ya noticed that there is at least a half dozen terrorist attacks everyday there? Have ya noticed that the government isn’t it charge? Have ya noticed that there is a stew of terrorists, insurgents, criminals and maniacs that are running rampant over there?
Of course if you have your fevered ego won’t let you acknowledge it.
Keep digging Sparky because these words of yours will be in cyber space forever and as Iraq continues to quagmire you and your warflogging Dear Leader lovin’ buddies are going to look stupider and stupider. Future generations will still be laughing at how wrong you got it long after we’re gone.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 am
Last night, network news desperately flogged Sunni demonstrations against Saddam’s execution. But even with the tight shots, the numbers looked mighty sparse to me, and with that same blank-eyed rote chanting that made some of them look almost bored. Anybody else notice that?
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:51 pm
RebeccaH,
If they look somewhat distracted, it’s because they’re wondering if a Shiite militia is busy killing their family at home while they demonstrate.
Anyway, if you can just talk the numbers down, that means Iraq is getting better right? I mean, even if it’s way, way more people than you predicted would be getting killed at this point, if you can just undermine those numbers the “liberal media” puts out, then somehow it’ll make Iraq turn out alright!
To that I say, please share your understanding with the Iraqi people, in person. Maybe you can help them understand how you’ve proven their country isn’t actually falling apart by “undermining” western news reports on casualties. I recommend starting with the “bored” Sunni protestors.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Alphie said–”Not a single chickenhawk noted the steady climb in U.S. troops deaths after March… Hope the poor citizens of Iraq don’t suffer a similar fate.”
Yeah alphie, right on.. it would be terrible of the number of Iraqis dead each year were to start climbing toward the number Saddam killed each year when he was in power…
but no worries.. got a long way to go on that one.
D
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:25 pm
why do people who only report things that support their personal biases expect to be taken seriously.
Was this directed at the Associated Press?
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
DRJ said: “Of course, every life is precious but there are times when life is worth sacrificing for the greater good.”
I guess I’m failing to grasp your comparison with the American Revolution, in which American colonists decided for themselves to rebel against the British crown. To be sure, there were plenty of loyalists on colonial soil, but the Revolution was very much a home-grown affair, albeit with later support from the French. What does this have to do with a war in which another nation invades and occupies Iraq, creating a power vaccuum that sends the various factions therein into a violent struggle for supremacy? Any similarity to the birth of the United States would only be accurate if, for instance, Spain had invaded America, hanged all the colonial governors and then let the 13 colonies have at it until some form of legitimate government somehow emerged from the ensuing bloodbath.
Also, who gets to decide the “greater good”? It seems to me that the Iraqis ought to be deciding for themselves what their “greater good” is, rather than having our version of it shoved down their throats. (In any case, the greater good has nothing to do with why we supposedly invaded Iraq in the first place, does it? That’s been the tacked-on, ass-covering explanation since WMDs were never found.) I guess it’s easy to be cavalier with other people dying for some vague “greater good” or a “policy mishap” or whatever we’re calling it these days to make the killing of thousands of people - whether it be in the tens of thousands or the hundreds - palatable enough so that we can face the mirror without retching.
To borrow your turn of phrase: Of course, every life is precious, but there would certainly be some justice in the universe if you, people like you, and their families were sacrificed to someone else’s idea of “the greater good.”
January 2nd, 2007 at 6:44 pm
As someone else said “You really have to wonder about the mind of a person who can type the words: “only 100,000 dead” without pause.” and as several have pointed out, you’re nothing but an idiot for taking the cumulative total of 655,000 and converting it into an annualized average. On what planet did you learn that skill?
You lusters after blood continuously exploit the WTC tragedy (just over 3,000 deaths) to promote an unjust illegal war with a country that had nothing to do with 9/11; a war that has butchered hundreds of thousands of people. All the rationalizations and bogus averaging in the world aren’t going to change this huge stinking turd into a democracy bouquet.
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:42 pm
PBI,
Were you as concerned about Clinton’s military actions in Bosnia/Serbia as you are by Bush’s actions in Iraq?
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:38 pm
hehe, drj,
We understand that for certain people, money and lives don’t matter a jot.
The only thing that’s important to your kind are phony victories in the cartoonish right-left war that your wealthy press masters egg on for profit…
…that’s why we voted their toadies out of office.
January 2nd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
You’re pissing into the wind, my friend. Play all the number games you want, it’s over.
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
We understand that for certain people, money and lives don’t matter a jot.
That would be the head choppers right?
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Alphie,
In the words of a great man, “there is no substitute for victory.”
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:56 pm
DRJ said: PBI, Were you as concerned about Clinton’s military actions in Bosnia/Serbia as you are by Bush’s actions in Iraq?
Ahhh, there it is. I wondered when the truest sign of Iraq War argumentative bankruptcy - trying to somehow link it all to Bill Clinton - would rear it’s head.
What does anybody’s view on Clinton era foreign policy have to do with the questions I asked about your post? How about explaining your comparison of the Iraq War with the American Revolution? Or maybe addressing why it’s OK for us to decide to send a country that had not attacked us and wasn’t capable of doing so into what is starting to look very much like a death spiral? Instead, you give us… Clinton?
Seriously, if you won’t support your own contentions, maybe you shouldn’t make them.
January 2nd, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Kinda weak to quote Ronald Reagan to support the positions of people he judged to be simpleminded, bloodthirsty religious fanatics unfit to serve his country.
Just one of the reasons he’s considered a great man…
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
PBI,
If you don’t understand the comparison, maybe you shouldn’t question it.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
PBI, continued:
As for my initial comment regarding Iraq and the American Revolution, I provided ample information for you to glean my point. You may not like the analogy but I’m sure you got the general idea.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:26 pm
DRJ said: As for my initial comment regarding Iraq and the American Revolution, I provided ample information for you to glean my point. You may not like the analogy but I’m sure you got the general idea.”
You provided no such information. You cited per capita casualty rates in completely unrelated conflicts in what looks to be an attempt to conflate the birth of the United States with our unprovoked invasion of Iraq. I questioned why you chose to compare the Iraq War with the American Revolution, and you appear unable to justify doing so other than by noting that people were killed in both. That’s pretty much what I thought would happen, but at least it’s been confirmed.
And really, “If you don’t understand the comparison, maybe you shouldn’t question it” has got to be one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read, but if it’s the attitude you take, it certainly explains why you seem to think the Iraq War is a good thing. Unquestioning ignorance and a desire to see the world the way we wish it were rather than as it is is exactly what got us into this mess.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:33 pm
“I guess I’m failing to grasp your comparison with the American Revolution, in which American colonists decided for themselves to rebel against the British crown.”
Then maybe a little History would help…only 1/3 of Americans supported the American Revolution…I think it is fair to say that 1/3 of Iraqis similarly support the goal of the current conflict.
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
PBI,
The point of my comparison between deaths in Iraq and the American Revolution was … that the death rates are probably similar or even lower in Iraq. As I’m sure you know, some historians describe the American Revolution as a quasi-insurgency so I thought it would be interesting to see if the death rates were comparable. They seem to be. Make of that what you will.
I assume we are both browsing the internet and making comments where and when we see fit. I welcome a reasonable debate but, so far, your responses seem like attacks rather than a civil debate. I welcome the latter but I’m not interested in the former. Life’s too short.
January 3rd, 2007 at 12:13 am
Jules,
The NYT link you cite doesn’t have the numbers any more.
This very brief report does, for now.
I’m noticing that a lot of the Google searches that are said to have the casualty numbers don’t have them when I go to the actual link (I determined ths by Googling a pretty long phrase from your excerpt). I don’t know whether that’s SOP for AP to change text and keep the link ID, or whether someone has figured out that the numbers can be seen as pretty low in comparison to other death tolls reported previously and is trying to scrub them.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I’m going to hope that you’re just a very bad humorist, Jules, rather than a very stupid person.p