Death Toll in Iraq

[RayNAustin]

Are you kidding me.....you are too much

I really can' thave a meaningful discussion with a flim flam artist.

The US Government put Saddam into power. Bush 1 provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons to use against the Iranians....there are congressional reports to prove that conclusively.

Rumsfeld was the go between.

So you bring up a trip to Iraq....you elude to some bias as if it were a disease ah ha!

And there always is bias, brilliant one. The difference is you are either biased toward the truth or the lies.

That guy is one source.....there are HUNDREDS of reports of journalists being targeted.

And not just journalists.....civilians.....doctors.....ambulances.....even freaking UN observers.

I'm so done with you


You see what I mean crazyhorse1 ? It's a loosing game to play with pathalogical liars and BS artists.

[thaiphoon]

respond to the issues.

We are...

Respond to DU

Based upon information from an obviously biased source?? You need to follow your own rules for posting then !!!

Don't compare one story and insunuate it references another.

Actually it does...

The 1,500,000 million deaths were DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE SANCTIONS. Get it?

And if true that certainly puts Iraq over the 5.5 "baseline" for the study we're talking about doesn't it ??

That means....since I have to explain it to you.....that given historical death rates and other contributing factors, they concluded that 1.5 Million died because of the sanctions, over and above the expected normal death rates do to natural causes, accidents, etc. And totally unrelated to war deaths. These deaths ocurred between wars

Thank for proving that what we are talking about - the bogus Iraq "study" - was in fact bogus according to your "sources". No need for Chad and I to do much more since you seem perfectly compliant to refute your own statements more more links supplied by yourself.

Our work here is done. Thanks Ray for bringing it home for us !!

This is what you do. Twist and turn, and try to suggest you are addressing the points. But you never do.

I've addressed each point (like I'm doing in this post). The only thing that is twisting is your pretzel logic. We're talking about the Iraq study here my friend. You contradict yourself each time you post. You've got your argument so tied up in knots, it really is quite breathtaking to behold !!

Bravo ...

[thaiphoon]

Are you kidding me.....you are too much

Aww shucks...now you're sweet on me ???

I really can' thave a meaningful discussion with a flim flam artist.

Exactly who here is responding to the assertions made by the other. I've been addressing the invalid points you've been making. you decide to erect straw men and move the goalposts and talk about other things not germane to the topic at hand.

The US Government put Saddam into power. Bush 1 provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons to use against the Iranians....there are congressional reports to prove that conclusively.

Don't forget we armed the Russians in WWII to beat back the Nazis. We then had to fight a proxy "cold War" against them for decades afterward. Do you think it was a mistake to help them in WWII because we later had to fight them?? We helped Saddam in his fight against Iran b/c Carter allowed Iran to be taken over by the mullahs that still govern it. Until then Iran was a moderate voice in the Mid-East and pro-US. another reason why Carter is our worst president...ever.

Rumsfeld was the go between.

Right .. got it ... was Elvis on the plane with him too??

So you bring up a trip to Iraq....you elude to some bias as if it were a disease ah ha!

And there always is bias, brilliant one. The difference is you are either biased toward the truth or the lies.

That guy is one source.....there are HUNDREDS of reports of journalists being targeted.

You're theone who brought up the source...not me.

And not just journalists.....civilians.....doctors.....ambulances.....even freaking UN observers.

Really...if there are so many please identify them all. Since its so widespread, it should be fairly easy to come up with the list shouldn't it??

I'm so done with you

Aww...and we were just becoming friends too...

You see what I mean crazyhorse1 ? It's a loosing game to play with

see what happens when you tie yourself up in logical and rhetorical knots?? You have to play a "loosing" game to get yourself LOOSE.

pathalogical liars and BS artists

The pathological liar is Eason Jordan. Don't get all confused on me now...

[Fios]

The cool thing is how the opposing viewpoints in this thread have managed to find common ground through rational discourse

[crazyhorse1]

just for you Ray...

http://www.stanhopecentre.org/blogs/ira ... hrain.html

Its a nice story which includes the following...

..."Under Saddam, the media was a means for the government to send its message to the people," Gohar said recently by telephone from his Cairo office. "Now we have the means to help the people to get their message to the government." Private television broadcasters have been quietly springing up all over Iraq in the past year and currently number around a dozen. Most are formally licensed - either by the former U.S.-led coalition or by Iraq's new interim government - but they remain loosely regulated. Many are also being founded and financed by the country's various ethnic or religious factions, raising concerns among government officials and analysts that they are being used to serve the political interests of their benefactors. Nahrain, Gohar insists, is different. "We have no agenda," he said. "We just want to inform and entertain and basically to help people to cope with their daily lives in what is a very shaky and chaotic situation." Iraq's broadcasting scene has undergone a breathtaking transformation over the past year and a half. Under Saddam, Iraq's media were tightly controlled by the Information Ministry, which was headed by Uday Hussein, Saddam's mercurial eldest son. Uday, in addition to his role as chairman of the editorial boards of about a dozen daily and weekly newspapers, was also in charge of broadcast media and directly managed one of the three official television channels, Al Shabab. Owning a satellite dish was illegal, and Iraqis caught with one in their homes were subject to six months in prison and a stiff fine. Today, roughly one-third of Iraqi households own satellite dishes. There are more than 90 television and radio stations available in Iraq, according to BBC Monitoring, an arm of the BBC. Many, like the pan-Arab channels Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya, are commercial stations broadcast from abroad and only available via satellite...

Again...if they are being founded and financed by different factions (many of which have an interest in seeing us lose and leave) then why wouldn't we be hearing of the 15,000+ (per month) deaths from them??

The answer, if one uses common sense, is that they wouldn't and would instead be reporting those deaths. The global media (including the Al-Jazeera and the BBC --> which are most definitely NOT pro-Bush) would've picked up on these deaths long before this "study" came out.

The "study" is wrong.

Al Jazeera has no funds, spare personnel or other means of coming up with a body count in Iraq; and the puppet government we have established has every reason to downplay the number of dead, just as the WH does. Further, the new stations are funded by us and the coalition backed by us (as you mention) and are not in the business of conducting comprehensive death countstrucl. In fact, the only group that has made scientific studies of Iraqi dead are physicians' groups, Amnesty International, and reasearch groups like the one from Johns Hopkins.


It's almost a joke to think that the WH would self destruct by reporting the truth about Iraq. The Bush administration won't even release casualty figures of our own troops.

Considering the track record of the administration, it is amazing that anyone at all believes anything Bush and Co. say.

[Dangerfield]

Where is Karl Rove or the boy king now? Why have they ignored politics NOW?


Bill CLinton gets a Smoker from a consenting adult......


Foley continuously har(ASS)es 16 yr old boys that are questioning their sexuality.......


And this is getting blown out of hand by the DEMS????

[Dangerfield]

The cool thing is how the opposing viewpoints in this thread have managed to find common ground through rational discourse

Will you ever add anything relevant to any post on this board? You seem to have real issues when it comes to doing anything other than making smarta$$ comments that don't make any sense.

[UK Skins Fan]

The cool thing is how the opposing viewpoints in this thread have managed to find common ground through rational discourse

Will you ever add anything relevant to any post on this board? You seem to have real issues when it comes to doing anything other than making smart comments that don't make any sense.

Yeah Fios - cite your sources man!

[Fios]

The cool thing is how the opposing viewpoints in this thread have managed to find common ground through rational discourse

Will you ever add anything relevant to any post on this board? You seem to have real issues when it comes to doing anything other than making smarta$$ comments that don't make any sense.

1) As a general rule, I do nothing to advance the conversation
2) If you want to attack me personally, do it in Smack

[crazyhorse1]

My theory (I am not alone in this). The U.S. has been systematically killing Iraqi citizens throughout the last 4 years and blaming one side against the other in hopes that the country would plunge into social, and political chaos. The U.S. government WANTS Iraq to plunge into civil war.

Well, its a theory. But I don't buy that the US is systematically killing civilians for the simple reason of plunging Iraq into civil war.....If that was the goal then we would simply leave. I don't buy the idea that we are seeking Iraq's destruction.

My theory is this; we are fighting a war against Terror and have successfully kept that war on someone elses territory. We invaded Iraq to remove an evil dictator that has killed over a million of his own citizens. We are staying there to stabilize the country. Then we will keep our military bases, and maintain a military and diplomatic presence in the region. We chose the region for its geography, that is we saw an opportunity to dispatch our enemy and keep a presence in a country that happens to be between Iran and Syria (who are a much bigger enemy than Iraq) and on the persian gulf.

Chad

The figure I'v seen is 250 thousand to 290 thousand over a twenty year period. Where's your link?

[crazyhorse1]

There are endless stories and reports that certainly don't agree with this rosey picture of Iraqi's sitting back watching TV from their own stalelite dishes. These people are thankful if they get clean drinking water, and a little bit of electricity for a couple hours a day. What BS.

In many areas this is not the case. additionally, the fact that some Iraqis are dealing with a sewage standard that is not up to the U.S> does not invalidate the fact that there are over 100 stations. you have not invalidated my point. You've merely erected a straw man to easily knock down.

quote]How can anyone take this or you seriously. You cherry pick propaganda, post it, and say AH HA!! SEE. What foolishness.

Again... are you speaking to me? Or to yourself??

"This isn't to say the Bush administration and the Pentagon won't welcome certain reports about projects undertaken by U.S. military contractors and the U.S. military in Iraq. Over the next two years, a D.C. based firm called the Lincoln Group will be paid 6.2 million dollars to develop positive talking points for the U.S. military. This firm was the subject of considerable controversy last year when it was part of a Pentagon project that paid Iraqi newspapers to publish positive articles about the U.S. Coalition."

Good god !! Use your common sense. Lets see... an Iraqi paper that is produced by Sunni groups or by Sadr's militia is going to take out money and produce pro-U.S. stories??

no, they most assuredly will not. Again if they are anti-U.S. then they would readily report the 15k+ monthly deaths that this "study" says has happened in Iraq. None have come anywhere close to reporting these deaths. Yet you trot out a quote about us getting our message out in some of the other media outlets...

Again...you have not invalidated my arguments. you've only erected straw man #2.

The hospitals aren't safe....but all of those TV stations, [redio] stations, and newspapers are perfectly free to report genocidal activities of the invading forces

Exactly

....why.....because those invading forces are American, and everybody knows how much the Americans protect freedom of the press......

Yup

except in Amerika of course. Of course, there is no stinking genocide.....no stinking torture......no targeting of civilians....or journalists because if there were, those free Iraqis would report this horrible stuff. See.....case closed.

Hey, you said it !!!

For your information, Iraq is in a full blown civil war. The death toll in Iraq based on comparitive populations of Iraq and the US would have 60,000 deaths per month here. Would you be suggesting that there is no problem if we had 20 911 attacks per month?

Again, use your common sense my friend. Where are the bodies?? Why would al-Jazeera and the BBC hide the body count then??? Look at the arguments I've presented instead of ignoringthem and trying to find another link that you think validates your arguments but instead just erects straw men .

Hell... look at your own link... from it and I quote;

Last summer, crimes piled up in Iraq. 3,590 people were killed in July '06; 3009 in August.

Thats a far cry from 15,000+ per month isn't it? And again I'm using YOUR source !!! Are you now goign to tell me that its right-wing biased???

The "study" is deeply flawed my friend. They took 547 deaths and extrapolated that out to 650k+...

If you cannot see the problem with that, then there's nothing I can do to help you.

There are none so blind as those who will not see...[/quote]

How in the world is the Iraqi press supposed to report death toll stats they have no way of obtaining.

[crazyhorse1]

Let me explain to some here what they support, and try so desperately to justify.

During the 10 years of US sponsored UN sanctions after gulf war I and before gulf war II, international human rights organizations, and UN agencies estimate that 1,5000,000 Iraqis died as a direct result of the sanctions. Close to 750,000 of them children. When Madaline Albright was confronted with these figures, and asked if it was worth it, she calmly replied "We think it was worth it".

Now, the actual deaths in numbers only tell part of the story. The use of depleted uranium in both wars will ensure millions more die in the years and decades to come, while the birth defect rate in Iraq has increased ten-fold from 11 per 100,000 births in 1989 to 116 per 100,000 in 2001, and is continuing to increase. And if you don't care about Iraqis, you should know that the US Troops you say you suppport are being poisoned by DU as well, and veterans are experiencing similar birth defect rates way above the national average.

http://www.wandsworth-stopwar.org.uk/du/iraq.htm

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/546/546p17.htm

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/du-slowburn.html

Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark has submitted a war crimes report to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal. A must read for anyone who believes we are bestowing freedom to the poor Saddam Hussien ravaged Iraqis.

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm

I'm certain that there are a couple on this board who will fill a page with BS, trying to obfuscate the truths here.....and you know who you are...and you know what I think of you for being soulless and and compliant?

The bottom line is that there is no longer an excuse. You can't say...oh I didn't know.....You've been told. You've been provided the information. If you choose to look the other way.....make excuses......rationalize.....and fabricate......well, it's who you are...isn't it?

Pathetic is what comes to my mind.

I'm glad to see that someone on the board is able to make a moral statement and an intellectual point at the same time. Your comments are a breath of fresh air.

[ii7-V7]

My theory (I am not alone in this). The U.S. has been systematically killing Iraqi citizens throughout the last 4 years and blaming one side against the other in hopes that the country would plunge into social, and political chaos. The U.S. government WANTS Iraq to plunge into civil war.

Well, its a theory. But I don't buy that the US is systematically killing civilians for the simple reason of plunging Iraq into civil war.....If that was the goal then we would simply leave. I don't buy the idea that we are seeking Iraq's destruction.

My theory is this; we are fighting a war against Terror and have successfully kept that war on someone elses territory. We invaded Iraq to remove an evil dictator that has killed over a million of his own citizens. We are staying there to stabilize the country. Then we will keep our military bases, and maintain a military and diplomatic presence in the region. We chose the region for its geography, that is we saw an opportunity to dispatch our enemy and keep a presence in a country that happens to be between Iran and Syria (who are a much bigger enemy than Iraq) and on the persian gulf.

Chad

The figure I'v seen is 250 thousand to 290 thousand over a twenty year period. Where's your link?

What are you talking about?

[thaiphoon]

Al Jazeera has no funds, spare personnel or other means of coming up with a body count in Iraq;

Take a walk back through the threads my good professor. Did I say that Al-Jazeera had to do a "body count study"?? No... I said, that if this report is to be believed then Al-Jazeera has severely missed all of the deaths and hasn't reported them. They would love nothing more than to show storied of the 15K+ bodies on the streets of Iraq. Yet somehow they didn't report these deaths as they occurred. The just "missed" them?? Is that what you're trying to get us to believe ?? You think that is possible given their unfettered access to pretty much every part of the country?? You think that is possible given Al-Jazeera's anti-US bent?? IMHO It is an untenable position you have taken if you do.

Further, the new stations are funded by us and the coalition backed by us (as you mention) and are not in the business of conducting comprehensive death countstrucl.

Again, see my response above. Go back through my posts. See the link and the quote of the link where it states that various factions are funding these media outlets themselves.

And from your other post

How in the world is the Iraqi press supposed to report death toll stats they have no way of obtaining.

Geez man. It is called logic. Use your powers of reasoning. If there were 15k+ deaths/month (which this study suggests there are), then these outlets would be SEEING THE DEAD BODIES ON THE STREET !!! We are talking about an area the size of California. If there were 15K+ deaths each month in California people WOULD TEND TO NOTICE IT !!!

The wouldn't need a "researcher", with a political axe to grind, to come along and scientifically fudge data (and then type #'s into an Excel spreadsheet) to tell them that 15k+ people a month were dying in their cities !!! They would be reporting the deaths that occurred since "If it bleeds it Leads" is the hallmark of EVERY news organization. Where are the stories of 15K+ deaths per month??? Where ???

Since they haven't been reporting 15K+ deaths per month and since Ray's own links show that in 2 months that 3k people died, I'd say you have alot of intellectual ground to cover if you're going to state your case factually and logically that the study is "legit".

Lets get it together professor...

[thaiphoon]

What are you talking about?

Chad --> I'm not sure he knows ...

[crazyhorse1]

My theory (I am not alone in this). The U.S. has been systematically killing Iraqi citizens throughout the last 4 years and blaming one side against the other in hopes that the country would plunge into social, and political chaos. The U.S. government WANTS Iraq to plunge into civil war.

Well, its a theory. But I don't buy that the US is systematically killing civilians for the simple reason of plunging Iraq into civil war.....If that was the goal then we would simply leave. I don't buy the idea that we are seeking Iraq's destruction.

My theory is this; we are fighting a war against Terror and have successfully kept that war on someone elses territory. We invaded Iraq to remove an evil dictator that has killed over a million of his own citizens. We are staying there to stabilize the country. Then we will keep our military bases, and maintain a military and diplomatic presence in the region. We chose the region for its geography, that is we saw an opportunity to dispatch our enemy and keep a presence in a country that happens to be between Iran and Syria (who are a much bigger enemy than Iraq) and on the persian gulf.

Chad

The figure I'v seen is 250 thousand to 290 thousand over a twenty year period. Where's your link?

What are you talking about?

Saddam didn't kill over a million of his people. We have.

[thaiphoon]

Saddam didn't kill over a million of his people. We have.

Please, how many did he kill then?? According to your "scientific" study you presented here, one gets the impression that, under Saddam, Iraq was a serene paradise - filled with kite-flying children and the people enjoyed freedoms and a quality of life unequalled since biblical times.

So by all means please back up your assertion... how many did Saddam kill??

Better yet...show me how many he killed and how many we killed. No fair using this "study" either as I've already shown why it is not valid.

[crazyhorse1]

Saddam didn't kill over a million of his people. We have.

Please, how many did he kill then?? According to your "scientific" study you presented here, one gets the impression that, under Saddam, Iraq was a serene paradise - filled with kite-flying children and the people enjoyed freedoms and a quality of life unequalled since biblical times.

So by all means please back up your assertion... how many did Saddam kill??

Better yet...show me how many he killed and how many we killed. No fair using this "study" either as I've already shown why it is not valid.

I've already said he killed from two hundred and fifty thousand to two hundred and ninety thousand.

[crazyhorse1]

Guys, read and weep. There is no study that even claims to be half way definitive out there to support your put down of the Johns Hopkins study.
The U.S. makes no attempt to put together a body count; the Iraqi coalition won't even relese figure; morgue counts are not national but rather concentrate on six cities; Iraqi Body Countr mere lists the reported dead; and media coverage is hit and miss which no station, magazine, or paper even attempting an account.
Using any of the existing accounts to contradict the John Hopkins report is logically absurd.
Speaking of absurdity, I partically like the comment that if the Hopkins figure is correct there would be corses on the streets. Here are some facts:

Not all deserts have streets.
Iraqis have been known to bury their dead rather than leave them in the streets.
There are a number of Iraqi dead on the streets on any given day.
Some Iraqis are killed indoors.
Iraqi bodies can be found in cinders, collapsed buildings, and flaming trucks.
Etc.n

[thaiphoon]

CH1 --- I've shown how the study was flawed. You're stating that because someone hasn't done another study that this flawed study is correct? What an amazing leap of logic

but some of your "lowlights" need to be addressed;

Not all deserts have streets.
Iraqis have been known to bury their dead rather than leave them in the streets.
There are a number of Iraqi dead on the streets on any given day.
Some Iraqis are killed indoors.
Iraqi bodies can be found in cinders, collapsed buildings, and flaming trucks.
Etc.n

Seriously - we receive reports of 15 dead per day, 52 dead some days, and reports of a few thousand per month from all media sources that are in Iraq.

You stil lare failing to grasp the salient point that if 15k+ people were dying in Iraq (in an area the size of California) that we'd be seeing reports and stories of a helluva lot more people dying than what we've seen so far. I'm surprised a man of your education is not makign this obviosu connection

I've already said he killed from two hundred and fifty thousand to two hundred and ninety thousand.

Straight from www.antiwar.com ... nice ...

Tell me Ch1 - how did you arrive at that august figure?

[Irn-Bru]

The cost of this war will never be fully realized for the simple fact that few people look beyond the seen consequences (i.e. the body count itself) to the unseen consequences--i.e. what might have been otherwise.

U.N. sanctions against Iraq perpetuated untold damages to the nation's people and did little to nothing to hurt Saddam himself. How can you count the number of malnourished, starved, and untreated children that died because of a global political move that was fruitless?

You're not going to see them on a 'credible' report; nor will you see any of the other countless economic damages (i.e. hospitals that would have been, cheaper food that would have been, clean water that would have been, electricity that would have been, etc.) counted, because they can't be.

So supporters of the war will likely keep focus on strict "military-caused death" numbers that make them look as best as is possible when compared to Saddam--though their advantage here is probably not that impressive (again, it's hard to know). The damage to the welfare of the Iraqi people through pre-war sanctions and post-war chaos and destruction, however, is a story that will not often get told.

[Fios]

The cost of this war will never be fully realized for the simple fact that few people look beyond the seen consequences (i.e. the body count itself) to the unseen consequences--i.e. what might have been otherwise.

U.N. sanctions against Iraq perpetuated untold damages to the nation's people and did little to nothing to hurt Saddam himself. How can you count the number of malnourished, starved, and untreated children that died because of a global political move that was fruitless?

You're not going to see them on a 'credible' report; nor will you see any of the other countless economic damages (i.e. hospitals that would have been, cheaper food that would have been, clean water that would have been, electricity that would have been, etc.) counted, because they can't be.

So supporters of the war will likely keep focus on strict "military-caused death" numbers that make them look as best as is possible when compared to Saddam--though their advantage here is probably not that impressive (again, it's hard to know). The damage to the welfare of the Iraqi people through pre-war sanctions and post-war chaos and destruction, however, is a story that will not often get told.

I get what you're saying but I'm not certain a standard-of-living comparison makes the occupyuing forces look comparitively better though, or at least not presently.

[Irn-Bru]

I get what you're saying but I'm not certain a standard-of-living comparison makes the occupyuing forces look comparitively better though, or at least not presently.

I would think that the standard of living isn't better currently than pre-war (even with sanctions). Given everything that's happened in Iraq in the last 20 years, I'd argue that the people themselves are certainly worse off than if the rest of the globe hadn't decided to police things in the first place, and that the war only made things comparitively worse.

Are we in agreement or are we disagreeing?, because I can't really tell.

[ii7-V7]

Crazyhorse....I haven't forgotten about what you have been saying about US Cuased Casualties v.s. Saddam Caused Casualties.....but I've been too busy to respond.

I did however run across this...

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php

Iraq Body Count Press Release 16 October 2006
Reality checks: some responses to the latest Lancet estimates
Hamit Dardagan, John Sloboda, and Josh Dougherty
Summary
A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that:

On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;
Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;
Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;
Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;
The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.
If these assertions are true, they further imply:

incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began;
bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis;
the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas;
an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year.
In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy.

This from an Anti-War website....See you don't have to suspend reality in order to dislike Bush!

[crazyhorse1]

For your info:

Both the Japan Times and Zogby are now backing the Johns Hopkins death count poll. Also, the Children of Iraq are reporting that 2 million Iraqi children have died as a result of the two invasions and that 138,000 children per year are currently dying.
UNICEF reports that 200 Iraqi children a day died in 2004 and 300 a day
are currently dying. It also claims that 400,000 children in O4 were victims of wasting, emaciation, protein deficiency and chronic diarhea.

Johns Hopkins is also reporting that over 90% of the deaths it has recorded were by violence.

All of the other body counts I know, with the exception of Iraqi Body Count, is more or less controlled by our government or the U.S. supported Iraqi government. As mentioned before Iraqi Body count does no research but merely tabulates figures reported to it. The Iraqi media, of course, also does no scientific research.

We've been spoonfed bad data. Why does that surprise you?