Views: 5352|Replies: 12

CNN: Study puts Iraqi toll at 100,000 [Copy link] 中文

vagabond has been deleted
Post time 2004-10-29 14:32:12 |Display all floors
Reminder: Author is prohibited or removed, and content is automatically blocked

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2004-10-29 21:18:55 |Display all floors

It is outrageous!

The British foreign minister still in denying:

The UK Government will "examine with very great care" claims around 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US-led invasion, Jack Straw has said.         -BBC

What kind of politiians they are ?! This is war crime. 50% of the death are women and children.

They died for American security? For British security? For what?! 5

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2004-10-29 22:12:41 |Display all floors

the 100,000 figure is EVERYONE who died

read the article a little more carefully.  the study was about the increased mortality rate in iraq since the invasion.  

the figure for deaths resulting from the invasion could factor in a lot of different things, including decreased sanitization, power outages, stress, etc.   

and daily car bombings sure don't help, either.  you can blame that on the u.s. as well, if you're in the mood.

ts

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-10-29 23:50:24 |Display all floors

"Liberation"

If Russia, for example, had invaded the Ukraine on the same pretexts that the US/UK proferred for their invasion of Iraq, and this had led to 100,000 deaths, then London and Washington would be unbounded in their condemnation.

The warped logic of Bush and Blair IS the WMD of the modern world.

As a British citizen, I am ashamed that Blair has led the UK into this neo-imperialist adventure.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2004-10-30 00:33:57 |Display all floors

100,000

again, the 100,000 figure is referring to ALL deaths, not just those caused by the fighting.

... not that it makes much difference to those of us firmly entrenched in our ideological positions.

ts

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2004-10-30 02:22:45 |Display all floors

100,000

Not too sure what you're getting at here, tsupasat.

"the 100,000 figure is referring to ALL deaths, not just those caused by the fighting."

If we subtract the estimated casualties (anywhere from 10,000 to 30,000), are you suggesting that the remainder can be attributed to natural mortality rates?

I ask, as the per annum mortality rate in Iraq prior to the US invasion was something like 6 deaths per 1000 population (which, even with sanctions in place, is less than the UK). And this in a country of roughly 23,000,000.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2004-10-30 02:48:09 |Display all floors

yes, exactly, beholder ...

thanks for phrasing it better than i did.  

i think whoever wrote the original article was deliberately misleading because it seems almost everyone on this forum thinks 100,000 died because of bullets, bombs, etc.  

the study was on the increased mortality rate.

thanks,

ts

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.