 |
| Author |
Message |
Xenos 2Fan
Warnings : 5
Ministerial
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 3499
Location: Dallas,Texas/Mersin, Turkey
|
|
| petethegreek wrote: |
| Can someone tell me if the death rate was higher with Saddam in charge or Bush? |
Depends if you count the collateral damage or not. I can not display a source for this but last I heard their civilian deaths were somewhere north of 100000 since the war started. |
|
| Back to top |
|
brother
Warnings : 3
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 8920
Location: London/Cyprus
|
|
| 2Fan wrote: |
| petethegreek wrote: |
| Can someone tell me if the death rate was higher with Saddam in charge or Bush? |
Depends if you count the collateral damage or not. I can not display a source for this but last I heard their civilian deaths were somewhere north of 100000 since the war started. |
Wow that is a huge figure.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dhavlos
Warnings : 1
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 4697
Location: Birmingham
|
|
Im sure Sadam probably killed more people, but the average per year(dont like to put it that way  ) is probably higher with bush! |
|
| Back to top |
|
thebrix
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 526
Location: London, United Kingdom
|
|
| brother wrote: |
| 2Fan wrote: |
| petethegreek wrote: |
| Can someone tell me if the death rate was higher with Saddam in charge or Bush? |
Depends if you count the collateral damage or not. I can not display a source for this but last I heard their civilian deaths were somewhere north of 100000 since the war started. |
Wow that is a huge figure. |
That came from a report which, in my opinion, The Lancet (where it appeared) should not have published.
It quoted a median of 100,000 and a 95% confidence range of 92,000. In other words, there was a 95% probability that the actual figure was between 8,000 and 192,000; as far as I am concerned the authors might as well have put a finger in the air given the breadth of uncertainty.
(Of course, journalists and columnists don't understand statistics and quite blithely state "100,000" as though there was no uncertainty).
Haven't looked at the Iraq Body Count site recently, but last I saw was around 25,000. That was arrived at by tallying up corroborated media accounts (in other words, 2 or more sources).
Alastair |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
All times are GMT + 3 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
| |
 
 
Link Partners
3212 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home