Death toll for Iraqis falls for 3rd straight month

[radioguy]

Death toll for Iraqis falls for 3rd straight month
718 deaths are lowest since ’06 blast at shrine sparked sectarian violence
AP

Excerpt


BAGHDAD - The number of Iraqis killed last month fell to 718, an Associated Press tally showed, the lowest monthly death toll since just before the 2006 bombing of a Shiite shrine provoked a vicious cycle of retaliatory sectarian violence.

The figures come as the military says violence has fallen to levels not seen in nearly two years, while acknowledging that Iraqis are still dying in unacceptable numbers.

An expert on the effect of conflicts on civilians agreed, saying that while the downward trend was positive, it needed to be kept in perspective.

“We’ve gone from horrific levels of murder to very bad, which is an improvement but not a reason to celebrate,” said Richard Garfield, a professor at New York’s Columbia University and a manager of health and nutrition for the World Health Organization.

“At these so-called low levels, there’s a massive number of excess deaths still likely to occur,” he said.

It was the third consecutive monthly decline in the death toll of Iraqi civilians and security forces since August, when a massive suicide bombing targeting minority Yazidis in northern Iraq helped push the figure to at least 1,956.

Some 500 are thought to have perished in the bombing of the Yazidis.

At least 1,023 Iraqis were killed in September, 911 in October and 718 in November, the lowest since January 2006, when 615 Iraqis were killed, according to figures compiled by the AP from hospital, police and military officials, as well as accounts from reporters and photographers. Insurgent deaths were not included. Other counts differ and some have given higher civilian death tolls.

The number of U.S. troop deaths also declined for the sixth consecutive month, with at least 37 recorded in November, according to an AP tally based on military figures. That was the lowest number since March 2006, when 31 American service members died.

Full Story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22057959/)

I would also like to point out how the AP, in keeping with their standard of liberal biased excellence, can't allow a story about good news from Iraq be published without having at least a few paragraphs of negativity from some anti-war liberal. They chose some lefty professor from Columbia University to piss on the Iraqi parade for this one. The wasted no time either... They gave his anti-war perspective paragraphs 4 and 5.

[MichaelNewman]

I'd say seven hundred and eighteen people and 37 US troops is a pretty fucking negative november, but you keep believing the good belief and the rest of the world will be here, helping you back up, when its all over. This is a fascist war, lead by a fascist leader, in a time when fascism is made possible by shocking events, prevelent fundamentalist beliefs (on both sides) and fear mongering.

May God bless the world and bring all the people that populate it peace and prosperity. Get well America, please get well, we need you.

[Krome]

Great over 718. Bet Iraqis are over the moon. I bet they are dancing in the streets with joy!

So America and Great Britain are responsible for the deaths of over 100k of innocent people just to get it so that Iraq only has 718 murders per month.

Great, just great.

[Jesse Hemingway]

I'd say seven hundred and eighteen people and 37 US troops is a pretty fucking negative november, but you keep believing the good belief and the rest of the world will be here, helping you back up, when its all over. This is a fascist war, lead by a fascist leader, in a time when fascism is made possible by shocking events, prevelent fundamentalist beliefs (on both sides) and fear mongering.

May God bless the world and bring all the people that populate it peace and prosperity. Get well America, please get well, we need you.

The rookies first post and he has already dick slaped the Radio Bitch.:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[opinionator]

Always a joy to watch liberal filth contort in hate-throes when any good news comes out of Iraq!

[Moby]

I'd say seven hundred and eighteen people and 37 US troops is a pretty fucking negative november, but you keep believing the good belief and the rest of the world will be here, helping you back up, when its all over. This is a fascist war, lead by a fascist leader, in a time when fascism is made possible by shocking events, prevelent fundamentalist beliefs (on both sides) and fear mongering.

May God bless the world and bring all the people that populate it peace and prosperity. Get well America, please get well, we need you.
It's a terrible number and I wish it was 0 but it's not. I knew Bush's history and I also knew a war was his only hope of re-election.

It's all too late now. Everyone was angry and our soldiers are there. If there are fewer deaths then it's better then more deaths.

Either way Americans are going to be dying there for a decade or 2. At least 37 is better then 40. We should all just keep hoping for things to get better, a new President to take over, build the fucking base and protect those soldiers.

[mwillman]

I am always happy when less people are being killed but until I see something more then a decrease in body counts Im not going to go jumping around claiming mission accomplished like so many right wingers do.

[MichaelNewman]

I love this logic. The good news. The good news out of Iraq.

The United States of America pre-emptively attacks and invades a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 terrorist acts on New York City and Washington D.C. The war gets totally bungled and the insurgency and the sectarian hate overwhelm Iraqi society despite a US presence. Almost 4000 service men and women give their lives to setup a weak central government that still hasn't reconciled its differences. A government who's future to this very day is in doubt. After all these Americans have died, an honourable General sets up a strategy to reduce the horrific loss of life that is being inflicted. His strategy brings civilian deaths down to 718 per month and US servicemen deaths down to 37 per month - and this is "good news".

So, any person reading this who adheres to the neo-conservative foreign policy agenda currently in place, hear this. If we go forward from this day and continue to believe the good belief. The good news. The good ideas. The good purpose. The Bush narrative. If we continue to impose the will of our ideas on foreign lands, we will get more terror, we will create more hate.

There are far more terrorists in the world today dedicated to commiting acts of terror and war on the United States than there were before the good war or 9/11.

The war in Iraq is nothing but good and no good news can make it morally correct. The security of the world depends on a US foreign policy that does not increase the threat of terror. We must rethink our strategies, we must understand our enemy better and we must be wise in how we conduct ourselves in the world.

The neo-conservative agenda for the United States makes the world more dangerous. I do not express these opinions in hate, but in the convication that the act of war and occupation committed by the United States on the nation of Iraq from March 2003 until present has made the entire world less stable and more dangerous.

We must reject the Bush narrative of the past seven years, pick up the peices and pray that sound judgment will guide us through in this new and volatile world.

[Yirmeyahu]

An expert on the effect of conflicts on civilians agreed, saying that while the downward trend was positive, it needed to be kept in perspective.

“We’ve gone from horrific levels of murder to very bad, which is an improvement but not a reason to celebrate,” said Richard Garfield, a professor at New York’s Columbia University and a manager of health and nutrition for the World Health Organization.

“At these so-called low levels, there’s a massive number of excess deaths still likely to occur,” he said.

I would also like to point out how the AP, in keeping with their standard of liberal biased excellence, can't allow a story about good news from Iraq be published without having at least a few paragraphs of negativity from some anti-war liberal. They chose some lefty professor from Columbia University to piss on the Iraqi parade for this one.

You would prefer that the positive development not be kept in perspective of the massive amounts of violence still ongoing?

But wouldn't that demonstrate a strong bias and lack of objectivity?

And let's not forget that the violence is the result of the US invasion.

Are these facts too incovenient? Is that why you would prefer the "liberal" media wouldn't mention them?

[radioguy]

You would prefer that the positive development not be kept in perspective of the massive amounts of violence still ongoing?

But wouldn't that demonstrate a strong bias and lack of objectivity?

It wouldn't bother me in the least Yirmey, if it wasn't for the fact that when the situation was reversed and the number of people being killed was increasing, the main stream media didn't see any importance at all in presenting any kind of "perspective" or "objectivity" to their stories.

You are correct though Yirmey. This story does present balance by including the other side of the coin. I just find it interesting that they get it from a college professor at a liberal university, rather than someone who is closer to the situation and more qualified to give such an opinion. It's almost as if they are desperate to find someone, anyone, who will give them the negativity that has become their trademark.

[MichaelNewman]

"...when the situation was reversed..." what about the whole creation of the situation thing! or did you miss that?

"No but its good news and you don't want to hear good news".

- How about the nation votes to get rid of that kind of thinking, rational and logic. Now THAT will be good news!

Join the rest of the nation, this isn't a partisan thing, it's called sound judgment. I would be willing to bet that if the Republican candidates for the House and Senate ran for lower spending, balanced budgets and a drawdown from Iraq, they would win way more seats than if they took the status quo position most of them are currently, blindly stuck on. Massive deficit financing, in order to spend billions, to fight a morally incorrect war in Iraq is not a good platform for 2008.

[Yirmeyahu]

It wouldn't bother me in the least Yirmey, if it wasn't for the fact that when the situation was reversed and the number of people being killed was increasing, the main stream media didn't see any importance at all in presenting any kind of "perspective" or "objectivity" to their stories.

Such as? I'm not sure what "persepective" you think they should have put it in.

You are correct though Yirmey. This story does present balance by including the other side of the coin. I just find it interesting that they get it from a college professor at a liberal university, rather than someone who is closer to the situation and more qualified to give such an opinion. It's almost as if they are desperate to find someone, anyone, who will give them the negativity that has become their trademark.

I doubt very much they were "desperate" to find someone to put the matter into perspective.

I think they chose this gentleman because he is well qualified to speak on Iraq.

He visited Iraq 6 times during 1996 - 2003 to collaborate with UNICEF, the World Food Program, and the Iraqi Ministry of Health. He evaluated the quality of mortality studies and created independent estimates of mortality changes, evaluated the overall humanitarian impact of the Oil for Food program, participated in research on income and living standards in northern Iraq, pioneered an joint analysis of 45 studies of nutritional status during the 1990s, and assisted in medium term planning for social sector assistance prior to the 2003 war. Since the 2003 war, he worked in Iraq for WHO and UNICEF to assist in reconstruction, manage! reactivation of health services, and prepare the post-Oil for Food UN program. He collaborated with the CPA in 2003 to reactivate the health system and is currently assisting the Iraqi Ministry of Health in planning the development of human resources for the health system. He authored the post-war 'Watching Brief' on Health of the World Bank in the summer of 2003, designed a child survival strategy for USAID in Iraq in early 2004, and coauthored a study comparing mortality rates and causes in the year prior to and since the 1003 invasion published in the Lancet in late 2004. In 2005 he was a member of the [Volker] Independent Inquiry Committee humanitarian assessment group to study the impact and effectiveness of the Oil for Food Program.--http://www.cumc.columbia.edu/dept/nursing/about-school/faculty/profiles/garfield_rm.html

[Moby]

Always a joy to watch liberal filth contort in hate-throes when any good news comes out of Iraq!
While this is good news it's still like getting good news and bad news.

The good news is that you're not going to die. The bad news is that you're still bleeding, you're in danger of infection and the medical bills require you to keep borrowing money from people that wish you harm.

I'm always glad to hear that fewer Americans are dying but all Americans were supposed to stop dying 6 months after the war started. Did you forget?