Alright, so I know there's a lot out there about the War in Iraq both positive and negative, but I'd like to pose the question if the Iraq population was better off under Sadam. Well, looking at social variables and equality, one would say no. You know, Sadam was considered a pretty oppressive leader. However, when looking at the actual death tolls, the Iraq population was actually better off pre-invasion than post invasion.
There are estimates that between March 18, 2003 and June 2006, an additional 654, 965 Iraqis have died above the what would have been expected on the basis of the pre-invasion crude mortality rate of 2.5. This is all a consequence of the coalition invasion. of these deaths there is an estimated 601, 027 due to violence. Over fifty percent of those violent deaths come from gun fire. Estimates of the post0invasion crude mortality rate represents a doubling of the baseline mortality rate which, by the Sphere standard, constitutes a humanitarian emergency. Of course, the biggest victims of this violent mortality were men in "combat age" from 15-59.
It just seems with all these increased deaths, we are actually making Iraq worse off than before. Now I know a lot has to do with insergencies and troops do have to protect themselves, but we're talking about over half a million people here. Also increased mortality due to invasion is not only in Iraq. In vietnam 3 million civilians died; in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, conflict has ben responsible for 3.8 million deaths; and estimates show that 200,000 people have died in Darfur over the past 31 months. Is there always a massive sarcrifice in life to improve society?
source : Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey, Burnham, lafta, roberts, doocy
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
