Sauron

That's why phrases like "at least" or "a minimum of" were invented. To measure what can be currently verified, and leave room for further growth in the numbers.

Reporting does it all the time - just look at the death toll numbers for the 9/11 Twin Towers - how many times were they revised? Same thing for the Rhode Island nightclub fire - how many times were they revised.

It ain't hard, Loren. Unless one has an agenda to simply skip over reporting the deaths of Arabs in the first place....???

ataraxy

I've developed this handy conversion tool you can use to convert the relative worth of deaths in this war:

1 American = 10 British = 100 Iraqi civilains.


If you count airtime in the US given to stories, this works out pretty accurately.

AzJeff

. . . from around the world:

War

Now - no more complaining about media bias!

RED DAVE

Great post, AzJeff.

RED DAVE

Loren Pechtel

You miss the point. What source would they have for anything even remotely reliable? Certainly not Saddam or Iraqi TV. But there's no other source--they can't go around to the hospitals and see how many victims there are.

Nataraja

That was earlier on. My view has been in a transitional state, and I'm still in the process of rejecting rhetoric from both "sides" in favor of what can reasonably pass as fact. I am quite unamused by the antics of the "pro-war" voice around here, which seems to be as bad as their mortal enemies in declaring any vaguely dissenting voice a "Don Quixote." Please excuse me if I do not laugh in your faces. Here are some words for fools of the pro-war and anti-war stripe, respectively.

Admit it, the WMD scare was a farce, and even if Saddam does have and use weapons that are not within UN limits, the same can be said of this country and many others. Have you ever heard of DU or nuke-carrying submarines? Also, the S&A tactics are quite definitely reminiscent of terrorism, and they have already cost Iraq hundreds of civilian casualties. Considering how quickly Saddam's troops are surrendering, they were also quite unnecessary, as well. Bush admin's excuses for this operation are inconsistent, and the propaganda tactics are cut and dried as all hell; if they don't have ulterior motives, I'm the Messiah. Politicians are only human, and can't be expected to be perfect. I am also worried that Iraq might be in turmoil for long enough to be quite a severe burden on the US.

At the same time, the current official government of Iraq has displayed a great deal of violence toward the Iraqi people, and I think that it is ridiculous to argue that they shouldn't be deposed. While the Iraqi people don't particularly trust the US, they will certainly, for the most part, be quite happy to be rid of that crazed tyrant. Also, everyone knows that Saddam has historically been a very belligerent and petty person. I recall that one of his biggest reasons for attacking Kuwait, besides alleged slant drilling, might have been pique resulting from a shouting match, something about war brides and harems. Also, whether or not Bush admin has ulterior motives is far less relevant than what they actually are. If they are doing this partly to convert Iraq to US currency, all the better for the US.

admice

Loren-there are many other sources of info on Iraqi casualties. There are over 50 independent journalists in Baghdad alone, several have gone to Kuwait to report (no sensorship). Some scattered throughout Iraq, tho I haven't seen any estimates from them either. They are just reporting rough numbers of what they have seen. Would have to put them together from each area just to get a poor estimate.
Check out the international news links. You'ld at least be getting a better picture than from the US.

Loren Pechtel

So what if there are journalists. How are they going to get numbers? They certainly can't go around to all the hospitals asking!

Numbers pieced together like that are going to be so inaccurrate as to not be worth much.

Easy Be

Loren Exactly, even if they could get numbers how would they know whether they came from the US? A wall of anti-aircraft artillary must surely come down somewhere?

As for American casualties I think the news agencies have done a good job. I remember when two LAVs were hit by RPGs and the embedded reporter claimed 4 people had died. Later evidence revealed that the reporter had overestimated the number. I've also heard numerous numbers on Iraqi troop fatalities. News agencies have all claimed that the pentagon told them to believe what the embedded reporters say.

here
RED DAVE
One reason may be because you can't keep 250k+ troops in the ME forever? What happens if the inspectors rid all the WMDs then a month later he's back to building them?