NationStates Jolt Archive

100 000 CIVILIAN CASUALTIES: IRAQ
29.10.2004. 15:28:46



Around 100 000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US-led invasion of Iraq, a study by respected British medical weekly, The Lancet, estimated.
The findings revealed that half of the casualties were women and children killed predominantly in airstrikes.
The study was jointly conducted by Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and University of Baghdad.
It is the first attempt to calculate the civilian casualties of the Iraqi war.
Commenting on the study, Australian Minister for Defence, Robert Hill, defended the conduct of Australian and American forces in Iraq.
Every effort has been taken to minimise casualties, he said.
A US Defence spokesperson threw doubt on the report claiming there is no accurate way to validate the estimates of civilian casualties.
The research relied on interviews from 988 Iraqi households in 33 randomly chosen neighbourhoods of Iraq.
The report shows that violence is now the leading cause of death in Iraq.
Before the invasion, heart attacks, strokes and chronic illness were the most common cause of death.
The findings also show that infant morality has increased from 29 to 57 deaths per 1000 live births.
The report says this figure is consistent with war time patterns caused by difficulties getting to hospitals and people?s reluctance to leave the house.
The authors acknowledge the limited precision of the report.
The size of the sample and the sampling strategy ?might not have captured the overall mortality experience in Iraq,? they said.
Source:
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=97712&region=6


Theres some "freedom" and "liberating" for you American homies. Hope your happy now. I think even Saddam couldn't manage to do it so well.

And then theyre asking, why people fighting the americans in Iraq....
Remembers me of something ive seen in Fahrenheit 9/11

"*snort* why my husband, hes done NOTHING."
"So you are saying civilians are killed?"

No you stupid idiot of a journalist... >_< [<- irony]

Hope your happy now. I think even Saddam couldn't manage to do it so well.

How bout you don't act like a retarded liberal, look up the actual numbers pertaining to Saddam, and generally write a post that isn't wrong.

Oh, and how many of those civilians were Iraqis fighting alongside Coalition Forces, or those killed by Saddams forces in fighting. The other side doesn't have any reservations against shooting a rocket through a school so some bricks land on a jeep, or chucking a grenade in a nursery to get the troops passing through? Maybe those troops passing through were giving medicine to some people, huh? The image of Veitnam-esque tactics in Iraq is detached from reality and flawed. It's a different war.

words

http://www.chicagoboyz.net/archives/002543.html

Go away.

As much as I wouldn't care either way... the 100,000 number is bogus.. but hey, the British press trying to make monsters out of our troops is a little better than telling people to assassinate the President, so I guess we're making progress. :p

What!!! that number's bogus... damn I thought we finally surpassed the number of Americans and their allies who were killed and injured in all the terrorists bombings for the past 30 years!!! :headbang:

does anyone know how many of those ¨100,000¨ were insergins(probly spelled wrong)

The other side doesn't have any reservations against shooting a rocket through a school so some bricks land on a jeep, or chucking a grenade in a nursery to get the troops passing through?
Are you trying to justify American Army atrocities? The reason we make a stor about it is because we expect higher standards from the US Military.

No, not exscuses, but you look at the actions of the insurgents... and look at the actions of the US army. We are showing a hell of alot of restraint. they (insurgents) are hiding in Mosques, blowing up school children, and killing dozen of Iraqi citizens to get to a handful of Americans, yet the media only focuses the casualties that the Americans cause and gloss over everything else.

There is a difference to being held to a higher standard and looking for mistakes to report on.

In all fairness, the 100K result is an outlier of most predictions. Most predictions land somewhere between 10K and 20K, with around 16K as an average.

Sixteen thousand is still an awful lot. When there's more civilian casualties than allied force's casualties, the willingness to avoid civilian casualties is quite questionable.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/coffin_photos/dover/casket08.jpg

For every American that comes home from Iraq or Afghanistan in a body bag, 5 come home wounded. When most people think of 'wounded' they think that they caught a big of shrapnel in the arm or something. The truth is, more and more soldiers are going him void of a limb or 2 or with various senses destroyed (like eyes). This is obviously helped by medical advances, but you don't hear much of it.

How many Iraqis do you think this has happened to as well?

Most kids and women who are indiscriminately killed in air strikes/bombings, do not lose a sense or a limb. They die.

Yes, i agree that that research is propably not completely accurate. And yes i agree that it's hard to avoiud civilian casualties when your enemy is hiding in a school etc.

But still. Does this justify this war? If your "liberation" kills and wounds more people than Saddam's tyranny did?

Well... at least now Bush's friend's have the Iraqi oil.

Just think about it. I think we can be pretty sure that ten's of thousand's Irqai civilian's have been killed, and i won't even bother my mind in thinking how many have been wounded.

And you still wonder why some terrorist wackoes want to blow up themselves in front of your soldier's etc.

But they were blowing themselve up to kill Americans decades before Enduring Freedom. The disco in Germany, our various Embassies... Truth be told, if they wern't busy blowing US soldiers up, and continuing their "Holy War" against the heretics, we would've been outta there a looong time ago.

All of these casualties after the war was declared over, are products of fanatics who don't care who gets caught in the explosion as long as one American dies.

For 30 years, terrorists have been Bombing Americans and our allies. For 30 years we stood by and took it. We tried to work with the UN to stem these acts but for 30 years Americans, British, Germans, French... they all died at the bombs of fanatics. I think we after taking it for 30 years, people should be amazed that after 9/11, we didn't pull out the big bombs and made these terrorist truly homeless.

You know, the US and UK have been asked pretty much every week by the media, what are the numbers for Iraqi military and civilian casualties?

And they always say the same thing, they don't do bodycounts, because the numbers do not interest them. Maybe this has something to do with the locals' skin colour.

The simple fact is, if they don't do bodycounts, someone else will. And if they don't like the numbers, they can STFU until they come up with some peer-reviewed ones of their own, fit for publication in a leading medical journal.

So as far as I am concerned, 100,000 is perfectly accurate, until the Americans and British get off their arses and spend a few months making a count of their own.

But they were blowing themselve up to kill Americans decades before Enduring Freedom. The disco in Germany, our various Embassies... Truth be told, if they wern't busy blowing US soldiers up, and continuing their "Holy War" against the heretics, we would've been outta there a looong time ago.

All of these casualties after the war was declared over, are products of fanatics who don't care who gets caught in the explosion as long as one American dies.

For 30 years, terrorists have been Bombing Americans and our allies. For 30 years we stood by and took it. We tried to work with the UN to stem these acts but for 30 years Americans, British, Germans, French... they all died at the bombs of fanatics. I think we after taking it for 30 years, people should be amazed that after 9/11, we didn't pull out the big bombs and made these terrorist truly homeless.
You are right. In revenge for all the hundreds of thousands of Germans killed by the Americans and British during WW2 terrorist firebombings of our cities, we should nuke the U.S. For that, we'll come up with a new bomb though. Not the old style you think. We'll invent one that will not be called a WMD because it is so new, nobody has ever heard of it. *smirks*

And then we'll nuke the middle east for all the terrorist casualties in Germany. And so, we become like the Americans although we have this part of history behind us, it is dangerous to cry for total and utter destruction of a people. It's the same thing Hitler did and you probably know how that ended. The U.S. is not invulnerable (as was proven with 9/11) and violence to fight terrorism causes more terrorism.

Hey Tactical Grace... It's me Ichi Ni... back as a new nation... long time no see.

While I kinda agree about the US and the British are wrong in not attempting to get a body count, can you imagine the manpower it would take... having someone go in to try to get a count would be next to impossible. However, to take as truth anything someone else would say, especally when it's proven false, is irrisponsible.

does anyone know how many of those ¨100,000¨ were insergins(probly spelled wrong)

Insurgents. And I'm certain that very few of these poor, innocent statistical anomolies were insurgents, but were instead only a small sample of those voiceless, nameless millions of people who never were. I expect quite many of them to vote for Kerry in November, especially in Florida and Ohio.

Besides. Phantoms make for exceptionally bad soldiers, despite what you make have heard in fantasy literature.

While I kinda agree about the US and the British are wrong in not attempting to get a body count, can you imagine the manpower it would take... having someone go in to try to get a count would be next to impossible.

Actually the CIA has, as they have published an estimated Iraqi mortality rate in their factbook. It's at 5.56/1000 right now - interestingly, the US death rate is closer to 8.3/1000 or somesuch.

What apparently is the case, according to this study, is that aerial bombing and counter-insurgency warfare, although quite violent and dangerous, actually serves to reduce the risk of heart attacks, cancer and strokes by 50-66%. Perhaps that's why Lancet found the study so intriguing... :D

You are right. In revenge for all the hundreds of thousands of Germans killed by the Americans and British during WW2 terrorist firebombings of our cities, we should nuke the U.S. For that, we'll come up with a new bomb though. Not the old style you think. We'll invent one that will not be called a WMD because it is so new, nobody has ever heard of it. *smirks*

And then we'll nuke the middle east for all the terrorist casualties in Germany. And so, we become like the Americans although we have this part of history behind us, it is dangerous to cry for total and utter destruction of a people. It's the same thing Hitler did and you probably know how that ended. The U.S. is not invulnerable (as was proven with 9/11) and violence to fight terrorism causes more terrorism.


Is this (http://www.multied.com/ww2/events/images/daylightbombingofgermany.gif) what (http://collections.ic.gc.ca/courage/jpegs/halifaxbombers.jpg) you (http://history.acusd.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics4/55995.jpg) were (http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1943/jul1943/1943july/1943july24.jpg) talking (http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/hila/exhibits_prev/Stansky/084.jpg) about? (http://www.multied.com/ww2/events/images/firebombingofdresden.gif)

Your crazy Nazi leaders at the time brought this on your population. Ask the millions gassed if it was wrong to bomb civilians. Besides your people were the first to target civilians. You reap what you sow little buddy.

WWII ended over 30 years ago and the crimes there were mostly caused by the Germans... however I'm not aurguing that. I'm referring to the German Disco club that US Servicemen favored. in the eary 90's. The one that was bombed because US Servicemen fequented the place. Two, we helped build up Germany (the side Nato had control over) and help reunify them. We tend to help our fallen enemies if they give us a chance.

Violence produces more Violence... so what... take Spains route and tell everyone, hey you want the US to do something, blow up a couple thousand people and we'll concede? Bullies rely on the passive and meek. The smart ones will stop if confronted peacefully, but the majority of bullies will stop if they are made to stop. We gave the UN a chance... they chose to try and sweep things under the rug. Saddam was ignoring the UN Sactions and the UN was letting him.

What violence did we do to warrant 9/11, Yemen, our embassies in Africa, and Iran. the highjacking of US Planes... these were all terrorist attacks funded by the Middle East. We should forget all past terrorist acts because they were done in the past? again, what was done to warrent 9/11? What did Saddam's people do to warrent the tortures, the genocides, being made test subjects for Chemical/Biological weapons.

Saddam was a threat because he showed that he is willing to use WMD's and military might on anyone... even his own people.

Bullies rely on the passive and meek.
Exactly. As long as the rest of the world stays passive and "meek", the U.S. will be able to bully the world.

What did Saddam's people do to warrent the tortures, the genocides, being made test subjects for Chemical/Biological weapons.

Saddam was a threat because he showed that he is willing to use WMD's and military might on anyone... even his own people.
And what did they do to warrant the U.S. selling Hussein these weapons in the first place and greenlighting their use? What did they do to warrant the U.S. considering Hussein their ally as long as it was opportune for the Americans?

The people of Iraq did not do anything to warrant Hussein, but they did not do anything either to warrant the illegal war and indiscriminate bombings of their homes.

dat's right... after all, we feed over 1/3 of the world, our economy is tied to many nations, remember the stock market dip in the mid 80's, many countries got scared when that happend. Our military bases provide jobs and security for many countries. We are nice Bullies. However, we do listen to grevences. The Philipines wanted us out... well we made plans and we vacated their nation peacfully. We gave them what they wanted when they used the nice peaceful method. We bombed Germany and Japan and now we count them as friends and allies. Heck, during the end of the Cold War, when Russia was on the verge of collapse, we were sending offers of aid to them. We don't want the world meek and passive... just peaceful.

The authors acknowledge the limited precision of the report.
That say all I need to say about it. They're trying create casualty numbers by conducting a poll.

And what did they do to warrant the U.S. selling Hussein these weapons in the first place and greenlighting their use?
The US Government didn't sell Hussein those weapons, but go ahead and believe your propoganda if you want.

WWII ended over 30 years ago and the crimes there were mostly caused by the Germans... however I'm not aurguing that. I'm referring to the German Disco club that US Servicemen favored. in the eary 90's. The one that was bombed because US Servicemen fequented the place. Two, we helped build up Germany (the side Nato had control over) and help reunify them. We tend to help our fallen enemies if they give us a chance.

Violence produces more Violence... so what... take Spains route and tell everyone, hey you want the US to do something, blow up a couple thousand people and we'll concede? Bullies rely on the passive and meek. The smart ones will stop if confronted peacefully, but the majority of bullies will stop if they are made to stop. We gave the UN a chance... they chose to try and sweep things under the rug. Saddam was ignoring the UN Sactions and the UN was letting him.

What violence did we do to warrant 9/11, Yemen, our embassies in Africa, and Iran. the highjacking of US Planes... these were all terrorist attacks funded by the Middle East. We should forget all past terrorist acts because they were done in the past? again, what was done to warrent 9/11? What did Saddam's people do to warrent the tortures, the genocides, being made test subjects for Chemical/Biological weapons.

Saddam was a threat because he showed that he is willing to use WMD's and military might on anyone... even his own people.


UH? Dude, the thing is, UN SANCTIONS WORKED (Hell, they even contributed to kill lots of Civilians ). Those sanctions were put in order to stop Saddam to develop WMD, and guess what: HE DIDNT DEVELOPED them. You bombed and invaded a sovereign country, that posed no threat to your own, killing thousands of their citizens for nothing. Funny thing you say that "violence brings more violence", you should know. And don't even talk about Spain, they took 30 years of a US supported Dictator, and after the Spanish people got rid of him, they took (and are still taking) years of ETA terrorist bombings. And they still whatever they like, they never flinched to fear. They got out of Iraq because Aznar's goverment lied to them about the Madrid bombings, and don't like liars. Perhaps Americans should do the same.

You ask what you did to warrant 9/11? Ask your friends, the Israeli's, that you unconditionaly support. They have killed thousands of Arab Civilians (In 1982?, Ariel Sharon ordered the Lebanese Christian Militias in the Sabrila and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps, causing more than 3000 deaths.. Ariel Sharon is as bad, or worse than Osama, and he got your support). The US also as a tendency to support tyranical regimes that opress the Arab people. You suported Saddam. You now support Saudi Arabia (Which is as fanatic as old Afghanistan), and from which the main finantial flows to support terrorist organizations come. But hell, they give you oil.

And if Saddam was a threat, what name should Bush warrant?

We gave weapons to Hussein? I thought it was Bin Lauden we gave the weapons to to fight the Russian invaders... Hussein was getting his toys from Russia. Hmmm, I know we were giving him food and he was using that to pay for his toys from the former Soviet Union... so yea I guess in a roundabout way, we gave Hussein his weapons.

We gave weapons to Hussein? I thought it was Bin Lauden we gave the weapons to to fight the Russian invaders... Hussein was getting his toys from Russia. Hmmm, I know we were giving him food and he was using that to pay for his toys from the former Soviet Union... so yea I guess in a roundabout way, we gave Hussein his weapons.

You gave him nerve gass that he used to bomb the Iranians and the Curds.
And several interesting diseases and stuff http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.30A.byrd.wmd.htm

Hell,what you think Rumsfeld shaked hands with Saddam? :P

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/Backg/Rumsfeld-Saddam.jpg

The US Government didn't sell Hussein those weapons, but go ahead and believe your propoganda if you want.

No, please, call me 'Donald' (http://unquietmind.com/tburger/tb120-129/rumsfeld_hussein.jpg)

oh so the WMD programs he funded that didn't produce anything because the scientists were using the funds for their own pet projects made it ok? So you would rather have waited till he found out what his scientists were doing and had them killed and replaced by people who would have given him his WMD's to be used the second the sanctions were lifted. You believe that his people would FORGET to RECORD and DESTROY MISSLES that were in violation of said sanctions.

hmmm and 9/11 was because of what the ISRALIS were doing to the Palestinians and other Arabs. So Al Queda retaliates on Isrial by hitting the US... so we lost thousands of people (not just US Citizens as well) because of what ISRIAL was doing. So by your logic, our beef with Saddam is Justified because of what Bin Lauden did to us.

I'll lay of Spain now because I admit, they have problems of their own. But know that Terror organizations were heartened by what they did... no matter the reason.

BTW, before 9/11, America has been talking to Sharon about his activites... and were trying to get him to back off... but Bin Lauden changed that by attacking us, forcing us to become tighter allies with Sharon.

That say all I need to say about it. They're trying create casualty numbers by conducting a poll.


The US Government didn't sell Hussein those weapons, but go ahead and believe your propoganda if you want.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Reprts_of_weapons_042503.htm


The most plausible account so far is the one given by Robin Cook, the former Foreign Secretary, in his resignation speech. This is that Iraq certainly made highly unpleasant weapons but not in large enough quantities or at a level of readiness to warrant the term “mass destruction”.

“Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term — namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target,” he said.

“It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munititions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.”

There is no question that Saddam’s regime produced, and used, terrible weapons. The odds are that forces will uncover evidence of them. But this is a long way from the claims made in the run-up to war, or the accounts now offered about why the weapons remain so hard to find.

Bush + Blair, the clown posse.

No, please, call me 'Donald' (http://unquietmind.com/tburger/tb120-129/rumsfeld_hussein.jpg)
Who cares if the shook hands? If Truman shook hands with Stalin at Potsdam, does that mean he supported communism? :rolleyes:

You gave him nerve gass that he used to bomb the Iranians and the Curds.
And several interesting diseases and stuff http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.30A.byrd.wmd.htm
Your article says nothing about the nerve gas, but the disease samples we sent to him were too small and to weak to be used as weapons, they're the same samples we routinely give to any friendly government around the world to use as vaccines.

Bush + Blair, the clown posse.
Surely you could come up with a more objective website, or at least one that gives specific examples? Simply saying that US and British companies (note : not the government) gave Saddam "agents" without getting into detail proves nothing, because there's no showing what condition the "agents" were in. Not to mention that the statement is hardly more descriptive than "We gave him WMD", as it fails to cite any specific examples or name companies and dates that such things occured.

oh so the WMD programs he funded that didn't produce anything because the scientists were using the funds for their own pet projects made it ok? So you would rather have waited till he found out what his scientists were doing and had them killed and replaced by people who would have given him his WMD's to be used the second the sanctions were lifted. You believe that his people would FORGET to RECORD and DESTROY MISSLES that were in violation of said sanctions.

hmmm and 9/11 was because of what the ISRALIS were doing to the Palestinians and other Arabs. So Al Queda retaliates on Isrial by hitting the US... so we lost thousands of people (not just US Citizens as well) because of what ISRIAL was doing. So by your logic, our beef with Saddam is Justified because of what Bin Lauden did to us.

I'll lay of Spain now because I admit, they have problems of their own. But know that Terror organizations were heartened by what they did... no matter the reason.

BTW, before 9/11, America has been talking to Sharon about his activites... and were trying to get him to back off... but Bin Lauden changed that by attacking us, forcing us to become tighter allies with Sharon.



It was to stop him to get those weapons, that UN inspectors were sent to Iraq. And guess what! THEY DID THEIR JOB. At the start of the war, Iraq did not possessed no WMD, and all means to deliver those weapons, should they exist, were being dismantled. And don't go saying "he could have them", because you could one day kill me, as far as i know! Does this mean that you should be arrested NOW? The reasoning is the same.


Oh, and read Gigatrons article for juicy info on Iraq's weapons.

Surely you could come up with a more objective website, or at least one that gives specific examples? Simply saying that US and British companies (note : not the government) gave Saddam "agents" without getting into detail proves nothing, because there's no showing what condition the "agents" were in. Not to mention that the statement is hardly more descriptive than "We gave him WMD", as it fails to cite any specific examples or name companies and dates that such things occured.


http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm

It was to stop him to get those weapons, that UN inspectors were sent to Iraq. And guess what! THEY DID THEIR JOB. At the start of the war, Iraq did not possessed no WMD, and all means to deliver those weapons, should they exist, were being dismantled. And don't go saying "he could have them", because you could one day kill me, as far as i know! Does this mean that you should be arrested NOW? The reasoning is the same.


Oh, and read Gigatrons article for juicy info on Iraq's weapons.

Why didn't the UN people destroy some of the explosive stockpiles in 1995 when they were told too if they were truely doing their job?

100,000 iraqis dead is better than 1,000 Americans dead.

>And they always say the same thing, they don't do bodycounts, because
>the numbers do not interest them. Maybe this has something to do with the
>locals' skin colour.

Radicals said the exact same thing when the US _DID_ do bodycounts during the Vietnam War.

That it the neat thing about radicals: the world may change, but the radical accusations never do.

As to the study itself:

First, the study measures the overall death rate, not the "civilian killed by US"-deathrate. Insurgents killed by the Coalition, Police and National Guards killed by the insurgents and people killed by car bombings and the like should thus be included in the 100.000 total. Which is the mean, btw. The study says that the number of excess deaths lies anywhere between 8.000 and 194.000. The number of Iraqi soldiers killed in the invasion itself (30.000 as cited by general Tommy Franks) puts the excess death toll a good deal into that.

That said, the base sample used by the study is so small as to be pretty worthless, and this is only combounded by several choices made in the process of interviewing the Iraqis. Off the top of my head:

- Clusters of 30 households in 33 neighbourhoods were interviewed. Some refused to be interviewed, so the total number of households researched was 988

- The original idea was to spread the 33 neighbourhoods throughout Iraq, to get a representative return. To minimize driving distances, 7 of Iraqs 18 provinces were excluded, and their neighbourhoods distributed in other provinces instead.

- This redistribution was done by pairing left-out provinces with provinces deemed to be on the same level security-wise. There are certain problems, though. Peaceful Dohuk province, fex (all-Kurdish, with no violence) had its neighbourhoods allocated to restive Ninavah province (with hotly contested Mosul). Likewise, peaceful Basra province was represented by notoriously lawless (not so much insurgents, but smugglers and other criminals) Missan province.

- In addition, the only neighbourhood in al Anbar province (in Fallujah) was excluded in the end because of either a) outright lying by the respondents, or 2) extreme polling results. That one cluster (3% of the households polled) "reported" a full 37% of all post-invasion deaths, and 71% of all post-invasion violent deaths. That at the same time as they reported pretty much no fatalities in the 14 months prior to the invasion (no number is provided, but a graph suggest between 1 and 3 in the 14 pre-war months, and approaching 200 fatalities in the post-war months).

The 3% of all households surveyed that were in Fallujah were enough to throw the estimated total excess deaths from the reported 100.000 to 200.000, ie doubling it. The people doing the study knew that coming up with such a rediculous count (more than 300% larger than anything reported by even radical anti-war sources) would be bad, so they left it out. Problem is, that then belies the whole methodology used.

Anyway, leaving out Fallujah means 8 of 18 provinces are just not surveyed.

Then on to the credibility of the other 32 neighbourhoods:

Of the 988 homes surveyed, it was only even attempted to get documentation for the deaths reported in 78 (7,9%), and documentation was only provided in 63 cases (6,4%).

Add in that of some reason the reported deathrate for women in pre-invasion Iraq was 125% higher than that of men.

Even if we discount the possibility that outright lying to the interviewers is the cause of all this, then that leaves us with a study that has a sample so small as to be wide open to faulty reporting or local extremes.

Henrik

PS. Its not the first study done, btw. Iraq Bodycount has a website based on news reporting, and the Iraqi Ministry of Health has a report out (though that one was wildly misreported in the press).

>Who cares if the shook hands?

Exactly. Chirac did that, too. He (Chirac) referred to himself as Saddams "friend", a thing I think Rumsfeld never did. There are pictures showing Chirac touring French nucelar reactors with Saddam with sale in mind.

Go here: http://www.lexnotes.com/misc/jacques_iraq.htm

http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm
And that website still lacks what we gave them, and what Saddam, assuming he's was 100% honest, classifies as a A, B, C, R, or K. Even, then, only two US companies gave Saddam these things, but with things ilke the American Type Culture Corporation listed, its doubtful that many of the companies listed actually contributed significantly to the weapons program rather than Saddam listing everyone he could.

It just terrifies me that that many American's don't know who gave saddam his WMD, and supported him around that time. I wonder how is this possible?

It just terrifies me that that many American's don't know who gave saddam his WMD, and supported him around that time. I wonder how is this possible?
Maybe you can help us? Just a list of the companies (or really, what the government) gave him and when. So far, the only things I've seen are lists with no indication as to what the companies gave, or claims that we did give him weapons but without indication as to who specifically did, when, and in what amount.

(I was going to quote Endoscopias response, but I felt actually printing it again would be to give it more than it's due.)

Firstly, I think a lot of casualties will be caused due to insurgent/American conflict. I also think that American ROE leave a whole lot to be desired compared to British ROE. (I believe, though I can't confirm it, so I may be 100% wrong) that the American soldiers filling in for black watch whilst they're up supporting the Americans in Fallujah have already came under attack, supposedly in the most peaceful part of Iraq. Now, from what I understand of American ROE, if attacked by say, a sniper, they are ordered to open fire on his "possible" location, with high calibre weaponry! Any good sniper will be long gone by that time. Compare this to the British ROE which dictates that not only is the soldier accountable to British law, but must NOT open fire unless they are sure that they will hit the hostile. This involves manoeuvring for position until they can see their foe, and taking him out with precision fire. You'll find that a subtle approach such as that, where civilians are not "collatoral damage" is exactly what the Americans need to adopt.

And for proof that British ROE will be more sophisticated than American ROE, just look at Ireland. Admittedly, it was a hostile place for a long time, but imagine how much worse it'd be if we opened fire with everything we had, calling down artillery and airstrikes, just to get a small group! Everyone would rise against us, and there would have been hundreds of thousands more dead.

a study by respected British medical weekly, The Lancet, estimated.

The research relied on interviews from 988 Iraqi households in 33 randomly chosen neighbourhoods of Iraq.

The report says this figure is consistent with war time patterns caused by difficulties getting to hospitals and people?s reluctance to leave the house.
The authors acknowledge the limited precision of the report.

The size of the sample and the sampling strategy ?might not have captured the overall mortality experience in Iraq,? they said.
Source:
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=97712&region=6


Theres some "freedom" and "liberating" for you American homies. Hope your happy now. I think even Saddam couldn't manage to do it so well.


So you have an estimation done with a statistically small population in an even samller area of a war zone, which appears to include a signoficant portion of non-combat casualties counted as combat casualties (people not wanting to leave home due to terrorist violence) blaimed on US bombings? And one which the authgors admit is innaccurate.

Wrong, as usual. Do the math:

Iraqi government surveys of hospitals indicates under 20,000 civilian deaths from war related causes. The 100,000 figure is the result of several rounds of estimates. [b]But it comes out to over 180 civilian dead per day since the invasion. Any reporter imbedded with American troops knows the extreme care taken to prevent civilian casualties. Nearly 200 civilian dead per day for over 500 days would have led to an avalanche of "atrocity" headlines. As the old saying goes, in wartime, the first casualty is the truth. (http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM) :rolleyes:

100,000 iraqis dead is better than 1,000 Americans dead.

Arsehole :upyours:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm

According to this, the only place where Iraq received assistance for its biological weapons program was the US, and that the US companies contributed more to aid the military capability of Iraq than any other nation second only to the UK - and that government agencies of both countries were direct suppliers of materiel of various kinds.

I get it... that's why Bush and Blair were so insistent that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons: because they knew very well what companies based in their countries had supplied the Iraqi regime!

Why didn't the UN people destroy some of the explosive stockpiles in 1995 when they were told too if they were truely doing their job?

Because it solves a little logistical problem with invading a country :D

hint hint - guess who really stole the tons of high explosives.

100,000 iraqis dead is better than 1,000 Americans dead.

So we dont really value life, just our lives. Facinating - so would you concider it an option to nuke a country if that country was a threat and it would cost thousands of lives to secure and around a trillion dolars to wage a successful campaign? I personally view the current leadership of the US as an Average american. Not brilliant in any way, not outstanding in the execution of any policies that would really benifit the majority of the American people. And I've found this argument common among most americans I've spoken to, even if theyre not as concise in their expression of this idea.

I value life. And I care about the Arabian people and thier future. I dont think theyre uncivilized barbarians, but largely victims of circumstance - and enough of thier blood has been spilled to insult the sensebilities of any decent human being when you conceder that they just like you and me. People - but they have been thrown into extraordinary circumstances unlike you and I.

Do not belittle the life and value of people you know nothing about.

The 100,000 still pales in comparission to the 1,5000,0000 killed by sanctions. At least America is going to lose this war.

The 100,000 still pales in comparission to the 1,5000,0000 killed by sanctions. At least America is going to lose this war.

If "America" loses, then we all lose - I can't believe people are too stubborn to see that.

If "America" loses, then we all lose - I can't believe people are too stubborn to see that.
If the US had won this war in a matter of weeks like everybody thought, we would have probably invaded syria, Iran and Lebanon by now. A major defeat will make launching any new wars politically difficult for the US government while easy victories only encourage its bloodlust.

100 000 CIVILIAN CASUALTIES: IRAQ
29.10.2004. 15:28:46



Around 100 000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the US-led invasion of Iraq, a study by respected British medical weekly, The Lancet, estimated.
The findings revealed that half of the casualties were women and children killed predominantly in airstrikes.
The study was jointly conducted by Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and University of Baghdad.
It is the first attempt to calculate the civilian casualties of the Iraqi war.
Commenting on the study, Australian Minister for Defence, Robert Hill, defended the conduct of Australian and American forces in Iraq.
Every effort has been taken to minimise casualties, he said.
A US Defence spokesperson threw doubt on the report claiming there is no accurate way to validate the estimates of civilian casualties.
The research relied on interviews from 988 Iraqi households in 33 randomly chosen neighbourhoods of Iraq.
The report shows that violence is now the leading cause of death in Iraq.
Before the invasion, heart attacks, strokes and chronic illness were the most common cause of death.
The findings also show that infant morality has increased from 29 to 57 deaths per 1000 live births.
The report says this figure is consistent with war time patterns caused by difficulties getting to hospitals and people?s reluctance to leave the house.
The authors acknowledge the limited precision of the report.
The size of the sample and the sampling strategy ?might not have captured the overall mortality experience in Iraq,? they said.
Source:
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=97712&region=6


Theres some "freedom" and "liberating" for you American homies. Hope your happy now. I think even Saddam couldn't manage to do it so well.
Wow, is this absurd.