It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Iraqi deaths before the war

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:38 AM
Yeah, tonight on a public broadcast show, I was watching the passion of the German people right before they took Poland - then Europe.

My how the world has changed since the 40's. Forget about the fantasy of a good and just nation it's you yourself that can make a difference.

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:39 AM

Originally posted by Zero Point
I just saw on the 6pm news (NZ) that a report estimates that 100,000 Iraqi civillians have died in Coallition airstrikes, and that Iraqis are 58x more likely to die a violent death than before the war.

I guess the 2,000,000 that died from disease were alright? We know its much better to die from disease than a bullet.

I would love to see where those numbers come from.

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:42 AM

Originally posted by vincere7
Forget about the fantasy of a good and just nation it's you yourself that can make a difference.

Thats why I vote Libertarian they are the ONLY party thats policy is to let the rest of the world kill each other to their hearts content

We will just trade with the winner

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:45 AM
I think they are getting that figure from here, Amuk.

I'm not too sure on the accuracy of the study, though. A third of the cassualties in Fallujah alone? 33,000?

[edit on 10/29/2004 by Montana]

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Montana
Believe me, EVERYONE knows there is oil there. Everyone knows there was an Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. Everyone knows the 'Coalition' stopped Iraq from taking over Kuwait (we also know Saddam would not have stopped there).

What do you feel about current events?

Your everyone stops with my next door neighbor. Current events: me going for 4 hours sleep.

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:48 AM
'Nite Vincere, and go talk some sense into your neighbor......


posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Amuk
I guess the 2,000,000 that died from disease were alright? We know its much better to die from disease than a bullet.

I would love to see where those numbers come from.

I read the report - the numbers are estimates based on a cluster study. Not a great or definitive study by any means. Various human rights groups have listed from 10 - 16 thousand.

Who's right - probably neither.

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:41 PM
I don't think that 100.000 deaths is an accurate number, neither is the 2 million deaths before the war. But before you make these numbers the main point of your argument, you have to know that the source states 100.000 MORE deaths. That means, that the "usual" amount who die of cancer, and becouse the lack of medicine are not represented in this. (Yes, there is still shortage of supplies.)
So this means PLUS 100.000 deaths, mainly becouse of fighting and terrorist activity.
But again, I doubt that 100.000 is the accurate number. One of 240 people died in Iraq becouse the war? In context, this ratio would mean over a million deaths in the USA..

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 05:11 PM
Actually I just saw it broadcast on Headline News that several international studies have pointed to the figure of 100,000 deaths due to the war. Most are women and children and most were dur to coalition airstrikes. I'll post more information when I find it.

They also said that since the invasion 18 months ago, the Iraqi people were 2.5 times more likely to die unnaturally than before the invasion.

Also, it's estimated that 150,000 more casualties (injuries) have been the direct result of the invasion, again, mostly women and children.

Edit - Found Link:

[edit on 29-10-2004 by ledbedder20]

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 07:10 PM

Very good link, and I have not reason as denied to the realities of what is going on in Iraq when it comes to the death toll of civilians in that country.

Now before, in the beginning of the invasion death related casualties, were considerate collateral damage, now the death toll is too great to be use and excused as "casualties always happened in a war" not it does not have to be this way, and it seems that nobody but a few cares.

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 08:44 PM
Exactly! The war is inhumane and illegal to start off with. How many people have to die before the US is accused of committing genocide? How many lives have the administraton said are acceptable losses? 1,000. 10,000. If we as a species stand by and accept such an atrocious loss of life as a cost of spreading freedom (which we are led to believe is the newest reason for the invasion, not wmd's or terrorism links, b/c they don't exist) then we are in serious trouble.

100,000 souls, think about it.

Are they free?

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 07:00 AM
Well, if the number is true, thats shocking.
There is an organization I know, who gathered information from the media and they say that it is around 15.000.. Imagine, these are only the reported ones.

Earlier I would have said that around 20-25.000 were killed, which is a great number by itself. But this study really makes me think how accuratly the war is reported even in the European media..

100.000 deaths..unbelievable..

EDIT: Added link..

[edit on 30-10-2004 by Judge DredD]

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 07:20 AM
The really twisted thing is that we can't even get an accurate account of our own casualties, our media isn't allowed to even show pictures of coffins, we deny civilian incidents as though it were some kind of sickening standard proceedure to do so. Although this is nothing new in war, it never ceases to amaze me how far it's gone. That's one fine democracy we laid on those folks. Here we can't even run an election for scandals and we are trying to spread this to the rest of the world with bombs and soldiers? Yeah... We are a beacon alright...


posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 10:57 AM
Back on topic...

It's true that the embargo did result in deaths, no argument there.

The embargo was not implemented solely by the US and UK, as some have implied, but rather by the UN.

Of course, the UN makes the embargo, but who were virtually the only ones to actually enforce it? That's right, the US and the UK did the UN's dirty work because, as usual, if we didn't then it wouldn't have been done. Yet another proof that the UN cannot enforce it's will (and I do use that term loosely when referring to the UN).

So, while the US and UK were trying to enforce the UN's embargo, the UN itself was busily scamming the entire process for their own profit, as were many UN member nations who allegedly "supported" this embargo. This, again is undeniable fact. "oil for food" was actually "oil and big phat bribes for military tech, political pull, and a little bit of food".

How did this happen? Deals made by Saddam and corrupt UN officials, with support by other states. It would seem that when other UN member states choose to disregard their commitments to the UN, it's no big deal.

Literally days before the war began, Russian and French contractors(among others) were busily preparing Iraqi defenses with tech forbidden by the embargo. This was nothing new, such activity had been going on for some time. Everyone's conveniently forgotten all of this in rabid persecution of the coalition for their perceived "illegal invasion". (I've often wondered about this term--can anyone really claim to have knowledge of a "legal" invasion anywhere in history?)

Had the embargo been maintained as envisioned, there would not have been deaths as a result. This was not an embargo prohibiting wonder-bread and asprin, but prohibiting weapons of war and the technology to make such. Provisions were made for ample trade of both food and medicine precisely so that starvation and disease would not occurr. Rather than doing such, Saddam and others decided to pursue military ends instead, bringing famine to the Iraqi people. It wasn't that there wasn't food or medicine coming into the country, rather that what was was given mainly to the military and Saddam's elite.

This was not by mistake--Saddam knew what the result would be. While keeping his chosen factions alive and well, aid was denied to those who weren't (chosen). This served many purposes. A weakening of any opposition was achieved, while strength of the regime was maintained. Public opinion was further swayed to Saddam's side by his government's stance that it was the embargo's fault that people had no food.

Ultimately, my point is that it was not the embargo itself that caused so many deaths, but the unchecked corruption of the UN and member states, combined with Saddam's political savvy and total disregard for the well being of large segments of Iraq's population. By definition, Saddam's handling of the situation was a textbook success when viewed in terms of what he wanted to accomplish. Pol Pot would've been proud.

I don't disagree that the war was better for Iraqis than continued conditions as they were. Neither is good, but (much like the upcoming US election) it's a matter of the lesser of evils.

It seems that many people in this thread (and this board in general) want to villify the US (and, to slightly lesser extent, UK) as being the "root of all evil" in the world, without looking at the facts of any given situation. If the facts are viewed in actual conditions, you can clearly see that it wasn't the embargo itself that resulted in so many pointless deaths, but the corrupt administration of it.

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Judge DredD
Well, if the number is true, thats shocking.
There is an organization I know, who gathered information from the media and they say that it is around 15.000.. Imagine, these are only the reported ones.
[edit on 30-10-2004 by Judge DredD]

lol that site is a complete sham ran by the dept. of state.

posted on Oct, 30 2004 @ 12:38 PM
Q, I have read about the oil for food fiascos, but I don't think that the extent of Saddam's "starving his own people" and with the help of UN countries, could have slipped under the radar for so long.

Do you have anything to back up your claims? I'm not disputing what you're saying, I would just like to read more about it. If what you're saying is true, I would think that the Bush administration and the Blair parliament would be publicizing these facts all over the media, it would only help their declining images and credibility.


posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 05:57 PM

Don't ask, just google-it's easy!

Snide comments aside, here's a site with a lot of info on it, that should give you the gist. Not saying this site's reputable, or anything...but it came up when I googled "oil for food", and it seems to have it mostly right at a glance.

oil for food

Your question of why this hasn't been reported as widely as it should is quite valid. I place the finger of blame squarely on the media.

Why is it big news when Americans get caught pointing fingers at Iraqi prisoners' weiners, yet Iraqi "resistance" beheadings of engineers, translators, and truck drivers (the real threat, obviously...) are scarcely given a blurb, even though this is happening on a daily basis?

Why is it big news when American forces can't find any WMD's, yet it wasn't news when trucks were leaving the back of suspected WMD compounds as UN "inspectors" came in the front?

Why is it news when an American bomb kills "innocent" civillians (who just happened to be in a terrorist safehouse), yet when a jihadi car bomb kills a couple' van loads of Iraqi school children (and no "enemy" troops) it's scarcely mentioned?

For all the cries of the media being "blind" to the real truth, there is a truth to be found that is all but ignored. It doesn't seem so much that the media is blind, rather they have selective blind spots...

posted on Nov, 2 2004 @ 06:14 PM
especially when backed up by dubious pretxts should be knit-picked to hell. The numbers of civilian dead is important, as it can only weigh in the argument of whether the whole exercise, even without the WMDs found (which IS a big deal..) was in the end worth all the costs. Wherever you are on the argument, quantifying ALL the costs serves to answer the said question... and perhaps knowing the number of dead is useful just to be able to ask supporters of the war whether they really feel that groovy about the 'broader reasons' for war in Iraq, some 100,000 dead people later...

the deaths in the emargo are not a figure to judge against.. but a figure to add to

Q (not the previously posting one)

[edit on 2-11-2004 by Qoelet]

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in