It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Between 21,000 and 55,000 civilians dead in Iraq so far

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Better hope your country doesn't need a regime change. It's appears to be paid for in civilian blood.

If the reasons for war are shown to have been fabricated, the Bush Administration should be guilty of murdering all these people (not to mention all the US soldiers who have died).


www.medact.org...

"The war on Iraq and its aftermath exacted a heavy toll on combatants and civilians, who paid and continue to pay the price in death, injury and mental and physical ill health. Between 21,700 and 55,000 people died between March 20 and October 20, 2003 (the date on which this report went to press), while the health and environmental consequences of the conflict will be felt for many years to come.

This toll is calculated in a comprehensive, independent survey written and researched by health professionals for the Iraqi Health Monitoring Project, managed by Medact and part-funded by Oxfam and the Polden-Puckham Charitable Foundation. Its conclusions are based on the best available information on a range of health indicators from sources in the public domain, and observations from expert individuals and organisations in and outside Iraq.

The full effects of war are, however, felt through many other less direct but potentially equally deadly or more deadly pathways. Here the death toll and disease burden could be numbered in tens of thousands. Yet it may never be known for certain, owing to the lack of accurate data, lack of functioning health information systems, lack of commitment to collecting or disseminating the data, and the absence of agreed conceptual models for measuring the effects of conflict on health.

The report assesses the impact of the war on the determinants of health, including limited access to clean water and sanitation; poverty and household food security; environmental degradation; disruption of social systems and public services, including health services; and social breakdown. There has been deterioration in all these determinants. The health of the Iraqi people is generally worse than before the war. And as documented in our earlier report, Collateral Damage: the health and environmental costs of war on Iraq (issued 12 November 2002), that state of health was already poor by international standards; any fresh conflict was likely to lead to further decline, at least in the short to medium term.

Continuing Collateral Damage: the health and environmental costs of war on Iraq is issued in London on 11 November 2003 by the global health organisation Medact, the UK affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985. It is being released on the same day in Boston Massachusetts by IPPNW and by other IPPNW affiliates in 12 other countries.

The report can be found in English, Arabic and Italian on the Medact website www.medact.org and the IPPNW website www.ippnw.org, as can additional working papers on issues arising from the report.

This Executive Summary is also available in Arabic, Sorani and other languages on these websites."



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 02:51 PM
link   
To a lot of people these are just statistics, not even linked with human lives.

Some people might look at a comparison with brutality under Hussein's own regime. Some people might consider them a lesser form of life, which is plain dumb.

Let's forget about the suffering, tragedy and break-up of families that has occured at least 21,000 times. And what feelings may develop in the survivors, towards their occupiers.

Let's dehumanize it and keep it in the realm of numbers:

How is it that the range (34,000) is so much greater than the lower estimate? There are at least 21,000 CIVILIANS dead as a direct result of conflict, but it could be up to 55,000. Even given the "lack of data" reason mentioned, how could this range be so great?



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Boo hoo, welcome to the reality of war. You talk like it's something new, thousands of civilians are always killed in any war, so quit crying over it.



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 02:58 PM
link   
10DeadInside10: "Boo hoo, welcome to the reality of war. You talk like it's something new, thousands of civilians are always killed in any war, so quit crying over it. "

Then shut up about September 11th. 3000 dead civilians, boo frickin hoo. It's war, war is unfair. Civilians die, it's a fact.

So what's the difference?


MA: "How is it that the range (34,000) is so much greater than the lower estimate? There are at least 21,000 CIVILIANS dead as a direct result of conflict, but it could be up to 55,000. Even given the "lack of data" reason mentioned, how could this range be so great?"

I was asking the same question. I suppose it has to do with the fact that not only are civilian deaths unreported in Iraq, but it is illegal for any reporter to go to an Iraqi morgue without permission from the US.

I was sad to hear THAT one, but not surprised.


j



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Thats Good News..

I had expected Thousands more

Its Shows what a GREAT job the Military is Doing

tHX



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 03:07 PM
link   
"Then shut up about September 11th. 3000 dead civilians, boo frickin hoo. It's war, war is unfair. Civilians die, it's a fact. "

Glad to see you admit it was an act of war
And by associating with Iraq you seem to Justify our presence there.....

THX Jokohomo your the Pride of Canada



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 03:27 PM
link   
straterx: "Glad to see you admit it was an act of war
And by associating with Iraq you seem to Justify our presence there..... "


Except Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, so realistically if the administration was serious about fighting terrorism, they would BRING IT TO SAUDI ARABIA, instead of deleting Saudi info from all released documents (remember those 16 blanked out pages).

But Saudi Arabia is not a 3rd World Country, so the US will never invade. Why? Bock bock. That's why.


jakomo




top topics



 
0

log in

join