NEWS: Probe: Saddam Made $21B From U.N. Oil For Food Program

Here is the response from the site about the supposed 100,000 death Iraqi innocent civilians killed by the coalition...

Some people have asked us why we have not increased our count to 100,000 in the light of the multiple media reports of the recent Lancet study [link] which claims this as a probable and conservative estimate of Iraqi casualties.

Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths.

Excerpted from.
www.iraqbodycount.net...

quote.bloomberg.com...

``Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths, and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths,'' Roberts said in the study.

Other estimates for civilian casualties are much lower. Iraqbodycount.com, a Web site run by researchers including University of New Hampshire professor Marc Herold, estimates that between 14,160 and 16,289 Iraqi civilians have been killed during and after the U.S.-led invasion.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Here. Once again, remember, after this war more people have been killed due to American Interference in the Ifrastructure of Iraq; such as the Hospitals being occupied in Fallujah and used as a means to fight Insurgents. This has left countless civilians and insurgents without proper health care to mend thier wounds.

This is also an interesting article.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The American strategy was to ensure the right television footage by using embedded reporters and images from their own cameras, editing the film themselves.

The Pentagon had been influenced by Hollywood producers of reality TV and action movies, notably the man behind Black Hawk Down, Jerry Bruckheimer.

Bruckheimer advised the Pentagon on the primetime television series "Profiles from the Front Line", that followed US forces in Afghanistan in 2001. That approached was taken on and developed on the field of battle in Iraq

Deep

The source of that number is one and the same, another member provided the original source for the 100,00 deaths, and in the report it clearly states that they added the deaths of natural causes, accidents and other deaths not related with war...

You also have to notice that there have been many reports from the media that show that many IRaqis have been killed by insurgent attacks. i posted on another thread (actually is on the first page of this thread) links to some of the reported iraqis deaths caused by insurgent attacks....

So in total it is likely that 100,000 Iraqis or more have died....but this total does not account only for those deaths caused by the coalition.

If the member who posted that site sees this perhaps they can post the link again, I am having trouble finding the link. Also the link from the IRC that takes you to the 100,000 report is not working at this moment.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Muaddib]

You also have to notice that there have been many reports from the media that show that many IRaqis have been killed by insurgent attacks. i posted on another thread links to some of the reported iraqis deaths caused by insurgent attacks....

So in total it is likely that 100,000 Iraqis or more have died....but this total does not account only for those deaths caused by the coalition.

Once again: these deaths are a 'DIRECT' result of our intervention in Iraq; tell me, would these deaths have occured if we had not invaded Iraq? I also want to know what constitutes as an 'accidental' death?

There was NEVER a major problem of insurgency before the war, or ever during the initial stages of the war.

Deep

Here is what some of the news sources failed to report...once more... This is a more accurate report on what the study says....

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by coalition forces has lead to the death of at least 100,000 civilians, reveals the first scientific study to examine the issue.

The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, finds the study, released early by The Lancet on Thursday.

The most common cause of death is as a direct result of violence, mostly caused by coalition air strikes, reveals the study of almost 1000 households scattered across Iraq. And the risk of violent death just after the invasion was 58 times greater than before the war. The overall risk of death was 1.5 times more after the invasion than before.

The figure of 100,000 � estimated by extrapolating the surveyed households� death toll to the whole population - is based on "conservative assumptions", notes Les Roberts at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, US, who led the study.

Excerpted from.
www.newscientist.com...

Even the deaths which were taken from reports from hospitals, morgues, etc from Iraq on "deaths related to the actions of the coalition" which state that between Min-14,378 Max-16,514, is too many. I agree that war is hell...

Now once again let's see the figures of the deaths of Iraqis by peaceful sanctions which the UN wanted to continue having...

Iraq (1990-): 350 000
International Embargo
According to the 21 March 1998 Times Union (Albany), the UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that 1,000,000 Iraqis, incl. 560,000 children, died as a result of malnutrition and disease caused by the international embargo imposed following the invasion of Kuwait. The article mentions the use of these numbers by an official of the United Church of Christ, and also labels the figures "commonly used -- but also disputed".
9 Oct. 2001 Slate "Explainer" acknowledges the possibility of 350,000-500,000 excess deaths among children since 1991, but points out that Saddam blames the UN and the US blames Saddam [slate.msn.com.../9/2001&idMessage=8414 or www.casi.org.uk...; it's a moving target.]
Ramsey Clark: 1,500,000 including 750,000 children [www.twf.org...]
UNICEF: 500,000 excess child deaths (under-five) 1991 to 1998 [www.unicef.org.uk.../news/iraq1.htm]
6 Aug. 1999 CNN [www.cnn.com...]
UN: 1M excess deaths
Al-Thawra newspaper: 1.5M
Project on Defense Alternatives, 20 Oct. 2003: "[T]he sanction regime probably cost the lives of 170,000 children. (Much higher estimates for 1992-1998 sanction deaths ... are based on faulty baseline statistics for prewar childhood mortality in Iraq)." [www.comw.org...]

And from the same source the deaths that Saddam caused

Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300 000
Human Rights Watch: "twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule ... murdered or 'disappeared' some quarter of a million Iraqis" [www.hrw.org...]
8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
US Government estimates a total of 300,000 murders
180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
60,000 Shiites in 1991
50,000 misc. others executed
"Human rights officials" est.: 500,000
Iraqi politicians: over a million

Excerpted from.
users.erols.com...

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Muaddib]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I posted this ATSNN story about Kofi's son being investigated as part of this debacle. As the story I link from the opening article. This may be the biggest scam in history.

Ah, there it is, thanks for the link FredT, not only do you post there more information about that scam it also has one of the links I was talking about...

But instead of Saddam owing Russia $200 million it was actually $10 Billion.

At the time it was felt that their main motivation was to protect their lucrative trade ties with Baghdad. In late 2002, Saddam still owed the Russians some $10 billion, mainly for illegal arms deals. France came next in the trade rankings.

Excerpted from.
www.telegraph.co.uk.../opinion/2004/10/10/do1001.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/10/ixopinion.html

And also what about the bit of information that i found directly from UNMOVIC site as to how they were being paid off....i mean, where their salaries came from...

The Commission is financed from a small portion of the monies raised from the export of oil from Iraq (the �oil-for-food� programme). Unlike its predecessor, UNSCOM, the staff of UNMOVIC are employees of the United Nations.

Excerpted from.
www.unmovic.org...

No wonder how the UNMOVIC report was so different from the UNSCOM report huh?....UNSCOM was not being paid off from the OFF (Oil For Food) program....


[edit on 15-11-2004 by Muaddib]

This is a ATSNN story from Seekerof

www.abovetopsecret.com...

POLITICS: The French War For Oil, Along With Others. (UPDATED)

Originally posted by The Teller
France helped America and the coalition far more than they could hope for. Because the French sold Saddam useless and outdate weapons at over inflated cost. So when the coalition went into Iraq, they found it easy sport due to the novelty weapons France had palmed them off with.

Thats a interesting point of view, But if this was true do you think it was a plan of the French all along or just due to the fact of some bad weapon designs?

But really people arent running around with french AKs and RPGs Iraq did not use French tanks, Russia was by far the biggest supplier of weapons to Iraq and they made some good effective weapons.

Russia, China, NK and a few others...were providing the bulk of illegal weapons and also wmd....

And yes, you are right, their insurgents and former Iraqi military had Russian, and Chinese made weapons and tanks, among other military technology.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by The Teller
France helped America and the coalition far more than they could hope for. Because the French sold Saddam useless and outdate weapons at over inflated cost. So when the coalition went into Iraq, they found it easy sport due to the novelty weapons France had palmed them off with.

Thats a interesting point of view, But if this was true do you think it was a plan of the French all along or just due to the fact of some bad weapon designs?

But really people arent running around with french AKs and RPGs Iraq did not use French tanks, Russia was by far the biggest supplier of weapons to Iraq and they made some good effective weapons.

No I don't think it was intentional, and yes you are right most found in or after the fighting was Russian based. This was partly due to the fact that the French stuff was useless in training and Russia provided better weaponry (in cahoots with France?). But the French sold them shoddy weapons because THEY had no use for them but did have use for the oil and thought the weapons would never be used in combat. Go to a restaurant in Paris you will see the same philosophy. People over the world espouse that French food is the greatest. But they serve you frogs legs and horse meat and; laugh in the kitchen s you swoon over this dog food that cost a weeks wages.

Hey everybody just a reminder from the friendly neighborhood Mod. Please go easy on quoting the post you are responding to. 1-3 lines is susualy enuf to convey what you are after.

Thanks and back to you regulary scheduled debate on this tragic debacle.

FredT

Humm....trying to take some blame away from the French now?....

I don't know if everyone else remembers, but one of the first finds by U.S. soldiers I think it was a mine made in France or something like that. i remember it made the news back at the start of the war, but I can't remember the specifics, it was some sort of weapon that was in use against the U.S. forces and was made in France. Anyone else remembers this?



[edit on 16-11-2004 by Muaddib]

Muaddib
Let those without sin cast the first stone, or mine, or missile, whatever.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Thats a interesting point of view, But if this was true do you think it was a plan of the French all along or just due to the fact of some bad weapon designs?

Maybe it wa much like the software game: Sell you a buggy program and you pay for the updates. Sell you a plane or radar with "issues" and sock it to them for support and maintance.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Humm....trying to take some blame away from the French now?....

I don't know if everyone else remembers, but one of the first finds by U.S. soldiers I think it was a mine made in France or something like that.

Refer back to what I was saying earlier. While the US government was saying all tosh about Freedom fries and the French being against , because not with, they were one of America's and the coalition�s best allies.
France sold really dodgy out of date, low grade weaponry to Saddam because he could not buy them elsewhere. Guess what, it came to combat and the French supplied weaponry was useless. A great aid in the Road to Baghdad.
And once again, they are arrogant in my great experience and utterly rude on a whole as people, but boy what great wine. Fight a war over that and I will be on the frontwine.

www.washingtontimes.com...

Quote:

"The French, unfortunately, are becoming less trustworthy than the Russians," said Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican and vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "It's outrageous they would allow technology to support the jets of Saddam Hussein to be transferred."
The U.S. military was about to go to war with Iraq, and thanks to the French, the Iraqi air force had become more dangerous

Originally posted by leiphasw

The U.S. military was about to go to war with Iraq, and thanks to the French, the Iraqi air force had become more dangerous

Nothing to do with America supplying weapons and weapons training to Iraq for years then? Nothing to do with America then facilitating the purchase of these French weapons with UD tax payer�s dollars then? Mmmm.