Guerilla Actions in Irak

All reasons combined, in the last 2 years, following the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, more civilians died in Iraq than Saddam Hussein murdered in 30 years of dictatorship.

About 35,000 civilians died from war related violent causes since the U.S. led invasion, according to a British-American non-government association.

From these:
37% killed by the Coalition
36% due to criminal gangs
10% due to terrorists + suicidal bombers

(Other sources claim up to 100,000 dead.)

This post has been edited by Florin on July 20, 2005 12:25 am

Hi Florin,

That is completely untrue.

The lowest estimate I have seen of Iraqi civilians dying at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime during purely internal repression is about 300,000. That is an average of ten thousand a year for some 30 years.

This, of course, ignores the people killed in foreign wars inititated by Saddam Hussein. About half a million Iraqis and a million Iranians died in the eight or so years of war after his invasion of Iran alone.

It is therefore likely that about a million Iraqis died as a result of policies pursued by Saddam Hussein's regime.

If one also includes the 500,000 children who anti-sanctions campaigners in the 1990s claimed died as a result of Saddam Hussein's failure to pass on the benefits of the relaxation of UN sanctions to the Iraqi population in terms of food and medicine, the total may be 1,500,000.

By comparison, it is doubtful if the US is responsible for even as much as 2% of that number of Iraqi fatalities.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As of late last week, according to the Oxford Research Group and a website called "Iraqi Body Count", both of which are apparently opposed to the occupation, US-led coalition forces were responsible for about 37% of Iraqi (including insurgent) fatalities since the invasion began. Of these, about 6,600 occurred during the actual invasion phase and 2,400 since it finished.

By contrast, all insurgent or "unknown agent" (mostly criminal) killings of Iraqi civilians occurred since the invasion. These amount to about 14,000. In other words, since the invasion phase finished, only one Iraqi killing in about seven is attributable to the US/Coalition.

If one looks further at this figure of 2,400 Iraqi deaths at US/Coalition hands since the invasion, one finds that about 1,400 occurred during the two months of April and November 2004, when Fallujah was under attack. These 1,400 include a high proportion of insurgents.

Looking at it month by month, in only September 2003 and April and November 2004 is it demonstrable that the US/Coalition killed more Iraqis (including insurgents), than they lost themselves! In every other month, demonstrable US/Coalition fatalities have been higher than demonstrable Iraqi losses! (Yes, I know, this surprised me as well). (Source for US/Coalition fatalities reportedly "Iraq Coalition Casualty Count").

Furthermore, while the number of Iraqis killed monthly by the US/Coalition has tended to fall from a low base, the number killed by insurgents monthly has risen enormously.

All the above statistics cover the period March 2003 to February or March 2005. The Oxford Research Group and "Iraq Body Count" believe that Iraqi dead are higher than they have been able to record, but not by an order of magnitude likely to alter these conclusions significantly.

Cheers,

Sid.





These statistics

They claimed 1 million Iraqis died as result of US backed sanctions.
And we all know what Madeleine Albright thought about that. It was worth it.

Hi Imperialist,

"They" claim whatever they want, because "they" have no interest in establishing the facts, only in pushing an anti-American propaganda line. "They" therefore airily talk in generously round figures of 500,000 or 1,000,000. (Contrast this with the painstaking statistical work of Iraq Body Count and the Oxford Research Group, who I mention above).

Funny how officially promulgated UN sanctions have now become "US backed sanctions". Again, "they" have no interest in the facts.

The fact of the matter is that the UN sanctions regime allowed Saddam Hussein to sell as much oil as was needed to pay for food and medicine imports required by the Iraqi population. If the money was then spent by Saddam Hussein on other things then Saddam Hussein himself is primarily reponsible for any deaths due to preventable disease, illness or starvation. (Secondary responsibility lies with the UN for failure to properly supervise its own sanctions).

Thank you for pushing up the total of Iraqi deaths possibly attributable to Saddam Hussein from about 1,500,000 to 2,000,000.

Cheers,

Sid.

I think people can make an educated difference between "US backed sanctions" and "US sanctions".
I wouldnt talk about interest of facts when any fact that is not liked becomes an anti-american propaganda line and is dismissed as such.

A country's needs cannot be fulfilled by importing food and medicine only. Other investments have to be made or everything becomes a ruin.
What exactly were the export quotas and what were the types of dual-use equipment denied?

take care

Hi Imperialist,

Not "US" sanctions, but "UN" sanctions.

Were you under the impression that the sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s were imposed unilaterally by the US?

If so, you are in error. They were imposed by the UN.

Countries do need investment in more than food and medicine, but as we are talking here about Iraqi deaths due to disease and lack of nutrition, these are the key areas.

The export quotas were not set. They were varied according to Iraq's stated requirements.

Who says dual use equipment was denied?

Cheers,

Sid.

I said the term I used was "US backed sanctions" not "US sanctions", and that anybody can make an educated difference between the 2, so as not to reach the erroneous conclusion that:

UN officially promulgated sanctions can become US backed sanctions. There is not a contradiction in terms unless you thought I said US sanctions, which I didnt, hence me saying people can make an educated difference between US backed and US sanctions...

Clearer now?

take care

Hi Imperialist,

But surely, the formula "US-backed sanctions" is no more than a half truth (if that)?

The UN imposed the sanctions. They were not merely "US-backed", were they? They were also French-backed, and Chinese-backed, and Brazilian-backed, and Fijian-backed, and Maltese-backed, and Lesotho-backed, etc., etc.

If your formulation was an honest attempt to portray the full reality you would have written a list of some 150 countries who backed the sanctions. Or, of course, you could have just told it like it really was: UN sanctions.

Why not just tell it like it is? Or is your only mission to dump all blame exclusively on the US to the exclusion of all the other contributory parties?

Cheers,

Sid.

Yeah, it was an anti-american galactical propaganda plot to discredit the US with oh my!, half-truths!! Sid to the rescue...

Every person who has been on this earth in the last 15 years knows they were UN sanctions with the US the main and the most important backer, its not like you discovered something Sid...
"US backed sanctions" may not satisfy your sense of completeness, but neither is it a wrong term.
Its like saying the term "US forces" is wrong in the Korean War, because they were obviously "UN forces", and saying the former is part of some anti-american propaganda scheme. Come on.

I guess you followed the process of UN diplomatical negotiations during 2003, before the Iraq war. Maybe you noticed that countries can adopt a certain position because they band-wagon the US in all it does and try to attract its favours.
Listing all countries that do that may seem OK, but I dont have time to do that, suffice to mention the lead role taken by the US.
I'm sure Lesotho, Swaziland and Buthan were very important players in the enforcement of UN sanctions on Iraq...
Besides, from what I know, only the US and UK had no-fly zones in Iraq and thus they were in a far more strong position to enforce and back UN sanctions.

take care

Hi Imperialist,

There are an infinite number of part-truths that are not "wrong terms". But their use obscures the full reality or, worse, leads to a false impression.

We could, using one of your "not-wrong-terms" describe the "Indian-backed" Korean War. This is not actually wrong, because India had a non-combatant field ambulance unit with the Commonwealth Division, but it tells us nothing substantive about the Korean War, does it?

Rather than being content to employ "not-wrong-terms", why not aim higher, for "right terms"?

Cheers,

Sid.

That would happen if you asked me not to focus on the main power involved in the Korean War because that would be anti-american propaganda, and that I should list all the other countries which sent more or less token forces there.
Which is ofcourse perfectly OK, but it obscures the issue the other way around, like you pointed out here.
Saying "Indian-backed" korean war would be like saying Lesotho or Romanian backed UN sanctions. Its true, but a half-truth that does not offer information on the truly important players involved in the issue.
Saying "US backed" is the main information because of the US status in the issue and in the world. If people want to know more they can find out the list of other 100 countries band-wagoning the superpower.

I think not-wrong-terms are right terms. You cannot shadow me for using "US backed sanctions", that would be really child-like...

Hi Imperialist,

Had you written "US-backed UN sanctions" you would have added something to the accuracy. However, by leaving out the "UN" you subtracted something from the accuracy, leaving the false impression that the sanctions might have been a unilateral US activity.

I don't understand your repeated inclination to be imprecise and ambiguous when the opportunity is there to be precise and unambiguous. Surely we should be trying to cut through the fog, not add to it?

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid, everybody here is mature enough to know the difference between "US sanctions" and "US backed sanctions".
Moreover, after the whole Iraq case in 2002 and 2003, I doubt anybody here is unaware of the UN role in Iraq in the past 15 years.
Not to mention that if anybody has any doubts about whose sanctions the US backed, he/she could just ask or do a quick research.
NOT to mention that most would be aware of unilateral "US sanctions" on Iran! (do you spot the missing "backed"?)

Seeing that you know whats it all about, and the exact meaning of my words, I cant figure why you are still pursuing this "issue".
Lets move away...

Imperialist, the idea is that you present the facts to sound as anti-American as possible. That takes away from the objectivity of the post.

I respect your opinion, though I disagree with it and think its unfair.